Brent Council accused of 'hypocritical stance' on planning guidance

 This guest post byMarc Etukudo is based on an email he sent to Brent Council yesterday:

I would like to draw your attention to an article I read this morning in the Harrowonline (Harrow Times) about Brent Council's new guidelines for developers operating within the borough. The only problem is that Brent Council does not practice what it preaches......

 

 

 Brent Council has introduced new guidelines for developers operating within the borough.

 (Source - Harrowonline - Harrow Times)

 

 

The council’s Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) aim to enhance the quality of life for local communities while creating a greener and healthier environment.

The first SPD, titled ‘Residential Amenity Space and Place Quality’, focuses on making Brent a vibrant, inclusive, and thriving community.

Cllr Shama Tatler, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning, and Growth at Brent Council expressed her pride in Brent’s pioneering efforts to tackle pressing issues such as the climate crisis and health inequalities.

She stressed that well-designed and sustainable development plays a crucial role in enriching the lives of residents.

Our residents deserve great places to live, and well-designed, sustainable development is a key factor in enriching people’s quality of life.”

 

This is yet another example of Brent Council's hypocritical stance. On one hand they say one thing, set down laws for others to follow but yet on the other hand they break every law set down by themselves for others to follow and totally ignore it for themselves when it suits them. 

The proposal planned for Newland Court is one example of Brent Council’s hypocritical stance. They are ignoring all the laws that they set out in their planning guidance to push this proposal through. In Cllr Shama Tatler’s statement she says:-

‘The council’s Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) aim to enhance the quality of life for local communities while creating a greener and healthier environment.’

‘She expressed her pride in Brent’s pioneering efforts to tackle pressing issues such as the climate crisis and health inequalities.’

‘Our residents deserve great places to live, and well-designed, sustainable development is a key factor in enriching people’s quality of life.’

How is destroying healthy mature trees that house many wildlife including many species of birds and 3 species of bats and reducing our urban green space creating a greener and healthier environment? How is this tackling the climate crisis and health inequalities in the community?

This is actually doing the opposite. Destroying all the greenery around Newland Court is going to have a detrimental effect on the mental wellbeing of existing residents who, as you already know, have been treated with systemic discrimination since this proposal started and of which, are all against this proposal.

Then building crammed tiny houses with little or inadequate amenity spaces, under what’s left of the trees that omit sticky residue and will need constant pruning. Initially, anyone offered a 3-4 bedroomed home would be glad if they are moving in from temporary dwellings. But this will also eventually affect the mental wellbeing of the new tenants after a few months of moving in.

Brent Council has not once taken the thoughts or feelings of the existing residents at Newland Court into consideration. Instead they want to turn a great place where we live, and destroy the quality of life we enjoy to build a concrete jungle on a site that just isn’t viable to build on. So much for tackling the climate crisis, health inequalities and enriching people's quality of life.

Brent Council plans to move the pavement and parking spaces to the right from where the grass starts taking away a quarter of our green space and also want to build a children’s play area which will only encourage ASB including drug users, pushers and alcohol consumption. None of us want a play area and residents who have lived here for 20, 30, 40, 50 and beyond whose kids grew up and have left home never had it. Obviously it's for the new families that Brent  wants to move into the tiny cramped new homes.   

 

All the trees you see are by the fences in the back gardens of residents at Grendon Gardens which is in Barn Rise conservation area. As you can see, all the tree canopies are overhanging by a few metres across  and over the garages that Brent wants to replace with 3-4 bed roomed houses. This means that all the trees will have to be cut back to the fences and if that doesn’t kill them and all the wildlife including 3 species of bats. Then maybe constant pruning and digging through their roots to lay down foundations for the 3-4 bedroom homes during construction will.

 

 

Trees benefit the environment

 

Trees absorb carbon dioxide as they grow and the carbon that they store in their wood helps slow the rate of global warming. They reduce wind speeds and cool the air as they lose moisture and reflect heat upwards from their leaves. It’s estimated that trees can reduce the temperature in a city by up to 7°C. Trees also help prevent flooding and soil erosion, absorbing thousands of litres of storm water.

 

 

Trees boost wildlife

 

Trees host complex microhabitats. When young, they offer habitation and food to amazing communities of birds, insects, lichen and fungi. When ancient, their trunks also provide the hollow cover needed by species such as bats, wood boring beetles, tawny owls and woodpeckers.

