Council's Bridge Park deal with developers indicates little affordable housing & no transparency

The site including Unisys, Bridge Park, Technology House and car breakers

Last week the Planning Committee discussed how to increase the amount of affordable housing provided by developers to meet the 50% affordable target and to make the issue of Viability Assessments mores transparent LINK.

Tomorrow the Cabinet will discuss a report LINK on the Unisys-Bridge Park-Technology House development which admits that the amount of affordable housing will be much lower than 50% and where an Appendix with a 'sliding scale' of affordable house is 'restricted' and not available to the public.  The scheme consists of c500 homes, hotel and leisure centre.

The scheme is rather similar to the Willesden Library development where the Council gets a piece of infrastructure in exchange for providing land. As readers will know the Willesden Green flats contain no affordable units and were sold to overseas investors by Singapore agents. In exchange we got a small 'Cultural Centre' which by coincidence is due to open tomorrow. The community lost a good local bookshop, a cinema and an open space.

At Bridge Park a new leisure centre will be built with a much needed swimming pool, but other features of the current centre will not be provided.

Among the lost facilities will be the function hall, small business units, nursery and meeting rooms for faith groups.  PLIAS Resettlement , a community based not for profit organisation that provides services primary targeting offenders and ex-offenders to enable them to integrate them back into society, will lose its base.  They join Stonebridge Adventure Playground and the Welsh School that lost their premises through the redevelopment just up the road. The report admits that despite a pledge to Cabinet in June 2013 to help the nursery find new premises, that has not been done.

The report's Equalities Assessment claims that a positive aspect is:

With a high young population, the provision of new housing in the local area which the population could take advantage of is a positive in that it provides the opportunity for young people to move out of their family home bit also provides the opportunity to stay in the local community.

Even the officers seem to recognise that this might be seen as disingenuous:

However, it is not known if new housing would be affordable, especially given that Stonebridge ranks as the lowest ward in terms of median household incomes.

Of course it won't be affordable, which is presumably what your secret Appendix says!

Another aspect that might set the noses of ex-Tax Inspectors Dan Filson and Philip Grant twitching, are the developer and finance details.

The ex-Unisys site is owned by Harborough Invest INC (Harborough) to whom General Mediterranean Holdings SA (GMH) are a parent company).  The Council will sell part of its own site (Technology House) to Harborough/GMH.

In June 2013 the Cabinet agreed to pursue this option with a different subsidiary company of GMH: 'Tucan, a special purpose vehicle proposed for the purposes of this development'.  GMH now say that Tucan Investments is no longer in the picture and the Council state 'GMH have explained that it would be sensible for the landowner to be party in the agreement rather than a new development vehicle.'

The main report Financial Status Checks (4.6) states

General Mediterranean Holdings SA and Harborough Invest Inc are both in overseas ownership and not registered at Companies House, As such the process for carrying out financial checks on these companies cannot be completed in the normal manner and the required financial information in an appropriate format is awaited. Finalisation of negotiations and entering into Heads of Terms with these companies will be subject to confirmation of satisfactory financial standing.

Another aspects is of course ensuring that the Council (or rather we residents) are getting value for money. The reports says (3.6):

Since the June 2013 Executive, negotiations with GMH have been ongoing through their agent Nick Shattock Real Estate (NSRE) (now Chainwork Capital) [another change of name] to ensure that the Council receives best value for its lands. As a result the Heads of Terms have changed and it is proposed that the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth concludes negotiations and enters into Heads of Terms with GMH and Harborough Invest Inc in substantially the form set out in Appendix 3 of this report [which is restricted].

The Council employed Deloitte LLP in June 2014 to see if the disposal of their land to GMH represented 'best consideration' - Deloitte concluded it did not. the report goes on (4.4)

Deloitte LLP re-engaged with GMH, via their agent NSRE to seek in principal agreement to the various development costs, revenues and timescales. This exercise resulted in the Council receiving a revised offer from GMH as at September 2014. as a result of the discussions between DRE and NSRE, Deloitte LLP conclusion was that whilst they did not necessarily agree with all of the points raised in the NSRE offer letter, the Revised GMH offer for the Land at Bridge Park was above that of Deloittee revised opinion of value (Appendix 4) [yes, restricted of course].

The report goes on (5.6)

Through pursuing a deal with GMH the Council is not releasing the option of disposing of the Council land to the market and not giving other organisations the chance to bid for the opportunity if this had been available  on the open market. The land price has been robustly tested in order to align with best market price and external consultants to Brent have undertaken detailed development appraisal, valuation and sensitivity resting work confirming the GMH & Harborough proposal to represent best value.

