Brent homelessness on the rise and worse to come

The extent of Brent's housing crisis is set out in stark terms in a report going before the Council Executive on April 23rd. LINK

Brent Council is expecting to receive 440 homeless applications in the final quarter of this year, the highest since 2007-8.  The rise in demand follows government changes in the Local Housing Allowance which caps the maximum payable for different sizes of accommodation.

While some landlords have accepted a decrease in rental income as a result, others have not and are have evicted tenants; withdrawing from the market or letting to other types of households.

Total current demand on the Housing Register, including homeless households in temporary accommodation and the Transfer list is just over 18.500 households.  In contrast the Council expects only 871 lettings into permanent housing tenancies (Council and Housing Association) by the end of 2011-12. At the end of February 2012 there was a total of 3,136 households in temporary accommodation and this is expected to rise. At the same time the amount of subsidy  the Council receives from central government for self-contained temporary accommodation has been capped and the Council has to meet any shortfall.  The Council has hitherto sought to provide such accommodation within the borough but to minimise costs there has been an increase in out of borough placements, particularly for larger households. Between February 2012 and March 2012 out of borough placements rose from 104 to 120 and the figure is forecast to rise significantly in the future.

As a result of these pressures Executive members are being asked to approve letting projections based on different demand groups. (Appendix D) of the document.

The report assesses the likely impact of the Overall Benefit Cap. The Department of Work and Pensions forecast that in Brent around 3,500 households would be affected. Brent initially though that larger households in the private sector would affected but having worked through some examples they think it wlil be smaller households. For example a couple with three children living in the south of Brent in a 3 bedroomed property could have a £100 weekly shortfall in their housing benefit.

The Council's revised 2011-12 budget for expenditure on temporary accommodation is £2,306,000 which includes a housing benefit subsidy budget loss of £500,000.  As a result of the pressures outlined officers are now forecasting an overspend in the current financial year of £354,000. The temporary accommodation budget for 2012-13 is £3,440,000 in order to mange cost pressures and increased demand. Although the Council expects to break even they state: 'there continue to be significant risks attached to the Council's ability to control demand led pressures..while ensuring statutory duties are met'.

Inadequacy of Spur's Wembley Stadium Environmental Statement exposed

With the Evening Standard anticipating Brent planners statement on the Wembey Stadium application for additional full capacity soon, ahead of the March 23rd Planning Committee. I thought it worth publishing this submission from a resident of Corringham Road, addressing the applicant's Environmental Statement. LINK

In addition I publish the supporting submission from Haringey Council at the end of this article.

Comments on the Environmental Statement (January 2017) to the Temporary Variation to the Event Cap at Wembley Stadium - Document Chapter C - Socio-Economics

There are a number of points to make with reference to the Environmental Statement (ES) accompanying the Planning Reference 17/0368 - the application by Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) - and in particular to the Socio-Economic aspects.

The most important points are as follows:

1. It has almost no economic or quantitative analysis at all, as opposed to just assumptions, and its conclusions cannot be supported in the absence of further work and also a properly produced cost-benefit analysis.

2. It does not deal with any likely costs, and has only skimmed over the so called "beneficial socio-economic" impacts. The coverage and the quality of the analysis are far from adequate.

3. The conclusions under the heading "Potential Effects" are not robust, and there has to be much further and more careful work done to look at the likely negative impacts on the local economy.

4. What about the economic costs of congestion, stress and strain on the local services and population, the crowding out of other economic activity, the inconvenience caused by hugely larger attendances at more much larger scale events at the Stadium?

5. There is inadequate analysis of the location of possible additional expenditures, either within or outside the stadium?

How much extra and additional economic benefit accrues to the local area and population as opposed to just within the stadium? This is certainly not clear from the application documents, and is vitally important in coming to any decisions.

6. The figures in the conclusion in the summary of socio-economic benefits that expenditures of £43.5m and £14.5m (excluding traffic) can be expected locally are based not on calculations done at the Wembley site but are based on a primary survey by THFC of spectators to White Hart Lane.

It is stated in the application documents in paragraph C5.14 of the ES that "if this expenditure profile ..... were to be transferred to Wembley Stadium during the 2017-18 season, this could support (my bold) £43.5 million of expenditure.......this would mean £14.5 million of expenditure would be available for spending on food, drink and other ancillary items at Wembley".

However, these figures are purely assumptions. There is no robust analysis or justification that these are likely to be appropriate, and are certainly not accompanied by any corresponding costs which should have been taken into account.

7. Paragraph C5.16 of the ES states that "On this basis, taking into account employment and visitor expenditure effects, it is assessed that the impact of the temporary variation of the event cap will result in a moderate positive impact on the local economy for the duration of the 2017-18 football season" (my bold).

How can any conclusion follow from the implausible assumptions in paragraph C5.14 stated above?

8. In the document entitled "Temporary Variation to Event Cap at Wembley Stadium..." written by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, it is clear from paragraph 6.5 that the conclusions of the environmental impact assessment should have covered all four aspects namely (1) Socio-economic (2) Transportation (3)Air Quality and (4) Noise and Vibration.

