Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
Cllr. Tatler (front right) on the Cecil Avenue site in March 2023.
(from a Brent Council press release announcing the
WHZ development contract with Wates)
Following my guest post on 28 April, setting out the truth about the Council’s ownership of the Wembley
Housing Zone site at Cecil Avenue, I added a comment below which shared the
text of an open email I had sent to Councillor Shama Tatler.
Martin asked whether he could publish that email as a separate post, but
I said it might be better to wait until I had also sent an email to the members
of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, and publish both together.
That is what this guest post does.
Open email to Councillor Shama Tatler, Brent’s Cabinet Member for Regeneration,
on 29 May at 8.30am:
Subject: Incorrect statement on Wembley Housing
Zone land at Scrutiny Committee on 23 April
This is an Open Email
Dear Councillor Tatler,
You may recall that I have been taking a close
interest in the lack of genuinely affordable housing at Brent Council's Cecil
Avenue development, which comes under your Wembley Housing Zone regeneration
portfolio, since August 2021.
I was therefore interested when the subject came up
when you were speaking to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee
meeting last Tuesday (23 April) when they were considering Regeneration.
You stated (and I have transcribed this from the
webcast of the meeting): 'With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own the
land. We had to purchase the land.'
That statement was untrue.
Brent Council did own the freehold of the Cecil
Avenue site (which will provide 237 of the 291 WHZ homes). That land, which for
a time had passed to Copland Community School when it was a foundation school,
had come back to Brent Council ownership, for nil consideration, under a land
rationalisation agreed in 2014.
The only WHZ land which Brent Council had to
purchase was Ujima House (the smaller site, providing only 54 of the 291 WHZ
homes), acquired in 2016 for £4.8m, and funded out of the £8m initially
provided to Brent by the GLA for the Wembley Housing Zone.
I'm sure that you are at least as aware of those
facts as I am, and yet you appear to have chosen to mislead the Scrutiny
Committee, as part of seeking to justify the impact on viability which has led
to the poor number of genuinely affordable homes homes for rent to Council
tenants at your Wembley Housing Zone scheme.
I am bringing this to your attention, and the fact
that the true position is now in the public domain*, so that you can write to
the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee to correct the error in what
you said above (and any other false information included in your statements to
them on 23 April) and apologise for misleading them at their meeting.
I am copying this email to Councillor Conneely, the
Committee Chair, for her information, and as it is an open email I will also
include its text as a comment under the online blog post, which you can read
via the "link" below. Yours sincerely,
Philip Grant.
* https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2024/04/regeneration-at-scrutiny-meeting-truth.html
[Thirty-six hours later, I have yet to receive any acknowledgement or response
from Cllr. Tatler, and on past experience, I’m not sure that I will.]
Wembley Housing Zone location plan, with added description in key.
(Original version taken from a Report to Cabinet in
August 2021)
As I have little confidence that Cllr. Tatler will take my advice, and
bring the error I have pointed out to the attention of the Resources and Public
Realm Scrutiny Committee, my second email was addressed to them.
Email to Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, on 30 May at 8.27pm:
Subject: Correction to information given to you on
Wembley Housing Zone land at meeting on 23 April.
Dear Chair and members (including substitutes) of
Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, I was interested in item 6 on your 23 April agenda,
Regeneration in Brent, and watched some of the meeting on the webcast.
You may remember that, in 2022, I was seeking to
get your committee to scrutinise various aspects of the Council's delivery of
affordable housing, and in particular the lamentably low proportion of
genuinely affordable homes to rent which were proposed for the Cecil Avenue
site of the Council's Wembley Housing Zone project.
I was pleased to hear Councillor Conneely express
your Committee's support for more genuinely affordable homes on Council
schemes. However, I was astounded to hear what Councillor Tatler said about the
Wembley Housing Zone scheme, which comes under her Regeneration portfolio. This
is what I transcribed her saying, when I went back to check it on the webcast
recording (with my bold type for emphasis):
'With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own
the land. We had to purchase the land. That impacts viability as well.'
She was claiming that the Council could not provide
more genuinely affordable homes than the 88 at London Affordable Rent (out of a
total of 291 homes to be built, with 150 of those for private sale by Wates)
because purchasing the land reduced the viability of the project.
But Brent Council did not have to purchase
the land for the main part of the project, the former Copland School site at
Cecil Avenue, where 237 of the 291 homes will be built.
I double-checked that I was correct over Brent's
ownership of that vacant brownfield site, before sharing the truth about this
online. I also wrote to Councillor Tatler yesterday morning (29 April), and am
appending the full text of that email below for your information (although I
did copy the original to your Chair).
I am not confident that Councillor Tatler will
write to correct the false statement she made to you on 23 April, so I decided
to write to you as well. Please base any follow-up work you do on Regeneration,
and any recommendations your Committee may make on the Wembley Housing Zone, on
the true position over land ownership at Cecil Avenue. Thank you.
As set out in the online article which I provided a
"link" to at the end of my email to Councillor Tatler below,
effective scrutiny in holding the Cabinet to account relies on Cabinet members,
and Council Officers, being honest in the information they provide to you. I
hope that you will make that point clearly when dealing with this matter,
because the work that you do is very important.
Thank you. Best wishes,
Philip Grant.