Monday 31 October 2022

Newland Court – trees are at the root of Brent’s “infill” scheme problems

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Diagram showing the general proportions of tree roots to canopy. (Image from the internet)

 

When Martin posted a blog about the Newland Court planning application in September, you could see from the aerial view of the site for Brent’s proposed “infill” houses that they would be very close to a line of trees. 

 

Those trees were in the back gardens of homes in Grendon Gardens, inside the Barn Hill Conservation Area. I added a comment, pointing out that those trees were protected, because they are part of the conservation area’s ‘essential character’, and Martin posted that as a separate item of useful information for Grendon Gardens residents

 

Residents with trees in their gardens bordering the Newland Court site were advised to contact Brent’s Tree Protection Officer, Julie Hughes. She has submitted her comments on planning application 22/3124, and these begin by saying: ‘I have significant concerns relating to the impact that this development will have on protected trees.’ Her comments, which were only made public three weeks after she’d made them, conclude:

 

Final paragraph of Brent’s Principal Tree Officer on Brent’s Newland Court application.

 

I will ask Martin to attach a full copy of those comments below, along with a document copy of the objection comments which I’ve submitted. These also deal mainly with the harm which the planning application would do to the protected trees in the Barn Hill Conservation Area, if it were to be approved.

 

The Principal Tree Officer’s comments concentrate mainly on the tree canopies, the branches and leaves. Because the site of the existing garages at Newland Court is so narrow, the houses which the Council wants to build there would need most of the overhanging branches of these protected off-site trees to be cut off. The branches would, if such severe lopping did not kill the trees, grow back again, and so would need frequent cutting back, to stop them blocking the light to rear windows. 

 

The extent of existing protected tree canopies, marked on a plan of the proposed new homes.

 

Because there were trees on and adjacent to the site, the planning application had to be supported by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (“AIA”). This was prepared for Brent Council by Watermans. When I read this document, one short extract about the trees along the southern edge of the conservation area stuck in my mind:

 

‘… it is considered that their roots are unlikely to have extended below the existing retaining wall which forms the northern boundary of the Site. It is therefore considered that they are unaffected by the development proposals.’

 

I don’t claim to be an expert on trees, but you don’t have to be one to know that where a tree has a canopy above ground, it is likely to have roots in the ground below that canopy! [See the diagram above.] It is very convenient for the Council’s plans to assume that there would be no roots from the protected trees where you want to dig foundations and build houses. But how likely is it that a brick wall would prevent all tree roots from growing beyond ‘the northern boundary of the Site’?

 

Luckily, I remembered a similar situation which occurred as part of the Morland Gardens planning application, where there were trees in a next-door garden, just beyond a retaining wall which marked the site boundary. In that case, the AIA included the results of a ground penetrating radar survey. This discovered that tree roots did extend below the wall:

 

‘The scan line results showed that the off-site trees are rooting within the site, but that the physical barrier of the retaining wall and its footings has provided a partial barrier to root encroachment.’

 

That evidence (rather than the “convenient” assumption by the authors of the Newland Court AIA) meant that the building plans at Morland Gardens had to include a two metre wide tree protection strip, inside the site boundary, where no construction was allowed. But the Newland Court site is so narrow that some of the proposed new houses have walls only 50cm from the boundary. These would cut through both the support and feeder roots of protected trees.

 

On the evidence in my objection comments, it would not be possible to build six of the seven houses without seriously harming, or killing off, both the canopies and the roots of protected trees in the Barn Hill Conservation Area. I’ve sent a copy of my comments document to Brent’s Principal Tree Officer, and asked her to consider it and give her response to Brent’s Planning Officers (as well as to me).

 

If I’m correct, then this planning application should be refused (and there are plenty of other reasons put forward by local residents which also justify its refusal). This is a Brent Council application, but that should not make a difference. 

 

Regular readers of “Wembley Matters” will know of my recent battle with the Council over another “infill” scheme at Rokesby Place, and my insistence that Brent’s Planning Officers must be seen to uphold the Local Government Association’s “Probity in Planning” rules:

 

‘Proposals for a Council’s own development should be treated with the same transparency and impartiality as those of private developers.’

 

Would Brent allow an application by a private developer to build houses so close to a conservation area that it damaged or killed protected trees? I doubt it!


Philip Grant.

 Philip Grant's Objection

 

 

Brent Tree Officer's Report 

 

13 comments:

David Walton said...

