Another high-rise development for Wembley but where is the truly affordable housing?

From the planning document

Shortly after my article about the high rise 20 storey development behind the Brent Civic Centre LINK Quintain have put in their planning application (14/4931) for the South West Lands. This is the area along the Chiltern line going south from Wembley Stadium station which is crossed by White Horse Bridge (below) Full documentation for the Planning Application can be found HERE

New developments in white

This fills in the space currently occupied by shrubbery. The application leaves some options which will probably be decided by Quintain on grounds of viability (or better known as profit) in negotiation with Brent Council.

Some of the blocks are 19 storeys high, just one storey below the blocks planned behind the Civic Centre and three or so higher than the Orbis Hotel next to the White Horse Bridge.

Someone recently asked why, having demolished the tower blocks of Chalkhill and Stonebridge, the Council were now supporting the building of them in Wembley?

This is an artist's impression of the impact on the skyline:

Summary of Planning Application

A hybrid planning application, for the redevelopment of the site to provide seven mixed use buildings up to 19 storeys in height accommodating: outline planning permission for up to a total of 75,000sqm to 85,000sqm mixed floor space including up to 67,000sqm of C3 residential accommodation (approximately 725 units); 8,000sqm to 14,000sqm for additional C3 residential accommodation,

C1 hotel and/or sui generis student accommodation (an additional approximate 125 residential units; or 200-250 bed hotel; or approximate 500 student units; or approximate 35 residential units and 200 bed hotel); 1,500sqm to 3,000sqm for Classes B1/A1/A2/A3/A4/D1/D2; together with associated open space and landscaping; car parking, cycle storage, pedestrian, cycle and vehicle access; associated highway works; improvements to rear access to Neeld Parade; and associated infrastructure full planning permission for a basement beneath Plots SW03 - SW05 to accommodate 284 car parking spaces and 19 motor cycle spaces; Building 3A within Plot SW03 to accommodate 183 residential units and 368 cycle spaces at ground floor; and associated infrastructure, landscaping and open space

In the consultation last year, which got a low number of response, out of the 37 general comments the largest number on a single topic was nine (from Consultation summary):

Nine comments express ed the view that affordable housing/family housing should form part of the development and be delivered quickly.

Nine comments related to specific suggestions for provision of infrastructure/amenities as part of the development. These suggestions included schools, GPs and provision for youth, the elderly and disabled people.

So are the consultees going to get what they requested?  The application gives two scenarios for the amount and type of housing:

In Scenario 1 the proportion of social rented housing is 2.2% and in Scenario 2 5%. This is against Brent's 50% target for affordable accommodation. As usual the definition of affordable is unclear but for the developer seems to include the Intermediate category and is hedged by caveats..

-->

At present, the proportion of the affordable units is not known as this will be subject to negotiations, planning priorities and viability. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, a range of affordable housing provision has been considered to ensure the impacts at both ends of the spectrum are identified and,where necessary, mitigated. The range assessed is between 10% (Scenario 1) and 25% (Scenario 2) by unit. In the event that affordable housing provision falls outside these bounds, a review will be undertaken to identify any new impacts or significant changes to the impacts identified as part of this assessment.

Given the amount of housing Quintain's assessment of the number of children in the development seems low. The number of 3 bedroomed properties, a priority for many Brent families is low. Perhaps the developers are assuming most of the residents with be Dinkies (Double Income No Kids).

From this prediction they suggest there is already enough secondary school places if Gateway and  Gladstone Free Schools open (a gamble?)  and the development will have a 'negligible effect'  locally. However there they may be the need for some Community Infrastructure Levy contribution to primary school places as the development is deemed to have a 'minor adverse effect'. With GP's lists at capacity locally it also suggests a CiL contribution to health provision may be necessary.

It is worth reminding ourselves what was promised in terms of social provision for local people at the beginning of the Quintain development, aside from affordable housing:

Anticipated infrastructure is expected to include (inter alia):

· 2 x 2 forms of entry primary school; a new combined primary (2FE) and secondary school (6FE) on the Wembley Park site;

· Extensions to existing local schools; nursery places;

· At least 2.4ha of new public open space comprising of a new park (1.2ha min) and 3 pocket parks/squares (0.4ha each);

·Improvements to the quality and accessibility of existing open spaces;

·A new community swimming pool; indoor and outdoor sports facilities;

·Play areas; new health facilities with space for 14 GPs and 11 new dentists;

and  new multi-use community facilities.

I recommend that among the hundreds of documents you read the Socio-Economic Chapter of the application which covers some of these issues. LINK

Among the positives about the development are the provision of green space and play space for children although we will need to see details about public accessibility and quality. Some of the buildings will have green roofs.

