The Alperton bus garage develpment next to Alperton station (21, 25, and 28 storeys)

 The Alperton blocks from Bridgewater Road and the station

 

The proposed blocks on the Access Storage site on First Way, Wembley Park

The block heights are up to 24 storeys

The blocks in the stadium context

Two planning applications are coming back to Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday  at 4pm (VIEW HERE) that together comprise 12 tower blocks with the tallest at 28 storeys at Alperton bus station and the tallest at First Way Wembley 25 storeys. For comparison the tallest of the Wembley 'Twin Towers' on the corner of Park Lane and Wembley High Road is 26 storeys.

26 storeys

 Both schemes are recommended for approval by Brent Planning officers. The proposed housing on the Alperton Bus Garage  site is distributed as follows:

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.

Whilst the provision of external amenity space falls short of Brent's policy standard, this is considered to be adequately compensated for by the overall quality of the amenity space provided and by the site’s close proximity to One Tree Hill Recreation Ground, to which a financial contribution would be secured.

Whilst the GLA consider the proposal would cause harm to the setting of Alperton Station, such harm is less than substantial, and the benefits of the scheme clearly outweigh the harm. The proposal is considered to respond well to the proposed Growth Area site allocation including the aimof developing an enterprise hub and co-locating new industrial floorspace with residential development in this highly accessible location in the centre of Alperton

The Access Storage First Way, Wembley development has the following residential pattern:

The total affordable at 10% is very low and Discount Market Rent is 80% of market rent so not affordable to most Brent residents. There are also issue of loss of daylight to neighbouring properties and lack of amenity space. Failure to meet

Planning officers conclude:

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 and completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

 

 The development would provide a suitable and attractive built addition to the Wembley Park growth area in line with local policy allocation objectives, creating a mixed-use development with 600 BTR homes and replacement office and self-storage floorspace. At between 12 and 24 storeys, the proposed heights are appropriate in this location, and the transition to scale and massing away from the Stadium is considered to respect the aims of the WAAP and Local Plan policies. Furthermore, there would be non detrimental impact to key strategic views to Wembley Stadium arch.

 

There would be some limited level of harm to the daylight and sunlight enjoyed at adjoining properties, however this is considered minimal given the high-density urban context. The provision of a significant quantum of replacement employment floorspace and a high number of new homes, with significantly more of those homes being secured as affordable units than the Council would deem viable is a significant planning benefit that carries significant weight.

 

Whilst the scheme does fall short on external amenity space standards set out in Policy DMP19, the overall quality of accommodation is considered to be good and must be considered against the wider benefits of the scheme including affordable housing, significantly improved public realm and the ability to widen South Way to incorporate two-way working. As such, the conflict with adopted and emerging policy is limited and would be outweighed by the wider benefits of the mixed-use re-development, including there-provision of a high-quality employment floorspace, and an adequate level of affordable housing.

 

Following the above discussion, and weighing up all aspects of the proposal, officers consider that the proposal should be approved subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement.

 

 The Alperton developers will pay £13,450,282 in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and  developers of First Way, Wembley £16,217,198

 From Osbournes Law LINK

For the last 8 years Brent Council has stopped the majority of homeless applicants from bidding for rehousing, treating them as ‘no priority’. Brent have now agreed to change this policy.

The Policy

Every council must have a published policy for how it allocates tenancies to those who apply for rehousing. Brent Council published its ‘Allocations Scheme’ for this in 2013 (with some amendments in November 2014 and June 2019). Brent’s Scheme places applicants in priority bands D to A, where A is the highest priority. People in higher priority bands will out-bid people in lower priority bands who express an interest in the same property on Brent’s housing register. Band D is the lowest and it is for those who Brent says have ‘no priority’. People in band D are not allowed to bid at all.

Brent’s Scheme says homeless applicants have ‘no priority’ and will be placed in band D, so that they cannot bid. The only exception to this is if Brent has accepted a ‘main housing duty’ towards a homelessness applicant, in which case they are placed in either band C or A.

What does the ‘main housing duty’ mean?

In order to have a ‘main housing duty’ accepted under homelessness law, you have to go through the long process of making a homelessness application to Brent. You also need to fulfil certain criteria. If Brent decides you do not have a ‘priority need’ (e.g. you do not have a dependent child or a serious health condition that makes you very vulnerable), or that you have made yourself ‘intentionally homeless’, then you would not qualify for a ‘main housing duty’. It takes at least 8 weeks for Brent to make a decision about whether they owe you a ‘main housing duty’, but often takes longer.

The ‘main housing duty’ basically means that Brent has to continue to provide you with temporary accommodation until you secure suitable long-term accommodation.

Why is the Policy unlawful?

The law gives the council a lot of freedom to choose the rules in its Allocations Scheme and how to prioritise different applicants. However, the law does require the council to give ‘reasonable preference’ to certain categories of people, including people who are homeless.

“Homeless” does not just mean living on the street. The legal definition includes anyone who:

• Does not have accommodation they have a right to live in (e.g. by permission, by a tenancy, or by home ownership);
• Cannot access their accommodation; or
• Does not have accommodation that would be reasonable for them to continue to live in (e.g. because of domestic violence or if the property is in such a poor state to be uninhabitable).

The law says Brent has to give ‘reasonable preference’ to homeless people even if they are not owed the ‘main housing duty’. This means that Brent has been unlawfully denying homeless applicants who are waiting for a final decision on their homelessness applications, or who do not fulfil the criteria for a ‘main housing duty’, their right to bid for rehousing. What is most concerning is that this policy appears to have been in place for 8 years and is likely to have negatively affected hundreds if not thousands of homeless applicants over this time.

Brent’s agreement to change the Policy

Sam O’Flaherty at Osbornes wrote to Brent’s legal department on 11^th March 2021 requiring them to change their scheme to allow all homeless people to bid and be given ‘reasonable preference’. We also asked Brent to ensure that our homeless client would be given reasonable preference, at least in band C, whilst Brent amended their scheme.

