After the very unpopular decision of Brent Planning Committee to allow the building of 4 bulky houses in Barham Park, residents have been concerned that a precedent has been set which could threaten our other parks and public spaces. This is particularly the case where there are existing buildings in the park or green space that could be declared redundant or poorly maintained and the site redeveloped.
We learnt how important green spaces are during the pandemic and open access is important. Access has already been lost to the Copland Fields and green space is likely to be lost in South Kilburn. The St Raphael's green space may be eaten into in future redevelopment. At the same time Brent's tower block building boom means that the population has increased and the new residents have no gardens, just access to a balcony or a small shared space consisting mainly of concrete. An exception will be the new Union Park near the stadium.
Barham Park is supposedly protected by covenant, a fact that the Planning Committee discounted as not a planning consideration, but unfortunately even that is not the case with other parks.
In Brent only King Edward VII Park, Wembley; Roe Green Walled Garden in Kingsbury and Mapesbury Dell in Cricklewood are protected by Fields in Trust. Their mission is to protect parks and green spaces. Owners can apply to Fields in Trust whether private, community or local authority for a potection agreement. Brent Council is of course the owner of our parks and public spaces apart from Queens Park which is owned by the Corporation of London.
Brent Council as the landowner would have to apply for a protection agreement and that will need pressure from residents to persuade them that such action is vital.
Meanwhile a petition has been launched in the wake of the Barham Park decision calling on Brent Council to uphold its Strategic Plan commitment to protecting parks and open spaces.
The petition is on Brent Council's website HERE
Save Brent Parks from house building & development
We the undersigned petition the council to uphold its long standing Strategic Policy of protecting Brent Parks and Open Spaces at all cost.
We are concerned that Brent Council's Planning Committee has ignored Strategic Core Policy of protecting Parks and Open Spaces and also the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan, which designated Barham Park as a Local Green Space and developed a specific Planning Policy BP1 which stated that any housing building or redevelopment in Barham Park should be refused. That decision has effectively undermined Neighbourhood Planning, ignored the views of local people and put at risk other Parks and Open Spaces across Brent.
One might say that the Libdems are taking political advantage of the Barham Park decision . However, Brent Labour are the ones politicising the Planning system in Brent by using the Committee to fulfil their manifesto pledge to build more homes, for who, not Brent residents of course. It was quite clear from the questions and statements by the chair, yes, the one and only cllr. Patronising Kelcher, ably supported by Cllrs Akram, Butt, Mahmood and Dixon. One would have thought that they were ignoring the cabinet Reports from 2011 protecting the cottages from developments that assisted assist with the Council's aims and objectives, the reports were quite clear that the council must protect the Barham legacy for the public, and not themselves or their acquaintancies such as the applicant.
ReplyDeleteOne might say that the Libdems are taking political advantage of the Barham Park decision . However, Brent Labour are the ones politicising the Planning system in Brent by using the Committee to fulfil their manifesto pledge to build more homes, for who, not Brent residents of course. It was quite clear from the questions and statements by the chair, yes, the one and only cllr. Patronising Kelcher, ably supported by Cllrs Akram, Butt, Mahmood and Dixon. One would have thought that they were ignoring the cabinet Reports from 2011 protecting the cottages from developments that assisted assist with the Council's aims and objectives, the reports were quite clear that the council must protect the Barham legacy for the public, and not themselves or their acquaintancies such as the applicant.
ReplyDeleteAs said on another wembley matters post Paul Lorber supports the Preston Library development which was found by the High Court in two judgements to be contrary to the local plan - but now he wants people to support his petition that the local and neighbourhood plan should be followed for developments? A bit like B Johnson he is happy with the legal process when it suits him doesn’t like it when it doesn’t suit him.
ReplyDeleteWhat utter nonsense you spout
DeleteAlthough the petition is shown in the name of Paul Lorber, the discussions leading up to it involved people from across political parties.
ReplyDeleteIt was not just Lib Dems who stood up for the importance of the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan in considering the application affecting Barham Park.
As well as Cllr. Lorber, the Labour councillor for Sudbury Ward, Teo Benea, also spoke against the application.
The Labour councillor for Wembley CENTRAL ward, and former Chair of Planning Committee, Cllr. Ketan Sheth, had a statement read out at the meeting, in support of tje Neighbourhood Plan and the importance of upholding its Local Green Space policies.