 

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)

 

 

Another blow for Brent Council's Newland Court in-fill scheme as Brent Transportation recommends 'resistance' to the plans

 Brent Transportation has submitted  comments that support the objections of local Newland Court and  Grendon Gardens residents over the effect of the application on parking. These are some key extracts:

'When coupled with future demand from the proposed houses, it is likely that 31-35 cars would seek parking within the estate. With only 12 spaces proposed, a considerable amount of parking would be displaced onto surrounding streets.'

'The only locations with reasonable parking capacity are Barn Rise and Grendon Gardens, but only limited stretches of these roads are within a 200m walk from the development. As such, there is considered to be insufficient spare on-street capacity to accommodate displaced car parking from this development.'

The conclusion is:

'RECOMMENDATIONS:- This proposal should be resisted as it stands, on the grounds that the development would add to on-street parking demand in an area that is unable to safely accommodate a significant amount parking, to the detriment of on-street parking conditions and contrary to Local Plan Policy BT2.'

This follows critical comments LINK by Julie Hughes, Brent Principal  Trees Officer that also

I have significant concerns relating to the impact that this development will have on protected trees…it is my belief that there will still be a significant amount of pressure on the Council to allow works to lop, top and fell trees which are currently protected by virtue of growing within the Conservation Area boundary, if the proposals go ahead as planned. The current spread of the trees is as would be expected for trees of this maturity, although it is likely that the Lime trees forming G4 and G6 will be re-pollarded at intervals. The construction of these dwellings in such close proximity to these trees is likely to lead to future pressure to lop, top or fell these trees due to concerns from the residents for their safety and for other associated general nuisance issues.

 
The scale of the proposed units is such that there is very minimal useable amenity space most of which will be overhung by tree canopies, as will most of the units.

In summary I have some significant concerns regarding the increased pressure that will be placed on the Council to permit lopping, topping or felling the trees within the rear gardens of Grendon Gardens, and the impact that this will have on both the visual amenity of the local area, and specifically the adjacent Barn Hill Conservation Area,

The full Brent Transportion report  is below:

 

 Philip Grant has been campaigning energetically on this blog and in correspondence with Brent Council for planning applications from the Council itself, to its own Planning Committee, should be treated  with probity and subject to the same scrutiny and standards as applications from external developers.

Newland Court – trees are at the root of Brent’s “infill” scheme problems

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Diagram showing the general proportions of tree roots to canopy. (Image from the internet)

 

When Martin posted a blog about the Newland Court planning application in September, you could see from the aerial view of the site for Brent’s proposed “infill” houses that they would be very close to a line of trees. 

 

Those trees were in the back gardens of homes in Grendon Gardens, inside the Barn Hill Conservation Area. I added a comment, pointing out that those trees were protected, because they are part of the conservation area’s ‘essential character’, and Martin posted that as a separate item of useful information for Grendon Gardens residents. 

 

Residents with trees in their gardens bordering the Newland Court site were advised to contact Brent’s Tree Protection Officer, Julie Hughes. She has submitted her comments on planning application 22/3124, and these begin by saying: ‘I have significant concerns relating to the impact that this development will have on protected trees.’ Her comments, which were only made public three weeks after she’d made them, conclude:

 

Final paragraph of Brent’s Principal Tree Officer on Brent’s Newland Court application.

 

I will ask Martin to attach a full copy of those comments below, along with a document copy of the objection comments which I’ve submitted. These also deal mainly with the harm which the planning application would do to the protected trees in the Barn Hill Conservation Area, if it were to be approved.

 

The Principal Tree Officer’s comments concentrate mainly on the tree canopies, the branches and leaves. Because the site of the existing garages at Newland Court is so narrow, the houses which the Council wants to build there would need most of the overhanging branches of these protected off-site trees to be cut off. The branches would, if such severe lopping did not kill the trees, grow back again, and so would need frequent cutting back, to stop them blocking the light to rear windows. 

 

The extent of existing protected tree canopies, marked on a plan of the proposed new homes.

 

Because there were trees on and adjacent to the site, the planning application had to be supported by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (“AIA”). This was prepared for Brent Council by Watermans. When I read this document, one short extract about the trees along the southern edge of the conservation area stuck in my mind:

 

‘… it is considered that their roots are unlikely to have extended below the existing retaining wall which forms the northern boundary of the Site. It is therefore considered that they are unaffected by the development proposals.’

 

I don’t claim to be an expert on trees, but you don’t have to be one to know that where a tree has a canopy above ground, it is likely to have roots in the ground below that canopy! [See the diagram above.] It is very convenient for the Council’s plans to assume that there would be no roots from the protected trees where you want to dig foundations and build houses. But how likely is it that a brick wall would prevent all tree roots from growing beyond ‘the northern boundary of the Site’?

 

Luckily, I remembered a similar situation which occurred as part of the Morland Gardens planning application, where there were trees in a next-door garden, just beyond a retaining wall which marked the site boundary. In that case, the AIA included the results of a ground penetrating radar survey. This discovered that tree roots did extend below the wall:

 

‘The scan line results showed that the off-site trees are rooting within the site, but that the physical barrier of the retaining wall and its footings has provided a partial barrier to root encroachment.’

 

That evidence (rather than the “convenient” assumption by the authors of the Newland Court AIA) meant that the building plans at Morland Gardens had to include a two metre wide tree protection strip, inside the site boundary, where no construction was allowed. But the Newland Court site is so narrow that some of the proposed new houses have walls only 50cm from the boundary. These would cut through both the support and feeder roots of protected trees.

 

On the evidence in my objection comments, it would not be possible to build six of the seven houses without seriously harming, or killing off, both the canopies and the roots of protected trees in the Barn Hill Conservation Area. I’ve sent a copy of my comments document to Brent’s Principal Tree Officer, and asked her to consider it and give her response to Brent’s Planning Officers (as well as to me).

 

If I’m correct, then this planning application should be refused (and there are plenty of other reasons put forward by local residents which also justify its refusal). This is a Brent Council application, but that should not make a difference. 

 

Regular readers of “Wembley Matters” will know of my recent battle with the Council over another “infill” scheme at Rokesby Place, and my insistence that Brent’s Planning Officers must be seen to uphold the Local Government Association’s “Probity in Planning” rules:

 

‘Proposals for a Council’s own development should be treated with the same transparency and impartiality as those of private developers.’

 

Would Brent allow an application by a private developer to build houses so close to a conservation area that it damaged or killed protected trees? I doubt it!

Philip Grant.

 Philip Grant's Objection

 

 

Brent Tree Officer's Report 

 

Useful information for Grendon Gardens residents re trees on the border with Newland Court

 The belt of Grendon Gardens trees that border Newland Court clearly visible in this satellite view

 

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity 

TREES:

I have not yet had chance to look at the planning application documents, but there is some information I can share with potential objectors to the Newland Court development, based on personal knowledge from having to advise a relative who used to live in the Barn Hill Conservation Area.

The boundary of the Conservation Area runs along the back fence/wall at Newland Court, with all of the back gardens, AND all the trees in them, of Grendon Gardens within the Conservation Area.

Para. 6.5, "Natural Environment", of Brent's Barn Hill Conservation Area Character Appraisal includes the following statement:

 

 

'Barn Hill has a very green character defined by the relatively densely planted trees to garden boundaries and along the roads of the estate. Species such as Cherry, Purple Plumb, Hawthorn, Oak and Ash proliferate. These trees help to provide a natural framing for views in and out of the area and between buildings. These trees are an essential part of the character of the area and the mix of deciduous and coniferous trees is part of the now prevailing character.'

 

The Barn Hill Conservation Area design guide, at para. 5.3, "Trees", in the "Gardens" section, says:

 

'All trees in the Barn Hill Conservation Area that have a diameter greater than 75mm [that's about 3 inches], measured at a height of 1.5m [about 5 feet], are protected. You will need permission to carry out even the most minor of work to a tree. It is always best to contact Planning & Development for advice on the best way to protect the trees in your garden.'

If you are a Grendon Gardens resident who has trees at the bottom of your garden, backing onto Newland Court and Brent's proposed development site, you might want to contact Brent Council's Tree Protection Officer (I wouldn't personally recommend contacting Planning!), and seek her advice on how the trees in your garden should be protected. 

 

Ask for her advice in writing, and quote it as part of your objection to Brent's planning application, if you wish to object to it.

Email address:  Julie.hughes@brent.gov.uk

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.