Brent Tories: Disrespectful to site children's home in a conservation area - call-in meeting tonight

A special Scrutiny Committee tonight will discuss the call-in by Brent Conservatives of the Cabinet decision to site a children's home in the Barn Hill Conservation area. In their call-in the group say:

This area is in the Barn Hill Conservation area. It should be treated with respect.

Alternative course of action recommended.. To refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration in order to find a cheaper alternative property in a different area

The call-in is unfortunately timed when the Liberal Democrat group are opposing, with a petition, a potential proposal to double the number of councillors needed to request a call in from 5 to 10. At present there are 5 Tories and 3 Liberal Democrats. A requirement for 10 signatures means that neither Tories on their own nor the combined opposition could request a call-in without support from at least two Labour councillors.

Cllr Butt's argument would probably be that the increase would save money on meetings as   politically motivated call-ins would no longer take place.

Certainly Brent Labour moved speedily on social media to denounce the call-in.

 The call-in will be heard at 6pm tonight. Livestream HERE

Brent Tories do not exist on social media so I cannot post a response.

THE CABINET DECISON CALLED-IN

 

Cabinet (15 January 2024) received a report from the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources and Corporate Director of Children and Young People which, in line with the Brent Children’s Residential Home Business Case that had been approved by Cabinet in May 2023, sought approval for the acquisition of a property for renovation to deliver a four bedded children’s care home for young people by March 2025 which would provide four placements, three permanent and one emergency for the Council to deliver and operate a children’s residential home.

 

Having considered the report, Cabinet agreed to approve the acquisition with the minute recording the decision as follows:

 

Councillor Grahl (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools) introduced the report, which set out the Council’s plans to acquire a property as part of the Children’s Residential Home Project.

 

In considering the report Cabinet noted the way in which the proposed acquisition aligned with the objectives within the Brent Children’s Residential Home Business Case approved by Cabinet in May 2023. This included not only supporting the Council in seeking to address the increasing cost of child residential placements for looked after children, with the scheme projected to save the Council approx. £290,000 on an annual basis once operational, but also in delivering the benefits associated with the additional capacity to reduce the need for out of borough placements and enabling more children and young people to receive care closer to home with access to local services and support.

 

Members welcomed the way in which the insourcing of this scheme would enhance service delivery and in recognising the benefits that the proposal would bring to both young people and the Council, Cabinet RESOLVED:

 

(1) To approve the acquisition of the property (address detailed in the exempt appendix of the report) in Wembley HA9 with vacant possession to meet the needs of young people as outlined in the Brent Residential Home Business Case approved by Cabinet in May 2023.

 

(2) To delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources, in consultation with the Corporate Director of Children and Young People, to agree the terms of the purchase and acquire the property subject to financial and legal due diligence, vacant possession and contract.

 

(3) To note that the completion of the property needs to take place by the end of January 2024 in order to allow sufficient time to renovate the property within the timescales permitted in the grant agreement with the Department for Education (DfE).

 

THE CONSERVATIVE GROUP CALL-IN

 

a) We are very concerned at the price being paid for this property which is over £1M. We feel that this is not the best use of the limited Council funds.

 

(b) This area is in the Barn Hill Conservation area. It should be treated with respect.

 

(c) There has been no consultation with the residents living in and around the site of the property or the Residents Association. This is preventing residents from voicing their opinions and objections. There has been absolutely no democracy or transparency in the matter, residents feel they have been railroaded into accepting any decision the Council makes.

 

(d) Neither of the two local ward councillors (Cllr Robert Johnson & Cllr Kathleen Fraser) received any notification of this until immediately prior to the Cabinet meeting on 15th January.

 

(e) It appears that no Planning Permission was applied for or granted. If this is the case, then what is the rationale taken as to why Planning Permission was not applied for? No statement appears to have been given.

 

(f) The Council is not acting in the interests of the residents in this matter. A similar care home was opened in Barn Hill which caused untold problems for those living in the area. It was only shut down when the local MP (Barry Gardiner) intervened. The residents do not want to have to deal with a similar occurrence.

 

Action Requested:

 

To refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration in order to find a cheaper alternative property in a different area.

Guest Post: Why the Newland Court garages planning application should be withdrawn.

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Policy DMP1, from Brent’s Local Plan.

 

“Wembley Matters” has been following the progress of Brent’s New Council Homes “infill” planning application, 22/3124. Most recently, Martin shared an email sent by Newland Court resident, Marc Etukudo, to the Council’s Head of Planning.Marc’s uncovering of the Barn Hill Conservation Area boundary change (adopted by Brent’s Executive – now Cabinet – in June 2013), which puts the site of the proposed new houses within the Conservation Area, made me review my own earlier objection comments. Last Friday I submitted my updated objections. 

