Cllr Tatler taken to task on regeneration issues

 Tuesday's Resources and Public Realm Committee was the swan song of the Committee as it was the last one of the municipal year and it may well have new members and chair after the Council AGM.

I may put the kibosh on the present committee if I say that in my opinion this would be a pity as it has developed its skills over the last year and Cllr Rita Conneely has proved a formidable chair. It takes time for councillors to undergo training and increase their confidence at holding lead members to account.

Cllr Shama Tatler, with the regeneration and planning brief, was in the hot seat on Tuesday and faced some tough questions.

The issue of the viability of both private and public developments was a major theme in the light of the post-Truss financial situation with its high interest rates and reduction in confidence, inflation, shortage of labour post-Brexit and supply-chain problems. In addition the post-Grenfell need (rightly) for second staircases in tall buildings has meant that developments have had to be reviewed.

Cllr Tatler explained how as a result the amount of units for sale might have to be increased and affordable housing reduced, tenure cmay be hanged to include more 'intermediate# housing (often shared ownership) or alternative sources of funding sought.

A note of realism was introduced early in the meeting when Pete Firmin, a South Kilburn resident, spoke about the problems with the regeneration of the South Kilburn estate including poor quality new housing, scaffolding up around relatively new blocks and problems of incursions into blocks where tenants had been decanted. His contribution and Cllr Tatler's response can be seen in the video at the top of the page along with some of the other exchanges reported her.

Cllr Anton Georgiou brought up tenure on the new South Kilburn blocks. saying that he had been told that they were not at social rent as Cllr Tatler claimed but at the higher London Affordable Rent. He promised to produce evidence to this effect.

Improvements in infrastructure was an issue in Alperton regeneration as it lagged behind the building of new blocks. He gave the example of improvements to Alperton Station needed by the new residents in car-free developments.

Cllr Tatler said it was often difficult to get the improvements in place because of the need to work with partners such as TfL, regarding the station and the NHS regarding the promised medical centre on South Kilburn, and things moved slowly.

She pointed out that it was pivate housing that yielded Strategic Community Infrastructure levy in regeneration areas - Council housing did not qualify.

The need for more affordable social housing was another major themes. Committee chair Cllr Rita Conneely said, 'That is what we want as a committee, what backbenchers want and what residents want.'

She urged Cllr Tatler and the Regeneration Department to challenge developers more ('Let's say no, let's start saying no!' ) and for London councils to get together a common front to stop developers' divide and rule. 'Whatever you bring back to use, we will want more.'

 Cllr Tatler had said, 'We can't say no to developers', but Gerry Ansell who earlier had said, 'we can't walk away from  developers' pointed out that the Planning Committee could say no and reject applications. That as we know happens seldom and Planning Committee members are reminded of the need for housing at the start of each meeting and are also warned that an Appeal by a developer would cost the council money.

Shama Tatler pointed out that there was already a London-wide body in the form of the GLA and that as Local Plans began to more closely mirror the London Plan there would be more consistency across London.

She went on:

It is wrong to say we don't challenge developers. Mo (Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council) and I have conversations day in, day out, with developers about what our red lines are. This is why we get criticised for having too many high blocks. I will have high blocks if it means we are getting as much affordable housing in a scheme as possible.

The committee, following a point raised by Pete Firmin, said that community spaces in regeneration areas needed to be publicly owned rather than belong to the developer.

The meeting finished with Cllr Tatler agreeing to meet with concerned residents in regeneration areas.

 Note: It was a very long meeting. The full webcast is HERE

Following comments on this article here is a link to the latest ONS (Office of National Statistics) data on rent levels and house prices in Brent. Main findings in the image. For links to each go to: 

 https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/housingpriceslocal/E09000005/

 

1 Morland Gardens – How many more times can they get it wrong?

 Guest Post by Philip Grant in a person capacity

 

 

1 Morland Gardens, behind locked Heras fencing, 26 January 2023
 

 

It is almost three years since I first wrote about Brent Council’s plans to demolish “Altamira”, the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, and build a new adult education facility and 65 homes there. Ever since the project for an updated Brent Start college, intending to retain this beautiful heritage building, was “hijacked” at the end of 2018, to provide a large number of new Council homes, there have been mistakes and delays. Now there are more.

