Comments on th new building (above) to replace the pavilion in King Edward VII Park in Wembley closes on December 31st 2023 although comments received after that date may be considered providing a decision had not already been made.
The planning application comes after a previous application that had proposed refurbishment of the current building (below) . This is now considered not viable due to the poor state of the building:
It should be noted that the Site has an extant planning permission (ref. 22/2526) to refurbish and extend the current pavilion.
However, further investigation has since been undertaken which has uncovered that the building is not structurally capable of facilitating the approved development. Likewise, further feasibility work has been undertaken which established that a far better facility can be provided by instead progressing with a redevelopment option.
The proposed new building is a much bigger footprint than the current building 643square metres compared to 285 square metres and so takes up more of the park. The removal of four trees is proposed.
The application comes from the Stonebridge Boxing Club previously housed in a building in Wembley High Road and being redeveloped by Regal. The Club seems to have 'most favoured status' as Regal also ear-marked a 3 storey building at the controversial Wembley Point development for them. Details below:
The Club in a Facebook entry about its temporary premises that thanks Muhammed Butt, Brent Council leader, seems to expect a move to the park - or perhaps it is going to have two locations?
The Planning and Design Statement states:
Stonebridge Boxing Club was established as a charity in July 2010 and has in excess of 650 members. It is currently located in Fairgate House on Wembley High Road, which has planning permission for redevelopment, and therefore there is a need for a new facility.
Accordingly, the proposal is to demolish the existing dilapidated building located in King Edward 7th Park and replace it with a modern, high quality boxing club, which includes gym and sporting facilities, physio, ancillary office space, toilet and change facilities, and a café.
It should be noted that the Site has an extant planning permission (ref. 22/2526) to refurbish and extend the current pavilion.
However, further investigation has since been undertaken which has uncovered that the building is not structurally capable of facilitating the approved development. Likewise, further feasibility work has been undertaken which established that a far better facility can be provided by instead progressing with a redevelopment option. This is explained in greater detail within this submission.
Through considered design development and consultation with London Borough of Brent the proposals result in the following key public benefits, many of which are either in-line with or in excess of those resulting from the extant permission:
• Providing a new, modern boxing facility which will serve the local community;
• Demolishing an unused building and replacing it with a useable recreational facility at the heart of the community that will animate King Edward 7th park and improve safety within it;
• A replacement building of a much higher architectural quality, which enhances the setting of the locally listed park within which it is located, according with Paragraph 197 of the NPPF;
• Landscape improvements and habitat improvements;
• A car free development with cycle parking spaces provided in excess of policy requirements, supporting aspirations for providing sustainable transport solutions in the area;
• A building that provides improved energy efficiency and sustainability to the existing pavilion; and
• Both the construction and operational stages of the development will provide additional employment and investment in the local area.
The architectural quality of the new building has been questioned by local residents who have seen the illustration above and suggest it looks like a temporary metal marque. Is it appropriate for an Edwardian heritage asset:
King Edward VII Park is a locally listed park (a non-designated heritage asset). It was formerly part of Read's Farm and was purchased from Edward Spencer Churchill by Wembley UDC in 1913 and laid out as a public park in memory of the late king and also in compensation for the loss of Wembley Park as public open space. The park was opened on 4 July 1914, reputedly by Queen Alexandra. The park had a lodge, a rustic bandstand and picturesque refreshment pavilion; a children's gymnasium with swings, a giant slide and see-saws, a shallow pond and a drinking fountain. There were facilities for tennis and bowling, and the lower part was laid out for cricket and hockey, separated by a belt of elms. There were gravelled walks and seating, formal planting and numerous beds with shrubs and trees.
At present there is only one comment on the Brent Planning Portal. It refers to practical problems of having a building in the middle of the park with associated access problems that emerged when the previous application was considered LINK:
I am writing to express my objection to this proposal. Not only are we losing valuable green space, but the chosen boxing location appears inadequate and unsuitable.Full details on the Brent website HERE
1. How can people be expected to attend in a location that lacks proper lighting?
2. What measures are in place for parking management?
3. The loss of trees is concerning, especially considering the ongoing reduction of trees in the park. It seems counterintuitive to propose further tree removal.
I fail to understand the rationale behind allowing the establishment of a facility in a location unfit for use and seemingly inappropriate. The current choice appears to be a misguided decision, leading to a loss of space. Additionally, it raises questions about safety, given the inadequate lighting, and the potential risk to people-especially considering they have another location pending approval. Building a large gym in the middle of the park, which is not safe at night, puts more people at risk. Have we forgotten about the previous murder in the park.
