UCU: Why we are striking. Interview from the picket line at University of Westminster, Harrow Campus

 

 

 

 

Key questions asked over Network Homes suitability as a development partner in Northwick Park scheme

 

Network Homes, with its head office located in Wembley, is one of the partners in the massive development at Northwick Park as well as an adviser to Brent Council on the building of council houses in the borough LINK.  Network's other partners at Northwick Park are Brent Council,London NW University Healthcare NHS Trust and the University of Westminster. It comes under the auspices of the government's One Public Estate policy which aims to maximise the return on public property.

Network Homes have been embroiled in the cladding scandal and warned in January 2020 that it would need to pass on most of the £200,000,000 that needed to  spent on remediation of its estate would have to be passed on to leaseholders. With its properties requiring so much work doubts have been raised over the quality of its housing.

 Although the Planning Committee has a quasi-statutory role and is supposed to be non-political Brent Council is a developer itself in this case.

Cllr Daniel Kennelly, a member of the Planning Committee, took up concerns over  Network Homes  at last night's meeting.

He wanted reassurances of the long-term viability of the project with Network Homes as a partner given its financial difficulties  and wanted to be assured that they properties they built would be safe. He noted that Network was facing long-term difficulties regarding its cladding responsibilities 'down the road' - what they had done had been 'criminal'. 

Officers responded that they did not look at the financial viability of the developer itself but of the financial viability of its project - did it give sufficient return to the developer on the basis of what they would build and the income it would derive. Network would have to adhere to fire regulations and the plans were for brick build with no cladding. The fire strategy would be considered under reserved matters and rigorously checked.

Kennelly continued to press on the impact of the overall scheme if one partner collapsed financially:  would other partners be liable to its costs? A lead officer responded that different entities in the partnership would be responsible for their own section of the development and would not be responsible for the other parts. He pointed to the  financial collapse of a building company which, after it crashed, its development had been bought by another company and completed.

The councillor sought assurances that although there was an undertaking that there would be no ground rent on the scheme would there be other costs on top of the rent. An officer replied that planning did not control service charges. Cllr Johnson was concerned that the existing NHS residents on the Network Homes estate that was to be demolished would get first refusal on new 'intermediate' (MF not genuinely affordable) properties. He was concerned that they would not be able to afford them. Officers replied, rather obviously, that this would depend on their salary. Network Homes had been engaging with them about their options. NHS staff would not be eligible for London Affordable Rent properties as these were allocated to people on the Council's housing list.

Cllr Kennelly also asked about the large number of trees that would be removed in the development and asked how long it would take for the present level of carbon capture  by existing trees to be reached by the new planning. An officer commented that this issue was not captured by planning guidance at the moment while another said it would depend on the rate of growth of the different tree species planted and what was done with the felled trees - if they were burned and released carbon this would add to the carbon capture requirement. Replacement trees would not  all be saplings and there woduld be a substantial increase in the overall number of trees.

Representations by Brent and Harrow Cyclists over  safe routes around and  through the development were largely dismissed as referring to the new through road that had already been approved. Officers said there was not enough space on the road for segregated cycling and that a single crossing at the junction with Watford Road would make life easier for cyclists and pedestrians, but as there was heavy traffic flow on Watford Road, maintaining the flow was the priority. John Fletcher (Highways) said they would take the representations into consideration as the scheme got underway and offered to meet with the cyclists to walk through the site.

Given some of the less than convincing  answers by officers (I have never heard so many 'sort ofs' in such an important meeting), it is surprising that the application was unanimously approved.

 

 

Northwick Park development juggernaut at Planning Committee Monday afternoon

 

Masterplan for the site

Current View

The massive scheme for the Northwick Park partnership scheme comes back to Brent Planning Committee on Monday. for outline permission.  The partners are Brent Council, University of Westminster, NW London NHS and Network Housing:

