The test for proposed developments - Philip thinks the application fails on at least three of these factors
I admire Philip Grant's tenacity in attempting to persuade Brent Planning Officers that words and facts do matter in terms of their reports to the Planning Committee.
Unfortunately their response seems to be, 'We note what you say but we know what we mean so it doesn't matter and we will ignore what you say.'
The Officers have written a response to Philip's detailed Objection to their latest infill application and I leave you to make your own mind up as to whether their response clarifies matters or is further obscuration. Their response in the form of a Supplementary Report is embedded below followed by Philip's Response to the Case Officer.
The Planning Committee will be discussing the application on Wednesday.
These are Philip Grant's further comments that he has sent to the Case Officer and copied to David Glover and Gerry Ansell in response to the Supplementary Report above.
I have now read the Supplementary Report, published on 13 December, and these are my comments on it:-
Affordable Housing:
The planning policy position at Broadview Garages is exactly the same as it was for the Rokesby Place application in August 2022. Both were Brent Council “infill” schemes providing two family sized houses.
The Supplementary Report argues that ‘each application is assessed on its individual merits.’ The merits in both applications were identical.
The Rokesby Place consent letter, as recommended by Planning Officers and approved by Planning Committee, included a planning condition stating that: ‘The residential dwellings hereby approved shall be provided as affordable housing in perpetuity, and shall be delivered as London Affordable Rented units ….’
The reason for that condition was stated to be: ‘To ensure the delivery of affordable housing within the development ….’
The affordable housing condition in the Rokesby Place consent, and the reason for it, are just as necessary on the Broadview Garages application, if it is given consent.
There is no justification for Planning Officers to say, over the Broadview Garages application, ‘a condition is not considered necessary in this case.’
Trees:
The Supplementary Report says: ‘The plans submitted as part of this application shows T1 tree to be within the site close to the boundary.’
However, my objection comments of 9 December included photographic evidence to show that tree T1 is growing with the wooded area of Fryent Country Park, NOT within the site.
The Supplementary Report tries to cast doubt over where exactly the boundary might be, saying: ‘Council's park team have also been consulted on this aspect and it has been stated that the boundary would require surveys which in most cases accurate boundaries are difficult to be established.’
But the boundary is NOT difficult to establish in this case, because Wembley Council put a fence along it when the Broadview Estate was built, c.1960. The concrete fence posts are still in place, and as my photograph BV7 showed, the trunk of tree T1 is on the Country Park side of the boundary, not on the garages side.
This attempt to try maintain the false view, put forward in the AIA, that tree T1 is within the site boundary gives every impression of Officers deliberately misleading the Planning Committee.
The Supplementary Report fails to include, and respond to, the final point I made, in bold type, in my objection comments document, which I will repeat here:-
The Officer Report recommends: ‘That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.’ But the application includes the removal of tree T1, so that it DOES NOT meet the requirements of Section 197, and should therefore be refused.
To go ahead with that recommendation, without bringing my objection on this point to the attention of Planning Committee, and explaining to them why you believe I am wrong (if that is the case), would be a grave error.
You appear to be arguing that removing tree T1 would be acceptable, because a similarly sized replacement tree would be planted away from the site. Are you honestly saying that Brent Council will plant a 15+ metre high semi-mature ash tree to replace tree T1?
FOR INFORMATION:
ReplyDeleteThis is the text of the email which I sent at 9.50am today to the Chair of Planning Committee and Brent's top planning lawyer:-
Dear Councillor Kelcher and Ms Henry,
Item 5 - Broadview Garages - application 22/2531
I would not normally write to you so close to a meeting, but there is an important point on the Broadview Garages application which you need to be aware of, so that the Planning Committee decision this evening is based on fact, and the correct interpretation of planning law in relation to the facts.
It was my objection comments on 9 December which led to the Supplementary Report, but that report still does not reflect the true position over a key point, the location of an environmentally significant ash tree, referred to in the application as tree T1. You can see this, as the closest tall tree to the garages, in photograph BV4, which was submitted as part of my comments and should be available for the Committee to view this evening:
(Image BV4 inserted into email here)
The application's Arboricultural Impact Assessment ("AIA") said that tree T1 'is growing on the site boundary’, but several Broadview residents in their objection comments pointed out that it is growing within the adjacent Fryent Country Park.
Despite this the Officer Report states incorrectly that tree T1 is ‘located within the application site’. I provided photographic evidence that tree T1 is growing within the Country Park, and is NOT located within the application site. Yet the Supplementary Report published yesterday still tries to justify the Officers' false claim that this tree is within the application site!
I responded with a further objection comment yesterday afternoon, sending a copy of it (see below*) to the Development Management Manager and Head of Planning, and Mr Glover has replied to confirm that he has received my email.
To prove my point about the location of tree T1, this is the photograph BV7 which I sent to Brent's Planners on 9 December. It was taken from within Fryent Country Park, and shows the base of the trunk of tree T1, the concrete fence post which marks the boundary on the far side of the trunk, and the garages beyond them:
(Image BV7 inserted into email here)
The main legal point, which the Brent lawyer attending the Planning Committee meeting this evening needs to be asked to advise members on, in the light of the fact that tree T1 is NOT within the application site, but is actually within the Country Park, which is a Local Nature Reserve and a Grade 1 Site of Importance to Nature Conservation, is the effect of Section 197, TCPA 1990.
The Officer Report recommends: ‘That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.’
That recommendation was made on the incorrect assumption that tree T1 was within the application site. Your Committee needs to know whether tree T1 can legally be removed, under Section 197, as proposed in the application. If it cannot, then the application must fail.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this email. Best wishes,
Philip Grant.
(a resident of Queensbury Ward, within a short walk of Broadview)'