52 comments:
this is a copy of my objection:
I don't think this is a suitable location for Stonebridge Boxing Club.
This Park has been degraded year on year. Grass Tennis courts were allocated to Park Lane School in a private arrangement, so residents lost a sizeable area. The original features such as the band stand, the small golf course, the lake have all gone. The toilets have been demolished which means people, mainly men, go in the bushes. The cost of demolishing the existing building and replacing it with an even larger one must run into millions, and means residents will lose even more of their park. Boxing is a particularly niche sport, and is only participated in by a small demographic. There should be an over-arching plan for our park, which includes this building, the Lodge, and the empty bowling Club and outside area. Residents should be encouraged to offer suggestions for all of the park not just this building, There really need to be toilets! How can a family enjoy an afternoon in the park with no toilets it simply encourages anti-social behaviour! My family use this park regularly, and we know a great many local people who also use it. The loss of even one tree is unacceptable, as many trees have already been lost. The Park has not been well-looked after in recent years. It was closed for over a year to improve the drainage, but the drainage problems have got worse. There are hardly any flowers, and the plants and bushes are uncared for. The wild areas that have been uncultivated are a menace for hiding broken bottles, and other debris, The dog waste bins have been removed. The Tennis courts are locked, unless you have enough money to pay to hire one. This is not much of an encouragement for young people to exercise to learn or develop their sport. The installation of a wheelchair accessible swing has been a complete waste of money as it is permanently locked, and I have never seen anyone use it. The 'safety surfacing' of the children's playground does not meet health and Safety requirements, and should an accident occur would leave the Council open to a sizeable insurance claim as a result. Any community facilities in the Park should be for the benefit of all residents, not just a selected, and / or privileged few. I ask the Council to 'step back ' from this proposal and take a long hard look at the Park in its entirety. To consult more widely with this community. I only found out about this proposal because I'm a regular reader of 'Wembley Matters'. The Council has a duty to carry out some sort of survey of a large number of local residents to ascertain their views, not just a handful who happen to 'stumble across' this application. I also urge Mr James Mascall, and any other officers associated with this, and the local councillors to visit a few decent parks which have facilities. Royal Parks are of course the optimum, but Queen's park, and Roundwood Park have cafes, toilets, petting zoo, good quality playgrounds for children, and drinking water, and other community facilities. Like Barham Park, King Edward's was bequeathed the the people of Brent, and the Council are merely the custodians of these bequests. They should take this role seriously to ensure the park is well cared for, and well-used by everyone in the community, not just a small elite few which is what this application is proposing.
This is just madness at a time when Brent Council have declared a 'Climate Emergency' and have just published an 'Air Quality Action Plan'!!!
A boxing club with 650 members wanting to construct a much larger building right in the middle of the much loved historic King Edward's Park requiring vital mature trees are cut down to build it destroying yet more wildlife habitat.
And once again a planning application that we only find out about through Wembley Matters!!!
What about the impact on the park during demoltion and construction works? It's next to Park Lane Primary School with lots of young kids being walked through the park to school.
What about the impact on wildlife of all the boxing club members going to and from the main road to the building including late evenings?
It would not be acceptable to have lighting installed along footpaths right into the centre of this vital park as this would impact hugely on local wildlife and cause more light pollution for neighbouring properties.
Where will staff and members park if they need to bring equipment into the park?
Why can't this club be opened in the empty offices at Brent Civic Centre??? They already have the facilities like showers etc there and it's in an already built up area close to a train station, bus routes and car parks.
Why couldn't this club have been incorporated into one of the hundreds of new tower blocks???
Also Brent Council are looking into how they can keep Vale Farm Sports Centre profitable - why not open this boxing club there? It already has a large car park and is on several bus routes.
This much loved local park must be protected from such over development, they must not remove vital mature trees causing further wildlife destruction.
Do Brent Council actually undestand what 'Climate Emergency' means???!!!
I am writing to express my objection to this proposal. Not only are we losing valuable green space, if they can construct, that means they hv a lot of funds, more over when I met them they were converting to charity organizations to get this place, they have full support from Brent council .
More park area to business area…
Wembley is full of buildings, but the residents are still paying high tax
Why can't this 'Stonebridge Boxing Club' be housed in the new tower blocks being built in Stonebridge??? They could offer state of the art facilities right close to Stonebridge Station and various bus routes and help to develop the community there.