Brent’s legal team replied on 26^th March 2021 as follows:

The Council has considered the Claimant’s exceptional circumstances, as outlined in the pre-action protocol letter of 11 March 2021 and has decided that it would be appropriate for the Claimant’s case to be referred to the Operational Director for him to exercise his discretionary powers under 12.22 of the allocation scheme to ensure that she is awarded reasonable preference in accordance with s.166A of the Housing Act 1996. Her case will be referred to him with the recommendation that she be awarded Band C from the date of her initial application on 17/02/2021.

In respect the request to review and amend the Allocation Scheme, the Council is already in the process of reviewing the scheme with a view to making amendments during the course of this year. It is not possible to set out the timescales at this stage, as finalising and publishing the scheme, will depend on consultation with stakeholders, an Equality Impact Assessment and Cabinet Approval of the changes.

In other words, Brent has effectively accepted that its scheme is unlawful and that it will be changed this year. In the meantime, if you are homeless and have been placed in band D by Brent, you should ask them to make a referral to the Operational Director to place you in band C until the scheme has been amended.

End of Osbournes article

Central Apartments, 455 High Road, Wembley

Metro Apartments, 455 High Road, Wembley

Moore Court, Station Grove, Wembley

Ramsey House, Wembley Central Shopping Centre

Wembley Central Ltd acquired the four buildings above from the developer St Modwen Sowcrest Ltd in August 2018. LINK

Now as problems have emerged in construction and safety Barry Gardiner MP (Labour Brent North) has written to Wembley Central Ltd asking key questions about the due deligience they carried out on acquisition including relevant certification and warranties to ensure the buildings were compliant with Building Regulations. He  explains that he has raised this point becase of the short time between WC Ltd's incorporation in May 2018 and the purchase from St Modwen being agreed less than 3 months later in August 2018, leaving very little time to complete the necessary in-depth studies.

Althought the buildings do not have Grenfell type ACM cladding, Gardiner points out  the May 2018 'Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety'  highlighted that many tower blocks also have unsafe material from timber cladding, high pressure laminate and combustible insulation. 

 Gardiner request details of the company that provided fire risk assessments and that would be needed to have the appropriate professional indemnity insurances to cover the risk of any possible claim for remediation work. The date on construction of the Metro Apartments was circa 2015 so the 10 year homebuilders warranty should still be in place. 

He reports a report by William Martin Compliance (March 2021)

There is evidence that the junctions betweem compartment floors were inadequately fire stopped on Central Apartments as there were gaps at mineral wool fire barriers at steel framing. There were no visible fire barriers at vents or around windows/door frames and it could not be confirmed that the window/door frames themselves formed cavity barriers.

 Gardiner concludes that at the time of construction the building regulations in force at the time were not followed.

He states that because of the type and extent of the external wall hazards identified, that the Stay Put policy has been withdrawn and replaced with a simultanous evacuation procedure and a requirement for a Waking Watch.

Gardiner  expresses shock that in a Notice to leaseholders, WC Ltd cite the need for a waking walk under Government Building Regualtions 2018) and Approved Document B2019,  when the defects were in place at the time of the build.

Given the above questions whether the company has the right to charge residents the proposed sums for the Waking Watch:

Central Apartments: £37,800 per month 

Ramsey House: £26,790 per month

Metro Apartments: £26,790 per month

Gardiner concludes:

I appreciate that since the Grenfell Tower fire there have been numerous chnages in building safety and govenment guidance. But I believe residents have the right to know why they are now being asked to pay for failures to comply with the buidling regulations during construction.

Mr Gardiner spoke about the issue in the House of Commons yesterday LINK.

Brent Planning Committe this afternoon passed the planning application that will see three towers, 21 storeys, 25 storeys and 28 storeys, built on the Alperton Bus Depot site. (Ealing Road/Bridgewater Road) Planning offices said that the Alperton Masterplan policy of a limit of 14 storeys had been superseded by the Emerging Local Plan policy on tall buildings.

A planning officer said that the character of the area would change as a result of the cluster of tall buildings but that as this particular site was not next door to low buildings the usual step down of height did not apply.

None the less Cllr Maurice voted against the application on grounds of over-development, height and its destruction of the area's once pleasant suburban character.

Cllr Anton Georgiou (LD Alperton) having opposed several applications with similar speeches on ground of height, unaffordability and lack of infrastructure, took a different approach this time. Taking a leaf out of the technique used by Jeremy Corbyn, when opposition leader,  Georgio quoted the views of ordinary residents.  He said he was certain that none of the Committe had actually been to, or spoke to anyone in Alperton so he would bring their voices to them. He read out their statements:

The Swaminarayan Mandir in Neasden is taking part in a fundraiser for Indian victims of the rapidly deteriorating pandemic.

They say:

Raising vital funds to save lives in India: Please support our 48-hour non-stop static relay challenge, covering a distance of more than 7,600 kilometres - the distance between London and New Delhi. Sat 1st May 2021 to Mon 3rd May 2021.

  LINK TO APPEAL GIVING PAGE

 

The resignation comes just under a week before the GLA election and the Brondesbury Park by-election caused by Gill’s resignation. It is a year before the Brent Council elections which will be fought on revised ward boundaries with a smaller number of seats.

Cllr Abdi, a socialist, lost his position on Brent Planning Committee after allegedly voting the ‘wrong way’ despite that Committee being statutorily non-political and therefore not whipped LINK. LI

He clearly has not been happy with the direction that Brent Council has taken under the leadership of Cllr Muhammed Butt and previously challenged him for the leadership. Like many on the left of Brent Labour he was attracted to the party by Jeremy Corbyn and distrustful of what many call ‘managerial Labour.’

More generally I understand there is disquiet in the party over what appears to be attempts to put pressure on the two Scrutiny committees over what reaches their agendas. This follows the calling in by a group of Labour members of the 1 Morland Gardens development for scrutiny LINK , the special meeting on the  the implementation of Healthy Neighbourhoods   (LTNs) LINK and a skirmish over the possible calling in of AT Medics over the Centene takeover of GP surgeries in Brent LINK.

