This Guest Post is the view of the authors and not necessarily that of Wembley Matters. Guest Post by SKPPRA (South Kenton Preston Park Residents' Association).

Yesterday the UN Secretary General of the UN António Guterres told humanity at the COP26 conference in Glasgow - ‘We face a stark choice: either we stop [the addiction] or it stops us’[1].

Here in Wembley Brent Council gave an instant response to the UN that afternoon when contractors for the Council started work on the climate destroying redevelopment of the Preston Library site. In the words of Mr. Guterres - Brent Council have decided not to stop climate destruction but to stop us!

The library development is a disaster for the climate and for our local community which has fought for so long to retain a library use at the site. The local community strongly opposed the development in 90% of the responses made to Brent Council in the pre-application consultations and in the town planning process. The proposed development reduces community use at the site, overlooks and impacts on the amenity and privacy of the adjoining owners, and was found by the High Court in two separate Judicial Reviews to be contrary to the requirements of the Local Plan.

Brent Council was only able to avoid the quashing of the planning consent for a second time by invoking The Senior Courts Act – a Thatcher Government statute designed to limit individual and community involvement in local government decisions. The present Council, it appears has strong addictions not only to climate abuse but to the methods of its political opponents back as far as Mrs. Thatcher in the 1980s.

SKPPRA (South Kenton Preston Park Residents Association) and the residents living next to the Preston Library Site in Wembley have for more than three years sought to plot a better course for the community, the site and for the planet.

Brent Council proposes to demolish the existing Preston Library building and to build a new library on the same site a few metres away from the existing building. Residents know this is unsustainable and a climate destroying development. The proposal results in an avoidableemission of six hundred tonnes (600tCO₂e) calculated using the ICE database at https://circularecology.com/ for the demolition and rebuild of the library building.

To mitigate these emissions ten-thousand trees (one third of the street trees in Brent) need to be planted and mature for ten years to offset the avoidable emissions in the library development.[2]  Brent to be carbon neutral by 2030?

The Community’s initiative not only saves the building and the planet, but avoids the emissions caused by the development, retains the trees destroyed by the Council, and avoids disruption to the underground river - Crouch Brook at the site.

The initiative is a response to the consequences of climate change, the recent floods in the area, and to Brent Council’s Climate Emergency Declaration (July 2019) which says that the Council will work with residents ‘every step of the way’[3]to make the borough carbon neutral by 2030.

Community Proposal for Preston Library site with the retention of existing library (yellow), trees and new housing (grey). The existing library is demolished in the Brent Council Scheme to form a car park.

The UN IPCC report (9^thAugust 2021) advised that this was the last report where there was still a chance to take emergency action to avert a climate disaster. The SKPPRA community and Brent Council know the critical ‘every step’ and ‘emergency action’ now means the immediate retention of the existing Preston Library building.

The Council Leader noting the publication of the IPCC report [4] said ‘we can change our wasteful consumption of finite resources,  .. we can cease to be a drain on this exceptional and priceless planet…. To do nothing is to condemn ourselves and our descendants to untold misery and chaos. This is a climate emergency, we must act now’. 

For five years however Councillor Butt has refused to consider or respond to detailed objections to the development and refused to look at the alternative proposal or even take any step of the waywith residents.

Referring this hypocrisy to the Mayor of London, to central Government Departments[5], to Barry Gardiner the local MP, and to Kier Starmer (Leader of Councillor Butt’s party) received no response other than the advice that avoiding the effects of climate change - was a ‘local matter.’ The UN Secretary General doesn’t agree.

Residents have invested time and resources in preparing an alternative proposal to save a valuable community resource and to prevent climate change.

In contrast - the Council has failed to apply its own policies on sustainable development, refused to explain or publish the cost of the development, and refused to consider any alternative proposals as promised in the Council’s own Climate Emergency Declaration.

Unfortunately, we live in Wembley but not on Councillor Butt’s exceptional and priceless planet.

 

Considering it was a cold weekday lunchtime, a large group of climate activists turned up to  a demonstration outside the Cricklewood Broadway branch of Barclays to urge the bank to stop funding fossil fuels - investments that escalate climate change.  Customers were urged to change their bank accounts to m ore ethical banks if Barclays continued to collude in the destruction of the planet.

 

The demonstration organised by Brent Friends of the Earth was supported by Brent Trades Council, Divest Brent from Fossil Fuels, a cross-party and non-party group of climate activists, and Cllrs Lia Colacicco, Janice Long and Orleen Hylton.

 

Useful customer information

Several older passersby recalled the days when they boycotted Barclays Bank because of its financial support for South African apartheid and promised to review their use of the bank.

 From Harlesden Neighbourhood Forum

On the corner of Harrow Road and Scrubs Lane, the City Mission Church has been part of the community for years. The Church, Nursery, food bank, and many other services (mainly aimed at the BAME community) are in trouble. Despite being recognised as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) by Brent Council, their property-developer landlords have given them all notice to quit by next FRIDAY, 5th NOVEMBER!

Harlesden Neighbourhood Forum is doing all we can to support the church, but an extensive list of other residents and community groups can help the fight. Please go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WRJZCSK to register your support.

PLEASE DO THIS WITHOUT DELAY.

Background

In 2018 Property developers Fruition Properties gained planning permission to build a 20 storey block of flats on the church site. They promised to provide space for the church and the nursery within the new building. This year that planning permission expired. 

The developers have discussed the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) as they, notthe London Boroughs of Brent or Hammersmith & Fulham, are the planning authority. As is usual, these discussions are cloaked in secrecy, so quite why and quite why so quickly the developers want the church gone is unclear. We don’t know whether a new church or nursery in any new planning application is on the table. 

The church premises straddles two boroughs, Brent and Hammersmith &Fulham. Andy Slaughter MP for Hammersmith is taking the lead, along with Dawn Butler MP . Kensal Green Councillors Kelcher, Chan, and Hector are aware of the problem. Councillor Kelcher is Chair of Planning at Brent and sits on the OPDC’s Planning Committee. 

The petition is organised by Robin Brown, a retired town planner and coordinator of the Grand Union Alliance (representing most of the community groups affected by developments in the OPDC area and HS2) and Professor Jennifer Robinson, an expert in urban development at UCL.

In his presentation to the OPDC Planning Committee, Rev Desmond Hall described the activities of the City Mission Church: 

The PCM ministers to an average congregation of around about 250 people but on a Sunday, we may have about 700 to a thousand people attending from the different churches and the different faith groups that worship at that site. The space offers denominal churches servicing black ethnic minorities; we have Portuguese, Brazilian, Nigerian, Ghanaian and Philippians. It’s a cacophony of cultures that come together at 2 Scrubs Lane. A nursery with a large intake of the national educational grant. Most of our children come under NEG places. We have a supplementary school that is thriving and helping to promote higher education for our children in the borough. We have musical educational classes to help develop talent of children and young people linked to local schools. We have an elders program. As you know Scrubs Lane, College Park, there is a widening sector of elderly people; many times they tell us they are prisoners in their own homes. We offer facilities for elderly people to come out and engage with other elders. We recently set up a new dementia project, which was very helpfully supported by Brent and Age UK.

The church says that currently, much effort has been put into maintaining mutual support and care during the COVID pandemic and its aftermath, including the provision through its food bank of sustenance for some 500 persons every week. This is the harsh reality of daily life in this low-income neighbourhood, something that the church struggles with on behalf of the community. It is now widely recognised that deprived and BAME communities have been disproportionally affected by the pandemic. COVID interruptions to the nursery, which provides the financial basis for the church, have caused financial pressures and rental arrears: as a commercial undertaking this ought to qualify for protection under the current national COVID measures for commercial rental properties. 

In correspondence with Wembley Matters contributor Philip Grant, Cllr Matt Kelcher said:

I can confirm that I fully support the local church and want them to stay. Fundamentally, this is a legal dispute between the two parties (tenant and landlord) but I do think there are things we can all do to put pressure on the developer.

 

I have discussed this with the senior team at OPDC, and am also working with my colleagues on the H and F side (this is one of those strange buildings which has entrances which open onto both boroughs).

 

The owners of the building did have planning permission for a co living space which would re-provide a space for the church and a nursery when developed. However, they never started work on this and the permission has expired. Therefore, in my view the status quo should remain in place and the church and nursery should continue to operate until a new permission for development is given.

 

OPDC has also made it clear that any application brought forward by the developer of the site would need to include re-provision for a church and nursery to be successful. Brent has also designated the nursery as a community asset to back this up.