King Edward's Park is a vital green space which should be protected against any further development and made better for everyone - our parks should not become commercial cash cows for Brent Council!!!
Why is the existing building dilapidated? More poor management by Brent Council!
Why can't we have a community centre on this site for the benefit of all Wembley Central residents not a commercial boxing gym from outside of the area???
The £17.8million of our NCIL money that Brent Council gave back to multi-billion pound developers Quintain for their 'vanity project' steps outside Wembley Stadium could have been spent on community facilities in our historic parks.
In 2014 the London Welsh School a charity based in Stonebridge wanted to use the empty bowling green building in King Edward's Park as their school premises but they were refused permission - issues raised at the time (https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2014/12/london-welsh-school-seeking-new-home-in.html?m=1) included "Planning Committee would need to consider vehicle access to the proposed new building. There have been problems in the past, including collapsed drains, with access to Park Lane Primary School, which is closer to Park Lane itself but where vehicles have to access the school through the path into the park. The park gates are locked at night.
The path to the Bowling Green ... would be through the same gate but would carry on through the park on what is little more than a footpath.
Large delivery vehicles, waste collection vehicles and emergency vehicles would all have to access the school along the path which is used by pedestrians including children and their families enjoying the park.
Clearly there is a safety issue here and the path itself may need to be reinforced and perhaps widened affecting the amenity value of the park."
So...
The London Welsh School were only seeking space for 30 pupils during normal school hours but the boxing club has 650 members and will surely want to be open early, close late and be open all weekend too.
How will demolition and construction lorries access the site of the proposed boxing club without damaging the park and the drainage system? How will refuse collection and deliveries to the new premises be made without damaging the paths in the park? What time is the park locked at night? Will the boxing club become responsible for locking the gates to the park on dark winter evenings? Who would guiding emergency vehicles through the park outside of park opening hours should there be an incident at the boxing club?
If this new building is constructed who will own it? How long would any lease be?
We don't think Stone bridge Boxing Club is a great idea in the middle of the Park and definitely not because of the knocking down of trees in Wembley it will disturb wildlife and is not good for those who don't have gardens.
A boxing club with 650 members is wholesome and will increase footfall, making the park safer from men in bushes.
Why is the existing pavilion in the park suddenly so derelict that it has to be knocked down and rebuilt? Surely any surveys done before the previous planning permission would have confirmed the state of the existing building? If it has to be rebuilt it should be rebuilt on exactly the same footprint and sane size as it is now without cuttung down mature trees in a vital green space.
They must charge fees for the club to members, I’m sure the fees cover enough to hire a venue or hall anywhere in Brent for members to practice
Anonymous 28 Dec 21.23 As the article states there is also an application for a 3 storey building at the Wembley Point site next to Stonebridge Park Station earmarked for the Stonebridge Boxing Club although the developer's agent retreated a little at Planning Committee saying it could go to another community organisation. https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2023/10/stonebridge-park-tower-blocks-at-brent.html
Thanks for your comments. Do please make sure where supporting/ opposing or neutral that you post these on the Brent Planning Portal https://pa.brent.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=DCAPR_166669
The London Borough of B~ent strikes again. Obviously it will be given permission on the sayso of Hubris Butt
Another comment on the Brent Planning Portal classified as Neutral as it gives for and against:
I support
the application to create a permanent presence in the park with new lighting CCTV etc in the hope it would eradicate the problems this park suffers from drug dealing, street drinking, and the fact there are no toilets/cafe/ water fountain etc.
I object
To the design of the building which is hideously ugly and looks like a metal marquee completely out of place in the centre of the park not eco-friendly at all, the design does not lend itself to be used by other users of park i.e general public, location of the toilets are not accessible from outside but located within the building in the changing rooms of boxing club?? As this is a protected park by "Fields in Trust" it should be mandatory that it is sympathetic to the landscape and the general public
How is promoting physical violence wholesome? Why can't we have a community centre, cafe, purpose built toilets and some park wardens looking after the park for the benefit of us Wembley Central residents???
