Guest post by Philip Grant

Although I know quite a lot about local and English history, I have to admit that I had never heard of the “House of Wisdom” in Baghdad. So, when I saw that this was the subject of the next online “coffee morning” talk from Brent Libraries (on Wednesday 2 June at 11am), I had to “google” it to find out what the talk might be about.

At around the time that the Anglo-Saxon farmer, Wemba, was making his clearing in the woods, which would later give its name to Wembley, around the 8^th century, a Caliph of the Muslim  Abbasid dynasty was setting up a library in Baghdad. He and his successors added to their collection by having scholars translate books and manuscripts from Greek, Syraic, Persian, Chinese and Sanskrit into Arabic. Their library became known as Khizanat al-Hikma, the Storehouse of Wisdom.

One of the few Arab scholars from “the Middle Ages” who I had heard of, through my love of maps, was the 12^thcentury geographer, Al-Idrisi. Translations into Arabic of ancient Greek works, such Ptolemy of Alexandria’s “Geography”, coupled with information from travellers of his own time, enabled him to produce maps of the world (as then known) like this:

The Caliphs also invited scholars from across the Middle East, Europe and India to come and share their knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, medicine and a range of other sciences, as well as poetry and art. The House of Wisdom became a centre of learning, and this painting, by the artist Yahya al-Wasiti, from 1237, shows it in action, just a couple of decades before it was destroyed when a Mongol army laid waste to Baghdad:

The free online talk about the House of Wisdom will explore the discoveries of scientists like Ibn Haythm, Banu Musa brothers, Mariam Al-Ijliya and Al-Jahiz. It will be given from the perspective of an Iraqi woman growing up in the UK, who researched its story to help understand her past, in order to make sense of the present state of Iraq.

From my brief reading of the subject, the House of Wisdom in Baghdad has a story which deserves to be more widely known, in order to give us a better understanding of the world. I have signed-up online to participate in this Brent Libraries event on Wednesday 2 June at 11am. If you would like to get tickets as well, or to find out more, you can “click” here.

Philip Grant

welshharpies.co.uk/events

 This afternoon the  Audit and Standards Committee will be asked to note the complaints received by Brent Council against councillors.  The Annual Standards Report  LINK 2020  states:

During 2020, 11 complaints were received against different Councillors for alleged breaches of the Members Code of Conduct. Of these complaints, two resulted in public apologies being made on the Brent Council’s website as follows.

 

a)    The first apology resulted from an upheld complaint arising from the sharing of a link to a video discussion on the Dudden Hill Mutual Aid Group WhatsApp group. It was held to be in breach of paragraph4 (high standards), para 5 (seven principles of conduct in public life and para 12 (conduct... in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the council into disrepute) of the Member’s Code of Conduct.

 

b)    The second apology arose in relation to the attendance of two councillors at Ealing Road Temple during a prayer and reflection event. The complaint, that the councillors had brought their office into disrepute, was not upheld but both councillors acknowledged they had inadvertently breached the restrictions on such events in place at the time and were apologetic about how this may have appeared to the public.

 The first apology refers to Cllr Aslam Choudry (Labour, Dudden Hill)  who was alleged to have shared anti-semitic material. The final decision notice on the allegation can be read HERE

The second complaint was against Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council  and Cllr Sangani (Labour, Alperton)  and resulted in the apology below:

Apologies by Cllrs. M Butt and Sangani

Allegations were recently made of a breach of the Member’s Code of Conduct by Councillor M Butt and Cllr Sangani in relation to their attendance at Ealing Road Temple during a prayer and reflection event organised by the Brent Multi Faith Forum.  An allegation that the councillors had brought their office or the council into disrepute was not upheld.  Both councillors acknowledged that they had inadvertently breached the restrictions on such events in place at the time and were apologetic about how this may have appeared to the public.  Councillor Butt apologised both on his Facebook page and in a press statement.  Both he and Councillor Sangani have also given apologies to the Monitoring Officer, relevant extracts of which are set out below.

Apology from Councillor Butt:

On the 11th of June, Cllr Trupti Sangani and I attended a small and socially distanced gathering at the Ealing Road Temple in support of Brent’s Multi Faiths Forum. …………..As Leader of this Council, whilst I do of course accept that a mistake was made regarding the time between what happened and what was sanctioned, I do believe that an argument could be made for the actions of those in attendance being a positive demonstration of well-intended community leadership. …………… the idea that such a gesture would upset anyone had simply not occurred to me for which I am happy to apologise unreservedly.

Apology from Cllr Sangani:

On the 11th of June, I attended a small and socially distanced gathering at the Ealing Road Temple in support of Brent’s Multi Faiths Forum. ……………………I regret that in the confusion surrounding various government announcements that we were mistaken in how our brief moment of quiet reflection unfolded. I ……………. would like to apologise to them for what was a honest mistake made in good faith by well-intentioned people.

There are no details of the other complaints in the report.

A glimpse of the new Bridge Road- North End Road junction. At present it is a steep ramp but aggregate was being delivered this morning presumably to reduce the gradient. There are  reports that there will be weight restrictions when it opens. Brent Council has said it should be open to pedestrians by the end of the month.

The mural on Olympic Way is covered again apart from one section but correspondence is still taking place over whether planning permission for advertising is actually in place.

Behind the ramp on the right is 1 Olympic Way, former office accommodation being converted to flats.

The length of Olympic Way up to the infamous steps is nearing completion.

There is no word yet on when Engineers Way will be open again to traffic. 'Hostile Vehicle Mitigation Measures' have to be put in place.

The Sudbury Town Residents Association has come back to Brent Council after it failed to agree to recognise it as a Statutory Consultee and provide a 21-day consultation period.

The residents’ association had written to Brent Council asking that in the interests of openness, transparency, community engagement and positive working relations that the Council LINK:

1.     Withdraw the Public Consultation immediately

2.     Upload the Statutory Consultee Comments on the Brent Planning Portal

3.     Provide the STRA with the 21-day consultation period as required by statute

The Statutory Consultee Comments have still not been uploaded for the public to consider. Today's screen grab:

Since the publicity about the application two Sudbury ward councillors have made comments on the Council Planning Portal:

Barnhill  Newsagents and Post Office, Grand Parade, Wembley

'Community Hubs' are trendy these days but the Barnhill Post Office and Newsagents on Grand Parade, Wembley Park has been an unassuming community hub for 42 years where Pravin and Sheila Gadhia have served the local community quietly and diligently.

