Dreams and Nightmares on the South Kilburn Estate

Cranes loom as you approach the South Kilburn Estate 

Following the Brent Scrutiny Meeting on regeneration where resident Pete Firmin spoke passionately about the problems with the South Kilburn regeneration I decided it was time for another visit to see for myself.

What follows is a series of photographs that illustrate some of the issues that Pete spoke about and convey what it feels like to live on a building site for many and questions around the quality of the new buildings.

 

A campaign for new bins was successful but emptying only once a week and dumping by outsiders leads to overflow problems

Another dump

The scaffolding around Alpha House where bits flew off during a recent storm. Brent Council said the danger was not their responsibility. It has been up for 6 months but work has taken place only three times 'if that' during that time. Apparently the work is on guttering which is actually accessible via the roof cavity. Only one light is working on landings and some residents are forced to use torches at night.

 

 Despite the housing shortage this flat in Gorefield House has been unoccupied and boarded up for more than 10 years after its use by contractors.

 New builds have problems too. This is emergency heating at the recently completed Countryside Woodrow House.

 

 Work continues on the HS2 vent site (chosen by HS2 after pressure from Brent Council in preference to a site next to Queens Park station).  I am told that the noise is such that residents of the flats overlooking the site sometimes have to be offered temporary hotel accommodation as a respite,

 

 

 Residents of Carlton House and other old buildings  suffer from the noise and dust of demolition of neighbouring buildings such as Winterleys House and will suffer again when building works take place. 

 

 

Remediation works on the decade old  L&Q Swift House. The start on the building was commemorated by a 2012 Muhammed Butt plaque now surrounded by remediation supplies. The scaffolding has been up for more than three years.The cost must be enormous.

 

 L & Q have problems elsewhere.  There have been long term heating issues at Chase House and Hollister House that have resulted in cold homes and no hot water, When I last visited  more than a year ago the green space had been occupied by emergency heating equipment, now post work on the heating the site has been left in a mess. Had the repairs worked? A resident answered, 'A little bit'.

 

 

I am told you can gain entrance by over-riding door security via the fire control

 As the regeneration progresses and blocks have been demolished, residents have been 'decanted' into remaining blocks. The 'Landlord Promise' made by Brent Council was that tenants would eventually be offered new flats on the estate. They are now wondering whether that will really happen as regeneration falls behind schedule and the doubts about the financial viability of the proposed new build social housing. Meanwhile their temporary housing deteriorates and they face multiple problems including incursions and squatting. See LINK for an account. The Blake Court demolition notice had expired but is now extended to 2029.

 Apart from Blake Court there is also Dickens House and Austen House in an area that looks forgotten and neglected, but nature sometimes relieves the gloom.

 Shops are left abandoned.

 

Even the playground equipment is collapsing

 

 What began as a tribute to Jane Austen is now a tribute to decline.

 

 

Apart from the heating issue some of the other new blocks have problems. It appears that faulty downpipes on Cambridge Avenue have caused damp and mould at intervals all along the frontage.

 

 People in the recently completed blocks have found themselves amidst a builders' storage area.

 

 But they are  are warned about disruption.

Despite the evidence to the contrary all around them, Countryside have a dream.

 Revised plans are due for the Hereford andExeter site this summer but there are potential issues regarding viability on the site that is planned to be 44% social rent.

The report to Scrutiny said:

The Hereford and Exeter scheme has been provisionally approved to receive the GLA Affordable Homes Programme Grant. However, even with the average grant rate, and more favourable developer assumptions, the scheme would still have a negative Residual Land Value (RLV). There is a current workstream to test the viability of the scheme to see what level of grant would be necessary, or what reduced level of affordable housing would be required to reach a positive RLV.

A rare example of a well-loved and maintained building is the Albanian Mosque but it is due to be replaced by a 13 storey block, perhaps with mosque facilities at ground floor level.

 

.

One of the issues that South Kilburn residents are concerned about is the lack of delivery of a new Health Centre that was promised as part of the infrastructure improvement. The old Centre is abandoned and there is a temporary Centre in an old Housing Office. Cllr Tatler blamed the NHS for delays at the Scrutiny Committee meeting

 

There were battles over the Carlton and Granville Centres and the adjacent nursery school but now work is well underway. It is good to see some of the trees have survived so far.

Opposite is the South Kilburn Open Space, a precious green resource but also a potential vital resource for flood management, particuarly now so much of the area will be built up. Carlton Vale Infant School and Kilburn Park Junion School are due to be merged and accommodated in a new building on part of the space. Residents are keen that on demolition the present sites should become part of the open space to compensate. As much green space as possible is needed in view of the huge increase in population of the development area envisaged. Much of the amenity space in the new development is private. 