 

Therefore, I do think the two local bodies are doing what they can to put moral pressure on the developer, but also show them that they wouldn’t be able to develop the site and extract any extra profit from it unless they come to an accommodation with the community. But with no other planning application being submitted there isn’t anything they can directly do right now to block the eviction in my understanding (happy to hear ideas to the contrary). 

 

 Residents of Summers Close and Saltcroft Close in Wembley received an additional consultation letter this week, following the earlier consultation on Traffic Management Orders sent to council estates throughout the borough.

The second consultation is part of a statutory process and refers to the introduction of double yellow lines following 'complaints about vehicles parked...that cause obstruction, access and visibility difficulties for vehicles intending to access/exit the location. This is a problem particularly for emergency services and collection services. It also affects the motorist's sight lines and therefore pedestrian safety.' 

This is possibly a fall-back position in case the TMO proposal is rejected.

Parking on the South Kilburn Estate

 In a sign that councillors' mail boxes have been running red hot with resident opposition, members of the council have been provided with a crib sheet (below) on how to answer residents' representations.  It is clear that to be really effective the number of responses, whether for or against proposals, needs to be maximised.

Cost of permits

Cabinet approved a £50 charge, as this was the lowest the charge could be set for the service to be cost neutral. These proposals are designed to ensure that parking is prioritised for residents of the estate at the cost of less than a pound a week. This initiative has not been developed with a view to make a profit but to cover the cost of enforcement on estates. Whilst residents currently pay £10, Wing Parking have made their position clear that they would need to increase their prices to continue the current arrangement, which has limited effectiveness due to legislative changes. 

What percentage of residents will have to vote for the consultation to be valid?

There is no specific percentage for the consultation to be valid but a 20% response rate is viewed as the norm. As we did with the pilot, if estates have a very low turnout, we will repeat the consultation with increased door knocking. 

What will happen if there is a low turnout but a clear majority?

We will review each the results of each estate on an individual basis, and if they have a very low turnout, we will repeat the consultation with increased door knocking. If there is a low turnout, but a clear majority and support from other consultees, e.g. emergency services, then we will proceed with implementation. 

What happens if residents on an estate say no to the proposal?

The current arrangement with Wing Parking is no longer operable and if residents vote against the proposals, it will not continue. Introducing a traffic management order is the only viable way to maintain enforcement on Brent Housing estates. It is important that we are honest with residents on this position, as it would be unfair if we did not make this point clear as part of the consultation. If the outcome for an estate is not to go ahead, and there are no significant risks to emergency services or recycling and refuse, this will be honoured. 

Should we have waited for the pilot sites to be fully implemented before consulting with the wider estates?

We know from other local authorities the effectiveness of traffic management orders and introducing off street controlled parking on council estates. Wing Parking have made it clear the current arrangement is no longer operable and they are taking action to end their existing contract with other Local Authorities. It is essential we consult with residents now to ensure they have a choice mitigating the risk of Wing Parking withdrawing the service and no available alternative. 

Visitor Parking

We will be offering visitor permits, but as part of the implementation, we must ensure permits firstly go to those residents living on the estate. Please note this will not affect any professional services required, such as carers or health visitors. Under the new proposal, we will be replicating the current highways offer. Information on what is available for older and disabled people is available on the Councils website  LINK 

Parking for Council Contractors

The arrangement that we have with trades’ people will continue and council contractors will be provided with permits to ensure they can continue carrying out repairs. Like with our current arrangement, no one is guaranteed a space. 

Will motorbikes need a permit?

All vehicles will require a permit to park on the estate where they are using a bay. As part of the consultation, if there are a number of motorbike users on the estate, the provision for dedicated motorbike parking can be requested by residents. 

Blue Badges

Where there are disabled bays already marked, they will be replaced like-for-like. If, however, there are residents, with a blue badge and no marked bays, they can apply for a bay to be converted and this can be delivered during implementation. Residents with a Blue Badge living on the estate will still be required to purchase a parking permit. 

Not enough parking on the estate

On the reduction of parking, unfortunately, residents will feel disgruntled and frustrated about parking becoming more pressured. This is an issue experienced nationally, but is magnified in London because of the limited space. 

Residents have raised concerns that building on garage sites has affected parking availability further. As a borough, there are hard decisions, which need to be made on how space is used, particularly as without new affordable homes in the borough Brent residents will not be able to stay in their community. We are incredibly proud of the New Council Homes programme and when there is a decision between providing new homes or retaining garage sites, providing new affordable homes is the priority. We have a waiting list where homeless families on average wait 16 years for a three bedroom home, and we know it is important to Brent residents that their family in the future have the choice to stay in Brent and live in affordable housing. 

Separately, Brent is a highly connected borough and as a Council, our members have declared a climate emergency. One of the key themes being discussed at COP26 is changing behaviours and how people move around in their communities. With more people than ever working from home, the RAC Foundation published that cars spend on average 23 hours of each day parked. We must continue to provide strong leadership on this and push people to think about how space can be used more effectively, whether this be for homes, play, exercise or the community rather than continuing a reliance on cars and car parks. This is further supported by the ULEZ charge to discourage high polluting vehicles being driven in London. 

For some residents, driving is the only option, which is why we do want to protect the parking that is available for those who actually live on the estates. For this to be successful, we do need residents who are able to, to think differently about how they move about. 

Women’s safety

The safety of women is a top priority, and we take our responsibility with the utmost seriousness. We continue to work with all partners to make the borough a safer place for everyone. 

We as a Landlord participate proactively in the Brent Safer Partnership and Violence against Women and Girls steering group to ensure we can do as much as possible. There is no existing evidence that these proposed changes will increase risk to women living on Brent Council Estates. We understand how recent tragedies have left residents, particularly women feeling vulnerable and angry. We strongly believe that our focus needs to be on taking action to ensure women can walk anywhere in the borough and feel safe to do so.

 

Six months ago LINK Wembley Matters wrote about a legal challenge to Brent Council's policy of not allowing homeless people on to the council housing list and thus unable to  bid for council housing. Shadacia White, the subject of the case, won her individual right to bid but wanted to pursue the case so that others in a similar situation would benefit.

At the time I asked Brent Council a key question:

I am planning to write about Osbornes' claim and ask that  you confirm that the Council accepts its policy is unlawful and that it intends to change the policy.

 I received no answer.

 In a blog LINK  Garden Court Chambers Housing Team take up the story:

A homeless teenager has forced a London Council to overturn its unlawful housing policy – helping more than 1,200 homeless individuals and families onto the council housing list.

Shadacia White, 18, was due to take Brent Council to the High Court on Wednesday (27 October) to stop Brent from unlawfully preventing homeless people from bidding for a council house.

But with the help of Tim Baldwin, of the Garden Court Chambers Housing Team, and housing litigation specialists at London law firm Osbornes Law, she had managed to make Brent change their policy and to put things right for those who had been affected, on the eve of the High Court hearing.

Figures from the council revealed that 1,233 homeless households who were previously deemed ineligible for council housing would have their applications for social housing updated from 29 October to allow them to finally bid for a home.

Shadacia, a university marketing student, previously won her own case to be placed on the council housing list but wanted to continue the fight to get Brent to change the policy for all homeless people.

Hundreds of homeless people in the borough have been prevented from bidding for housing for the past eight years, as they were deemed ‘no priority’.

Shadacia said:

We have finally achieved justice for the hundreds of homeless people in Brent who have been banned from bidding on the housing list despite being homeless and legal right to bid. Surely those who are homeless need a home the most, yet Brent has been illegally banning them from being placed on a housing list or placing them into the lowest priority ‘Band D’ so that they could not bid? When I won my own case I wanted to keep on fighting for all of those who are affected by this inhumane policy.

While I am pleased that Brent has finally changed its policy, it really shouldn’t have taken a homeless teenage student standing up against them to change it.

Shadacia White was originally told she would not even be considered for a house by Brent Council despite being homeless and living in temporary accommodation before she won her case and was placed on the housing list.

Shadacia, who currently lives in temporary accommodation with her mother, sister and autistic brother, has been ‘sofa surfing’ throughout her childhood. She says her childhood was hard as she rarely had a home.

She said:

The last few years have been a struggle and there were times when mum took us to Heathrow to sleep as we had nowhere else to go. Mum would just walk around all day in the cold. I went into school and told them what was happening and that I just wanted somewhere warm to stay and they got me a social worker and temporary accommodation.

