A guest post from the Chair of Kilburn Village Residents’ Association
WM reported three weeks ago (https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2023/10/kilburn-square-campaigners-we-are.html on the reaction of our local community to the (thankfully aborted) attempt to deal with this large and controversial scheme late in the evening, when the Committee clock was already into Overtime.
This time, KS is the first Application on the Agenda (https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=115&MId=7565&Ver=4 ). A 6pm start is a bit early for many of our supporters to be there… but we’re pleased the Committee members will be fresh, and able to concentrate on the merits – and drawbacks – of the model in the Application as filed.
They will not be short of material to prompt questions:
· They have the Officers’ original 61-page October 10 report, and a Supplementary report from the day before the October 18 meeting
· But we found both of those to be less than balanced and objective
· So we’ve provided them all with two detailed Response documents giving the very different perspective of the local community – on and off the estate
· Both of those responses have now been posted as formal Objections on the Planning Portal (ref 22/3669)
The second one was linked in the last WM piece; but Martin has kindly embedded our more substantial initial response here:
Read it at your leisure – but here’s the message in a nutshell:
- We’d support a scheme just replacing two daytime-use buildings (such as Blocks A and B in the version now proposed), in line with the Local Plan Site Allocation and the April 2020 Cabinet report approving a development partnership with Network Homes
- But encroaching on the actual estate, removing valued green space and mature trees while adding more households (60% more vs 2019) to share the reduced communal space (like Blocks C and E) … is a Bridge Too Far
And here’s the Exec Summary
1. This scheme is still too big, there are significant other policy breaches, and not all claims for flexibility are justified
2. After a totally ineffective pre-engagement programme, the applicant is seeking to impose this version of the scheme despite the local community’s overwhelming call for a smaller, fairer model
3. The public interest benefit is tempered by affordability issues and the proposed tenure mix is unlikely to be deliverable
4. Conclusion: we do not believe this scheme represents a fair balance, and urge the committee to decline approval
Two particular topics we feel are unacceptably dismissed by the Officers are the pre-engagement process and the Sandwood overshadowing by too-close-for comfort Block E
The Officers dismissively say pre-engagement is not a statutory requirement, that there’s “a difference of opinion” about the effectiveness of what was done, and the Committee must determine the Application purely “on its merits”. If that were true, what was the point of mounting a superficially thorough pre-engagement effort?
· Brent regularly acknowledges the importance of consultation beyond legal requirements, and “taking the community with us”
· We’ve often quoted senior Brent figures saying they “will not force homes on anyone” and want “a scheme that can work for everyone”
· Brent has a detailed 2017 policy document spelling out the required process (NOT followed in the second stage consultation here)
· The London Mayor specifically reminded the Applicant’s project team in 2021 he requires a process that is “…responsive and meaningful” – which we have demonstrated this was not
· The project team told residents in 2021 that the engagement process was “one of three pillars” of the project evaluation
· A senior Brent Officer was (with no irony) one of the judges for Best Community Engagement in the industry-wide “Pineapple” Awards
Overshadowing by Block E should be an Open and Shut case.
The consultant’s report clearly says if BRE 209 guidance is strictly followed, it could be no more than 1-2 storeys. The Officers’ report acknowledges that – and then tries to accept a series of the Applicant’s excuses for building it (five storeys) anyway
· Irrelevant hypotheses about modelling the result without the Sandwood balconies, or if E were a mirror image of Sandwood’s East face (12 flats affected) – PURE SOPHISTRY!
· Claims that living conditions in the rest of the Sandwood flats will still be fine (WRONG – residents already need lights switched on in the daytime)
· Claims that the amount of acknowledged overshadowing across the whole scheme is modest – and acceptable given the “public interest” delivered; how is that fair to Sandwood residents?
· Unsubstantiated statements that the guidance is largely intended for rural locations
The consultant’s report in the Application also talks of “site constraints” as a possible basis for lenience; but Block E is totally standalone – and removing it would not have any bearing on the rest of the scheme
To our minds, the Case against Block E is a sufficient valid Planning Objection to require that the Application be declined
Chapter Two
And then, if Permission is granted on Wednesday, there will have at some stage to be a Chapter Two – once a viable funding model is found and a modified tenure mix, with perhaps 30% of units for outright market sale, will need to be re-submitted to the Committee…
If only the Applicant had had the moral courage to make that adjustment NOW – while the scheme is getting the fullest possible scrutiny!
Keith Anderson
