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.

North West London 'Campaigns for Health' Conference May 12th at Unity Centre

 

NW London "Campaigns for Health" Conference

Date Sunday 12th  May

Time 1-5 Registration from 12.30

Venue Unity Centre 103 Church Road NW10 9EG

Admission and refreshments free

Organised by the Socialist Health Association

Enquiries 07930 157351

No need to book, Just turn up.

 

 

Wembley FC get behind battle to save Byron Court Primary School from academisation

 

There's a bit of a tradition of Brent sports stars getting behind community campaigns to save local facilities for young people. Remember boxer Audley Harrison fighting for Stonebridge Adventure Playground? LINK

Having grown up in the borough they know what facilities are important for young people  and contributed to their own success.

Wembley FC tweeted the above picture over the weekend and said:

We utterly believe in the @SaveByronCourt cause. Our players, one of which attended the school, wore “SAVE BYRON COURT” t-shirts ahead of our last game of the season yesterday.

Licensing Committee meeting to decide controversial Wembley Rooftop Bar application cancelled and adjourned until June

 

The entrance and rooftop area of the proposed bar

A Brent Entertainment and Licensing Committee meeting to hear an application for a rooftop bar overlooking Wembley Stadium, atop a residential block, has been cancelled at short notice. The meeting was due to be held tomorrow and is now adjourned until a later date in June. The applicant made the request stating that "the developer is currently devising a new entry plan which may help to address a number of the objectors key concerns. This may take a couple of weeks to finalise".

The application by Field Vision Wembley Rooftop, at 10-12 Wembley Park Boulevard was for the sale of alcohol Monday to Sunday 10am -11pm and to remain open 8am -11.30pm Monday to Sunday.

The application has attracted opposition from residents of the block regarding noise, anti-social behaviour, sharing lifts with rowdy  and safety of children fans amongst other concerns.

Council officers and the police have also opposed the application as it stands although there is a possibility of agreeing conditions:

 

Brent Licensing Enforcement Officer

 

I certify that I have carefully considered the above premises licence application, and

consequently, I wish to make a representation on the grounds that if the application were to be granted as it currently is, it would likely have a detrimental effect on two out of the four below licensing objectives:

 

• the prevention of crime and disorder;

• public safety;

• the prevention of public nuisance;

• the protection of children from harm.

 

Match Day

 

- Has the applicant undertaken an Entry/Exit Plan, Fan Zone Crowd Safety Management Plan

and an Evacuation Plan?

- Taking into consideration the use of the internal space on the ground floor, does the client

intend to have a queuing system beyond the entrance onto the outside area/ Wembley Park

Boulevard? (I.e., Fan Zone Crowd Safety Management Plan)

- Will the premises be open to patrons following full time on a football event match day? If so, how will the applicant deal with the outside queuing area, especially if fans are leaving the stadium via ‘The Spanish Steps’? (I.e., Fan Zone Crowd Safety Management Plan)

- How will staff ensure that the number of patrons will not go beyond capacity? (I.e., Entry/Exit Plan)

- How many staff will be downstairs managing the internal reception area? (I.e., Entry/Exit Plan)

- How will the phased entry system work? (I.e., Entry/Exit Plan)

- Will the use of the lift to the terrace be exclusively for patrons or will it be shared with

residents? (I.e., Entry/Exit Plan)

- How will patrons leave the premises? Will there be a phased exit system as well? (I.e.,Entry/Exit Plan)

- Will there be a separation between patrons wanting to leave the premises and patrons waiting in the reception area? (I.e., Entry/Exit Plan)

- Where are the designated fire exits on the ground floor? (I.e., Evacuation Plan)

- Will the internal reception area impede any evacuation procedure? (I.e., Evacuation Plan)

- How will staff mitigate against fans throwing objects over the edge off the terrace? (I.e., Will there be a barrier/planter erected? What will the height of this be?)

- Will the applicant have a specific security plan for high risk, medium risk, and low risk football match day events?

 

Having carefully read the application, I wouldn’t have any issues with this application being granted providing that certain assurances are made by way of conditions and if the applicant agrees to the reduced hours. This in turn will satisfy the promotion of the four licensing objectives.

 

Nuisance Control Team

 

Dear Licensing Authority, applicant, and agent

 

Nuisance Control Team as a Responsible Authority make representation against the

application. This is based on concern that granting the application is likely to result in public

nuisance arising from airborne noise associated with patrons in an open air venue in close

proximity to noise sensitive premises – those being the north elevation upper floors at the

neighbouring 14 Wembley Park Boulevard, and residents living beneath the roof space at 48

Olympic Way. We are concerned that rowdy or raucous alcohol-fuelled behaviour would

result in public nuisance by adversely interfering with the right of neighbours to reasonably

enjoy their home.

 

Metropolitan Police

 

Police concerns are around Public Safety.

 

1. Police to establish how the applicant will manage the crowd/queuing system in and out of

the venue on match days.

2. Police to establish what measures the applicant have in place for an emergency? Eg

police/ambulance attendance to the rooftop and/or evacuation

Regeneration at Scrutiny meeting – The truth about Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone land

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity-

 

The Scrutiny page on Brent Council’s website includes the following question and answer:

 

From: https://www.brent.gov.uk/the-council-and-democracy/council-meetings-and-decision-making/scrutiny#Whatisscrutiny

 

For the Scrutiny system to operate effectively, the information given to Scrutiny Committees by Cabinet members and Council Officers needs to be truthful. Within the Brent Members’ Code of Conduct, this is spelt out: ‘you must comply with the seven principles of conduct in public life set out in Appendix 1.’ The seven principles include “Honesty”, and “Accountability” which is defined as: 

 

‘You should be accountable to the public for your actions and the manner in which you carry out your responsibilities, and should co-operate fully and honestly with any scrutiny appropriate to your particular office.’

