VIDEO: 'Protect our Green Spaces' debate at Brent Council

 

The Barham Park planning decision – Brent explains why three Cllrs. who declared an interest were allowed to take part in the 12 June meeting

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

General view of the 12 June Planning Committee meeting, from the webcast.

 

There were a number of blog articles last month about the Barham Park (776/778 Harrow Road) planning application, which was controversially approved at Brent’s Planning Committee meeting on 12 June. Some of the comments on them referred to connections which Committee members might have with the applicant, George Irvin, including free tickets received from him to one of his funfairs in April 2023. One committee member had declared receiving these.

 

I had written to Brent’s Corporate Director for Governance about this issue, and did so again a few days before the meeting. In her absence, my email was dealt with by Brent’s Head of Law. On 9 June I wrote this in an email to her:

 

‘Whatever value was estimated, by Cllr. Begum or others, for the gift they received in respect of the Funfair at Roe Green Park, just a few weeks ago, in order to receive that gift, councillors were given George Irvin's personal email address and mobile phone number, and had to contact him personally to obtain it. That should be sufficient to debar them from having any part in a decision on an application which if approved would be to Mr Irvin's financial benefit.

 

In case you are not already aware, application 22/4128 is a controversial one, strongly opposed by many residents, both individually and through their Residents' Associations. It is a sensitive matter, and one where it is important that the Council is seen to be dealing with it openly and fairly.’

 

 

The application details from the 12 June Planning Committee agenda.

 

Despite this, Cllr. Begum was allowed to take part in the Planning Committee meeting which decided Mr Irvin’s application, along with two other councillors, Saqib Butt and Akram, who had also declared some sort of connection with him at the start of the meeting. I requested a detailed explanation of why this had been allowed, and this is the response I received from Brent’s Head of Law on 5 July:

 

‘Cllr Begum was not required by the provisions of the Brent Member’s Code of Conduct (Code) to declare the gift, she did so in order to be transparent.  Although she was not required to refer to the gift at the meeting itself, she chose to do so, again in order to be transparent.  Cllr Begum was advised prior to the meeting that although the provisions of paragraph 34 of the Code did not apply, she might nonetheless choose to consider whether a member of the public knowing the facts about the gift would reasonably consider it likely to prejudice her judgement of the public interest. Cllr Begum chose to remain in the meeting and did not act contrary to the Code in doing so.

 

The information in the statement by Cllr Begum did not indicate that the applicant was a person connected to her under paragraph 30 of the Code.

 

In relation to Cllr Akram and Cllr S Butt, both in fact stated that the applicant and signatories on the petition had followed/connected with them on social media through their work as Councillors.  They were specifically asked to confirm that it was not a personal connection and they confirmed that it was not. It is clear from their statements that they were bringing the circumstances to the attention of the committee and the public in order to be transparent and were not declaring that the applicant or signatories on the petition were “connected persons” for the purposes of paragraph 30 of the Code.  Accordingly there was no reason for them to leave the committee meeting.’

 

I have replied, on 6 July, as follows:

 

‘Dear Ms Henry,

 

Thank you for your email of 5 July, which clarifies the basis on which Councillors Begum, Saqib Butt and Akram were allowed to take part in considering and deciding Mr Irvin's application at the Planning Committee meeting on 12 June.

 

You were aware, several days before the meeting, that there was public concern over Cllr. Begum's participation in considering and deciding this application, as she had received a gift of free funfair tickets from the applicant only two months beforehand. In those circumstances I have to express my surprise that she was allowed to choose whether to take part in the meeting - surely it would have been best to advise her not to take part.

 

You say that Cllrs. S. Butt and Akram were specifically asked to confirm that they had no personal connection with the applicant, and that they confirmed that they did not. However, it is strongly rumoured (though I have no hard evidence) that they do have a social connection with Mr Irvin, either directly or through their close relative, Cllr. M. Butt, the Council Leader and Chair of the Barham Park Trust Committee.

 

I will leave these views for you to consider, and will not pursue them further with you, but I will share the explanations provided in your email of 5 July with others who have an interest in this matter. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

In order to be transparent, Cllr. Rita Begum has declared a number of other items in her Register of Interests on the Council’s website, including that she is an ‘Ambassador for Gem environmental building services LTD and Paytap’ and a ‘Director of R.B Associates PVT LTD’.

 

Two examples from the “Who we work for” page of Gem’s website.

 

Gem Environmental Building Services Ltd’s (“Gem”) website describes the company as ‘one of the fastest-growing maintenance companies in London.’ Their clients include a number of London Boroughs, including Camden, Islington, Tower Hamlets and the City of Westminster (but not Brent – yet). But why do Gem need a Labour councillor as an ambassador?

 

The Companies House website shows that R.B Associates PVT Ltd (Company No. 14533968) was incorporated in December 2022, with a registered office at a private address in London NW10, and its sole director and shareholder Ms Rita Begum. The nature of its business is shown as ‘environmental consulting activities’. Perhaps that is where any fees for acting as an ambassador will be paid to? 

 

But, of course, Cllr. Begum has been transparent about these interests, so that’s fine, isn’t it?

Philip Grant.

Petition launched calling on Brent Council to protect our parks and green spaces from development

 

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.

 

Challenge to Brent Council following Barham Park decision: What is the planning policy, relevant to application 22/4128, which dictates that if an application would not cause harm, that overrides policies such as those in the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan?

 

Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan policy LGS1

 

 Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan policy BP1

 

 

Following yesterday's Planning Committee meeting Philip Grant has sent the following letter to Gerry Ansell, Brent Council's Head of Planning. (Illustrations are for the benefit of readers amd were not sent to Mr Ansell)

 

Dear Mr Ansell,

I watched and listened to yesterday evening's Planning Committee meeting when application 22/4128 was considered, and there was an important planning policy point which was not explained. I would ask that you do not issue a consent letter on this application until this matter has been resolved.

I will set that point out, in bold type, below, and would ask you to reply to it promptly, please, with copies to the Chair of the Planning Committee, the councillors who are probably as puzzled by this issue as I am, and the Chair of the Sudbury Town Residents' Association.

Cllr. Dixon and several other committee members asked Officers for clarification over the relative importance of the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan policies in considering the application.

 

 

 Slide of site in Barham park displayed at yesterday's Planning Committee Meeting

 

Paragraph 30 of the National Policy Framework on Neighbourhood Plans

It was clear that Officers accepted that the application site was within the Barham Park Local Green Space, so that the Neighbourhood Plan policies LGS1, LGS2 and BP1 applied. Several other more general Local Plan policies were also relevant.

No answer appeared to be given, by either of the Planning Officers who spoke at the meeting, to the question raised over whether policy BP1 took precedence over the more general policies. However, at the end of a long answer by your Development Management Manager he appeared to state that what mattered, more than all of those policies, was that the application would not cause harm.

Planning applications have to be determined 'in accordance with the relevant planning national, strategic, local and neighbourhood policy framework.'


What is the planning policy, relevant to application 22/4128, which dictates that if an application would not cause harm, that overrides policies such as those in the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan? 

Please provide the full text of that policy, as well as its source and policy number, in reply to this email. Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant

 

Philip adds for Wembley Matters readers:

 

 

NOTE: '...The councillors who are probably as puzzled by this issue as I am', who I copied my email to, were the two Sudbury Ward councillors, Paul Lorber (Lib Dem) and Teo Benea (Labour), who spoke against the application at the meeting, Ketan Sheth (Wembley Central, Labour) the Ward councillor whose written statement against the application was read out at the meeting, and Michael Maurice (Kenton, Conservative) who as a member of the Planning Committee clearly understood the arguments involved over planning policy, and voted against the application mainly on the grounds that it went against Neighbourhood Plan policy BP1 (Above image). 

There was three-way cross-party support that the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan and its policy BP1 should be upheld, yet this did not affect the votes of the seven Labour members of the Planning Committee.

 

REACTION TO ABOVE ARTICLE

 

 

Barry Gardiner opposed Barham Park development in 2021 so why silent in 2023?

 

I am grateful to a Wembley Matters reader for the link he sent to a letter  from Barry Gardiner opposing one of the proposed planning applications for the site in Barham Park, The letter was sent to Gerry Ansell, Brent Council's Head of Planning in May 2021 LINK.

Although the specific application was different (larger and higher) to that approved yesterday, most of the  arguments used still apply. I draw attention to the last line of the letter: 'I would ask that the application be rejected and the use of the land be returned to the people of Wembley in deference to the principle of Titus Barham's bequest.'

The letter:

Planning Application 21/1106  776 and 778 Harrow Road.

I am writing to express my strong personal objection to Planning Application 21/1106 which concerns the former park keepers' houses in Barham Park. I understand that the applicant is seeking to demolish these houses and erect a four storey residential building comprising 9 self-contained flats with roof top terrace and associated access, parking and landscaping.

I originally objected to the sale of the properties in 2010 and I was advised the following year that they were to be leased to a housing association for reuse by families on the Council's housing register. I was therefore appalled when, contrary to assurances, it became apparent that the sale had gone ahead in 2012.

I then objected to Planning  Application 14/2078 in 2014 arguing that the Housing was only ever appropriate on this land as it was built as tied accommodation for the park wardens and it would be totally wrong if the site were to undergo extensive redevelopment, I was therefore pleased when planning permission for application 14/2708* was rejected.

Having seen the proposed plans for this current proposed application, my strong objections to the redevelopment of this site remain. I am very concerned by the height of the new proposed development, which is one-storey higher than the proposals in 2014. I also fear that the inclusion of a roof top terrace on a building within a park, may lead to visitors of the park feeling uncomfortable and overlooked.

Barham Park is extremely important within the local community and has a specific historial significance which appears to be lost on the developer. Barham Park is also home to the war memorial where every year services are held and wreaths laid to remember those who, at their country's call, left all that was dear to them to hazard their lives in the cause of freedom. For all these reasons the Park should be regarded as a special place within the Borough and should be protected from this development.

While I appreciate that it was a council of a different political complexion which originally sold off the existing properties in the Park, the current Council should not allow that negative event to set a precedent for further despoilation. The existing houses and their gardens are within the Barham Park Estate and the Planning Committee are fully aware that this was bequeathed to the people of Wembley in 1937 for their use and enjoyment in perpetuity,

I would ask that the application be rejected and the use of the land be returned to the people of Wembley in deference to the principle of Titus Barham's bequest.

 

*discrepancy in the application reference numbers is in the original letter

Barham Park application approved. Dire implications for protection of our green spaces and validity of Neighbourhood Plans

 

 

Sudbury residents protest in the public gallery - 63 objections and a 160 signature petition

 

 Cllr Saqib Butt in a declaration at the beginning of the meeting said, 'Can I confirm that I am connected with the applicant and near enough all the signatories on the petition on social media' and Cllr Akram said he was declaring the same. * The legal officer confirmed they could take part. Cllr Rita Begum declared that she had received a gift, tickets for the developer's funfair, but confirmed these were below the £50 declaration limit. She might have well have reclused herself because her only participation in the discussion of the application was to vote for it.

 Cllr Paul Lorber, Lib Dem, (Sudbury)  made a decent fist of presenting all the things wrong with the planning application to build 4 three storey houses within Barham Park, replacing 2 small park keeper houses.

Cllr  Tea Benea, Labour (Sudbury) also spoke against the proposal and Cllr Ketan Sheth, Labour (Wembley Central) had his statement also opposing the development read out as he was chairing another meeting. Cllr Benea is a new councillor and Cllr Sheth a veteran who himself is a former chair of Planning Committee. 

Cllr Ketan Sheth said that when he was Chair of Brent Council’s Planning Committee he led on the conversations with residents for setting-up Neighbourhood Plans. Sudbury Town Residents’ Association was the first to engage with the Borough in drawing-up a plan, in consultation with the local community and planning officers. In 2015, the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan was put to voters, and the community, in its area, with more than 900 people voting to accept it, 93% of the total votes cast.

 

Following that the Council then adopted the approved plan, and it remains the relevant part of Brent’s Local Plan policies for the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood, which includes the location for the planning application. A new designation - Local Green Spaces, was introduced in legislation for Neighbourhood Plans. This allowed communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them. The Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan, at policy LGS1, identified four Local Green Spaces, one of which is Barham Park.

 

He said that today, local Green Spaces have the same protection in planning law as Green Belt land and that the Neighbourhood Plan’s green spaces policy BP1 is very clear about the nature of that protection, which applies to Barham Park, stating ‘Any proposals for the re-use or redevelopment of park buildings for residential use (Use Class C3) will not be supported.’

 

776 and 778 Harrow Road are park buildings. Originally, they were built within the park as homes for park-keepers. The proposal in this new planning application is seeks to demolish these park buildings, and redevelop the site to provide four residential townhouses. He recognised that these additional units could be a place for new residents or existing to call home but said it was clear, that this new planning application falls within the type of proposal, which policy BP1 states will not be supported.

 

Cllr Sheth went on to say that he was acutely aware that the current buildings lack any architectural merits; and suggested it is a moot point whether they are fit for habitation. However, he said it would be wrong for the current application to seek to override the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan, unless there is convincing strong evidence to the contrary. To approve the application, in its current form, would be contrary to the Local Green Space policy BP1, which takes precedence over any contrary Brent planning policies, and would undermine the fundamental purpose of this Neighbourhood Plan. He suggested that the application should be reconsidered, and a revised application for a like-for-like replacement be encouraged.

When the agent for the developer spoke he said he would focus on the technical aspects of the proposal and when questioned said he knew nothing about the covenant on the site. Rather extraordinary.

One councillor on the Planning Committee had to be put right by the chair when he told an objector that the proposed houses would reduce the council's waiting list for council homes - they are not council homes, nor likely to be affordable at private sale.

 

 

Even more extraordinary though was the senior planning officer who went round in circles about the weight to be given to the Sudbury Neighbourhood Plan, the Brent Core Strategy, the Local Plan and the London Plan.

Eventually he said that all were relevant but you can ask, 'what harm would it cause if you break it?' and if the harm was less then go ahead.

This raises obvious questions about whether Neighbourhood Plans, despite all the work put into them by residents, are worth the paper they are written on.

There was an Alice in Wonderland discussion about whether buildings in parks are park buildings...

Clearly our green spaces are not in safe hands.

My impressionwas that Cllr Collymore did not vote (I was sitting behind her) but I have since been told she claims to have voted in favour along with her Labour colleagues. Cllr Michael Maurice (Conservative) voted against.

Cllr Muhammed Butt was in the room when I arrived but left before the meeting was due to start. In fact it started 30 minutes late due to technical problems.

Probably that was the least of the problems connected with this application which has succeeded at the 11th attempt but the covenant may still be the elephant in the room.

*Updated after listening to the recording of the meeting

Crunch time for defence of Brent's Green spaces at Planning Committee this evening

 

The application by property developer and funfair owner George Irvin to build four 3 storey houses in Barham Park comes to Brent Planning Committee this evening.  There are fears that if this application is approved (and planning officers recommend approval) that it will set a precedent for building on other Brent green spaces where there are existing buildings.

As documented by Wembley Matters the application has been surrounded by controversy:

• The failure of Trustees of the Barham Park Trust Committee to make any comment or act on the restricted covenant on the site
• Failure of the Trustees/Council to secure a professional valuation of the covenant
  
• The make-up of the Trust Committee chaired by Muhammed Butt leader of the Council and consisting of members of his Cabinet with no other representation
  
• Irvin's offer of free tickets to his funfair to councillors. Rita Begum, a member of the Planning Committee took advantage of this
• Long-standing concerns about the make-up of the Planning Committee that is alleged to include   Muhammed Butt's  brother Cllr Saqib Butt and his brother-in-law Cllr Ajmal Akram. The Chair is the partner of the Deputy Leader of the Council. 
• The failure of planning offices to answer an allegation of misrepresentation of planning guidance made by Philip Grant LINK
• Misleading information in the notification of the meeting to residents which said that attendance was restricted to on-line. Though corrected that was later repeated on the council's website
• The publication  of the Supplementary Report on the application after 5pm on Friday giving no time for new requests to speak at tonight's meeting
• The failure of North Brent MP, Barry Gardiner, to intervene despite making defence of Barham Park a major local issue in the 2010 General and local election.

The Planning Committeee Meeting is in the Conference Hall at Brent Civic Centre at 6pm or you can attend online HERE.  

There are several remarks on the planning portal regarding the difficulties many residents have had downloading documents and being timed out. Clearly accessibility is central to proper democratic participation. Not helped today by this announcement:

Last minute Supplementary Report on Barham Park Planning Application - Brent Planning Officers still recommend approval. Barham family submission disregarded.

 

 

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!

Paragraph 13

It is time for Barry Gardiner to speak out on Barham Park and match his 2010 pledge to protect it from development

 

Yesterday I tweeted Barry Gardiner MP to ask him to intervene in the Barham Park issue where George Irvin has applied to build four 3 storey houses in a site in the park. The existing pair of  modest houses were originally for park workers so had a connection with the park.

Today an election leaflet from 2010, when the General Election and local elections were held on the same day,  has come to light that shows that 13 years ago the Brent North MP made an election issue of what he claimed were Lib Dem plans to build on the park:

 

 

Apparently the then Brent Council Executive (Lib Dem-Conservative Coalition) had rejected the proposal to build in the park.* 

The question now is, 'Why is Barry Gardiner silent on plans going forward to Planning Committee to build houses in the park? He could make his views known to the public and it is open to him to make representations at the Planning Committee. He could even write to the Trustees of Barham Park, chaired by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt, to ask them to fulfill their obligation to protect the park and  enforce the covenant protecting the park from development. 

I presume Barry Gardiner still believes what he said in the 2010 leaflet, about protecting the park  - surely it cannot be just  something he said  at election time?

 

 

* In 2010 Barry Gardiner was attacking Liberal Democrat and Conservative councllors who decided to use the two empty houses in the park for decanting purposes as part of the total rebuild of the 215 crumbling flats in Roundtree and Saunderton Road council estate on the opposite side from Barham Park.

Barry Gardiner was opposing the sale of the two houses to  the Notting Hill Housing Association and claimed that Brent Council was planning to build a massive 20 storey tower (see leaflet image) block in Barham Park.

In reality I understand the then Executive was advised that Notting Hill was interested in the two houses and wanted to redevelop the site for a "small" number of flats to help with the decant while the Estate was being rebuilt. When Notting Hill overstepped the mark and proposed a block of 14 flats on the site they were turned down and the proposed sale to them was aborted.