 

I will finish with an attractive walkway that is public, at present anyway. It is important that public space like this is maintained. There are problems at present with buck-passing because so many different developers and owners are involved in the patchwork that was once one council estate. There needs to be a clear map showing responsibilites across the estate.

 

Cllr Shama Tatler promised to visit the estate to talk to residents at the Scrutiny Committee and Cllr Promise Knight is due to tour to see progress/problems although I am not sure whether residents are involved.  I really do hope that they will be in listening mode as dreams often turn into nightmares.

Regeneration at Scrutiny meeting – The truth about Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone land – two follow-up emails

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Cllr. Tatler (front right) on the Cecil Avenue site in March 2023.
(from a Brent Council press release announcing the WHZ development contract with Wates)

 

Following my guest post on 28 April, setting out the truth about the Council’s ownership of the Wembley Housing Zone site at Cecil Avenue, I added a comment below which shared the text of an open email I had sent to Councillor Shama Tatler.

 

Martin asked whether he could publish that email as a separate post, but I said it might be better to wait until I had also sent an email to the members of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, and publish both together. That is what this guest post does.

Open email to Councillor Shama Tatler, Brent’s Cabinet Member for Regeneration, on 29 May at 8.30am:

 

Subject: Incorrect statement on Wembley Housing Zone land at Scrutiny Committee on 23 April

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Councillor Tatler,

 

You may recall that I have been taking a close interest in the lack of genuinely affordable housing at Brent Council's Cecil Avenue development, which comes under your Wembley Housing Zone regeneration portfolio, since August 2021.

 

I was therefore interested when the subject came up when you were speaking to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting last Tuesday (23 April) when they were considering Regeneration.

 

You stated (and I have transcribed this from the webcast of the meeting): 'With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own the land. We had to purchase the land.'

 

That statement was untrue. 

 

Brent Council did own the freehold of the Cecil Avenue site (which will provide 237 of the 291 WHZ homes). That land, which for a time had passed to Copland Community School when it was a foundation school, had come back to Brent Council ownership, for nil consideration, under a land rationalisation agreed in 2014.

 

The only WHZ land which Brent Council had to purchase was Ujima House (the smaller site, providing only 54 of the 291 WHZ homes), acquired in 2016 for £4.8m, and funded out of the £8m initially provided to Brent by the GLA for the Wembley Housing Zone.

 

I'm sure that you are at least as aware of those facts as I am, and yet you appear to have chosen to mislead the Scrutiny Committee, as part of seeking to justify the impact on viability which has led to the poor number of genuinely affordable homes homes for rent to Council tenants at your Wembley Housing Zone scheme.

 

I am bringing this to your attention, and the fact that the true position is now in the public domain*, so that you can write to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee to correct the error in what you said above (and any other false information included in your statements to them on 23 April) and apologise for misleading them at their meeting.

 

I am copying this email to Councillor Conneely, the Committee Chair, for her information, and as it is an open email I will also include its text as a comment under the online blog post, which you can read via the "link" below. Yours sincerely,

 

Philip Grant.

 

* https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2024/04/regeneration-at-scrutiny-meeting-truth.html

 

[Thirty-six hours later, I have yet to receive any acknowledgement or response from Cllr. Tatler, and on past experience, I’m not sure that I will.]

 

Wembley Housing Zone location plan, with added description in key.
(Original version taken from a Report to Cabinet in August 2021)

 

As I have little confidence that Cllr. Tatler will take my advice, and bring the error I have pointed out to the attention of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, my second email was addressed to them.

 

Email to Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, on 30 May at 8.27pm:

 

Subject: Correction to information given to you on Wembley Housing Zone land at meeting on 23 April.

 

Dear Chair and members (including substitutes) of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, I was interested in item 6 on your 23 April agenda, Regeneration in Brent, and watched some of the meeting on the webcast.

 

You may remember that, in 2022, I was seeking to get your committee to scrutinise various aspects of the Council's delivery of affordable housing, and in particular the lamentably low proportion of genuinely affordable homes to rent which were proposed for the Cecil Avenue site of the Council's Wembley Housing Zone project. 

 

I was pleased to hear Councillor Conneely express your Committee's support for more genuinely affordable homes on Council schemes. However, I was astounded to hear what Councillor Tatler said about the Wembley Housing Zone scheme, which comes under her Regeneration portfolio. This is what I transcribed her saying, when I went back to check it on the webcast recording (with my bold type for emphasis):

 

'With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own the land. We had to purchase the land. That impacts viability as well.'

