Village Mews: A story of neglect, lack of maintenance and poor communication by a series of housing associations that leaves residents in a desperate situation

 

 

The ‘Village Mews’ housing next to St Andrew’s Church, Kingsbury, at first looks an idyllic enclave, surrounded by trees and in the shadow of a beautiful church spire, but closer inspection reveals a different story.

 

I was invited by residents to see for myself the conditions they live in caused by general neglect, lack of maintenance and roots from overgrown trees.

 

The development is more than 30 years old and was started by Paddington Churches Housing Association (PCHA), and then handed on to Genesis, which later merged with  Notting Hill Housing Trust to become Notting Hill Genesis. This series of landlords presided over gradual deterioration and neglect. 

 

 

 Part of a consultation slide show. Residents were not told what the different colours indicate but the red shows the garages and car park (could they be built on?), yellow shows the terrace houses (refurbishment?) and blue the building facing Church Lane housing 4 flats (demolition and re-build?) only one is occupied at present. Some parts of the site are missing from the image.

 

 

The timeline given to residents. The consultation has been extended until April 26th.

 

Now residents are being consulted on a further takeover by an entity known as Springboard Two Housing Association Ltd, a rather mysterious offshoot of Notting Hill Genesis, that proposes to decant residents into temporary accommodation while a survey and works take place. Initially residents were told it would be for 3 months, but this was later extended to 13 months. Of course, as no detailed survey has been carried it this could be far longer.

 

Residents are concerned about the suitability of the temporary accommodation for the residents of the 16 properties involved and whether it would be suitable for those with a disability or pets. They shudder at the thought of temporary hotel accommodation which appears a possibility as Notting Hall Genesis does not have enough property of its own to decant everyone into.

 

Residents are suspicious of the role of Springboard Twoand fear that when a proper survey is carried out (they claim that there has never been a thorough one and the latest consisted only of a ‘visual walkabout’ and desktop exercise) it may conclude that the whole lot should be demolished.  With 14 garages on site and a car park space, redevelopment could include infill housing as well as rebuild with the prospect of private sales. The proposals for Chalkhill Estate infill, sponsored by Brent Council, are seen as relevant.

  

One resident pointed out that their rent had risen by £40 a week over two years and that their accommodation is so poorly maintained that the electricity bill is £600 a month with a bath costing £3. Residents gain little from service charges with minimal gardening and maintenance of lighting.

 

As a green I am committed to safeguarding our trees, especially those with a Tree Preservation Order. Village Mews is in St Andrews Conservation Area, and this offers further safeguards. However, the lack of action on maintenance of the trees means, according to residents, that they have caused damage to drains, walls, doorways, roofs, and the driveway. Unfortunately, because of the lack of surveys, Notting Hill Genesis failed to produce sufficient evidence when an application was submitted to Brent Council for the felling of poplar trees and only a reduction of an ash and two oaks was approved.  They failed to mention huge branches that had fallen. Even then the actual works that took place removed less of  each tree than had been granted.  Residents said because of this ineptitude they have been left with an unenviable choice between safe and comfortable homes and protecting trees. 

 

All this might have been unnecessary if there had been proper maintenance of the trees on the site over the last few decades by the various housing associations.  The same would go for the church authorities and the maintenance and control of the trees on their land that abutts Village Mews.

 

The driveway, poplar trees on right. No evidence of damage according to Brent Council
 

 

 St Andrew's Church tree roots go into the back gardens of Village Mews and extend to back walls.

 

 

Proximity of the St Andrew's Church trees to the back gardens and houses

 

 

Tree roots displace the fence and run across car park area

 

 

Wall out of line after root and stem intrustion

 

Damp and drainage issues on terraced houses

 

Leaf fall from overhanging branches creates moss growth and subsequent roof problems

 

Tree roots block drains

 

 The following pictures are from the main house fronting Church Lane which accommodates four  flats only one of which is occupied and you will see why.

Porch roof collapse over front door

 

 Gap between wall and door

Crack in house wall

 

 

Internal cracks

Collapsing windows

 

Boarded up flat

Heavy iron drain pipes that luckily did not fall on anyone

 

There are 14 garages, only some of which are in use and a lot of uncertainty about how residents can apply to rent them. If they are left to deteriorate, as happened on Kings Drive Estate and Newlands Court, it could be used as justification for demolition and subsequent development.

Below is the 2022 Brent Council response to a request for cutting back several trees and felling the poplars.  Perhaps the evidence in the photographs above will encourage a review by Notting Hill Genesis, St Andrew's Church and Brent Council regarding a joint approach to tackling the  issue.