However, in the summary to this document, in paragraph 9.7, it is stated that "this Statement demonstrates that the proposals accord within planning policy and will not result in any unacceptable effects in terms of transport, noise and vibration and air quality impacts".

But, where is the reassurance about socio-economic impacts? It is strange that it should be omitted if there was a clear conclusion that this was also acceptable.

9. There is no clear analysis of which geographical area the claimed benefits are supposed to support. The definition of the area around the Stadium is important to identify, especially if the costs as well as benefits are to be assessed. The costs are likely to be spread around the wider neighbourhood via aspects such as traffic congestion, parking problems, noise and safety. Why have these not been included? It is common practice to include some valuation for these impacts in a properly worked cost-benefit analysis.

10. There is very little understanding of the scale factors associated with increasing the numbers of visitors to the Stadium from a maximum of 51,000 to 90,000 on an extra 31 days a year. A proper analysis would have shown a much better awareness of the huge impacts such large crowds will have. The various comments in the papers accompanying the planning application imply that all impacts will be minor.

11. As an example of the lack of understanding of the likely impacts of scale is paragraph G6.4 in the Summary and Conclusions of the Environmental Statement, which states that: "Minor negative residual effects remain in relation to specific sensitive recepto Comments on the Environmental Statement (January 2017) to the Temporary Variation to the Event Cap at Wembley Stadium ? Document Chapter C ? Socio-Economics

There are a number of points to make with reference to the Environmental Statement (ES) accompanying the Planning Reference 17/0368 - the application by Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) - and in particular to the Socio-Economic aspects.

The most important points are as follows:

It has almost no economic or quantitative analysis at all, as opposed to just assumptions, and its conclusions cannot be supported in the absence of further work and also a properly produced cost-benefit analysis.

It does not deal with any likely costs, and has only skimmed over the so called 'beneficial socio-economic' impacts.  The coverage and the quality of the analysis are far from adequate.

The conclusions under the heading 'Potential Effects' are not robust, and there has to be much further and more careful work done to look at the likely negative impacts on the local economy.

What about the economic costs of congestion, stress and strain on the local services and population, the crowding out of other economic activity, the inconvenience caused by hugely larger attendances at more much larger scale events at the Stadium?

There is inadequate analysis of the location of possible additional expenditures, either within or outside the stadium?

How much extra and additional economic benefit accrues to the local area and population as opposed to just within the stadium? This is certainly not clear from the application documents, and is vitally important in coming to any decisions.

The figures in the conclusion in the summary of socio-economic benefits that expenditures of £43.5m and £14.5m (excluding traffic) can be expected locally are based not on calculations done at the Wembley site but are based on a primary survey by THFC of spectators to White Hart Lane.

It is stated in the application documents in paragraph C5.14 of the ES that 'if this expenditure profile ..... were to be transferred to Wembley Stadium during the 2017-18 season, this could support (my bold) £43.5 million of expenditure.......this would mean £14.5 million of expenditure would be available for spending on food, drink and other ancillary items at Wembley'. 

However, these figures are purely assumptions. There is no robust analysis or justification that these are likely to be appropriate, and are certainly not accompanied by any corresponding costs which should have been taken into account.

Paragraph C5.16 of the ES states that 'On this basis, taking into account employment and visitor expenditure effects, it is assessed that the impact of the temporary variation of the event cap will result in a moderate positive impact on the local economy for the duration of the 2017-18 football season' (my bold).
How can any conclusion follow from the implausible assumptions in paragraph C5.14 stated above?

In the document entitled 'Temporary Variation to Event Cap at Wembley Stadium...' written by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, it is clear from paragraph 6.5 that the conclusions of the environmental impact assessment should have covered all four aspects namely (1) Socio-economic (2) Transportation (3)Air Quality and (4) Noise and Vibration.
However, in the summary to this document, in paragraph 9.7, it is stated that 'this Statement demonstrates that the proposals accord within planning policy and will not result in any unacceptable effects in terms of transport, noise and vibration and air quality impacts'.
But, where is the reassurance about socio-economic impacts? It is strange that it should be omitted if there was a clear conclusion that this was also acceptable.

There is no clear analysis of which geographical area the claimed benefits are supposed to support. The definition of the area around the Stadium is important to identify, especially if the costs as well as benefits are to be assessed. The costs are likely to be spread around the wider neighbourhood via aspects such as traffic congestion, parking problems, noise and safety. Why have these not been included? It is common practice to include some valuation for these impacts in a properly worked cost-benefit analysis.

There is very little understanding of the scale factors associated with increasing the numbers of visitors to the Stadium from a maximum of 51,000 to 90,000 on an extra 31 days a year. A proper analysis would have shown a much better awareness of the huge impacts such large crowds will have. The various comments in the papers accompanying the planning application imply that all impacts will be minor.