As said many times on Wembley Matters, the role of scrutiny in a mainly one-party council is absolutely crucial and it will be a sad day for democratic accountability if the leader’s control is extended to the Scrutiny Committees, as well as his more subtle influence on the Planning Committee.

 From Metropolitan Police

 For the past few years, the former Wembley Park Lodge at the corner of Wembley Hill Road and Wembley Park Drive has looked a sorry sight. Badly damaged in a fire in 2013, and with its roof missing, many wondered whether this historic cottage, dating from the 1790s or early 1800s, could ever be saved.

Wembley Park Lodge in a postcard from c.1900. (Brent Archives online image 7742)

Last autumn, there was an application (20/3027) for permission to demolish the 1930s extension to this Grade II listed building. With my interest in Wembley’s history, I submitted a comment, to say that although I did not object to the remains of the more modern structure being demolished, great care should be taken to ensure that the original parts were properly preserved and safeguarded, for incorporation in any restoration of the cottage.

As a result of my earlier comment, I received a letter from Brent Council last week, advising of a new application (21/0703) for full planning permission at 114 Wembley Hill Road (the Lodge’s modern address). This proposes the restoration of the cottage, and the construction of a new house on the site, to help cover the cost of making good the heritage building. As the “footprint” of both homes will be relatively small, the plans include basements under a new extension to the Lodge and the new house, to provide laundry and media rooms, plus storage.

Elevation drawings showing the rebuilt Lodge. (From planning application drawings)

The proposals for the restoration of the Lodge have been closely discussed with the experts at Historic England (formerly “English Heritage”, who oversee listed buildings). While the 1930s extension had a tiled roof, these proposals include a thatched roof for the whole building. That may seem odd, but a look at the 120-year-old postcard above shows that the single-storey section of the cottage then, on the left of the picture, was also thatched.

Re-thatching Wembley Park Lodge in 1976. (Brent Archives online image 9547)

The Lodge is on a prominent corner site, in an area of mainly inter-war suburban housing. Corner sites play an important part in defining the character of an area (as I will mention later), so it was important to get the location and style of the new house right.

The proposed site plan for 114 Wembley Hill Road. (From planning application drawings)

In this case, the architects have positioned the proposed new house so that the front follows the existing building line for Wembley Park Drive, even though this means that is at an odd angle to the Lodge. But how do you design a new house that will sit close to both a restored heritage building and the much later homes next door?

The proposed elevations drawing, as seen from across Wembley Park Drive.
(From planning application drawings, with notes added in blue)

The Lodge, which was by the gate to the drive leading up to the Wembley Park mansion, was built in the “cottage orné” style, which was popular in the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries, giving a picturesque rustic feel to the gate-keepers cottages on country estates. This one may well have been designed by Humphry Repton, as part of his landscaping for Wembley Park in 1793. 

For the new house, the architects have borrowed features from “orné” cottages built at Blaise Hamlet in 1810. These were a collaboration between Humphry Repton and the architect John Nash, and show marked similarities in their chimneys and other characteristics to the lodge at Wembley Park. The Blaise Hamlet cottages (now a National Trust property on the outskirts of Bristol) were built of the local Cotswold stone, but the proposed new house has a tiled roof and white rendered walls, to match with the neighbouring houses in Wembley Park Drive.

I would not claim that the proposals for 114 Wembley Hill Road are perfect (I do have some doubts, especially over excavating for basements so close to existing buildings). However, I think that overall they offer a good solution to a tricky planning problem, and one which would see an important local historic building restored, and back in use. If you would like to look more closely at the plans, make your own judgement and submit any comments (by 27 May), you can do so here.

I said above that corner sites are important in shaping the character of an area, and I will give two more examples of this from recent planning applications. Last August, Brent’s Planning Committee voted, by a 5-2 majority, to approve Brent Council’s own application to demolish the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens. This beautiful building would make way for a new adult education building, with up to nine floors of flats above it. The decision went against Brent’s heritage assets planning policies, and ignored objections from many residents, and from the Victorian Society and an expert on historic architecture.

“Altamira”, the Victorian villa at the corner of Hillside and Brentfield Road.

Updated college facilities and new affordable homes are an attractive proposition. But to demolish a beautiful and still useful building, part of the original Stonebridge Park from the 1870s, and replace it with a modern block, will ruin the character of the area. That is especially so as the plans also involve building out over the existing community garden on the corner.

Another application approved last year, again despite strong opposition from local residents, was for a three-storey block of flats at the corner of Queens Walk and Salmon Street. Objectors pointed to Brent’s planning policy that developments should respect the suburban character of areas such as this, and said that the proposed building, on a prominent site, would be out of character, a ‘blot on suburbia’ and ‘an eyesore’.

In their report to Planning Committee, recommending approval for the scheme, planning officers argued that it would not be an eyesore. They said: ‘The corner plot presents an opportunity for a building of a differing architectural style and slightly greater prominence to sit comfortably without detracting from the character along either of the streets it adjoins.’ The plans were approved, and the new building is now taking shape. Readers can judge from these photos whether or not it detracts from the character of the streets it adjoins.

A view along Salmon Street towards the new development and Queens Walk.

Close up of the new 44 Queens Walk development. (Both photos by Martin Francis, April 2021)

I asked in my title ‘What makes good planning? You are all entitled to your own views, and are welcome to share them as comments below. I would compare planning in Brent to a “spaghetti western”, and suggest that my three examples above show the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Philip Grant.

Not everyone who reads Wembley Matters is on Facebook so here are some pictures I placed there on Saturday.  I had an afternoon amble around Fryent Country Park looking for signs of Spring  after election leafleting in the morning.  I was not disappointed. The billowing blackthorn blossom has given way to apple, damson and cherry and wild flowers are increasing by the day.

Just the tonic for an overcast May Day Bank Holiday.

Emma Wallace at Headstone Manor Park

Journalism student, Liam Moran, who studies at Kingston University, interviews Emma Wallace, Green Party candidate for the Brent and Harrow GLA constituency

How are you feeling in the run up to election day?  

I am really looking forward to it!  Greens are feeling really positive about the outcome of the London elections, with more and more people saying they are voting Green.   We are hoping to see a Green wave in London, as we have seen in many other European cities who now have Green mayors.