 

 

The Notting Hill Genesis consultation ends on April 26th and while residents understood that they could decide whether Springboard Two should take over their property, the statement from Notting Hill Genesis appears to see it as a done deal.

 

I asked Notting Hill Genesis about:

 

1. The failure to address and rectify the structural damage cause by neighbouring trees over a long period.

2. The results of any site surveys carried out and plans to rectify the problems.

3. The requirement that tenants move out into other accommodation while works are carried out - the period, the type of accommodation offered, whether the needs of disabled or elderly will be taken into account, whether pet owners will be offered pet friendly accommodation 

4. The role of Springboard Two - there is very little information available on this organisation. Please provide details.

5. Whether there are plans to redevelop the site, including the 14 garages - perhaps in partnership with Brent Council

6. Anything you can say that will reassure tenants

 

A Notting Hill Genesis spokesperson said:

 

We know the structural issues at Village Mews are having an impact on residents. While there is no immediate risk to the safety of the buildings, significant work needs to happen to resolve the issues and so we can provide the comfortable homes our residents deserve. Everything we do at Village Mews will be in support of that.

 

We acknowledge that our messaging has not always been as clear as we aspire to. We’re now working closely with everyone living there to ensure they understand both the approach we’re taking, and why we’re taking it.

 

Nothing happening here affects residents’ security of tenancy, the right to live in their home or their rents. If households need to move out temporarily, we will speak to them individually to fully understand their needs for an alternative home and make sure their requirements are met.

 

 

Background:

 

• We are in discussions with Brent Council and our contractors about the trees at Village Mews to seek a solution that works for all parties
• Work that could be required includes underpinning the foundations of homes, replacing any unstable walls to ensure structural integrity and drainage works to protect the drains against tree root growth
• A full plan will be provided to residents by our contractors once it has been completed
• Residents will not face any costs relating to this work
• We will be transferring the homes to our subsidiary, Springboard Two, which is still part of Notting Hill Genesis. This technical solution allows us to free up extra funds that can be spent on the structural improvements, cyclical works, and enhanced energy performance

 

 

A Village Mews resident reacted:

 

That response is as expected and they’re making it seem they’re being transparent and have our best interests at heart (blah, blah, blah) but they’re being exceptionally sneaky glossing over the Springboard Two aspect. It’s interesting they say they WILL transfer to SB2 as from our understanding this current consultation period is to get views about this, and we oppose it. So, if they go ahead, how exactly do they have us in mind?! No transparency at all and I’m extremely concerned to be honest.

 

 

Complaint over party political content of Brent Council report on new Wembley Community Centre

Guest post  from Philip Grant in a personal capacity. Open Email to Debra Norman, Brent Council Corporate Director and Monitoring Officer. Also see report on the proposed community space HERE,

 

Subject: Political publicity in an Officer Report to the 8 April Cabinet meeting

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

I am writing to you, in your roles as both Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance and Monitoring Officer, to complain about part of the content of a report published on the Council’s website which, I believe, clearly represents political publicity, in breach of Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 (“LGA1986”).

 

The report is under item 9 of the agenda for the Cabinet meeting on Monday 8 April, “SCIL request for a new Publicly Accessible Courtyard and new Community Centre in Wembley”, and the part of that report I am complaining about is section 3.1, headed “Cabinet Member Foreword”.

 

Under the Standing Orders [13(e)] in Brent’s Constitution, Cabinet decisions ‘shall be taken following the consideration of a written report …’, and those reports are prepared and submitted to Cabinet by Council Officers. The report I am complaining of is such a report, from the Interim Corporate Director of Communities & Regeneration, and has been signed off by her, as shown by these screenshots from the online version of the report:

 

Heading

 

Although the title heading of the report does identify Councillor Tatler as the Cabinet member for Regeneration, Planning & Growth, the report is, as it should be, a Council Officer report, giving information to Cabinet about the matter they are being asked to consider and decide, including the necessary legal and financial details, and making recommendations based on that information.

 

In many ways, a Cabinet Member Foreword is superfluous, as it does not give any details which are not, or could not be, included by the Council Officer(s) in the report. Additionally, the Lead Member has the opportunity to make any additional comments she/he may wish to when introducing the agenda item at the Cabinet meeting, and having those comments recorded in the minutes.

