'Show me your motion, tra-la-la-lah' Will tonight's motions to Brent Council make any beneficial difference to residents if passed? You judge.

 Towards the end of every Full Brent Council Meeting (Item 16 on tonight's agenda) there is a Motions item. By the time they are heard most of the public have stopped watching but it is a ritual where members of the council can enjoy castigating each other and rehearse for their hoped for future in Parliament. The Labour Group have two bites at the cherry, tabling two motions, and an Opposition Group table one.

There are some motions which receive cross-party support and these are usually those that take a principled stand on an issue such as climate change or domestic violence,

The test of a worthwhile motion  is whether:

1. it actually asks for an action which is within the remit of the council 

2. whether that action can be implemented within financial  constraints and 

3. whether it being adopted will actually change any Brent residents' lives for the better.

You can use the same criteria to judge any amendments to the motion.

The Liberal Democracts are proposing a motion on Brent Council's relationship with Housing Associations and Labour has one on the proposed changes to the voting system that  would mean voters having to produce ID to vote,  and another on Adult Social Care.

I have embedded the motions below so that you can judge for yourself.

Holding Housing Associations to Account (Liberal Democrat) 

 

Our Home Our Vote (Labour) 

 

Backlog Britain: Waiting for Care (Labour) 

Call for staffed public toilet on Kilburn High Road to end the toilet crisis

Yesterday was World Toilet Day and campaigners were out on Kilburn High Road  questioning why this busy shopping road, nearly one mile long, has had no public toilet since  2004. 

Kilburn Older Voices Exchange (KOVE) in a leaflet distributed to shoppers said:

Toilets cost a lot to run, but this is a major town centre. There are only four publicly accessible facilities on the street. One is run by Transport for London. The other three are part of Camden's Community Toilet Scheme (business allow us access in return for the annual maintenance fee).

We don't think many people know where these facilities are.

Many of us remember the toilets that have been closed - in Willesden Lane, Kilburn Grange Park and Victoria Road, Marks and Spencer.

This lack of toilets is an issue for all of us. It's a matter of public and environmental health. Disabled visitors and older shoppers stay away. Local residents report high levels of fouling. The situation should not continue.

Surely this is affecting business and sociability and recreation.

What could be done? We've started with a survey of all the local provision.

There could be better toilets on any of the Transport for London sites.

The two boroughs - Brent and Camden - could improve the Community Toilet Scheme.

We believe it's time for something ambitious - a staffed accessible public toilet that reflects the human need for relief, decenecy, hospitality and care,

The Greater London Authority is investigating London's public toilet crisis. They could help bring everyone together - public bodieswith business and community representatives - to come up with an innovative proposal.

Let's make Kilburn High Road a place to be proud of!

Keep in touch. www.kove.org.uk

Call for Brent Council to deliver more council homes for social tenants and end confusion over their use of the term 'affordable'

 

Wembley Matters has consistently raised the issue of Brent Council's obfuscation of the term 'affordable housing' and the need for clarity in the use of the term was highlighted recently by Cllr Rita Conneely, Chair of Scrutiny.

The issue has become more prominent as a result of the Council's intention to change the tenure of many of its planned infill housing on the council's own estates  to shared ownership and open market sale.  Brent Council's CEO, when denying that the council was building any shared ownership homes, has recently confirmed that shared ownership is not affordable for most Brent residents in need of housing.

Cllr Anton Georgiou (Alperton)  has tabled a motion for debate at Monday's Full Council Council meeting that seeks clarity on the use of terminology, but much more importantly a commitment that projects on estates should be  seeking to provide genuinely affordable social housing and not shared ownership or open market sale.

The Motion

Building the Homes our Community Needs

This Council notes:

The pressures on Council Housing stock are immense and will not ease in the coming months and years, rather they will grow even more.

The Cost of Living Crisis, coupled with the disastrous macroeconomic situation in the UK, means it is increasingly likely that more local residents will turn to the Council to assume responsibility for their housing needs. As an authority, we need to be prepared for this.