Good work Philip!

Last time I looked at Brent Proposals Map of Brent Local Plan, its owner had the South Kilburn Public Open Spaces woodland area change of land use written in as Class MA:E(g)to Class C3.

This means a change of use from business, commercial to residential?

The actual use to local people of Class MA: E(g)is the South Kilburn Public Open Space -a 50-year-old park in an area of public open space deprivation.

Anonymous said...

Why hire experts if their expertise and advice is then just going to be brushed aside. If Brent Council was genuinely interested in doing the right thing they would listen to the experts and the concern of the affected residents.

Anonymous said...

Take this up with Mr Gove...

"He said new developments should be "more beautiful", have the consent of the local community, be accompanied by the right infrastructure and protect the environment."

BBC News - Michael Gove commits to 300,000 homes target
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63445365

David Walton said...

Brent has become business, quite literally with South Kilburn Public Open Space become commercial land (see Brent Local Plan Proposals Map).

I recommend that anyone interested in understanding Brent's green infrastructure destructions local, wakes up to the higher planning tier London Plan and specifically it's All London Green Grid SPG 2011 map page 25. This map pinpoints where London 'Green Growth' and where London 'Green Death' is currently policy framed to happen, and it's unsurprisingly opted for a 'hard choice'(?) total destruction C20 built and design parks and green spaces easy option. Absolutist anti-socialism has clearly trumped needs-based city planning.

South Kilburn, social housing for 6,000 people set in a giant parkland (to alleviate flood risk 2001) is being population grown 100% excluded from green protection and investment growth by the London Plan despite its being population grown to 30,000 by 2041.

Brent green illustrations are only on paper often public mis-leads. St Raphs, Chalk Hill, Neasden Stations....... C21 'Green Growth' or 'Green Death'? Simply Look this up in the ALL London Green Grid Map as 'Brent business' is never going to be London Plan 'Green Death' upfront with local people as their South Kilburn Public Open Space operation is proving yet gain RIGHT now.

Philip Grant said...

Dear Anonymous (31 October at 11:35),

There are.two experts here.

The "experts" who Brent's New Council Homes team are paying to produce an AIA which supports their planning application, and Brent's inhouse expert, the Principal Tree Officer.

It will be interesting to find out which of these experts' advice Brent's Planning Officers follow.

David Walton said...

Levelling Down- social estates were re-designated brownfield land in 2010/ the All-London Green Grid (still the 2022 London Plan green framework) is proof of this.

The 'V' blocks look very demolition vulnerable "look at that space." Brent has many cards including allocations policy...

But, Grenfell, ongoing pandemic, climate change, poor new build and then build again quality, Levelling Up 2019, Brexit, should mean policy change on brown fielding of social estates very soon.

Best stick together as a community there and try to ride out this brutal 'Brent as business' storms added trauma.

Natasha Benenson said...

Dear Philip and Martin

Thank you for showing the objections about the Newland Court infill proposal and the effect that it could have on the trees.

As a resident of Grendon Gardens, I have also objected as I feel that there is potential damage to the trees in my garden but also because the proposed houses would not be easy to live in below the lime trees. I obtained an independent arboricultural consultant's opinion because at the time we had not been able to see the comments by Brent's Tree officer, Julie Hughes. He agrees that the constant pruning that would be needed makes it quite an unsuitable site for buildings.

There are many other reasons for objections, not least those from the residents of Newland Court themselves.

When we first learned about the proposal from Brent Council, we were told that the houses were essential to house people on their waiting list. In the final application it merely states that the houses will be for affordable rent. This does not mean that they will necessarily be for council renting and so they could be sold off. Affordable rent is not really affordable and I am now anxious that we have been misled about the Council's intentions for these proposed houses.

I hope an impartial decision will be made by the planning committee in due course and that a more suitable site will be found for building.

Natasha Benenson

David Walton said...

At National planning level since 2010 social estates are brownfield land and at London planning level C20 built parks and green spaces are excluded from its 2011 Green Grid Framework for green protection and investments, you then get to Brent Local level where everyone is simply kept running around in circles until the developer builds.

National Plan>London Plan>Local Plan> petty PR visuals

If you think it's....

pretty PR visuals >Local Plan>London Plan> National Plan

then Good Luck!

Times are changed, National Plan and London Plan in need of urgent review.

