TODAY FROM NOON: Kilburn Festival - Grange Park

 

Director of a Vistry Group subsidiary is associated with social media attacks on Shama Tatler during the Chingford & Woodford Green election battle

 There was considerable controversy when Brent Cabinet Lead Member for Planning and Regeneration, Shama Tatler, was parachuted into the Chingford and  Woodford Green  General Election battle  after the Labour Party's ditching of popular and very local candidate Faiza Hassan.

The move led to resignations from the local Labour Party. Faiza Shaheen stood as an independent and the marginal seat was held by Conservative Ian Duncan Smith with a reduced majority.

It was not just disgruntled Labour members who campaigned against Shama Tatler. The Guardian's political media editor  Jim Waterson, drew attention on Twitter LINK to an attack campaign run by a local Tory councillor, John Moss, and Conservative  cyber campaigner Thomas James Robert Borwick.

 

The Facebook attack ads were posted by  3rd Party Ltd of which Thomas Borwick is a director. The Waltham Forest Echo carries some background on the company. LINK

 So far this may be what you would expect from a Conservative  intervention, just staying on the right side of electoral law by not openly campaigning for a specific candidate. It could be argued that it might even help Faiza Shaheen's campaign.

But there is more to it and motivations get rather murky.

Thomas Borwick has multiple director interests SEE LINK that include a directorship along with his father, Lord Geoffrey Robert James Borwick, of Countryside Properties (Bicester) Ltd.

 

Countryside Properties (Bicester) Limited is a joint venture company in which Countryside Properties (UK) Limited has an interest. Countryside Properties (UK) Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vistry Group PLC. There is another 'Countryside' entity - Countryside Partnerships.

The Vistry website tell us:

Countryside Partnerships is Vistry Group’s business to business (B2B) brand. This is the partner-facing brand used when delivering mixed-tenure developments. This covers all types of homes from social rent to private sales on the open market – and everything in between, often all on the same site.

 In April 2021 Countryside received approval for all four phases of the Peel project in Brent LINK.

In May 2023 a press release from Countryside Homes announced that Brent Council has selected Countryside Partnerships as preferred bidder to build 200 homes in South Kilburn. It included a quote from Shama Tatler:

Cllr Shama Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Growth at Brent Council, said:

"We’re now almost halfway through our 15-year regeneration programme for South Kilburn and can’t wait to get started on the next phase with Countryside Partnerships. Right across the country local authorities are grappling with spiralling inflation and building costs, but despite the challenges, we are really delighted to be able to deliver this brilliant scheme for residents. This project will create more than 200 much-needed new homes, almost half of which will be for existing South Kilburn residents. Not only will local families be given the keys to safe and secure homes, they will also enjoy a healthier environment, with more greenery and trees on their doorstep and a revamped local park.”

 Another press release in March 2024, this time from Vistry itself proclaimed construction starting at the South Kilburn site:

 In the north of Brent, Countryside, has signed up with the Sovereign Network Group (formerly Network Homes) to build 654 homes and commercial premises in Northwick Park. The full transformation of Northwick Park is being delivered through a partnership between Network Homes, London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, Brent Council and the University of Westminster.

It is a scheme with not a few of the tower blocks featured in the Facebook campaign against Shama Tatler.

 

 By now you are probably as puzled as I am.

Why did Thomas Borwick, a director within Vistry Group's several companies, launch a campaign against Shama 'Towerblock' Tatler who leads regeneration in Brent, on the basis of her support for highrise, when one of the companies is the preferred bidder for lucrative contracts in the borough for middle and highrise developments?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bobby Moore Bridge murals – where will the advertising money be spent?

 Guesy post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

I thought that I’d finished writing about the Brent Cabinet meeting on 28 May, the “decision” to allow adverts to cover the heritage tile murals in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway at Wembley Park for at least another four years, and the cover-up of how the Council Leader failed to deal appropriately with the point of order which I raised. Then, this public question to Cllr. Muhammed Butt for the 8 July Full Council meeting was brought to my attention:

 

Extract from the 8 July agenda papers, published on the Council’s website.

 

I had no idea who the questioner was, but the publicity (on “Wembley Matters”?) about the award of the new Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease had obviously attracted his attention. My efforts had been directed at trying to persuade Cabinet members that it was worth accepting a slightly lower amount of advertising revenue, in order to put the tile murals in the subway back on public display. His question asked what the money raised would be spent on.