They have written to customers informing them that they have sold the business and will be retiring later this month.  In the letter, headed 'A Tough Farewell',  they say that their business has been created through the support of customers and this is embedded in its underlying culture.  They assure their customers that the new owners recognise that the price they are paying for the business includes 'a premium for the goodwill that has been created through our built, trusted and good relationships with our existing customers, and so they are keen to ensure that they protect and value by working hard and keeping our customers happy.'

Pravin and Sheila will stay on for a while as part of a transition agreement and this will give a customers, many of whom they know by name,  to voice their appreciation.

The couple conclude their letter by thanking their customers for 'continued support which has truly touched our hearts in no way that words can explain.'

In a Wembley Park that has seen many changes, particularly in the last few years, Pravin and Sheila have been part of the cement that holds us together.  They will be greatly missed.

The Barham Park houses 

The Trustees of the Barham Park Trust are all Brent Council Cabinet members: Cllr Muhammed Butt, Cllr Thomas Stephens, Cllr Margaret McLennan, Cllr Harbi Farah and Cllr Krupa Sheth. 

Cllr Butt has joined the Barham Park Trust Committee since their last meeting in September 2020 and from the listing on the Council's website appears to have taken over from Cllr McLennan as Chair. I have found no public explanation for this change.

The Barham Park Trust Committee is 'responsible for the trustee functions in relation to Barham  Parham Park Trust, including taking decisions on the disposal of land, varying or ceasing the charitable purpose and changing the trust.'

 So pretty powerful...

This  is significant as one would expect the Trust Committee to defend the Barham Park Open Space from development if it is to ensure the protecting of Titus Barham's 'enduring gift' to the people of Brent, and of course there is a proposal to replace the two houses (above) with a much larger development (below).

The Restrictive Covenants on the houses (776 and 778 Harrow Road) suggest the proposals infringe the conditions:

Restrictive Covenants as filed with the Land Registry and belonging to the Barham Trust on 776 Harrow Road (778 is the same)

12.4

Restrictive covenants by the Transferee

12.4.1

The Transferee covenants with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982 to observe and perform the restrictions contained in clause 12.4.2 ('The Restrictions') and it is agreed and declared that:

12.4.1.1

the benefit of this covenant is to be attached to and enure for each and every part of the Retained Land that remains unsold by the Transferor or has been sold by the Transferor (or by any person claiming through the Transferor otherwise than by a transfer on sale) with the express benefit of this covenant

12.4.1.2

the burden of this covenant is intended to bind and binds each and every part of the Property into whosoever hands it may come

12.4.1.3

an obligation in the Restrictions not to do any act or thing includes an obligation not to permit or suffer that act or thing to be done by another person

12.4.2

The Restrictions are the following: 

12.4.2.1 

not to use the Property otherwise than as a single private dwelling house and the garage for any purpose other than as a ancillary private garage

12.4.2.2 

not to divide the Property into two or more dwellings or residential units

12.4.2.3 

not to erect or cause to be erected on the Property any building or structure whatsoever except a greenhouse or shed of not greater length than 4 metres and of not greater height than 3 metres or permit or suffer any person under the Transferor's control to do so

12.4.2.4 

not to stand or support any vehicle, commercial vehicle trailer, mobile home, caravan, trailer, cart or boat on any part of the Property, and

12.4.2.5 

not to carry out any development within the meaning of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in or upon the Property

12.4.2.6 

not to park any motor vehicle on or otherwise obstruct any part of the accessway hatched yellow and hatched green or any part of the Retained Land at any time

12.5

Positive covenants by the Transferee

The Transferee covenants on behalf of itself and its successors in title with the Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of the Retained Land and each and every part of the Retained Land and with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982

12.5.1

to contribute and pay within 14 days of demand (ll) fifty percent (50%) of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing the accessway shown hatched yellow on the Plan

(b) a fair and due proportion of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing sewers drains pipes cables party walls and all other structures apparatus or installations which service the Property in common with any neighbouring or adjoining property

12.5.2

to maintain repair and renew at all times hereafter to the satisfaction of Transferor

12.5.2.1

a good and sufficient metal palisade fence and timber fence or wall on any of the boundaries of the Property marked with ''T'' (if any) within the boundaries of the said plan.

12.5.2.2

the pathway hatched brown stippled red and the accessway hatched green stippled red on the Plan to a reasonable standard

12.5.3

not to transfer the Property or grant a lease of the Property or the Transferee's freehold estate in the Property or any other estate or interest in it to any person without first ensuring that the person has executed a deed directly with Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of each and every part of the Retained Land containing the covenants and provisions of clause 12.5. mutatis mutandis including this present covenant 12.5.3.

Well clearly the proposed block of flats is not a greenhouse or shed...

 The entry from the Land Registry is embedded below and I am sure will be of interest to those opposing the plans. (Click bottom right for full page)

Guest post by Philip Grant

One of the large schemes approved at Brent’s Planning Committee meeting in February 2021 was for a mixed-use redevelopment of the Abbey Manufacturing Estate and Edwards Yard, at Mount Pleasant in Alperton. I’ve since found out how Edwards Yard got its name. This is the story behind it, and the reason why that name should be retained in the new development.

1.   Aerial impression of the Abbey Estate development. (From application 20/3156 drawings, with notes added)

My quest began when I was seeking information about another Alperton business, Cousland & Browne, to help answer a local history query I’d received. They had been timber merchants, beside the canal. One of the answers I received was from Diane, whose father used to deliver timber for them. She remembered, along with her mother, going in the lorry with him all the way to Saundersfoot in Wales, on one of those trips in the late 1950s.

2.   Cousland & Browne advert. (From Curley’s Directory of Wembley. 1956)

The Paddington branch of the Grand Junction (now Grand Union) Canal opened in 1801. It cut its way through the village of Alperton, and helped bring lots of trade and small canal side industries to this mainly rural part of Middlesex. Bricks, gravel and hay were sent into London, while rubbish and other waste products were brought out to be processed. The boiling of food waste to feed the pigs at three farms, and the manufacture of oil and manure from fish refuse meant that Alperton had a smelly reputation in late Victorian times! 