 

In this case, the seven paragraphs of the Cabinet Officer Foreword, covering 1¼ pages of the report, are more in tone and content like a political manifesto. Section 2(1), LGA1986, specifically states that: 

 

‘A local authority shall not publish, or arrange for the publication of, any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party.’

 

Any claim that the text of this “Foreword” is simply reflecting policies adopted by Brent Council is undone by this sentence from paragraph 3.1.1.:

 

‘A Labour pledge met to continue using public assets for public good – balancing regeneration projects in the interests of the many in search of a new home, not the few that decry change.’

 

The specific mention of the pledge being a ‘Labour pledge’ means that, if such a pledge was actually made, it must have been made in words or a document published by the Labour Party. (Was such a pledge made, and if so, where is the evidence for it?). The use of the words ‘in the interests of the many … not the few’ is also clearly drawing on a slogan previously used in an election campaign by the Labour Party.

 

Section 2(2), LGA1986, explains how to identify political material which a local authority is prohibited from publishing:

 

‘In determining whether material falls within the prohibition regard shall be had to the content and style of the material, the time and other circumstances of publication and the likely effect on those to whom it is directed and, in particular, to the following matters—

 

(a) whether the material refers to a political party or to persons identified with a political party or promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another;’

 

I have already pointed out that the ‘content and style’ of this Cabinet Member Foreword is similar to that of a political manifesto, and the words ‘a Labour pledge’ clearly refers to a political party. 

 

The Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity (“the Code”), which applies to all local authorities and is included in Part 5 of Brent Council’s Constitution, makes clear that Section 2, LGA1986, must be followed, and that Section 6, LGA1986, ‘defines publicity as “any communication in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or a section of the public”. Although it could be claimed that this report is addressed to Brent’s Cabinet, it is a publicly available document, which I have already seen quoted in local online blogs and newspapers, so it must be 'addressed to the public at large.'

 

Para. 33 of the Code says: ‘Local authorities should pay particular regard to the legislation governing publicity during the period of heightened sensitivity before elections …’ We are in a so-called “purdah” period before the London Mayoral and GLA elections on 2 May, and the opening sentence of Councillor Tatler’s “Foreword” actually begins: ‘Working in partnership with Wates Construction and the Mayor of London ….’, while later in the paragraph referring to a ‘Labour pledge’, as I have shown above.

 

I hope I have shown why the Cabinet Member Foreword is ‘political publicity’, which should not have been allowed to be included in this report. The Council Officers compiling, checking and signing off this report should have identified it as such, and insisted on it being, at the very least, amended, so that it did not include party political content.

 

Council Officers should not be afraid to point out to elected members, and particularly Cabinet members, when they are overstepping the mark. They should also know that the Council’s most senior officers will support them when they do stand up against such attempted abuses of power, which is why I am copying this email to Brent’s Chief Executive.

 

The remedy, when this complaint is upheld, should be for the report document appearing on the Council’s website to be amended, so that the Cabinet Member Foreword is removed entirely from it, or at least the parts of it referring to party political matters.

 

The inclusion, a fairly recent feature, of Cabinet Member Forewords in Officer Reports to Cabinet, should also be reviewed. There seems no valid reason for them. If they are allowed to continue, there should be clearer guidelines to Cabinet members and Officers over what can, and cannot, be included in them.

 

I look forward to receiving your response to this complaint. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

Brent Council to contribute up to £11.23m to Wembley Housing Zone's community space and community centre

 

 

Wembley Matters contributor, Philip Grant, has been assiduous in following the proghress (or lack of it) of the Wembley Housing Zone in Wembley High Road/Cecil Avenue. The main theme is the lack of truly affordable housing with the amount diminishing over the years when Brent could have acquired much more. See LINK for one of the main articles and the adjacent search box for more. (Search for Wembley Housing Zone).

Now the mainly private development (and the developer through increased value of the development) will benefit from plans for a courtyard and community centre/centres on the site to be paid for by Brent Council.

 

There are very few details about the community centres (there are two options) in the documentation. The developer Wates would contribute Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy monies to Brent Council but Brent Council would use this to enhance the scheme through outside community space and a community centre. Additional monies woud be needed from SCIL  for the more expensive option:

The proposed capital contribution of up to £11.23m SCIL is necessary to deliver the infrastructure elements of the scheme. The Wembley Housing Zone development is itself estimated to generate £5.267m Brent CIL receipts and Wates are liable to pay this sum. Therefore the net additional SCIL ask to the Council to fund the infrastructure elements of the scheme for Option#1 is £2.6m and for Option#2 is £5.96m. The Council has sufficient Strategic CIL reserves to meet this request.