As an example of the lack of understanding of the likely impacts of scale is paragraph G6.4 in the Summary and Conclusions of the Environmental Statement, which states that: 'Minor negative residual effects remain in relation to specific sensitive receptors in relation to bus services impacted by additional vehicular traffic in the immediate periods prior and post matches. The additional mitigation measures proposed to encourage public transport will assist in minimising this effect as far as possible. These adverse impacts should be balanced against the beneficial socio-economic effects arising from the proposal.'

Well, this is not good enough. What does 'as far as possible' mean? Why have these, as well as lots of other negative impacts, not been costed?

Furthermore, why has there been the assumption that they 'should be balanced' against some inadequately analysed socio-economic benefits? Where are the figures to accompany this sort of comment in the Conclusions?

As an indication of how little account has been taken of the scale factors associated with the proposed changes, and the overall lack of coverage of issues that cause detriment or negative impacts, the Environmental Statement contains in its Summary & Conclusion the following key points:

Paragraph C8.5: in relation to local air quality 'No mitigation measures are required'.

Paragraph C8.6: comments 'In terms of noise and vibration, it is considered that crowd noise from the additional sporting events would have a negligible impact.....

There are no further mitigation measures that are required other than those considered or already implemented'. (My bold)

Paragraph C8.7: comments in conclusion from the ES that 'The proposed variation to the event cap to allow THFC to use Wembley Stadium for the 2017-18 will bring significant additional expenditure and employment to Wembley and its surrounding area'. (my bold)

Finally, in my view the analysis done for this Environmental Statement, which is a crucial input into any decision as to whether to allow the Planning Application 17/0368 to get approval, is not sufficiently robust to form the basis for any decision.

There are sufficient problems, gaps and inconsistencies in its coverage to require a further and better piece of work to be undertaken and provided in writing to the Brent Council Planning Department before any decision is taken.

The impact on the geographical area close to the Stadium of the proposed changes embodied in the Planning Application is so considerable that this information must be supplied.

Meanwhile Haringey Council has submitted its support for full capacity matches to be played at Wembley.

Leisure Services, Haringey Council, Alexandra House, 10 Station Road, Wood Green, London, N22 7TR 

Haringey Council Parks & Leisure Services support the application for Tottenham Hotspur to play all of its games at Wembley at full capacity.

We have seen considerable benefits for our community from Tottenham Hotspur's work in our Borough with their Foundation having spent time for example working with employers in the area, the Job Centre as well as in schools across the area.

Through an increase in the number of people attending and the size of the events, we believe there will be increased opportunities for local business, greater employment benefits on events days and a general bump to the local economy.

Additionally, having engaged with the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation, we are pleased that this application outlines a further commitment to enhancing their programme of activity in the borough of Brent and expanding it during their year in the borough. Through this work, we believe there will be some real opportunities to develop employment and skills opportunities beyond just event days and not just in industries you would associate with Wembley Stadium or football. We look forward to working with them to develop these programmes.

With regard to the event's themselves, while event days do come with issues for the community, we believe from our own experience that the additional mitigation measures put in place to manage them at 90,000 will make them considerably better run events than we currently have at the stadium. We welcome the extra efforts being made by the Club and Wembley to address the issues which arise regardless of the stadium capacity and hope that by accepting this application we will see the benefit of those measures positively impacting the area on event days.

Brent Council seeks views on tackling child poverty

The high number of children in  most deprived wards

Click image to enlarge

Brent Council yesterday launched a consultation on its draft child poverty strategy. The Government requires each local authority to have such a strategy in place in 2011. The Council is keen to have feedback on any gaps in  the information they provide which will enable them to refine the final strategy. The consultation is aimed at council staff, community groups and young people.

Some key facts:

• Brent has become more deprived. It was the 35th most deprived borough in 2010 compared with 53rd previously.
• The highest rates of child poverty are in Stonebridge ward, Harlesden and South Kilburn. There are pockets of deprivation in other parts of the borough including in the south of Welsh Harp ward which was not deemed as deprived four years ago.
• Overall there  are up to 23,000 children (34.1%) in Brent living in poverty according the the Child Wellbeing Index.
• The numbers of children eligible for Free School Meals is a good indicator of poverty. The national average is 15.9% but Stonebridge 44.2%, Harlesden 38.7%, Dollis Hill 33.4%, Kilburn 33.2%, Dudden Hill 31% were much higher compared with Kenton at 11.6%.
• 72% of homeless cases have children or are pregnant. (This is likely to get worse when the housing benefit cap is fully implemented early next year). There has been a recent increase in the number of young Somali people who are homeless.
• There is lower educational attainment in early years and schools compared with London and national averages and lower attainment evident in some Black African and African Caribbean children.
• The highest number of lone parents is highest in Harlesden (570) and Stonebridge (560) compared with 95 in Northwick Park and 60 in Kenton
• Unemployment is highest in the most deprived areas with a Brent average of 9.3% compared with 8.7% in London and 7.7% nationally
• 7.6% of Jobseekers Allowance claimants are 18-24 years old compared with 6.7% in London and 6.9% nationally
• The Tellus Survey showed that lack of aspiration and fears about future prospects including jobs, further education and money are concerns amongst most young people and parents.