I am a political independent, and had submitted a detailed planning objection, setting out why the Officers" Report to the Committee was incorrect over the Neighbourhood Plan polivies. Planning Officers failed to answer the reasoned objection I had made, either in their Supplementary Report or at the meeting itself.
The Conservative member of the Committee could see that the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan policies should mean that the application must be refused, which is why he voted against it, giving his primary reason for doing so as Neighbourhood Plan policy BP1.
it beggars belief that not a single Labour member of Planning Committee could see that those Neighbourhood Plan Local Green Space policies were the key to deciding the application!
Incidentally, our parks also need protection from chronic neglect. I had a stroll around Barham Park yesterday, and while some areas aren't too bad, others are being overwhelmed by weeds. (Yes - unlike the RHS, I still believe in weeds). Worst of all, areas where significant amounts of public money have been spent on planting are derelict because no one has bothered to maintain that planting. It's worth remembering (and I write as a professional gardener) that the two houses which are to be demolished were built to house gardeners. Yes, there was a time - and not so very long ago - when Brent employed and trained real gardeners, and housed some of them in its parks!
ReplyDeleteThe fact is the library building is contrary to the local plan.
ReplyDeleteNot incorrect, not nonsense, not because it’s not in a park or because who was a councillor when it was decided, but because a High Court judgement says so. Lorber supports ignoring the local plan in Preston but wants a petition when it’s ignored in Barham Park?
Not sure how you think the Preston Library development on a busy road in a built up area compares to the planning application for the site of the 2 ex park keepers cottages which are completely with the much loved historic Barham Park, a vital green open space, land which has a protective covenant on it to prevent development???
DeleteDid your 2 local Labour councillors in Preston ward actually campaign against the Preston Library development???
Perhaps you are just attacking Cllr Lorber because he's not a Labour Councillor???
We are all concerned about the threat of development in all of our local parks and green spaces - this Labour run council are intent on building everywhere and do not listen to residents concerns 😞
THANK YOU to the 175 people who have already signed the Petition in support of protecting Brent Parks and Open Spaces.
ReplyDeletehttps://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=260&RPID=51487876&HPID=51487876
Anonymous at 11.58 - the local plan applies to all development sites whether they are in a park or on a busy road in a built up area.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the political party that Cllr. Lorber represents that is being attacked - it is his hypocrisy - that is highlighted.
The High Court decided that the Preston Library development is not in accordance with the local plan yet Cllr. Lorber and the library group support the development. Now Lorber takes the opposite position at Barham Park.
Politicians including Cllr. Lorber and the Labour Councillors who passed the Barham Park and the Preston Library developments think the law should be applied when it suits their political aims - and not when it doesn’t.
Cllr. Lorber’s reply above just says - don't see what I do - just do what I say! His position is the same as the now infamous - no law was broken here - it was not a party, just a work event!
I tried to object but it was too complicated for me to meet the necessary requirements Judith Meredith HA0 3TF
ReplyDeletePlease don’t make Brent a worst cess pit
ReplyDeleteWhat a very sad, poor, untidy, littered, dirty, derelict, seedy, concrete place Wembley is becoming, but don't worry, the residents will still vote for these self serving clots that make the decisions.
ReplyDeleteIt is disgraceful to build on parkland . We need these parks for our environment to be enjoyed , for our children and elderly to enjoy
ReplyDeleteIt is disgraceful to build on parkland . We need these parks for our environment to be enjoyed , for our children and elderly to enjoy
ReplyDeleteTHANK YOU to Martin and all other individuals and organisations who recognise the importance of this issue and have been signing and sharing this Petition.
ReplyDeleteThis is very much a combined community effort and I am grateful to everyone who has helped us to reach 412 signatures already.
I have found that asking individuals by email with the link:
https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=260&RPID=51531332&HPID=51531332
The best approach. Let's keep going.
All the best & thank you again.
Paul
Councillor Lorber seems to be delusional - signing and sharing the petition is not support for him or his position.
ReplyDeleteI and many others signed the petition because planning applications must be decided in accordance with the local plan.
This is the law. It is unbelievable that a community has to make a petition to ask their councillors to act as the law requires.
This is not Councillor Lorbers position he wants to decide for himself when the law applies and when it doesn’t.