Wembley Housing Zone – Brent’s Cecil Avenue development downsized!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Revised East and South elevation drawings for Brent’s Cecil Avenue development.

 

It may not look any smaller, but as disclosed in the Affordable Housing Supply Update report to December’s Brent Cabinet meeting, the number of homes to be built on the Council’s Cecil Avenue development has been reduced. The reason is the need for second staircases, because of new fire regulations introduced as a result of the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

 

I mentioned this in a guest post last month, Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – open and transparent?, when I wrote: ‘the report does not say how many of the new figure of 237 homes will be for private sale, and how many of those left for the Council will now be for “genuinely affordable” rent, rather than shared ownership. A lack of openness, which I will try to remedy!’ 

 

I’ve now received a reply to a Freedom of Information request, and can provide the answer. Cecil Avenue is part of a wider Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) project, together with Ujima House, on the opposite side of the High Road. Brent Council’s contract with Wates in March 2023, said each would have half (152 out of 304) of the WHZ homes. However, all of the Wates homes, for private sale, would be on the more desirable Cecil Avenue site. 

 

The revised split of the Cecil Avenue homes, from Brent’s 8 January FoI response.

 

These figures show that although there will now be thirteen fewer homes on the Cecil Avenue development, those going to Wates will only be 2 less, while Brent Council loses 11. This is partly compensated for by the revised proportion of family-sized homes going in Brent’s favour. The Council will now have 71.4% of the family-sized homes, rather than 68.75%, but the total number of family-sized homes at Cecil Avenue has been reduced from 64 to 42, as part of rearranging the unit sizes to fit in the staircases.

 

Surely these changes would need planning permission? They did! An application was submitted on 21 August 2023, but Brent’s planners treated it as “non-material” amendments to the original consent given in February 2021, so that it was not publicised or consulted on. The application was approved by the Delegated Team Manager on 30 October 2023.

 

The heading to the Delegated Planning report, October 2023.

 

The report on this application (23/2774) makes clear that despite the WHZ involving two sites and a combined building contract, for planning purposes the Cecil Avenue application must be looked at on its own. Brent’s planning policies require that large housing schemes, such as this one, should provide 50% affordable housing. These revised proposals only provide 36.7% (and only 48.5% if the whole WHZ scheme is taken together). If it had been 50% at Cecil Avenue, there should have been at least 118 affordable homes on the site, not just 87 out of 237.

 

Brent’s affordable housing planning policies require a tenure split of at least 70% of the affordable housing to be “genuinely affordable”. The 56 homes at London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) out of 87 “affordable” Council homes is only 64.4% (62.4% over the WHZ scheme as a whole). Despite not meeting either of Brent’s planning policy percentages for affordable homes, the amended application was accepted. 

 

The only “good news” this time is that 21 of the 28 family-sized homes for Council tenants at LAR (down from 35 family-sized, on the figures supplied to me last July) will be 4-bedroom homes, with private gardens. There is currently a desperate need for these large family homes for affordable rent in the borough. It is unfortunate that, because of more than two years delay by Brent Council, in going down the “developer partner” route, it will be nearly three years before these homes are actually available! And LAR rent figures exclude service charges, which could bring the total bill up to as much as 80% of local open market rent level.

 

Extract from the approved documents for the amended application 23/2774.

 

35.6% of the “affordable” Council homes at Cecil Avenue will be what is known as Intermediate homes. This is a summary of what these 31 homes comprise:

 

Extract from the approved documents for the amended application 23/2774.

 

As shown in the information provided to me above, 28 of these homes will be for shared ownership (despite there being a surplus of these in the borough, it not being affordable to most people in housing need – a household income of £60k a year required to afford a 1-bedroom flat - and shared ownership being a “scam”!). What about the 3 “other affordable” homes? The planning application documents show that these Brent Council homes are intended to be sold, by Wates, as Discount Market Sale (”DMS”) homes.

 

The DMS homes must be ‘offered to Eligible Purchasers for sale at a price that is no more than 80 (eighty) per cent of Open Market Value, with the Council retaining and holding the remaining equity under an equitable charge’. To be an eligible purchaser for one of these 1 or 2-bedroom flats you would (on current figures) need to have an annual household income of no more than £90k. Affordable?