 20/0700 | Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved apart from the means of access) for demolition of existing buildings on site and provision of up to 1,600 homes and up to 51,749 sqm (GIA) of new land use floorspace within a series of buildings, with the maximum quantum as follows: -(Use Class C3) Residential: up to 1,600 homes; -up to 50,150m2 floor space (GIA) of new student facilities including Student Accommodation, Teaching facilities, Sports facilities, and ancillary retail and commercial (Use Class A1, A2, A3) -up to 412sqm floorspace (GIA) of a replacement nursery (Use Class D1) -up to 1187sqm (GIA) of flexible new retail space (Use Class A1, A2, A3) Together with energy centre, hard and soft landscaping, open space and associated highways improvements and infrastructure works This application is subject to an Environmental Statement | Land adjacent to Northwick Park Hospital, Nightingale Avenue, London, HA1 

 Readers will be familiar with the university buildings on the right as you leave Northwick Park station with a Costa cafe at the entrance and the wildflower meadow on the right as you walk down the alley to the hospital.  The university gave up maintaining the meadow on the basis that it was 'too expensive' to maintain a few years ago - from the illustration above it appears it will be built on.

 

 

The ecological impact of the whole scheme has been raised by Sudbury Court Residents Association. Officers respond in a Supplementary Report:

 

Ecological impact: loss of 387 trees with no details for replacement tree planting. Officer response: It is not always possible to avoid the loss of some trees in bringing new developments forward, however Brent's policies allow for these to be compensated for by replacement tree planting of an appropriate scale and nature. The loss of 130 trees on the Hospital ring road has been accepted in the extant consent to construct the new spine road (reference 20/0677) whilst the loss of 44 trees has been accepted in Planning Committee's resolution to grant permission for the detailed application (reference20/0701), however this is subject to the planting of 208 replacement trees secured by condition, resulting in a net uplift in the number of trees. The remaining 213 trees that would be lost as a result of the later phases of the outline development would also be replaced. Further details of tree planting would be submitted and approved as part of the landscaping scheme required under Condition 33, which requires at least 387replacement trees to be planted across the outline site. The impact on trees is discussed in paragraphs 184to 193 of the main report.

 

Ecological impact: removal of trees during bird nesting season and period of bat movement out of hibernation Officer response: The applicant's Ecology Report recommends a number of precautionary measures to avoid or minimise impacts on protected species and other wildlife in the construction period. These include bat inspections prior to felling of any mature trees, measures to be taken if bats or other protected species are observed, vegetation and building removal to take place outside the bird nesting season or in the presence of an ecologist, and protection of active bird nests. These measures would be secured through a Construction Environmental Management Plan required under Condition 28, and the developer would also be subject to the requirements of protected species legislation. See paragraph 206.

 

 Ecological impact: loss of bird and bat populations and other ecological benefits of trees (shelter, food and breeding opportunities for wildlife, clean air) due to loss of trees. Officer response: Although birds were observed on or close to the site, the site overall is very low in suitability for protected and rare bird species or other protected and priority species. No evidence of bat activity or bat roosts was found, and very low numbers of foraging and commuting bats were observed and detected in the area. The tree line along the boundary with Northwick Park would be retained and reinforced by new tree planting, however it is acknowledged that construction work and the removal of some trees near the boundary could result in a temporary loss of and disturbance to habitats, and a financial contribution to ecological enhancements in Northwick Park would be secured as compensation. The proposal would create new habitats of potential ecological value, including rain gardens, and further ecological appraisals would be required post-completion. Ecological impacts are discussed in paragraph 198 to 208 of the main report.

 

Ecological impact: Tree saplings will not compensate for loss of mature tree stock or well established wildlife foraging lines. Officer response: The proposals for replacement tree planting are expected to include a mixture of semi-mature and younger trees.

 Further measures requested to reduce increase in pollution and congestion. Officer response: Traffic generation is covered in paragraphs 296 to 303 and 323 of the main report. Travel Plans would be required, to encourage and reinforce sustainable travel choices by occupiers of the development (see paragraphs 322 and 323). These measures are considered sufficient to minimise additional traffic caused by the development.

 

 Details of plans to reduce congestion and pollution in surrounding roads requested, including Watford Road and Sudbury Court Estate. Officer response: As set out in paragraph 303 of the main report, the proposals are expected to reduce congestion, and consequently pollution, on Watford Road. The proposal is unlikely to directly impact on Sudbury Court Estate, as there is no direct vehicular access. An Active Travel Zone Assessment was carried out by the applicants, identifying barriers to sustainable travel choices in the wider area, and this is summarised in paragraphs 324 to 326 of the main report.