The consultant's report has not been published.

Persuaded?

Brent Cabinet to discuss 'transforming' adult social care and budget cuts

The Brent Library 'Transformation' project, which really meant closures, has given the word a bad name but it is back again at Cabinet on Monday July 27th with a report 'Adult Social Care Transforming Day Care - Direct Services'. LINK

Given the history it is worth careful perusal.

KINGSBURY RESOURCES CENTRE

The Kingsbury Resources Centre provides day care services to older people aged 65+ at its premises in Stag Lane. The reports says that it currently supports about 60 people with average daily attendance 25 including 4 wheelchair uses. Eight users have a learning disability. It operates between 9am and 4pm and users attend for an average of 6 hours 3 days a week. There are 8 staff.

The consultation about its future found that 'users do not want to lose the day centre as a meeting place and they value and do not want to lose the friendship groups they have formed at the centre'.

One worrying aspect is the comment that 'Some people expressed that the repeated focus on day centres made them feel like a burden to the council and did (sic) that they did not feel valued.'

The reports says that the concerns raised were 'not unexpected' and officers were 'able to reassure both users and carers by clarifying that the consultation was about providing services in different ways, not reducing or removing services.'

Various options are discussed and rejected in the report including asking 'the voluntary and community centr'( MF that may mean 'sector') to take over the  the Centre's running, a Council partnership with another organisation to share risk and jointly manage the Centre, the council continuing to own and run the Centre but to develop it into a specialist dementia care service.

The reasons for rejection of the options include under-utilisation, spare capacity in existing dementia day opportunities and the lack of any appetite for risk share or joint management.

The report therefore opts to close down the Kingsbury Resource Centre and either sell it off or transfer it as part of a community assets transfer project.  'Spot purchase placements within the voluntary sector' would be made:

Closing Kingsbury Resource Centre would generate a potential saving of £150k on the current budget and a potential capital receipt if the buildings is sold.

NEW MILLENNIUM DAY CENTRE

This is a purpose built Centre close to Willesden Centre for Health and Care and the Council has a 90 year lease. It provides day care to 87 people who have a physical disability, 28 people who have a learning disability 'of which 8 are between the ages of 55 and 77 and could be considered eligible for older people and dementia services'. An average of 35 people use the day centre on any given day and some have been attending for up to 30 years 'and have become very attached top the Centre.'

It operates Monday to Friday 9am to 4pm and has 14 full time staff.

The report states:

'The focus at this centre was to explore the opportunity to support users to access alternative existing provision and to involve them in a co-production process to develop new services which will not only meet existing needs but also support greater independence.'

All laudable but likely to raise suspicion when the Council is also anxious to save money. Rather than consultation the process here was 'co-production' and consisted of 13 users and carer meetings, followed by further meetinsg with carers, visits to Thurrock council to review their service model, further meetings to share a potential model with users and carers and meetings to get feedback on the models.

The report states:

Users were worried about the centre closing and felt that the changes to their services seem to be a continuous process and have been ongoing for at least the last 6 years. They felt the change needed to stop. 

Then comes the reassurance:

However, through discussion users were confident that a co-produced solution would be the best way to ensure that they had more control over changes to that service, and they were clear that the aim of co-production was to develop a more sustainable service which would hopefully mean that there would be less need for a change to the services in the future.

Referring to lack of trust in the Council the report states:

Discussions showed  that this was primarily as a result of the many users having been through changes to in house day services in 2012 and some issues with the process.  Through the co-production process people were able to separate their feelings about previous experiences and the need to bring a positive attitude and open mind into the discussions about the future of the service.

The centre itself was strongly supported:

All users and carers spoke in strong terms about how much they valued their day centre. Users were clear that the centre is special and that they feel like one big happy family....Many users raised concerns that they do not want to lose the relationship they have with staff.

The report says that the co-production process established that  it order to maintain quality sustainable services and end uncertainty an enhanced 'social enterprise model' would be most suitable to include:

• Using the centre as a hub but supporting users to access the community more
• Make better use of the buildings through extended hours, potentially including evenings and weekends
• Offering 'different and more personalised respite support for carers as well as users - including the  possibility of pooling budgets so groups could make  'holiday arrangements at Centre Parks or ehsewhere'.

There are many more claimed advantages listed in the report. Officers recommend that they bring a full business case to Cabinet in the Autumn to include details on structure, governance, finance, risk, timescales and other potential implications. The financial implications would recognise 'the long term challenge for the council so any community enterprise would be seeking to reduce operating costs.'

That is is perhaps the sting in the tail when  the wider 'transformation of direct services initiative has a full saving requirement of  £755,000 over 2015-16 and 2016-17  (£432,000 and £323,00).'

