Planning Inspectorate to hear Gaudiya Mission's appeal against Brent Council's refusal of Cranhurt Road development

 

 27 Cranhurst Road

The Gaudiya Mission has submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate following Brent Council's refusal of planning permission for significant changes to its premises at 27 Cranhurst Road, Willesden Green.

Representations must be received by June 24th 2025.

Brent Council outline the process below:

The appeal relates to an application at 27 Cranhurst Road, London, NW2 4LJ

The application proposes, Partial demolition of existing kitchen and temple room and proposed basement extension with rear lightwell and railing, single-storey side-to-rear extension, rear dormer extension, alteration to side fenestration, single-storey outbuilding in rear garden and installation of 2x front rooflights, refuse storage to front and cycle storage to rear to mixed use place of worship and dwelling

 

GAUDIYA MISSION has recently made an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The appeal is against the Council's decision to refuse the application. The Council's reasons for refusal are:

 

1. The accommodation proposed at loft floor level does not align with the space standards as outlined under policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and consequently would not provide an adequate standard of accommodation and internal amenity for future occupants. As a result, the proposal is therefore contrary to policy DMP1 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-41) and policy D6 of the London Plan (2021).

 

2. The proposal by not offering sufficient natural daylight to the basement of the premises is deemed to offer a poor level of internal amenity for future occupiers, contrary to policies DMP1 & BD1 of the Brent Local Plan (2019-2041) and the guidance contained within Basement Supplementary Planning Document (2017).

 

3. The proposal by reason of the insufficient provision of information regarding soft landscaping and planting fails to demonstrate how that the scheme will achieve a satisfactory urban greening factor on the site and provide sustainable urban drainage. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy policies BD1, BGI1 & BGI2 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-2041) and policies G5 and G6 of the London Plan (2021).

.

The Planning Inspectorate will now consider this proposal under the appeal process of written representations. The Planning Inspector appointed to determine the appeal will consider any written comments received. Oral comments, audio and videotapes will not be acceptable.

 

If you wish to make comments, or modify/withdraw your previous representation, you can do so online at https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ using planning appeal reference no APP/T5150/W/25/3365907

 

If you do not have access to the internet, you can send your comments to:

 

The Planning Inspectorate

Temple Quay House

2 The Square

Bristol

BS1 6PN

 

Please ensure that you quote the planning appeal reference no APP/T5150/W/25/3365907

 

All representations must be received by 24/06/2025. Any representations submitted after the deadline will not usually be considered and will be returned. The Planning Inspectorate does not acknowledge representations. All representations must quote the appeal reference.

 

Please note that any representations you submit to the Planning Inspectorate will be copied to the appellant and this local planning authority and will be considered by the Inspector when determining the appeal.

 

The appeal documents are available at https://pa.brent.gov.uk. Please search by application number.

 

You can get a copy of one of the Planning Inspectorate’s “Guide to taking part in planning appeals” booklet free of charge from GOV.UK at

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/taking-part-in-a-planning-listed-building-or-enforcement-appeal - or from us.

 

When made, the decision will be published online at https: acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk

 

The full appeal document is on the Brent Planning portal LINK the conclusion is below:

 

The appeal site is within a sustainable and accessible location and has provided an historic community mission in the form of a Mandir since the mid 1950’s onwards when the property was donated to the Mission from a local patron.

 

As such the Mandir and his service to the community it serves and wider community as an open facility as formed part of Cranhurst Road for decades.

 

The proposed works which include a modest increase in residential space and the modest ground floor extensions with a basement will provide a more user-friendly experience for visitors to meet modern needs with better internal layouts and arrangements.

 

The Mission needs to modernise facilities to serve its existing needs and visitors and this cannot be readily done within the existing building floor area. An alternative would be to relocate the mission to another area but that would upend the historic roots of the Mandir and Mission from its local connection and force users to travel to another location and also with significant costs to move.

 

The proposal seeks to balance the needs of meeting the needs of the Mandir in 2024 rather than when it was first created but through modest extensions and modest costs that would enable it to maintain its historic presence in the existing setting whilst still operating under controlled planning rules that govern opening times, days and fire regulations that govern the occupancy and use of the building.

 

The development will continue to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of their own amenities, daylight and privacy.

 

The site is within walking distance to bus and tube services and does not rely on private car access for visitors to it.