However once again we have to ask, where is the benefit for the ordinary people of Wembley/Brent and what will the Council do to increase the proportion of truly affordable housing for local people?

The case for deferring decision on Welsh School build in King Edward VII Park

I have tried on Wembley Matters to enable debate and dialogue over the planning application for the London Welsh School to relocate to the Bowling Green in King Edward VII Park. As with many planning applications the general public were unaware of the plans.

This will be a difficult decision with the protection of green space and the preservation of a unique institution apparently in conflict.

A glance back at comments on the earlier coverage on this blog will indicate that new information has emerged during the discussion and further suggestions have been made that are not in the officers' report.

The Welsh School is a charity, along with other independent schools, and charges fees. The school however prides itself on never turning a child away so fees are reduced for those in need. However the school has applied twice to become a free school and if successful  would receive funding directly from the DfE. It is not clear whether they will re-apply.

The Gladstone Free School had plans to build on open sports space adjacent to Gladstone Park and this was opposed by local residents and the school withdrew. Gladstone would have been a much bigger school but free schools being built on open space is a controversial issue.

Clearly the Planning Committee would need to be mindful of setting a precedent that may open the way for other applications and the importance of protecting Brent's parks and open spaces.

There has been some confusion over which ward is affected. The Bowling Green, Park Lane school and the land between them are in Wembley Central ward. The rest of the park, including Collins Lodge and the land swap site, are in Preston ward. The houses on Park Lane, opposite the park, are in Tokyngton ward. So far only Sam Stopp. Wembley Central ward councillor has made a submission to the Planning Committee and will be speaking at the meeting. (email address below)

One suggestion has been that a possible alternative site in King Edward VII park that would be more accessible. This is on the disused yard next Collins Lodge. It has also been suggested that the Pavilion would be better used as a community facility for Wembley Central residents. The question has been asked as to why the availability of the Pavilion for other uses has not been made known to residents.

There is some confusion about the school's use of the Bowling Green itself - the planning application is only for the Pavilion and the land between the Pavilion and Princes Court back gardens. The Chair of Governors of the Welsh School in a blog comment said the bowling green itself was not in their  demise but elsewhere there is an assumption that the children would use it.

There has been a flurry of late support for the planning application, many of whom have links with the Welsh School and praise its provision.  Although labelled 'Comments from Neighbours' many are from much further afield. One postal letter of support mistakenly names Barham Park as the site of the Pavilion rather than King Edward VII Park. An early support statement that appeared under a name at  28 Princes Court has been removed from the Council. A neighbour checked at the address and found that no one of that name lived there and the occupants hadn't submitted a statement of support.  Brent Council, rather strangely, accounted for  its inclusion an as 'administrative error'. Other submissions from Princes Court are in opposition. Sports England are in touch with the Planning Officer and will make a submission by Monday.

My personal view is that because of the wider implications of this application, confusion over the detail, possibility of an alternative site within the park, and lack of public knowledge about the proposal, the Planning Committee should seriously consider deferring a decision on Tuesday.

Comments can still be made up to Monday midday to victoria.mcdonagh@brent.gov.uk

The site visit is tomorrow (Saturday) morning at 9.35am

The application will be heard on Tuesday at the Planning Committee, 7pm, Brent Civic Centre. Residents can apply to speak for 2 minutes and applications have to be made 24 hours in advance.
Apply to: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk

To view the on-line comments so far follow this LINK

Standing orders for the Planning Committee (explains how it works, speaking rights etc)  LINK

Planning Committee Code of Practice LINK

Cllr Sam Stopp is still keen to received comments from residents:  cllr.sam.stopp@brent.gov.uk

Brent Youth Parliament must feel free to campaign on youth service cuts

Five years ago Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) raised the issue of alleged 'intimidation' of Brent Youth Parliament members in the House of Commons  LINK

He said:

Recently, my hon. Friend Ms Butler [Dawn Butler then an MP] invited young people who were members of her Facebook group to visit her in Parliament. Many of those young people were also members of the Brent Youth Parliament. Shortly thereafter, members of the Youth Parliament received a letter from Brent Council's senior lawyer. The letter stressed that Brent Youth Parliament is supported by the London borough of Brent and it counselled them as follows: "You will obviously need to give careful consideration as to whether you wish to align yourself with a particular person or group and what impact this may have on others' perception of you as a Brent Youth Parliament member. If you do decide to participate in local politics, you will need to give consideration as to which person or group you are willing to be connected with and any implications of this."