The consultation report says that Brent Council is responding to this situation by:

• Completing a child poverty needs assessment
• Drafting a strategy
• Consulting on the strategy

The Council gives its child poverty vision as:

For no children or young people to be disadvantaged by poverty by 2021 in Brent. Over the next decade we will ensure that each child has the best possible start in life and not be disadvantaged by family circumstance or background by breaking the cycle of deprivation

The problem is of course in achieving this vision against the back of Coalition policies whose overall impact, despite innovations such as the pupil premium, are increasing child poverty through reducing benefits, the housing benefit cap, and reducing the number of public sector jobs. The Council's own scope for initiative is clearly limited by the cuts in local authority funding and some of the cuts and higher charges they have made as a result will also impact on families and educational provision.

Faced with the statistics and the reality of  Coalition policies the objectives outlined in the consultation document  seem well-meaning but lacking in establishing a clear, practical policy direction. 'But how?' keeps coming into your mind:

Our objectives for 2021

1. To provide a safe and secure environment where all children are respected and cared for so that they grow into successful and responsible people.

2. To ensure all children have a happy life and life style to be able to progress and thrive.

3. To provide children with the best possible education in an environment where they can thrive; socially, emotionally, physically and intellectually.  

4. To ensure all children are happy, confident and ambitious capable to aim high and achieve what ever they aspire to.

The officers concerned hope that by establishing an over-arching framework they will enable different Council departments to produce more detailed plans. The consultation will be longer than usual and will involve 15 face to face meetings with various stakeholders covering the full range of provision.

The diagram below shows the framework:

Click on image to enlarge

The consultation itself is qualitative and asks open-ended questions including What are the causes of poverty? and In a ideal world what actions could be take to a. prevent children from living in poverty and b. deal with those who are already in poverty? There are 13 questions in all so whoever writes this up will have an enormous job to do as some of the questions invite mini-essays in response!

The consultation website is HERE and a PDF of the consultation document is HERE
The consultation closes on September 26th and comments should be sent to andrea.lagos@brent.gov.uk

I accuse the Coalition of knowingly increasing child poverty

Blurb of 'Born to Fail?' 1973

A month or so ago during morning play at a local primary school a 5 year old boy came up to me, rubbing his stomach looking at me with pleading eyes, and saying 'I'm hungry'.

Sympathetic school staff  found some biscuits and fruit to keep him going until dinner time. Apparently it wasn't the first time he had made that appeal. 

Inevitably schools are the first to see the direct impact of economic pressure on families, not just hunger but inadequate clothing, worn out shoes, tiredness caused by lack of sleep through living in one room in a bed and breakfast or shared housing. We are also seeing children disappearing from the school roll as they are rehoused out of London away from family and support systems.

Although the Coalition is keen to shift the blame on to 'work shy' families, fecklessness and dependency culture in an effort to divide and rule the working class, the truth is that 62% of children currently in poverty have one working parent. However the Coalition  seem determined to punish children for the perceived sins of their parents.

Coalition policies including the Housing Benefit cap, the Universal Benefit cap, and the move to restrict child benefit to the  first two children, will reduce disposable income and thus amount available to buy food.

The Coalition are taking food out of children's mouths.

There has been some progress recently in closing the gap in educational achievement between the poor and the rich, a gap so vividly illustrated by the National Children's Bureau in 'Born to Fail' in 1973. More recently the Child Poverty Action Group has listed the impact of child poverty:

• There are 3.6 million children living in poverty in the UK today. That’s 27 per cent of children, or more than one in four.
• There are even more serious concentrations of child poverty at a local level: in 100 local wards, for example, between 50 and 70 per cent of children are growing up in poverty.
• Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. Almost two-thirds (62 per cent) of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one member works.
• People are poor for many reasons. But explanations which put poverty down to drug and alcohol dependency, family breakdown, poor parenting, or a culture of worklessness are not supported by the facts.
• Child poverty blights childhoods. Growing up in poverty means being cold, going hungry, not being able to join in activities with friends. For example, 62 per cent of families in the bottom income quintile would like, but cannot afford, to take their children on holiday for one week a year.
• Child poverty has long-lasting effects. By 16, children receiving free school meals achieve 1.7 grades lower at GCSE than their wealthier peers. Leaving school with fewer qualifications translates into lower earnings over the course of a working life.
• Poverty is also related to more complicated health histories over the course of a lifetime, again influencing earnings as well as the overall quality – and indeed length - of life. Professionals live, on average, eight years longer than unskilled workers.
• Child poverty imposes costs on broader society – estimated to be at least £25 billion a year. Governments forgo prospective revenues as well as commit themselves to providing services in the future if they fail to address child poverty in the here and now.
• Child poverty reduced dramatically between 1998/9-2010/12 when 1.1 million children were lifted out of poverty (BHC).This reduction is credited in large part to measures that increased the levels of lone parents working, as well as real and often significant increases in the level of benefits paid to families with children.
• Under current government policies, child poverty is projected to rise from 2012/13 with an expected 300,000 more children living in poverty by 2015/16.This upward trend is expected to continue with 4.2 million children projected to be living in poverty by 2020.

