It could only happen in Brent! John Duffy on the Corrib

Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn) has intervened in the controversy over the planning application for the Corrib Rest in Queen's Park which is being discussed at Brent Planning Committee tomorrow. He has written the following to members of the Planning Committee and requested that it be read out in his absence. (Note the original has been lightly edited)

Dear Cllr Agha,

Following a meeting  a number of residents raised some concerns about the report concerning the lost of a community  asset to build private housing at the Corrıb Rest.

Let me clarify somethıng whıch offıcer seem to continually mentıon and to make everything as clear as possible. I have no complaints about the initial consultation. Officers continue to answer this question that was never asked , to add unrelated information as a smoke screen. 

Our concerns are pure and sımply about the report and the recommendations within the report to cut the community/provision by over 70%. Officers are well aware that 140 residents objected to the lost of community space and a request to defer the report to the July meetıng  so a meeting could be called to discuss the recommendations. This was ın my opınıon not unreasonable, however thıs was denied by the offıcers. I asked them were there any  financial, staffing or legal reasons why the officers could not defer  the report to the July meeting. Offıcers faıled to give a reason why they are being so difficult on a issue of local democracy. The officers answer merely said officers have the legal power to ignore requests from the public. The issue I asked the commıttee, was do you believe they are acting reasonably.

The report itself is I believe being sugar-coated in favour of the developer,  officers have left out the ( no mention whatsoever ) the loss of 70% of the  community space available or the 50% cut in hours of its use. If a committee member were to read the report it would suggest the developer is offering an increase of community use not a massive cut.  Also I raised the issue of the use of the words “40HR minimum hours community use” by officers. The report is actually saying  is 40hr will be the maximum  amount of hours in the 106 agreement and any other hrs over the forty would be unenforceable. Again I am sorry to say officers deferred to legal-speak instead of answering my question saying “there is no obligation on the developer to allocate more than the minimum hours. I think that’s clear and the reference to minimum is accurate and not misleading – more hours may be allocated, but are not required to be.” It is clear the developer has said NO to any additional hours.

However the most puzzling answer to my questions to officers was in answer to thıs  question 

“Will you confirm that I as a elected representative in the Area and an objector was not sent notification of the meeting.

Legal offıcer’s answer  

“In relation to your email of today, I have been informed that there were indeed two people that did not receive a copy of the details for the Committee, and accordingly they will be provided with the relevant information by post today.

Frankly that answer would be better suited to a Kafka novel than a planning commıttee. I finally received notice today, Tuesday (48hrs) that they did not send me notifıcation of the meetıng 5 days before.

Would it not have been easier and save time, for the legal officer to have apologised  and told me last Thursday instead of going into legal speak. However the legal offıcer said it does not matter  that they did  not send me notifıcation as an elected councillor  and an objector , as a member of the public told me anyway. It’s for you to decided whether you think that is also reasonable.

The truth is if I had been informed at the right time, I would not have committed to a work related trip abroad and I would have been there on Wednesday nıght.

The other ıssue I have concerns about is the way officers have sought to divide opinion on the merits of the plannıng application. Whereas I believe the residents of QPRA have a rıght to have the major say in the planning application the size, structure, parking and opening hours. However the disposal of 70% of a community asset is not for only for QPRA  and QPRA alone , its for the users and residents whether it be a Salsa dance class or a food bank to have their say , these people come from the greater Kilburn  area and other parts of Brent. The entrance will be via the pub which will rule out religous groups (particularly Muslims), Mothers and Baboes groups and other children's groups. A further issues is that there is only one WC.

Finally and most importantly, I believe officers are bringing the council into disrepute, by their approach . It’s just over a year ago that the Cabinet tried to shut down the Granvılle community centre  wıthout even a cursory attempt at consultatıon. The cabinet apologised  and the lead member resigned. Sınce then the new lead member for planning and regeneration Cllr Tatler has said community use in Kilburn is a priority and wishes to see it expanded .

Cllr Tatler and the cabinet have now committed themselves to expansıon of community provision.

To confırm this Cllr Tatler  last week place a large ad in the Brent Magazine( page 45) saying one of the priority for bids for using the CIL is community activity in Kilburn and askıng for bıds to come forward. It beggars belief that officers are choosing to ignore a clear policy and are recommending a 70% cut in community space and 50% cut in hours at a time when we are askıng for more ......... If policy can be changed or ignored by officers to cut communıty services, it makes it look like the administration  are in power, but not in control wıthout a clear vision or strategy.

It could only happen ın Brent!!!!!

Thıs report is wrong and goes against council policy of expanding community provisıon in Kilburn. Therefore ı urge you to reject the plannıng applıcatıon. 

Time to let the public in on Brent's plans for Northwick Park

Land and property at Northwick Park

The 'One Public Estate' (OPE) strategy adopted by the Brent Cabinet in January with little discussion (it was item number 16)  has made little impact on the public so far, but that will change as details become more widely available.

Basically all the public sector owned property in one area - council, health, police, fire, education is put into one pot and then looked at in terms of rationalising and maximising the assets. In health this overlaps with the 'delivery' of the controversial Sustainability and Transformation Plans, in education the supply of school places, and in regeneration the supply of affordable and temporary housing but prhaps 'subsidised' by some privare housing,

Although referred to as 'public sector property' perhaps it should be termed 'public property' with the public having a major say in what might amount to the privatisation and monetisation of public assets.

The Cabinet paper said:

  OPE is an initiative delivered in partnership by the Cabinet Office Government Property Unit (GPU) and the Local Government Association (LGA). It provides practical and technical support and funding to councils to deliver ambitious property-focused programmes in collaboration with central government and other public sector partners. 


Brent failed in a bid for Wembley (it was called 'unambitious') but succeeded in getting  £270,000  over three years for a 'Northwick Park regeneration programme':

Local people will be keen to get some detail, especially on how it will affect the green space in Northwick Park and other local assets:

The Cabinet Report describes the project (my emphasis):
 

-->

Northwick Park based around the agglomeration of public sector ownership at Northwick Park, delivering a wide variety of benefits including for example: growth via new homes and development; efficiencies via generation of capital receipts; and integrated services via a new energy centre. Current Partners are: London Borough of Brent, Northwick Park Hospital, University of Westminster, Network Homes Ltd, with anticipated future partners: London Borough of Harrow, Transport for London, Greater London Authority, Care and Commissioning Group (CCG) 


Northwick Park Pavilion Community Asset Transfer

It should be noted that the Northwick Park Pavilion is currently included in the Community Asset Transfer (CAT) Programme. There is potential for a joint approach to the provision of sport at Northwick Park, with considerable demand generated by the University and Hospital. The pavilion could play a significant role in such provision. Brent’s land holdings at Northwick Park are substantial, but are largely made up of playing fields, and the pavilion is one of the few pieces of built infrastructure that Brent can add to the OPE mix. Accordingly it is proposed that the Pavilion be withdrawn from the CAT programme.

The original CAT proposal was submitted by the Parnell Gaelic Football club (PGFA), and reported to Cabinet on 8^th February 2016, when it was resolved to approve the marketing of the Northwick Park Pavilion (Main Hall and Ancillary Areas) as a CAT opportunity for a seven year lease. Discussions have recently been held with the PGFA, who have confirmed their understanding that the Council’s position on the CAT is under review, and as an alternative they are prepared to submit a proposal to lease the premises, after suitable marketing by the Council. It is believed that offering a five year lease with an option to determine at the third year would provide sufficient security for the PGFA whilst at the same time ensuring its availability for the wider Northwick Park project.

Clearly residents will be interested in the proposed new energy centre and will want details of any environmental impact.

Click to enlarge

 It is also unclear whether any of these plans will impact on Northwick Park Open Space itself. The 'landmark residential development'  with shops and cafes sounds quite a major development - and will some of the homes be private and unaffordable for local people?

There's certainly scope for some key questioning of candidates at the Northwick Park ward Labour selection meeting on Monday, where the deputy leader, Margaret McLennan, is one of the candidates.

Another area that Brent Council is also sponsoring as a possible project is Vale Farm which again has a considerable amount of green open space owned by the Council.

The Brent Property and Asset Strategy 2015-19 specifically mentioned Vale Farm but also  mentioned other open spaces that are a 'maintenance liability'.  Definitely a matter of 'watch this SPACE'!

There is scope to consider the re-planning and re-provision of the combined sports facilities at Vale Farm and there may be scope to consider similar opportunities in Roe Green and King Edward Parks. In addition there are a small number of open spaces across the Borough which remain under-utilised and potentially are a maintenance liability and this strategy proposes a review of this with a view to exploring their potential for either alternative uses in line with Borough Plan and Regeneration priorities, or alternatively Community Asset Transfer.

Brent want Welsh Harp kept open as Environmental Education Centre

Brent Council has responded to my message regarding the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre. Although they have not answered all my questions they did state:

The Centre is required to be subject to a formal Community Asset Transfer process, which must be an open marketing of the facility. Please see the council’s statement on the matter below -

Councillor Eleanor Southwood, Lead Member for Environment at Brent Council said:

“Although the Centre was due to close following Council budget savings, we have been making strong efforts to ensure that it can continue as a community facility.

“To allow this to happen, we must go through a formal process which involves marketing the facility in an open and transparent way.

“We are committed to helping keep the Centre open as an environmental education centre and we will favour bids which show that they can do this.”