Many of these young people have been frightened by the letter and regard it as a warning shot. They have previously believed that Brent council was encouraging young people to become politically active, but they now consider that it encourages them only if they are sympathetic to the Liberal Democrats. What action can this House take to ensure that these young people are not bullied in this way by a local authority?

Unfortunately I think the problem is related to the way the Youth Parliament is set up, regardless of the political complexion of the administration. Members 'shadow' particular departments and take part in Council Meetings, Committees etc but this closeness, (incorporation some may say), seems to prevent open, public disagreement with Council policy.

In April 2011 Kishan Parshotam, the Chair of the Brent Youth Parliament, in a presentation to Scrutiny Committee, claimed that the YP was being ignored over their opposition to library closures LINK

In January 2012 a youth wrote to me about his/her concerns regarding the independence of the Youth Parliament LINK

Changes in youth provision are planned in Brent with options  ranging from  outsourcing to voluntary organisation to complete closure of the  youth service.

When these proposals were first announced there was an outbreak of comments from Youth Parliament members on Twitter and then silence descended. I understand that there were suggestions that members should not get involved in party politics, which is rather similar to what was said above during the Liberal Democrat administration.

If Brent Youth Parliament cannot campaign over drastic cuts to the youth service which will impact on young people throughout the borough, what can they campaign on? There was a presentation to the Council meeting on December 15th (see below) but I would expected press publicity at the least and public meetings, visits to youth centres and schools, to gain support for the retention of the service.

Of course Youth Parliamemnt Members should get involved in opposing the cuts - as loudly and vociferously as possible.

That is what happened when cuts were proposed by Ann John's Labour administration and the cuts were opposed  by young people with some success. LINK

A question I wanted to ask at the Scrutiny Committee was not taken. The Safer Neighbourhoods Team has spoken about their work to prevent youth offending and prevent re-offending which included work with gangs based on the Cincinnati model.  The police recognised the roots of crime in inequality and deprivation and the remedy in improved educational outcomes and employment opportunities.

They'd had some success and I wanted to ask what they thought the impact of  cuts in the youth service and the closure of Stonebridge Adventure Playground on their work.

Cllr James Denselow's blog LINK in an article on crime in Brent included this:

Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala, who represents the Stonebridge ward, works with youths in Brent. He is calling for the availability of more activities in the borough to divert young people away from crime.

He said: “This is terrible news for our young people. Although it’s important we take tough action on youth crime, it’s also important we provide alternatives to keep young people out of crime.

“The government cuts to youth services, such as abolishing Brent Connexions, which gave career advice to young workers, is making it harder, not easier, to tackle youth crime.

“We need to divert our youngsters away from crime and gangs. If not, we could easily see another repeat of the London riots”.

Now as the result of Coalition cuts Brent is proposing to cut the Youth Service.  The social long term impact of cuts made for short-term financial gain is incalculable.

In Haringey, Seema Chandwani, former Deputy Head of Haringey Youth Service wrote in September 2012 LINK:

Tottenham sadly is now on the map for all the wrong reasons, an area that will long be known as the home of the riots and not for the first time as the 1985 riot also took place here. Prior to the riots, as many Youth Workers up and down the country are aware, Young People from Haringey (the borough where Tottenham is located) commenced a campaign to save their Youth Service. Despite their campaign, in Feb 2011 Haringey Council decided to cut the Youth Service by 75%. Cuts started to take effect from April 2011, the riots occurred in Aug 2011.

It will be wrong to state that the closure of the Youth Service led solely to the riots, but knowledge informs us that a circus of social circumstances leads to social disorder. For Young People in Haringey, specifically Tottenham there is an array statistics that demonstrate a negative impact on Young Peoples lives ranging from low educational attainment, high youth unemployment, high crime rates etc. Intelligence should have informed decision makers of the potential risks of the action they were about to make, especially as the Young People and wider community had told them at every juncture – Young People needed their Youth Service.

There was some self-congratulation at the Scrutiny Committee that Brent had not experienced rioting at that time but the message to the Council must be 'Brent Young People need their Youth Service' and Brent Youth Parliament members should feel free to shout that from the roof tops.

The current campaign in Haringey LINK

Fiona Ledden has left Brent Council

I have had confirmation that Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement at Brent Council,  decided to take redundancy over Christmas and left the Council at the end of December 2014.

Ledden's post was recommended for deletion in the proposed restructuring of the senior management of Brent Council. A new post of Chief Legal Officer is proposed to be  ring-fenced to three Hay graded lawyers, which includes Head of Human Resources, Cara Davani's partner, Andy Potts.