 

Brent Council does now have a vacant building, as the six month stay by Live-in Guardians has ended, and a barrier of Heras fencing now surrounds the outer wall of the grounds. They also have a contractor in place for their project, Hill Partnerships Ltd, under a two-stage Design & Build contract awarded last July. The first stage, a Pre-Construction Service Agreement, is underway, and as part of that the contractor submitted a Construction Logistics Plan (“the Plan”), as required by one of the conditions of the planning consent (given in October 2020!).

 

Condition 20, for a construction logistics plan, from the 1 Morland Gardens planning consent.

 

The submission of the Plan, in December 2022, was treated as a separate planning application (22/4082), but it was not advertised. I only discovered it online last week. It may not sound like a very interesting document, but when I read it, I found a number of things to comment on, pointing out in my objections how Brent, and their contractor, have got it wrong again.

 

The Plan treats the development site as a single plot of land, when it is actually two. Brent Council owns the public realm and highway outside the boundary of 1 Morland Gardens, which its proposed new building would partly cover. But it does not have any legal right to build on that piece of land. It first needs to obtain a Stopping-up Order for a section of the highway, and if it gets that order, the Council would need to appropriate that land for planning purposes. 

 

There are objections to the proposed Stopping-up Order, and Brent has yet to submit its request for an Inquiry by an independent Inspector. As far back as May 2021, Brent’s Development Management Manager confirmed that an order would need to be: ‘approved prior to any development taking place on the areas that are currently adopted highway. Until the stopping-up process has been completed under S247 of the Town & Country Act 1990, works will not be able to start on the development insofar as it affects highway land.’

 

The Plan has been submitted because it needs to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (Brent Council) ‘prior to commencement of the development’. If or when the legal hurdles I’ve just mentioned have been overcome, and the contractor has a site it can start work on, there are still plenty of problems.

 

The Key Site Constraints page from the Construction Logistics Plan.

 

As this early page from the Plan shows, there are a number of “constraints” involved in developing the site. Some of these are the result of the project’s designers trying to squeeze too many new homes into an unsuitable site, and ignoring the practical “constraints”. (Does that sound familiar? Newland Court and Kilburn Square come to mind, among others!)

 

One of the “constraints” listed is the single access/egress point to the site during construction, along the residential cul-de-sac of Morland Gardens itself, which would restrict the size of delivery vehicles. The Plan deals with this by saying that deliveries by articulated lorries will be unloaded from the lay-by, or “pit-lane”, on Hillside. What lay-by? 

 

Page showing where vehicles would deliver materials to the site, from the Logistics Plan.

 

Someone involved in Brent’s project has made a major mistake here. The lay-by on Hillside for deliveries and refuse collections was part of the original plans submitted in February 2020. Those plans had to be revised, because both TfL and Brent’s Transportation Unit objected that a lay-by there would be unacceptable. Hillside is a London distributor road and bus route, with no waiting allowed at any time along its frontage with 1 Morland Gardens because of the proximity to traffic signals. A lay-by there would also be too close to the bus stop, and make the footpath too narrow for safe use by pedestrians. It appears that the contractor has been given the original, and incorrect, plans! 

 

The site diagram above shows all deliveries by “rigid vehicles” coming through a gate from Morland Gardens, and then using the existing “turning head” to drive into and then reverse, so that they can exit forwards once they have been unloaded. But that “turning head” would no longer be available for vehicles making deliveries to, or collecting refuse from, the other properties in Morland Gardens. This, again, would ‘unduly prejudice the free and safe flow of local highways’, something the Plan should not be allowed to do, if it is to be acceptable to Brent’s planners.