The last Labour government pledged to reduce child poverty with some limited success and the goal was supposed to have cross-party support. Clearly the Coalition is going in the opposite direction.

'Born to Fail' in 1973 concluded:

...if it is accepted that many parents are expected to cope with impossible burdens and that their material circumstances provide a major contribution to those burdens then there is much to be said for tackling  more earnestly the poor housing and low income that our study has revealed, Arguably it could eliminate a large part of many families' difficulties. And on humanitarian grounds alone large numbers of children need a better chance to grow, develop, learn and live that they currently received...

Are we more interested in a bigger national cake so that some children get a bigger slice eventually - or are we ready for disadvantaged children to have a bigger slice now even if as a result our personal slice is smaller. 

How many of our pleasures are bought at the expense of the disadvantaged.

It is not just the immediate hunger that a child might feel today but the way that will affect their life chances in terms of education attainment, health and income. For society it raises questions about polarisation, alienation, disaffection and conflict.

In 2011 the Institute for Fiscal Studies in Child and Working Age Poverty 2010-2014 modelling the changes ahead in welfare and fiscal policy concluded:

The results therefore suggest that there can be almost no chance of eradicating child poverty - as defined in the Child Poverty Act - on current government policy.

 

Although this project did not assess what policies would be required in order for child poverty to be eradicated, it is impossible to see how relative child poverty could fall by so much in the next 10 years without changes to the labour market and welfare policy, and an increase in the amount of redistribution performed by the tax and benefit system, both to an extent never before seen in the UK. IFS researchers have always argued that the targets set in the Child Poverty Act were extremely challenging, and the findings here confirm that view. It now seems almost incredible that the targets could be met, yet the government confirmed its commitment to them earlier this year, in its first Child Poverty Strategy, and remains legally-bound to hit them.

There is no shortage of evidence about the damage that is currently being done and that will increase over the next few years.  The only conclusion I can reach is that the Coalition  is prepared to see children suffer as they pursue their aim to destroy the welfare state.

South Kilburn residents face barely affordable rents hike - (if our sums are right)

South Kilburn resident Pete Firmin has been giving himself a headache trying to work out what Brent Council's 'affordable rent' policy really means. In this Guest Blog, after studying Council documents, he give it his best shot. We would be happy to hear from anyone who can show the conclusion is wrong (with workings!).

-->

At the Council Cabinet meeting on 26th January, a report from the “Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth” headed “South Kilburn regeneration Programme” was adopted. This concerned the approvals needed for the the next stages of redevelopment and regeneration. LINK

One of the recommendations in the document is:

“2.1. That the Cabinet agree to set rent levels for the affordable homes at Gloucester House and Durham Court once complete, at a rent equivalent to the Homes and Communities Agency Target Rent levels.”

The Gloucester House and Durham Court redevelopment involves:

“3.1 The redevelopment of Gloucester House and Durham Court site involves: a. the demolition of Gloucester and Durham and the development of 236 new homes for a mix of market sale (134 new homes) and affordable social rented (102 new homes) accommodation;”

On the rents:

“Target Rents

3.5 On 18 July 2011 the Executive agreed to adopt a rent equivalent to the HCA Target Rent levels for affordable developments in South Kilburn until Borough wide rent levels were reviewed. The 18 July 2011 Executive report set out the background to the rent level change and concluded that setting HCA Target Rent levels on phases 2 and 3 and subsequent phases is the only realistic way of affording the South Kilburn regeneration

programme and avoiding the requirement for large amounts of grant that would not in themselves be certain of being awarded and, if awarded, would require rents to be increased to the new 'affordable rent' levels.

3.6 The Target Rent regime controls rent levels in the social sector. Target Rents are calculated by a formula, the basis of which is set out below. Increases in Target Rent levels are also pegged to inflation and subject to an overall cap.

• 30% of a property’s Target Rent is based on relative property values compared to the national average

• 70% of a property’s Target Rent is based on relative local earnings compared to the national average

• A bedroom factor is then applied so that, other things being equal, smaller properties have lower rents”

“3.7 Between 2010/11 and 2014/15 increases in Target Rent levels and caps have been linked to RPI as set out in the tables below:”

[for tables on caps you will need to refer to the document via above link]

“Last year Government introduced a new rent policy, and for the ten years 2015/16 – 2024/25, increases in rents in the social sector will be limited to CPI +1% and increases in rent caps will be limited to CPI + 1.5%.”

BUT

“3.8 It should be noted that new social rented properties being developed in South Kilburn have a higher capital value than existing Council properties and therefore will attract a higher Target Rent under the formula outlined. Inflationary rent increases on these newproperties, whilst governed by the same rent policy and same CPI +1% limit, will therefore also be higher in monetary terms (i.e. in pounds sterling). This is because 1) inflation will be applied to a higher base Target Rent and 2) the Council will sometimes (and more commonly than the Registered Providers managing the new properties in South Kilburn) not apply a full inflationary increase to rents across its own housing stock.