 

It is not just the number of homes (and affordable homes) which has been downsized in the amended plans for the Cecil Avenue development. In his reply to an email I had sent him about the Council’s Cecil Avenue development in February 2022 (that’s nearly 2 years ago!), Cllr. Muhammed Butt spoke proudly of ‘a new publicly accessible open space during this latest development. A positive outcome for the residents of Brent.’

 

My guest post including his reply did concede that: ‘The approved plans for the Cecil Avenue site include a courtyard garden square. This would mainly be for the benefit of residents, but there would be public access to it, through an archway from Wembley High Road.’ All of the tower block developments, existing and planned, along this stretch of the High Road, will bring thousands of extra residents within a short walk of this ‘publicly accessible open space.’ However, that too has been downsized:

 

Paragraph from the Delegated Planning Report on application 23/2774.

 

The amended external amenity space may just ‘exceed the minimum requirement’ for play space needed by the reduced number of future occupants at Cecil Avenue, but there will be little to spare for the other ‘residents of Brent’. 

 

Delay and downsizing. What more can go wrong for a Brent Council housing scheme, on Council-owned land, which received full planning consent on 5 February 2021? If only Brent had got on and borrowed the funds to build it, at the very low interest rates at then, and hired a contractor straight away, they could have had 250 (or at least 237) affordable Council homes at Cecil Avenue available in 2024, rather than 87 in late 2026.

 

Philip Grant.

Community groups face delay in decisions on Community Grants Fund applications

 Souce LINK

Community organisation who undertook a lot of work in preparing applications to fund their activities face a frustrating delay in hearing whether they have been successful as a result of staffing issues and the volume of applications.

The Community Grants Fund is the new name  for the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy which is derived from payments made be developers.

Councillors were told by Brent Council that they had received 146 applications in total for the Community Grants Fund which is a 100% increase when compared to the last standard NCIL round in 2021.

 

The initial due diligence checks by the grants team have been completed.  However, due to capacity within the Brent Council team and the volume of applications received there will be delays in completing the initial project assessments.  

 

As a result, the Council will not be able to meet the scheduled internal department review dates and the Brent Connect panel dates that were scheduled to be held in February and March. 

 

This means that the team are still at the 12-18 weeks stage of the process shown in the above table.

 

Officers are continuing to work through the initial project assessments and have informed all applicants of the delay.

 

Councillors will be provided with a with a further update on the timeline before the end of January 2024.  In the meantime, all the meetings scheduled will be removed from your calendars.

 

Gas leak and sink hole in West Kilburn - list of streets where occupants can return home

From Brent Council

Emergency services were called to a gas leak on Malvern Road in West Kilburn at around 4.45pm on Thursday 4 January.

A burst water main and a 24-inch gas main rupture has caused a sink hole measuring around 4 metres in diameter and 4 metres deep. Around 190 properties were evacuated, and a 25-metre safety cordon was put in place.

The council worked closely with the gas company, Cadent, Thames Water and the London Fire Brigade to set up a rest centre for those affected.

Cadent has confirmed households on the following streets can now safely return home:

• Stafford Close, Stuart Road
• McDonald House, Malvern Road
• John Ratcliffe House, Chippenham Gardens
• Wiggins House, Malvern Road
• Doveberry Place, Malvern Road
• Shirland Road
• Malvern Road (numbers higher than number 55 only)

A safety cordon remains in place on the following roads and households are not able to return home yet:

• Malvern Road (numbers 54 and below)
• Malvern Mews

If your property is within the cordon and you are unable to stay with friends and family, please visit the rest centre at Immaculate Heart of Mary Church, 1 Stafford Road, NW6 5RS.

Cadent engineers will continue to work in the area for the next few days to ensure the security of the gas pipes in and near the hole. A road diversion remains in place.

Sufra Food Kitchen - Monday to Friday in locations across Brent - Just turn up for free 3 course meal - open to the whole community

 

Just turn up for a tasty free meal every Tuesday at Park Lane Methodist Church- no referral needed

Plan a Growing Space in Church End Saturday 20th January

 

What is happening with the Bridge Park/Unisys redevelopment? Apparently, nothing.

 

Unisys House, Stonebridge

The death of Bridge Park fighter Leonard Johnson in November 2023 made me wonder where we were with redevelopment of the Bridge Park Leisure Centre and Unisys House. Unisys has been empty for decades and Brent Council made a deal with General Mediterranean Holdings to sell off its land as part of a scheme to redevelop the leisure centre and build housing and a hotel.