 

Access for deliveries to Brent’s proposed Morland Gardens development is not an unforeseen problem. I raised it in an objection comment in July 2020 (see the “Transport and Access” section of a guest post I wrote before the Planning Committee meeting), after the revised plan removing the lay-by had been submitted in June 2020. However, Planning Officers dismissed my objection by saying it would be dealt with by a condition requiring a Delivery and Servicing Management Plan for the new college (ignoring the fact that there would also be deliveries and servicing for 65 homes!).

 

The other page from the Plan which has caused me to make an objection comment is the one labelled “Proposed Sales & Marketing Area”. 

 

The “Sales & Marketing” page from the Construction Logistics Plan.

 

Sales and Marketing? The 65 homes in this planned Brent Council development are all meant to be “genuinely affordable” homes. Condition 3 of the planning consent confirms that, stating: ‘The development hereby approved shall be implemented and maintained for the lifetime of the development as 100% London Affordable Rent.’ Yet the diagram above shows a 2-bedroom, 3 person “show apartment”, available for viewing in the first section of the development (due for completion in week 64), to be used for sales and marketing purposes.

 

The 1 Morland Gardens planning application went totally against both Brent and London planning policies on the protection of heritage assets, and Planning Officers admitted that. The justification for doing so was the “public benefits” of the development, particularly the provision of 65 homes which would all be “genuinely affordable”. If some of the homes are to be sold, not let to Council tenants who urgently need them, that shifts the balance more towards scrapping the demolition, and keeping the Victorian villa as part of a more sensible scheme.

 

The Report to November 2022’s Cabinet meeting about the conversion of some LAR homes to shared ownership did include a paragraph on Morland Gardens, which suggested “value engineering” the project (without giving details). Martin published a guest post from me, including my open email to the Council Leader and Lead Member for Housing. I suggested, not for the first time, an alternative solution, but Cabinet members and Brent’s New Council Homes team seem determined to carry on with a project which is unviable and impractical.

 

How many more times can they get it wrong, before they realise they’re just throwing good money (our money!) after bad?

 

Philip Grant.

‘Tis the Season to be Sneaky! Is Brent trying to award the c£100m Wembley Housing Zone contract without scrutiny?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The location of the two Wembley Housing Zone sites.

 

If you’re a regular reader of “Wembley Matters”, you will be aware of Brent’s often repeated statements about the urgent need to build more Council homes for the families in temporary accommodation and on the waiting list. They are used to justify the Council’s often unpopular “infill” plans for some of its housing estates, and by Brent’s planners to justify recommending applications that breach some planning policies, and are seen by many as overdevelopment.

 

You will also be aware of Brent’s promise (and Labour Group election pledge) to build 1,000 genuinely affordable Council homes in the five year period ended 31 March 2024.

 

If you’re a regular reader, you will have seen at least some of my previous guest posts about Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone proposals. These include building 250 homes on the Council-owned brownfield site of the former Copland School building at Cecil Avenue. If they had got on and built them as soon as they had full planning permission in February 2021, that could have contributed a quarter of the 1,000 homes target. But as a result of a Cabinet decision in August 2021, 152 of those new homes are to be built for private sale at a profit by a “Developer Partner”. 

 

Title page to the Report which Cabinet approved on 16 August 2021.

 

For much of 2022, I tried to get this (what appeared to be an odd) decision properly scrutinised, but that was finally scuppered by the Chair of the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee (acting on whose instructions?) in September. Now there appears to be an attempt by those in power at Brent Council to stop any scrutiny of the actual award of the contract for the Wembley Housing Zone scheme.

 

This will be a very big contract, likely to be worth in excess of £100m. Brent advertised in April for expressions of interest from contractors for this, and they had to respond by the end of May. In November, Cabinet were informed that progress had been made, but the details were hidden away in an “exempt” appendix to the Report.

 

Extract from the November 2022 “Update on the Supply of New Affordable Homes” Report.