3.9 In line with the Council's commitment to maintaining current HCA Target Rent levels in regeneration areas it is recommended that the Cabinet agree to set the rent levels for the affordable units at Gloucester House and Durham Court and the Post Office Plus Site once complete, at rents equivalent to the HCA Target Rent levels.”

Problem is, of course, that this is fairly impenetrable for those who want to know what this actually means in terms of real rent levels for the “affordable” new flats.

A Councillor helpfully enquired what this actually means and got this response from a Council officer:

“Your enquiry regarding affordable rents has been forwarded to me for reply. I have provided a brief explanation of the position below but please let me know if you would like any additional information or technical detail.

Target rent levels relate to Social Rented Housing, whether owned by a Council or by a Housing Association. These are based on a national formula that takes account of the capital value of the property and a factor for regional (London) earnings. They do not directly reference private rented sector rents. Target rents therefore vary across properties and boroughs. In Brent, as in many authorities current rents are below target rents but have been gradually moved towards them recent years under the government’s rent restructuring formula.

Current average rents for Brent’s council properties (which for larger properties are below target rents) are:

Bedsit - £93.91 / week

1 bed - £107.07

2 bed - £119.43

3 bed - £130.80

4 bed - £141.63

New affordable housing development is typically at Affordable Rents. These are directly based on market rents and are the lower of the maximum Local Housing Allowance (Housing Benefit) rate and 80% of the market rent (including service charge). Brent Council has a published Tenancy Strategy, that housing associations are required to have regard to, which provides guidance on maximum Affordable Rents. These set lower limits in order to support affordability, particularly for households who may be affected by the Overall Benefit Cap. The guideline limits are as follows:

1 bed – 70% market rent

2 bed – 60% market rent

3 and 4 beds – 50% of market rent”

Still with me? So what are local market rents?

This is where an internet search comes in.

To be as fair as possible (?) to Brent Council I’ve restricted myself to flats actually in South Kilburn, i.e. not even Kilburn High Road, Camden Kilburn or Brent Kilburn North of the Watford line and definitely not Queens Park.

Some results:

1 bed flat, Malvern Road (described by Estate Agents as Queens Park, but then they do that all the time) £260 pw

2 bed flat, Cambridge avenue, £425 pw

2 bed flat, Malvern Road, £385 pw

2 bed flat, Cambridge Gardens, £425 pw,

2 bed flat, Cambridge Avenue, £400 pw

3 bed, Chichester Road, £475 pw

2 bed flat, Canterbury Road, £375 pw,

1 bed flat, Malvern Road, £295pw,

enough, my brain hurts.

Anyway it should be clear from this search of just a small part of one estate agents website what the range of “market rents” is in the area.

Even taking the lowest market rent for each size of flat. this would give the following

1 bed flat Target rent (70% of market) £182pw. current average Brent council rent £107.07

2 bed flat Target rent (60% of market) £225pw, current average Brent Council rent £119.43

3 bed flat Target rent (50% of market rent) £237.50 pw, current average Brent Council rent £130.80

So, it appears that Brent Council aims to charge new tenants double or nearly double current rents. As well as new tenants, these will also apply to those previously in Council accommodation moved in to new properties.

Brent Council has always denied that regeneration amounts to social cleansing, but surely this proves the opposite.:

In addition to the fact that well over half of the new properties are for market sale (and a new 3 bed flat in South Kilburn was recently on sale for £850,000!) this amounts to a massive hike barely affordable for those currently living here.

Task Group: Brent needs to rethink its partnerships with housing associations

Top 10 providers by housing association

Last night's Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commitee considered the Task Group on Brent Housing Association's Report LINK. The task group was led by Cllr Tom Miller.

Executive Summary and key recommendations:
 

-->

The task group looked at the effects of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 in five key areas: Right to Buy, social housing supply, 1% social rent cut, a voluntary Pay to Stay, and partnerships with the council.

This task group supports increasing home ownership and is not opposed to the principle of giving tenants the opportunity to buy their own home; however, that can only work if homes sold under the Right to Buy are replaced at least one-for-one in Brent and that social and genuinely affordable housing still continues to be provided across all tenures in the borough.

Although the task group does not believe Right to Buy will be taken up in significant numbers, it could exacerbate the borough’s existing housing crisis by further reducing social housing stock. Even if social housing is replaced, there is uncertainty about the type of product that would replace it and there could be a time lag between loss and replacement. This will be made worse if already scarce housing stock is sold. Therefore, the local authority should insist on explicit exemptions of four-bedroom family-sized homes, supported housing and specially adapted housing which if it is sold under the extended Right to Buy will be extremely difficult to replace.

Brent Council also needs to consider other supply-side measures it can take such as joint development with registered providers which maximises the amount of social housing retained in the borough, and stimulating growth in other models of social housing in Brent such as housing co-operatives, community housing, self and custom build and community land trusts.