The community in Stonebridge waged a court battle over ownership of the Bridge Park Centre which had been set up by local black activists. The council won and seemed ready to go ahead. 

Questions were asked by Dan Filson, then chair of the Scrutiny Committee, about the wisom of dealing with GMH in the light of concerns over its owner and the companies Luxembourg registration. There was a concern about the effectivess of due diligence carried out by the Council and even Cllr Mike Pavey, then Deputy Leader of the Council,  had his doubts.

In an email in response to Philip Grant he said:

'I take your point on ethics and I for one am not comfortable dealing with companies registered in tax havens. Realistically though this is a much wider issue than this development. When you have companies like Starbucks, Amazon and Next routinely avoiding tax, it becomes difficult to hold this against any single company. We need national Government to lead a crackdown on legal tax avoidance and to insist on clearer transparency requirements. I don’t like dealing with companies registered in tax havens, but considering the size of the problem, I think the solution must come from the Government.’

 In September 2020 Ian Lunt, then the newly appointed Director of Regneration, signed off a Deed of Variation with Stonebridge Real Estate Development. LINK The Decision Form states that Shama Tatler. Cabinet Member for  Property, Planning and Regeneration was consulted

 Agreement to exchange a Deed of Variation to the Bridge Park Conditional Land Sale Agreement with “Stonebridge Real Estate Development” a UK-registered subsidiary company that has General Mediterranean Holdings SA as the parent company and Harborough InvestInc as the second guarantor.

The Decision Form states that Shama Tatler, Cabinet Member for  Property, Planning and Regeneration was consulted. However no details of the variation were released to the public:

Stonebridge Real Estate Development 2021 accounts have an interesting reference to its parent company GMH and its second guarantor Harborough Invest Inc LINK:

So it appears the Brent Council is in partnership with a subsidiary company that has doubts over its relationship with its guarantors: 'there can be no certainty that the support will continue to be available for the forseeable future.

This is GMH's account of the development and the agreement with Brent Council (undated) on its website LINK under the heading 'Land Development - UK':

Bridge Park Development

Known as Bridge Park, the 6.7 acre site area is located in easy walking distance from Stonebridge Park Station, in North West London. The development will have a Gross Development Value of circa £500 Million and will include more than 800 residential units, retail and a 198 room hotel, allied to a new leisure and community complex.

The development’s title ownership is divided between two parties, GMH Group, with the other being the London Borough of Brent (‘Council’). The GMH owned land includes a pair of imposing curvilinear office towers, one of which is ideally suited to conversion into a hotel and the other to residential, perhaps multi-family.

The Council ownership has an existing leisure and community centre and other commercial office buildings that are proposed to be demolished and replaced by a state of the art sports hall, swimming pool and other new community facilities, all of which are to be delivered by the Council at its expense.

GMH has exchanged contracts with the Council, subject to planning, to purchase the majority of the Council Land and develop both its ownership and the balance of the Bridge Park site into a new urban location with a range of much needed housing (including affordable), retail, a prominent hotel, as well a leisure and community facilities complex.

This important regeneration will bring jobs, homes and new community facilities, fully exploiting the great public transport links and general accessibility and prominence of the site.

The development seems a long way away now in 2024.

I asked Brent Council where the development was at present and they responded:

We don't any current planning applications. If that changes there will of course be public consultation.

Also there aren't any reports planned for Cabinet on the Forward Plan.

 

Guest post: Why we should commemorate the British Empire Exhibition in 2024

New Year Greetings to Wembley Matters readers with hopes for peace in the year ahead. 

We start the year with a guest post by local historian Philip Grant. I remember celebrating Empire Day as a pupil at Kingsbury Green Primary School in the 1950s. It became Commonwealth Day on May 24th 1958. The British Empire is now part of contested history so please note Philip's invitation at the end of his article to comment or submit a blog post. Many people in Brent, or their parents' generation will have had direct personal experience of the Empire in one way or another. 

Let the debate begin...

This article as with all guest posts and letters represents the writer's own views.