 

At the meeting on 28 May, Cllr. Butt had spoken about the money received from advertising on the Bobby Moore Bridge helping to 'provide residents with the services they depend on.' This was, presumably, his justification for accepting the Officer recommendation to award the new lease under Option B, because it ‘provided greater financial benefits’ (= more money).

 

Extract from the Officer Report on the advertising lease to the 28 May Cabinet meeting.

 

Cllr. Butt’s response to the Full Council public question contains a slightly different answer. Instead of services that residents depend on, he says that the money raised will be used ‘to inform residents about a wide range of council services and deliver communications campaigns.’ There is a difference between providing much needed services and simply telling residents about them!

 

Cllr. Butt refers in his response to informing residents about campaigns on ‘tackling fly-tipping’, ‘health inequalities’ and ‘community safety’. Here are some examples of how the Council does that:

 

Fly-tipping article from the Spring 2024 “Your Brent” magazine.

 

Double page spread health article from the Spring 2024 “Your Brent” magazine.

 

Brent Council press release on a community safety subject.

 

You will note that these are all positive stories about Brent’s (Labour) Council, which all feature photographs of smiling Brent (Labour) Cabinet members. As well as ‘inform[ing] residents about a wide range of council services,’ they are also promoting the Council’s majority political party, and particularly its Cabinet. Every (then) member of Brent’s Cabinet is pictured at least once in the Spring 2024 edition of the “Your Brent” magazine, with the Leader appearing five times and Cllr. Krupa Sheth topping the list with eight photos!

 

The Council has not been allowed to feature local politicians in its publicity material during the General Election “purdah” period, but on Monday 8 July (the same day that Full Council would be considering a Lib Dem motion on fly-tipping), Brent Communications was back in action, putting out a press release about a new Council campaign, with a photograph featuring … (you’ve guessed the answer!):

 

 

So, when Cllr. Butt said on 28 May that the recommendation to award the new lease under Option B had been agreed (even though no Cabinet members raised their hands or spoke their agreement – staying silent is said to be showing unanimous support for what the Leader says!), he and (allegedly) his Cabinet were deciding to put more money into the funds used for promoting themselves and their local Party! 

 

Cllr Butt, at least, must have known that is where the money would go, as his top “cross-cutting” area of responsibility (as the latest Cabinet Portfolios information shows) is ‘Communications’. That might explain why he ignored my reasonable request to allow his Cabinet the chance to vote for Option A, which would have provided a slightly lower annual rental figure (but still a minimum guaranteed figure of more that £90,000 a year).

 

I have pointed out in earlier articles that the Officer Report to the 28 May Cabinet meeting was heavily biased in favour of Option B. Although that Report was signed-off by the Corporate Director, Partnerships, Housing & Resident Services, such reports are actually prepared by one or more of the “Contact Officers” shown under the Report heading:

 

 

In this case, the main author of the Report appears to have been Brent’s Head of Communications! If, as it appears from Cllr. Muhammed Butt’s response to the question from a member of the public, the rental income from the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease was going straight into the Council’s Communications budget, then the Head of Communications had a clear conflict of interests. He would find it difficult to be (and I’m pretty sure he was not) impartial in making the recommendation in that Report, because Option B would provide more funding for his own department. 

 

There was no mention of where the money would go to, or the conflict of interests, in the Report. Not only was the “decision” to allow the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals to remain covered with advertising equipment for another four years a bad decision, badly made because the case for Option A was not properly considered (if at all), and badly handled by the Council Leader at the 28 May Cabinet meeting, it was another example of the “dodgy” way in which allowing Quintain to advertise on the Bobby Moore Bridge has been dealt with ever since 2013.

 

Philip Grant.

 

Could Wembley Stadium capacity be raised to 100k for Joshua v Dubois fight?

 Talk Sport LINK has reported that Frank Warren of Queensberry Promotions expects to apply for an increase in Wembley Stadium capacity for the Joshua and Dubois heavyweight title fight on September 21st. Capacity was increased last year to 94,000 for Fury v Whyte.

Joshua's promoter has suggested that 100,000 tickets could be sold for the fight.