Brent Council’s allocation scheme currently places applicants in priority bands D to A, where A is the highest priority. People in higher priority bands out-bid people in lower priority bands who express an interest in the same property on Brent’s housing register. People in band D are not allowed to bid at all.

Brent’s scheme currently says homeless applicants have ‘no priority’ and will be placed in band D, so that they can’t bid. The only exception to this is if Brent had accepted a ‘main housing duty’ towards a homelessness applicant. This requires the applicant to meet specific criteria that goes beyond being homeless, such as having a serious enough health condition.

The law says Brent has to give ‘reasonable preference’ to homeless people even if they are not owed the ‘main housing duty’, meaning that the current policy is unlawful.

Sam O’Flaherty, a specialist housing litigation solicitor at Osbornes Law, who represents Shadacia, said:

We are delighted that Brent has agreed to reverse its policy around placing homeless people on the housing list. It is unfortunate that we needed to issue proceedings to ensure that this happened and was done properly. As a result of Shadacia’s claim, not only have Brent agreed to change their policy by February 2022, but they have also agreed to a series of measures to ensure that homeless households do not continue to be deprived of their right to bid for social housing in the meantime, and for previously affected homeless households to be contacted and given an opportunity to join the Housing Register and bid if they are still eligible.

 Regrettably, I am not confident this would have been achieved without Shadacia having fought this all the way to the High Court. It is a testament to her that she has managed to achieve this and continued to fight even when she had won her own case.

Brent Council says that did not know about the issue with their policy until Shadacia’s solicitors wrote to them on 11 March, 2021 raising it.

The judicial review proceedings in the High Court have now been put on hold until 15 March next year to allow Brent to carry out its promised changes. Shadacia can restart proceedings before that date if Brent fail to do so.

Rev. Desmond Hall of the City Mission Church, Harlesden that has been threated with eviction  from its premises by developers Fruition, has just commented:

As a result of the collective effort and the intervention of Andy Slaughter MP, Mr David Lunt, the CEO of the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation, (OPDC) spoke to the Trustees of the church, expressing his full support for the church by promising to have open dialogue with the developers to restore matters. 

 

OPDC intend to act as brokers for the situation.

The Trustees of the church have expressed their deep gratitude to everyone involved, even though as yet the situation is not fully resolved. Today, the outcome is moving in the right direction.

 An attempt at an Underground style map of London's 'lost rivers' and sewers (Heritage Magazine)

A follow-up post to  David Walton’s 'After the July floods urgent action needed on the depleted flood defences of South Kilburn as densification continues'. Proposed here are some sustainable environmental actions for Brent Master Developer to apply to its large South Kilburn site.

Brent as the South Kilburn Master Developer relentlessly prepares building designs, complete with planning permissions,  gift wrapped for hard to trace private enclosure, for freehold buyers/ builders on publicly owned existing South Kilburn flood defences.  All this amidst existing publicly owned social housing. Surely it constitutes major government intervention in the markets. the direct opposite of what government claims it stands for?

What makes off-shored private equity so worthy of being made this special case?

On the South Kilburn floodplain, government has designated a very large site/ growth area/ tall building zone; with 'site allocations’, Brent designed with planning permissions already in place ready for sale to private developers. The key for South Kilburn residents’ human rights, safety and future wellbeing must be that the River Westbourne and its tributaries existence should no longer be ignored by government.  Decision makers are frantically trading proposed new building site allocations with planning permissions in this flood plain zone. A third of England's flood defences are in private hands, but what about the two thirds which are in public hands and under government guardianship?

The deliberate denial of obvious flood risk, when comprehensive natural flood defences were designed and were protectively already in place (the estate’s original housing in designed flood protection park land), is an apocalyptic 'cancel- for- market' strategic device not used before in London. And not unlike using inflammable materials to cheaply build new homes or attempting to allow a deadly virus with no vaccine or cure to rip through society for herd immunity, this human exploitation scandal also deserves an emergency re-think, if all buildings in this water world area of London both old and new are not to be, by this environment cancel sleight of hand rendered  'sick buildings' by year 2041.

All South Kilburn natural flood defences which have survived this brutal public flood defence's land transfer to the market must in 2021 be strongly protected, highly valued and CIL upgraded as recreation and natural water store public spaces. While flood defences already been destroyed and replaced by new 'sick building private enclosures',  CIL funded replacements nearby must be installed in a new spirit of  real world UK climate emergency action. And why not restore residents on a partnership board for South Kilburn's very large site to steer and oversee the 35+ new 'sites' towards 2041?  The age of highly lucrative ignoring of environmental concerns and residents’ total exclusion to enable  'smooth process', clearly needs to end given the emergency situation which has become all too apparent to everyone living here. You walk past new blocks and smell the damp!

A basic principle for the large South Kilburn site, given its extensive flooding history and ever rising floodplain water table, should be that water is retained safely on site and that roads are no longer designed to function as sewage canals bringing ever more water down from Camden and St John's Wood and then exporting that excess on to parts of Maida Vale from South Kilburn land.

Living roof gardens, water butts and genuine estate wide active growing initiatives should be urgent policy for all developments (old and new) - the principle being to control water before it overloads London's crumbling Victorian drainage system from this mega density 36,000 new town called South Kilburn ‘Colony’. In Costa Rica a pioneering Earthshot winning project pays local citizens to restore natural ecosystems and has led to incredible levels of environmental protection and awareness. Why is this considered impossible in South Kilburn’s very large site development?

 The River Westbourne flows above Sloane Square station

1. This 'very large site' of clearances/ new builds ongoing since 2005 is mainly car-free housing given that two underground stations and a rail station are located in this zone. Instead of increasing adopted roads (sewage flood canals) in grids (the current hardscape in Brent’s rigid plan)- perhaps generous scale green, plant growing, active travel routes is the progressive and climate response and the  best way to develop movement and to link this with protecting and improving the plan that currently neglects surviving South Kilburn flood defence parkland?

All Brent highways land in South Kilburn tall building zone's 45 hectares can be re-purposed as flood defence active travel, plant growing ,widened green corridors.

As well as this being good for Brent taxpayer's long-term, just look at the 'sick buildings' scandals throughout South Kilburn, where for example it now costs more to repair buildings new built on a flood defence than it originally cost to first build them! A‘flood risk always reduced from now on‘approach as proposed here would be good for Carlton vale, good for Maida vale, good for Bayswater and good for Knightsbridge, where the River Westbourne and its tributaries flow.

2. Building on every South Kilburn space should be seriously questioned.

Where will extra water gathering on this floodplain go if not into people's homes (old and new) given the water always present near the surface? South Kilburn Land simply never dries-out!

Government should no longer environmentally cancel the River Westbourne and its tributaries as policy. COP 26 and Brent Councils own long declared 'Climate Emergency' need to become real (not zoned) for South Kilburn peoples’ lives and this estate of 'sites' all too obvious flood risk environment recognised. Note my neighbours’ living at ground level are flooded out and living in temporary accommodation along with many other local flood families. Dehumidifiers are still drying these flats out and it is November!

3. Opportunities to upgrade rather than total destroy South Kilburn's entire surviving rivers flood defence system also include:

a. Making more space for water. Higgins, a developer at Chippenham Gardens village, South Kilburn where the River Westbourne and the Malvern join is building 56 flats on top of this flood risk basin to Brent Master Developers’ design. Local people have managed to protect the historic flood defence local (reduced in size) park also located here (this based on veteran trees being preserved). However, Brent remains rigidly opposed to improving the flood defence 'pond' potential of this green space by expanding its size, scale, space, volume and depth, by re-purposing three adjacent parking bays and then squaring this off as replacement for flood defence land lost to the new Higgins development.

Plenty of children live in flats above and in basements below, the 50 plus Victorian shops of Chippenham Gardens local centre without gardens or balconies. As it currently stands this green space flood defence will be considerably reduced in size by Brent’s over-building ( so no play equipment space anymore) and will also be design ineffective in its core purpose of protecting lives and homes in this densely populated key local centre (where 11 routes and 3+ rivers meet) from sewage flood major risk liability. Given July floods such disregard of this very specific flood defence improvement 2021 opportunity seems reckless and ill advised.

b. Give Local Green Space Designation to South Kilburn Public Open Space, Brent Kilburn’s only remaining park scale natural flood defence. This large park forms an excellent rain garden, pooling surface flood waters for a week then gradually absorbing them. Vital to public health and safety of this very large site and clearly should no longer be Brent 'banked' as surplus brownfield flood defence land for sale with Brent building designs/ planning permissions.

