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.
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:
· Amateur Sport
· 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.
Restrictive Covenants as filed with the Land Registry and belonging to the Barham Trust on 776 Harrow Road (778 is the same)
Restrictive covenants by the Transferee
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:
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
the burden of this covenant is intended to bind and binds each and every part of the Property into whosoever hands it may come
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
The Restrictions are the following:
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
not to divide the Property into two or more dwellings or residential units
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
not to stand or support any vehicle, commercial vehicle trailer, mobile home, caravan, trailer, cart or boat on any part of the Property, and
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
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
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
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
to maintain repair and renew at all times hereafter to the satisfaction of Transferor
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.
the pathway hatched brown stippled red and the accessway hatched green stippled red on the Plan to a reasonable standard
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.