The demands of the legislation means Brent Council will also need to rethink its existing partnerships with housing associations, and the relationships between them. More of the knowledge and expertise which the local authority has could be shared as a way of building more effective partnerships. Similarly, the expertise which large housing associations have accumulated could be shared with the smaller registered providers in the borough.

The task group believes it may no longer be realistic for one local authority to be able to negotiate on equal terms with such large organisations. Therefore, the task group calls for far greater cross-London working as a counter-balance, and for a recognition of the important niche services that smaller housing associations offer to tenants and residents in Brent.

Finally, the importance of tenants’ voices and listening to their concerns needs to be remembered and this important perspective should be better integrated into partnership working.

Theme 1: Right to Buy 

1. Strategic Director Community Wellbeing convenes a working party dedicated to Right to Buy with registered providers which meets to monitor the impact of the policy in Brent and helps to mitigate any potential problems which are caused.
2. Cabinet Member for Housing sets out a common position to all registered providers operating in Brent that the local authority would like homes of four bedrooms or more, specially adapted housing, and older people’s housing exempted from the Right to Buy.
3. Strategic Director Community Wellbeing and Cabinet Member for Housing develop agreements with housing associations and the Greater London Authority which maximise the number homes replaced in Brent, including four-bedroom properties, as well as homes for social rent.
4. Strategic Director Community Wellbeing invites housing associations operating in Brent to fund jointly an anti-fraud investigator for a time-limited period to help housing associations’ investigations into Right to Buy fraud and offer free training for staff on fraud and speculative buying practices.
5. Director of Policy, Performance and Partnership to consider integrating Right to Buy into Brent’s financial inclusion strategy so that tenants are better informed about interest rates, mortgages, cost of major works, responsibility for repairs, and the operation of companies who encourage purchasing of homes under Right to Buy.
6. Cabinet Member for Housing requests that housing associations advise tenants of their financial options, and inform them of the wider responsibilities of becoming a leaseholder as part of the purchasing process for Right to Buy.
7. Cabinet Member for Housing ensures a working party of registered providers convened around the Right to Buy extension shares information and expertise about properties going into the private rented sector. 

Theme 2: Social housing supply
8. The Strategic Director Community Wellbeing and Lead Member for Housing to initiate further discussions with other London local authorities about collaborative arrangements for the provision of social housing in the future.
9. Brent’s Cabinet Member for Housing to consider setting up a forum for smaller housing associations to be able to gain expertise and knowledge in business planning and other areas from the larger registered providers operating in Brent.

10. Cabinet Member for Housing and Strategic Director Community Wellbeing put in place mechanisms to signpost residents to information about the Community Land Trust Network and Federation Confederation of Cooperative Housing and self and custom-build networks and organises a one-off event to stimulate interest in developing other social housing models.
11. The Strategic Director for Community Wellbeing commissions a feasibility study about developing affordable self-build on marginal areas of council owned-land which is not suitable for its own house building programme.
12. Brent Council to update its Housing Strategy 2014-19 to weight available council- owned land not intended for the council’s own house-building programme towards housing association or partnership developments which house social tenants and vulnerable people in line with the council’s political commitments. 

Theme 3: Social rent reduction
13. Brent Council to continue to work closely with social landlords in the borough to evaluate the effects of welfare reform, in particular the overall benefit cap, and to develop appropriate processes and procedures that facilitate the achievement of this. 

Theme 4: Pay to Stay
14. Cabinet Member for Housing to request that housing associations operating in Brent report regularly to the council outlining any progress they are considering in implementing Pay to Stay. 

Theme 5: Partnerships
15. Cabinet Member for Housing organises more frequent forums around specific issues such as rents, welfare reform and employment as well as linking with London- wide housing groups so there can be a useful exchange of information and expertise.
16. The Strategic Director of Community Wellbeing organises a housing summit each year to bring together all the registered providers in the borough in addition to the regular quarterly forum meetings.
17. In collaboration with housing associations, Brent Council develops mechanisms that will enable housing association tenants to share their concerns and service priorities.
18. Cabinet Member for Housing to write to housing associations to encourage tenants’ representation at the board level of housing associations by bottom-up elections.

19. Cabinet Member for Housing to develop a partnership model which is more weighted towards those providing in-demand tenures and housing.

Brent Performance Report reveals impact of cuts

Brent' Council's Performance Report for the third quarter of 2011-12 which is published as a supplement to the Performance and Finance Review gives an indication of how both Coalition policy and council cuts are beginning to hit services.

It uses a  RAG (Red, Amber, Green) traffic light system where Red indicates performance below target, Amber performance below expected levels but within tolerance of the target, and Green where performance is as expected and the target met or exceeded.

All the tables below are of services given a warning Red rating. Therese are the services where improvements need to be made. It is fair to point out that many services also achieve Green ratings and these are likely to be publicised in Brent press releases and the Brent Magazine.