This 100+ veteran tree woodland space must be strong protected with a Local Green Space Designation policy by Brent being climate actioned  for 2021. (The grass cutting tractor could also leave 2 metre of space wild around all 100+ trees to better support the local ecosystem and increase flood waters soak-up speeds yet further).

c. The removal of the large roundabout park of 40 trees flood defence on Kilburn Park Road in 2008 which also used to retain, pond and absorb flood waters has as a result become sewage flooded with highly problematic sick buildings instead.

Westminster has a retirement home that has become a ‘development site' with green space opposite this Brent major flood defence loss. Tanked/sealed underground car parks (once pumped of rising flood plain ground water), mean that Westminster developers can send its entire future excessive water problem on and into Brent homes, particularly into a brand new high density housing scheme which Brent has recently purchased! This Westminster 'site' could work well as a new underground flood water storage defence instead. Veteran trees on this site also need protecting.

Beyond this, Westminster is also re-developing its Carlton Vale Estate NW6 high quality social housing- to become towers instead? This re-development will also have a catastrophic effect on Brent's floodplain downstream. especially if the River Westbourne and tributaries remain ignored by all key decision makers as is the case in 2021.

Brent should challenge Westminster on these all too obvious sewage flood liabilities being adversely across borough boundary grown. The National Planning Policy Framework (section 14. clauses 152 to 169) form an excellent starting point.  While in a similar way Westminster should challenge Brent about the sewage flooding of Maida Vale Shirland Road directly downstream of South Kilburn’s large site with many rivers.  

d. If South Kilburn wasn't a developer colony where "development will look after itself" other solutions could be sought. In Slovakia I know a town adjacent to an historic flood risk river where the local council helps fund ground water pumps in all gardens to systematically lower the town's water table. It also encourages flood plain allotments on its land. Pumped ground water is used for gardens, allotments and for domestic toilets allowing substantial savings on water bills for locals as expensive tap water is not being needlessly wasted.

e. De-paving and permeable pavers should be required throughout South Kilburn very large site, with replacement of existing poor design new hard landscapes as a remedial measure. similar to the replacement of inflammable cladding and inflammable insulation retrofit that is already happening.

4. Given there will be five times the number of homes by 2041 on floodplain unilateral forced as South Kilburn - should the only new 'community infrastructure' in South Kilburn be tall building zone housing and a 'go elsewhere' zonal policy for all else even flood defences?

How can local estate people living a multiple excluded/ deprived estate zoned existence be expected as individuals to own this deliberate and knowing major government escalation of estate flood risk rooted in an unreasonable planned choice to cancel environmental underground rivers as environmental realities, for the brutal short term and soon to be permanent crisis economic gains? Why should City of Westminster residents own this growing cross borough boundary disaster either?

Add South Kilburn zone concentrated inflammable cladding, inflammable insulation, inflammable structure, build quality crisis and incremental withdrawal of health/ services-all points instead to a humane rethink of what "South Kilburn people getting what they deserve" should actually mean? The UN has in October 2021 declared the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment a human right and is to appoint an expert to monitor human rights in this context of climate emergency.

Is a 6,000 social housing estate set in flood defence parkland in year 2000 set to become a 36,000 new town towered on 45 public owned hectares by year 2041, with no flood defences retained? Or can this part of London do better regarding protecting human rights and reducing exploitations growing forwards?

Instead of the current land war on estate residents, a war on excessive flood plain water needs to be declared. A new urban construction model of flood management, strengthening ecological infrastructure and drainage systems is clearly essential in very large site South Kilburn zone given the catastrophic liabilities and consequences of creating a giant cross borough boundary sick buildings area (the present reckless direction of travel/ let the market decide process).

Cities like Tokyo and Singapore are planned and designed to handle one-in-100-year storms. Why is London captured in such pre-Enlightenment wilful regression regarding its own new building of very large site towns such as South Kilburn Colony towards 2041? Regents Park is an impressive part of the flood defences for Central London, while Kilburn Park (South Kilburn) flood defence for Central London has been totally cancelled for profit. Who is liable in 2021 and who will pay for what happens in the future and the damages caused?  

David Walton

FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn)

The Brent Cabinet this morning is set to approve purchase of a 50 year lease on 155 out of the 461 units in the  Telford Homes Alperton Bus Garage development on the corner of Ealing Road and Bridgewater Road:

 The Brent Cabinet will discuss the latest School Places Provision Strategy this morning.  Key points include:

• In the primary sector falling demand as a result of lower birth rate and Brexit 
• Organisational and budgetary impact of this on individual schools
  
• Lower than expected demand for secondary school places making planned secondary school expansions unnecessary at this point
• Higher demand for Special Educational Needs and Disability places across the age groups starting in early years

Within this there are variations as a result of the developments in some areas such as Wembley Park, although the demographic impact so far has been less than anticipated.

The planned action for the Wembley Park area does not mention a new primary school in the Quintain development area. Readers will remember one was planned as part of the regeneration and a site earmarked close to Wembley Stadium station. Philip Grant on a Wembley Matters post raised the issue of the disappearance of plans for a primary school in the long term plans.

One of the other issues not fully discussed is the number of  secondary pupils in the south of the borough taking up places in neighbouring boroughs:

The full report is below:

The building at present

Sudbury Court Residents Association are circulating residents urging opposition to the proposed development at the Mumbai Junction  restaurant formerly the John Lyons pub. Their leaflet is reproduced below. Readers will be interested to learn that the developer is Fruition who are responsible for the development and actions surrounding the City Mission Church site in Harlesden. LINK

The Mumbai Junction restaurant - formerly the  John Lyon pub  is threated with demolition so 43 flats can be built.

How to object to Planning Application 21/3679

The best way to object to this planning application is via the Brent website (link shown below) or you can write to Planning Dept via email to planning.comments@brent.gov.uk you could also write to Planning Department at the Civic Centre by snail mail. 

 LINK TO COMMENT ON BRENT COUNCIL WEBSITE

Alternatively you can search the Brent website using the above reference 21/3679 or using the ‘Simple’ search option for 231 Watford Road. More details will be available on the SCRA website. Click on the View / Make Comments tab, you will need to register and log in to make comments, this is found at the bottom of the web page. You can then move to making your comments about this application for 231 Watford Road.  

 Comments must be submitted by 12th November at the latest. If enough people say that the proposal is unsuitable for the area then we stand a good chance of stopping this, by enough, I'd hope for 1,000.

As you can see the proposed building towers over its neighbours, there are no architectural similarities with the surrounding buildings, and the neighbours' homes will be substantially overlooked. The massing of the proposed development is overbearing and monolithic with little to relate it to the Conservation Area.

The John Lyon name has historic value, John Lyon founded Harrow School 500 years ago, and his legacy still funds local charitable works such as Sudbury Neighbourhood Centre. In the last two decades the John Lyon has changed and adapted to the local population, it is without doubt a place where everyone can go, it therefore contributes to our community cohesion and understanding of each other. The loss of this community asset and meeting place within walking distance of over 3,000 plus homes, a large licensed property, would deal a devastating blow to the local community and would force the residents to drive to other destinations much further afield thus reducing Active travel in the area.

So, how should you phrase your objection to make the biggest impact? There are many different planning policies at play here, but the main points to make are:

·       The proposal is monolithic in design and without doubt overbearing, it swamps all the surrounding properties, even the four storey shops.

·       The loss of one of our last large well frequented Public Houses / Restaurant

·       The loss of a valuable Community Asset that enhances community cohesion.

·       The proposed building site is within an Area of Distinctive Residential Character (ADRC) and will have a detrimental effect.

·       This 1950's Public House sits in a line of similar style properties from the 1950s, its removal would certainly damage this consistent architectural heritage.

·       Its proximity to the Sudbury Court Conservation Area (SCCA) with have a detrimental effect on it.

·       The design of the proposed building, simplistic in the extreme, its height and massing are unacceptable and overbearing, there are recent builds on our local main roads that better reflect their surroundings such as the flats on East Lane opposite Pasture Road, the flats between Court Parade and Wakeling Lane, the St Georges flats on the junction of Sudbury Court Drive and Sudbury Hill and finally the flats on Watford Road either side of Stilecroft Gardens, the one to the south being a perfect match to its surroundings and ignores the petrol station architectural style/leads. All these recent properties are very sympathetic to their surroundings, being only up to four storeys high, all have pitched roofs, dormers where appropriate and to gain the fourth floor, and a smattering or Tudorbethan where appropriate. None of these developments over the last 20 years have deviated from this complementary design style which respects the surrounding area.