Philip Grant said...

Dear Natasha (1 November at 11:20)

Thank you for your comment.

On your point about who will live in the proposed new homes, if they are built, I am 99% sure that these will be Brent Council homes for rent at London Affordable Rent level. That is meant to be "genuinely affordable", but might not be for some families in urgent housing need on the Council's waiting list.

As you have seen from my comments on this application, I think that the proposed narrow site would be unsuitable for building houses on, just the same as the independent arboricultural consultant whose opinion you sought.

I think, from looking at the comments on Brent's planning website, that you have sent the Planning Case Officer and Brent's Principal Tree Officer copies of that report. If not, I would suggest that you email copies, quoting the case reference 22/3124, to: Mahya.Fatemi@brent.gov.uk and Julie.Hughes@brent.gov.uk .

In addition to that, I would suggest that you "copy and paste" the text of the opinion you received as an additional comment, from your address, on the Brent planning website for the Newland Court application. Just introduce the comment as "This is the opinion I received from ... ..., an independent arboricultural consultant:" Then it will be there for anyone to see, and anyone objecting, or speaking at a Planning Committee meeting, can quote from it (plus it cannot be "swept under the carpet" by Planning Officers).

There is another reason why, as you say, 'the proposed houses would not be easy to live in below the lime trees,' which might be worth mentioning in an objection comment. This comes from the Woodland Trust's webpage on the common lime tree:

'Did you know? - Common limes are often host to heavy aphid populations which drip sticky honeydew deposits on anything lying underneath the trees.'

I see that "MP for Brent North Constituency, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA" has submitted a letter of objection to the Newland Court application.

What about your Barnhill Ward councillors? Have they been contacted, and if so, do either Kathleen Fraser or Robert Johnson support the objections of local residents against Brent Council's application?

If one or both of them will back you and your neighbours in Grendon Gardens and Newland Court, they would be given an automatic right to speak, on behalf of their residents, at a Planning Committee meeting considering the application.

(I know that some Labour councillors might be afraid of speaking against a Brent application which has the backing of the Leader and Cabinet, but Cllr. Ketan Sheth did speak against the recent Rokesby Place application on behalf of Wembley Central residents.)

22/3124 IS a flawed application, and local residents are right to oppose it. Good luck to you!

Anonymous said...

Philip yes you’re right about the lime trees 🌳 they drop a sticky substance over everything. We had them outside our house and it would cover the front walls at certain times of year that we couldn’t lean or sit on them. Tons of aphids and caterpillars too. The trees look like a good buffer zone for the existing buildings and residents. Surely that is not a suitable space to build! The proposed buildings are almost in the back gardens of the residents in the conservation area. This is also valuable breathing space for the existing residents and their environment. Brent need to get a new song sheet! Hopefully the upcoming climate change conference might deliver a new song. In the meantime keep up the good fight and Love Where You Live 💕

Philip Grant said...

FOR INFORMATION:

I sent a copy of my objection comments pdf document to Brent's Principal Tree Officer, and this is the reply I received from her:

'Dear Mr Grant,

Your comments relating to trees and the potential for root damage will be taken into account when considering the application and will be discussed in the report for that application.

I am afraid that it is not possible to engage directly with all objectors, but can assure you that your concerns will be taken into account.

Kind regards

Julie Hughes
Principal Tree Officer'

David Walton said...

As for building elsewhere, you are that elsewhere (Brownfield LDO's, London Plan/ All London Green Grid exclusion from London's green infrastructure plan).

Also elsewhere, is South Kilburn car-free town growth where Brent is building housing on/inside the main Education and Community Centre's 2022 and is now proposing an application to build housing on the South Kilburn Public Open Space (the London Plan) and on the Carlton Vale Infants School.

For actual green growth Brent investment 2022, I walked Montrose Avenue (a short street in the QPCA) and counted 7 new street trees planted. Green protection and green growth where Brent lives matter.

Philip Grant said...

Brent's planning application for the Newland Court garages now has a new problem.

The comments by Brent's Transportation Department have now been added to the documents on the website for application 22/3124, and they are pretty damning! This is their conclusion:

'RECOMMENDATIONS:-
This proposal should be resisted as it stands, on the grounds that the development would add to on-street parking demand in an area that is unable to safely accommodate a significant amount parking, to the detriment of on-street parking conditions and contrary to Local Plan Policy BT2.'