Colin Road/Dudden Hill/High Road development at Planning Committee Wednesday evening

The first of the major Church End/Neasden Stations Growth Areas applikcations comes to Planning Committee on Wednesday evening:

The Proposal

The proposal is for six new blocks varying in height and mass set within a significant amount of new public realm comprising hard and soft landscaping, play equipment and new walking routes. The scheme would deliver a total of 301 residential homes, replacement light industrial floorspace and retail/ commercial floorspace within each of the blocks as summarised below:

 

Buildings A and B: Two 6-storey (plus mezzanine level) primarily residential buildings towards the northern end of the site, closest to Dudden Hill Lane. The buildings would contain a total of 58 homes comprising 14 no. one bedroom homes, 19 no. two bedroom homes and 25 no three bedroom homes, with 48 of these being affordable (all at a London Affordable Rent) and the remainder (in Block B) being private. A supermarket would be provided at ground floor level, with a GIA of approximately 1,639 sqm, and cycle/ refuse storage and lobby entrances to the residential blocks. A communal podium would be provided between the blocks to provide external amenity space.

 

Building C: This would be a part 9, part 13- storey rectilinear building (with lower shoulder and podium) situated along the same northern edge as Blocks A and B, which has a podium garden situated on top of the shoulder building. The block would contain a total of 92 homes comprising 44 no. one bedroom homes, 44 no. two bedroom homes, and 4 no. three bedroom homes, with all of these being private. The main residential lobby to the block and bin/cycle storage would be contained at ground floor, as well as the blue badge car parking serving the residential homes. A communal podium would be provided between Blocks B and C to provide external amenity space.

 

Buildings D and E: These blocks would again have a primarily residential use, with Building D having a maximum height of 19 storeys, stepping down to a shoulder height of 13 storeys, while Block E would abut this block to the immediate south-west and would be five storeys, stepping down to two storeys on the High Road frontage. The buildings would contain a total of 133 homes, comprising 46 no. one bedroom homes, 74 no. two bedroom homes and 13 no. three bedroom homes, with all of these being private.

 

The majority of the light industrial floorspace (approximately 1,931 sqm in total) would be contained within the ground floor of Building E and the rear of Building D, looking onto an industrial yard accessed from High Road. The ground floor of Building D fronting the main parade would contain a cafe (Use Class E(b)) of 66.3 sqm GIA and the residential entrances, as well as bin and cycle storage. Finally, a gym (Use Class E(d)) would be provided over ground and mezzanine levels, which has a proposed GIA of approximately 971 sqm.

 

Building F: This would be a part-3, part-5 storey building on the southern and western edges of the site, with a light industrial unit at ground floor level nearest to the High Road/ public courtyard access, and flexible Class E use (approximately 106 sqm) fronting Colin Road. The upper floors would be in residential use, containing 18 homes in total. These would comprise four no. one bedroom homes, 12 no. two bedroom homes, and two no. three bedroom homes. All these units would be private.

 

Significant landscaping is proposed throughout the site which is publicly accessible and would also contain areas for play. The landscaped areas have also been designed to form a part of the surface water strategy given that the site is in a flood risk area. The proposal would include 24 parking spaces associated with the supermarket use, accessed from Dudden Hill Lane, with a further space linked to the light industrial yard, and 9 spaces for Blue Badge parking associated with the residential homes. Cycle parking has been proposed to meet London Plan standards.

 It offers only 15.9% (per unit) affordable housing based on London Affordable Rent (LAR). 25 of the 48 LAR units will be 5 person 3 bedroom units.

 

 

The officers' report elaborates:

 

As discussed above, there have been specific constraints on the scheme which officers accept have had an impact on viability, and therefore the overall level of Affordable Housing proposed. In order to maximise the number of low-cost homes on the site, the proposal does not include any intermediate homes, and therefore the proposed Affordable tenure split (i.e. 100% London Affordable Rent) does not strictly meet London Plan policy requirements in terms of providing a 70:30 LAR: intermediate ratio. However, officers support the 100% weighting towards affordable rented homes given the significant need for lower-cost housing within Brent, and particularly with this being skewed towards family sized units. The GLA has also confirmed they are happy with this approach, despite the policy conflict.

 

Current

With development

Current

With development

 

The development does not meet amenity guidelines and there are loss of light issues on neighbouring properties on Colin Road, Dudden Hill and the High Road.