 

Further details requested of how bat survey was carried out in line with current best practice. Officer response: These details are set out in the Environmental Statement Volume 3: Appendix: Ecology, which is available on the Council's website. A bat assessment was carried out by an experienced and licensed ecologist, following English Nature Bat Mitigation Guidelines (2004) and Bat Conservation Trust Best Practice Guidelines (2016). The document sets out equipment used, inspection methods, and an assessment of the bat roosting potential of all buildings, trees and habitats on site. Some trees were identified as having moderate and above bat roosting potential, and the Social Club building as having low bat potential. Further surveys were carried out, comprising four dusk emergence / activity surveys and two dawn re-entry / activity surveys in various locations around the site with potential for roosting, foraging or commuting. No evidence of bat activity was observed, and no bat roosts were discovered. Ecological impacts are covered in paragraphs 198 to 208 of the main report.

 

Further details of replacement tree planting as soon as available. Officer response: Further details of replacement tree planting would be secured under Condition 33.

In October last year a councillor for Northwick Park ward expressed concern over ecological issues in a 'neutral' submission and concluded:

Mitigation and protection will not be an easy task here, but is achievable I'm sure. May I remind everyone that this is predominantly a rural site will many SSI areas and not a urban brownfield site, yes there are substantial concrete building, but they are home to Bats, Kestrels and now Peregrine Falcons (recently witnesses from the upper floor of the hospital block), on ground levels there are without doubt Hedgehogs, Badgers, Weasels and many more species just wondering around the secluded areas around the concrete buildings.

I am all for improvements to the site's housing and facilities, but we must protect as well ? Brent Council did declare a Climate Emergency and wildlife obviously is part of this, take our Bee Corridors for instance.

The officers' report includes many of the now  familiar  reasons why they recommend approval despite  the application not meeting some policy guidelines of which the amount of affordable housing,  as well as the number of Shared Ownership  properties are likely to be of concern to councillors

The proposal would provide 40% (by habitable room) affordable homes (including 13% for London Affordable Rent). While the overall proportion of London Affordable Rented homes is not in line with the percentage specified in DMP15, it has been demonstrated that the scheme would deliver the maximum reasonable number of Affordable homes on a policy compliant basis(70:30 ratio of London Affordable Homes to Intermediate), but with additional Affordable Homes delivered, lowering the levels of profit associated with the scheme. These would be delivered as intermediate rented homes, London Living Rent homes and shared ownership homes, and would including housing for NHS keyworkers. Appropriate nominations agreements will be secured within the Section 106 Agreement. The Financial Viability Appraisal submitted with the application has been robustly reviewed on behalf of the Council and is considered to demonstrate that the proposal delivers beyond the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing that the scheme can support. Early, mid- and late stage review mechanisms would be secured. The overall proportion of family-sized homes (16.6%) is below the levels set out in Brent's adopted and emerging policies. However, a higher proportion would further undermine the viability of the scheme and the provision of Affordable Housing, and the benefits associated with the provision of Affordable Housing are considered to outweigh the impacts associated with the lower proportion of family housing. Affordable student accommodation would be secured as part of the development of the University Campus.

The application refers to 'Northwick Village' - 1,600 is a pretty big village, and blocks are not particularly village-like. Here are some of the 'impressions' in the plans.

 

 

The Planning Committee is on Monday March 29th at 4pm. You can watch it live HERE

Ban on election leafleting of Northwick Park University of Westminster students

The Harrow Halls of Residence

As a result of encouragement by the University a third of the 1,500 students accommodated at the Northwick Park University of Westminster  halls of residence have registered to vote.

Excellent work encouraging democratic participation of young people.

All the more perplexing then that a polite request to distribute election material to the student flats was, equally politely, turned down by the management of the accommodation.

I was told that this was a decision made at the highest level as the University did not want the students inundated with material and that modern students got all their information through internet searches rather than leaflets.

Apparently this ban applied to all political parties and bundles of leaflets delivered to the Campus by the Labour Party had been binned.

I wonder if the students have had any say in this decision that I was told was 'final'.

Network Homes tenants in Northwick Park face uncertain future

The Phase 1 site between the park footpath and the road

Network Homes have told their assured shorthold tenancy(AST)  tenants in Northwick Park, part of the proposed One Public estate regeneration between themselves, Brent Council, North West London University Healthcare NHS Trust and the University of Westminster; that their tenancies could be ended with two months notice after a fixed period.

