Monday, 3 April 2023

Controversial Barham Park planning application returns with new proposals

 

Existing houses

 Rejected proposal

New proposal


Proposals for the redevelopment of the modest ex-park keeper's 'cottages' in a corner of the much-loved Barham Park have returned after proposals made in 2021 were rejected, opposed by both the local residents' association and local councillors. LINK

The planning situation is complicated by conditions on the land  LINK and the role of the Barham Park Trustees chaired by Brent Council leader, Muhammed Butt.

 


 

The new proposal is for demolition of the existing 2 houses and replacement with four 3 bedroom, 5 person, 3 storey houses. 


 Although the Brent Council planning portal states that there are 11 comments on the planning application at present one is from Chiltern Railways and another from a resident which just records their objection to the proposal. I have asked Brent Council about uploading the other comments and also if restrictive covenants on the land have been taken into consideration.

Brent Council's Heritage Officer has submitted a comment:

A Heritage Statement has been submitted with this application which describes the significance of theheritage asset(s) and to understand the potential impact of the proposal [NPPF 194].
It should have included a Statement of Significance and the Greater London Historic Environment Record consulted.
Notwithstanding this, I am satisfied with the overall design approach based on the half-timbering present in the existing locally listed buildings.
I am also satisfied that the new build will not harm the significance or setting of the park given the location.
The western part of the park was outside the original ‘Sudbury Lodge’ grounds and only became part of the park in the 20th century and is not the most significant part of the park. The proposed development, although more visible in relation to this area, will not harm the importance of the public open space nor impact upon the ability to experience the area of the original historic landscape park.
Views from within the heart of the park show that the development will be mainly masked by trees and in any case, its overall scale and design would not be seen as out of keeping.
In terms of the setting of the locally and listed buildings, they are set within a very secluded area where they are screened from view from the wider area of the park.
The Council can be content that the proposal will preserve the character and setting of the park of local special architectural or historic interest.

The site is close to the Chiltern Railways line and they have submitted a comment:

Chiltern Railways have no objection to this proposed development. We would, however, point out that it is in the best interests of the developer, Brent Council and Chiltern Railways to ensure that the proposed three storey dwellinghouses are built to a standard that mitigates any impact the operation of railway services will have on the inhabitants.
 

Looking at the proposed development site, the 4 new houses would be located within a 20m distance of the Chiltern mainline. The line provides regular commuter railway services connecting the West Midlands, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire with London Marylebone Station.
 

As per the Acoustic Assessment Report enclosed in the planning documentation, we would like to raise the fact that Chiltern trains run on the mainline from approximately 05:00 to 01:00 the next morning, so their will be significant noise and vibration impacts for the future residents of the site. There may also be freight trains running during the night-time, which create additional noise due to their slower speeds and heavier weight. As such we would like to stress that the proposed property be given suitable noise insulation to mitigate the impact of the railway line nearby.
 

We also operate Sudbury and Harrow Road Station which is located approximately 70m from the proposed development site. Whilst the station is used a limited number of times for example it recorded 15,352 entries and exits in 2021/2, many through trains travel through the site creating noise impacts for the proposed development. The station will also have automated service and safety announcements, including warning announcements when fast trains are passing. As such we agree with the contents of the acoustic assessment report, that suitable noise proofing and glazing be put in place in this development to mitigate these impacts on the future residents.

The Thames Water submission is more detailed than is often the case:

 EXTRACT

The proposed development is located within 15 metres of a strategic sewer. Thames Water requests the following condition to be added to any planning permission. "No piling shall take place until a PILING METHOD STATEMENT (detailing the depth and type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface sewerage infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement." Reason: The proposed works will be in close proximity to underground sewerage utility infrastructure. Piling has the potential to significantly impact / cause failure of local underground sewerage utility infrastructure.

 

We would expect the developer to demonstrate what measures will be undertaken to minimise groundwater discharges into the public sewer. Groundwater discharges typically result from construction site dewatering, deep excavations, basement infiltration, borehole installation, testing and site remediation. Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. Should the Local Planning Authority be minded to approve the planning application, Thames Water would like the following informative attached to the planning permission: "A Groundwater Risk Management Permit from Thames Water will be required for discharging groundwater into a public sewer. Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. We would expect the developer to demonstrate what measures he will undertake to minimise groundwater discharges into the public sewer.