 

The site is not within a designated Tall Building Zone but the officers' report says:

The Local Plan does not identify the site within a Tall Building Zone, although it is located within the Church End Growth Area (CEGA) which accepts development will be taller than the surrounding context. The CEGA Masterplan SPD outlines an indicative maximum height of 10 storeys on the site, although this is largely based on the layout and massing of the blocks which were proposed under the now withdrawn 2018 scheme. Policy BD2 highlights that in all cases a tall building (one that is more than 30m in height above ground level) s must be shown to be positive additions to the skyline that would enhance the overall character of the area. They should be of exceptional design quality, consistent with London Plan Policy requirements in showing how they positively address their visual, functional, environmental and cumulative impacts. With regards to intensification corridors, policy BD2 notes that developments of a general height of 15m above ground level could be acceptable.

... Overall, the environmental impacts of the proposed tall buildings are considered acceptable.

 

Officer's Report Conclusion:

346. The proposals would result in a mixed-use re-development of an existing industrial site which is allocated within the Local Plan, and would accord with the key policy objectives of the site allocation including replacement industrial floorspace provision (including affordable workspace), new commercial uses and the provision of 301 new homes. The scheme has successfully demonstrated that it would not compromise the re-development of the other parts of the Masterplan site.

347. The new homes would include 48 affordable homes, all provided at a London Affordable Rent, with approximately 45% of these being 3-bed units. A financial viability assessment has been submitted to support the application which found that the scheme is deficit. This was evaluated by consultants commissioned by the Council who concluded that the level of deficit is lower than that set out by the applicant, but nevertheless, it is significantly in deficit. Officers consider that the amount of Affordable Housing proposed is the maximum amount that the scheme could viably deliver. Early and late stage review mechanisms are recommended to ensure that any uplift in viability is captured.

348. In terms of housing size mix, the overall proportion of family sized homes is below council policy targets, with the applicant citing the impact of the delivery of more family sized private homes on development viability and therefore Affordable Housing. The proportion of family sized affordable homes is above targets. In this instance, officers weigh the benefits of providing more Affordable homes above the deficit of private family sized homes in the scheme.

349. The proposal will result in the provision of a high quality public realm, with routes and spaces proposed at ground level which are publicly accessible. These include routes through the site together with a "square" and play spaces, and are considered to represent a significant benefit of the scheme. The architectural quality of the buildings is considered to be high, and the approach to building height, massing and composition is well considered. Although heights and massing are in conflict with the Church End Growth Area Masterplan and outside the tall building zone, it has been successfully demonstrated that the design approach is suitable and meets the key criteria of London Plan policy D9.
 

350. The quality of the homes is considered to be good, with homes meeting internal space standards and other quality factors considered and discussed in this report. Officers acknowledge that the proposal will result in some daylight and sunlight impacts, some of which will go beyond targets within BRE guidance. However, the level of impact is not considered to be excessive given the policy allocations and designations, and the benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the harm.

351. Following the above discussion, officers consider that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

Note that further up Dudden Hill the College of North West London site is due to be redeveloped with blocks of flats when the College moves to Wembley Park.

Call for direct meetings between Wembley Stadium and affected residents over increased events rejected in favour of 'improved collaborative work'

 Cllr Anton Georgiou followed up his question to Cllr Shama Tatler (Regeneration and Planning)   LINK on public consultation about extra Wembley Stadium events at last night's Full Council Meeting.

He said he had asked four questions and the answer to all of them was effectively 'No'.

No to further consultation led by Brent Council.

No to a detailed impact assessment by the Council.

No to an assessment by planning officers of the social impact on the lives of local people of extra events.

No to any direct compensation or benefit to local people impacted by the increased number of event days.

The applicant (Wembley National Stadium Limited)  had said they met with both the leader and Chief Executive of the Council in relation to the application and that they were favourably received. 

Cllr Georgiou asked, 'Why can't the applicant meet with the people who are going to be directly impacted by ever increasing events at Wembley Stadium?'

Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, replied in the absence of Cllr Tatler.

For the most part the events at the Stadium are a success, but it would be remiss of us not to recognise the disruption that Event Days can have on Brent residents.

It is imperative that any application from the Stadium, by means of mitigation, strikes a balance with the community. Let's not forget the disruption stretches wider than the Stadium itself. Chiltern Railways recently admitted they didn't have the staff or the capacity throughout the summer.

Brent Council will continue to work in partnership with everyone involved so I will be calling for improved collaborative with residents and stakeholders alike as we negotiate any future terms with the Stadium going forward.