 

Martin posted a blog article, “Cllr Tatler taken to task on regeneration issues”, following the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting last Tuesday (23 April 2024). It included a video, taken from the Council’s webcast of the meeting, which I watched with interest.

 

I have tried several times, since January 2022, to get proper scrutiny of the August 2021 Cabinet decision to allow a developer to sell at least half of the homes at Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) development (including most at the more favourable Cecil Avenue site) for private profit. WHZ was in the first of the regeneration growth areas dealt with in the Officer Report to the Scrutiny Committee meeting:

 

 

 

When I heard what Cllr. Shama Tatler said about WHZ when addressing the meeting, I could hardly believe what I had heard. I submitted a short comment, saying: ‘I'm sure I heard Cllr. Tatler claim that Brent did.not own the Wembley Housing Zone land, which is why it was not viable to build more affordable housing there.’ I finished my comment with: ‘Was Cllr. Tatler being "economical with the truth"?’

 

After further research, I submitted a follow-up comment, which Martin has agreed to post as a separate item on Wembley Matters. This is what I wrote:

 

‘I asked above: 'Was Cllr. Tatler being "economical with the truth"?'

 

This was in relation to the Wembley Housing Zone, where I have been campaigning for more genuinely affordable housing, and writing guest posts about it, since August 2021.

 

I have gone back to the webcast, and transcribed what Cllr. Tatler said. Martin kindly sent me a document from a Brent Executive meeting in April 2014 on proposed land rationalisation at Copland Community School and adjacent lands.

 

This is the relevant extract from the webcast of Tuesday's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting, with Cllr. Tatler addressing the committee on Brent's regeneration schemes:

 

'With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own the land. We had to purchase the land. That impacts viability as well. And we are looking at how we deal with affordable housing on the scheme. Ideally we would want to deliver 100% social housing on any of our land ....'

 

This is the key paragraph from the April 2014 Report to Brent's Executive (now Cabinet), whose recommendations were approved and put in place. CCS is Copland Community School, which had been served with an Academy Order by the Secretary of State, and the IEB is the Interim Executive Board, which Brent Council as Local Education Authority had put in place instead of CCS's previous governing body, to run the school until it was taken over by the Ark Academy group.

 

'CCS is a foundation school and therefore the land and buildings are mainly in the ownership of the school itself, the responsibility for which is vested in the IEB. The IEB has expressed agreement to transfer the freehold of the site which it currently owns to the Council instead, in order for the Council to rationalise the ownership and use of the site overall, ensuring an optimum footprint for the school. The ARK would under these proposals be granted a 125 year lease on the final school site.'

 

In the "Financial Implications" section of the Report, these were the key points from the proposals (which were approved and put in place):

 

'2. The IEB transfer to the Council the freehold interest in the CCS site at nil consideration.

3. The Council accepts a surrender of CCS’s leasehold interests at nil consideration.

5. The Council grants the ARK a short term lease of the existing CCS buildings at peppercorn rent.

7. The Council will grant the ARK a 125 year lease of the new school siteat a peppercorn rent.

8. The ARK will surrender the lease to the existing school at nil consideration.'

 

So, Brent became the freehold owners of all of the original Copland School site and playing fields in 2014, granting ARK a temporary lease of the original school buildings from 1 September 2014. 

 

When the new school was built on the playing fields behind the original school buildings, Brent then granted ARK a 125 year lease for the new school site, BUT retained the freehold of the original Copland School land, now the Wembley Housing Zone Cecil Avenue site, at no cost to the Council.

 

The other, smaller, part of Brent's Wembley Housing Zone scheme, for which it received an £8m grant from the GLA in 2015, is Ujima House. Brent bought that office building in 2016, using £4.8m of the initial £8m GLA funding. It has since received further GLA funding to be used on affordable housing as part of the WHZ.

Cllr. Tatler DID mislead the Scrutiny Committee when she said that Brent did not own the Wembley Housing Zone land and had to purchase it!’

 

Map showing the land around Copland School and its ownership, prior to the rationalisation.
(From an Appendix to the Report to the April 2014 meeting of Brent’s Executive)

 

If there was any doubt about Brent Council’s ownership of the former Copland School site, the freehold of all the land hatched in green on the map above was transferred to Brent in 2014. The only land that Brent had to purchase for its WHZ scheme was the much smaller Ujima House site (which will provide 54 of the 291 WHZ homes, scheduled for completion in 2026).

 

Back in November 2021, Cllr. Tatler, in answer to a public question I had asked ahead of a Full Council meeting, said: ‘it is not financially viable to deliver all 250 homes at Cecil Avenue as socially rented housing.’ [Her scheme only delivered 37 affordable rented homes there then!]

 

Yet neither she, nor anyone else at Brent Council, has been willing or able to answer my question of why it would not be viable to build far more of the Cecil Avenue homes for genuinely affordable rent to Council tenants (see my January 2024 guest post for the latest figures), when the vacant site to build them on was already owned by Brent, they could have gone ahead with the development themselves as soon as they received full planning consent in February 2021, and interest rates were very low (and did not shoot up until autumn 2022).   

 

 Philip Grant.