3.   A busy canal wharf at Alperton, 1923. (From Geoffrey Hewlett’s “Wembley”)

Diane’s grandfather, John William Edwards, was born in Wembley in 1869. By the early 1900s he was employed as the farm bailiff at Clyde Vale Farm. He lived in Alperton Cottage, at the eastern end of Honeypot Lane (later renamed Mount Pleasant), where the rear entrance to Lyon Park School is now. He and his wife had a number of children, including Diane’s father, David, who was born in the cottage in 1909.

By the early 1920s, John Edwards was trading as a haulage contractor. His sons Albert, Henry and David joined him in what became the family business of J. Edwards & Sons. At first it was horse-drawn carts, and as well as general haulage the jobs they took on included delivering materials to Wembley Park, for construction of the Empire Stadium and some of the British Empire Exhibition buildings.

4.  J. Edwards & Sons horse and cart, 1920s.

In 1923, the sports equipment manufacturers, Charles Webber & Co, had purchased a 5-acre site in Honeypot Lane, formerly the Alperton Park brickfields. The following year they sold a plot of land to John Edwards, as he needed a larger base for his business. The rest of the Webber’s land became the Abbey Trading Estate.

Edwards built a house, with stables for 11 horses in a yard behind it, in 1925. “Meadow View”, soon to be addressed as 122 Mount Pleasant, was beside a row of workers’ cottages built by Alperton’s Victorian entrepreneur, Henry Haynes. In 1931, John Edwards bought more land behind the cottages, creating the site which has been known as Edwards Yard ever since. 

5.   John with one of his horses at Edwards Yard, 1930s.

The extra land was used to build garages for the firm’s growing number of lorries. The family home, where John Edwards lived for the rest of his life, was also where the business was run from. A sign on the front of the house read:

Meadow View
J Edwards & Sons
Motor & Horse Transport Contractors
Phone Wembley 1922

6.   John Edwards with one of his sons, sitting on the running board of a lorry, 1930s.

The rapid expansion of suburban estate building in Wembley and surrounding areas, from the mid-1920s onwards, meant that J Edwards & Sons were rarely short of work. John Edwards finally retired from the business in 1943, gifting it and the yard to his three sons. After the end of the war their lorries were busy, both with general haulage work and clearing of bomb-damaged sites.

Henry Edwards retired from the partnership in 1954. As not all of the yard was still needed, some of the garage buildings were rented to other small businesses. David was left running the business by himself once Albert retired in 1963. He kept on transporting goods and clearing rubbish from local factories, with several lorries and a couple of employed drivers, until he retired in 1967 and the haulage business ceased. After that, all of Edwards Yard was let out to small businesses, many of which operated from there for decades.

7.   An artist’s view of the Abbey Estate development, with the potential new Edwards Yard on the left.
(From planning application 20/3156 drawings)

The yard stayed in the ownership of the Edwards family until it was finally sold to Zedhomes Limited in 2019. Now Diane has asked the developer to retain the Edwards name as part of the new development. A block of four houses is planned to be built on the site of the old yard. Edwards Yard would be an ideal name for these, to remember a place that has been a part of Alperton’s heritage for nearly 100 years!

Philip Grant (with thanks to Diane for the information and Edwards family photos).

NorthWest2 Residents Association are drawing attention this morning to a poorly advertised new consultation on the controversial  development of the B&Q site in Cricklewood, close to the border with Brent.

Full details are on their website HERE

Main points:

New consultation now open – tell them again!

Barnet council have launched a new consultation, running for only two weeks from 17 May to 31 May 2021.

Barnet are not advertising this consultation. There are no noticesaround the site. They haven’t written to the thousand objectors or emailed them either. They didn’t tell us. We only found it when we looked on the website.

Will our thousand objections still count?

They had a thousand objections already in 2020. Maybe someone’s hoping that those can be ignored now that there are pretty new pictures and fine words to “prove” our objections aren’t justified.

Our view

Our view is that these are just as we thought– overbearing, overwhelming, out of keeping with Cricklewood and not even providing any social housing.

With event days returning to Wembley Park,  Brent Council has issued notice via the Kilburn Times of prohibition of entering or proceeding along sections of roads in the area from 10pm the day before an event day until 8am the day following the event day. With the number of event days increasing this will be of interest to local residents.

The Order is made on the recommendation of the Commssioner of Police  fur purposes relating to 'danger or damage connected with terrorism'.

In addition there is also notice of a weight restriction of 7.5 tonnes on the new North End Road extension leading up to where it will connect with Bridge Road.

A triumphant Sudbury Town Residents Association published the above on Twitter this afternoon. The Sudbury Court Residents Association (SCRA) waged a well-researched battle including uncovering covenants to stop the building of a block of flats to replace the present modest houses. 

They deserve credit for this long-running. extremely determined, grassroots campaign  LINK which had latterly been joined by some local councillors.  

Sudbury Labour announced the withdrawal of the application on their website LINK

The painstaking work of Sudbury Court Residents Association (SCRA) can be seen in this exchange of emails that are likely to have influenced the application withdrawal.  Readers may remember that  Wembley Matters drew attention to the fact that Brent Council Leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt, appeared to have taken on the chairmanship of the Barham Park Trust Committee since its last meeting.

SCRA wrote to the Barham Park Trust Committee:

 Re: Brent Planning Application 21/1106 | Demolition of dwelling houses and erection of a four storey residential building comprising 9 self-contained flats with roof top terrace and associated access, parking and landscaping | 776 & 778 Harrow Road, Wembley

Dear Barham Park Trust Committee

I am writing on behalf of the Sudbury Court Residents Association.  We represent approximately 2800 households on the Sudbury Court and Pebworth Estates. Some our residents are located less than 850m from the site.

We wish to draw your attention to and OBJECT to the above application and we support the objection submitted by the Brent Council Member for Barnhill Ward.

In addition, we strongly feel that this will cause numerous problems for our residents, detailed below:

1.     Initial soundings of residents have been a resounding rejection of any development over and above the Covenanted limits especially as the site is 'within' the Barham Park boundary.