Save Byron Court campaigners call on Brent Council to review school governing bodies to ensure adequate parental representation and share best practice around communications between parents, schools and LA

 The delegation speaks to Full Council and Cllr Gwen Grahl, lead Cabinet member for schools,  responds

Transcript of Save Byron Court campaigners' delegation to Brent Council July 8th 2024

We're from Save Byron Court, campaign fighting against the Government driven forced academisation and takeover of Byron Court Primary School by Harris Federation. Ours is a collective effort by parents, community members and school staff, including many who have taken 15 days of strike action so far and are prepared to keep going.

Our campaign has highlighted many injustices baked in to a system that is designed against state schools - chronic underfunding, a punitive inspection regime, a national rush to privatise education despite widespread opposition and no opportunity for school improvements to be made, and a worrying lack of transparancy and impartiality with the decision making regarding the future of Byron Court. 

We've received invaluable support by Barry Gardiner MP, Cabinet member Gwen Grahl, and local politicians and candidates across the political spectrum, now it's imperative that the new Govt urgently intervenes in our case if they are indeed serious about both protecting and wanting all state schools to flourish. We need a renewed commitment to our community schools.

It is little coincidence that the recent turbulence and perceived issues in our school have occurred with  within the Governing Body. In the current academic year, we've only had 1 parent governor to vocalise and represent our views and interests. Yet only a few years ago there were 5 parent governor posts, these were subsequently cut by the Board without the consent or even consultation with the parent community. Successful governing bodies must act as custodians connected to and not untethered from parents and the wider community. Of course it's important that volunteers are found outside of the school community to ensure a broad range of skills and experience, however for too long there's been an imbalance and to our detriment.

Will the Council agree to undertake a review of school governing bodies across the borough to ensure adequate/sufficient parent voice and share ways of encouraging both more and a diverse range of parents and carers to step forward?

We've also experienced poor level of communications. 

• This is exemplified by the fact the Ofsted report was published in February

• A major concern brought up by the parent body at the time was the lack of meaningful communication from the school.

• We were told at the time that more open communication would happen in the form of meetings and emails.

• We met with council officers in April along with Cllr Grahl, where we were assured that the improvement initiatives at the school would take precedence and would be prioritised over the academisation process and its related admin.

• On multiple occasions we have reached out to Gillian Barnard (CoG) and J. Parry (Interim Executibe Headteacher ) as well as directly to council officers.

• We were advised 1st July the focus on communications out of the school were to be around the strike action.

• Irrespective of political leanings, views on academiation and even the integrity of the OFSTED inspection and report itself. Byron Court is a school that was rated “inadequate” under the Local Authority. Byron Court  is still under local authority remit . The parents and carers deserve to be informed by the LA and the school  about any improvements and initiatives that have been introduced and implemented to improve their children's learning journey and schooling experience. 

• We have been told that Byron Court is an anomaly and that Brent has 96.7% of its primary schools rated as good or outstanding.

• Many of the problems at Byron Court have been brought about through lack of engagement, communication  and transparency between parents, LA/ school.  

• What lessons can be learnt from Byron Court’s journey post-inspection that can ensure that other schools won't be met with the same possible fate.

• It would be useful for the Council to benchmark, develop & share best practice around communications

Cllr Grahl referred to DfE Guidance on Governing Bodies. This is the Guidance updated in March 2024 (after the publication of the Ofsted Report). My emphasis in bold. LINK

The total membership of a governing body must be no fewer than 7 governors and must include:

• at least 2 parent governors, elected where possible, otherwise appointed
• the headteacher (ex-officio), unless they resign the office of governor
• only one elected staff governor
• only one local authority governor, nominated by the local authority and appointed by the governing body
• foundation governors or partnership governors where appropriate, as specified in the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2012

 

The governing body can also appoint co-opted governors as permitted by their instrument of government and as it considers necessary. The number of co-opted governors who are eligible to be elected or appointed as staff governors must not (when added to the one staff governor and the headteacher) exceed one-third of the total membership of the governing body (Constitution Regulations 2012 – Part 3 regulation 13)

.

Tonight's Brent Council motion on housing fails to commit to council housing

 Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves today announced the reinstatement of mandatory housing targets on local authorities and changes in planning laws in favour of development, including a review of  land designated as green belt as well as  use brownfield and grey belt sites.