 

Then, in the past few days, an item appeared on the Forward Plan page, saying that the decision to award the contract, to be Brent’s Developer Partner for the Wembley Housing Zone scheme, would be made this month, under ‘urgency procedures’!

 

The Forward Plan entry from Brent Council’s website.

 

As Brent has been working towards this decision since August 2021 (in fact, long before that) and the contract procurement process has been going on for over six months, why was it urgent and what are those procedures? There are some clues from the document, dated 12 December, that was provided in a “link” from that Forward Plan, which I will ask Martin to attach a copy of at the end of this post, for general information.

 

It appears that there are various degrees of urgency. Normally, at least 28 clear days’ notice of a Key Decision has to be given. In this case, although it would be less than 28 days, it was planned to be ‘at least 5 clear days’ notice.’ The decision would be made on 19 December.

 

Extract from the Urgent Key Decision form.

 

If it had been less than five days, the Chair of a Scrutiny Committee would have ‘to agree that the decision is urgent and cannot be reasonably deferred for the reasons detailed ….’  But as it was ‘at least 5 clear days’, ‘the Scrutiny Chair is only required to note that the decision will be taken.’ In other words, there would be no scrutiny of whether or not the decision was actually urgent.

 

According to the Urgent Decision form, 28 days’ notice could not be provided because: ‘Conclusion of the contractor developer partner procurement was delayed.’ But Council Officers have been working on that procurement for months, and would have known that a decision on it would be required at some time in the near future, so notice could surely have been given earlier.

 

And the reason why it is ‘impractical to defer the decision to a later date’ is said to be ‘to meet delivery timescales and funding conditions.’ With the delays which have already occurred since Brent first entered into its Wembley Housing Zone agreement with the GLA in 2015, delivery timescales don’t seem to have been much of a priority before. As for funding conditions, the Council must have been aware of these ever since funding agreements were made (at least 15 months ago for the extra £5.5m the GLA agreed to offer).

 

As at 6.30pm on Wednesday 21 December the formal decision has not been published on the Decisions page of Brent Council’s website. Perhaps it will be published on 22 or 23 December. But why would Senior Council Officers (and the Cabinet member responsible for this project, who is the Lead Member for Regeneration, despite this being mainly a housing development) delay making the decision, and giving the intention to make it so little publicity, until just before the Christmas / New Year holiday period?

 

Why Call-in matters, from Brent’s Protocol on Call-in.

 

I’ve said before that those behind this controversial Wembley Housing Zone project want to avoid any scrutiny of it. The award of the contract is a Key Decision, so could be called-in for scrutiny. I may be wrong, but I suspect that the decision is being made now to minimise any chance of a call-in. For call-in to take effect, at least five backbench councillors (non-Cabinet members) need to request that a Key Decision is called-in, and they need to do so ‘within 5 days of the date on which the record of the decision is made publicly available.’ 

 

How many councillors, if they were not aware that this important Key Decision was about to be made (because the usual 28 days’ notice has not been given) would be looking at the Decisions page on the Brent Council website over the holiday period? And even if any of them were keeping an eye on it, what would be the chances of organising five members to complete and submit call-in request forms before the end of the fifth day?

 

That’s the main reason I’ve asked Martin to consider publishing this guest post – so that this Festive Season is not used as a cover to sneak through a Key Decision without anyone realising that has been done until it is too late!

 

Philip Grant 

 

Philip Grant makes FOI request to Brent Council to try to get to the bottom of Rokesby Place tenure change

 Philip Grant, a frequent independent contributor to this blog, has submitted a Freedom of Information request on the tenure of the two new houses in Rokesby Place, following last night's Brent Planning Committee.

 Dear Mr Ansell and Brent FoI team,

I am addressing this email directly to you, as well as to Brent FoI, as you have been delegated the authority to make changes to yesterday evening's Planning Committee decision on application 22/1400 (Rokesby Place), including authority to vary conditions. I would request that you do not issue a consent letter on that application until this Freedom of Information Act request has been fully dealt with, as the answers to it may require an amendment to Condition 3, Affordable Housing.