Our two Green Party Assembly members, Sian Berry and Caroline Russell, have made a big impact at City Hall over the last five years, holding the current Mayor to his promises and pushing him to act on a wide range of issues, repeatedly.   With a Green mayor and more Green members in City Hall we can do even more to ensure that London is the Greenest city in the world.  

How has your campaign been so far?

The campaign has been really good.  I've visited and met so many great people, both online and in real life in Brent and Harrow over the last six months and heard about many of the issues people are facing, from the destruction of local environment and trees, to housing concerns and transport issues.  I've been campaigning with residents to push TFL to change their trackside habitat management policies and I've visited many of our beautiful parks and nature reserves, including Bentley Priory and the Welsh Harp and heard about the ongoing, longstanding issues impacting them.  I've helped out at Harrow's foodbank, the London Community Kitchen, and learnt about the incredible work they are doing there to support zero waste, zero hunger in North London.  I have also met a number of community groups to hear about their concerns around new planning developments, which are being proposed on green spaces.   If elected, Sian Berry, as London Mayor, and I as Brent and Harrow Assembly Member, are committed to listening and bringing diverse voices into City Hall to make sure our policies work for everyone.  

The Green party is a grassroots party, which depends on its volunteer and it has been so heartening to see people come out and help leaflet and spread our message over the campaign.  I am so grateful to them.   Sian Berry and the London Green Party have put together an incredibly comprehensive manifesto, including radical ideas to make London a healthier, fairer and greener city and it has been a pleasure talking about these policies on the doorstep and at hustings, seeing resident’s positive response to them.  

What is the main issue you will be focused on if you are elected?  

Whilst the impact of the pandemic is still being felt around the world, the Climate Emergency is not going away and must urgently be addressed if we are to avoid going over a 1.5C rise in global temperatures.  We are the only party that has a clear plan to tackle the climate crisis, setting urgent targets to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2030.  The Green Party will take action through a holistic response, focusing on creating sustainable and insulated housing, developing a joined up and green public transport system, investing in walking and cycling, protecting and preserving our green spaces and trees and creating green jobs to transform our economy post Covid.  

What would you say to people who might be unsure about going out to vote in local elections as they do not believe that they are important? 

The London Elections have a much fairer voting system than other elections and consequently, your vote really counts!  The mayoral and general Assembly Member votes are a form of proportional representation, so if you vote Green, you get Green.    I encourage everyone to put Sian Berry as your first choice for Mayor, the Green Party as their London wide London Assembly vote and Emma Wallace as your Brent and Harrow London Assembly candidate.  Friends of the Earth have also just ranked Sian Berry's manifesto as the most climate-friendly and so it's clear.  If you want green, you have to vote Green!

Guest post by 16 year old Aria Banerjee Watts

Aria on the campaign trail

This Thursday 6th May, Londoners have a chance to make their voices heard. The Mayoral and London Assembly elections, postponed due to the pandemic, are now happening and have lost none of their excitement and importance. 

This isn't a national election but it's still vital to get out and vote. This is a way to choose the people who will represent us and shape the future of our neighbourhoods and city. The Mayor of London's scope of work is much broader than people realise: the role determines the state of our housing, how green and safe our environment is, the quality of our communities and how efficient our transport is. They may not be debating the future of the EU or negotiating with the UN, but they have the all-important job of improving the city we live in. 

The Green Party has long been fighting for the UK to improve its environmental record and combat the Climate Crisis effectively. National level action is certainly needed, but change begins locally and this election is about making a concentrated difference in your borough and city. Due to the huge role the natural environment plays in our everyday lives, we have to vote for a Party who will protect it. We all enjoy the green spaces in our local area, and we suffer when we walk to school or work along busy, polluted roads. Not only do the Greens want to make positive environmental change, they want to involve citizens too, because they recognise how important our opinions are. 

The Green Party's manifesto is not just about environmental issues, but also about better housing, transport and safer streets. In fact, these are all connected: we need to have greener homes with less energy loss to save money and conserve fuel and have more efficient transport systems to help commuters on roads and bridges that are not disruptive and environmentally damaging. These things are important for all cities, but particularly London. We need an Ultra Low Emissions Zone to protect our health from rising air pollution. Where so many people are struggling to find affordable housing, we need the Greens who are committed to prevent the loss of council housing and allow people to plan for new homes through a People's Land Commission. 

This election is unique - you can vote for two different mayoral candidates of your first and second preference. This will be on the PINK ballot paper, where you have to select two different names for your first and second choice. Sian Berry is the Green candidate. 

In addition to voting for a Mayor, you will also vote for 2 London Assembly members, one who represents your constituency and another who is a London-wide Assembly Member. The first is on a YELLOW ballot paper and the second on an ORANGE ballot paper. For the constituency member, you select a named person but for the London-wide member, you just pick a party. Please consider voting for the Green Party.

The proportional representation system of this election is more representative than the "first-past-the-post" system of general elections, and gives smaller parties, like the Greens, a better chance of being elected, allowing London’s population to be more accurately represented.  So please use your vote to support smaller and committed candidates.

During the pandemic, we have all found a new spirit of community, an appreciation for nature and our local area and have realised how much pollution improved when commuting paused for a while. Difficult times lie ahead for many people so we need a supportive Mayor who can help Londoners find houses, jobs and support services.

We've realised how much power every person holds to make positive change and shape a better, greener future. This election now gives us the chance to vote for a party who wants a new start for London, who believes in the same things as us and wants to fight to protect them.

As young Londoners who can't yet vote, we need adults to make a responsible choice for our future. We want to grow up in a safe city, free from crime and pollution with affordable houses and jobs. London really is a special city, that's why you should vote Green to give it a fresh start and make it even better for future generations.