Network Homes say that they do not intend to do this until they have to remove the present housing as part of the redevelopment and that this will not happen until at least 2021.

They recognise this announcement could cause concern but promise they will work with residents over the next few years to listen to concerns and keep them informed about the development.

Network stop short of any firm promises about the future stating that tenants will want to know if they will be offered a home in the new development and how their rents will be affected.  At present a substantial numbers of the homes are allocated to NHS staff and Network have stated that they intend to prioritise NHS staff wherever possible.   They go on to say until designs are finalised and planning permission granted they are unable to provide exact details of homes that will be available.

Network Homes have purchased the land to the north of 'Northwick Park Village' from the NHS Trust and plan to build new homes as Phase 1 of the regeneration. I understand that this is the land between the incinerator and the social club, including the car parks, and 1,300 new homes are planned. They will be a mix of what Network call 'genuinely affordable' and homes for private rent and private sale. Early artist impressions of the redevelopment showed high-rise homes on  this stretch of land.

Outline proposals will include rebuilding the existing homes on Northwick Park Village but 'this is some years away' as part of Phase 2 and won't start until the new homes have been built as part of Phase 1.

As with other developments much will rest on the 'viability assessment' in terms of the balance of affordable homes versus private rent  and private sale that will give a 'sufficient' financial return to the developer. This is what will impact on the rehousing propspects of existing tenants.

Network Homes promise to consult with local residents in advance of submitting a planning application.

OK, it's August -Silly Season - time to see what Brent Council's Cabinet is tabling for their get together on the 13th

Guest post by Gaynor Lloyd
 

If you live in Northwick Park area - or South Kilburn for that matter - it’s worth having a quick look at the  Cabinet papers  about Brent’s  “Regeneration Zones”. LINK 

Yes, some of us lucky residents of leafy Northwick Park were just a bit startled to see ourselves in a “Regeneration Zone”. Some of us weren’t  too shocked, however - though still very , very upset. This is just the latest stage in the story of the plans for what we residents call “the Park”. A fantastic piece of Brent open space, including formal much used sports and  playing fields, a nature conservation area and a golf course. 

And it seems  the Leader of the Council is in charge of this; South Kilburn get the Cabinet Member for Regeneration. I expect we should be flattered. 

This is all about one element of the One Public Estate (OPE)  scheme which has come home to roost in Northwick Park. [More about OPE for those interested at the bottom of this piece **- and see also the linked news stories in Brent & Kilburn Times LINK  

and my letter on Page 13 on the earlier story LINK 

The scheme involves Network Housing, Northwick Park Hospital, Brent Council, University of Westminster and potentially TfL. It’s quite hard to get the detail  but the idea is that there will be 3700 homes  by 2035 somewhere on the margins of the Park. Tower blocks will be built on the land near to the Tube station - a “landmark residential development”.

Sure, as some  papers have emerged, there have been references to key worker housing, and affordable homes  - gosh, do we need key worker housing, and social housing - truly affordable homes - but these proposals  are all very vague. I’ve been trying for more transparency - a couple of Freedom of Information (FOI)  requests over the last 2 years - but not much joy. 

Even though  Brent got a grant of  £530k to do viability research on all this. Including transport research, my current  huge concern - and the reason for asking Martin to post this blog. 

My latest FOI request of Brent  from last December has been so sat on for a very long time -  despite  numerous charming assurances that the sifting process of 100’s of emails was being done  and that the release of  all or some would be opined on “soon” by Brent’s Legal Team . Well, after a last chance given to Brent by the Information Commissioner just to reply at all,  it’s now been accepted by her  as a complaint . I await hearing if the Information Commissioner accepts my argument that the plans should be out in the public domain. 

I was particularly incensed by  the secrecy for the transportation reports/ surveys, and the plans being hatched for  “infrastructure works”  . Principally an access road for this huge re-development. Our very own Regeneration Zone.

Clearly the access road can’t  go across the railway/Tube lines. OK, University of Westminster might be decamping for pastures new; maybe it could go that way. But the University’s plans  seem to be a more recent possible development. 