 

As reported to Cabinet in August 2021, the Council can retain and lease the commercial and community space on the WHZ scheme, or dispose of it for a one-off capital receipt. Requested costs at Appendix 1 present two options, both of which would deliver the publicly accessible courtyard. Option #1 at £7.87m would also designate one flexible community and commercial space for the new community centre. Option #2 at £11.23m would however designate both flexible community and commercial spaces for a larger new community centre. Marketing of the commercial and community spaces will determine the range of occupiers interested in the WHZ scheme, and on what terms. Whether or not it is in the Council’s best interest to pursue Option 1 or Option 2 will depend on market demand and the balance of socioeconomic and financial outputs that can be delivered.

This is a substantial sum of money from  SCIL but the Officers' report states there are sufficient funds in the account to cover the cost:

There is a foreword to the Officer's Report by Cllr Shama Tatler which in my view amounts to a Brent Council party political broadcast during an election period (or parliamentary candidate pitch)  but has been defended by the Brent Council CEO as clearly separate from the officers' contribution. See the Report and Foreword  HERE,

Extract from Shama Tatler's Foreword:

Working in partnership with Wates Construction and the Mayor of London,

Brent Council is delivering on its longstanding commitment to revitalise the

eastern stretch of Wembley High Road. This report sets out how we will embed

community use at the heart of our regeneration plans for the Wembley Housing

Zone, with a landmark £11.23m investment into a publicly accessible courtyard

garden, alongside new community facilities. A Labour pledge met to continue

using public assets for public good – balancing regeneration projects in the

interests of the many in search of a new home, not the few that decry change.

 

The economic regeneration of Wembley is clear for all to see, from the world-

class Stadium to the re-developed public realm – thousands more Londoners

now also call the area home, and the area is attracting more inward investment

than ever before. This has been made possible thanks to long-term public and

private partnership, leveraging resources, expertise and crucially, investment.

Through the Wembley Housing Zone we have another opportunity to create

another powerhouse, driving positive change along Wembley High Road.

 

The housing crisis did not begin yesterday, and it will not finish tomorrow. It is

therefore vital that we create plans which respond to the economic drivers as

they are not as we wish them to be. We have a moral imperative to do all in our

power to build more housing and communities that last long into the future. The

regeneration that underpins the Wembley Housing Zone, is exactly that – an

effort to build a better Brent, a place where home ownership is a reality, not just

a dream. Supply of housing, of all tenures is vital to this, after all in the United

Kingdom we have some of the lowest ratios in Europe for housing stock to

people. Taken together with the toxic headwinds of inflation, prices are being

pushed everywhere and house prices are now at their most unaffordable,

relative to earnings since 1876.

 

Of course community centres are much needed and more community space essential and welcome in the increasingly  dense Wembley High Road but could Brent Council have got a better deal from one of their favoured developers?

Have you attended any of Brent Council's Building Safety Residents' Engagement Meetings? Any comments?

 I asked Brent Council abour progress on a Residents Engagement Strategy which is part of the post-Grenfell Building Safety Act, much of which came into force on April 1st 2024.

This is their response:

I can confirm that last October the Council launched its Building Safety Engagement Strategy with all those living in a high-risk buildings. To do this, the Council followed the Government Guidance for developing a strategy https://www.gov.uk/guidance/preparing-a-resident-engagement-strategy#after-you-have-prepared-your-strategy consulting with those living in these blocks and providing a copy to every household.

 

We are pleased to report that since October 2023 we have been hosting the first series of Building Safety Engagement meetings.

The 1^st April deadline is not specific to the Engagement Strategy (please see the section within the Acthttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/part/4/crossheading/engagement-with-residents-etc/enacted),  but a requirement for implementing the Building Safety Act (2022) such as registering high-risk buildings.

 

For your information, our working strategy can be found here https://www.brent.gov.uk/housing/tenant-services/health-and-safety-in-the-home#[buildingsafetyact.

 

A review following 6 months of piloting the strategy is scheduled and will go to Cabinet as part of a wider update on the Council’s overarching approach to engaging with Council Tenant and Leaseholders.

My conclusion from  this response is that the Strategy is being consulted on but is not yet in place. I would be interested in comments from anyone who has attended these consultation meetinsg and the number of residents in attendance verus the number eligible to attend.