 

I will ask Martin to include the illustrated pdf version of these at the end of this post – which includes screenshots from Brent’s massive Local Plan document of the policies which the Newland Court garages scheme would breach. Please have a look at these, if you think they could be useful for future objections you may wish to make on applications affecting you!

 

It was now clear to me that the Newland Court planning application should be refused, so I have sent the following open email to the Cabinet Member and Council Officer(s) behind it, calling on them to withdraw the application. I have asked Martin to share it’s text with you, so that it is available for anyone to read (and to write in support of, or comment on).

 

Dear Councillor Knight, Ms. Baines and Ms Sweeney,

 

This is an open email

 

As you are, respectively, Brent's Lead Member for Housing, Head of Affordable Housing and Head of Estates Regeneration, I think you should see my latest (and illustrated) comments document, which sets out further objections to Brent's Newland Court garages planning application, 22/3124.

 

It explains, in section 1, why the site on which you propose to build seven new Council homes is actually inside the Barn Hill Conservation Area. This was the result of a minor change in the boundary, adopted by Brent's Executive (now Cabinet) in June 2013. 

 

It lists the reasons why your application fails to comply with a number of Brent's Local Plan policies, including those on Heritage, Trees, Ecological Impact and Parking.

 

In case you don't feel that you have time to read the whole of the attached document, here are some highlights from its conclusion:

 

'There is already a long list of Brent Local Plan policies which application 22/3124 fails to comply with: BP1 Central, BGI1, BGI2, BHC1 and BT2. To that list can also be added the main development management policy in the Local Plan, DMP1. This policy states that ‘development will be accepted provided it is ….’ It then sets out nine tests, and this application fails at least five of them: a), b), d), e) and h). It cannot be claimed that there is ‘a minor conflict with policy’. The application is so far in conflict with Brent’s adopted Local Plan policies that it must be refused.'

 

'Although this “infill” scheme may have looked possible “on paper”, it is not practical or sustainable when the reality of its proposed site is taken into account. That, on top of its many failures to comply with Brent’s adopted planning policies, must mean that the application should be refused.'

 

It is not just me, or residents of Newland Court and neighbours in Grendon Gardens, who believe that your application should be refused - several Brent Council experts have also said so in their consultee comments on it.

 

I am bringing this to your attention because I think it is time you accepted that the Newland Court garages scheme was a mistake. Your planning application should be withdrawn, and no further money, or Planning / Housing Officer time, should be wasted on it.

 

I hope to hear that you have taken, or will now take, that sensible decision. Best wishes,

Philip Grant

 
(a Brent resident with an interest in housing matters)

 

 

Newland Court application is now on Council Planning Portal - comments open. Some background from residents.

Application 22/3124 | Demolition of all garages on site to provide seven new homes with associated cycle and refuse storage, resurfacing of Newland Court to provide a shared vehicular and pedestrian access surface, provision of on-street car parking along Newland Court, new refuse storage facilities to serve existing residents at Newland Court and all associated landscaping works. | Newland Court Garages, Forty Avenue, Wembley

The redevelopment site at Newland Court outlined in red - note the proximity to the back gardens of Grendon Gardens (image from planning application)

I tweeted at the weekend that the planning application for Newland Court LINK submitted on behalf of Brent Council had appeared on the Council's Planning Portal but that residents of Newland Court, Corringham Road and Grendon Gardens had not received notification letters. I understand that they are now due to be sent out.

Not a great start to what is going to be a controversial application.

I popped down to the estate today to see for myself and talk to residents about the issues.

The garages that will be demolished

Impression of what will replace them and landscape changes (image from planning application)

Residents say that the garages have been deliberately run-down and attempts to rent them have been refused. This is a familiar story from other estates, including Kings Drive, one of the earliest to get infill proposals. Various reports accompanying the application states there are 32 garages of which 5 are occupied but elsewhere says none are used for parking.

Their state can be seen from these photographs. The roofs appear to be asbestos and some are broken.

The artist's impression does not convey the narrowness of the site, or the narrowness of Newland Court.

Newland Court today. Note the artist's impression includes 2m wide  pavement on either side.

The width of two garages on which houses will be built

One concern that the residents had was the proposed loss of trees.  As can be seen they are tall and dense in places. Some are in the back gardens of houses on Grendon Gardens and some are in the space between the retaining wall of Newland Court and the Grendon back fences.  The exact boundary seems unclear. The application states that the retainign wall forms the northern boundary of the site. The gardens are at a higher level than Newland Court so the space between appears to  possibly be 'No Man's Land'.

Although the text of the application says that 9 trees are to be removed, the plan indicates rather more (trees to be lost outlined in red) as does the table below.