So where could this road  possibly go? And where might it be considered for going - a location of such commercial confidentiality and sensitivity that Brent can’t possibly release any professional transport reports or plans on it into the public domain? 

Oh, let me think...

Could it be an access road across our Park - designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) - put simplistically, the London equivalent of Green Belt? (The Mayor recently refused an application by Harrow School for a major long planned sports centre on its MOL  land just cross the road from Northwick Park - because it was inappropriate development on MOL) 

It’s not “just” the effect on the environment, or the open air sports facilities; it’s the madness of adding to the roads here, which also serve Northwick Park hospital - a major hospital with (as we all know) a busy A&E. 

But hang on - to finance all this - Brent has a £9.9 million grant from HM Government from the Marginal Viability  Fund bit of its  Housing Infrastructure Fund. To get  this “marginal viability funding”, according to the HMG website , there is supposed to be “market failure”, and  “extensive local consultation” and      “alignment with the Local plan”. Well, these are  a bit news to me but obviously I don’t know everything.

So another reason for my FOI request - which sought evidence of  any of those factors. So far all I have got is a bit of alleged consultation.  Sudbury Court Residents’ Association AGM in April 2017, to which Brent officers did come after a bit of persuading. They brought  a very rum set of slides, including one of rather a scruffy park bench by Northwick Park Tube station, mentioning   litter. The officers did do a bit of question answering by local residents - and promised to revert on some stuff (but didn’t).

If that was consultation, it seems odd  the FOI officer says they have to ask the Chair of the SCRA for her notes of the meeting! Anyway, it wasn’t “consultation” in any normal sense of the word.(NO comments please on Brent’s consultations)

Oh -  and that aligning with Local Plan point. Well, maybe that can be retrospective. The Cabinet paper says “ members may be aware that Brent’s planning department is engaged in consultation on the local plan for which Northwick Park has an allocation “. I’d hope all members (especially on the Cabinet) would be aware we’ve had a bit of Local plan consultation in Brent. 

However, speaking as a local resident (and married to a Ward Councillor) and  having gone to a local meeting  on this Local Plan business   - though I admit I am getting on a bit , so I might have forgotten  - I was completely unaware of any Planning Officer referring to Northwick Park at all. Let alone in terms of revising Northwick Park’s  Local Plan “allocation” or Northwick Park becoming a “Regeneration Zone”.

It seems that the Local Plan “Preferred Options” will be out in November - when “it is proposed to run public consultation specific to Northwick Park in parallel”.

I hope we residents will be having a little pre-consultation consultation amongst ourselves rather more quickly than that. I also hope others in the Borough interested in open space, the environment,  good use of NHS land, pollution, key worker housing and good social housing provision will join us. WATCH THIS SPACE.

[**NOTE on OPE if you’ve got this far!

HM Government OPE is a plan to dispose of “surplus public land”. A particularly infamous issue is the disposal of NHS land in London - based on a couple of reports by Sir Robert Naylor. Generally Sir Robert in his openly available  Report says  to NHS bodies “Identify your surplus land” (that can include unused/empty space like corridors and open walkways, by the way). If your percentages of unused/empty or underused space to your overall site are too high, oh dear, inefficiency - using a carrot & stick approach - the message  is “sell, sell, sell”. Sir Robert’s second, confidential report -  “Naylor 2” - identifies some prime value London NHS sites for disposal  and  is so sensitive NHS England has been fighting a Freedom of Information request I have in on it for around 2 years. 

So clearly a sensitive area generally. Naylor’s reports IS useful in one respect though; Deloittes accountants did a background research report for him - which said sensibly that we ought to be looking strategically at the need for land for NHS use, in light of London’s growing population - and reminding of high land values here if we need to reprovide. Gosh how sensible - how ignored! ]

Northwick Park redevelopment takes another step forward at Monday's Cabinet

Property owners/leaseholders

The One Public Estate plan for Northwick Park will take a step forward at Cabinet on Monday February 12th when it is expected that a revised Memorandum of Understanding LINK between the partners will be approved and a timetable agreed.