TUDOR GARDENS RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME

Tudor Gardens is a relatively new residential care home. Most of the staff and residents moved from Melrose House 4 years ago.  It is the only in-house, directly provided residential care home left ion Brent.  It currently provides support for 14 people who have a learning disability and has capacity for 15. 24 staff provide support.

The proposal LINK is to de-register the home which the report argues will give tenants greater security and enables them to claim a wider range of benefits, including housing benefit. Housing benefit would reduce the council's Adult Care costs with an expected income stream from rents of £100k annually.

The Tudor Gardens budget for 2015-16 is £872,000  and conversion to a 'Supported Living facility' is expected to save £300,000.

This would include savings through out-sourcing care and support and would affect the current care workers.

Residents wanted to keep the existing staff, specifically individual key workers.  Officers told them that this may be possible through TUPE but could not be guaranteed.

Since the Cabinet agenda was published  an addendum has been added which I think speaks for itself:

Subsequent to publishing the Tudor Gardens report, one of the consultees, requested that two changes be made to the report. The changes requested related to the specific reporting of the consultation and what was said at the consultation meetings.

The first change is in the main report Section 3.6 to provide further clarification.
From:
In February 2015 Cabinet agreed to consult with residents, families and stakeholders on the proposal to de-register Tudor Gardens. The results of the consultation suggest that relatives did not want change but supported the supported living model.

To:
In February 2015 Cabinet agreed to consult with residents, families and stakeholders on the proposal to de-register Tudor Gardens. The results of the consultation suggest that relatives did not want change. They would prefer Tudor Gardens remain as a residential care home. However, they also said that they would work with Brent officers if the decision was made to move to Supported Living, especially if this meant no-one moving out."

The second change is a point of accuracy in the consultation report. The change is required on the last but one page of the consultation report, page 13.
From:
"Most of the residents understood or had the mental capacity to understand the changes proposed in the view of all relatives and carers, and the independent advocate, in addition to attending the meetings the advocate went to see residents individually to see if she could help them understand the proposals. She concluded she could not, and agreed with Ken Knight's summary of their inability to follow what was being discussed at the meetings, where their interjections bore no relation to the matters in hand."

To:
"None of the residents understood or had the mental capacity to understand the changes proposed in the view of all relatives and carers, and the independent advocate, in addition to attending the meetings the advocate went to see residents individually to see if she could help them understand the proposals. She concluded she could not, and agreed with Ken Knight's summary of their inability to follow what was being discussed at the meetings, where their interjections bore no relation to the matters in hand."

Clearly the last change is hugely significant.

Inserting a personal note a similar process took place in my mothers' care home in Bedfordshire and I well remember the confusion, anxiety and depression of residents when they realised that they might lose the care staff with whom they were familiar and often saw a friends.

In turn the care staff knew the individual histories, character and idiosyncrasies of the elderly people which resulted in especially sympathetic and supportive care.

The value of those relationships and that background knowledge must not be under estimated.

As with all out-sourcing the eventual reduction in the pay and conditions of workers is a major concern and particulalrly when care workers are already underpaid.

Let Cllr Stopp know how fly-tipping affects you and what Brent should do about it

Cllr Sam Stopp (Wembley Central) has asked me to let Wembley Matters readers know that he is to head up a Scrutiny Committee Task Force on fly-tipping which will report back in November.

A key facet of the project will be engaging residents from across Brent to understand the impact of fly-tipping on their lives and how they would like to see the Council address it.

Residents can have input by emailing Cllr Stopp at

--> cllr.sam.stopp@brent.gov.uk 
He will be happy to set up individual meetings with interested people.

 As background here is Brent Council's response to an FoI request (June 2015) LINK


1. Please could you tell me the number of fly-tipping incidents that have been
reported to the London Borough of Brent for the following date periods, i.e.
March 2014 - May 2015
 
16,077 incidents of fly tipping were reported from March 2014 to May 2015 

2. Please can you inform me of the number of Fixed Penalty Notices that have
been given out in the London Borough of Brent for fly-tipping for the following
date periods, i.e. March 2014 - May 2015
 
There is no fixed penalty notice relating to fly tipping. In a number of cases Brent
officers use a littering fixed penalty notice for what could be deemed low level fly
tipping, but it is not possible to separate these cases from other littering cases. 

3. Please can you inform me of the number of successful convictions secured
for fly-tipping in the London Borough of Brent for the following date periods,
i.e. March 2014 - May 2015 
 
Brent Council had ten successful prosecutions for fly tipping between March 2014
and May 2015. 