·       Brent's Planning Policies imply they will protect Public Houses, we expect them to apply here.

·       There will be a loss of housing and employment for several staff members adding to Brent's homeless list.

·       Sudbury Court Drive flooded at this location several times this year, it is becoming more frequent.

·       There is limited on street parking available for the almost certain transfer parking being produced by this proposal, the locale is already parked at 100% plus, this addition will almost certainly have permanent damaging effect on the local businesses.

·       The access to the site is severely restricted by the narrowness of the Service Road and the current on street parking load. A 7.5 Tonne weight limit is being imposed on the Service Road due to damage being inflicted on parked vehicles, grass verges and street trees. The site access during construction will be into a very restricted access to the Service Road just a few yards from a very busy roundabout. The alternate access from Watford Road would be extremely dangerous and is an accident black spot with at least one death attributed to.

·       Brent's Planning Policies document quite clearly that the area in question was designed for motor vehicles and that the Public Transport is poor, because of this the adoption of active travel will be an extreme challenge. The current cycle-ways are few and generally not fit for purpose.

·       The three street trees (Ash) will be in jeopardy from the building works and deliveries thereafter.

·       Those living on Amery, SCD and Watford Road - if you have seen Bats at the bottom of your garden, you must say so. They are a protected species and may well be living in the John Lyon due to its seclusion and warmth.

·       In summary the proposal is far too large, it does not respect its proximity to the CA or it being within an ADRC, it overlooks and is overbearing in nature to its neighbouring properties. The current 1950s building with pitched roof and period facade fits admirably within its surroundings. The proposal would be a eyesore within its surroundings.

·       No Affordable Housing, below standard number of family homes.

This and other information will be loaded to the SCRA website www.the-scra.co.uk

City Mission Church

 Cllr Matt Kelcher (Kensal Green) has circulated concerned residents with the results of his research into the threatened eviction by developer Fruition of the City Mission Pentecostal Church from its Harlesden site:

The Mission Pentecostal Church operates a faith and community facility from the existing building, including a local nursery and foodbank. As a representative of the local community I have visited the site on a few occasions and met people who use the facilities. I know it does great work for the wider community and has a lot of local support.

Unfortunately, occupies the building on a “Tenancy At Will’ arrangement, and so has very limited security. On Friday 29 October, Fruition Properties, who are the owners and developers of the site, issued a termination notice effective of Friday 5 November.

Until June this year, the building had planning consent to redevelop the site for residential development, granted by OPDC in 2018. The planning approval included a condition that Fruition must secure replacement space for the Mission Pentecostal Church and associated foodbank and nursery as part of the new development.

I remember visiting the premises when this application was under consideration (this was as a ward councillor a few years before I joined the OPDC planning committee myself) and the presentation I heard really put the provision of these facilities at the heart of why it should receive community support. I believe it would be unjust for the owners of the site to go back on these promises.

This consent lapsed in June 2021 and Fruition are looking to submit a new application. The OPDC have clear planning policy that will require re-provision for the church and any associated community service in any new application. I met (virtually) with the Chair of the OPDC Planning Committee, the Director of Planning and Cllr Harcourt from Hammersmith and Fulham around this time and emphasised the value to church gives to the community. I was pleased that following this OPDC planning officers met with both the developer and church to highlight these requirements.

Therefore, whilst we should all join together to campaign to save the church, we should be clear that the OPDC have not been complicit or encouraging of the eviction notice. Indeed, if a new application were to come in for the development of the site, the OPDC have made it clear that they would strengthen the protection that the church/nursery has above and beyond what it has now.

Similarly, as the site is in the devolved OPDC area, there is little that the team in Brent can do to block this eviction either. Though I have been in touch with the Head of Planning to discuss the matter.

It seems the owners have given up on completely re-developing the site and are trying to eek as much out of the current space as possible by evicting the church. Or, they hope that if they go some time without a church in place, and then re-apply for permission then no conditions will be added to planning consent.

It is our job as community representatives to ensure they cannot get away with this by reminding everyone how important these facilities are to people who live in Kensal Green, and that any future for the site must involve the Mission Pentecostal Church.

Most recently, I have liaised with Andy Slaughter MP (the building straddles the boundary between Brent and Hammersmith & Fulham so a lot of people are interested in the subject) and will ensure Brent is represented at a meeting he is organising with the developers, if I am unable to attend myself.

Granville New Homes

The Minutes of the special meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee of October 7^ththat examined the scandal of the Granville New Homes, built by Higgins, that will cost more in remediation (£18.5m) than the purchase price.

It was a very thorough examination of the issues involved and members’ concern that Higgins was not spoken to about the defects. no redress sought and that this poor build was not taken account of in awarding them current contracts in South Kilburn and Stonebridge, was very clear.

The Committee agreed a comprehensive list of recommendations including that they and the audit committee should receive copies of the independent Ridge Report on the defects. Observers were astonished that such a key report had not been presented to the Committees. Two weeks after the meeting in a twitter reply to Wembley Matters, Brent Council said that that a response to Scrutiny Committee's recommendations was being compiled. For the sake of transparency this should be put in the public domain and include the Ridge Report before Scrutiny's next meeting on Monday.

The Minutes 

Councillor Southwood (Lead Member for Housing and Welfare Reform) introduced the item which provided the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee with an update on the options analysis that First Wave Housing (FWH) carried out with the Company’s Guarantor, Brent Council, on finding a viable option to fund and deliver the required remediation works at Granville New Homes. She advised that this was about putting things right, and fixing a historic issue that was not of the making of anyone attending the meeting that evening but which needed to be responded to in the present, looking to the future. 

The proposal related to Granville New Homes which were built in 2009. The Committee heard that, following the Grenfell tragedy, all Council blocks were inspected to check cladding materials and also for wider fire safety issues. Granville New Homes was found to potentially have cladding that was not fire safe, therefore FWH went through the process of getting relevant inspections into the fire safety of the blocks. A Waking Watch had been in place in the blocks since October 2020 as a result of the concerns raised through those inspections. 

After further intrusive works were conducted, the total cost estimate needed to remediate the properties was substantial at £18.5m, which had considerable financial implications. Councillor Southwood advised that the proposal to Cabinet was to transfer 85 (84 social tenants and 1 leaseholder) Granville New
Homes properties from FWH into the HRA, and further to transfer 25 intermediate rented homes into i4B stock. This recommendation was the option that met all the priorities set out in the Cabinet report.

The Chair thanked Councillor Southwood for her introduction and invited the Committee to raise comments and questions, with the following issues raised:

Further context on the history of Granville New Homes was sought, including when the Board and Guarantor became aware of the defects. Peter Gadsdon (Director of FWH) advised that FWH took over the stock from Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) in 2017. He advised that effectively BHP had stock that was unable to go into the HRA at the time which included Granville New Homes, which FWH took on. He advised that the first time the Board and Guarantor were aware of the full extent of the issues to the stock was in May 2021 when the Ridge report was received. He advised the Committee that the Audit Committee had also been sighted on the issues in the blocks, including the extent of the financial implications, although they had not seen the Ridge report. This was part of the Audit Committee’s Forward Plan who, on an annual basis, looked at the business plan for FWH as a subsidiary to the Council. The issue had also been discussed with FWH’s external auditors.

The Committee requested further details about how the report was commissioned and who had oversight of the defects, and wanted further details on the considerations given to legal due diligence and financial due diligence. Peter Gadsdon advised that as a result of the government MHCLG asking for all properties over 18 metres with any form of cladding to be reviewed, the Board took the decision to review the Granville blocks at 17.5 metres, where the fire service reviewed the fire safety arrangements and were the first to alert the Board in October of 2020 of issues with the fire safety arrangements. The Waking Watch had been implemented since October 2020 as a result of the advice received to ensure the safety of residents in the event of a fire. Further intrusive works were commissioned following this as there was a need to cut into walls, take windows out and break through walls to understand what the composition was, which Ridge conducted, including in a number of flats which were empty. Following the fully intrusive works where Ridge could see the full extent of the issues, the Board received the final Ridge report in May 2021 and made the Guarantor aware. In response to what financial due diligence took place, Minesh Patel (Director of Finance, Brent Council), representing the Guarantor, advised that Ridge were appointed as independent specialists to work through the surveys and provide an estimate, which internal Finance Officers and Officers on behalf of FWH had checked to ensure was correct. He advised that it was an estimate and they would not know the true cost until the work had been started. Hakeem Osinaike added that Ridge had been commissioned to undertake the intrusive works with a good quality specification and therefore he had confidence in the report submitted by Ridge.

