Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
Aerial view of the Broadview Garages site. (From Google Maps website)
I first mentioned Brent’s plans for infill homes on a small garage site behind Broadview in August 2021, when I wrote about Brent’s “secret” Council Housing Projects. I was not aware of the current planning application for two houses on this site until I saw it on the agenda for next Wednesday’s (14 December) Planning Committee meeting. I took a quick look through the Officer Report, initially just out of interest, but what I read left me knowing that I had to object to the application!
I will ask Martin to attach a copy of my illustrated objection comments document at the end of this article, so that you can read it if you wish to. It is another application where Planning Officers recommend approval, because what they describe as ‘the limited conflict with policy’ would be outweighed by building new homes.
The first point that I felt really strongly about is that, although Brent’s application states that both new homes would be for London Affordable Rent, Planning Officers say that there does not need to be an affordable housing condition in the consent letter. I have explained why, if these homes are to be built (despite the good planning reasons why the application should be refused), the “benefit” of them needs to be guaranteed by making it a condition that they are let to Brent residents in housing need at “genuinely affordable” rent level.
The rest of my objection points arise mainly from Planning Officers relying on inaccurate, and at times wholly misleading, information in reports prepared on behalf of the applicant, and ignoring the true facts given to them by local residents in their objection comments. This is not the first time I’ve raised the importance of looking at such reports critically (because they are prepared by firms paid to support the application, so not impartial). Most recently this was in connection with trees, and the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (“AIA”) for the trees at the Newland Court infill site.
The Broadview Garages AIA (as well as the Ecological Impact Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment) were prepared by the same firm as the Newland AIA. That is not the only similarity, as the applicant (Brent Council, possibly with the same Project Manager), planning agent and Planning Case Officer dealing with the application are also the same as the Rokesby Place and Newland Court applications (cynics might say: ‘How “cosy” is that?’). The firm begins its Broadview Garages AIA as follows:
OK, that’s just a minor slip, probably because they are using the same template for many reports for Brent infill schemes! My main concern with their AIA is that they misrepresent where an important tree ‘on the boundary of the site’ actually is, so that they can justify having it cut down. It is actually growing inside Fryent Country Park, so that it should be protected. Their original AIA, later amended, said that both of the tall ash trees you can see on the left of this photograph could be cut down and removed!
The Broadview Garages site, with Fryent Country Park on the left, 8 December 2022.
My objection comments should give rise to a Supplementary Report to the Planning Committee meeting on 14 December. It will be interesting to see which change, if any, having the true facts, with supporting evidence, will have on the outcome of the application!
[]
Philip Grant.
9 comments:
FOR INFORMATION 1:
Below is the text of the email which I sent to Brent's Planning Case Officer, Development Management Manager and Head of Planning at 2.25pm on 9 December, attaching a copy of my objection comments document.
I want to give the Officers, who will present the Broadview Garages application to the Planning Committee meeting, every opportunity to "do the right thing"!
'Dear Brent Planning Officers,
I am attaching an illustrated pdf copy of the objection comments on application 22/2531, Broadview Garages, which I submitted in two parts this morning via the planning website.
I would ask Mr Glover or Mr Ansell to acknowledge receipt of this document. please.
I hope that this pdf document version, with the images referred to in my online comment, will make for easier consideration of my objection points. It will also allow for ease of copying and pasting the points in bold type, into the Supplementary Report which will be required ahead of the Planning Committee meeting on 14 December.
I will send digital copies of the images to Regen. Admin., so that they are available to be used at the Planning Committee meeting, where required. Best wishes,
Philip Grant.'
FOR INFORMATION 2:
Below is the text of an email, headed "Broadview Garages application 22/2531 at Planning Committee on Wednesday 14 December", which I sent to the three Queensbury Ward councillors (two Conservative, one Labour) at 3.50pm on 9 December.
The Planning Officer Report disclosed that one ward councillor had objected to the application, and I wanted to give that councillor, or all three, information which might help them to speak on behalf of their Broadview residents at the Planning Committee meeting.
'Dear Queensbury Ward Councillors,
I'm aware that one of you has objected to the planning application to build two homes on the Broadview Garages site, but I don't know which of you that is.
I hope that at least one Queensbury councillor will be speaking on behalf of the Broadview residents at the Planning Committee meeting next Wednesday, and I'm attaching a copy of the objection comments document that I've submitted today, which I hope may help you in preparing for your presentation to the committee.
I had not previously objected to this application, but felt that I had to do so when I read the Officer Report for the meeting. On several key points, Planning Officers have chosen to rely on incorrect information supplied in reports on behalf of the applicant, and ignored the true facts given to them by Broadview residents in their objection comments. This is particularly the case over an important mature ash tree (T1), which residents told them is in Fryent Country Park, but which they have treated as being within the garages site, and can therefore be removed.