It is actually a little more complicated than that as some of the trees in Grendon Gardens are very close to the garden fence and no man's land:

Tree on retaining wall

 The application does not shed much light on the precise location of the trees:

The site is within an Air Quality Management Area. To the east of the site is the Wembley Growth Area and Wembley Park Town Centre. The site is adjacent to Barn Hill Conservation area, on its southern border. A dense row of trees adjoins the northern edge of the site. These trees are located as they are located with the conservation area. (sic)

As well as the loss of trees, residents are concerned about the loss of some of their green space on the northern edge of the estate, adjacent to Newland Court road. A large bit is to be taken out of two existing triangular spaces for car parking.

 

One of the green spaces today

Recessed car parks - note 2 metre wide pavement on both side (image from planning application)

Residents are concerned about parking because the they currently use the length of Newland Court and this will be reduced to 12 spaces. They told me that no mention has been made of disabled spaces but they think the estate had 5 or 6 people who would need such a space. The 7 new homes are supposed to be car free but existing residents doubted that would hold up as some of the accommodation is for larger families.  A Pay and Display system will be brought in on Corringham Road and Newland Court but it is unclear whether that would apply to current residents.

As with many infill estates the proposals bring up some of the neglect residents feel and this is no exception.  Refuse collection is a problem with over-filled bins scattered in various places on the estate, including between the garages. And of course flytipping from vehicles that I am told drive into the estate.

With 60 households on the estate and the evidence of current full bins, the Council is proposing to reduce the overall number (current in brackets):

General Waste 6 x 1280 l (14)

Recycling  6x 1280 l (6)

Foodwaste 6 x 240 l (4)

 But will  provide permanent bin spaces.

Residents' claim that the required 10m gap to prevent overlooking is much less from the corners of the blocks at around 8m.

The nearest part of the flats to the new housing

 One of the houses most affected by the proposal is not in Newland Court at all, but in Corringham Road where it adjoins Newland Court.

The tree at the junction of Newland Court and Corringham Road (T20) will be removed (image from planning application)

 

Despite the loss of trees and green space the application concludes:

The Urban Greening Factor for the proposed development is 0.22, which falls slightly short of the London Plan and Brent target of 0.4. However, the significant planning benefits associated with the delivery of affordable family housing is considered to outweigh non-compliance with this policy and should be considered on balance, alongside significant enhancements to a sustainable, brownfield site

The new houses are actually London Affordable Rent rather than council rent or social rent. This appears to have become the norm for new council housing.

Overall the applicant reckons that the proposal will enhance the nearby Conservation Area:

As noted above, the Site abuts Barn Hill Conservation Area to the north. Having regard to proximity of the site to the conservation area, a Heritage Statement has prepared by Heritage Collective UK (‘HCUK’) Group and is submitted with this application. The report concludes that the ‘the proposed development will not result in harm to the character and appearance of the Barn Hill Conservation Area for the purposes of section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. In fact, the proposals bring about the potential for a material enhancement through the introduction of high- quality buildings and associated landscaping that elevate the appearance of Newland Court within the immediate setting of the conservation area.’ As such, the proposals are considered to significantly improve the setting of the Barn Hill Conservation Area in line with Local Plan Policy BHC1.

If you would like to make a comment on the proposal follow this LINK.

Council turns down Vodophone telecom mast in conservation area

Brent Council has turned down an application by Vodophone to erect a 13.8 metre high pole with 3 antennas and ground based equipment cabinets at the junction of The Avenue and West Hill in Wembley. The Council is not allowed to take possible health issues into consideration although local people were concerned about the proximity of children's activities at the nearby church. The Council received 46 letters of objection.

The Council report states:

The proposed siting of the mast and equipment cabinets is adjacent to the pedestrian footway, on an area of green open space on the prominent corner of The Avenue and West Hill. The Wealdstone Brook passes beneath the site, and green space adjacent to this waterway and the nearby railway corridor further enhance setting of the site. The Avenue is a Local Distributor Road, and the pedestrian footways either side of the open space are well used by local residents accessing shops on Preston Road. The site is also visible from properties within the Barn Hill Conservation Area, which are elevated further up West Hill. The existing streetscape installations include approximately 6m high streetlight posts, and smaller posts displaying parking restriction information.

The siting of the development would be considered inappropriate to this existing setting. The resultant clutter of equipment would be considered to harm the visual amenity value of this site, which as described above has an open and green character. The proposed mast would be an incongruous feature in the streetscene, and would be harmful to views out of the nearby Barn Hill Conservation Area. The proposed equipment cabinets would also be located within the root protection area of a mature tree, which currently makes a significant contribution to the street scene, and could be damaged by foundation works of the proposed installations. In terms of appearance, the proposal would be considered out of scale with existing streetscape installations, being at least twice the height of the existing streetlight columns.