As far as I can see no mature trees are proposed to be removed, although at present Tree Preservation Orders have not been made on them. 

Full documentation and comment opportunity HERE,

13 comments:

  1. It appears that our wonderful and caring Brent Councillors are getting one over on Brent residents yet again.

    This time by allowing this application to be submitted under the radar with minimal consultation (ignoring previous objectors). Presumably the application has already been predetermined by the Planning Committee members who are hand picked by the Council Leader (though by avoiding new objections the application probably won't need to go to Committee anyway. Also remember the Barham Trust Committee which the Leader Chairs is also hand picked by the Council Leader.

    One would presume that the Restrictive Covenant belonging to the Council (for our benefit as residents) will have been disposed of as the Council Leader as Chair asked officer to accomplish (well nearly what is minuted). I bet the owner of the two properties is laughing very loudly all the way to the bank after taking advantage of the Council's decisions making process at the expense of Brent residents, and not for the first time. Tokyngton Library has similar hallmarks and finger prints.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The timing of this application has taken advantage of the holiday period at the end of last year. The consultee list excluded all objectors to the previous application. The Barham Trust have not met to auhorise the removal of the Restrictive Covenant - not that the selected councilors would object. The consultation period is very short to avoid objections. New documens have been submitted, however, no reconsultation has taken place.

    The Sudbury Town Residents Association who are the Neighbourhood Forum are not even on the consultee list!!!!

    The London Bourough of Bent ignores residents yet again at the behest of the Council's Leader. Is this a step too far?

    ReplyDelete
  3. There needs to be a full enquiry into how this is being handled - this is an public park and should not be built on!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Park keepers service no more. Progress to green outsourced, even mean-while if you head parks services deep south in Brent.

    Should this building be re-built for a communal use instead, say as a nursery?

    Brent is not exactly short on new housing towers, its the services infrastructure to support massive population growths zoned that is sadly borough lacking so far.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This all reeks of corruption sorry to say. How can the Council Leader also be the Chair of the Trustees? Surely a huge conflict of interest. This needs to be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities outside Brent. And the Trustees should all be removed and independent Trustees should be put in place who should be asked to ensure complete unbiased decision making. This is not a third world country and all these corrupt practices should stop immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Historically Cllr Butt has removed Labour Councillors from the Planning Committee if they don't vote as he expects.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Where is the scrutiny? Where is the opposition to Labour?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Message to Anon of the George and Mo quote. Appreciate your anger but you are right, better not to publish. Let's hope chickens come home to roost soon.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I asked Brent to upload consultee comments that were missing and whether covevants had been taken into account.

    This is the response:

    I just checked this and the below initial comments from consultees are marked as public

    Network Rail.
    Chiltern Railway
    Duplicate of The Chiltern Railway Company comment
    Environmental Health
    Environmental Health Noise team
    Transport comments
    Tree officer
    Thames Water
    Heritage officer
    One objection received

    The below two comments are marked as sensitive and not for public as they contain sensitive information such as email details
    Urban Design Officer
    Principle Draiange and Flood officer

    Moreover, the presence of a restrictive covenant is not a consideration material to the grant of planning permissions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I was one of the objectors to the previous application for new homes on the site of the two former park keepers' cottages and today I've received a consultation letter from Brent Planning:

    'We've received a planning application that you may be interested in.

    Application Number: 22/4128
    Location: 776 & 778, Harrow Road, Wembley, HA0 2HE
    Proposal: Demolition of 2 existing dwellings and construction of 4x new three storey dwellinghouses, associated cycle and refuse storage, amenity space and boundary treatment.

    View and track the application: Use the QR code or https://pa.brent.gov.uk
    You can also use the computers at Brent's libraries.

    Commenting on the application:
    You may comment on-line by using the 'make comments' tab or by e-mailing planning.comments@brent.gov.uk. Make sure you provide the application number, your name and postal address. Your comments and address will be publically available, although your name won't be. You may check what the final decision is by selecting "track application" on our website.

    Comments should be made by: 09 May 2023.'

    It looks like Brent has finally acknowledged that consultation on this application has been insufficient.

    Anyone who has a view on Irvin's plans for 4 new three-storey houses in the corner of Barham Park now has until 9 May to submit comments.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is very disappointing and destroying any greenery that we hold also undermining a democratic process that is in place to safeguard.

    ReplyDelete