The Committee queried whether the Council, as Guarantor of FWH, had chosen to challenge FWH on the issues. Minesh Patel advised that the Council’s role as a Guarantor was to meet with the Board of FWH on a regular basis to go through Key Performance Indicators and understand how the Company was running. The Guarantor had not been made aware of any issues prior to the final Ridge report.

Hakeem Osinaike (Operational Director Housing, Brent Council) advised that the properties were managed by Brent Housing Management (BHM) on behalf of FWH, and they had managed the repairs in those blocks up until the inspection. He advised that it was in rectifying the fire safety issues a decision was taken to rectify any other issues as well.

The Committee noted that Higgins had been appointed to design and build the blocks in 2009, and had heard from residents and staff that there had been problems with the blocks since they were built. They queried what legal action against Higgins, as the contractor, had been pursued, considering the roofs had been previously replaced when FWH took over the building. Peter Gadsdon confirmed that BHP had replaced one of the roofs before FWH took over, and once FWH had taken over they had done works on water ingress issues and had planned to replace all roofs over time as part of previously published business plans for the Company, with an original cost estimate of £2m – 2.5m. With regard to any legal action taken, Peter Gadsdon advised that the records showed the building had been signed off and handed to the Council, but he was unable to comment on anything before 2017 when FWH took over the buildings. He advised that FWH had not had any conversations with Higgins regarding the defects which they were made aware of in May 2021. Legal advice was previously sought about whether there was any chance of redress but due to the passage of time were advised it was unlikely. The Board’s priority was to ensure the properties were repaired back to safety.

Continuing to discuss the contract with Higgins, the Board queried why the Council were not communicating with them on this considering they were current contractors on other blocks being built. They queried whether there was a risk of this happening in other blocks that had been built or were being built. Minesh Patel advised that he did not have the details on the construction contracts with Higgins as that was a procurement process, but nothing had been brought to his attention that there were any concerns on any of the blocks Higgins had worked on.

Councillor Southwood advised that the contractor had been awarded work by the Council through a procurement process without prejudice, the specification of which would have applied modern building control and expectations to whatever they built, and which would include monitoring on the delivery of their contracts. From a FWH perspective it was highly unlikely any other stock would have these issues as Granville New Homes were the only medium rise buildings in the assets. Peter Gadsdon added that, like the Council, FWH and i4B commissioned stock condition surveys and had Fire Risk Assessments in place and there were no issues in that regard. Councillor Southwood agreed to provide written assurances to the Committee that there was no issues in any of the blocks Higgins had worked on, and further information on the procurement process such as whether past performance of a contractor was considered before awarding a contract.

The Committee considered the financial implications of the proposals, and Ravinder Jassar (Deputy Director of Finance, Brent Council) confirmed that no funds were being written off to the Council’s general fund. FWH would refinance the debt but still have a debt to the Council and service that debt over a 50 year period. The remaining stock in FWH remained with positive cashflow that allowed the servicing of that debt.

The Committee queried what risk assessments had been done considering the rise of inflation and high likelihood of a rise in interest rates. Councillor Southwood advised that was why the paper was being brought to Cabinet, as every penny borrowed against the HRA was needed and the Council wanted to minimise the amount per year that tenant’s rent was used to pay interest towards. It was in the Council’s interest to secure the borrowing as soon as possible before interest rates changed. Further considering financial implications, the Committee highlighted the labour shortages, and increased labour and material costs as a result of the pandemic, and queried whether that had been budgeted for in the contingency. 

Peter Gadsdon advised that the costings were estimated in May of the current year, post pandemic, with those things taken into consideration as much as possible. In considering the finances of FWH, Committee members highlighted that FWH’s most recently published accounts showed a discrepancy in the valuation of the Company, and asked about the justification and reasoning behind the valuation. Finance Officers agreed to provide a written explanation to the Committee. In terms of the financial implications to i4B, Ravinder Jassar advised that i4B would acquire the units for £3.5m, with an average weekly rent of £324 per unit per week, which made the purchase price per unit around £140,000. This was within the overall affordability limits of i4B and was a reasonable deal for them.

The Committee queried the rationale behind the proposal and why the Council were not able to lend FWH money to undertake the remediation. Ravinder Jassar explained that FWH were not able to afford the remediation works required even if they tried to refinance at a lower rate, and the business plan would no longer be viable. The option to demolish and rebuild had also been considered but was not financially viable. The Committee were advised that borrowing with the HRA was cheaper than lending to FWH, and the Council could not lend money to its subsidiary at the rate it could get as a Local Authority.

The Committee queried whether there was a risk to the business plan of a loss in rental income should a large number of tenants exercise the right to buy once they were brought in to a secure Council tenancy. Hakeem Osinaike advised that the right to buy in itself did not affect the financing of the transfer, and the income from any right to buy would be used to build New Council Homes. Councillor Southwood gave assurance to the Committee that the Council knew how many people exercised the right to buy on average per year, and she had received assurance from officers that there was no reason to think the proportion would be greater amongst this cohort. The financial assumptions were modelled on the same as any right to buy across the HRA, and if a greater proportion exercised that right there was contingency built in to the revenue forecasting. Peter Gadsdon added that 72 of the 84 social tenants had right to buy when the blocks originally transferred into BHP with only 1 tenant exercising that right. The Committee highlighted that the refurbishment of the blocks may change the numbers exercising their right to buy.

In considering the tenants within the block, the Committee queried what the proposals would mean for them. Councillor Southwood advised that for the 85 residents transferring to the HRA, the tenants would become full secure social tenants with the same rights as anyone else in the HRA, which she highlighted was one of the most secure forms of housing. The one leaseholder would become a Council leaseholder. The intention was for the Council to waive the charging of the cost of refurbishment to the leaseholder. The rents for the 84 social tenants would not change, and neither would the 25 intermediate rented properties proposed to transfer to i4B. In addition, there would be no change in their housing management services, which would continue to be delivered by Brent Housing Management (BHM). The Ridge report predicted that the works could be carried out without decanting residents.

With regard to whether tenants would get a rent waiver, reduction, or rent free period, the Committee were advised that none of those issues had been considered yet but would be as part of the consultation process. Hakeem Osinaike advised that it was not usual for the Council to offer rent reductions when carrying out major refurbishment.

The Committee asked how tenants would be engaged and how resident engagement had gone so far. BHM undertook engagement on behalf of FWH. At the time of the fire survey all residents were written to with an explanation of the issues, the Waking Watch and the work that was done to strip out flammable portioning. An online Zoom meeting had also been set up for tenants to raise concerns, however only a few people had joined. The Committee were advised that up to the point of the Committee meeting there had not been much response from residents. As such, BHM were engaging with residents individually when repairs were carried out in their homes, and everyone was aware of the issues and the way they were being taken forward. Further communications to residents would be necessary with the next steps.

The Committee queried whether the Council had considered carrying out energy efficiency and decarbonisation works in tandem with the remediation. Councillor Southwood advised that any discussion about decarbonisation works for those homes would be considered in the context of them being part of the HRA. The £18.5m in costs referred only to structural and safety works required and not any additional cosmetic work such as updating kitchens or bathrooms or decarbonisation works. She advised that the cyclical maintenance schedule would mean the properties under discussion would be due for new kitchens and
bathrooms around the time of the works being undertaken, so while builders were in and tenants were disrupted it made sense to do as much work as possible. Hakeem Osinaike added that as the internal and external walls had been stripped back as part of the intrusive surveys, when they were reconstructed they would meet the required energy efficiency targets. In terms of the Council’s decarbonisation work they were currently looking to retrofit a street property. No decarbonisation grants had been considered for the Granville New Homes properties.

The Committee questioned the delegated authority for the decision and Councillor Southwood advised that the issues crossed portfolios, but because the issue was specifically a technical financial recommendation it sat with the Deputy Leader, Councillor McLennan. Councillor Southwood was presenting to the Scrutiny Committee as they had asked to look specifically at the HRA, which was within her remit as the Cabinet Lead for Housing and Welfare Reform.

The Chair thanked officers for their responses. In considering their recommendations, the Committee discussed concerns over the reputational risk to the Council, the relationship between the Council and its subsidiaries, the engagement and communication between the residents and the Council and its subsidiaries, the concerns over the building handover process of the blocks, and concerns regarding the commissioning process and contract monitoring of these types of contracts.