2.    As our residents use Barham Park for recreation and exercise, their enjoyment and even privacy will be compromised as this large building will completely spoil its view. It is the nearest park for many of our residents, so it is critical that it is preserved as such, especially as we recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and both physical and mental health have been affected.

3.    This development will increase congestion on an already busy road, increasing pollution and road danger.

4.    Vehicles turning into the site will increase danger for pedestrians and cause disruption to traffic flow, including buses. This is at the start of the number 18 bus route and this may delay the bus further and increase danger for pedestrians accessing the bus stop.

5.    There is no provision of delivery parking so this will either lead to obstruction of the road or footway.

6.    Car parking provision is contrary to the Council's policy on parking provision in developments.

7.     There is likely to be significant impact on wildlife, especially bats, which are a protected and rare species.

8.    Damage to the Cedar of Lebanon tree is unacceptable.

9.    There are restrictive covenants placed on the site, which forbid such a development. The covenant limits use on the two separate parts of the site (776 & 778) in each case to 1 single private dwelling houses and garage.

Councillor Butt replied that he would pass the comments on to the planning team.

SCRA responded:

My apologies as I don't think I clarified the purpose of my email to the Barham Park Trustees.

Our email was meant to have been addressed to yourself as Chair.

We wished to draw your attention to the above application in case you were not aware of it, as it would be the expectation of the SCRA that the Barham Park Trust would be lodging a strong and robust objection to the application.

Titus Barnham gifted the site to Brent in 1937, and as a Charitable Trust, it has an obligation protect the endowment.

To allow the park to be ruined by permitting the building of a residential block of flats, would be ignoring the obligations of the gift and is in direct contradiction of the restrictive covenants (inserted at the end of my email).

The roles of the Barham Park Charity LINK  are:

What the charity does:

·       Education/training

·       Arts/culture/heritage/science

·       Amateur Sport

·       Environment/conservation/heritage

·       Economic/community Development/employment

Who the charity helps:

·       The General Public/mankind

How the charity helps:

·       Provides Buildings/facilities/open Space

It does not have a role in providing/facilitating private housing.  

We are aware that errors were made when the cottages were originally built and when they were sold, I am sure that the Charity Commission have taken a dim view of the management of this gift to the people of Brent.

If the site was to be developed for the benefit of the public, eg a park cafe or other community facility, this would perhaps be acceptable, but to build a private block of flats is, in our view, a direct breach of the covenant.  

If any land is disposed of, we envisage that the Trust would seek to obtain a good market value for such a desirable site.

Councillor Butt, we trust in your role as Chair of the Board of Trustees, you will be leading a strong objection to this application.

Regards SCRA

Restrictive Covenants as filed with the Land Registry and belonging to the Barham Trust on 776 Harrow Road (778 is the same)

12.4

Restrictive covenants by the Transferee

12.4.1

The Transferee covenants with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982 to observe and perform the restrictions contained in clause 12.4.2 ('The Restrictions') and it is agreed and declared that:

12.4.1.1

the benefit of this covenant is to be attached to and endure for each and every part of the Retained Land that remains unsold by the Transferor or has been sold by the Transferor (or by any person claiming through the Transferor otherwise than by a transfer on sale) with the express benefit of this covenant

12.4.1.2

the burden of this covenant is intended to bind and binds each and every part of the Property into whosoever hands it may come

12.4.1.3

an obligation in the Restrictions not to do any act or thing includes an obligation not to permit or suffer that act or thing to be done by another person

12.4.2

The Restrictions are the following: 

12.4.2.1 

not to use the Property otherwise than as a single private dwelling house and the garage for any purpose other than as a ancillary private garage

12.4.2.2 

not to divide the Property into two or more dwellings or residential units

12.4.2.3 

not to erect or cause to be erected on the Property any building or structure whatsoever except a greenhouse or shed of not greater length than 4 metres and of not greater height than 3 metres or permit or suffer any person under the Transferor's control to do so

12.4.2.4 

not to stand or support any vehicle, commercial vehicle trailer, mobile home, caravan, trailer, cart or boat on any part of the Property, and

12.4.2.5 

not to carry out any development within the meaning of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in or upon the Property

12.4.2.6 

not to park any motor vehicle on or otherwise obstruct any part of the accessway hatched yellow and hatched green or any part of the Retained Land at any time

12.5

Positive covenants by the Transferee

The Transferee covenants on behalf of itself and its successors in title with the Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of the Retained Land and each and every part of the Retained Land and with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982

12.5.1

to contribute and pay within 14 days of demand (ll) fifty percent (50%) of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing the accessway shown hatched yellow on the Plan

(b) a fair and due proportion of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing sewers drains pipes cables party walls and all other structures apparatus or installations which service the Property in common with any neighbouring or adjoining property

12.5.2

to maintain repair and renew at all times hereafter to the satisfaction of Transferor

12.5.2.1

a good and sufficient metal palisade fence and timber fence or wall on any of the boundaries of the Property marked with ''T'' (if any) within the boundaries of the said plan.

12.5.2.2

the pathway hatched brown stippled red and the accessway hatched green stippled red on the Plan to a reasonable standard

12.5.3

not to transfer the Property or grant a lease of the Property or the Transferee's freehold estate in the Property or any other estate or interest in it to any person without first ensuring that the person has executed a deed directly with Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of each and every part of the Retained Land containing the covenants and provisions of clause 12.5. mutatis mutandis including this present covenant 12.5.3.

George Irvin, the developer who had proposed a block of flats to replace the two modest house n Barham Park has confimed via Facebook that he has withdrawn the current application and will prepare a new one that will be for two new houses on the site.

He posted an email he had sent to Brent Council Planning Department on Paul Lorber's Facebook page today. I was hesitant in accepting that it was genuine because of the many typos but Brent Council has confirmed the withdrawal.

Ref: 21/1106 - 776 + 778 Harrow Road

 

Further to your email and our discussions yesterday on 18 May 2021, I confirm that we will now withdrawal the above mentioned application today.

 

In order to overcome the concerns you have highlighted, a new application will be prepared for two new houses to replace the existing two houses on site.

 

The main reason for this is keep all the people in Brent we work with, The Local Community, Brent Counsellor, Sunbury Town Residence Association and the Barham Park Trusts happy, as all the feedback with have been receiving is they would prefer us to replace the two existing houses with two new better ones.