Fiona Ledden was mentioned in the Judgment of the Employment Tribunal where Brent Council was the  first respondent and Cara Davani the second. The Judgment found that Rosemarie Clarke had been racially discrimination against, victimised and constructively dismissed.

Controversially Brent Council decided to appeal against the Judgment and last month a Judge at Employment Tribunal Appeals found that Brent Council had no grounds for appeal.

Deputy Leader of the Counci, Michael Pavey, has almost completed his internal review of Human Resources which has a remit limited to procedures and policies. It will be tabled at General Purposes Committee on January 29th.

Cara Davani continues in post.

This is an extract from the Employment Tribunal Judgment:

With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant,[Rosemarie Clarke] following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made. Indeed, by the evidence before the tribunal a decision was taken following a meeting between Ms Cleary [a Brent HR Manager] and Ms Ledden [Brent’s Legal Director]. In her oral evidence, Ms Ledden confirmed that Ms Cleary’s role at the meeting was an advisory one only, but also that she, Ms Ledden, had not made the decision either. Ms Ledden could not identify who had made the decision

Time to Save the Welsh Harp Environmental Centre yet again!

I don't really have to set out the case against the closure of the Welsh Harp Environmental Study Centre as Brent Council does it for me in the promotional video above.

The Centre has been threatened with closure on a number of occasions and each time schools, young people and former users, as well as environmentalists, have come to its defence. LINK

Thought to be in the 1980s

February 2011

The projected savings for closing the Centre are small £13,000 in 2015-16 and £14,000 in 2016-17. Current projected expenditure is £36,102 and projected income £23,000 (the Centre charges per head).

The Officer's report LINK suggests that Carey's, who currently fund one teaching post, might be interested in 'a greater role which could keep the centre open'. Carey's is the parent company of Seneca the waste materials reprocessing company sited between Wembley Park and Neasden.

Pavey internal review into Brent Human Resources to be published later this month.

The internal review by Cllr Michael Pavey into possible improvements in policy and practice in he Council's Human Resources department will go before the General Purposes Committee on Thursday January 29th.

It should be available on the Council's website a week before the Committe meeting.

The review is much narrower than the independent inquiry requested by many Brent organisations including Brent Green Party, Brent Trades Union Council, Brent Againt Racism Campaign, Brent Labour Representation Committee and many individuals that would have looked at a wider range of issues.

Since the internal review was set up an Employment Tribunal Appeal judge has found that the Council had no grounds for appeal against the findings of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.

The officers concerned are still in post.

Brent Council public consultation on 'Brutal' cuts on January 13th

Brent Council's Borough Plan puts much emphasis on working with the voluntary sector to deliver services in an era of cut backs.

At Scrutiny Committee last night Cllr Mary Daly asked if any figures had been put on what was expected from the sector.

Deputy Brent Council leader Michael Pavey responding said:

To be perfectly honest I don't know how much the voluntary sector can absorb. Cuts of £54 million will be brutal. We will just have to do what we can. We are working hand in glove with the voluntary sector to ameliorate the impact of cuts.

Pavey welcomed the Budget Scrutiny Task Group's report and its emphasis on equality but said:

 But I have to be candid. There will be a disproportionate impact on the less well off. That is the reality.

He felt the Task Group had been harsh to question the limited choice in the budget options. The Group had said:

The range and extent of public consultation, both with regard to the draft Borough Plan and the council budget options was welcomed by the scrutiny task group. However, given the severity of the financial reductions the group was concerned that the degree of ;choice; between various options was still limited and this needed to be clearly set out during the consultation events planned for January 2015.

Cllr Eleanor Southwold remarked that residents who had put much effort into responding to the consultation on the Borough Plan had been disappointed with the draft Plan and felt that it did not reflect what they had said.  Cllr Dan Filson said that although the suggested cuts of £54m was exceeded by the budget proposals which totalled £60m, giving some leeway in terms of the final decision, £35m still had to be cut in the first year.  He said that efficiency savings were much easier to find in a 'steady state' authority than one facing such drastic changes.

Cllr James Allie was keen to find out more about improving returns on Brent investments. He was concerned about always having to look at cuts and wanted to look at income:

If it is just about cuts I have to ask myself, what is the point of being elected?

Cllr Pavey replied that reserves were lower and investing for a higher return would be a risk and Brent Council already had experience of that (a reference to the Icelandic banks).