The Chair reopened the meeting to provide the recommendations agreed. The Committee RESOLVED:

i) To recommend that officers provide assurance that the Council has undertaken due diligence reviews of its subsidiary bodies, including governance, fitness for purpose, financial soundness and reputational risk.

ii) That officers ensure that the Ridge report is made available to the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee and audit committee.

iii) To recommend that officers review arrangements for entering contracts of this kind, in particular to ensure adequate arrangements are made to ensure appropriate design and build quality, and that the Council has appropriate recourse where latent defects are later identified.

iv) To recommend that officers ensure all potential contractors are made aware of the standards expected by the Council and to ensure these are met before buildings are formally accepted by the Council.

v) To recommend that the Council provide written assurance that it has taken, or will undertake, independent legal and financial advice (including tax) regarding the proposals and next steps.

vi) To recommend that all contracts procured by the Council and its subsidiaries include a review of past delivery of any potential contractors.

vii) To recommend that the Council ensures that where issues are evident in a particular project, all remaining projects by the same contractor are reviewed as a matter of urgency.

viii)To recommend that officers review the steps that make up the procurement, commissioning and contract monitoring system to identify any gaps, especially in relation to risk and review. Where risks are identified to recommend that immediate action is taken.

ix) To recommend that the Council puts in place arrangements to ensure learning about this case and any others raising issues of similar significance is shared across the Council as well as with existing and potential future partners/contractors.

x) To recommend that officers establish and publish a comprehensive plan for ongoing engagement with residents.

 

A section of Higgins Partnership's Granville New Homes

I returned to South Kilburn last week in order to update Wembley Matters on the progress of this massive development.

Granville New Homes are not called that by its residents, who just use their addresses, but the occupants  have found themselves in a very fraught situation. Brent Council have so far offered no option for residents  be decanted elsewhere when the £18.5m remediation works start.  Even if they wanted to be decanted  it is unclear whether any spare capacity is available.

There is the possiblity that a much needed Tenants and Residents Association will be formed to represent their interests and one of its main tasks should be to ask Brent Council to finance independent legal advice for them.

Ironically, Higgins Partnership who built the defective homes, were chosen by Catalyst Housing to remediate defects in Merle Court (built as a 2012 partnership between Wilmott Dixon, Catalyst  and Brent Council) just around the corner.  Problems were so bad that Catalyst tenants were told that they would be rehoused. LINK I am currently seeking clarification from Catalyst whether this in fact happened. It certainly doesn't look fit to live in at present.

Scaffolding around Merle Court

Not far away Higgins pop up again at the Chippenham Gardens development (where potential flooding has been highlighted by David Walton HERE)

Higgins' Chippenham Gardens build

Lastly as far as Higgins goes (well probably not!)  but on the other side of the borough, Brent Council chose them for a £22m contract to build homes and a retail unit on the Hillside/Milton Avenue site in Stonebridge. This is Brent Council and Higgins celebrating the start of the project just under a year ago.

It is no wonder that Cllr Southwood, rather anxiously,  sought assurances at this week's Brent Cabinet meeting on the quality of build at the Alperton Bus Garage development where the Council are purchasing the leasehold on 155 housing units.

On to another housing association, L&Q Homes, where their Bourne Place has been a disaster area, highlighted often by campaigners on social media. This 2013 build was a partnership between L&Q and Brent Council and is beset with cladding and heating problems. When the defects emerged Brent Council and L&Q clashed over who was responsible ,with the leaseholders caught in the middle. LINK

The PR plug in the Evening Standard refers to a 'once notorious estate' - it is now becoming notorious for housing scandals!

The contrast between what I found on the ground and the image above could not be more stark:

Bourne Place - temporary heating pipes snake across the ground and above the ground

Temporary heating centre

A resident of Bourne Place told me:

Our entire system failed due to  both plant room issues and burst pipes underground. So L&Q had to hire the temporary heating centre placed in the garden and build temporary pipes into buildings. It has been like this since February. The first stage was to fix the plant room, our own boilers and pump. I believe this is now completed. The  temporary centre will be removed and pipes will need to be adjusted to lead from our plant room into the buildings. The last stage will be to dig out the grounds and replace all underground pipes to connect all 3 buildings again to the repaired plant room via underground pipes. Then these temporary pipes will be removed. It's still long way from completion due to all sorts of delays, some to do with customs and delivery issues from Europe.

South Kilburn residents have had to resign themselves to several decades of building works but rely on the 'Considerate Builders' to actually mean what they say.

The building of the HS2 vent next to flats and a primary school was opposed by residents but went ahead with the support of Brent Council who want to build on the initial site next to Queens Park station. A resident told me about being awoken by HS2 works  at 4am in the morning and noise at other unsocial hours.

More disruption is promised by HS2's rather belated investigation of the drainage system at the site - perhaps recognition of potential flood dangers. The HS2 track will run beneath the South Kilburn estate...

HS2 Works Entrance

Vent works

It is perhaps not surprising that some residents are now looking with an element of nostalgia at the blocks waiting to be demolished. 

The South Kilburn Skyline

Residents have raised concerns over the proposed felling of pollarded mature trees in Malvern Road, Kilburn. They appeared to be healthy and it was reported that all would be felled.

Brent Trees officer , Gary Rimmer said, 'We are removing 2 plane trees from Malvern Road because they have decay at their base, the removals are the result of our own surveying, no residents have asked for them to be removed.'

Local tree expert  Suzanne Morpurgo (Forestry Commission/RHS) told Wembley Matters that the Council removes the trees to stop bracket fungus spreading. Early action is taken to ensure that a falling tree (plane trees are tall and heavy) does not cause danger to the public. Higher winds, higher rainfall at different times, then droughts and heatwaves - all stress the trees to a far greater level than pre climate change acceleration

As we approach the season of dormancy and therefore tree works, people in Brent will be on the look out for any unnecessary loss of trees.

Brent Council has disclosed the Ridge Report to Wembley Matters following a Freedom of Information Request. It shows just how bad the condition of this 'new build' was. According to the Scrutiny Minutes, this report has never been discussed with Higgins Partners who built Granville New Homes, no redress has been sought, and Higgins is working on at least three contracts in the borough worth millions. 

There have been a small number of redactions for personal/identifiable information. (Click on bottom right corner for full size)

Philip Grant has read the Ridge Report, and has commented:

If I remember correctly, Scrutiny Committee were told that the Ridge Report was commissioned by First Wave Housing, and that Brent Council were not informed about its findings until after FWH had received the Report.

The Ridge Report clearly states that the client was Brent Council AND First Wave Housing. So, on whose instructions was it commissioned, and who paid for it?

The Report says that it was commissioned because Brent Council and FWH were aware of many serious problems at Granville New Homes:-

'Brent Council & First Wave Housing have noted the below issues:

 Water leaks resulting in severe damp and mould within the flats.

 Rotting timber windows due to water leaks and severe condensation.

 Roof capping defects allowing water to penetrate into the cavity behind the cladding.

 Water ponding on the flat roofs.

 Inadequate falls to the communal walkways resulting in water flooding the lift shafts.

 Water tracking into the flats from the service ducts in the communal areas.

 Cladding failure allowing water penetration through the walls.

 Inadequate fall to the balconies allowing water to penetrate the flats through the doors. 

 Difficulty sourcing spare parts for remedial works to the windows.'

Claims that Brent Council were not aware of the serious problems until after the Ridge Report was received in May 2021 appear to be untrue. 

After all, Brent Council's housing staff had been managing the GNH properties on behalf of FWH since 2017!

Cabinet decided to "consult" with the residents about the work which needs to be carried out. Has this been done yet?

People are living in these flats which were poorly designed, with many examples of poor workmanship by the builders who constructed them, both major contributors to the problems which now have to be put right.

The report says that a year should be allowed for the design, procurement and statutory consents needed for the remediation work, which itself is then likely to take around 18 months to carry out. I hope that Brent Council will get on with the job, and make sure it is done properly this time.

This evening Cllr Matt Kelcher raised the issue of City Mission Church under Any Other Business at the OPDC Planning Committee held in City Hall.

Kelcher asked the Head of Planning  specifically, whether, if the owners evicted the church now, and then submitted a new planning application in perhaps a year's time,  could  they get approval for a scheme which did not require provision for a church, as a precedent would be set.  If this happened, would the OPDC maintain its current stance on the church, despite the passage of time?