 

The Council appreciates the community value the Mandir has and its established history in the area and should balance the significant community benefits of the proposal and ensuring a viable and user-friendly Mandir is maintained in its current location against any minor harms it has identified.

 

The proposal will accordance with the London Plan 2021, the Brent Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework 2024.

 

The Inspector is requested to allow this appeal and grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Full Licensing decision notice on K-Pop Festival at Northwick Park. Details on how to Appeal.

 The decision notice from the Licensing Committee contains full details of the representations made and the conditions imposed at Stage 1. There is now time for those who oppose the Committee's decision to support the application at Stage 1, to appeal.

EXTRACT

MIK, 133 The Fairway, Wembley, HA0 3TQ - Hearing Decision Notice This is the decision notice for the hearing held on 4 February 2025 for the above application. Please note that an appeal against this licence decision may be made by the applicant, a person who made relevant representations or the Chief Officer of Police as applicable, to the magistrates' court at: Willesden Magistrates Court, 449 High Road, Willesden, London NW10 2DZ, Tel: 0300 303 0645 within 21 days from the date of receipt of the notification of the decision.

 

Good Law Project considering appeal on Partygate legal challenge refusal

In response to the High Court's ruling today that a legal challenge brought by Good Law Project and former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Paddick, against the Met's handling of its Partygate investigation, will not be given permission to go ahead, Director of Good Law Project, Jo Maugham, said:
 

We are disappointed - but sadly not surprised. We think this decision ignores the quite proper questions that people have about what they understandably perceive to be differences of treatment between the powerful and the rest of us.

 
It can’t be one rule for those in power and another rule for us.

We are considering whether to appeal.

Bridge Park v Brent Council ends. Draft Order available in due course.

 I was unable to attend today because I had to impersonate a mythical person in connection with an imminent festival.

Thanks to an attendee who was able to provide this summary.

The hearing commenced at 10:30 with Katherine Holland, QC, for Brent Council summarising her final legal arguments begun yesterday.  Lord Justice Lewinson questioned her on the issues of the the deeds for the land being dated some 6 weeks after the transfer documents dated May 5^th 1982,  when the sale was executed.  Neither Katherine Holland,  or her assistant Matthew Smith were able to provide answers to points raised.

There were further discussions on whether the real estate was at Brent’s free disposal, on legalities related to the deeds and to the matter of charitable trust.

Peter Crampin, QC, for Stonebridge Community Trist ended the legal arguments with,

“The question still remains ….a fiduciary obligation…owed to the public in Brent being the beneficiaries of a charitable trust…..something for the community in Brent to achieve…very ambitious political objectives, which the GLC had in mind”.

 

Lord Justice Lewinson ended the hearing at 11:43.

 

“Thank you for your interesting submissions…a lot of public interest seen by the attendance of a number of participants following remotely”.

The draft Order will be available in due course.

Bridge Park campaign going back to High Court with Appeal on behalf of the African and Caribbean Community over land sale to developer

 

Statement from BPCC Steering Group

who lead the The Save Bridgepark Campaign.

BPCC Steering Group was established in 2017, and was given a mandate by HPCC and a Community vote to lead the Save Bridge Park Campaign.

 BPCC setup Stonebridge Community Trust (HPCC) Ltd (SCT), a company capable of fighting the legal case on behalf of the Community stating that the African and Caribbean hold a direct and equitable interest in the Bridge Park land and Assets.  As a result we are currently restricting the sale of Bridge Park land and assets by Brent Council to a private developer.

Appellant 1 Leonard Johnson (As himself) and Apellant2, Stonebridge Community Trust (HPCC) Ltd (A Company Limited by Guarantee with Charitable objects) have arguments that differ:

I) Appellant 1 (LJ) wishes to put forward new arguments not placed before

and 

Ii) Appellant 2 (SCT) wish to maintain the Arguments based on the original arguments that were made when the courts granted the Appeal.

Both Appellants wish to maintain arguments that the events around the purchase in 1982 established a Charitable Trust and as such should be protected from Brent Council's attempted disposal of Bridge Park Land to the private buyer behind the sale, a group called General Meditterranean Holdings.  Appellant 1 is currently refusing the offers from Appellant 2 to work together.

