Does this make a mockery of planning?

Brent Council's recent consultation on the Wembley Stadium area plan included questions about the concentration of waste management facilities in the area and included the possibility of de-designation. There was an implication that some facilities were there without proper planning permission and a suggestion that some sites could be moved as they constituted 'dirty neighbours' and discouraged new firms moving into the area.

A 'retrospective' application for change of use of F. Flannery Yard, Third Way, Wembley HA9 OEL has just gone up on the Council website. Retrospective permission is sought for a change of use of part of the site from builder's yard to:

concrete crushing for waste disposal and soil recovery

 Lo and behold, on November 14th 2011, a planning application for the same site was approved for its use for storage of plant, machinery etc which specifically stated:

Any use of the land for waste processing or the storage of waste, loose aggregates and building materials or use of the site as a transfer site for such material is excluded.

Brent Greens are already very concerned about air quality in the Neasden/Wembley area and 'concrete crushing' to a layman does not sound as if it will improve it!. The retrospective nature of the submission implies that the process may already be happening which sound like a flagrant breach of the exclusion of only a month ago.

The site is not far away (across the Metropolitan and Chiltern railway lines) from Chalkhill and Margaret Clitheroe primary schools.

MAP

Slight setback for free schools

'Free schools' got off to a faltering in  start in February  when the DFE announced that of the 323 proposals received only 41 were approved to move to business case and planning stage or beyond with one proposal subsequently withdrawn. Eight proposer groups were invited to apply through a new application process. The results for all applications submitted since or resubmitted will be announced in September.

A further slight setback for Michael Gove in his rush to get as many built as possible was announced today. The government published new rules for planning which although they say councils should have a 'presumption' in favour of state-funded schools (free schools are funded directly by the state rather than via local government), councils will still be able to veto the new schools on planning grounds. This followed a hostile public reaction in consultation to proposals that free schools could be set up in disused shops, offices, churches and other venues with no requirements regarding play space etc and with no need to apply for 'change of use'.

This will probably just mean delaying free schools, rather than defeating proposals, as far as local authorities opposed to them are concerned. According to the Guardian 'sources close to Michael Gove' said that the government would still be able to be over-turned by the Department for Communities and Local Government and campaigners fear councils will be put off as they may have to pay costs if they lose on appeal.

However delay will give local campaigners more time to assemble the case against free schools when the next tranche are announced in September. It will also give councils more time to find other uses for buildings that free schools were hoping to occupy.

Officers recommend Islamia School go-ahead - including roof playground

The development site

The controversial proposals for the rebuilding of the Islamia Primary School are to be resubmitted to the Brent Planning Committee tomorrow. The previous application was blocked when the Council received a Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol letter on behalf of 'We Love Queen's Park', a group of local residents.

The group's objections included consultation failings, lack of community involvement, lack of an environmental impact assessment and concerns over financial viability. The documentation for tomorrow's meeting attempts to answer each point. Financial viability remains a crucial issue. The key passage states:

It is not envisaged that adequate funding will not be available to allow the development to be
completed if approved and the public contribution envisaged would be contingent on agreement of the availability of overall funds. However, Forsters have highlighted the potential implications of not completing an approved development. If these circumstances were to arise then the likely planning consequences would be the visual impact of any work remaining incomplete on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Depending on the extent of works carried out this may, or may not; also involve an impact on the setting of the adjoining Conservation Area and nearby Listed structures. Any Health and Safety or Environmental Health issues as a result of work remaining incomplete would be likely to be adequately addressed under powers held by Officers in the Council's Environmental Health & Health, Safety and Licensing Units. The degree of any impact would subject to a number of factors, and in particular the extent and progress of any work carried out. However, it is not reasonable to assume in the circumstances of an interruption to construction that a responsible landowner would leave the development in such a condition as to cause unacceptable harm to the interests referred to above, or be such, as to not warrant granting planning permission.

...Other objectors also raised concerns regarding the Islamia Trust's ability to deliver the project citing another development that they claim is underfunded and behind schedule. However, specific problems associated with another site would not provide sufficient evidence that would lead Officers to believe that there is now a substantial risk that the current proposal cannot be delivered. As such, it is considered that in terms of the delivery of the project there are no reasonable grounds to justify a refusal to grant planning permission

The Planning Committee will need to consider whether these assurances are enough. The rebuild would only provide an additional 30 places (from 390 to 420) but the report notes that there is potential for the expansion of secondary places when the present building is vacated.  Apart from the advantages of new buildings the new school would mean that Winkworth Hall would no longer be used for overflow classes. 