The reason for this request is my concern about the change made to the type of affordable housing tenure for the two new four-bedroom homes at Rokesby Place, and how this came about, as there does not appear to be any justification for it in the documents for this application published on Brent's planning website.

The application form for 22/1400, submitted by Maddox Associates on 13 April 2022, clearly states for each of the two new homes:

 
'Tenure: Social Rent'.

 

The Planning Statement for this application, published on Brent's website on 19 April 2022, when describing the Proposed Development, states:

 
'Tenure
3.4 The houses are all proposed for social rent.'

 

Despite this, the proposed Condition 3 in the Officer Report to Planning Committee on 17 August was as follows:

 
'3. The residential dwellings hereby approved shall be provided as affordable housing in perpetuity, and shall be delivered as London Affordable rent units ....'

 

Freedom of Information Act Request: 

In order to establish why the tenure of the two houses was changed from Social Rent to London Affordable Rent, please let me have the following information and documents (in pdf format, please) in respect of the Rokesby Place planning application 22/1400, covering the period from 13 April 2022 to 17 August 2022:

1. On what dates in that period were there any communications (other than the Application Form and Planning Statement referred to above), in either direction, between the applicant (or its representatives) and Brent Planning Officers about the type of affordable housing tenure for the two proposed new homes at Rokesby Place?

2. Please let me have copies of all of the communications in 1 above.

3. If any of the copy communications requested under 2 above have names redacted, please provide details of the status, employer and job title of each person whose name has been redacted, if this is not shown on the copy where the name itself has been redacted.

4. If there are no communications of the type requested in 1 above, please explain when, how and why, and on whose authority, the proposed Social Rent tenure (shown in the April 2022 application documents for application 22/1400) was changed to the London Affordable Rent tenure proposed in Condition 3 of the Officer Report in August 2022.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email and FoI request. I look forward to receiving your full response to it at an early date. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

Brent's Head of Planning has replied, saying: 'We will of course look at the questions you raise and respond shortly.'

Planning Committee dumps Brent Poverty Commission recommendations on social rent and leave disabled residents of Rokesby Place in the lurch

 

The recommendation accepted by Brent Cabinet in September 2020

The Planning Committee tonight failed to challenge the change of tenure from Social Rent to London Affordable Rent in the Rokesby Place planning application and the conditions tonight. 

I suspect that this may mean that London Affordable Rent (LAR) is becoming the default position on Brent's new council housing. As Alan Lunt did before, in another application, the planning officer presenting the report minimised the difference claiming that LAR was genuinely affordable. She first said that she hadn't got the numbers but LAR was 'very, very similar' to social rent. She was given time to get the figures and stated  that the difference was that LAR was 8% higher than social rent but did not mention that unlike social housing services, LAR services are not capped.  No councillor asked her to explain why the change had been made.  

Making light of an 8% plus increase on the original rent, particularly during a cost of living crisis on accommodation for large families, is not acceptable.

It seems that  Labour members of planning committee can see things that are wrong, ask a question, but then withdraw even when the answer provided is obviously inadequate.

They challenge but don't pursue all under the  emolliative chairing of Cllr Kelcher.

Similarly vague answers from Maddox, Brent Council's agents, were accepted and this included a claim that argued there was no requirement to take into account the disability adjustments needed for existing disabled residents as a result of the development, as well as the dismissing of LAR even though(not mentioned by councillors) their report stated that the development was for social rent. 

This followed a heart-felt presentation by a Rokesby Place resident on the impact of the changes on access of the proposed layout changes on access for those using a wheelchair. It was left to Conservative councillor Michael Maurice )Ken ton  ward)  to oppose the application on grounds of lack of disabled parking as well as parking for visiting carers and medical staff,  reduction of  amenity space for existing residents and an increase in density on a very small site. Cllr Rajan Seelan (Labour - Wembley Central) also voted against on vehicle access grounds but the application was passed 6-2.