 

 

Happy New Year! It’s 2024, one hundred years on from 1924. This year will be the centenary of the British Empire Exhibition (“BEE”) at Wembley Park. I’m aware there are some who don’t want the word “Empire” to be mentioned in today’s diverse multicultural Brent, but I believe we should commemorate one of the most important events in Wembley’s history. It was a spectacle that brought people from around the world, to show-off their countries and cultures to around 17 million visitors. We can learn from it what the world was like then, and use it as a starting point for discussion of what the past of “Empire” has meant from different perspectives.

 

Postcard showing an aerial view of the Exhibition site, from the west.
(Brent Archives – Wembley History Society Collection)

 

The 216-acre Exhibition site at Wembley Park was chosen in 1921, because it was close to London, with good railway access. A number of local roads had to be improved and widened to make it more accessible for lorries, cars and buses. Construction began on the “Empire Stadium” in January 1922, and although that was completed in time for the F.A. Cup Final in 1923, the rest of the BEE buildings were only just finished in time for the Exhibition’s opening ceremony on 23 April 1924. In his opening address, King George V described it as: ‘… a graphic illustration of that spirit of free and tolerant co-operation which has inspired peoples of different races, creeds and ways of thought to unite in a single commonwealth and to contribute their varying national gifts to one great end.’  (You may think otherwise!)

 

A plan of the Exhibition site in 1924. (Brent Archives – WHS Collection)

 

I hope to write more about the Exhibition itself, and share many more illustrations from it, later in the year. As well as the individual “pavilions” showcasing the 56 nations taking part, there were large “palaces” promoting the arts, industry and engineering achievements of Britain itself. Improving trade throughout the Empire was an important aim of the BEE. Another was: ‘to enable all who owe allegiance to the British flag to meet on common ground and learn to know each other.’ (I think that was a step forward.)

 

A newspaper cutting from late March 1924. (Brent Archives – WHS Collection)

 

King George V had visited much of the British Empire, first as a young prince serving in the Royal Navy, then on a tour as Prince of Wales, as well as a long visit to India during his first year as King. Imperialism was ingrained among in British society by then, with the ruling classes seeing this country as superior in civilisation and culture, and entitled to exploit the resources of its colonies. King George, however, did view the Empire as a family of nations, with Britain as the parent, the four large Dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) as daughters, and the other nations as cousins.

 

Gramophone record label for messages from the King and Queen, played to children on Empire Day.
(Photographed from the collection of the late Alan Sabey in 2014)

 

“Empires” have existed for thousands of years, as has slavery. Nearly 2,000 years ago, the southern part of the British Isles was added to the Roman Empire by conquest, and those tribal kingdoms, which made up what is now this country, that did not submit to Roman rule were overcome by force, and many of their people enslaved.

 

Britain did not set out to establish an empire, but it was one of several European nations which gradually built one. From the late 16^th century onwards, overseas colonies were established by British traders, or companies issued with a Royal Charter. By the 17^th century, colonies in the West Indies and the Americas were importing slaves from Africa to work on agricultural plantations, with Britain at the forefront of this Atlantic “trade”. 

 

I studied history at school up to “A” level, but in the 1960s we were not taught much detail about how these European empires were built up through a succession of wars, against each other and the native people of the lands they stole. I’m still learning now, most recently through the BBC series “The Australian Wars”. By the mid-19^th century, the British Government had taken control over what was now regarded as the British Empire, with the different countries administered by appointed Governors. It was an Act of Parliament in 1876, not any rulers of its many states, which awarded an additional title to Queen Victoria: Empress of India!

 

A Queen Victoria penny coin from 1897. (Penny image from the internet)

 

I will use what appears to be a rather bland photograph, taken inside the British Guiana Pavilion at the BEE in 1924, as an example of how the Exhibition can help to illustrate a more realistic, and uncomfortable, history of the British Empire. It shows a display of sugar crystals, one of the nation’s main exports at the time, but it is the name “Demerara” which triggers memories of British Guiana’s past.

 

A BEE photograph by Harlesden photographer, Fred L. Wilson. (Brent Archives – WHS Collection)

 

Las Guayanas was an area on the north coast of South America, “discovered” and named by the Spanish, and first settled on a small scale by them and the Portuguese. Demerara was colonised by the Dutch West Indies Company in the 17^th century, and by the mid-18^th century there were also English settlers there, moving in from Barbados to develop larger sugar cane plantations, using African slave labour. A treaty signed during the Napoleonic Wars transferred “ownership” of part of the Guianas, including Demerara, to Britain, alongside the Dutch and French Guianas.