Whilst we are grateful that Brent has made progress in seeking to supply Council Homes we need to see greater, more urgent resolve to deliver more Council Homes for Social tenants.

The latest report to Cabinet, entitled, ‘Update on the supply of New Affordable Homes’, sets out where Brent is when it comes to the delivery of the New Council Homes Programme (NCHP).

On the 14th November, the Cabinet was asked to formalise a change of approach that would allow Brent Council to deliver only 50% of new stock at Council Rent and London Affordable Rent level in its own developments. While this approach will deliver some Social Housing on Council owned land, this will be at the expense of current Estate residents, reduction of amenity space, and will not achieve our overriding ambition to reduce the ever-growing housing waiting list in a meaningful way. Council Land will be de-facto used to build housing out of reach for most Brent residents.

There are also a growing number of local people in our area, who have been life-long residents of Brent and who are now being priced out of the borough, because housing is too expensive.

Developers, who are granted consent for their private schemes by Brent’s Planning Committee, are not providing our area with the type of housing our community desperately needs.

This Council believes:

 

1.    There needs to be greater clarity on terminology around housing, particularly what constitutes being ‘genuinely affordable housing’.

2. Targets and policy around house building, must be focused on seeking to reduce the housing waiting list and reduce the number of local people currently in temporary accommodation

3. Shared Ownership schemes are not a ‘genuinely affordable’ housing model and are not something that should be promoted by Brent

4. We need to be holding developers accountable and ensuring that a greater proportion of new stock built in our borough is genuinely affordable for local people

This Council resolves to:

1. Guarantee that the banner term ‘affordable housing’ is not used in communications, and instead council communications only refer to “genuinely affordable housing”.

2. Amend the Local Plan to ensure Affordable Housing is defined as being purely Council Rent, London Affordable Rent, London Living Rent, which would exclude Shared Ownership and Affordable Rent (below or equal to 80% of market value rent).

3. Ensure all new developments taking place on existing estates within our borough must be seeking to provide more Social Housing and not Shared Ownership or Market Sale units.

4. Increase the target of affordable units within private developments to match neighbouring Camden at 50%, with a split of 40% social rent and 60% others, in order to ensure we are building the homes our community really needs.

Unhappy Windmill Court residents put Brent Council Lead Members on the spot over infill proposals, estate neglect and fire risk

Residents from Windmill Court, Shoot Up Hill, Brent, have tabled written questions for Brent Council's Full Council Meeting on Monday.These are the questions and replies. The questioners are allowed to ask a follow-up question based on the Lead Members' responses.

 

Question from J. Audrey to Councillor Knight, Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness & Renters Security

You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill Court. Why are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to the detriment of existing residents?

Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court? Carrying out infill development whilst doing nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?

How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?

How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?

Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.

How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?

Response:

You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill Court.Why are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to the detriment of existing residents?

How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?

The Council has brought these proposals forward in response to the chronic shortage of genuinely affordable housing in Brent. There are 24,000 households on the waiting list, over 1,700 families currently living in temporary accommodation and a further 240 families in priority need for a transfer because of issues such as overcrowding. Every home we develop is an opportunity for a family to have the security of a permanent home that meets their needs.

Whilst building council homes is a priority for us, so is ensuring that any new council development also works for people who already live in the area. That's why we have engaged with residents living on Windmill Court early on, to hear their views and create proposals that balance the needs of existing residents with those that do not have a safe, secure and affordable place to call home.

 

We appreciate the concerns voiced about the development proposal at Windmill Court and acknowledge that the building close to existing homes will have some impact on existing residents. The Council is working hard to mitigate the impact of new homes being built where reasonable.

Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court?

Carrying out infill development whilst doing nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?

The New Council Homes development at Windmill Court will deliver improvements for existing residents, this includes security improvements such as boundary fencing and CCTV, which we know are a priority for residents as well as landscaping to improve the communal green space.