She indicated that local communities will only have a limited say (my emphasis):

It will still be in the first instance up to local communities and local authorities to decide where housing is built, but we will bring back those mandatory housing targets..it will be up to local communities where housing is built but it has to be built.

Clearly in areas like Brent, where available land is at a premium, there is likely to be pressure on some of our green spaces. Readers will remember plans to build on the Garden Centre land at the Welsh Harp at Birchen Grove, and the glass house land in Cool Oak Lane. The plans were defeated by a local campaign.

There was no mention in accounts of Reeves' statement that I have read, about the building of council homes. Similarly, a motion put by Brent Planning Committee member Cllr Liz Dixon to tonight's Council Meeting, written before the result of the General Election was known, but reflecting the Labour Manifesto, mentions 'affordable housing' without defining it, and does not mention council housing.

This reflects Cllr Shama Tatler's emphasis on building a range of home types, many of which would not be affordable for local people. Whether taking on the Building New Council Homes remit from Cllr Promise Knight, who is on maternity leave, will change her stance remains to be seen. Certainly her belief in the market: that more homes of any type will increase supply and lower prices, is challenged by some of her fellow councillors, who point to the distortions in the market caused by land banking and foreign investors' acquisition of new homes.

Tonight's meeting will also note the answers to questions to the Cabinet which includes Cllr Butt's advice to to evicted Brent tenants to move out of Brent to areas where rent is lower.

This is Cllr Dixon's Motion:

Declaration of a Housing Emergency

 

This Council notes:

 

* London is the epicentre of the country’s housing crisis, with a quarter of Londoners living in poverty after paying for their homes.

* In one of the wealthiest cities in the world, more than one child in every classroom is homeless and living in temporary accommodation, while rough sleeping is up 50% over this decade.

* Councils in London are spending £90m per month on temporary accommodation for homeless people - up almost 40% on last year.

*The dream of homeownership is out of reach for young people. The government have failed to act despite the housing crisis acting as one of the country’s biggest barriers to growth.

*The government has spent billions of pounds on housing benefit every year, which goes into the pockets of private landlords without creating any new assets.

*Without intervention, the number of new affordable homes built will fall sharply in  coming years thanks to high interest rates and runaway construction cost inflation.

 

This Council further notes:

 

*The Housing Needs Service in Brent has seen a 12% increase in homelessness approaches in 2023/-24 (7,300) compared to 2022/-23 (6,529). The total number of homeless families living in B&B and Annexe accommodation has risen to 485.

*Many Councils are being forced to book rooms in commercial hotels to meet statutory duties. In Brent this has driven a £13.4m overspend. These issues are not unique to Brent and have impacted the whole of the country – but especially London.

* There are 5,688 households in A-C banding on the waiting list. At Band C, the average waiting time for a 2-bed home is 8 years, with a 4-bed home rising to 24 years.

*GLA grant funding per unit of affordable housing is approx. £195k, with typical build costs per average unit in the region of £450k. Brent Council has planning permission ready or has submitted applications for 423 more affordable units, but many face a significant funding gap, and will not be viable without an increase in available subsidy.

 

This Council welcomes:

 

Pledges made during the current election campaign:

 

*To update the National Policy Planning Framework, including restoring mandatory housing targets.

*To get Britain building again, creating jobs across England with 1.5 million new homes over the next parliament.

*To work with local authorities to reform Local Plans and strengthen the planning presumption in favour of sustainable development, supported by additional planning officers.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

(1) Work with other local authorities in London that have declared a housing emergency to calling on the incoming government to unlock the funding needed to deliver the affordable homes Brent desperately needs.

 

(2) Write to the Secretary of State to recommend the following steps:

 

*The suspension of the right-to-buy discount.

*A new Housing Revenue Account funding settlement to increase the supply of housing, improve standards and support retrofitting.

*Financial support to immediately purchase more homes from private landlords.

*To review the Local Housing Allowance available for Temporary Accommodation.

 

Cllr Liz Dixon

Dollis Hill Ward

It is important to note the reference to viability as the remaining elements of the South Kilburn regeneration looks increasingly in doubt and the St Raphaels plans have been much reduced.

Leasehold reform, Shared Ownership issues, a rent cap, builders' responsiblity to fund fire safety work, including cladding remediation are issues still to be addressed in the ear;y days of this government.