Comment above says:
"I support the application to create a permanent presence in the park with new lighting CCTV etc in the hope it would eradicate the problems this park suffers from drug dealing, street drinking, and the fact there are no toilets/cafe/ water fountain etc" BUT anti-social behaviour in the park should be tackled by the Local Police and Brent Council, there is a Public Space Protection Order in place so make sure you report anti-social behaviour issues when you see them to the Local Police and also on the Brent Council website here: https://www.brent.gov.uk/nuisance-crime-and-community-safety/public-spaces-protection-orders#pspos - the more you report the more pressure for them to take action!!!
We should not be adding extra lighting into this historic park disturbing our nocturnal wildlife.
Brent Council should instead create a community centre for all of us local residents to use - we do not need a huge boxing club from outside of the area to move into our local park.
Brent Council should also stop giving alcohol licences to every shop that opens locally encouraging street drinking.
I do hope everyone who is objecting to this proposal does the proper thing and objects on Brent Council Planning website which is the only place it counts.
Believe the 'other community organisation' is a group close to Leader of Brent Council Mo Butt's heart?
Response to Anon 29/12 @ 14.47
The only nocturnal wildlife who would be disturbed by additional lighting is the drinkers and druggies. As for being in a PSPO, this means nothing. The last time our Safer Neighbourhood Police patrolled this park on a regular basis was about 10 years ago. They no longer patrol the neighbourhood on foot. It's very difficult to catch offenders when driving around in a van, and vehicles are not allowed in the park. The same goes for answering the phone, they don't. Who can be bothered anymore, as it's an everyday occurrence, and nothing gets done.
Do you not understand anything about wildlife??? For example what about bats and moths and foxes, they are nocturnal and they are all vital to our eco system. And incase you didn't know foxes kill and eat rats, if we didn't have foxes Brent would be overrun with rats!
Our bird population is already being decimated by habitat loss and light pollution.
If you feel so strongly that the local police do not patrol the park then complain to the Police and also to Brent Council, the more complaints the more pressure for them to committ dedicated resources to addressing these issues. You can also attend the Wembley Central Police Safer Neighbourhood Ward Panel meetings where priorities are set for resolving local issues based on complaints and reports of crimes made by local people.
King Eddie's is no longer within the boundaries of Wembley Central ward, believe it's part of Wembley Hill ward now.
Boxing is wholesome as it fosters physical wellbeing by providing a rigorous workout that enhances cardiovascular health, strength, and agility.
Beyond the physical benefits, it instills discipline and mental toughness through rigorous training, teaching individuals to push their limits and persevere. It gives young people who are often working class something to aim for, within a supportive community, particularly protective if they are in hip from deprived backgrounds which increases the likelihood of getting into circumstances that might lead to crime, or drugs, alcohol, or gangs and other things you might otherwise complain about. The sport also emphasises sportsmanship, respect, and fair play. They are more than welcome and their coming and going will help keep the park safe.
Parks have always catered to a range of different interests and this sport is no different to having a basketball court, bowls green or 5 aside pitch put up
Re Anon 29 December 2023 at 21:11
The dictionary definition of a Park is
A park is a public area of land with grass and trees, usually in a town, where people go in order to relax and enjoy themselves.
There is no reference to large ugly buildings more suited to town centres, however, Brent Council are showing by their actions that they don't consider parks fit the dictionary definition as is being seen by the various changes of use and large buildings being allowed.
Again, another example of the London Borough of Bent
Anonymous at 29 December 2023 at 21:11 says “Parks have always catered to a range of different interests and this sport is no different to having a basketball court, bowls green or 5 aside pitch put up” - it’s clearly very different as it will be a boxing club where you have to pay to be a member and pay a fee each time you attend, therefore not catering for the many hundreds of local people who can’t afford to pay these costs.
This public park should have facilities free for everyone to use.
According to the Application Form for this development on Brent Council Website the proposed cost of this new building is £2 million!
So this charity are going to spend all this money to build this club on public land that they don’t own within our local park?
How long will their lease be and how much will money will Brent Coujcil as freeholders earn from this lease?
What will the clubs contribution towards council tax for refuse collection, fire service, police service etc be?
Even if it has changed ward you can still push the local police and Brent Council to take action on the ASB!
You can but at least get the ward right lol
Are bowls greens common to parks free or do you need to be a member? Is it free to just use a football pitch or a tennis court or do these need to be booked for a fee? It’s no longer the 1950s.
Most parks have football pitches that you don’t have to pay to use.
Most parks have tennis courts that you don’t have to pay to use.
We don’t have a functioning bowls club in the park because Brent Council let it fall into disrepair so we can’t comment on how much it costs to belong to such a club!