Michael Bowden, Operational Director of Finance, said that the budget proposals contained no assumptions about the level of  Council Tax or changes in the Council Tax Support scheme. Responding to Cllr Cowill he said that the Council Tax base had increased by 4% as the result of new build which was about £3.8m. The return on investments was average for comparable London boroughs. Any long term borrowing by the Council would currently be at an interest rate of 4.5%.

The Council will be holding two consultation events on the budget on Tuesday January 13th and these will be followed by consultations at the Brent Connects meetings. The paper on savings/cuts that went to Cabinet on December 15th can be found here LINK

The Council is expecting a high attendance at the January 13th meetings with media in attendance. It is likely that much discussion will centre around what services can be 'saved' given the £6m that can be clawed back from the £60m worth of cuts proposed. This could lead to a sort of bidding process between proponents of different services and leave the whole issue of whether the council should be implementing Coalition cuts to one side.

This is what appears on the Brent Council website:

Budget consultation event

13 January 2015, 2pm to 4pm, Brent Civic Centre

13 January 2015, 7pm to 9pm, Brent Civic Centre

See events in: Civic centre events, Public consultations

We have to make £54 million worth of savings over the next two years and we want to hear your views about this.
Over the last few years we have already made a number of savings but, with around a 50 per cent reduction in central government funding between now and 2018 coming we have to do more.
Our budget plans so far include the further streamlining of our senior management, renegotiating contracts with suppliers to get a better deal and focusing the biggest cuts on back office services such as IT, Finance and HR.
Despite these steps, significant and wide-ranging cuts to frontline services are 'inevitable' the Leader of the Council has warned.
Come along to have your say as we look to make further cuts to our budget.

Former Executive member Cllr James Powney makes some interesting comments on the complexity of budget consultation and whether some of the proposed cuts are realistic, or indeed legal, on his blog: LINK

Build a stronger, healthier Chalkhill - job vacancy

Michael Stuart, who has done a terrific job on Chalkhill Estate as Well London Co-ordinator, is finishing in March  and the job is now being advertised.

I hope to publish an interview with Michael soon about the work he has done, but meanwhile here are the job details:

Well London Coordinator – £18,000 3 days a week (pro rata £30,000) fixed term one year post, with extension subject to available funding.

Well London is an exciting and ambitious programme that builds stronger local communities by getting people working together to improve their neighbourhoods, health and well-being. We have been working in Chalkhill since August 2012 and are looking for a co-ordinator to further develop the project.

The co-ordinator will be based in Chalkhill and will use community development, project management and volunteer management skills to sustain and develop current activities, increase the capacity of the local community and build relationships with local and statutory organisations. Key areas of work contributing to the Well London health and wellbeing outcomes include:

·         healthy eating

·         physical activities

·         volunteering, employment and training

·         emotional health

·         social and community activities.

It is important to build the skills, confidence and capacity of residents’ groups and activities to be independent and sustainable and to ensure all sections of the local community are involved.

How to apply:  download the Application Form and Job Description/Person Specification from the link below or email m.stuart@cvsbrent.org.uk. Closing date for applications is Sunday 1^st February (midnight), with interviews on Wednesday 11th February. Please return completed applications to m.stuart@cvsbrent.org.uk. For an informal discussion about the post please contact the existing postholder, Michael Stuart, on 0756 8575 580.

Application Form

http://www.cvsbrent.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Well-London-Chalkhill-Application-form.doc

Job Description / Person Specification

http://www.cvsbrent.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Well-London-JD-and-PS-2015.doc

Advert

http://www.cvsbrent.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/WLC-Advert.docx

Bid to Open Children's Library and Study Space in Barham Park building

From Friends of Barham Library

Friends of Barham Library have identified a second empty building in Barham Park as suitable for much needed community use.

A few weeks ago the Barham Volunteers made a bid to the Barham Park Charity to be allowed to take over the empty Cardroom building in Barham Park so that they could reopen a Library in the area. They have now made a bid for a 2nd empty space within the Barham Park Buildings for the opening of a separate Children Library and Study Space for children and young people of Sudbury & Wembley.

The 2nd space used to be the Council's Parks Department Reception area but has been empty for at least 5 years. According to Francis Henry of Daniels Estate Agents, who is acting as the Property Manager for Friends of Barham Library on a volunteer basis, the room which is around 30 sq metres in size would be ideal for a standalone Children Library for the area.

The room is accessed from the main Harrow Road and is clearly visible. It is also close to the bus stops for numerous local buses serving the area and a short walk from the Barham Park play area and small car park.

According to Paul Lorber, a former Councillor for the area, the biggest losers of the closure of Barham Park Library were children and young people and a replacement library is much needed.
While the Barham Volunteers continue to run two volunteer libraries and second hand bookshops from temporary premises in Sudbury Town Underground Station and 428 High Road Wembley what they need is permanent premises within Barham Park so that they can expand their activities and provide a full blown library service that the local area needs.