Regards George

George Irvin FInstD

Zenastar Properties Ltd

Businesses will need to show how they are tackling climate change and working towards zero carbon emissions by 2030 when bidding for Brent Council contracts under new procurement rules introduced this week.

The council’s new Procurement Sustainability Policy aims to utilise Brent’s huge purchasing power by requiring potential new suppliers to demonstrate how they tackle the climate crisis by reducing carbon emissions and waste; minimising the use of resources; promoting the circular economy; improving air quality; and enhancing green spaces and biodiversity.

All applicable tenders will now include a sustainability assessment to identify how they will reduce Brent’s environmental impact and support sustainability commitments, which will form part of legally binding contracts awarded to successful bidders.

Councillor Krupa Sheth, Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for Environment, said: 

The council spends around £400 million every year on goods and services, so we have a great opportunity to use this spending power to make Brent greener and get closer to zero carbon emissions.

 

This is about us putting our money where our mouth is. Improving environmental sustainability through the suppliers we work with is essential if we are going reach the ambitious targets we have set ourselves. By working together, we can all make a difference, and create a greener borough for everyone.

 

The Procurement Sustainability Policy links into the council’s Procurement Strategy 2020-2023 priorities to achieve economic, social and environmental benefits for Brent.

•             Procurement Sustainability Policy

•             Procurement Strategy 2020-2023

 Guest post by Philip Grant

In a comment on Martin’s first blog about the planning application to build a block of flats in Barham Park, I said that I had set out the case for the park to be treated as a “heritage asset” in its own right as part of my objections. 

The site of the Victorian mansion in Barham Park, September 2015.

I sent a copy of my case for this to Brent Council’s Heritage Conservation Officer, and his reply was that it already had that status. He said:

“I can confirm that Barham Park would be treated as locally designated asset as it is contained on the London Gardens Trust Inventory.  See 10.3 of Brent’s Historic Environment Place-making Strategy.  It states ‘The London Parks & Gardens Trust has identified 38 sites within Brent which have been included on its Inventory of Historic Green Spaces. These sites are treated as Locally listed within the Borough and are identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions.’”

The fact that thirty-eight “Historic Green Spaces” in the borough are meant to have the same level of protection as locally listed buildings for planning purposes came as news to me, so I thought that it was something that was worth sharing with you. It is not something that I’m aware of the Council, or its planners, having drawn to public attention. 

As “non-designated heritage assets”, any planning application that affects one of these green spaces, or its setting, should include a Heritage Statement, which describes the heritage asset and its level of “significance”, sets out the degree of harm to that significance which the proposals in the application would cause, and anything that the proposals will do to mitigate that harm. 

This is certainly something that anyone looking at plans for a development near one of these green spaces in their area should bear in mind, and make sure that it is referred to in any objections they may make. If a heritage statement is not included as part of the application, or is inadequate, this can be drawn to the Case Officer’s attention as grounds for, at least, requiring further information on this heritage aspect of the plans.

Here is the list of the thirty-eight Historic Green Spaces, from Brent’s Historic Environment Place-Making Strategy, which is one of the documents (adopted by Brent Council in 2019) which form part of the borough’s “emerging Local Plan”:-

Remember, these green spaces are all Heritage Assets, which Brent’s own policies say are a valuable part of our historic environment, and deserve protection!

Sadly, as we know from the experience of Brent’s own planning application to demolish Altamira, the locally listed Victorian villa in Stonebridge, the Council and its planners do not always abide by their own adopted policies! But that should not stop us from flagging up those policies, and the level of protection which they are meant to provide, whenever they are relevant to a planning proposal which would have a detrimental effect on one of our Historic Green Spaces.

Philip Grant.

Rcent Brent demonstration against takeovers

The take over of GP's surgeries by US company Centene, including three in Brent, has been covered on Wembley Matters.  LINK Now a legal challenge has been launched and I hope readers will contribute.

DONATE HERE

The Appeal

Help us to stop the takeover of GP Surgeries by the giant American corporation Centene!

Centene (through its UK company Operose Health Ltd) has taken over dozens of GP surgeries in London including eight contracts in Camden, Islington and Haringey. Hundreds of patients, councillors and members of the public have written letters, protested outside surgeries and have made their feelings clear. We do not want our GP practices taken over by large profit-seeking American corporations.

The decision to allow the takeover of the GP surgeries with over 375,000 NHS patients on their lists, was taken by the Clinical Commissioning Groups who are responsible for commissioning General Practice services for patients.  

Following public outcry, a patient at one of the affected practices has decided to challenge the decision of her local CCG (North Central London) in court. Ms Anjna Khurana is a local councillor, representing Tollington Ward, and is a patient at Hanley Primary Care Centre in Islington.

Anjna said:

“I am so afraid that our NHS is being dismantled bit by bit, with the private sector playing a bigger and bigger part.  The NHS belongs to all of us and it is wrong that it should be run to achieve private profit rather than for the good of everyone. I also worry that my personal NHS medical data will be used by Operose for purposes that I have not been informed about or agreed to.

I need to trust my doctor, and how can I do that if they work for a company like Centene? A company that has a record of fraud in the US.  I am taking this court action not only for me but for all of us, because we all feel the same about the NHS.  Please help me to make this happen.”

Anjna is right to be worried. It's clear that the Centene/Operose Health business model is built around profits not patient care. 

This statement, from public accounts of the UK parent company behind Operose Healthcare, makes it very clear :

"Position at 31 December 2019 and future developments ... Rationalisation of our business activities… Has continued into 2020, as the business seeks to divest of activities that have not met profitability targets. As a result, on 31 March 2019, Operose Health Limited exited the Surrey Borders Partnership NHS Trust CAMHS contract, and on 1 July 2019, Operose Health (Group) UK Limited divested its complex care division, including the contracts and related assets." 

From this statement it's also clear this is not just about London GP Surgeries. Operose Health Ltd have already taken over twenty other GP surgeries across England. The corporate takeover of NHS services can happen anywhere in the country. 

This case affects all of us.   

HOW YOU CAN HELP

Please help to raise £25,000 - £30,000 so that Anjna can bring the case to the Court. This target is on the assumption that the judge will award 'capped costs' because this is a case of vital public interest.