Alongside the development of these new homes, it was recognised the need to improve standards for existing residents.

The Council will be spending approximately £40m over the next three years on its tower block refurbishment programme of which approximately £14m will be spent on Windmill Court, and we are already consulting with residents on this.

The proposed specification is comprehensive and includes repairs to the building fabric; new energy efficient cladding; new windows; roofing; upgraded heating; upgraded mechanical and electrical services; internal refurbishment of the dwellings; and refurbishment of the internal communal areas.

How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?

Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.

As part of the development process and planning application, a detailed assessment of the impact the proposed development at Windmill Court will have to existing residents light was carried out. This assessment ensures that the proposed development is in line with local, regional and national planning policy, which is clear about not permitting any new development that will cause an unacceptable loss of daylight or sun light amenity to the surrounding properties.

The findings of the assessment compiled in the report concluded that the vast majority of the neighbouring habitable windows and rooms will retain good levels of daylight and that the development is consistent with the British Research Establishment guidance and relevant planning policy in terms of daylight and sunlight.

 

This will be reviewed and considered as part of the planning application submitted for Windmill Court.

How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?

Our commitment is to balance the building of new affordable family homes with improvements that will benefit existing residents whilst mitigating potential impact this will have on them. Whilst we understand and appreciate the concerns voiced, we are confident that the development project team will implement the necessary measures to minimise any disruptions or inconvenience to achieve a positive outcome for all.

 

Question from S. Culhane to Councillor Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Planning

The Transport Consultant's document submitted as part of the full Planning Application for the Windmill Court proposed infill development contains swept path analysis showing how vehicles can access and negotiate the site layout.

This analysis does not include high-reach fire appliances, and the main tower is over 40m high.

 

Did anybody in the Planning Department ask why?

Did anybody in the Planning Department ask or direct the Transport Consultants to conduct such an analysis?

 

Response:

It should be noted that the fire service does not use very large vehicles as a starting point for firefighting, there are many other ways that they approach a fire, working mainly from the inside. A very tall appliance would only be used in the case of very significant failure of the other fire safety measures, and it would not be a requirement of Building Regulations (which is the main regulatoryframework for considering fire safety measures, rather than planning).

The assessment of vehicular access for fire safety has been made based on the likely vehicles that would attend a fire at the site.

IMPORTANT EDITOR'S NOTE

Windmill Court was one of the infill projects mentioned in a recent Cabinet paper for the 'conversion' of up to 50% of the  tenures from London Affordable Rent to Open Market Sale or Shared Ownship, neither of which are truly affordable for Brent residents. LINK

Letter to Wembley Matters on  Windmill Court infill proposals HERE

Timely new campaign launched: 'United for Warm Homes, Brent' Kick-off event 7pm November 30th on-line

 

A number of local organisations and campaign groups have joined forces as part of a new coalition calling for a response to the energy crisis that ensures no one goes cold in winter.    
 
United for Warm Homes, Brent is a new local campaign which aims to bring together communities concerned about the impacts of rising energy bills to advocate for affordable energy and demand the right to a warm home.   
 
The partnership involves a variety of organisations that work on local issues including housing, food banks, parks, faith groups and environmental protection. They hope that by working together towards a common goal, they can win the fight for warm homes that don’t cost the Earth.  
 
The average energy bill has almost doubled in the last year. Even with the government’s recently announced package of emergency financial support, it’s expected that around six million people will be in fuel poverty in the UK this winter – that’s almost double the number in 2021.  
 
In Brent alone, recent analysis found that there are 95 energy crisis hotspots, in almost 55% of Brent’s neighbourhoods – neighbourhoods where the energy crisis is most acutely felt. 
 
Clearly, the sky-rocketing price of energy is hitting some people harder than others. That’s why United for Warm Homes, Brent is calling for additional financial support to help those who need it most and to stop people going cold this winter. 
 