Paul Lorber said:

We have fantastic local support which has enabled us to keep going and to run two volunteer Libraries for around 3 years. We have shown our ability to get things done and we now want to make the best possible use of the empty parts of the Barham Park buildings to expand our library and educational service to the local community.

Besides running the book lending and selling service from their two temporary premises the Barham Volunteers also run English Conversation Classes, an Arts & Crafts Club and Chess Club for Children and let their space out to an elders Bridge Club and for advice sessions to young people.

The decision to allow Friends of Barham Library access to the empty parts of the Barham Buildings lies with four Labour Councillors who currently act as Trustees of the Barham Park Charity. The Trustees are due to meet at the end of January when it is hoped that they will finally agree to let local people to open a Volunteers run Library in Barham Park.

Anyone wishing to support the "We want to get back to Barham Park volunteer library campaign" should visit the existing Friends of Barham Library premises in Sudbury Town Underground Statio open on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from 3:30pm to 6:30pm. or 428 High Road Wembley (near Daniels Estate Agents & KFC) open on Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays from 12pm to 5pm.
 

Developers and affordable housing, can Brent learn from Islington?

The issue of regeneration and development in London caused much controversey in London last year as property prices and rents soared and much new development was bought up by overseas investors.  In Brent the Willesden Green Library development was a prime example as the development was sold on twice and the price of a one bedroomed flat rose to £450,000. In Barnet West Hendon social housing tenants are being moved out to make for high rise luxury developments on the bank of the Welsh Harp.

In a widely quoted Guardian article LINK Oliver Wainwright wrote:

Across the country – and especially in superheated London, where stratospheric land values beget accordingly bloated developments – authorities are allowing planning policies to be continually flouted, affordable housing quotas to be waived, height limits breached, the interests of residents endlessly trampled. Places are becoming ever meaner and more divided, as public assets are relentlessly sold off, entire council estates flattened to make room for silos of luxury safe-deposit boxes in the sky. We are replacing homes with investment units, to be sold overseas and never inhabited, substituting community for vacancy. The more we build, the more our cities are emptied, producing dead swathes of zombie town where the lights might never even be switched on.

Islington Council moved to fine 'buy-to-leave' investors up to £60,000 for leaving house units empty LINK and decided LINK to clamp down on developers making 'artifically pessemistic' assessments of the viability of affordable housing schemes:

The council last week launched a consultation on supplementary planning guidance that would require all viability studies to be supported by ‘robust evidence’. This will include details of arrangements between landowners and developers, and information provided by the developer to banks.

Viability studies are commissioned by developers to assess how much affordable housing a scheme could provide while remaining financially viable.

Islington said it has received a ‘significant number’ of viability studies that do not provide underlying methodology and modelling.

These studies are ‘unsupported by robust evidence’ and create ‘an artificially pessimistic outcome’, leading to what the council calls ‘super-profit’.

The council proposes that viability studies that lack ‘all relevant information required’ to have a reduced weight in terms of decision making.

Speaking at a Communities and Local Government committee meeting on 10 September, James Murray, executive member for housing and development at Islington, said: ‘The modelling is often not shared with the council, so we have to try to extrapolate from that. We need national action.

London Councils, the body that represents local authorities in London, said it is ‘aware of concerns from a number of councils’ about viability studies and transparency.

Richard Lemon, associate director of planning at property consultancy CBRE, said: ‘One can be as transparent as you like, but you need skills in-house to be able to properly scrutinise viability.’

In October Isling Council took steps to ensure that there was hoising at social rents at the soon to be developed Clerkenwell Firer Station which had been closed by Boris Johnson. LINK

Another issue is around Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy, 'planning gain' monies paid by developers to Councils to provide infrastructure for projects.  The regulations for CIL in Brent can be found HERE and there is a process by which developers can claim exceptional relief.

In 2013 Quintain, developer of the area around Wembey Stadium, last year challenged Brent Council over Section 106 obligations LINK

WEM36 and WEM38 set out requirements that major new development provides new open space and food growing facilities. Such exceptional provision, which also includes the provision of play space in WEM40 and wildlife enhancements inWEM41, will have an impact on viability and thus will have an impact on Section 106 obligations, after CIL.

I said in that article report that Quintain seemed to want to build dense and build high. It appears from the recent application to build high rise flats on land behind the Civic Centre  LINK that Quintain has overcome Brent Council's earlier reluctance to approve high density, high rise housing units in the area due to their concerns about open space, loss of light and concealing views of the stadium.