£25K is to cover the 'capped costs'. When the lawyers ask the Judge for permission to bring the Judicial Review, they will ask for this limit to the amount Anjna would have to pay to NCL CCG’s lawyers, if she were to lose the Judicial Review.  

This is the only way Anjna can afford to bring the case to court.

The additional £5K is towards the costs of court fees, solicitors and barristers who are working hard already in presenting Anjna’s case for consideration.

We're sure you can see the public interest in this Judicial Review. Your support will be invaluable. Please contribute whatever you can and share this page now!

NOTE: Should it transpire that a judge says there are no grounds to proceed to Judicial Review, in accordance with CrowdJustice's Terms and Conditions, we will donate any unused funds to another similar legal challenge, via Crowd Justice or the Access to Justice Foundation.

THE DECISION SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE

The hope is that the courts will judge that North Central London Clinical Commissioning Group acted unlawfully in making their decision and that the decision will be quashed. Certainly the process was carried out with little regard for public consultation and certainly no involvement of registered patients.

London GP,  Louise Irvine, of Keep Our NHS Public (KONP) said: "The NHS  Constitution demands transparency and people rightly expect transparency and accountability in NHS decision-making especially about such important matters as who runs our GP practices, and their suitability to be trusted with our health care and our personal health data."

Like Anjna, the public would hope and expect proper patient and public engagement about what kind of people or organisations should get the contracts to run our GP surgeries in the future. The public don't want to see good NHS GP surgeries taken over by companies who do not share a belief in the ethics of comprehensive healthcare for everyone regardless of wealth or status.

Cat Hobbs, CEO of We Own It agrees: "Our NHS belongs in public hands, working for patients not profit. People don't want health insurance giants like Centene taking over GP surgeries. We fully support Anjna and her incredibly important fight for our NHS."

This legal challenge is an important step in stopping more corporate takeovers of the NHS. It also demands transparency and accountability from Clinical Commissioners in the future.

Steven Carne of 999 Call for the NHS said:  “What is most worrying is that the failure of the various CCGs to carry out proper scrutiny means they've allowed a multi-million dollar American corporation to hold a major position within the NHS infrastructure. And the people who will suffer are the patients who, of course, were told nothing." 

THE PROCESS AHEAD

We are working with solicitors Leigh Day and barristers Adam Straw QC from Doughty St Chambers and Leon Glenister from Landmark Chambers.

Anjna's claim has to be submitted to the High Court and a judge will decide whether the case can continue to a full Judicial Review. We are asking for capped costs because this is the only way Anjna can bring this case. A case that is of huge public interest. 

If the Courts grant approval and agree capped costs, we will then proceed to a full Judicial Review hearing.

 This will be of interest to anyone concerned about takeovers of GP surgeries

FROM  NORTH WEST LONDON COLLABORATION OF CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUPS

Brent Council are consulting on the delivery of essential basic services from April 2023. As these affect us every day (you should see my email in-box!) it is worth making an effort to respond:

In May 2019, the council set up a programme called ‘Redefining Local Services’ to explore how some of the most important local services could be delivered from 1 April 2023. This is when existing contracts for many of these services are due to end. 

We’re talking about the delivery of services that have an impact on:

• How your recycling and waste is collected and processed
• How our roads and pavements are maintained
• How we work to prevent anti-social behaviour and crime
• How we improve local air quality and tackle the climate emergency
• How businesses like pubs and casinos are licensed
• How Brent’s parks and trees are maintained
• How we keep our streets free of litter and illegal rubbish dumps
• How illegal parking is enforced
  

A decision must now be made on how services that are currently being delivered by contractors will be delivered in the future, once those contracts end. For example, the council could continue to pay outside organisations to provide these services (outsourcing), or it could deliver some of them itself (insourcing), or the council could do a combination of both these things.

The documents we are consulting on summarise the research that has been done to date and outline the pros and cons of a number of different delivery model options for these services. 

Ultimately, our ambition is to design a model which delivers the services residents, businesses and visitors need. This means a cleaner, greener environment and more jobs for local people, as well as opportunities for local businesses. We also want to build in greater flexibility, control and innovation.  

Whichever option is chosen, the council must make sure that the way services are delivered is affordable and secures best value. 

We are now asking for your views on the future delivery of these local services. 

Why we are consulting

We are consulting with you to help us make informed decisions about the future delivery of these important services. We want to know what your priorities are when thinking about service delivery and how you feel we should choose between the different delivery model options. 

We also want to know which delivery models you prefer, your reasons for choosing them and whether you agree with the two competing options we are currently favouring. 

Who are we consulting with?

Under Section 3 of the Local Government Association 1999 (LGA 1999), the council has a duty to consult with representatives of the following groups of people:

• Local taxpayers (i.e. Brent residents)
• Local ratepayers (i.e. local businesses, including SMEs)
• Service users (i.e. people who use Brent services)
• People with an interest in the borough (this could include organisations who have contracts with the council)
• Local voluntary groups
  

When is the consultation and how can I respond?

The consultation will run from Tuesday 18 May 2021 until Monday 21 June 2021.

We ask that you please complete the online survey by Monday 21 June.

We also want to talk to a handful of people from across the borough in a bit more detail about these issues – if you’d like to get involved in one of those conversations do please let us know by registering. As a thank you for your time, we’re offering a £20 LDO (London Designer Outlet) voucher to all who attend.

Please note that individual replies on the consultation will not be provided. However, we will post a summary of all views received on the portal after the consultation has closed.

How will we use your data?

A report summarising all views received will be produced after the consultation period for consideration at a future meeting of Cabinet. This report will help inform Cabinet’s final decision on the delivery model for these services.

All feedback received through the consultation will be anonymised, and any identifiable information removed before the summary report is produced.

As part of the online survey, we also need you to confirm that you fall within one of the groups of people that we are consulting with. 

We will not use the information you provide for any other purpose other than that stated above, nor will we share it with other council departments / external bodies.

We will always process your information in accordance with the law. For more information on how we process, use and store your information, please refer to the Council’s Privacy Policy.

Further Information

If you have any queries on the consultation process, please email them directly to redefininglocalservices@brent.gov.uk 

For more detail on the services in scope and the delivery models being considered, please refer to the documents provided alongside the survey.

