A Supplementary Report was published this afternoon by Brent Planning
Officers regarding the application by George Irvin to build 4 three storey
houses within the park on the site currently occupied by a modest pair of two storey
houses. The Planning Committee in at 6pm on Monday June 12th. The public can attend in-person or on-line.
Some of the Supplementary Report is concerned with the actual boundaries of the site followed by a consideration of some of the 'further representations' that have been reported on this website:
A number of further comments have been received in objection to the proposals since the publication of the committee report including comments from 4 people who commented previously. In total (including previously reported and new objections), 46 residents objected to the proposal in addition to the petition with 160 signatures, the Sudbury Court Residents’ Association, Wembley Central and Alperton Residents’ Association and Cllr Lorber. An objection has now also been received from the Brent Parks Forum. The objections include some issues previously raised and some additional concerns.
The Supplementary Report requires close scrutiny as the wording is often unclear or ambiguous. The officers continue to recommend that the application is approved and state that the covenant on the park is not a material planning consideration. They do not refer to the Barham family's submission. In my view they fail to adequately answer Philip Grant's allegation of misrepresentation of planning policies.
Philip Grant emailed the head of planning this evening having seen the Supplementary Report:
Dear Mr Ansell,Further to my email to you last Tuesday morning, 6 June, attaching a copy of my objection comment about the Committee Report on the 776 & 778 Harrow Road application, I am frankly disgusted by the response in the Supplementary Report, which has appeared on Brent's website this evening.This is my further comment on application 22/4128 this evening:'I have just read the Supplementary Report, published on Brent Council's website this evening.
It is totally unacceptable that the objection comments which I made on 5 June, about the misrepresentation in the Committee Report over the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan policies. should be "dealt with" merely with an Officer Response of:'This is discussed within paragraphs 5-16 of the main report.'My comment had explained in detail why paragraph 13, in particular, was incorrect.
If Planning Officers are not prepared, or not able, to explain why Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan policies LGS1 & 2 and BP1 should not override the other policies which they rely on to support this application, then the application should not proceed to a decision at the Planning Committee meeting on 12 June.'Yours sincerely,Philip Grant.
This is a link to the 'main report' LINK A flavour is provided by the extract below which made my head hurt when I tried to grapple with it!