Dear Editor,
Regarding Brent Article 4- REMOVING PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS RELATING TO CHANGES OF USE FROM RESIDENTIAL FAMILY HOUSES TO HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION confirmed by the Council on 3rd February 2022 and coming into force on 1st November 2022.
This applies to the whole of the London Borough of Brent, but excludes the area designated as the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation Area, the draft Local Plan’s site allocations within the Church End Growth Area and all parts of the other seven Brent Growth Areas- Alperton, Stonebridge, South Kilburn, Northwick Park, Neasden, Burnt Oak/ Colindale, Northwick Park and Wembley corporatist colonial zones.
Why has the Council introduced this Article 4 to parts of Brent? Brent's answer is that:
...currently all Brent dwellings can be turned into smaller houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) without the need for planning permission. Smaller HMOs are shared houses occupied by between three and six unrelated individuals, as their only or main residence, who share basic amenities such as a kitchen or bathroom. There are currently about 17,000 HMOs (small and large) in Brent.
The Council recognises the importance that HMOs have in meeting housing needs. They provide accommodation that is more affordable for some people.
Nevertheless, when there are significant concentrations of HMOs it can cause issues. They change the character of an area and result in adverse impacts, for example higher amounts of anti-social behaviour. They also reduce the amount of larger homes (3+bedrooms) that are available for families.
As such the Council wants to be able to manage the development of HMOs and consider whether change of use from family dwellings is acceptable. Requiring planning permission will help in doing this. It will ensure that where a new HMO is applied for (except where exclusion applies) there is not an overconcentration. It can also help address elements that might impact on anti-social behaviour (such as waste management). It will also allow the Council to ensure a reasonable amount of larger homes for families remain available"
- but not in: Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation
Area, the draft Local Plan’s site allocations within the Church End Growth Area
and all parts of the other seven Brent Growth Areas. Why?
Two Brent's are emerging fast, one of family homes population de-growth suburb-bias and one of corporatist population growth "we can do whatever we want" extractive colonialism where existing social, health, education infrastructure, public open spaces and flood defences are built on and destroyed by political/ market design.
Combine this Article 4 major change with the Royal Institute of British Architects proposal last week for a £38 billion mass insulation of inter-war suburbs for health, wealth and social benefit gains. And Brent's persisting with 'Growth Areas' even though the new planning bill (which included this GA planning idea) was ditched in September 2021 by Michael Gove, all can see clear that Brent is a Local outlier, risk hungry and politically indifferent to its Growth Area high tax, less and less public services zones.
David Walton
This may also be indicative of a politically bankrupt socialist Council, vacuously draped in Labour banners, "copy-catting" the financially-driven corporate world without the commercial nouse to distill social benefits for our communities. It is necessary for Labour Councillors to be literare on socialism and social value, instead of parrot-mimicking socialist vocabulary.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I didn't understand a word of that...
ReplyDeleteRE "Brent's answer":
ReplyDelete"As such the Council wants to be able to manage the development of HMOs and consider whether change of use from family dwellings is acceptable. Requiring planning permission will help in doing this. It will ensure that where a new HMO is applied for (except where exclusion applies) there is not an overconcentration. It can also help address elements that might impact on anti-social behaviour (such as waste management). It will also allow the Council to ensure a reasonable amount of larger homes for families remain available"
Brent's (ab)use of waste management is one of their favourite managed-decline tricks to increase ASB when they want to run down an otherwise good estate, in preparation for 'new and improved' infill development etc.
GOOD POINT. "Brent's (ab)use of waste management is one of their favourite managed-decline tricks to increase ASB when they want to run down an otherwise good estate, in preparation for 'new and improved' infill development etc."
ReplyDeleteThe Planning Bill 2021 promised a total overhaul of the English planning system. This overhaul is now is on hold (except for in Brent), with a complete government re-think of the planning process now taking place instead.
ReplyDeleteThe zoning of growth areas ("we do whatever we want/ automatic planning permission"), renewal areas (planning permission in principle but debate with local communities allowed) and protection areas (planning permission required for everything).
3 zoned classes of English citizenship is a pandemic halted Planning Bill, and even in that Bill there was meant to be public consultation on where exactly these harshly zoned opposed futures for taxpayers should be located spatially, yet Brent Local seems to have forgotten this and got way ahead of even government in forcing what (this government once wanted) until Michael Gove stalled it as being too extreme?
England, outside of Brent clearly considers human rights and equalities challenges and liabilities of this extreme developer market zoning dream being forced. I guess medieval leaseholder rights and other renter models unique to the UK create a clearway for growth zone silos/ corporatist colonies simply too opportunistic to corporate ignore……
For example in Colindale Growth Area, Hallmark Property Group to cover remediation costs wants to put 44 flats worth £15 million on top a 2009 5 storey block Fletcher Court, which has Grenfell type ACM cladding, build defects and a walking fire watch in place. This using Growth Area zone permitted development no need for planning permission and nothing planning required growth zone mechanisms.
A building site of two extra floors on top of an unsafe building of unsalable homes, with structural problems to then follow? The likely future developers innovate for Fletcher-like, Merle Court and Granville New Homes et al in Kilburn Growth Area zone?