He was told that OPDC planning policy specifically states that there has to be provision for a church on this site in any future development, as long as the church wants it.

Since notice of a potential eviction of the church by the land owner/Development there has been widespread support for the church and its community activities.

By this morning 347 people had commented on proposals to develop the Mumbai Junction site into a large block of flats with support for the objections coming from neighbouring resident associations.  Last weekend 4,000 leaflets about the development had been distributed in the area.

Because of the difficulties in accessing the planning portal Brent Council have extended the consultation perioud until November 18th. The best way to respond may be to email planning.comments@brent.gov.uk stating Support, Object or Neutral and giving reasons.  Comments submitted by email are not displayed on the portal. LINK

The Mumbai Restaurant is in the process of liquidation and Fruition Properties have moved in with their own freshly formed company Mumbai Junction Developments Limited.

Mr Manish Vinod Khiroya is the CEO and is also involved in the controversial City Mission Church development via Fruition Properties (Scrubs Lane) Ltd.  LINK

A Mr Manish Vinod Khiroya was mentioned in the Panama Papers connected to an off-shore company registsred in the British Virgin Islands. No illegality is suggested. LINK

 Guest Post by Philip Grant in  a personal capacity

Brent’s future flats at Wembley High Road, from the plans approved in February 2021.

On 13 August, Martin published an article I had written about Brent’s plans for Council homes in its Wembley Housing Zone. This set out why the Cabinet should question the recommendations made to them by Council Officers, particularly the lack of any social housing provision, and why it was proposed that two-thirds of the 250 flats and maisonettes in the Council’s Cecil Avenue scheme would be handed over to a developer for private sale. 

I sent a document copy of my article to all members of the Cabinet, for their consideration before their meeting. None of them replied, and on 16 August they accepted the Officers’ “preferred delivery option” for the developments at Cecil Avenue and Ujima House.

As I’d not received a reply from the Lead Member for Housing, Cllr. Eleanor Southwood (or any of her Cabinet colleagues), I raised this matter again with her when she did answer another housing matter which I’d written to her about [Brent’s “secret” Council Housing projects and the Council’s response]. I emailed her about the Council’s Cecil Avenue proposals on 19 September, with a copy to her Regeneration colleague, Cllr. Shama Tatler, and Brent’s Strategic Director for Regeneration, Alan Lunt. 

Cllr. Southwood responded on 23 September, writing: ‘Dear Mr Grant, just acknowledging your email, which I will respond to substantively shortly.’ Despite a reminder to her on 8 October, I did not receive any response, either from her, Cllr. Tatler, or any Council officer on their behalf.

As I believe this is a matter of some importance, I was not prepared to let it drop. On 16 October, I submitted a Public Question, to be answered at Brent’s Full Council meeting on Monday 22 November:-

Question to the Lead Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning:-

New Council Homes at Cecil Avenue, Wembley.

Brent Council has an urgent need for new Council homes, and has accepted the Brent Poverty Commission recommendation that more social rented housing should be a priority.

Brent Council owns the vacant former Copland School site at the corner of Cecil Avenue and Wembley High Road, and since February 2021 has had full planning permission to build 250 flats and maisonettes on this site.

Yet, at its meeting on 16 August 2021, Brent's Cabinet approved a 'preferred delivery option' that included only 39% affordable housing for this development, with less than a quarter of the total homes being rented at London Affordable rent levels (not Social rents), the balance of the affordable housing being at Intermediate rent levels or for shared ownership. Under this 'preferred delivery option', the majority of the homes at the Council's Cecil Avenue site would be sold privately by a 'developer partner'.

At the same meeting, Brent's Cabinet also resolved: 'To delegate to the Strategic Director of Regeneration & Environment, in consultation with the Lead Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, the decision on alternative development scheme proposals and procurement routes, if procurement of the preferred option was unsuccessful in relation to the Sites.'

My questions are:

1) Given Brent's urgent need for social rent housing, why is Brent Council not proposing to build all 250 of the homes at Cecil Avenue as affordable rented Council housing?

2) As, since 16 August, the GLA has approved a grant to Brent Council of around £111m under its 2021/26 New Affordable Homes programme, to be used mainly for social rent housing, will the Lead Member, in consultation with the Strategic Director of Regeneration & Environment, now recommend that Cabinet changes its mind, and approves alternative proposals to make the Council's Cecil Avenue scheme 100% affordable housing?

The answers from Lead Members to Public Questions are published in advance of the Council meetings, as part of the agenda package. This is Cllr. Shama Tatler’s answer to the two points which I raised in my question:

Response:

1) Brent Council’s redevelopment of council-owned Cecil Avenue and Ujima House sites as part of the Wembley Housing Zone programme together proposes 50% affordable housing. However, because it is vitally important to ensure the long term sustainability of the Housing Revenue Account (which ultimately would be responsible for repaying loans secured to deliver new housing) it is not financially viable to deliver all 250 homes at Cecil Avenue as socially rented housing. 

2) Brent Council’s £111.7m GLA grant under the 2021-26 New Affordable Homes Programme is separate from the Wembley Housing Zone programme, and allocated to deliver an additional 701 socially rented homes across the Borough.

The response from the Lead Member is brief, and ignores much of the detail that my question was about!

Cllr. Tatler writes that Cecil Avenue and Ujima House together will provide 50% affordable housing. She doesn’t say that NONE of this will be Council housing at social rent levels, which is what homeless families and people on the Council’s waiting list desperately need. 

Ujima House is expected to provide 54 homes, all at London Affordable rent levels. Of the 250 new homes on the Cecil Avenue site, only 98 will be “affordable”, with 152 handed to a developer partner for private sale (‘to cross subsidise the affordable housing and regeneration of the area’). Of the 98 “affordable” Council homes, only 37 will be at London Affordable rent levels, with the other 61 as “intermediate housing” (‘either shared ownership or intermediate rent’).

The Wembley Housing Zone sites.

I realise that Council housing provided through the Housing Revenue Account must have long-term financial sustainability. The expected rental income over the period of the loan borrowed to pay for the homes (usually sixty years) must be sufficient to pay the interest on that loan, and to repay the capital sum. But with interest rates as low as they are ever likely to be, I find it difficult to understand why this Wembley Housing Zone development could not be financially “sustainable”, especially as the report to Cabinet on 16 August said that: ‘the GLA have also agreed in principle an additional £5.5m grant to deliver the scheme.’

It all comes down to “viability” (and we know from planning applications that the financial experts who developers employ can come up with any figure for viability that their client wants, in order to reduce the amount of affordable housing they have to include in their plans!). The viability of Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone scheme is, of course, known only to Cabinet members and the Senior Officers advising them. It is hidden away from the rest of us in a document named “Appendix 5: WHZ internal financial appraisal summary (exempt)”.

Cllr. Tatler writes that ‘it is not financially viable to deliver all 250 homes at Cecil Avenue as socially rented housing.’ But Brent is not delivering ANY socially rented housing at Cecil Avenue. Surely it would be financially viable to deliver at least some!

But, fear not, with the money from the GLA’s 2021-26 programme Brent promises ‘to deliver an additional 701 socially rented homes across the Borough.’ Around 300 of these might be provided through the “infill” of part of the open space beside the St Raphael’s Estate. More would be from the “infill” of (green!) spaces on existing Council estates, together with “airspace” developments on top of blocks in these. There is also an opportunity for ‘New Build for Rent in South Kilburn’ (Granville Park?).

Having asked a Public Question, I am allowed to ask a supplementary question at the Council meeting on 22 November. I’m not able to be present at that meeting myself, but hope that someone (I have asked the Mayor if she would be kind enough to do so) can ask it on my behalf. I’ve not made up my mind exactly what to ask, so if you have any (polite) suggestions, please feel free to make them as comments below, during the next couple of days.

Philip Grant.

 I live on a Brent Council Estate but have not received this letter.  I assume it is going to all affected residents so please let me know if your estate has not received a copy. The Solidarity House Estate is no longer included in these proposals. Residents will receive futher information 'in due course.'

I understand that there has been widespread opposition to the proposals based on the £50 annual charge. the initial ban on visitor parking and the overall loss of parking for residents.  This has resulted in the extension of the consultation until November 30th and further information meetings.

Declaration of interest: I do not have a car but believe in giving residents information and the chance to voice their views - whatever they may be.

The outsourced consultation hub: https://pclengagement-hub.co.uk/en-GB/folders/brenthousingestates