The Environment and Neighbourhood Services department has suffered cuts and reorganisations so it is not surprising that out of 12 performance indicators half have a Red rating and 2 an Amber and only one Green. The others are black indicating that the Council thinks performance cannot be fairly measured against a target. In reading the table remember that there is another quarter to go.

Environment and Neighbourhood Services

Performance indicator	2010-11 end of year	2011-12 year to date	2011-12 current target
Volume of residual waste kg per  household	644	453	427
% of household waste sent for recycling	33	35	47
Tonnes of waste sent to landfill	80,000	59,000	53,000
Number of fly-tipping incidents	3882	4435	3000
Active library borrowers as % of population	18.6	13.81	16.4
% of streets below standard for litter	10.2%	11.7% Nov	9%

Despite the Council's claims made for the Library Transformation Project the target  for the percentage of Brent residents who are active borrowers was set below the 2010-11 level and performance is below that lower target. Next year with the closure of Willesden Green for redevelopment. the figure is likely to decline further. The number of library visits  per 100,000 population gets an Amber rating. The target was 4,834 compared with 6,660 in 2010-2011 and after the third quarter stood at 4,606.

The Council ridiculed the Green Party's claims that cuts to street cleansing would result in Brent becoming a dirtier borough but the figures justify our claim and the residual waste/recycling figures are also below  the Council's expectations.

Children and Families

Performance indicator	2010-11 end of year	2011-12 year to date	2011-12 current target
Net shortfall of places at Key Stage 1 (5-7 year olds)	n/a	-304	0
Percentage of 16 to 18 year olds not in education, employment or training	5%	4%	4%
Percentage of care leavers in  education, employment or training	71%	64%	80%
Number of looked after children with independent fostering agencies	112	100	89
Number of looked after children placed with in-house foster carers	103	109	127

 

The shortage of school places is a continuing problem which has been addressed by an ad hoc mixture of school expansions, temporary classrooms and bulge classes. Coalition policies giving priority to free schools and academies and providing them with disproportionate amounts of funding, makes it difficult for the Council to build the new schools that are needed.

At the other end of the age range the number of school leavers not in education, employment and training is likely to increase in the recession and the situation has been worsened by the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance. The plight of looked after children is highlighted by the number of care leavers who, as they enter adult life, are not in education, employment or training.

Regeneration and Major Projects

Performance indicator	2010-11 end of year	2011-12 year to date	2011-12 current target
% of major planning applications processed within 13 weeks	73	25	70
Gap between Brent and London for working people on out of work benefits	3	3.4	1.4
Number of households living in temporary accommodation	3,019	3.073	2,973
Proportion of residents with no qualifications (gap between Brent and London. Minus figure reflects higher than average gap)	n/a	-4.8	-2.0

The increase in the proportion of people on benefits compared with the London average and the increase in numbers of temporary accommodation are clearly the most worrying items ion the short term but the 'no qualifications' figures builds up problems for the long term.

Central Services

Performance indicator	2010-11 end of year	2011-12 year to date	2011-12 current target
Serious violent crime rate (per 1000 of population)	1.64	1.72	n/a
Serious acquisitive crime rate (serious thefts, burglaries per 1000 of population)	31.82	33.92	n/a
Serious knife crime rate per 1000 of population	2.05	2.09	n/a
Gun crime rate per 1000 of population	0.39	0.43	n/a
Time taken to process Benefit claims (average number of days)	9.77	8.33	8.0

 

Crime usually increases in a recession and although I am not suggesting a direct causal link, clearly delays in benefit payment do not help.

Adult Social Care

The Council is not meeting its target of 90% of Mental Health Social Care assessments completed within four weeks and the figure currently stands at 65%. Similarly the percentage of social care packages put in place within the recommended timelines following assessment is 65% against a target of 95%.

Financial Report

Adult Social Care is a major financial pressure  and although overspend has reduced compared with the second quarter the General Fund overspend stands at £292,000.  In Children and Families' General Fund there is as underspend on Achievement and Inclusion (School Improvement Service and Connexions which was cut) but an overspend on Social Care partly due to an increase in child protection cases following the baby Peter case.

Environment and Neighbourhood Services had no overall  under or overspend with savings from Neighbourhood Services (including libraries and transportation) offsetting an increase in Environment and Protection costs which receives a Red rating.

The Regeneration and Major Projects General Fund had a small underspend and there were underspends overall on Capital Budgets with that of the Civic Centre underspent as a result of 'adjusted profiled cash flow'. It was originally £51m and reduced to £29.5m.  Children and Families Capital Projects which this department has taken over gets a Red grading with an overspend of £5m.

The Department's main pressure is caused by the housing benefit cap with an increase of 27% in homeless applications and 42% in acceptances compared with last year. The total pressure is forecast at £750,000 for 2011-12.

Beneath all these figures are real people experiencing real hardship as a consequence of  the Government's cuts to national benefits and the  public sector, alongside cuts in local authority funding leading to cuts in Council Services.It all adds up to further evidence of the damage the Coalition's austerity measures are doing to people who are not to blame for the crisis.