There are many good planning reasons why this application should not be accepted, but on past experience it may well be approved despite that. If that is the case, I have argued strongly that there should be an affordable housing condition to ensure that both of the homes to be built will be "genuinely affordable", at London Affordable Rent level. That is what Brent's New Council Homes Programme is meant to be delivering, and that is especially important for family-sized homes, for which there is the greatest need. This point should be fully disclosed in the Supplementary Report, which Officers now have a duty to provide as part of the Planning Committee agenda package.
If you are speaking on this application at next Wednesday's meeting, you are welcome to "copy and paste" any of the text from my comments into your presentation, if it supports points which you wish to make.
I have provided digital copies of all of the illustrations to the Planning Department, each beginning with the "BV" number shown in my document, so you should be able to request (in advance) that any of those you want to be shown on screen during your presentation are available at the meeting.
This is a case where the local residents are right, not because they are NIMBY's, but because of good planning and common sense. If you are in touch with any of the residents in Broadview who have objected to the application, please forward a copy of this email, or send a copy of the attached document, to them. Thank you. Best wishes,
Philip Grant.
(a Queensbury Ward resident)'
Let's face it Brent Council are now in the Private Rental Sector, Council Houses in Brent no longer mean Social Rents. Just wait for the housing crash to accelerate and Brent will be in a financial black hole, and we the residents will have to pay to fill it, not the councillors who caused it by their imprudent borrowing. How many times have we heard the councillors saying money is cheap? They even lend money to teaching companies to build, and now the money is no longer cheap. No doubt they will dip their hands in the Communiry Infrastructure Levy to save themselves, but will it be enough?
It is obvious that there is something not right here, another example of Labour run Brent Council making up rules as the go along and breaking them when and as they like to suit them. I have already highlighted how unfair and biased the planning committee meetings are so it is up to the planning department at Brent Council to effectively go through every planning application submitted by Brent Council thoroughly and reject (which should be most) those that have been submitted with misleading information or breach of planning guidelines. That is because as I have highlighted in the past, if it goes to the planning committee meeting it will be approved because of the unfair bias of Labour committee members on the panel holding a majority of 7 to 1. So my question is whether the staff at the planning department are influenced by Brent Council to approve most of if not all these infill applications??????????
Dear Marc,
Thank you for your comment.
Brent Planning Officers have included some incorrect information in their report to Planning Committee, based on incorrect information in reports prepared to support Brent New Council Homes team's planning application.
Some important recommendations those Officers have made are based on that incorrect information.
Local residents, objecting to the application, had corrected some of that information, but what they said had been ignored.
I have drawn attention to that incorrect material in my objection comments, and have included photographs to provide evidence of the correct position.
It will be a test of how fair (or otherwise) the Planning Officers dealing with this case are, in how they respond to my comments document above.
Will they include all the points I have made in bold type in a Supplementary Report to the Committee (which should be published at least 24 hours before Wednesday's meeting)?
Will they respond fully, and honestly, to the points I have made in that Supplementary Report?
Will they change any of their recommendations as a result of the correct information they now have?
Will they ensure that the "new" information, which should be in the Supplementary Report, is properly explained to Planning Committee members when they introduce the Broadview Garages application at the meeting on 14 December?
We will have to wait and see - and we will be watching and listening!
There was much discussion last month about whether Brent Council should "convert" some of its New Council Homes from "genuinely affordable" rents like LAR to Shared Ownership, or even open market sale.
This was one blog on the subject, but there were several more:
https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/11/brents-new-affordable-council-homes.html
The problem, so Officers told Cabinet, and the Cabinet accepted, was that it was difficult to make building new affordable Council homes viable.
The Broadview Garages planning application form gives a clue to why Brent's New Council Homes team may not be able to deliver viable housing projects.
This is an "infill" proposal for two houses on land that the Council already owns (so it has not got to buy the site, which should make the costs cheaper).
The application form submitted in July 2022 as part of this scheme has a section for "Projected cost of works".
In the box "Please provide the estimated total cost of the proposal" the information given is:
'Up to £2m'!
Up to £2m to build two houses!!!
Brent couldn't even sell them at a profit at that price!!!
You can read how Planning Officers responded to my objections with their Supplementary Report, and my response to it, at:
https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/12/brent-planning-officers-wriggle-on.html
How does it cost £2 million to build 2 houses? They are not evening having to buy the land!!! Should be about £500K maximum.
Post a Comment