But financial support is only a short-term fix. To put an end to the energy crisis we need solutions that will get to the root of the problem - our heat-leaking homes and dependence on expensive and volatile gas.  
 
The UK has some of the worst insulated homes in Europe. That means they require more energy to stay warm and therefore cost more to heat.  
 
By rapidly rolling out a council-led, street-by-street insulation programme, targeted first at the most in-need households, hundreds of pounds can be saved each year on the average annual energy bill. United for Warm Homes, Brent wants this to be at the top of the agenda for local and national decision-makers. 
 
This is needed alongside getting UK homes off costly gas for good, which more than 80% depend on for things like heating and hot water. Instead of extracting more fossil fuels, boosting investment in cheap, clean renewable energy will help to bring down bills quickly, because renewables can be developed faster than more oil and gas.  
 
The solutions that will lower our bills permanently are also the same that can cut the climate-changing emissions our homes produce, so they are a win-win for both people and planet.  
 
The new local partnership will be one of many across the UK contributing to a much bigger national movement calling for the transformation of our energy system and a drive to insulate UK homes. 
 
United for Warm Homes, Brent will be holding its kick-off event online at 7pm on 30^th November for members of the public who would like to learn more about the partnership and get involved in the campaign. 

To register for the event go to https://brentfoe.com/WarmHomesEvent.

To find out more about the national campaign please visit www.unitedforwarmhomes.uk.  
 

 
Ian Saville joint coordinator of Brent Friends of the Earth, said: 
 
 

We all deserve to live in warm homes that don’t cost the Earth. But with energy bills nearly double what they were last year, and living costs such as food and rent spiralling, millions across the country are facing a bleak and miserable winter.  
 
No one in Brent should have to go cold just to be able to feed their families or pay their rent. We recognise that there are so many of us locally who want happier, healthier communities. By coming together, we want to build a powerful local partnership that wins the fight for warm homes.  
 
We believe we can achieve this by demanding the solutions that are simply common sense. Insulating our heat-leaking homes and investing in cheap, clean renewables can both save households hundreds on their energy bills and lower costs for good. The great thing is that these solutions are also what’s needed to protect our planet and ensure that future generations have a world left to grow up in.

Local campaigns that have signed up to the campaign include Brent Friends of the Earth, Sufra Food Bank, Brent Parks Forum, Divest Brent, Advice4Renters, Transition Town Kensal to Kilburn, Harlesden Neighbourhood Forum, Granville Community Kitchen and Harlesden Mums who Cycle.

Next Week: Hidden Heritage - An-Nisa Society in Conversation with author Fatima Manji on Britain's long-standing connection with the Muslim world. November 24th at The Yellow, Wembley Park

 

 

On Thursday November 24th 2022, Brent residents and those from further afield will be able to learn about Britain’s long-term links with the Muslim world. 

 

Fatima Manji, Channel 4 News presenter, will be talking about her ground-breaking book, ‘Hidden Heritage’.

 

The event, to mark this year’s Islamophobia Month, has been organised by Wembley’s An-Nisa Society, and will be held at The Yellow, 1 Humphry Repton Lane, Wembley Park, HA9 0JL, from 6-8pm.

 

TICKETS £5.98 BOOKHERE

 

Extracts from Reviews

 

"This is such an important, brave book that sheds a calm, bright light on the complexity of history at a time when simplistic assumptions have become the norm. It is truly brilliant" 

 Elif Shafak

 

"A timely, brilliant and very brave book" Jerry Brotton, author of This Orient Isle: Elizabethan England and the Islamic World

 

"A compelling read about a history of Britain rarely cited and one that enriches an understanding of our complex, intriguing and wonderful past" Daljit Nagra

 

VENUE

 The Yellow, corner of Harbutt Road and Humphry Repton Lane

 

Wembley Park Tube, 83, 182 and 206 bus or Wembley Stadium station (Chiltern Line)

Brent Planning Committee: Tower blocks, back gardens and the Climate Emergency

 

It may seem odd that a 349 bed triple-tower development in Wembley High Road went through Brent Planning Committee with scarcely a murmer last night while a proposal for a single dwelling in Brondesbury Park had a professional planning advisor speaking on behalf of residents and suggesting  possible legal action against the Council,  and a 5 minute speech against by a ward councillor.