Luxury 'Wedding Hotel' for Wembley on Brent Council site

 

Rooftop 'Wedding garden'

 Cash-strapped Brent Council is set to approve a partnership with Rhapsody Hotels of Singapore to build a luxury hotel on the site of its Wedding Garden.  The Garden replaced the much-loved garden at the old Brent Town Hall which now forms part of the grounds of the Lycee.

The current garden is built alongside the Civic Centre and hired at additional cost for Civic weddings. With high rises all around it is somewhat dwarfed and not the ideal setting. However, the site itself is quite generous and of considerable value if itself converted into a high rise block.

The Marriage  (Ceremonial) Garden

In  the multimillion deal Brent would sell the site to Rhapsody but would retain the rooftop and two floors of the 26 storey block for a marriage roof garden and large halls accommodating up to 500 wedding guests. Brent Council as registrar would retain the ceremonial fees and other charges with separate charges for use of the roof garden.  The report to Bretn Council suggests that with the new luxury provision fees could be considerable increased and the facility would attract national and international couples as well as locals.

Currennt fees

The roof top garden would provide the iconic backdrop of the stadium and view across London for rooftop wedding photographs and enhanced versions of the current ceremonial garden facilities:

·       selfie frame

·       flower wall and Love Lights

·       disability access

·       Fairy Lights

·       heaters

·       toilets

·       Wi-Fi

 The hotel itself would cater for weddings, civil partnership and other ceremonies with provision of honeymoon suites and luxury accommodation for ceremony guests with spa facilities including sauna, jacuzzi and beauty parlours and first class restaurants and banqueting halls.

Officers argue that a 'wedding package' would benefit both the hotel and the Council as well as providing custom for all the eating and entertainment facilities around Wembley Park including the LDO:

With so many wedding and civil partnerships going to Paris, Berlin or Prague for their ceremonies this is a chance to make Wembley the wedding capital of the UK attracting people from all over the world for what will be a unique and memorable offer,

Mr Yuv Binhad of Rhapsody Hotels said:

This is fantastic news for our shareholders. We have long admired Wembley Park as a 'Little Singapore' and we are pleased to become partners with such a forward thinking, and if I may I say so... romantic council.

The loss of a magnificent willow tree in Wembley Park comes as a sad shock

The magnificent willow next to 6 Greenhill Way, Wembley Park - as it was

Wembley Park has a considerable number of willow trees that give the name to Forty Willows GP Surgery and The Willows Children's Centre in Chalkhill amongst the willow related place names.  A lovely specimen that was in the grounds of the former Brent Town Hall was removed by the Lycee, in 2017 possibly after storm damage:

Before

After removal

Today, having been away for a month I was shocked to see today that the wonderful willow in Greenhill Way (Top photograph) was a shadow of its former self. I believe it might had had a TPO (Tree Preservation Order) but the jagged edges at the end of the branches seem to indicate storm damage but I would be grateful for any information from neighbours. This was a real landmark tree and it is  sad to see it gone.

Further afield there are willows in the Open Space in Monks Park near the River Brent and another in Neasden Lane on the Chancel House site is to be preserved when the North Brent Secondary School is built.

 

Chancel House willow, Neasden Lane

 

The willow maze in the woods

Close by in Fryent Country Park (behind the Salmon Street houses) there is a little known willow tree maze planted by the Barn Hill Conservation Group  decades ago. Now nicely mature I have lost a few primary classes and teachers on its leafy paths over the years. 

Barry Gardiner calls for Byron Court to be given 6 months to demonstrate improvement via a reinspection

 

 

In a letter to Gillian Keegan, Secretary of State for Education, Barry Gardiner MP for Brent North, calls for Byron Court to be given a chance to improve with the assistance of govrnors and  the Rapid Improvement Group that is now in place. He suggests a period of six months, two of which are holidays, before an Ofsted reinspection takes place. If successful this could mean that Byron Court remains a community school rather than face the disruption and turmoil of academisation.

Gardiner cites the rapid expansion of the school to 5 form entry (opposed by the local community) that made it bigger than some secondary schools and the absence of the headteacher through sickness as contributing to the problems of the school. A falling school roll, after the expansion, put additional pressure on the school as it attempted to manage a much bigger school estate.

Quoting the NEU's criticism of the Ofsted inspection process and its impact on the staff's wellbeing, Gardiner says that if the inspection had taken place under the new guidance issued after the death of Ruth Perry, the inspection would not have found as it did.

 

The arguments against the expansion of Byron Court into a 'mega-primary' were reported on Wembley Matters in 2016 HERE.