All sides in the Appeal have a QC representing them at the hearing on 14th December 2021 at the High Court.

Jay Mastin of Stonebridge Community Trust (Appellant2) said:

We have led this campaign on behalf of the community from the start and we feel confident that we have a deserving case which will now be heard by a group of the Top High Court Appeal Judges in the UK. The Bridge Park Complex is the largest and only centre of its type in Europe and the arguments are largely unique in Law. We hope that the outcome will likely set Legal Precedent.

We would like to thank the Community, councillors, MPs, press and legal community for the continued understanding and support.

 

EDITOR'S NOTE:

 

If you use the Seach Facility on the right and type in Bridge Park you can find a number of Wembley Matters article on this issue. This LINK takes you to the verdict in previous appeal.

Man charged with the murder of missing Agnes Akom

 

 Agnes (Dora) Akom

From Metropolitan Police

20-year-old Agnes Akom, who was also known as Dora and who moved to London from Hungary three years ago, was last seen in Cricklewood Broadway on Sunday, 9 May.

She was reported missing two days later and an investigation was launched.

Neculai Paizan, 63 (11.11.57) was arrested on Tuesday, 18May in connection with Agnes’ disappearance.

On the evening of Sunday, 23 May, he was charged with her murder.

He will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court on Monday, 24 May.

Agnes’ body has not yet been found. Detectives are still pursuing all possible lines of enquiry and are appealing for the public to come forward if they see or have seen anything suspicious that they feel may be relevant.

Please donate to help stop the takeover of GP surgeries by US giant Centene

Rcent Brent demonstration against takeovers

The take over of GP's surgeries by US company Centene, including three in Brent, has been covered on Wembley Matters.  LINK Now a legal challenge has been launched and I hope readers will contribute.

DONATE HERE

The Appeal

Help us to stop the takeover of GP Surgeries by the giant American corporation Centene!

Centene (through its UK company Operose Health Ltd) has taken over dozens of GP surgeries in London including eight contracts in Camden, Islington and Haringey. Hundreds of patients, councillors and members of the public have written letters, protested outside surgeries and have made their feelings clear. We do not want our GP practices taken over by large profit-seeking American corporations.

 

The decision to allow the takeover of the GP surgeries with over 375,000 NHS patients on their lists, was taken by the Clinical Commissioning Groups who are responsible for commissioning General Practice services for patients.  

 

Following public outcry, a patient at one of the affected practices has decided to challenge the decision of her local CCG (North Central London) in court. Ms Anjna Khurana is a local councillor, representing Tollington Ward, and is a patient at Hanley Primary Care Centre in Islington.

Anjna said:

“I am so afraid that our NHS is being dismantled bit by bit, with the private sector playing a bigger and bigger part.  The NHS belongs to all of us and it is wrong that it should be run to achieve private profit rather than for the good of everyone. I also worry that my personal NHS medical data will be used by Operose for purposes that I have not been informed about or agreed to.

I need to trust my doctor, and how can I do that if they work for a company like Centene? A company that has a record of fraud in the US.  I am taking this court action not only for me but for all of us, because we all feel the same about the NHS.  Please help me to make this happen.”

Anjna is right to be worried. It's clear that the Centene/Operose Health business model is built around profits not patient care. 

This statement, from public accounts of the UK parent company behind Operose Healthcare, makes it very clear :

"Position at 31 December 2019 and future developments ... Rationalisation of our business activities… Has continued into 2020, as the business seeks to divest of activities that have not met profitability targets. As a result, on 31 March 2019, Operose Health Limited exited the Surrey Borders Partnership NHS Trust CAMHS contract, and on 1 July 2019, Operose Health (Group) UK Limited divested its complex care division, including the contracts and related assets." 

From this statement it's also clear this is not just about London GP Surgeries. Operose Health Ltd have already taken over twenty other GP surgeries across England. The corporate takeover of NHS services can happen anywhere in the country. 

This case affects all of us.   

HOW YOU CAN HELP

Please help to raise £25,000 - £30,000 so that Anjna can bring the case to the Court. This target is on the assumption that the judge will award 'capped costs' because this is a case of vital public interest.

£25K is to cover the 'capped costs'. When the lawyers ask the Judge for permission to bring the Judicial Review, they will ask for this limit to the amount Anjna would have to pay to NCL CCG’s lawyers, if she were to lose the Judicial Review.  

