Readers may wonder why so much fuss is being made about the Broadview Garages infill application. My answer in this case would be that it is essential that Brent Planning Committee members should be making decisions based on correct factual information provided by officers and that Brent Council should be doing all in its power to protect our green spaces and the borough's trees - particularly when our tree cover is lower than some comparable London boroughs. Furthermore the Council has a duty to protect our designated Local Nature Reserve and Grade 1 Site of Importance to Nature Conservation in Fryent Country Park. If accepted this application would set a precedent for nibbling away at the edges of the Country Park.
In an email to the Chair of the Planning Committee and the relevant officers, Philip Grant has provided factual photographic information that MUST be taken into account. Tonight's 6pm Planning Committee meeting can be viewed on a Live Feed HERE:
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:
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:
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)
Rules are made that we all should adhere to. Unless
ReplyDelete"They bend it like Bent".
Who is the applicant for Broadview garages???
ReplyDeleteBent Council!!!
Anonymous (14 December at 15:02) has said that the applicant for the Broadview Garages application is B(r)ent Council.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the application details shown of Brent's Planning website name the applicant as an individual, the Council employee who is the Project Manager for this New Council Homes project.
By coincidence (?), this is the same Project Manager who was listed as the applicant for the Rokesby Place planning application. Readers may remember that when I challenged "alleged" planning malpractice over that application, and how Planning Officers dealt with the question of affordable housing in that case, Brent first tried to justify Officers' actions by saying that the Case Officer (the same one as for Broadview Garages and for Newland Court) had contacted the Project Manager because she was the applicant.
Then they changed the story to say that was wrong, and that the applicant had only ever been Brent Council, even though the evidence showed that the Rokesby Place application HAD been made in the name of the Project Manager! See:
https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/10/rokesby-place-planning-malpractice.html
How can residents have confidence in the ability of Brent Council and its Planning Officers to deal with planning applications for "infill" projects fairly, when there are so many "odd" and questionable things going on?
What wonderful reasoning will Cllr Kelcher give for the tree not being in the park? Probably that's there is a nation wide housing shortage so we have to build them all in Brent.
ReplyDeleteWhy does Cllr Kelcher have to be so patronising toward objectors. He says, so garages are OK but not housing!! He sets traps, what a .... How did he every become, or even think he would be a councillor representing residents?
ReplyDeleteResidents don't have any confidence in Bent's planning and other matters. The Council's continuous PR is fooling no one.
ReplyDeleteWatching the meeting, has Dixon done any prep on this application. The constant: is there a problem, applicant says no, and Dixon says thank you. Awful scrutiny.
What a farce!
ReplyDeleteMy email to Cllr. Kelcher this morning had a photograph giving him the evidence that tree T1 was growing within the Country Park and that it was NOT within the application site, yet he still ignored the facts.
The Officers, who have had that evidence for days, fudged around the issue and would not admit the truth.
To rewrite an old saying: The proof of the probity is in the meeting - and there was no probity in Brent's planning system this evening.
FOR INFORMATION:
ReplyDeleteThis is the text of the email Brent's top planning lawyer sent me, half an hour before this evening's Planning Committee meeting:
'Dear Mr Grant,
Thank you for your email below
In relation to the position of the tree, the main stem of the tree (T1) was shown within the Arboriculture Impact Assessment (AIA) that was submitted with the application to be on the boundary, projecting slightly into the garage site. These were reviewed when considering this application and have been discussed in the committee report.
Our Environmental project officer from the Parks team has been consulted and has visited the site to view the location of the trees and other vegetation and has stated that the Ash tree T1 appears to be on the boundary erring slightly towards the ‘garage’ land, while T2 is within Fryent Country Park and this reflects the Arboriculture Impact Assessment. They have stated however, that the boundary would require surveys as accurate boundary lines are difficult to establish. It is considered the canopy and roots of the tree will project onto both sides of the boundary, and both the garages and the park are owned and controlled by the Council.
The ecological value of a Site of Importance to Nature Conservation (SINC) does not stop at the boundary of a property, nor does the ecological value associated with a tree. As such, proposals that are outside of the boundary of a SINC still have the potential to affect that SINC, and may also more widely affect ecology, biodiversity and protected species. The potential impacts must therefore must be considered irrespective of whether the tree is within the park or the garages site.
The Council has recommended tree replacement of similar size within the vicinity of the site as well as 3 multi-stem trees on site as per landscape plans. Also recommendations per the ecology assessment report has been conditioned for net gain and protection of existing biodiversity onsite.
The impact of development on trees must be considered whether or not the proposal is within a SINC or not, in line with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the NPPF and adopted planning policy.
In line with s197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 we would look to retain and preserve trees of value wherever possible. However, if this is not proposed or not possible, we must weigh the benefit and harm associated with a proposal and apply planning judgement to this balance. We must look at whether mitigation is required, and secure any mitigation that is considered necessary. This has been done and is discussed in the report.
Trees that are to be lost are seldom replaced with ones of the same size at planting. However, wherever possible, they will be replaced with trees that will grow to a comparable size over time. There is often a loss in biodiversity, ecological value and canopy cover in the short to medium term.
It is not uncommon for trees to be replaced on a one-to-one basis. The loss of the tree must be weighed against the benefits of the scheme and given the need for new homes in the borough, we do consider that the provision of these homes does outweigh the impacts of the scheme.
Affordable Housing
Provision of affordable dwelling is not required for scheme of 10 or more homes and a contribution towards affordable housing is not required as the scheme is below Brent's threshold of 5-9 homes. The scheme is below both thresholds. As such the same outcome would still be relevant to two dwellings. Furthermore, as noted within the committee report the scheme would have been accepted if put forward by a private developer and therefore when balancing the merits of the scheme, significant weight was not placed on the homes being delivered as affordable homes. In relation to Rokesbury Place, each application is assessed on its individual merits. As noted above a condition is not considered necessary in this case,
Kind regards
Marsha Henry (Ms)
Chief Lawyer,
Property, Planning and Regeneration'
Comment received and typos corrected: What is the point of the Planning Committee? My answer is nothing, it is absolutely pointless and no scrutiny at all. Tick boxes by order of the leader.
ReplyDeleteThis council needs to be fully investigated!
ReplyDeleteHow do we get this to happen?
Notwithstanding such alleged malpractices and gerrymandering Brent voters' continuingly voting Labour in Brent further catapults credibility bring used as smokescreen for malpractice. As a long standing Labour member who served in a lead role within a radical left Council, such practices reported by Phil Grant reflect individual opportunism rather than Labour"ism"
ReplyDeleteI am independent of party politics, but I do know what the Labour Party used to stand for.
DeleteI agree with Anonymous (15 December at 00:57) that what Brent residents are getting from the current Brent Labour administration is not real Labour values.
Perhaps the time has now come for Brent to get rid of the planning department as a whole and pass the responsibility to Cllr Kelcher as he seems to be playing King (God) of Brent with all their cronies. Will save millions to build even more homes for private rentals on so called infill sites.
ReplyDeletePlanning officers who don't live in Brent recommending plans for approval by councillors who don't care :(
ReplyDelete