Vote Sian Berry for Mayor, 1st choice candidate (PINK ballot)

Vote Green Party for London-wide Assembly Member (YELLOW Ballot)

Vote named Green candidate for Constituency London Assembly Member (ORANGE ballot)

 NHS North West London COVID-19 vaccines, pregnancy, fertility and breastfeeding webinar

Sheila relaxes in Roundwood Park after campaigning against Centenetakoevr of GP surgeries at Willesden Centre

Brondesbury Park ward  voters have an additional Brent Council by-election poll tomorrow, please vote for our candidate Sheila Simpson. It is time to elect more councillorswho are free to hold Brent Labour to account - however much it annoys them! (cf Anton Georgiou)

The by-election was caused when the Labour councillor Kieron Gill resigned having been suspended from the Labour Group for voting against the Brent Council  budget.  Labour people with political principles tend not to last very long in Brent when they act on their principles and lose favour with 'The Leader.'

You have a choice of electing yet another Labour councillor (Number 59) subject to the diktat of  The Leader or a truly independent person with the ability to make up her own mind based on green principles.

This is what Sheila says:

I've lived in Brent for over 25 years, working in the NHS and Local Government to support families and children’s well-being and believe well-run public services make a real difference to the quality of our lives. 

I am offering voters the opportunity to register their support for green values. People want to be part of the solution, to build a fairer, healthier society, but know they can’t do it without good government. Our Council must be firmly challenged to deliver on promises made to us. Protection of our public housing, trees and green space is urgent. Traffic and public transport must be managed well to cut harmful emissions, reduce carbon footprint and provide cleaner, safer, greener and quieter neighbourhoods.

Brent Council pulled out the stops today to ensure that voters and their staff were Covid safe at polling stations.

The above polling station in Wembley Park had perspex screens to protect staff, a one way system with good air flow, social distance markers on the pavement, sanitiser and covid marshals on hand to ensure compliance with covid safety measures. Voters were urged to use their own pencils or pens.

Voting boxes will go to Alexandra Palace for tomorrow's GLA count which will also be constrained by strict covid safety measures including a reduced number of counting staff and restrictions on the number of party counting agents. The Brondesbury Park by-election count will also take place in a separate room at Alexandra Palace with the count by a 'super team' expected to be completed after lunch, as long as no recount is required.

The GLA Brent and Harrow constituency count takes place tomorrow but some other London constituencies will not be counted until Saturday.  The Brent and Harrow result will most likely be announced on Friday evening but as this is the first count under Covid conditions that cannot be guaranteed.

Provisional declaration times for Saturday are 8pm for the election of the Mayor and 9pm for the election of London-wide assembly members.  If the declaration is held over to Sunday morning the timings are likely to be 10am and 11am.

Guidance on how to vote can be found here: https://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-voter/how-complete-your-ballot-papers

You can follow real-time election results on the electronic screens here: http://www.londonelects.org.uk

The two modest 70s houses at present

I am writing to object most strongly to the above planning application.  

Appropriateness to the public open space/Barham Park and extent of land comprised in the planning application

As set out in the Design and Access statement, the existing houses were built originally to house park wardens; such accommodation clearly has a functional link to the park, as related to its maintenance. 

I fully appreciate that the issue of the restrictive covenants on the land are irrelevant to planning; nonetheless, I would point out that the two separate transfers of numbers 776 and 778 dated 12 August 2011 to George Irvin/George Christopher Irvin (predecessor of the applicant) imposed  very strict limitations on the use of the site. 

These were obviously imposed in accordance with the instructions of the Trustees of the Barham Park Trust (i.e., the Council acting as trustee) and limiting use on the  two separate parts of the site (776 & 778) in each case to 1 single private dwelling houses and garage (as to the garages, site photographs show that these were evidently demolished by the applicant). The Transfer Deeds contain further strict limitations on items and vehicles which may be placed/parked/kept  on the site of the two dwelling houses ? covenants which can be seen from the photographs included in the applications as having been breached. 

These restrictions are entirely on all fours with the designation of the Park, its status as public open space, its local historical importance, and continuing links via its design and history with the owner who gave it for the recreation of the local populace

I will be writing separately to the Trustees, in case this application should have escaped their notice. The restrictions on use imposed by the two transfers will clearly have affected the value received by the trust on sale in 2011, when this part of its permanent endowment was sold ? and the financial asset that is the benefit of that covenant is clearly something to which the Barham Park Trustees must pay full regard in their role as trustees. However, that valuation and asset issue is clearly of subsidiary importance in planning terms to keeping the Park's nature and integral local importance intact, which ought to be important for planning policy.

Notwithstanding the restrictions placed on the freehold titles of 776 & 778 Harrow Road, of which the owner (and its predecessor) would presumably be well aware, I note that this appears to be the ninth in a succession of planning applications for this site. 

However, on this occasion, I should be glad if a detailed examination of the plans could be undertaken to see whether the application site in fact goes outside the boundaries of the two freehold titles belonging to the applicant. (See below for my comment on the "over sail" of the main entrance).

Of course, I fully appreciate that there is nothing to stop anyone from putting in a planning application for land which is not owned by the applicant. However, in this case, the surrounding land to the north is either owned by Network Rail, or is part of the ownership of the Barham Park Trustees (London Borough of Brent of such Trustees); in the latter case, it is part of public open space, and subject to the provisions of the Bar Park Trust.

I mention this because it would appear from examination of the plans that areas of car parking and an area (inconsistently marked on various of the plans to the application) surrounding the Cedar of Lebanon go outside the ownership of the applicant. For example, please see Design and Access Statement, page 26 (page 6 of PDF), where the "site boundary" is clearly set the other (Northern) side of the Cedar of Lebanon.

Even aside from that, a close examination of the various plans and comparison with the Land Registry filed plan is somewhat confusing. The moving of the access road (the northern boundary of which forms the site boundary for 778 Harrow Road) as part of the plans, with a new access road under an "oversail" as shown on the proposed plans is difficult to follow. However, taking a measurement from the hedge boundary to the south west of the site towards the railway line, it appears a frontage of some 16 m would extend to the edge of the current access road, which is the land registry site boundary for 778 Harrow Road. The new plans seem to indicate a site frontage of some 20 m. I attach two screenshots from Google Earth, on which appropriate markings have been made.