This is the only way Anjna can afford to bring the case to court.

The additional £5K is towards the costs of court fees, solicitors and barristers who are working hard already in presenting Anjna’s case for consideration.

We're sure you can see the public interest in this Judicial Review. Your support will be invaluable. Please contribute whatever you can and share this page now!

NOTE: Should it transpire that a judge says there are no grounds to proceed to Judicial Review, in accordance with CrowdJustice's Terms and Conditions, we will donate any unused funds to another similar legal challenge, via Crowd Justice or the Access to Justice Foundation.

THE DECISION SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE

The hope is that the courts will judge that North Central London Clinical Commissioning Group acted unlawfully in making their decision and that the decision will be quashed. Certainly the process was carried out with little regard for public consultation and certainly no involvement of registered patients.

London GP,  Louise Irvine, of Keep Our NHS Public (KONP) said: "The NHS  Constitution demands transparency and people rightly expect transparency and accountability in NHS decision-making especially about such important matters as who runs our GP practices, and their suitability to be trusted with our health care and our personal health data."

Like Anjna, the public would hope and expect proper patient and public engagement about what kind of people or organisations should get the contracts to run our GP surgeries in the future. The public don't want to see good NHS GP surgeries taken over by companies who do not share a belief in the ethics of comprehensive healthcare for everyone regardless of wealth or status.

Cat Hobbs, CEO of We Own It agrees: "Our NHS belongs in public hands, working for patients not profit. People don't want health insurance giants like Centene taking over GP surgeries. We fully support Anjna and her incredibly important fight for our NHS."

This legal challenge is an important step in stopping more corporate takeovers of the NHS. It also demands transparency and accountability from Clinical Commissioners in the future.

Steven Carne of 999 Call for the NHS said:  “What is most worrying is that the failure of the various CCGs to carry out proper scrutiny means they've allowed a multi-million dollar American corporation to hold a major position within the NHS infrastructure. And the people who will suffer are the patients who, of course, were told nothing."  

THE PROCESS AHEAD

We are working with solicitors Leigh Day and barristers Adam Straw QC from Doughty St Chambers and Leon Glenister from Landmark Chambers.

Anjna's claim has to be submitted to the High Court and a judge will decide whether the case can continue to a full Judicial Review. We are asking for capped costs because this is the only way Anjna can bring this case. A case that is of huge public interest. 

If the Courts grant approval and agree capped costs, we will then proceed to a full Judicial Review hearing.

Please support Sufra Foodbank's Covid-19 Winter Appeal as they call for a more just and beautiful world

I am sharing this message from Sufra Food Bank and Kitchen as it puts their amazing work into a wider context and because they deserve support.

 

What would Jesus do? Some 2000 years ago He spoke of love, goodwill to all and the importance of being a good Samaritan.    Today, the whole world is on the brink of an unprecedented economic depression, the gap between rich and poor is obscenely wide, and millions more people are unable make ends meet. Independent food banks like Sufra never dreamed they would be so busy.

How did this happen?    We could go back to the 1980s, when social housing and our sense of community was first undermined by government policies. Then there was the financial crisis of 2008, which led to years of austerity that devastated public services and critical safety nets. (Cue Universal Credit fiasco.) Just when we thought things couldn't get any worse, we were hit by a pandemic of biblical proportions. Never have the consequences of decades of injustice and inequality been so starkly revealed and painfully borne by society – especially the BAME communities we support.    We’ve dug ourselves a hole so deep that there can be no going back to the fantasy of pre-pandemic ‘normality’. There’s been nothing normal or good about Sufra’s Food Bank queues over the past 7 years. No, we need a far more radical vision for creating a truly sharing society that upholds the Common Good. One that our food bank guests would approve of.

Beyond Food Aid   Food banks are not the solution to hunger. Indeed, they are a part of the problem when people of goodwill  - not governments - provide the crucial safety net that prevents hunger and destitution in our communities.    But for now, we have no choice but to continue.    As I write, our staff and volunteers are preparing a hearty feast for 600 people, to be freshly cooked and delivered on Christmas Day, and we’ve been distributing surprise Christmas hampers and presents to our food bank guests all week – alongside their food parcels.    And we’ve already transformed our work to deliver more food and other essentials to people in crisis during the pandemic. You can read more about what we did here. We are busier than ever and we still really need your help. So please consider volunteering over Christmas/New Year or supporting our Covid-19 Winter Appeal.