 

In 1812, businessman John Gladstone bought several plantations in the new British Guiana. Although Britain had abolished the slave trade in 1807, ownership of existing slaves continued, and those in Demerara were worked hard to produce sugar, and profit, for the plantation owners. Abolitionists in Britain continued to argue for better working conditions (a 12-hour working day, Sunday as a day of rest, no flogging of women slaves), and although these were approved in Westminster, plantation owners in British Guiana refused to implement them.

 

1823 saw a slave “rebellion” in Demerara, led by Jack Gladstone (the same surname as his “owner”), seeking the improvements they had heard about from British missionaries. It was a largely peaceful protest by the slaves, but it was violently put down by British forces and the colony’s white militia. Emancipation of the slaves finally came in 1834, with their owners receiving substantial compensation from the British Government for the loss of their “property”.

 

How did the plantation owners keep their sugar cane fields profitable without slave labour? I didn’t know the answer until the 1990s, when I was working in an office in Wembley. One of my colleagues, Rafique, was born in British Guiana (called Guyana, since its independence in 1966). In researching his family history, he found the names of his grandparents as passengers on a ship from Calcutta (Kolkata) in the 1890s. They were Bengali Muslims, being transported to British Guiana as “indentured labour”.

 

Within weeks of emancipation, a British firm in Calcutta was recruiting local unemployed Indian men to work on plantations in Mauritius. They put their mark on a contract (that most of them couldn’t read), which bound them to work overseas for five years for a few rupees a day. John Gladstone heard of this, and in 1838 he asked the firm to recruit ‘young, active, able-bodied labourers’ to work on his estates. 

 

Indentured workers from India in the West Indies, 1880. (The National Archives)

 

Between then and 1917, when the practice was ended, nearly 240,000 indentured workers from India were shipped to British Guiana. Less than a third of them were repatriated. Even though their contracts promised free passage home, the plantation owners often found ways to deny this to them. They were given new contracts, and when re-indenture was prohibited in the 1870s, they were encouraged to settle in Demerara, and offered work for low wages.

 

How Britain got its Demerara sugar is history. We can’t change the terrible injustices which took place for centuries across the British Empire, but nor should we try to hide them. Brent, and Britain, will be a better place if we all understand, and acknowledge, the wrongs (and a few slightly more positive aspects) of the British Empire. 

 

The centenary of the BEE provides a great opportunity for learning what people with their roots from across the former Empire feel about its history, especially if they can share more widely the views of earlier generations, passed down by word of mouth or in writing. Brent Archives contains a lot of information on the BEE, from a British perspective, and that can be used as a starting point for discussion.

 

Some of the residents of the BEE’s Nigerian village in 1924. (Brent Archives – WHS Collection)

 

The photo above, from an album donated to Wembley History Society in 1964, shows some of Nigerians who lived and worked at the BEE for seven months. I used illustrations from the album in an online article and a talk during the 90^th anniversary year. The “village” they lived in was recreated in the BEE’s West African Walled City, where they displayed their crafts, and sold the goods they had made, to visitors. They were silversmiths, leather workers, weavers, potters, wood carvers and a bead polisher, from across Nigeria.

 

Bala and his brother Mamman, from Kano, featured in a postcard on sale at the BEE.
(Brent Archives – Wembley History Society Collection)

 

When I gave a talk on “Wembley’s Nigerian Village, 1924” to the Society in 2014, a Nigerian man came. He had seen it advertised, and could hardly believe that there had been people from his home country in Wembley ninety years earlier. Unfortunately, I did not get the chance to ask him for his views on what he had seen and heard.

 

I’ve set out my thoughts on why we should be commemorating the British Empire Exhibition’s centenary, and using it as a chance to share different views. One writer has already done that with a letter about the “Decolonising Wembley” project, and Wembley History Society will be welcoming him as a speaker at its meeting on 16 February.

 

Now it is over to you! With Martin’s permission, I’m issuing an invitation to anyone reading this, with their roots in countries from the former British (or other) Empire(s), to contribute comments below, or guest posts for publication on “Wembley Matters”. Please share your perspective on Empire, and particularly any stories you know from relatives about what it was like living in one of the 56 nations represented at the BEE.

Philip Grant.