COMPLETE THE SURVEY VIA THIS LINK

 Guest post by Philip Grantin personal capacity

 SEE UPDATE AT FOOT OF THIS ARTICLE

As you had not seen yet another “guest blog” by me on the “footballers” tile mural since 13 April, when I set out the reasons that Quintain does not have consent to cover it with adverts and asked “Why won’t Brent concede?”, you may have hoped that this question had been settled by now. I’d hoped that as well!

The “footballers” mural in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway at Wembley Park.

Unfortunately, Brent Council Officers don’t want to “play ball”, and get this issue properly resolved. It seems they would prefer to “kick it into the long grass”, so that Quintain and its Wembley Park subsidiary can continue to claim they are “entitled” to cover over this heritage asset and public artwork with adverts for big events at Wembley Stadium, starting with the Euros football tournament next month.

It should be unthinkable for this mural, showing England footballers playing at the old “twin towers” Wembley, to be hidden away behind advertising material when fans are going to the stadium to watch their team play. The adverts would also cover-up the plaque which shows they are walking through a structure dedicated ‘in honour of a football legend’. Even if you are not a football fan, I hope you would agree it would be wrong for any adverts to be placed there unlawfully, and that is what I believe would be the case.

The plaque in the centre of the “footballers” tile mural.

After I had sent the detailed reasons why Quintain did not have advertisement consent for this mural to Brent’s Legal Director and Chief Executive on 9 April, I had expected either to receive their agreement, or their counter argument. Instead, this is the full text of the email I received on 16 April from Debra Norman:

‘A substantial amount of council resource has been devoted to considering the concerns you have raised, including taking external legal advice.  I am afraid we are now at the stage where it’s not reasonable continue with correspondence about this matter upon which it is clear the council is not in a position to agree your view or take the action you wish.’

Because this matter does need to be resolved, I believe it was reasonable to continue! I wrote to Carolyn Downs, asking her to let me know the reasons why the Council did not “agree my view”, and making clear that if they had a stronger case than the one I had put forward, I would accept it. 

I will not accept the outcome that Council Officers want to impose without the evidence to back it up. I know, from past experience, that the Council will never share a copy of the ‘external legal advice’ they have received. But as they told me the QC’s advice ‘aligned with’ the view they’d already taken, surely they could share that view with me?

What I asked for was: ‘the substance of the reasoning for your view that the 2017 advertisement consent still applies to the "footballers" mural, and the documentary evidence on which that reasoning is based.’ The answer I finally received from Brent’s Chief Executive, on 19 May, was:

‘I have taken further legal advice on sharing our QC advice and have been advised not to so do.’

I don’t think it is fair or open for senior Council Officers to refuse to give their reasons for the view they have taken on this important matter, and I have said so. I will ask Martin to attach the full text of the latest email exchanges, so that anyone who wishes to can read them and make their own judgement.

We are now less than three weeks away from the start of the Euros football tournament, so this dispute over advertisement consent does need to be resolved without further delay. As Council Officers are reluctant to settle the issue, I have taken the initiative and suggested that Brent Councillors could help to do that.

I decided to ask the Lead Member for Culture and Leisure if he would be willing to organise a small panel of councillors to arbitrate and decide, on the facts and evidence, whether or not Quintain has consent to put adverts over the “footballers” tile mural. Any decision would need to be binding on both myself and the Council, so I copied my email to the Chief Executive.

I approached Councillor Nerva as he had expressed an interest when I suggested, in early January, that the Cabinet should consider the option of only allowing advertising on the Bobby Moore Bridge parapets, not covering the murals on the subway walls, when the advertising lease came up for renewal in August 2021. (That was before it was disclosed that a VERY dodgy deal had been made by Council Officers in 2019, to extend the lease until August 2024!)

At the time of writing, I have not heard back from Councillor Nerva, but I will ask Martin to attach a copy of the text of my email, so that if you are interested you can see what I have suggested. You are welcome to add a comment below, if you wish to suggest any improvements to my proposals, or to share any better ideas on how this matter can be settled, quickly and fairly, and at minimal extra cost. 

Hopefully, either this way or another, we should be able to resolve this dispute. If I have to admit that my view was wrong, on the basis of the facts and evidence, I can accept that. 

But if I did not have confidence in the case I have already put forward, openly and transparently to Council Officers and my fellow Brent residents, I would not still be fighting to keep the “footballers” tile mural on permanent public display.

Philip Grant.

UPDATE- CAROLYN DOWNS' RESPONSE

Readers of this "guest blog" may be interested to know the latest developments, from this exchange of emails which took place this afternoon (24 May):

1. Dear Mr Grant 

Cllr Nerva has asked me to respond. 

Thanks for your suggestion of a way to resolve your outstanding issue. 

I am afraid that even if a panel of Councillors agreed with you it would not change the legal right for vinyl advertisements to be attached to the tiles over the football mural. 

I have mentioned before that the contract for advertising is due to be re-tendered later this year and in the meantime, Quintain have said that they will not advertise over it. 

Yours sincerely 

Carolyn Downs
Chief Executive
Brent Council

2. Dear Ms Downs,

Thank you for your email, in response to my suggestion to Cllr. Nerva last Friday that a panel of councillors could settle our (not my) outstanding dispute over advertisement consent by arbitration.

It would probably save a more detailed reply from me if you would clarify two points from the final sentence of your email, please, as quickly as possible.

You have said that 'the contract for advertising is due to be re-tendered later this year.' It was my understanding that the November 2019 Deed of Variation extended Wembley Park Ltd's advertising lease until August 2024. Would you explain, please, what the re-tendering will involve, and when this will happen.

You say that 'Quintain have said that they will not advertise over it.' Does that mean that Quintain have given a guarantee that no vinyl advertising sheets will be placed over the "footballers" tile mural? If so, I would welcome a copy of the communication confirming that, please.

 From Government Website

Additional coronavirus (COVID-19) PCR testing is to begin in the coming days in targeted settings and postcodes within Harrow, Ealing, Hillingdon and Brent.

Surge testing will start from today (Saturday 22 May) in some areas following the identification of confirmed cases of the B.1.617.2 variant, first identified in India. 

The cases have been instructed to self-isolate and their contacts are being identified.