 

She was claiming that the Council could not provide more genuinely affordable homes than the 88 at London Affordable Rent (out of a total of 291 homes to be built, with 150 of those for private sale by Wates) because purchasing the land reduced the viability of the project.

 

But Brent Council did not have to purchase the land for the main part of the project, the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue, where 237 of the 291 homes will be built.

 

I double-checked that I was correct over Brent's ownership of that vacant brownfield site, before sharing the truth about this online. I also wrote to Councillor Tatler yesterday morning (29 April), and am appending the full text of that email below for your information (although I did copy the original to your Chair).

 

I am not confident that Councillor Tatler will write to correct the false statement she made to you on 23 April, so I decided to write to you as well. Please base any follow-up work you do on Regeneration, and any recommendations your Committee may make on the Wembley Housing Zone, on the true position over land ownership at Cecil Avenue. Thank you.

 

As set out in the online article which I provided a "link" to at the end of my email to Councillor Tatler below, effective scrutiny in holding the Cabinet to account relies on Cabinet members, and Council Officers, being honest in the information they provide to you. I hope that you will make that point clearly when dealing with this matter, because the work that you do is very important. 

 

Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Proposed new development on London Road, Wembley at Planning Committee on May 8th

 

 

Planning Committee on Wednesday will consider an application to redevelop a building on London Road, close to the High Road, presently consistingof 8 one storey shops and a workshop at the rear, into a double frontage part 6 storey, part 7 storey block of mid-rise flats. LINK

For those who know the road it would be between Patidar House and the chicken shop on the corner of London Road/High Road.

London Road proposed 

Street view of the 6/7 storey double block

Aerial view showing proximity to Central Apartments

 

Residents of the Central Apartments on Wembley Central Square have been most vocal in their opposition:

 I am an owner occupier of at Central Apartment which was build as a part of regeneration programme and currently has 117 families occupying this development since 2010. I am submitting this Objection on behalf of the Wembley Central Resident Association (CARTA) which has more than 90 families as paid members. Our association is recognised by the landlord and our local representatives. I am a Chairman of this association and in that capacity on behalf of our members, I strongly object to this development for following reasons.

1. Our track record of corporation and supporting local regeneration -

We have not objected to any other developments in the close proximity of development in last 12 years and always supported Brent in its regeneration agenda. This proposed development directly impacts our quality of life and investment and hence we strongly object it.

2. Devaluation of 50 plus apartments facing windows and balconies to London Road.

As illustrated in the separate photographic evidence, this development will block the view of the windows and balconies facing London Road and significantly devalue the properties to the significant drop in appeal of these flats upto 40% from the current market price.

3. Loss of sunlight and its impact on living costs.

This development is too close to us literally in the face of the balconies and windows of 50 plus flats facing London Road , which receive its sunlight only in the morning from NE side (facing London Road) till noon. All the windows of our flats are facing this side only and there is no other way to get the sunlight. The close proximity of the proposed construction of seven storey building will create a complete wall in front of us blocking any natural sunlight at any time of the day and in fact we will come under shadow of it.

As illustrated in the photos send separately it is going to create complete darkness in 50 plus flats and directly forcing residents to use more electricity and heating to keep the flats warm and maintain sufficient visibility in the flats even during day.

3. Insufficient Ventilation -

Due to the layout of the property and building design, we have limited options to achieve natural cross ventilation and completely depend on the fresh breeze from NE. This development will completely block it and the current MEP systems in the flats are not designed to operate without any natural ventilation. As a result this will create unhygienic , unhealthy living conditions to all the residents which could lead to long term health issues.

Also its impacts on the maintenance costs of properties, It is important to note that one person produces 4 pints of moisture per day, through cooking, cleaning, bathing and breathing. Therefore 5 people will produce 84 pints of moisture per week. with inadequate ventilation moisture produced will condense to cold surfaces, and eventually turn to mould which could also lead to additional wear and tear/ maintenance costs of the property.

4.Loss of views and loss of privacy - All 50 plus flat owners have bought their flats with an extra premium for the views for Wembley Stadium Arc and overall landscape . The proposed development will completely block it and lead to becoming unattractive to occupy due to significant change in the surrounding. The new development's close proximity to our windows and balcony would result us in losing our privacy of occupation.

This is a significant risk to our investment and with this objection , we are hoping this development proposal would immediately stopped to progress any further. In the event this proposal is progressed further without any further consultation / clarity on how the affected leaseholders concerns would be addressed commercially and technically , we reserve the right to explore legal options.