4. Please can you inform me of the cost for cleaning up fly-tipping in the 
 
Fly tipping clearance is carried out by our contractor Veolia as part of the Public
Realm contract. This contract includes refuse and recycling collections, street
cleansing, grounds maintenance and burials and due to the structure of the contract
there is no separate cost for the clearance of fly tips.

The Environment Agency ‘flycapture’ database uses estimations to predict fly tip
clearance costs. Using these estimations, Brent costs for March 2014 to May 2015
were circa £700,000.

South Kilburn SKirmishes over Festival, Music and Developers

South Kilburn Festival this afternoon (Tweeted by @SKTrust)

Following rapidly on the news that Brent Council had withdrawn the music licence for the South Kilburn Festival  at 5pm on Friday - no explanation yet, came this message from the Canterbury Works campaign:

Dear friend,

We write to you today with some bad news.  We are aware that some of you already know, however for those that do not it is with great disappointment that we have to tell you that the scheduled campaign event on Saturday will not be going ahead.

We had planned to have a stall at the South Kilburn Trust Community Festival, however after discussions with South Kilburn Trust they have decided it is inappropriate for us to be in attendance for the two following reasons:

1.       The event is a family fun day and this is what their park licence request is for and, in their view, our stall does not sit within that remit

2.       The Trust wants to ensure that the residents are presented with the facts, and the pros and cons of the different options and do not feel it is appropriate for us to be there to say our side without, we would presume, Brent Council being there to say their side

Some of you have already been in touch to express your outrage and anger but we must respect the decision of South Kilburn Trust. We had already got the balloons and t-shirts ready for the stall and we will put them to good use!  Watch this space regarding our big community event in September.

Thank you,

Anna

Canterbury Works Campaign Team

One residents' leader commented: 'Titanic battle between property developers and SK Trust, with residents caught in the crossfire'

See HERE for background

Meanwhile the fall-out from the Council's decision to revoke the music licence rumbled on via Twitter during the day:

The live music had been moved to the OK Club and this plaintive plea was tweeted this afternoon:

Perhaps things will become clearer on Monday when the South Kilburn Trust and Brent Council explain what exactly was going on.

You MUST see Salt of the Earth if you are alive on this planet in 2015

 

Guest blog from ‘Our Man in the Cheap Seats’

This is the just-released Cannes and Academy award-winning documentary about the photographer Sebastiao Salgado directed by Wim Wenders. If you are interested in politics, social history, environmental issues, humanity, inhumanity, Africa, the rainforests, the power of images or just being alive on this planet in 2015, you must see it.

Salt of the Earth is on at the Tricycle Cinema, Kilburn High Road, until July 30th

South Kilburn Festival still on tomorrow but live performance venue changed

The music licence for the Carlton Park Open Space live performances  at the South Kilburn Festival was allegedly revoked by Brent Council at 5pm this afternoon according to sources.

However the organisers have acted swiftly and the amplified live music performances will be at the OK Club, a few minutes from the park.  Festival activities in the park will continue  as advertised.

 The OK Club - 45 Denmark Road - London - NW6 5BP

Hampstead & Kilburn back Yvette Cooper for Labour Leader by just one vote

Hampstead & Kilburn Labour Party yesterday narrowly backed Yvette Cooper for the Labour Leadership, by just one vote in the third round.

This is how the process of distributing second choice  votes  of the lowest candidate in each round after Jeremy Corbyn achieved the most votes in the first round. Corbyn only acheived one extra vote in the distribution:

First round

Burnham 7
Cooper 24
Corbyn 34
Kendall 11

Second Round

Cooper 28
Corbyn 34
Kendall 11

Third round

Cooper 36
Corbyn 35

This is interesting if a similar pattern were to occur in the national one person one vote poll.

Pedalling for Palestinian Children - Support Kam's bike ride

A message from Kam:

I will be taking part in The Big Ride (Edinburgh to London - 435 miles) in August, to raise money for a Palestinian children's charity, specifically aiming to provide emergency aid for the children of Gaza.

After the war last summer the population of Gaza is still living under a siege which prevents adequate access to basic necessities. There is widespread povertyand a closed environment where people and goods cannot travel freely. In addition to malnutrition, the UN estimates that 400,000 children in Gaza are showing signs of severe psychological distress including bed-wetting, nightmares, aggression, phobias, extreme withdrawal or anxiety and difficulty eating, sleeping or speaking.

It would be great if you could sponsor me on the just giving page below (you may need to copy and paste into address bar) and maybe pass on details to others whomay be interested in donating to such a good cause:

https://www.justgiving.com/bikeykam

Thank you!