The One Public Estate (OPE) is a government initiative aimed at rationalising and realising the potential (including financial) of public land by bringing together all the various public sector owners for redevelopment.  In the case of Northwick Park this includes Brent Council, Network Homes, the University of Westminster and the London NW Healthcare NHS Trust. LINK

Various options are considered in a feasibility study (embedded at the end of this article) and the favoured one is Option B2:

Click on image to enlarge

This includes the highest density of housing and reprovision of the existing university accommodation. On the issue of the proportion of affordable housing proposed the feasibility study notes '50% affordable [is at] the margins of viability, before any consideration of the value of existing uses'. The Option B1 included the provision of a new secondary school which may have provided a site for the proposed North Brent Secondary School LINK.

The plans are at an early stage but may include provision of much needed lift access at Northwick Park Metropolitan Line Station and work to improve the present narrow tunnel exit to the hospital and university, and improved pedestrian access to South Kenton station on the Bakerloo and Overground lines.  There is the possibility of a new road being built to take traffic into the area.

The Officers' report puts forward this timetable:

·      Prepare a planning brief for the site. (Feb 18- Dec 18) 


·      Commission further transport studies. (Feb 18- Dec 18) 


·      Maximise OPE funding. (ongoing) 


·      Commission energy feasibility studies. (Jan 18- July 18) 


·      Consider potential for inclusion of a secondary school. (Jan 18 – July 18) 


Network Homes Ltd and LNWUH to conclude negotiations on NHS owned 
land. (June 2018) Timescales are indicative. 

These are early days but local residents will want to look into the plans carefully for any impact on the Metropolitan Open Land that surrounds the site and which they have fought so hard to preserve in Harrow-on-the-Hill.

Brent Cabinet to discuss Northwick Park One Public Estate Memorandum

Controversial 'One Public Estate' plans LINK for Northwick Park will be discussed at the Cabinet on May 22nd (at the earlier time of 6pm) in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding between the four partners: London Borough of Brent, London NW Healthcare NHS Trust, University of Westminster and Network Homes.

Consultation revealed resident fears over impact on transport, existing infrastructure including schools, flood and drainage and the need to consult with Harrow Council.  I would also add the potential impact on public open space as being a concern.

The Memorandum of Understanding stresses improvements for all the partners but also has an underlying theme of reducing costs and maximising receipts and land values:

The Key Objectives

The aim of the Project in general terms is to work together to rationalise services and resources between the Partners and Associate Partners  and unlock development land to facilitate hospital redevelopment, new homes and improved services for the community.

Common visions for partners;

·      Place making 


·      Central hub(s) 


·      Improved infrastructure (road network and Highways, cycle ways etc.), and transport connections, (Underground, overground rail and buses), and private 


·      Utility and boundary review. 


·      Energy strategy 


·      Shared facilities and services. 

 
The specific aim of Project is to:

·      to generate capital receipts. 


·      to reduce running costs 


·      to create jobs, 


·      to create homes, 


·      to integrate services 
These aims are referenced in Brent’s July 2016 Phase Four OPE MOU 
 

Key objectives for Brent are; 


·      More affordable homes 


·      More school places 


·      Growth 


·      Increased revenue from homes and businesses 


·      Employment and skills opportunities within the Borough. 

 
Key objectives for London Northwest Healthcare NHS Trust 


·      Maximise income for the Trust in order to support its deficit and sustainability plans

·      Ensure accommodation requirements are met 


·      Improve access to the hospital 


·      Protect existing clinical services from distribution or delay (e.g. Blue light 
vehicles, clinical activity) 


·      Improve civic values of the development 


·      Address requirement to re-provide services currently on the land, whilst 
ensuring continuity 
 

Key objectives for The University of Westminster 


·      Maintain and increase student satisfaction levels 


·      Upgrade teaching spaces 


·      Increase critical mass and create a sense of place 


·      Create additional student accommodation 


·      Maximise value of landholding 


·      Create staff accommodation. 
 

Key Objectives for Network Homes Ltd. 


·      Phased redevelopment of Northwick Park working collaboratively with other 
land holders to maximise the potential opportunity 


·      Delivery of new affordable and mixed tenure housing as well as commercial 
uses 


·      High quality design and place making, including the main gateway into the 
site from NWP tube station, serving all land holdings 


·      Improved infrastructure and transport connections to help ensure a 
sustainable future for Northwick Park residents, service providers and hospital patients 


This is project outline as first published in One Public estate (Local Government Association/Cabinet office) February 2017 (click on image to enlarge)