Given recent controversies over the dearth of affordable housing in new developments readers will note that Brent Planning Officers accept the viability assessment for the development that no affordable housing can be provided.  A late review of viability will consider whether a contribution could be made towards affordable housing elsewhere.

A recent think tank report suggested that developments of this height were better for family homes and social cohesion than high-rise towers.

Provision includes 41 flats and a much smaller commercial area,

 

Officers examine issues regarding daylight acess in both the new block and neighbouring blocks. On the later (presumably including Central Apartments) they conclude:

 

The properties that are mainly affected currently afford outlook over the low scale existing buildings on site resulting in higher levels of daylight than what could be expected for a typical urban context. The overall benefits of the development including the delivery of new commercial floorspace and residential homes (including a policy compliant level of family sized homes) would outweigh the limited harm identified above.

 

 Overall Planning Officers recommend that the Planning Committee approve the application:

 

The proposal would include the redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use building of up to 7 storeys high, with a commercial Class E unit and 41 residential units. It would optimise the capacity of the site within a highly sustainable location within the Borough and make a contribution towards housing supply within the Borough, including the delivery of family sized homes. Whilst the scheme does not achieve 0.4 urban greening factor score, following the above discussion, officers consider that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions.

Complaint over party political content of a Council report – Brent’s Final Word.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The opening paragraph of Cllr. Tatler’s Foreword in the SCIL request Officer Report to 8 April Cabinet.

 

For “Wembley Matters” readers who have been following my correspondence with Brent’s top Council Officer for Governance (and now with the extended title: Corporate Director, Governance and Law), since my initial guest post on 5 April, here is the final instalment.

 

When writing about the previous exchange (published on 18 April), I said that I felt ‘the Senior Officer was trying to create a smokescreen’, over the central issue of party political content in a Cabinet Member Foreword (see an example in the extract above, but with a ‘content and style’ of a political manifesto as well). That is why, when replying to her on 17 April, I wrote:

 

‘So that we can finalise this point, please let me have your straightforward answers to these two questions:

 

a) Do you accept that the Cabinet Member Foreword, in the SCIL Request Officer Report to the Cabinet meeting on 8 April, contained some political material, including at least one piece of Labour Party political material?

 

b) Do you agree that it is wrong for Officer Reports to Cabinet meetings to include material which ‘in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party’ (irrespective of whether or not its publication breaches Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986)?’

 

You can judge for yourselves how well (or not) these specific questions were answered in this final exchange of emails on this matter, set out in full below.

Email from Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance at 9.12 am on 23 April:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email,

 

My role is to advise the council in relation to the law and governance.  As a matter of governance, I do not consider there to be any good reason why reports to Cabinet should not contain a section for the relevant Cabinet Member to provide the council policy context of decisions to be made.  As indicated previously, it is my view that the Cabinet Member Foreword about which you are concerned did not contain any material covered by the legislation to which you refer.

 

The new report template, including the section for a Cabinet Member Foreword, was introduced at the request of the Chief Executive.

 

The Chief Executive has considered your emails and does not consider there to be any need for the inclusion of the Cabinet Member Foreword in the template to be reviewed.

 

I recognise that you have a strong opinion in respect of this matter.  As a result of your emails, I have reminded officers of the purpose of the Cabinet Member Foreword and how it should be presented in reports.  However, our opinions differ as to the appropriateness of including the Cabinet Member Foreword in Cabinet reports.

 

Best wishes

 

Debra

 

Corporate Director, Law & Governance

 

My response to that email at 8.45am on 26 April:

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for your email of 23 April.

 

On point 2 of my email to you of 17 April (Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate in Officer Reports to Brent’s Cabinet?), our opinions do differ. You have my views on this, and the reasons for them, on record should the matter be raised again in future.

 

I am disappointed that you have failed to answer either of the two specific questions which I asked you at point 1 of my email of 17 April (Did Councillor Tatler’s Cabinet Member Foreword contain political material?). Instead of the straightforward answers I requested, you have repeated your earlier view that the Cabinet Member Foreword: ‘did not contain any material covered by the legislation to which’ I had previously referred.

 

I acknowledge and accept that your ‘role is to advise the council in relation to the law and governance.’ But, as Monitoring Officer, should you not also be showing leadership, by example, in answering questions objectively and honestly, rather than evading them?

 

I can only hope that, when you say you have: ‘reminded officers of the purpose of the Cabinet Member Foreword and how it should be presented in reports’, this means that you have advised them to ensure that there is no party political material included in them in future.

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.