A Community United No matter how much food aid we distribute, it will never be enough. That’s why we will be raising our voice to call for real change in 2021 – and I hope you will join us.    Until then, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to all our phenomenal volunteers, donors and supporters who have made what we do possible this year – under the most challenging circumstances imaginable.    It’s been utterly inspiring to see our community unite against the threat of hunger and destitution and provide a lifeline to thousands of families experiencing crisis and isolation during the pandemic.    I imagine that’s what Jesus would have done too.    The heartfelt community response that underpins our work should give us all hope this Christmas that the creation of a more just and beautiful world is not only necessary, but possible.  Wishing you all a safe Christmas and a much improved new year.  Rajesh and the Sufra Team.

Redstone applies for permission to Appeal in Cummings case

 Martin Redston has circulated an update on the High Court case he is fighting concerning Dominic Cummings.

He says:

An application for permission to Appeal the decision of the High Court was lodged in the registry of the Court of Appeal on 9th November 2020.  

 

It has taken some courage on our part to go forward with this, particularly in view of the pushbacks to our case to date.  However,  our legal team believe there are solid grounds for appeal and that our case raises major issues of public importance, specifically:

 

- the role of the DPP

- adherence to the rule of law

- public confidence in the rule of law; and

- Seeking to ensure the DPP is free to make independent decisions without undue influence

 

I am profoundly grateful for all the support that has been given to date for the case and would very much hope that supporters agree that we should Appeal and will help us obtain further support to enable us to pursue this with vigour to achieve our ultimate goal.

 

Please share this with everyone you can.

The Pledge Page to fund the case is HERE

Easter Appeal from Sufra NW London as Universal Credit hits families

From Sufra NW London

It’s always a busy time at Sufra. There’s lots going on this Easter weekend (see below) and we’ve got plenty to look forward to over Ramadan – including a film screening and iftar (more about that next week). And now that schools are on holiday, our young volunteers have also been hanging around, causing the usual mayhem…

Last week, whilst clearing out the chicken coop, Dahir dared Ryan to pick up and cuddle one of the chickens (he’s never had the courage to touch one before). Little did they know the chicken was about to lay an egg, which is why it was sitting in the coop. The chicken freaked out, bit Ryan’s hand and dropped a fresh egg on his new trainers.

I’m not sure whether he was more traumatised by the sight of an egg magically emerging from a chicken’s bottom or the sticky mess on his Nikes.

Speaking of which, if you would like to be part of Sami’s Chicken Club and help us look after our chickens at the weekend, please get in touch with jim@sufra-nwlondon.org.uk

Running on Empty 

Universal Credit is having a real impact on our services. In recent weeks, we’ve had a significant rise in the number of families coming to Sufra in desperate need of food and toiletries.

We were so busy last week that our stockroom shelves emptied before we could serve all our guests. We realised we don’t have enough shelf space if more than 40 families arrive in the space of a couple of hours. So, we’ve made a bit more space and recruited more volunteers.

But we also need more food and toiletries to restock our shelves.

That’s where you can help. Could you arrange a food delivery of the items we’ve run out of?

• Long Life Milk
• Tins of Tuna
• Toilet Roll
• Soap
• Baby Milk Powder
• Nappies (sizes 1-4)
• Instant Coffee
• Tinned Vegetables (any)
• Tinned Fruit (any)
• Cordial or Juice (1 litre)

Increasingly, our supporters are purchasing items online and arranging a delivery straight to Sufra. Any supermarket will do the job – and there are often voucher codes available for first time online shoppers.

The delivery address is Sufra NW London, 160 Pitfield Way, London, NW10 0PW. There is always someone around between Monday – Friday, 9.30am-6pm to receive the delivery.

Please email us to let us know when to expect any deliveries - admin@sufra-nwlondon.org.uk 

Thank you in advance.  

Public Inquiry to be held after Harrow School appeal planning refusal for new sports building

Image from Harrow Hill Trust

The Planning Inspectorate today announced that following an appeal by Harrow School a three day Inquiry will be held into the school's plans for demolition of some existing buildings and the building of new sports and science buildings in the school grounds.