While much attention has been given recently to the Council's proposals for in-fill on its estates, and objections by residents to the subsequent the loss of green space and trees, less attention has been paid to what called be called 'private in-fill' when back gardens are built on.  This is often through extensions or outbuildings at the side and bottom of gardens. The suspicion is that some of these are let out - 'beds in sheds'.

Last night's application was for building on the back garden of 7 Sidmouth Road, a house that has already been divided into flats. This was the latest application in a series which had been refused.

 

Cllr Erica Gbajumo submitted the following objection:

I write in order to formally object to the planning application 22/1282, located at 7A Sidmouth Road, London, NW2 5HH.


This borough does not need additional luxury homes which will be unaffordable to residents in desperate need of housing. This is a council which promised to build '1000 council homes' with the intention of supporting our most vulnerable residents in Brent with housing. The approval of this application would be a step away from this Council's pledge made in May 2022.


Moreover, in July 2019, Brent Council declared a climate and ecological emergency, a decision which many will agree was a step in the right direction in order to combat climate change. One of the aims of the climate emergency was to continue to double the number of trees planted in the borough.


The loss of trees, particularly category B and category C trees, will be detrimental to the area. This part of the Brondesbury Park ward is well known for its leafy green nature, and the removal of trees, will harm the biodiversity as well as being detrimental to the leafy green character of the local area.


I therefore call on the planning committee to not only scrutinise the application, which has made a CIL application to fund their unaffordable housing project, but to also reject the application based on the reasons outlined above.

 

A request by Cllr Gbajumo and Cllr Hack that consideration of the application be deferred because late changes had not been consulted on was rejected by officers on the grounds that these changes were only minor and did not require further consultation.

Cllr Ryan Hack made a careful considered presentation to the committee:

 

A particularly worrynging aspect of the case was the officers' argument that despite the loss of the garden and its trees and habitats that the development did less harm than the benefit of a new house. This could set a precedent when future schemes come before the Committee. Private back gardens could be a goldmine for the owners of similar properties. 

The link with the urgent need to take into account the Climate Emergency scarecely figures in the Planning Committee's deliberations.

The planning application was approved by the Committee with Cllr Dixon and Cllr Maurice voting against. Cllr Dixon's reasons were the net loss of habitat, lack of clarity on how the development constituted less harm to the community and concern over drainage.  Cllr Maurice was concerned that the Council may face a costly legal challenge and that the development was out of character being too large and he disliked the design. He was also concerned about drainage and the potential for sewage discharge in the event of heavy rain.

Resident promises legal action if Minterne Road planning application approved tonight

 

A planning application to demolish six garages in Minterne Road, Kenton, and replace with a 4 bedroom house will be heard at Planning Committee tonight. A supplementary report has been published today reporting a further submission by a local resident. The report is published below

A local resident has objected to the proposal re-iterating their concerns that the plan is not feasible and will destroy the neighbourhood and severely impact their privacy as the proposal would overlook their garden and side of their house. 

They requested that the Planning Committee make a site visit to further understand the impacts. The objector has also specified that they would take legal action against council if the proposal is approved.

The concerns raised about (sic) in terms of impact on the character of the neighbourhood, privacy and overlooking to neighbouring properties have been discussed within the committee report. 

Members of the Planning Committee do make themselves familiar with the site and the surrounding context prior to considering the application at the committee meeting. A formal Planning Committee site visit was not considered necessary in this instance as it is possible to understand the proposal, the site and its context from the information available to members.

 
Recommendation: Remains to Grant Consent subject to conditions as set out within the draft decision notice.