Open space, play space and food growing areas do not seem to be priorities at present.

Blocks up to 20 storeys high are planned for the Quintain site

Last year's Localis Report on local authorities and development was reported by Public Finance  said that they were now acting more like developers themselves:

Councils across England will redevelop £13.5bn worth of land and assets over the next five years as part of local plans to turn underused land into a source of revenue, an examination by Localis has found.

A survey of local authorities by the think-tank found many were reacting to ongoing austerity by acting more like property developers.

Instead of deciding to sell buildings and land for one-off capital receipts, authorities were looking to redevelop assets to derive revenue income from them that they can use to help support public services.

To help further develop this process, today’s Public Land, Public Good report called for councils to come together to establish a ‘hit squad’ of highly experienced council officers who could provide advice on maximising returns on council assets. The report suggested that if they could deliver a 5% increase on the £13.5bn assets, this would produce almost £700m of extra revenue.

Certainly the Corporate Risk Register being considered by the Audit Committee this week makes no bones about Brent Council's role. Addressing the risk of lack of external investment in the borough the risk reduction strategy is:

De-risking  by assisting with planning permissions etc. on behalf of developers; Maintaining dialogue with investors / developers. Reviewing other sources of capital finance.

This reflects what Andy Donald, head of Brent Regeneration and Growth, said at a MIPIM Round Table discussion back in April 2010:

What I’ve learned is, when times are good, the big scale projects work well, but when times are not so good, it is best to try and present projects to politicians in a more chunked-up way, where they can generate momentum. Once things have started and momentum builds up it is really difficult to stop it, for funders to walk away. So as local authorities we try and take more responsibility to get things started, which might mean acting as a developer, to take things through planning ourselves, which builds confidence

The Regeneration and Growth department covers both development and planning and I have discussed before whether there is a conflict in these two roles. Planning Officers write reports for the statutorily independent  planning committee on developments that their department have helped instigate.  The experience in Brent seems to be that this approach of smoothing the way for developers leaves out the local community. The default position is in favour of development and a close relationshiop with developers. The public become an irritant when the public oppose developments which change the nature of the neighbourhood or seem aimed at overseas investors rather than local people in need of affordable housing.  The Willesden Green Library development, advertised overseas as having the unique selling point of no affordable or key worker housing on site is a case in point.

That irritation is evident in another section of the Regeneration and Growth section of the Corporate Risk Register when this risk is recorded.

Political pressure from local community/ groups affect abiility to deliver the  new Willesden Green Cultural Centre to budget and time.

That pressure, I presume, is about the new Cultural Centre fulfilling the promises made as a result of consultation and the 'gain' embodied in it for the local community at the cost of a development that has no affordable housing and removes a public open space. 

I think the question that should be asked is whether being 'hand in glove' with developers is preventing  Brent Council from adopting the much more robust approach we see in Labour Islington? Certainly Scrutiny Committee needs to examine the 'deal' that it is getting from Brent's approach as far as 'planning gain' and returns on council assets are concerned.

Dave Hill has written more fully on  Islington's approach HERE

Will privatisation of Brent Council's Library Management damage the service?

There are so many proposals to cut and out-source services under consideration by Brent Council that it is all too easy to miss some important issues.

Labour Brent Council has closed six of the borough's 12 libraries. Now, as well as proposing to cut the amount spent on library stock the Council is also considering out-sourcing the management of the library service as a way of saving on rates. This is the proposal (ENS18) in the documentation that went to Cabinet last month LINK

To change the management of the library service to a trust arrangement. The exact arrangement will need to be determined. Within London, five authorities deliver their services in conjunction with other authorities, one delivers through a charitable trust established by the Council which also delivers other services such as leisure centres and seven have outsourced delivery to a social enterprise or a private sector provider. Elsewhere in the country, some library services have been outsourced to a staff-managed mutual or social enterprise, and larger library services have been commissioned to run smaller ones.  Charitable organisations are eligible for an 80% rebate on NNDR. Changes to rules on business rates in 2013 mean that 70% of the cost of this rebate is borne by Central Government with the remainder being covered by the local authority. Therefore the saving to the Council on business rates of transferring a library service to the charitable sector is 56% of the total rates bill - in Brent this amounts to a saving of approximately £160K. The exact level of savings would depend on the tenders received.

It will take approximately 12 months to complete this work and switch to a new management arrangement.

How would this affect users of this service?

• There would have to be public consultation and a full impact assessment before proceeding.