It is quite hard to tell where that boundary then  falls on the various plans but the Design & Access Statement on page 30 (page 10 of PDF) refers to the replacement of the current access road with a planting bed. The picture on the same page shows posts which I believe were installed by the Council in order to prevent parking by the applicant/users of the site; the land is owned by the Council (Trust). As above, the access road forms the outer limit of the land in the ownership of the applicant.

This is also relevant, as the design includes an area of over-sail for the entrance which intrudes into land which does not appear to be in the ownership of the applicant; this is clearly of some importance, as it appears to indicate that the actual building goes outside the land ownership of the applicant. A similar comment applies to the installation of services (Section 14) which again appeared to be outside the boundaries of the site.

Tree works and Local Green Space and Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan

The Cedar of Lebanon is a tree within Barham Park, and again the ownership of the Council (trust); that the suggestion that "4 lower branches" should be removed to facilitate this development is completely unacceptable (Tree Report). 
There has been a recent tree survey of the trees in Barham Park (by Council officers following a survey for public liability purposes),  which has resulted in some trees in the vicinity of the application site being removed, and leaving a gap in the boundary trees for Barham Park at its western frontage. To suggest that any works be undertaken to this major tree on the boundary of the Park is quite unacceptable.

This building will block the view of the Cedar of Lebanon from the south of the Park, and create a huge artificial interruption to the views of this important area of local green space flowing naturally, as it always has, with uninterrupted aspect towards the railway line. This is a piece of public open space

Further, whilst  the Design and Access Statement refers to the proposed development blocking views of the railway line, a further objection that I wish to make is that the railway line in fact forms part of the heritage setting of the Park.

The heritage of the legacy of Titus Barham, and his father Sir George Barham before him was based on the dairy industry, and the foundation of Express Dairy; the great innovation was the use of the railway lines to bring chilled milk in from the countryside to London. The railway line on the embankment form part of the framing of Barham Park, and are not an intrusion at all. Unlike this building.

The Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan 

https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16409470/sudbury_neighbourhoodplan.pdf refers to Barham Park as an important area of local green space and specifically states "any proposals for the re- or redevelopment of Park buildings for residential use (Use Class C 3) will not be supported)." (Page 39) Policy BP1 Barham Park . Local Green Space policy: "Green infrastructure contributes to the quality and distinctiveness of the local environment. It creates opportunities for walking and physical activity and generally adding to quality of life. Green infrastructure is diverse in character and can include formal parks and gardens, informal grassed areas, linear paths, towpaths, sports pitches and various other kinds of landscaped area.

For many local communities, securing high quality green infrastructure in and around their neighbourhood is important. Neighbourhood plans can include policies for green spaces and can be used to designate 'Local Green Spaces' to protect them for current and future generations." In context of Green Belt/Metropolitan Open Land, a  legal case has referred to "death by 1000 cuts"https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8d260d03e7f57ecdcac; of course, this is "only" public open space, but the principle is the same. This large intrusive building will slice a corner away from the park, blocking the use of the tree line at the northern end, breaking the tree margin along the western boundary and completely changing the character and extending the Sudbury "town centre" beyond the railway line and into the park ? moving the built environment into an important and historic piece of local green space, interfering with the aesthetics and original design of the piece of parkland which we are lucky to have still surviving. 

It seems somewhat ironic that the design and access statement goes to some trouble to emphasise the historic association of the Irvin funfair with the Park, when, if this application goes ahead, undermining of the historic integrity of the Park will take place as a result of this massive development. (In fact, however, I am not too sure where the author of the Design and Access Statement gets the suggestion that it was a "condition applied" by Titus Barham that a fair should take place annually in the Park; it is certainly not in the terms of the trust deed but, for the interest of our local historians, if that is a fact, then it would be useful to see the evidence. References to fairs to support the then  local Wembley Hospital are quite different, and relate to fundraising for another local asset close to the heart of Titus and Florence Barham.)
Flooding risk and recent works funded by the Barham Trust and managed by the Council

I note the Flooding Risk Assessment, and the indication of both the surface water sewers, and the foul water sewers shown on page 36. Looking at the flood risk map, there are areas of high flood risk shown on parts of the park. It may be a statement of the obvious but it is of quite some importance to local users of the Park that is much of the parkland as possible is available for use ? and when it is flooded, obviously, it is not available for recreation. Section 16 of the Flood Risk Assessment refers to surrounding areas of the park getting "saturated", and there is a clear indication that the works which have been carried out by Thames Water have not been successful in resolving the problem. Indeed these works (already long-standing) continue to this day and further extend along the boundary with the railway line, already causing significant disruption. 

The result of the investigation which was to have been undertaken with Trust funds of £5000 as to the flooding of the main field where the fair takes place each year are unknown to residents. However, it is notable that various surface water sewers cross that field, which may have required building over in view of the weight of vehicles and structures which sit on them at fair time, and this also should be looked at if there is a "system problem" for surface water disposal  in the Park.

For approximately a year, there have been works in the Park in this area in connection with drainage problems; an application was made by the Barham Park Trust to the Charity Commission for permission to spend up to £90,000 of (precious and non-renewable) restricted trust funds on drainage works in the Park. It goes without saying that this development ? if it goes ahead ? would substantially increase the area of hard surface; whilst it may be of comfort to the applicant/developer that the floor level of the development will be raised to avoid flooding risk for the building, as referred to in section 16 it is not of much comfort in the Park, if it exacerbates the risk of flooding in the main field abutting. I would certainly not want to see either the damage to surrounding park, or the possible consequential expenditure again from Trust funds in connection with these drainage works, if this development goes ahead. 

The foul water sewers shown on the plan run straight underneath the two existing houses. As above, there is a network of surface water sewers across the open field and to the north of the site, which will be well used (see high flood risk); no mention of the detail of the extensive works taken in the last year appears in the Flood Risk Assessment; enquiry should be made of Chris Whyte who brought details of the proposed works (and the estimate) to the meeting of the Barham Trust committee, and details of which were submitted to the Charity Commission for approval to the expenditure from the reserved funds, so that the Commission will wish to know that this substantial expenditure will not have been wasted/prejudiced.