The present school does not have a catchment area (a defined geographical area from which pupils are drawn with those closest to the school getting priority) but the report says that one will be introduced to the south of the North Circular Road and extending to the borough boundary.

The school will be unusual in that it will return to the inner city Victorian school model of having a playground on the roof.  Approval will be subject to a Section 106 Agreement as set out below:

• Prior to Occupation submit, gain approval for and adhere to a Community Access Plan, which
includes details of community accesses to the development, particularly the Gym facilities
which shall be made available to any community groups for not less than 20 hours a week, at
rates covering administration costs only and not more than other Council facilities.
• A financial contribution of £10,000 towards the highway works, including bus cage works and
the reinstatement of the footway adjoining the school, required to mitigate the impact of the
development on local transport infrastructure and provide street tree planting, index-linked from
the date of committee and due on Material Start.
• Sustainability – BREEAM Excellent Construction Assessment and Certificate shall be
submitted prior to occupation; achieve 50% on the Brent Sustainable Development Checklist,
demonstrated through submission of a Detailed Sustainability Implementation Strategy prior to
construction; compliance with the ICE Demolition protocol, demonstrated by submission of an
independent report detailing demolition and new build material use and recycling; and 20% on
site renewable energy details to be submitted and approved, which shall be maintained
throughout the lifetime of the development.
• Join and adhere to the Considerate Constructors scheme.
• Prior to Occupation, submit gain approval for and adhere to a Travel Plan.
• Payment of the Council's legal and other professional costs in (a) preparing and completing the agreement and (b) monitoring and enforcing its performance

The Officers recognise local concerns but 'on balance' think these have been appropriately addressed and that the proposal is 'in general compliance with the Council's Development Plan'. They recommend approval subject to the Section 106 Agreement being met.

Village Uprising in Roe Green

Roe Green residents have asked me to publicise their campaign on Wembley Matters:

  

Not again! Yes! Brent council has done it again. This time they have completely ignored procedures that should this have been Joe-public they would have descended on them breathing fire and brimstone.

Brent Council has granted itself planning permission to erect an ill-planned, poorly conceived structure that would shame any area within this Borough’s boundaries, let alone a conservation area.

The Council, in order to grasp a last-minute grant from the previous Government for an Intergenerational Centre, short-cut the public consultation procedure to secure this money, despite disagreements with the locals as to whether it was necessary.

The residents of Roe Green Village, one of the last few remaining examples of small First World War settlements just beyond the North Circular, are stunned by what they perceive to have been anti-democratic procedures adopted by Brent Council to put through a planning application for an insensitively proportioned and badly designed block, to be built on the edge of this small enclave of stone-white and mellow brick cottages that have survived all sorts since the First World War. 

What has come to the fore when this almost project was finally and properly revealed, was the Machiavellian way the Council went about finalising the planning permission for such a building.

 The argument rests whether Brent has the right to erect such a building without following procedures that their Planning Dept would not have correctly considered in other circumstances.

 The present Council has no deep knowledge or understanding of the area and its Senior Officers fail to properly advise them. 

Once we lose this unique and historical area, there will be no turning back, it will be gone forever.

BACKGROUND

Roe Green Village is a circa 1918 garden village styled residential conservation area, situated in the district of Kingsbury, which is part of the northern extend of the London Borough of Brent.

The Community is supported by a local association, the Roe Green Village Residents’ Association.

For  further information, please contact:

Debbie Nyman on debbienyman@talktalk.net

Civic Centre details available on-line

Details relating to conditions of the planning consent for the new Civic Centre are now available on line.  They are easily missed as listed under the old site names of Palace of Arts/Palace of Industry rather than 'Civic Centre'. LINK  The case to be decided no earlier than September 13th 2010.

ARK, what's happening?

There has been a further delay in the Ark Academy application to the Brent Planning Committee. It was originally scheduled for Tuesday April 7th but there were protests that this was during the school Easter holidays and many interested residents would be away.

It is now scheduled for Tuesday 28th April and submissions can be made up to Thursday April 2nd.