• There would be no direct impact on service users as there will be no reduction or significant change in service levels or quality.

The  last bullet point is likely to be challenged during the consultation. On his blog  LINK Public Libraries campaigner and member of Voices for the Library, Alan Wylie, explored the issue:

Only a year after being awarded the accolade of the 2017 'City of Culture' Hull City Council are proposing to set up a "leisure company" to take over the running of their leisure facilities, libraries, museums, park ranger and catering services. Now one thing strikes me straight away about this; why are libraries part of the bundle, after all they are statutory and they aren't in my opinion solely a leisure service? 

The answer to the above question probably lies in the fact that most councils place their library services in 'Culure & Leisure' directorates, that someone including the LGA has been perpetrating the myth that libraries are non-statutory, that we have a government and a Secretary of State who fail to intervene to stop library cuts and closures and that we have a chasm in the leadership and promotion of the national service. Libraries have become easy to offload.
So what is a 'leisure company' or 'leisure trust' and what are some of the issues with this model of privatisation?

"What a Leisure Trust means in practice:

• Leisure services are outsourced to a separate organisation/company. 
• The Council retains ownership of the facilities, which are leased to the Trust.
• Virtually all the savings come from rate reductions and VAT savings, which are much smaller initially because of the high set up costs. 
• Direct democratic control of the service will cease - elected member representation on a trust is limited to less than 20% of the board.
• Company law requires that Board members must put the interests of the leisure trust before those of the local authority. 
• After a year the Trust will usually cease to use council services and will be responsible its own procurement and contracting or corporate and other services."

LINK

Unison Scotland have also raised concerns;

"UNISON is concerned that large sections of public service delivery are being shifted off to arms length bodies with very little research into the effectiveness of such change."

LINK

Recently in Renfrewshire there have been protests against plans to pass the running of similar services to Renfrewshire Leisure Limited (RLL).

LINK

And there are similar plans being proposed by Angus Council and Unison have yet again raised concerns; LINK

 “Unison is not convinced that farming out leisure facilities to arm’s-length trusts improves the service for the public or the staff.

“They are not an alternative means of community ownership of public assets. In fact the policy tends to be used to save local authorities tax.

 
“Our experience so far is some trusts perform satisfactorily after the initial separation but the promised savings, extra funding and other benefits tend not to materialise. 
 
“There is no evidence the public see an improvement in the service nor will the trust see a higher rate of private donations, which are often the reasons put forward.”
 
For more on leisure trusts see LINK

I hope that the Scrutiny Committee and Unison will look at some of these issues in detail and make representations before the Council adopts a move that has the disadvantages outlined above.

Planning Officers recommend consent for Welsh School in King Edward VII Park

London Welsh School children at their Stonebridge site last year

Brent Planning Officers' report to be presented to the Planning Committee on January 13th  recommends that consent be granted for change of use of the Bowling Green Pavilion in King Edward VII Park as a school, construction of an additional one storey classroom and a land swap with the lawned area adjacent to Collins Lodge.

The report can be seen HERE

Earlier coverage on Wembley Matters is HERE

It goes to Planning Committee on January 13th (Civic Centre 7pm) and the committee will make a site visit at about 9.35am on Saturday January 10th. You can ask to speak on the application (2 minutes)  at the committee meeting by contacting : 

Joe Kwateng, Democratic Services Officer  020 8937 1354, Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk 

Wembley Central ward councillor Sam Stopp  is speaking on the issue at Planning Committee and is asking for residents' views. Contact cllr.sam.stopp@brent.gov.uk

Scrutinising Brent's devastating budget cuts

As regular readers will know there was concern when Brent Council changed its Scrutiny structure after the 2014 local elections so that there was just one Scrutiny Committee. In the face of criticism it was argued that the Committee would set up task groups to do more detailed work.

On Tuesday the Budget Scrutiny Task Group will present its Interim Feedback on the 2015-17 budget proposals.

I leave you to decide whether this report measures up to the task of robustly and independently  scrutinising a budget that will have a drastic impact on services and thus on local residents, especially the most vulnerable.

Brent Council Risk Register reveals potential impact of the cuts

The Corporate Risk Register is an important document that highlights the risks of Council services not being delivered effectively and the actions taken to overcome that risk.

As the budget is reduced and cuts in staffing take place, as well as out-sourcing of services, it is important to keep an eye on the Register which flags up potential issues.

The full document is available HERE but below I have set out some of the main areas. The wording is from the original, except for the correction of some typos and spelling mistakes, with my comments in red.

Under each heading the risk is set out, the impact, and (in italics)  the most recent action undertaken to reduce the risk: