619 bed student towers in Wembley Park approved. Prospect House double towers in Stonebridge Park approved

 Student towers from Empire Court, North End Road

Consented towers are the blue images

Despite opposition from nearby residents who said they had not been consulted and would lose light and suffer ASB from students, the planning application for 619 bed student accomodation in Watking Road, Wembley Park, was passed by Brent Planning Committee last night. The committee were told there was demand for such accommodation from London colleges as well as the Football Business University in Wembley.  They were also told the provision would relieve pressure on other accommodation including HMOs  and would deliver the equivalent ot 247 units towards Brent's Housing target. Officers argued that students would support the local night-time and cultural economy.

 

A double tower on the site of Prospect House on the North Circular Road was also approved. The site is on a flood plain and framed by the River Brent and the Grand Union Canal, as well as the polluted North Circular Road.

The site has some dubious history worth reading in this article by Alison Hopkins. LINK

UPDATED: Decision making shambles on Mumbai Junction planning application leads to deferral

 

 

 

 

UPDATE

 This is the official one sentence Minute of the Deferral Decision:

On the basis that a majority of Members on the Committee had indicated they were minded to refuse the application, it was agreed to defer a final decision to a future Committee meeting in order to  enable a further report to be provided addressing the indicative reasons outlined as the basis for refusal, relating to affordable housing and viability, the height and design of the scheme  in relation the surrounding area and whether the development of the site had been optimised  in order to maximise the potential planning benefits.

After more than two hours of discussion, possibly a record, at the end of Brent's Planning Committee's consideration of the Mumbai Junction application, only Chair Matt Kelcher and Vice Chair Saqib Butt (Council Leader Muhammed Butt's brother) voted to approve the planning application. The other six councillors voted to reject the application.

Rejecting an application against the advice of planning officers is highly unusual and usually results in warnings of costly appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and the likelihood of losing the case if the reasons for rejection are not sustainable in planning terms.

This is what happened last night when the members of the committee who had voted against had difficulty in articulating their reasons for rejection. In one case their reasons were also in conflict, with most members against the bulk of the design while Cllr Liz Dixon wanted the building to be bigger, claiming that increased height could enable affordable housing to be included in the development.  It wasn't a conservation area so why not build higher? Tower Block Tatler watch out - you have a rival!

Councillors'  concerns over the lack of affordable housing in the development were answered by officers in terms of two viability reports that, despite different figures, claimed that the development would not be financially viable if affordable housing was in the mix. As it was the developer would only return a profit of 13% against an industry standard of 17.5%

Interventions by the Head of Planning and a senior planning officer stated that the reasons given for rejection would not be sufficient to win an appeal and could incur costs on the council, were accompanied by a suggestion that instead of rejecting the application, the committee should defer it. This was taken up with relief by a shaken Cllr Kelcher who sought to persuade his committee members that this would be the best approach: officers would return with a new report that would address some of their concerns at a subsequent meeting.

One by one the councillors who had voted against the application agreed to deferral, although it was hard to see what could be changed in order to satisfy the critics who were concerned about the impact of the develoment on the wellbeing of local residents (including traffic), the design being out of character with the local suburban area, the height (2 different views) and environmental concerns - as well as the lack of affordable housing.

There were several public speakers the first of whom was ex Labour and Conservative councillor Wilhelmina Mitchell-Murray who asked, 'Is Brent Council there for the residents or for the developer?'

Cllr Bajwa (Northwick Park) opposed the development citing environmental issues, access to parks, parking and traffic. There was nothing in the application for local people.

Cllr Collymore (Northwick Park) who was only supposed to answer questions from fellow councillors became very angry and seemed to suggest that the commitee were letting down the Labour Group (I can't be sure so please check the video above that begins with her intevention). She said that the way Cllr Kelcher was behaving meant that the decision would not go in favour of her residents who paid Council Tax.

Cllr Kennelly in his submission emphasised the importance of the hospitality industry and the continuation of a hospitality venture on the Mumbai Junction/John Lyon site. He said that the application offered nothing in terms of afforable housing which should be a council priority.

Cllr Lorber (Sudbury) said that the committee should have had a site meeting with residents. The developer had paid £2,000 for a pre-application meeting with committee members but residents were unable to speak to them on site. He spoke of 'devious moves'.  Cllr Kelcher reacted angrily saying that that the pre-application meeting was part of the normal process and said that the way Lorber had raised it was 'Trumpian'. He gave an assurance that the decision on the application would be madse in accordance with guidance.

The applicant, the owner of the Mumbai Junction, said it was a family run business that for various reasons including ageing and illness in the family, they had dcided to discontinue. Despite looking busy they had never had the current level of difficulty in running the business until now. He rejected Cllr Maurice's suggestion that he was using covid as an excuse.

Twitter was busy during the meeting with one person tweeting that information given on traffic accidents by officer was wrong: '12 single RTAs in the last 12 months. Road rage every day at the exit of the roundabout' and 'at least 3 vehicles in the last few years went straight on the roundabout (literally) and a lady died in an RTA 50 yards away. Officers do your job properly, speak to residents.'

Cllr Collymore's references to the Labour Group perhaps reveals misunderstanding. The Planning Committee is supposed to be non-political in its quasi-judicial role and members are not whipped. The Labour Group should play no part.

Or perhaps it is not a misunderstanding and just revealing.

The Barham Park planning decision on 12 June – Brent Head of Planning’s response to my challenge.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The Chair of Planning Committee, with Head of Planning on his left,
at 12 June Planning Committee meeting. (Screenshot from webcast)

 

On 13 June, Martin published the text of an email I’d sent to Brent’s Head of Planning, challenging the way in which Brent’s Planning Officers had presented the planning policy position to the previous evening’s Committee meeting, over the application to demolish two homes within the Barham Park Local Green Space, and build four new homes on the site.

 

Martin had reported the controversial decision to approve the application, with all seven Labour committee members accepting the recommendation of Planning Officers, despite being told by other councillors (Lib Dem Cllr. Paul Lorber and Labour Cllr. Ketan Sheth, a former Chair of Planning Committee himself, and Conservative committee member Michael Maurice) that the Local Green Space policies in the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan meant that the application should be refused.

 

It appeared to me that the Committee had been misled by Brent’s Development Management Manager, who appeared to state that what mattered, more than those policies, was that the application would not cause harm (in the opinion of Brent’s Planning Officers!). My email to the Head of Planning asked:

 

‘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?’

 

It was two weeks before I received a reply, and I apologise that I have not shared it with you sooner than this (pressure of other matters, I’m afraid!). However, as there have been several other posts, or comments on posts, which have raised questions about how Brent’s Planning Department presents applications, which they recommend for approval, to Planning Committee (with possibly more of the same this week!), I am sharing it with you now. 

 

My email was headed “Application 22/4128 - 776/778 Harrow Road - urgent need for a policy explanation.” This is the reply I received from Brent’s Head of Planning on the evening of 26 June 2023:

 

‘Good afternoon Philip

 

Thank you for your email and comments in relation to the above matter.

 

I acknowledge your concerns and your specific question and respond as follows.

 

As stated in the policy section of the report: “Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that the determination of this application should be in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

 

I draw your attention to the following paragraph from the report:

 

Neighbourhood Plan Policies LGS1, LGS2 and BP1 are relevant to the proposal as the site is within the area defined as Local Green Space by the plan. However, the proposal does not result in the loss of any Local Green Space. The site contains house [sic] for which the authorised use is as dwellings within Use Class C3 and as such, the proposal is not considered to result in the redevelopment of park buildings. The proposal is considered to accord with policies LGS1, LGS2 and BP1. Nevertheless, if one contended that Policy BP1 relates to all buildings within the area designated Local Green Space as opposed to all buildings within the park itself, it is noted that the fall-back position for the applicant would be the continued use of the houses and their curtilages for their current lawful use, for purposes within Use Class C3. In this instance the proposed redevelopment of the site would continue to be acceptable having regard to the existing use of the site.

 

The decision that was made by planning committee was on the basis of the officer reports (main and supplementary) as well as the discussions that took place on the evening. The report clearly discusses relevant policies including those in the neighbourhood plan.

 

The case was properly considered and the decision made is valid. There is no basis to have delayed issuing the decision.

 

Gerry Ansell
Head of Planning and Development Services
Brent Council’

 

 

Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan Policy BP1: Barham Park, the most relevant policy!

 

You may have noticed that while the reply acknowledges my ‘specific question’ it does not answer it. It does refer to a piece of legislation referred to in the ‘policy section’ of the Officer Report to the committee, and this is what Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“PCPA 2004”) says, in full:

 

‘(6) If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.’

 

The ‘development plan’, in this case, is Brent’s Local Plan, adopted in February 2022. One of the supporting documents adopted as part of that Local Plan is the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan, which is a “neighbourhood development plan” under Section 38A, PCPA 2004 (as inserted by the Localism Act 2011).

 

I agree that decisions on planning applications ‘must be made in accordance with the plan.…’ That is what Brent’s Planning Code of Practice says, as well as planning legislation. But which policy should be followed, if more than one applies, and there is a difference between them?

 

The Localism Act thought of that when it introduced neighbourhood plans, and inserted Section 38B into PCPA 2004 as well. This says:

 

‘(3) If to any extent a policy set out in a neighbourhood development plan conflicts with any other statement or information in the plan, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy.’

 

In other words, the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan policy BP1: Barham Park should have taken precedence over any other policy which conflicted with it. Several people said that at the Planning Committee meeting, but the Planning Officers present and seven of the eight committee members ignored that.

 

The Head of Planning’s reply draws my attention to a paragraph from the Officer Report to Planning Committee, but omits its paragraph number, which was 13. Mr Ansell was already aware that I knew what para.13 said, because I had sent him a copy of my objection comment, which Martin had published on 5 June as 'Misrepresentation' by officers cited in Objection to the Barham Park Application Committee Report. This set out in detail why para.13 was wrong!

 

I did not try to continue my dispute with the Head of Planning, after receiving his reply. It would have been a waste of time, because he had clearly decided not to accept that he and his Officers were wrong, and I did not have the time or energy in late June to pursue the matter. Also, as he had already issued the planning consent letter, the day after the 12 June meeting, the only way that consent could be formally challenged would be through the High Court.

 

However, I still believe that, in this case, as in some others, Brent’s Planning Officers have made a serious mistake. To do so in such a controversial case must raise the question: “Why?”

Philip Grant.

 

Breaking: Controversial Mumbai Junction planning application deferred from tomorrow's Brent Planning Committee

 

The proposed block of flats that would replace the bar/restaurant

The controversial Mumbai Junction redevelopment was due to be discussed at tomorrow's Planning Committee but the Council has now announced that its consideration will be deferred to a future meeting.

The proposal has met with firece opposition from local residents, Barry Gardiner MP, Sudbury Court Residents Association, and the ward councillors for Northwick Park.

I could see only one comment in favour on the Council Planning Portal and 539 against.

Brent Planning Officers had however recommended approval and deployed the 'less than substantial level of harm' argument as well as a suggestion that 'the limited conflict with policy' could be dealt with through mitigation. I leave you to sort out the sentence on affordable housing!

The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, and, having regard to allmaterial planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions and obligations secured through a Section 106 Agreement. The proposal would result in the provision of 42 new homes, including 11 family sized homes, and would meet an identified need in the borough. The scheme would comply with affordable housing policy despite the absence of affordable housing as it has been demonstrated that the scheme would result in a deficit against reasonable target profit levels. The proposed development is larger than thesurrounding buildings both in terms of height and massing. As discussed the Officer view is that the design responds well to its the context and is well composed albeit it would represent a strong element in the local street views. No harm is considered to result to the setting of the Sudbury Court Conservation Area.

However, if one did conclude that a degree of harm resulted, the Officer's view is that the level of harm this would be "less than substantial" and significantly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. The scheme would be air quality neutral in relation to building emissions, but would not be air quality neutral in relation to transport emissions. The limited conflict with policy is capable of a degree of mitigation through the development of a travel plan and moreover considered to be outweighed by the planning benefits of the scheme including the delivery of 42 new homes with 11 family sized homes, contributing towards the Council's housing targets,

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

 

 

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

Wandering trees and invisible floods feature as Planning Committee approves Broadview planning application

 

 

 

I know it is annoying when you follow a story and then don't hear about the outcome. Philip Grant has written in detail on Wembley Matters about the Broadview Garage planning application. LINK

This demolishes garages on the edge of Fryent Country Park and documentation was confused about how many houses were planned to replace them, one or two? Whether trees due for removal were within the site or Fryent Country Park? Whether there was satisfactory access for large vehicles into the site during the build as well as afterwards? 

To follow the sometimes Alice in Wonderland nature of the Planning Committee's discussion watch the video of the meeting above. It features trees with the apparent ability to uproot and wander around the area and flooding which isn't there - because Brent Planning has no record it it - despite residents regularly seeing it.

There were quite a few Humpty Dumpty's in attendance. LINK

 

 

So what happened?

In the event  the application was passed despite obvious defects and questionable information and representations ignored - planning professionals and ward councillors.  Cllr Maurice was the only councillor to vote against on grounds of damage to the environment, density and access.

Rooting out misinformation on tonight's Broadview planning application

 Readers may wonder why so much fuss is being made about the Broadview Garages infill application. My answer in this case would be that it is essential that Brent Planning Committee members should be making decisions based on correct factual information provided by officers and that Brent Council should be doing all in its power to protect our green spaces and the borough's trees - particularly when our tree cover is lower than some comparable London boroughs. Furthermore the Council has a duty to  protect our designated Local Nature Reserve and Grade 1 Site of Importance to Nature Conservation in Fryent Country Park. If accepted this application would set a precedent for nibbling away at the edges of the Country Park.

In an email to the Chair of the Planning Committee and the relevant officers, Philip Grant has provided factual photographic information that MUST be taken into account. Tonight's  6pm Planning Committee meeting can be viewed on a Live Feed HERE:

 

Item 5 - Broadview Garages - application 22/2531

 

I would not normally write to you so close to a meeting, but there is an important point on the Broadview Garages application which you need to be aware of, so that the Planning Committee decision this evening is based on fact, and the correct interpretation of planning law in relation to the facts.

 

It was my objection comments on 9 December which led to the Supplementary Report, but that report still does not reflect the true position over a key point, the location of an environmentally significant ash tree, referred to in the application as tree T1. You can see this, as the closest tall tree to the garages, in photograph BV4, which was submitted as part of my comments and should be available for the Committee to view this evening:

 

 

The application's Arboricultural Impact Assessment ("AIA") said that tree T1 'is growing on the site boundary’, but several Broadview residents in their objection comments pointed out that it is growing within the adjacent Fryent Country Park.

 

Despite this the Officer Report states incorrectly that tree T1 is ‘located within the application site’. I provided photographic evidence that tree T1 is growing within the Country Park, and is NOT located within the application site. Yet the Supplementary Report published yesterday still tries to justify the Officers' false claim that this tree is within the application site!

 

I responded with a further objection comment yesterday afternoon, sending a copy of it (see below*) to the Development Management Manager and Head of Planning, and Mr Glover has replied to confirm that he has received my email. 

 

To prove my point about the location of tree T1, this is the photograph BV7 which I sent to Brent's Planners on 9 December. It was taken from within Fryent Country Park, and shows the base of the trunk of tree T1, the concrete fence post which marks the boundary on the far side of the trunk, and the garages beyond them:

 

 

 

 

The main legal point, which the Brent lawyer attending the Planning Committee meeting this evening needs to be asked to advise members on, in the light of the fact that tree T1 is NOT within the application site, but is actually within the Country Park, which is a Local Nature Reserve and a Grade 1 Site of Importance to Nature Conservation, is the effect of Section 197, TCPA 1990.

 

The Officer Report recommends: ‘That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.’

 

That recommendation was made on the incorrect assumption that tree T1 was within the application site. Your Committee needs to know whether tree T1 can legally be removed, under Section 197, as proposed in the application. If it cannot, then the application must fail.

 

Thank you for taking the time to consider this email. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

(a resident of Queensbury Ward, within a short walk of Broadview)