Brent Council have millions of pounds of our NCIL a money in the bank that could be used to create better facilities in this park for the benefit of all residents - why should a wealthy boxing club be allowed to cause such disruption by building huge new premises in our much loved local park - the site is not suitable as is positioned so far from road access and with no parking provision?
Above someone mentions Vale Farm Sports Centre is facing funding issues so would it not be sensible to open this profitable boxing club there where there is already parking provision?
I didn’t say you couldn’t, but at least get the ward right lol
I object . Boxing is a dangerous sport and should not be encouraged in my view
Anything and everything can be dangerous. Boxing teaches resilience and management of risk.
It is important to ensure that any objections (or support) statements use valid planning reasons. This is from iobject.co.uk
This is a complex question issue as every application is different. However the following is a broad list of opportunities which can be put forward as the basis for objection. This list is neither definitive, nor 'recommended'. Please don't simply copy and paste this list into your objection correspondence - this really won't help your case!
If you need assistance with any of these issues - or you think there is definitely is cause for concern - we can provide the expert assistance you need to ensure the issue is confronted with maximum impact. Why not send us an enquiry to see what we can do for you? Or you may be interested in our e-book which will provide more specific, helpful advice.
Negative effects on amenity (neighbours and community) - particularly due to:
Noise
Disturbance
Overlooking & loss of privacy
Nuisance
Shading / loss of daylight
(All of the above should be accompanied by detailed evidence where at all possible - planning officers take a very dim view of speculation and hearsay!)
Over-development or overcrowding of the site - particularly where the proposal is out of character in the area.
Negative / adverse visual impact of the development - particularly on the landscape and or locality
Detrimental effect of proposed development on the character of the local area
Design issues - including:
Bulk / massing
Detailing and materials
Local design guidance / policy ignored
Over-bearing / out-of-scale or out of character in terms of appearance
In Conservation Areas - adverse effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or heritage assets within it.
Effect of the development on the setting of a Listed Building
Highway safety - only if supported with detailed and technical evidence
They add:
Notwithstanding the above items, the following items will not be taken into account by planning authorities and should not be entered as reasons for objection under any circumstances!
The applicant's personal circumstances or other private matters
The applicants ethnic origin, religious beliefs, their sexual orientation, political or other affiliations.
Boundary disputes or other unresolved civil disputes (unless their cause / content is specifically related to the planning proposal)
The reason that the applicant is applying for planning permission (e.g. if the applicant has fallen on hard times and will sell the site to the highest bidder to make money)
Any profit likely to be made (except perhaps in the case of rural exception sites).
The attitude or behaviour of the applicant or their representatives
Matters relating to past infractions, such as previous nuisances caused by the applicant or site occupiers. (Except perhaps in retrospective cases)
Worries or hearsay about possible future expansion or alternative uses of the application site - unless future plans are included in the application documentation.
Effect on the value of properties in the area - particularly you own!
Finally, one of the most popular reasons that people tend to object is, the effect of construction (i.e. dust, noise, nuisance caused by construction traffic etc.). This is not a planning consideration as such and is unlikely to be taken into account.
the effect of construction (i.e. dust, noise, nuisance caused by construction traffic etc should 100% be taken into consideration - this is a site right in the middle our an historic public park and will cause immense disturbance to park users, wildlife and park infrastructure, pathways, grass etc.
I agree but it is usually acknowledged but them brushed off at Committee with the addition of conditions on the builders. Imagine what it is going to be like in Wembley High Road on the old Copland site and the ones on the other side of the road, and between the High Road and the railway. All due soon. Complaints from South Kilburn residents over a 20 year building site did not get very far.
The Stonebridge Boxing Club's idea to replace the old building in King Edward VII Park with a modern boxing club is pretty cool. It's not just about boxing – it's about making the park better for everyone.
The new club isn't just a gym; it's a place for the community. It will improve safety, look nice, and be eco-friendly. Plus, they're planting more trees and making the place greener. The idea of no cars and extra bike parking shows they, like us all, care about the environment.
What's even better is that this project will create jobs and bring more money to our local area. It's not just about the building; it's about making our community stronger.
I get that some people worry about how it looks, but I think we should focus on the good stuff it brings – more opportunities, a safer park, and a better place for all of us. It’s also what Labour is all about, supporting our diverse communities and adding vibrancy to the area. With Wembley, Brent is the national home of sports and with this facility we can we world leaders. Happy 2024, from a labour member, but not a spokesperson.