In her presentation resident Shahida Khan had said that the present car park that will be removed was the only place for a disabled person to get out of a car safely.  There was no evidence of an equality impact assessment for disabled people and she suggested that councillors get in a wheelchair themselves and tried to get in and out of a car. The process has not been fair and the disabled had not been considered. She wanted the application deferred for further consultation.

Residents voiced oncerns about the difficulty of access for fire tenders but officers argued that the new houses would be fitted with sprinklers so that rather than the requirement for a 45 metre hose distance from appliance to the house that a 70 metre distance would apply.

Cllr Ketan Sheth (Labour - Wembley Central) a former chair of planning committee, gave a 5 minute presentation opposing the application and supporting the residents' views. 

He said that while private amenity space and a shared amenity space had been provided for residents of the new houses, the plans took away well-used existing amenity space for current residents. What was now proposed was a scant replacement for what they would lose.

Residents' everyday experience of parking on the estate meant that they rejected the officers' assessment of parking needs. The suggestion that they park on nearby streets would put them in competition with existing use by staff from the post office sorting office, fire station,  police station and a nursing home.

He challenged the officers' view that it was unlikely that hedgehogs were present in the current green space by saying as well as residents' sighting, he had seen them for himself. The loss of mature trees was disappointing and would discourage wildlife.

Cllr Sheth was also concerned about the new development's impact on the privacy of residents. The new car park would mean that at night headlights would shine straight into bedrooms and the proximity of the amenity meant noise would disturb residents.

He drew attention to the discrepancy in the documents that referred to social rent  in the applciation and London Affordable Rent in Condition 3.  The Council's own Poverty Commssion had identified that LAR was not affordable to most Brent residents. He suggested that Condition 3 be changed back to social rent.

That was not to be.

BACKGROUND: Wembley Matters has raised some questions about the make up of the Planning Committee and its inter-relationships in a previous article Planning and Probity.

Rising costs hit Brent's New Council Homes Programme and something is stirring on its acquisition of The Falcon pub

Brent Council's Forward Plan gives a preview of what is coming up at future Cabinet Meetings but details at minimal.

This item appears in the Forward Plan for the September 12th Cabinet meeting:

To receive an update on delivery of the New Council Homes Programme and summary paper addressing the effect rising construction costs are having on the programme with options to alleviate.

The paper on 'options to alleviate' risings costs will be of vital interest. I assume possibilties include changes of tenure in developments, more private sales within schemes, changes in the quality of build etc.

 The Falcon

 

Another item for September 12th  is Acquisition of Falcon Public House site, Kilburn Lane

To agree the valuation of the site for the purposes of acquisition by the council.

There is an extensive history to this. Back in 2014 LINK Brent Council took ac tion against HS2 in order to move the HS2  ventilation shaft from the site next to Queens Park station to Canterbury Works in the middle of the South Kilburn Estate:

The Council has approved plans for the Queens Park Car Park site (Site 18 in the South Kilburn Regeneration Programme)  which involves demolition of Cullen House, Keniston House, Premier House and the Falcon Pub and the erection of 137 flats (39 of which are affordable), public space, office and commercial shop space.  The HS2 plans for a ventilation shaft and transformer would disrupt these plans with a loss to the Council and also affect the decanting of residents on the South Kilburn Estate during regeneration.

They were successful, much to the consternation of South Kilburn residents and in 2016 LINK  a Cabinet report included:

The subject comprises the Falcon Public House and includes residential accommodation to the upper floors for occupation by the pub manager on a site of 0.03 hectares. The property ranges in height from one to three storeys. The Falcon Pub itself is understood to comprise the complete ground floor level, with two storeys of residential accommodation above.

The site was formally marketed for £2.75m subject to a tenancy for the Falcon Public House with a passing rent of £24,000 per annum for a 3 year agreement. The exact terms need to be reviewed to ensure vacant possession can be secured relatively easily.

As usual financial details were not published publicly and we are unlikely to be told what the council is paying on our behalf.