Working in partnership with the local authorities, NHS Test and Trace is providing additional testing and genomic sequencing in education settings and targeted areas across the 4 boroughs. Testing will be deployed in different ways in each borough in order to meet local needs. Local authorities will shortly confirm the areas where additional testing will be offered in their boroughs, and reach out directly to residents to ensure people come forward for testing to stop the spread of the virus.

Everyone who lives, works or studies in the targeted areas and settings, including children, are being strongly encouraged to take a COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, whether they are showing symptoms or not. By using PCR testing, positive results can be sent for genomic sequencing at specialist laboratories, helping us to identify variant of concern (VOC) cases and their spread.

If you have symptoms you should book a free test online or by phone so you can be tested at a testing site or have a testing kit sent to your home. If you have no symptoms, you should visit your local council’s website for more information.

In tandem with increased testing, enhanced contact tracing will be used for individuals testing positive with a VOC. This is where contact tracers look back over an extended period to determine the route of transmission.

People across the country are encouraged to take up the offer of twice-weekly free rapid testing, alongside the PCR test as part of surge testing.

The government and its scientific experts are monitoring the evolving situation and rates of variants closely, and will not hesitate to take additional action as necessary.

Appointments for a second COVID-19 vaccine dose will be brought forward from 12 to 8 weeks for the remaining people in the top 9 priority groups who have yet to receive their second dose. This is to ensure people across the UK have the strongest possible protection from the virus at an earlier opportunity.

The move follows updated advice from the independent experts at the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which has considered the latest available evidence and has recommended reducing the dosing interval.

The development site outlined in red, school grounds in green and Canterbury House and Carlton House

A battle started about 6 years ago when Brent Council asked HS2 to site a proposed vent site for the high speed rail running underground at this point at a site next to a primary school in South Kilburn rather than one adjacent to Queens Park station.

In a  message to constituents, March 23^rd 2016,  Tulip Siddiq MP said:

Today in Parliament, I voted against the High Speed Rail 2 (HS2) Bill that will devastate areas of Camden and Brent.

I have campaigned against HS2 for the past seven years as I believe it is an ill-thought out scheme that will lead to bedlam on our roads, disruption to the education of school children and a compromised local environment. (my emphasis)

Further, these plans will cost taxpayers billions of pounds. I believe this money could instead be spent on projects that will actually bring real improvements to living standards across the country.

Having spoken against this Bill at the Select Committee, and again in today’s debate, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank residents who engaged with the lengthy and costly petition process. Though the Bill received support from across Parliament, it is your voice that will force HS2 to fulfil its assurances to compensate and mitigate the worst of the impacts.

My first priority as the MP for Hampstead and Kilburn is to protect residents in Camden and Brent. Therefore, I am proud to have voted against High Speed Rail 2 today in Parliament.

The scheme have now been granted permission by parliament, but I will keep fighting for mitigation for constituents.

Of course HS2 has gone ahead costing billions of pounds more than first suggested but for South Kilburn residents the question is still whether on South Kilburn the proposed vent will 'lead to bedlam on our roads, disruption to the education of school children and a compromised local environment.'

Unfortunately as officers note the legislation gives HS2 enormous powers and limits that of the Planning Committee:

The above mentioned approvals have been carefully defined to provide an appropriate level of local planning control over the works while not unduly delaying or adding cost to the project. As such the legislation states that planning authorities should not through the exercise of the Schedule seek to revisit matters settled through the parliamentary process, seek to extend or alter the scope of the project, modify or replicate controls already in place, either specific to HS2 Phase One such as the EnvironmentalMinimum Requirements, or existing legislation such as the Control of Pollution Act or the regulatory requirements that apply to railways.

 

For residents the immediate issue will be noise from the site and associated vehicle movements with extensive ground works required. These issues are not the subject of the report:

There is only one objection recorded on the Brent Council Planning Portal froma resident of Canterbury House:

The current design is radically different from the original proposal. There are more buildings and the design height is much greater; the original proposal included the extraction fans installed underground but the revised plans are far more intrusive on residents neighbouring the development. The current proposed height of the headhouse building will have a major impact on natural light and views available to the properties at the rear of Canterbury House. Residents of Canterbury House bought their properties with knowledge of the original plans but there are deep concerns that the revised plans could significantly deter potential future buyers. If the first plan to construct the vents at Queens Park was withdrawn due to resident objections, why has the design at Canterbury Works revised in such a way that the impact on nearby residents will be significant and possibly more so than what was proposed at Queens Park. 

Planning officers say:

The committee report states at paragraph 16 that there would be no breach of the 30 degree rule when considered in relation to Canterbury Terrace. However, there would be a slight breach of the 30-degree rule from two of the ground floor units due to the greater height of the ventilation stacks which sit adjacent these homes. However, given the separation distance (approximately 18 m) and the fact that a daylight/sunlight report has been submitted to demonstrate that there would be no harmful loss of light, the breach is considered acceptable in this instance. It is also important to note that the Design and Access Statement confirms that the vertical ventilation stacks have been reduced in size to the minimum required in both plan dimensions and height. Therefore when having regard to the fact that the LPA are required to given consideration to whether the works 'ought to or could reasonably' be modified to protect local amenity, given the information provided the arrangement is considered acceptable.

A supplementary report responds to a late comment:

Since the publication of the agenda one further comment has been received in relation to the application. This comment raises concerns about a lack of mitigation or compensation for protecting or safeguarding South Kilburn's residents' quality of life. It also makes reference to the new tree planting HS2 are doing in the Chilterns and the lack of any similar mitigation for Brent. The potential impacts on surrounding properties is discussed within the committee report.

Firstly, it is important to note that HS2 works in South Kilburn and the Chilterns are very different. It is also important to note that the character of the areas differ greatly with South Kilburn being a far more urban environment. As this is not a planning application, the Local Planning Authority are unable to seek obligations to secure funding for tree planting in the area.

However, whilst the committee report focuses on the works for approval, the submission does include a number of 'For information' drawings to show future intentions of the site. As stated in the committee report a follow up application for 'Bringing into use' is required to be submitted, whereby HS2 are required to demonstrate that the impact of the development has been mitigated as far as possible. This is expected to include a detailed landscaping and tree planting scheme on site and the provision of a 'pocket park' to provide educational opportunities to neighbouring St Mary's PrimarySchool. However, it important to note that these works are not for approval under this application.