The plans were contested by the public and turned down by Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor using his powers under the Town and Country Planning Act to direct Harrow Council to refuse planning permission.

Mayor Khan said that the proposed footprint and location of the proposed sports building would result in unacceptable sprawl of inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land.

Those  contesting the appeal have until October 1st to make a submission to the Planning Inspectorate but are currently handicapped because Harrow School's grounds for appeal have not yet been published on the Harrow Council website.

Planning Inspectorate letter below. Click bottom right for full size version.

Bullying at Brent Council - FoI response

The following response to a Freedom of Information request was released earlier this month. It is of interest in the light of the Cara Davani controversy LINK

FOI Request – 4686497

1)    How many employees of your authority  [Brent Council] have made an official complaint of harassment and bullying at work since the 1st April 2009?

15

2)    How many of these complaints were upheld in favour of the complainant?

2

3)    How many of those which were not upheld in favour of the complainant went on to Appeal?

3

4)    How many of those that went to Appeal were found to favour the complainant?

0

5)    How many complaints went on to an Employment Tribunal?

0

6)    How many of these were found to uphold the complaint?

N/A

7)    Out of how many of those allegations (the number given to question 1) did the complainant of bullying claim that the bullies were telling lies?

0

8)    How many staff does your authority have and what is the current population within your authority's area?

There are 2,109 employees as at 31/12/2015

The population of Brent, taken from the GLA short-term population projections for 2015, is an estimated 325,300.

Open Letter to Christine Gilbert on the Employment Tribunal case

Local resident Philip Grant, who has been following the Employment Tribunal case closely and engaged with council officers on the issue, has written the following Open Letter to Christine Gilbert, Interim Chief Executive of Brent Council:

Barham Park Library Planning Appeal – Brent Council v. Our Community.

Guest blog by Philip Grant

It is nearly six months since I wrote a blog for this site: “Planning Committee upholds community use of Barham Park Library”. http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/planning-committee-upholds-community.html)  Brent’s Chief Planner had recommended at the meeting on 13 November 2013 that they should agree a change to business use, based on a Community Facilities Assessment. This document (which I called ‘dishonest’ in an objection comment at the time) had been produced for the Barham Park Trust by anonymous Council Officers, but as I reported:

It was plainly obvious to committee members from evidence given to them by objectors ... that there was a need and demand for community facilities in the area which required full-time use (not a couple of hours a week) of at least parts of the building. To give all of the space to the arts charity ACAVA to let out as artists studios would deprive local people of those existing community facilities.

That should have been the end of the planning process, with the Trust and the Council (effectively one and the same, as Brent is the ‘corporate sole Trustee’ of the Barham Park Trust) working with their preferred tenant, ACAVA, and the local community groups who also wanted to rent space at the Barham Park buildings to find a compromise solution. Instead, on 3 December, the Barham Park Trust Committee (five members of Brent’s Executive) accepted a report from Richard Barrett (Brent’s Operational Director, Property and Projects, and a member of the Barham Park Management Group, a group of Senior Council Officers), and resolved: 

To pursue an appeal against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the change of use of the premises.

Although Mr Barrett said in his report to the Trustees that ‘... there does remain a significant risk that the appeal will be refused’, when questioned about the risk at the meeting he said that, having taken informal advice, ‘... the risks were perceived as being lower than indicated in the report.’ The reason he believed the risks were less was because the Planning Committee had not followed the Planning Officer’s recommendation.

Five months later, there is some bad news for Mr Barrett, and for the Barham Park Trust, and some very good news for the objectors, including the Friends of Barham Library. Last Sunday was the final day of the four week period during which people interested in the planning appeal could submit comments on it to the Planning Inspector. Someone at Brent’s Planning Department must have been working overtime, because that was the day when the Council’s Appeal Statement (as Local Planning Authority) was submitted, and posted on the full details webpage for the Barham Park application 13/2179: https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=101150&reference=112613&st=PL .

Brent’s Planning Officer, who originally accepted the Community Facilities Assessment at face value, has now considered the evidence put forward by objectors, and agrees that the Planning Committee decision was the correct one! This is one of many similar extracts from the Statement to the Planning Inspector:

'...  the Local Planning Authority consider that the Community Facilities Assessment does not demonstrate that the existing community floorspace is not required to meet the needs of the local community and as such, it is considered that this proposal is contrary to Policy CP23 of the Brent LDF Core Strategy 2010.'

The planning appeal by the Barham Park Trust raises some important questions:

Why would Brent Council want to appeal against its own Planning Committee’s decision, especially when that decision was based on upholding one of Brent’s core planning policies (CP23 – Protecting Existing Community and Cultural Facilities)?

 Why would the Trustees of a Council-run charity, that claims to want to put the Barham Park buildings back into productive use, delay resolving the issue for months, losing rental income that would help to maintain the property and incurring an estimated £10,000 in fees (out of “charity funds”) to a planning consultant to present the appeal for them? 

and (does this make me a three “whys” man?):

Why did it take so long for the Barham Park Trust’s appeal to be lodged with the Planning Inspectorate?

Here are what I believe to be the answers to these questions. There is a chance that I am wrong on some of the points, and if so, I would invite anyone who feels aggrieved by what I have written to add a comment, or to ask Martin for a “right of reply”.

The Barham Park Management Group is chaired by Jenny Isaac (Operational Director, Neighbourhoods), who as well as being “in charge” of Brent’s parks has overall responsibility for Brent’s library service. She may have wished to prevent any undermining of the Council’s Libraries Transformation Project. Richard Barrett is “in charge” of Brent’s properties, and probably considered that letting the Barham Park buildings to a single tenant, with no local community involvement, was in Brent’s best business interests. They would also have realised that such a proposal would be an attractive proposition for the Labour Executive members on the Barham Park Trust Committee, as any letting to the Friends of Barham Library would suggest that the Executive’s decision to close six libraries in 2011 had been wrong, and might be seen as a “victory” for Cllr. Lorber, the leader of the main opposition party on the Brent Council.

It was the Senior Officers, not the “Trustees”, who put in the planning application in order to make their plans for a single letting to ACAVA possible. They have no interest in Brent’s planning policies, if those policies get in the way of what they want, and did not like being “shown up” by having the planning application rejected. The Officers therefore gave the “Trustees” only two options for how the Barham Park Trust should respond to the Planning Committee decision, but made these more attractive to the Executive members by saying that either would take six months. Even though the Trust Committee members knew that there were other options which should also have been considered, they went along with their Officer’s advice, accepting the delay, loss of rental income and extra costs of a planning appeal because this would put off a resolution of this embarrassing problem until after the local elections in May 2014.

The appeal appears to have been Mr Barrett’s “preferred option”. I was puzzled as to why it should take six months, as it was a relatively straightforward matter and I thought that the appeal could probably have been lodged by the end of January. However, if the Barham Park Trust did not actually appeal until after mid-March, there would not be time for it to be decided until after 22 May. As it was, the appeal was lodged at the end of March 2014, giving a four week period from 7 April to 4 May for objectors and others to submit their comments on the appeal. Was it a coincidence that this might be a period when Cllr. Lorber and his supporters would perhaps be too busy preparing for the local elections to be able to respond effectively with their written representations?

If I am only half right in the “answers” I have given to the questions I raised, I think that this calls into doubt the actions of both the Council Officers and the Brent Executive members who between them run the Barham Park Trust. The Trust is meant to be a charity whose object is ‘the provision of Barham Park and its buildings for recreational purposes’. Titus Barham, who left the property to Wembley on his death in 1937, clearly saw this as being for the benefit of the people of the district in which he had made his home. The way in which the letting of the buildings, the planning application and the planning appeal have been handled by the Trust could be seen as an abuse of power, putting the interests of Brent Council and of its current ruling politicians ahead of the interests of the local community.

The appeal has still to be decided by the Planning Inspector, but there is now a very strong case for it to be rejected, and for Brent Planning Committee’s original decision to stand. This will ensure that the former Barham Park library must be used as “community facilities”, but it does not guarantee that all, or part, of it will be made available for the Friends of Barham Library and their volunteer-run library service. That will depend on who is elected in the Brent Council poll on 22 May, and whether whoever controls the Council after those elections is willing to stand up to Senior Council Officers who have become used to getting their own way. 

I hope that thought will motivate you to use your vote for candidates who are committed in practice to local councillors, Council Officers and local people working together for the benefit of our community, rather than to a situation that we have seen too often in recent years of Brent Council v. Our Community