The Park was opened in 1914 and for many decades there was a very large swimming pool in the middle which attracted hundreds of people on most summer days. "Recreation" is a very 'loose' term and while boxing is 'recreation' for some a simple stroll through the park is 'recreation' for others.
If people want to object to the planning application they need to do so on valid grounds as Martin suggests. The size and appearance of the proposed replacement building may be the main area to highlight together with opening hours.
As part of their Budget proposals the Labour Cabinet want to generate extra income from "commercialising" Brent Parks. Is this the another example of what they mean?
Whether Brent Council will pay for the building with a large allocation of Community Infrastructure Levy and what rent they will charge for the use of the building is an unknown - although not a planning consideration. As a charity the applicants will be able to apply for exemption from business rates.
Whether a building, possibly paid for with public funds, should be shared and available for other users is an interesting question which the applicants should clarify.
Other Planning issues dealing with parking and access to cars/delivery vehicles, opening hours, number of users capacity etc are also relevant and need to be clarified and may form conditions to any approved application.
It would help if the Council and the Applicants organised a Public Meeting at an easily accessible public venue where many issues relating to the planning applications were clarified in advance of the application coming to the Brent Planning Committee.
For all the moaners there are very few objections on the council website. So don't complain when the application is granted and the park is ruined forever.
Yes, more comments on here than on the Brent website. Using the planning portal can be quite daunting - but emails can also be sent to planning.comments@brent.gov.uk making sure you provide the application number (23/3368), your name, and postal address. Your name will not be published. Although the deadline has passed comments after that date will still be considred providing a decision has not been made.
Trouble is residents are very very weary - we don't hear about these things until the last minute and even if we take the time to object and campaign against something with completely valid reasoning the Planning Committee will simply vote in favour or abstain regardless 😞
How will this create more jobs? They are just relocating an existing boxing club with staff already in place.
Do you honestly think people will cycle here?
If "Labour is all about, supporting our diverse communities and adding vibrancy to the area" why have they not funded a Community Centre in Wembley Central??? Why did they close 6 public libraries which were also vital communith hubs??? Why did they expand Ealing Road Library to include a community hub space at the front only to rent it out to the Cha Sha Cafe for them to store their furniture, freezers etc in??? Why have they closed youth centres? Why have they not maintained our parks properly???
Maybe the clue is over 10 years of tory austerity?
Beginning with the coalition with the lib dems might I add!
Residents and park users don't even hear about these planning applications in advance - yet once again this developer/charity has clearly had an incredible amount of guidance from Brent Council already, including having their relocation to another location approved in Stonebridge. Why is this site in our park even being considered?
You say a charity doesn't pay business rates - what services do business rates cover and how much will they save each year through being a "charity'?
Have they always been a charity? If not why are they becoming one now?
The more we hear about this the more it seems this project will cost us Brent Residents.
Here we go with the Tory austerity excuse - you'll be blaming Margaret Thatcher next!
Perhaps instead you can explain why Newham Borough residents pay less council tax than us but have both their general and recycling wheelie bins emptied EVERY week, not alternate weeks???
They also have more councillors than we do in Brent.
Newham is a majority Labour run borough same as Brent so how can they balance the books whilst Brent just keep blaming Tory cuts???
In a time of 'Tory austerity' why exactly did Brent hand £17.8million of our NCIL money to multi-billlion pound developer Quintain for their vanity project steps outside Wembley Stadium??? That huge amount of money, which is the equivalent of £52 per Brent resident, should have been spent on so many other vital local projects in Brent to help local people who's lives have been impacted by all these huge developments all around us!!!
I take your point, however we all know that comments on the planning website are just ignored out of hand if B~ent Council unless they are supportive
Friends of Butt probably
What's the point in comparing ONE service in ONE other council? How many councils have gone bankrupt? Or are you going to ignore that alongside the huge deficit in local government funding too?
There is every point in comparing these issues between councils!!!
If we cannot get a comparable refuse service and have fewer councillors to represebt us how do we know that we are getting value for money with other local services here in Brent?
Perhaps you have enough money that you can afford to pay more council tax here in Brent for a poorer service??? Sadly loads of us can't afford to do that.
Perhaps you have enough money that you can afford to pay more council tax here in Brent for a poorer service??? - Why are you making assumptions about other people simply because they have a different view to you? It's simply not sensible to narrow down on one singular comparison point without looking at the overall context.
Post a Comment