Damage is already caused to field as a result of the fair held on the site. The photograph in the Design and Access Statement shows the vehicle access to the park in a poor and muddy and rutted state, indicative of what happens when the field becomes wet.

Ecological assessment

There have been a series of ecological assessments in connection with the various planning applications; the one attached to this application is very disappointing, and previous surveys have contained much more detail. Once again, it is notable that reference is made to daytime inspection in respect of bats. In 2014, we submitted some detailed comments to the then head of planning Stephen Weeks about a previous bat survey. These are reattached, because they make points of relevance and deal with comments made in this brief survey, such as dismissing evidence of droppings as being made by mice, and referring to the presence of cobwebs as indicating that bats also would not be present ? which is simply not correct!

I have recently commented about the Council's dealing with bat surveys in the case of Altamira, Moreland Gardens, and the consideration of bat protection issues. I am no expert ; however, once again this survey was carried out during the day in February. There is the identification of the possibility of bat roosts but, of course, at this time of the year, let alone during the daytime, no one is going to find any evidence of bat emergence. However, the survey does refer to the foraging corridor along the railway line. Indeed, it is specifically refers to the importance of intrusion of lights along that "corridor" at the Northern edge of the park. It does not seem that the ecological consultant is aware of the nature of the construction of this four-storey building, which will be so close, for example, to the Cedar of Lebanon that its branches are proposed to be cut. For example, in the Consultant's own report (paragraph 4.1.1.2), he refers to "corridors for bat flight must be retained where present"; he also states in paragraph 4.1.1.3 "no trees will be damaged". He evidently is unaware of the full scope of the application. The oversail will penetrate the Cedar of Lebanon canopy; branches will be cute. Pictures of the northern elevation of the 4 storey building with large balconies and a roof terrace make it quite clear that lights will shine over the foraging corridor in the evening. How can it be thought that there will not be interference with bats?

Most importantly, there must be proper dusk and dawn emergence surveys undertaken during the period April to September to ascertain the true position, and ensure that the presence of bats in the existing buildings is checked. The Council must not countenance the potential to disturb bats  in a manner prohibited by legislation, and potentially involving the developer in criminal liability. The houses are buildings of a type, and era and within  a wooded environment along a railway verge corridor with a strong potential for bat roosts and bat foraging corridors. I can supply (from our experience with Morelands) more specific general guidance in  circumstances where a high probability of bat roosts, foraging , presence etc is identified, which I hope will be of help - but I am sure after that experience the Council contains more expertise on this topic. It is perhaps unfortunate, however, that, in none of the records for the previous planning applications is there any evidence of bat surveys (dawn/dusk emergence in the period when bats are active, rather than, for example, in the dormant period - Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (Collins, 2016)), so there seem to be no efforts by the applicant to establish whether there is any bat presence in those two properties.

Bats are a European protected species. The Council has a statutory duty to have regard to the requirements of the EC  Habitats Directive in carrying out its functions ? the deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places is prohibited. 
Field surveys in form of at least three dusk emergence and dawn re-entry surveys be undertaken during the bat emergence/re-entry survey season in 2021 to determine the presence/absence of roosting bats within the structures. 

Possible works affecting these spaces would very likely have negative impacts on potential bat roosts. These impacts could be killing or injuring of bats, physical disturbance (bats will abandon their young if disturbed) and lighting disturbance (bats may be prevented from re-entering their roosts by construction lighting).Demolition has the potential to kill bats and destroy bat roosts if present .

The surrounding habitats offer a range of green and blue corridors for roosting bats and the northern boundaries of the site have been assessed as being potentially important areas for commuting bats. Inappropriate construction lighting in these areas could therefore have a negative effect on bats, potentially preventing them from accessing on-site roosts.

"Communal use" and "Surveillance"

I note that all the flats are intended for rental; there is no indication whatsoever of contribution to Borough's desperate need for affordable social housing ? but yet another "contribution" to the private rental sector of the housing provision within the Borough. These flats, whilst including family units, will clearly be very desirable, benefiting from uninterrupted views over Barham Park, thus attracting a high level of rental. 

The Design and Access Statement reference  to "communal use" and inference of some sort of social value seem singularly inappropriate.

Further, it is hardly the function of the development to "police" the park; Section 5.3 of the Design and Access statement contains the following somewhat alarming statement: " The second objective suggests a development with a more Formal gardens and features of former Barham mansion at the heart of the park Former nursery glass house now part of the Jubilee Garden War memorial public character where the architecture is one of communal use rather than individual ownership, and where the residents benefit from the use of the park but also offer a degree of surveillance that might enhance the standard of behaviour in the park." Surveillance?? Enhance the standard of behaviour - this smacks of vigilante-ism. This is a park for the use of the public.

The 1937 Barham bequest was that the land, i.e. park and its buildings,  be left for the enjoyment of local people. The park keepers cottages were sold by the trust but with tight restrictions, and planning considerations will keep the uses appropriate the park. 

Brent Council as trustees must keep their corporate and statutory duties (including as the provision of housing under the planning policies), and should be objecting to this application.  Especially since they will realise it involves a breach of restrictive covenants imposed by the Council as trustee to preserve the small scale development in that corner of the Park.  Not only that but it would involve an unjust enrichment of a landowner at the expense of the Trust's permanent endowment were such covenants to be breached, the transfer value having reflected the tight land use.

It is not acceptable in any event that this piece of public open space should be developed anymore.  Improved, perhaps, but not demolished and rebuilt.

This new major access for vehicles will affect pedestrian access to the park from this corner and make this area of public open space for the limited benefit of the residents of this block, so that the park will become in the nature of a private facility and advantage simply benefiting these residents, and irrevocably change the nature of this important piece of local historical public space.

Balconies and roof terrace and intrusion into enjoyment of the Park
 
As above, the park is the enjoyment of local people; it is not for their activities to be observed from the "large balconies" at every level of the building, and the roof terrace. Park users are entitled to enjoy the park without being "surveilled". The lights from the building will inevitably affect ? once again ? wildlife in the park, along the darkened areas along the railway embankment.

Highway safety

The current bell mouth access from under the bridge is likely to give rise to issues of Highway concern; I note from the drawings that there is an intention to extend the bell mouth but with no detail and ? as above ? this land is not owned by the applicants, and the land itself is subject to the trust which, if it is going to dispose, will need the consent of the Charity Commission. The land is part of the Trust's permanent endowment, and sales have to be in pursuance of objects of the charity. It is hard to imagine how this particular use can fit within such criteria.

Looking at concerns of Highway safety:

a)            considerable increase in vehicular access to the site including collection of waste by using 1,100 litre bins requiring HGV access to the site, and reversing in or out of the site across a bus lane and heavily used A road.
b)            driveway crossing the vehicle access to the park, and depending on a right of way over a limited area (shown hatched yellow on the land registry plan attached) which will simply be insufficient for the development and the HGV access; again increase in this easement will require consent of the trustees and consent of the Charity Commissioners for the increase in width, as there is no legal easement available to the applicant.
c)            proximity to a very busy bus stop and the access point crossing a bus lane.
d)            No U Turn designation at this location which is generally ignored 
e)            potential danger and traffic delay from right turns into the site which will become much more of a problem with this large residential use . Vehicles exiting the site towards Harrow would cause disruption to traffic flow; this is a major bus route, and initial bus stop for the number 18 service to central London.
f)             there are insufficient parking spaces for the number of bedrooms but, in any event, this is contrary to the Council's policy on parking provision in developments.
g)            there have already been historic problems with the residents of the site blocking access to the park access road. Large number of bollards had to be installed which only went part way to resolving the problem. 
h)            it appears to be no delivery area so that there is a risk of delivery and service vehicles parking on the main road; there is a bus lane immediately outside service would be completely unacceptable. 

Consultees 

This point has been made in previous applications; there are many regular park users, including the walking group sponsored by the Council. There is a local residents association, and neighbourhood Forum (Sudbury town Residents Association). Yet, once again only the residents of Williams Way - i.e. the recently built flats opposite ? have been consulted. Most of those residents have not lived there long enough to appreciate the history of the park or to care about it as passionately as longer standing residents ? or indeed know some of the historical issues such as flooding problems.

I have spoken to the various neighbours, and residents of the surrounding area, and none of them were aware of the proposals put forward. It was only sheer good luck that the site notice (close to the development site) was noticed at all. There should have been much wider consultation, and it would be interesting to know what criteria were applied to decide on the range of properties consulted .

Philip Grant has pressed Brent Council to publish the comments by 'consultees' on the Council's planning portal but under 'View Consultee comments' this is what we see.  Hardly a demonstration of a commitment to fully informing the public and ensure transparency:

To make your views know go to LINK 

Or write to Brent Head of Planning: gerry.ansell@brent.gov.uk

Gwen Grahl, Labour Party, has been elected to Brent Council after winning a seat in the Brondesbury Park by-election that was held yesterday.

This follows the resignation of former councillor, Kieron Gill, earlier this year.

4,083 residents in Brondesbury Park ward cast their votes, marking a turnout of 42.5%.

Green candidate Sheila Simpson beat the Liberal Democrat to achieve third place in the poll with 11.7% of the vote. 

The Green Party candidate, Emma Wallace won the support of 17,472 voters in the Brent and Harrow GLA constituency. This gave her 10.3% of the overall vote and nearly 3,000 more votes than the Liberal Democrat candidate. Krupesh Hirani had a convincing win for the Labour Party and will succeed Navin Shah.  At his victory speech this evening  he made it clear he would represent everyone in Brent and Harrow, and not just those who had voted for him.

Greens also beat the Liberal Democrats in the London-wide Assembly election so together the three results confirm the Green Party as the third party in Brent and Harrow.

The full results  for the constituency are below (click bottom right for full page view). The winner of the London Mayoral vote and the number of London-wide Assembly Members for each party will not be known until other constituencies have been counted tomorrow and may not be known until the count and calculations have been completed which could extend into Sunday.

Count agents were concerned that some voters seemed to have misunderstood the Mayoral voting paper. The layout was confusing as a result of having so many candidates. Some voters appeared to have thought the first colum of names was for first preference and the second colum of names was for second preference votes. SeeLINK

 New research shows that over 1,492 new jobs could be created in Brent Central, 1,401 in Brent North and 1,285  in Hampstead and Kilburn across green infrastructure and care work in the next two years/ten years. 

The data, compiled by Green New Deal UK, shows that  Brent Central is likely to suffer over 2,538) permanent job losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Brent North 1,607 and Hampstead and Kilburn 1,738 losses which could be replaced partly by jobs in new and existing industries.

The data includes jobs in sectors like solar energy, offshore wind, social care and energy efficiency - all of which are essential to the UK meeting its national and international climate targets. 

Such jobs are essential if local councils are to meet their Climate Emergency targets and also to cope with the rising demand for adult social care.

Previous research from Green New Deal UK found that 1.2m green jobs could be created throughout Britain in the next two years at a cost of around £68bn - far less than the £100bn infrastructure investment commitment made last year. 

This news comes at the same time that the Government has just cut air passenger duty on domestic flights, frozen fuel duty, invested £27 billion in a roads programme, tried to open a new coal mine and cut £1.5 billion from the flagship home energy efficiency programme. 

Paul Atkin local organiser, said:

Our research shows that you can tackle unemployment and create jobs whilst tackling climate change at the same time. 

 

We know that we can’t afford not to do this. There’s an unemployment crisis and a climate crisis and a Green New Deal can create thousands of good green jobs right here in Brent.  We all know that climate change is going to have a huge impact everywhere and we can’t let people just fall by the wayside.

 

The Government could invest in these green jobs right now to boost our economic recovery but they are refusing to. If you compare what we are spending to France and Germany and the US we are falling behind what is really needed to tackle unemployment and the recession, let alone sort out climate change.

 

 Sudbury Town Residents Association have challenged Brent Council over the planning application to build a block of flats on Barham Park. LINK

They have received backing on Twitter from Wembley Central and Alperton Residents Association who say the plans affect their residents too.

This is the letter sent as a matter of urgency on Saturday: