All three of Brent Council's estate infill applications approved tonight

 

Kilburn Square opponents of the infill plans in the public gallery

 

 

 

 

Which should not surprise regular readers who will have got used to 'What Brent Council wants, Brent council gets' as far as the supposedly politically independent Planning Committee goes.

It's sad to see months of research, campaigning and well thought out representations by residents come to nothing as the Kelcher-Butt Juggernaut crunches on.

The three applications had much in common - new homes squeezed into estates at the expense of loss of green and amenity space, mature trees and access to daylight.

Kilburn Square was approved by 7 votes to one (Cllr Mauricer), Clement Close (which has received less publicity) approved unanimously, and Newland Court 6 for, 1 against (Cllr Maurice) and  1 abstention (Cllr Seelan).

The pressing need for council homes trumps the quality of life of existing council residents every time.  However, as Cllr Georgiou pointed out, there is often the possibility of a compromise that provides additional homes on estates as well as respecting the views of existing residents. Speaking  in favour of the Kilburn Square application on behalf of himself and Cllr Conneely (Kilburn ward councillors),  Cllr  Molloy supported the application saying that the area was much less densely built than Paris or Barcelona and the opposition came from the owner occupiers of nearby streets.

As I have observed over years of attending Planning Committee residents attending for the first time are often shocked by the proceedings - not just the mumbled, often incoherent, contributions but the factual mistakes that shocked residents try to point out but are quickly silenced. Poor chairing enables senior planning officers to ramble on down all sorts of bye-ways.

Tonight there were desperate attempts to correct one officer who several stated that one flat facing a proposed new building, was north facing, when the plan on the screen clearly showed it was east facing. The resident who actually lives in the flat was told she was not allowed to speak, so decisions were made based on misinformation.

After the meeting, having watched it on the livewebcast, Philip Grant sent Wembley Matters this comment about the Kilburn Square proceedings:

 I've just watched the live webcast of the Planning Committee meeting for the Kilburn Square application.

Whether or not 100% affordable housing should be set down in Condition 3, rather than 'a minimum of 50%' was a live issue, with 100% supported by two Kilburn Ward councillors and Cllr. Georgiou, on the basis that anything other than that would not be acceptable if the application was accepted.

After fudging around it, Planning Officers finally admitted that the Committee could impose a 100% affordable housing condition, if that was what they decided was necessary to justify the harm which the application would cause.

There was some discussion about whether Brent Council would ever reduce the level of affordable housing from 100%, given their election promises and the acknowledged need for genuinely affordable homes.

The Chair, Cllr. Kelcher, said if the Council (or Cabinet) tried to reduce the amount of affordable housing, there were ways that could be challenged, such as call-in. He then moved the discussion on to other points of the application, and never came back to the affordable housing point. 

In particular, he did ask committee members whether they wished to change Condition 3 from 'a minimum of 50%' to 100%. At the end of the discussion he just asked who was in favour of accepting the recommendation to approve the application, putting up his hand and noting that five other Labour members of the Committee did the same.

Cllr. Kelcher must have known that his wife, Cllr. Mili Patel, supported a Cabinet decision in November 2022 which would mean the "conversion" of at least around 40 of the LAR homes proposed for Kilburn Square to "intermediate" homes, or even to private sale. 

The Vice Chair of the Committee, Cllr. Saqib Butt, also quick to put his hand up, must have known that his brother, the Council Leader, both supported and spoke in favour of the "conversion" of LAR homes at Kilburn Square at that Cabinet meeting.

Planning Committee could have ensured that 100% of the 99 general needs homes they approved for Kilburn Square were protected as genuinely affordable homes through Condition 3. They could also have ensured that any change to that which the Council later wanted to make would have to be by way of a fresh application for a "material change" (under Section 73, Town and Country Planning Act 1990), which would then need proper scrutiny and a possible further decision by Planning Committee.

The Chair of the Committee made sure that they did not even get a vote on that point (so that he and none of the other Labour councillors were seen to be directly voting against 100% affordable homes).

That is not how planning decisions on important points should be made - but it is the level that planning in Brent has sunk.

 

Kilburn Square – Brent planners seek to reduce Affordable Housing by stealth

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

The recent guest post by the Chair of Kilburn Village Residents’ Association, Kilburn Square – Decision time (Chapter One) is finally here this Wednesday, ends with a reference to a future decision which will have to be made if planning permission for Brent Council’s proposed scheme is approved. But if Planning Officers get their way, there will be no Chapter Two.

 

Martin’s earlier blog about the various Brent infill housing applications on the agenda for Wednesday evening’s Planning Committee meeting, Say after me, 'The benefits of the scheme outweigh the harm/impact/conflict with policy', showed how Brent’s Planning Officers are using claimed “public benefits” to justify ignoring any objection points against the applications they are recommending should be accepted.

 

The main “public benefit” which they say would ‘far outweigh any harm’ on the Kilburn Square application (despite the many valid objection points set out in the KVRA Chair’s recent article) is that the proposed 139 new homes would all be affordable housing. That is what the application’s Affordable Housing Statement (Final) says, despite Brent’s Cabinet giving the green light to some of them being "converted" to shared ownership or even outright sale at its meeting in November 2022.

 

The rent details from the application’s Affordable Housing Statement (Final)

 

The affordable housing proposed in the Kilburn Square application is 99 "general needs" homes at the genuinely affordable London Affordable Rent ("LAR") level, and 40 New Accommodation for Independent Living ("NAIL") flats at the "intermediate" Local Housing Allowance rent level.

 

Other local Brent housing estate applications (Watling Gardens and Windmill Court) approved in 2022, under the current Brent Local Plan policies, also showed that all of their new homes would be for genuinely affordable housing (LAR, or Social Rent level for returning existing tenants). The affordable housing condition (Condition 3) in their planning consent letters made clear that 100% of the homes would be affordable housing, as set out in those applications. The reason given for this condition was: 'In the interests of proper planning.'

 

There have been no changes in planning policy or law since those consents were issued in April 2022, so the position should be the same for Kilburn Square.

 

However, if you look closely at the proposed Condition 3 in the draft decision notice, tucked away at the end of the Planning Officers’ Committee Report for Kilburn Square, it says:

 

'The development hereby approved shall contain 139 residential dwellings. A minimum of 50 % of those dwellings (measured by habitable room or number of homes) shall be provided as Affordable housing ....'

 

I submitted an objection to this proposed condition, and I will ask Martin to attach a copy of the pdf version of it (which I submitted online, and emailed to the three key Planning Officers - Head of Planning, Development Management Manager and Case Officer – on Sunday evening) at the foot of this article, for anyone to read if they are interested. 

 

I also objected to a weird Condition 4 in the draft decision notice, also concerning affordable housing, for which there was no mention or explanation of in the body of the Committee Report:

 

The opening part of the proposed Condition 4 from the draft decision notice.

 

If the application is approved on Wednesday, as recommended by Planning Officers, allowing affordable housing Condition 3 to stand would totally undermine the "public benefits" which the application is meant to provide. 

 

A minimum of 50% of the proposed new homes would be 70, leaving 69 which Brent's New Council Homes team could "convert" away from genuinely affordable LAR rent to local people in housing need. They could even be “converted” from affordable housing to private sale, leaving as few as 30 of the 99 “general needs” homes at LAR rent level, promised by the application, actually delivered by Brent Council’s Kilburn Square project.

 

What is equally as bad is that Planning Officers are trying to do this "by the back door". When Brent wanted to "convert" some of the Watling Gardens LAR homes to shared ownership, they had to make a fresh planning application to change Condition 3 in the 100% affordable housing consent they'd received for the scheme.

 

My objection is seeking to have Condition 3 of the planning consent, if Planning Committee approve the plans, require that 100% of the 139 homes should be affordable housing, as set out in the application itself. 

 

I am also seeking that the Condition(s) should include a requirement that any change the applicant (Brent Council!) wishes to make to that affordable housing condition should be made by way of a “material change” application under Section 73, Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That type of application requires public consultation (so the chance to object), and detailed consideration of the reasons and evidence given for seeking a change.

 

I had drawn attention to the discrepancy between what the Kilburn Square application promised for affordable housing and the November 2022 Cabinet decision on “conversion” of units from LAR last February (Kilburn Square – Brent must come clean on affordable housing!). When Brent’s planning agent did not submit revised affordable housing details, Brent’s Head of Planning promised that the application would be ‘considered as submitted’. 

 

This should have meant that the affordable housing condition would specify 100% affordable housing. To change that, by stealth, to ‘a minimum of 50% affordable housing’ feels like a dirty trick, which Brent’s Planning Officers should be ashamed of!

 

Philip Grant

 

 

 

KILBURN SQUARE: Decision time (Chapter One) is finally here this Wednesday!

 

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

KIlburn Square campaigners: 'We are mildly relieved - and hugely frustrated'

Despite being the largest develeopment application tabled, Kilburn Square was the last item on the Agenda at Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday and discussion was abandoned when a leaking roof led to audio problems.  Wembley Matters contacted  campaigners for an update on how things stand now.

Keith Anderson, Chair of Kilburn Village Residents’ Association, which includes Kilburn Square estate and six surrounding streets,  has been coordinating a dialogue with Brent for two and a half years. He says in the aftermath of Wednesday’s unexpected outcome:

 

We are mildly relieved – and hugely frustrated:

 

·         Frustrated that Brent has pressed ahead to Committee with this non-viable, all-Council-rent version of the scheme – refusing, despite our Official Complaint, to amend the Tenure Mix to reflect the seemingly inevitable switch of over a quarter of the flats to outright sale, to make the sums work 

 

·         Relieved that the Chair’s attempt to restart the meeting at approaching 9pm – normally the target finish time – was thwarted by the continuing AV problems; we felt the Committee would be too tired to do our scheme justice after intense debates on the two previous Agenda items. But…

 

·         Frustrated that we were even listed last on the Agenda; one of the Officers acknowledged privately that this large and controversial scheme deserves at least an hour and a half, if not longer 

 

·         Frustrated that the Affordable Housing team, in their remote offices and without even engaging with the Board of the Housing Co-op (who manage the estate for the Council) concocted the original wildly over-ambitious “Mini Master Plan”, proposing 179 extra flats - 80% more households vs 2019 - on a reduced physical space

 

·         That scheme was announced three years ago; had the team stayed with what is in the Local Plan’s Kilburn Square Site Allocation (100 new flats - by 2037!)… and the 80-100 units outlined in a March 2020 Cabinet report, they could have had construction almost finished by now

 

·         Frustrated that, when comprehensive rejection from estate residents and neighbours pushed the Policy Coordination Group into agreeing a smaller scheme was needed… the reduction offered was only around 20% 

 

·         Frustrated that in that second phase the project team tried a Divide and Rule approach, with a tokenistic and controlling approach to seeking estate residents’ consent and a message to close neighbours that they should withhold their thoughts until the Planning Application arrived

 

In January 2021, Brent’s Housing Director told the Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee: “We will not force homes on anyone…we have developed only with the support and encouragement of local residents” so, how did that play out for our scheme..?

 

The PA was filed a year ago (!), with a long list of tick-box pre-engagement activities; but NO evidence of resulting community support for the scheme…

 

… whereas the Application has attracted: 

·         Around 120 individual Objections

·         A suite of 20 detailed submissions from KVRA on specific topics 

·         Supporting emails from our MP, the Green Party at City Hall, CPRE, Brent Parks Forum

·         Three Collective Objections (petitions in Council-speak) from surrounding streets, with 300 signatures

·         Three COs from Blocks on the estate, including the two most affected by the problematic Blocks C and E (the Committee Report curiously acknowledged only one…)…

·         …and a mere three supporting comments

 

So, one might have expected that, combining that with key policy breaches in areas like Climate Strategy, Amenity Space and Overshadowing, the Officers’ Committee Report would have recommended sending the scheme back to the drawing board (a smaller scheme could gain community support)?

 

But no: KVRA, working with three neighbouring RAs and the Kilburn Neighbourhood Forum as the Kilburn Square Stakeholder Group, were airbrushed out of the picture, and the outcome of the ineffective engagement process was largely dismissed

 

Martin already published the Supplementary Agenda report issued on Tuesday. Here it is, with our Riposte in red LINK. I’ll  update readers in another post on our detailed Response to the full Committee Report

 

Expect a lively discussion when our scheme comes back to Committee – now planned for first up on the November 15 Agenda!

 

Mumbai Junction and Kilburn Square at Brent Planning Commitee next week

 Campaigners will be sharpening their swords for next week's Planning Committee as two controversial planning applications are heard. (Wednesday 18th October 6pm) Mumbai Junction is from a private developer while Kilburn Square is from Brent Council itself.

Swords may not be much of a match for the developers' bulldozer (soon to be driven by Keir Starmer!) but a lively meeting is in prospect.

 

Mumbai Junction (John Lyon pub) proposal

 

The Mumbai Junction application was deferred at a previous meeting when officers intervened to derail a straight rejection by the Planning Committee. LINK Officers felt that the reasons for rejection put forward by the members were inadequate and would open the Council to an expensive appeal.

Officers have now come forward with a report that still recommends approval of the scheme but suggests reasons that the Committee could give for rejection. There is an air of 'On your own head be it' about the report:

 

Officers remain of the view that the scheme is compliant with the policies that have been set out. It has been clearly demonstrated that the proposed development would deliver the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing (in this case no affordable housing). A late stage review mechanism would be secured within a Section 106 Agreement to capture any off site contributions towards affordable housing in the event that viability improves.

 

Officers do not consider there to be any substantive grounds for refusal based upon the affordable housing provision as the scheme is in line with the relevant policies.

 

If members are minded to go against Officer advice a reason is suggested below:

 

The proposal would fail to provide an appropriate level of Affordable Housing to meet an identified local need within the Borough. This would be contrary to Policy BH5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policies H4, H5 and H6 of the London Plan (2021).

In summary, the scale and massing of the proposed development is larger than the surrounding context and represents a departure from policy BH4 in this respect and one could reasonably consider that this departure warrants the refusal of planning permission.

 

However, officers consider the overall appearance to be appropriate in light of the site’s specific characteristics. Furthermore, the benefits of the scheme (including the delivery of homes in the borough) are considered to outweigh the policy departure from Policy BH4.

 

Nevertheless, if, bearing in mind the discussion above, the Planning Committee are still minded to refuse the application, then the following reason for refusal could be considered:

 

The proposed development by reason of its scale, design, bulk, massing and siting in relation to the suburban context of the site would appear as an excessively dominant building which would have a detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding area. This would be contrary to Policies DMP1, BD1 and BH4 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021)

 

It is legitimate for Members to ensure that the optimum site capacity is achieved within development proposals. However, officers consider that this has been achieved for the site.

 

Notwithstanding the officer recommendation, if the Planning Committee are still minded to refuse the application for this reason, then the following reason for refusal could be considered:

 

The proposal would fail to optimise the capacity of the site and this would result in a deficit in relation to local needs, in particular affordable housing. This would be contrary to Policies DMP1 and BH5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policies D3, H4, H5 and H6 of the London Plan (2021)

 

Kilburn Square proposal

The Kilburn Square proposal has also been controversial and changes made since the first version of the application have included the removal of a second tower.  However, issues such as densification, loss of daylight, loss of amenity, loss of green and play space, loss of 13 mature trees and fire safety remain concerns. The officers' report introduces a new concept (to me anyway) of 'doorstep play space' that conjures up visions of terraced cottages opening straight on to the street.

Officers' report:

Following public consultation, objections from a total of 117 people have been received. One objection has been received from MP Tulip Siddiq for Hampstead and Kilburn (objection reflects concerns of residents within this constituency), as well as an objection from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) charity and an objection from the Brent Parks Open Space Forum. One objection has also been received from Sian Berry who is a Green Party member within City Hall.

Four (4) petitions have also been received against the development. These include:

·        Petition containing 21 different signatures representing objections from residents of Algernon  Road

·        Petition containing 103 different signatures representing objections from residents of Brondesbury Road, Brondesbury Villas and Donaldson Road

·        Petition containing 14 different signatures representing objections from residents of Sandwood Court

·        Petition containing 176 different signatures representing objections from residents of Victoria Road, Victoria Mews and Hazelmere Road

 

 The tenure split - See Philip Grant's post HERE

 

After a long and detailed discussion of the objectors' alleged 'harms' of the scheme and what officers see as its benefits  LINK officers' conclude:

Conclusion

247. The proposal would provide 139 new homes including 40 extra-care homes and 99 Use Class C3 homes. At least 50 % of those homes would be Affordable, with 70 % of the Affordable homes provided at London Affordable. The proposal is considered to constitute a well composed series of blocks that fit well within their context. The proposal will result in the loss of some of the amenity spaces within the site and some car parking, but improvements to the remaining amenity spaces and play spaces are proposed whilst car parking has been demonstrated to be sufficient to meet demand. All new homes will be "car free" and will be supported by a Travel Plan. Cycle parking has been provided for existing and new residents along with electric vehicle charging points.

 

248. The buildings will be near to existing heritage assets and 'Less than Substantial Harm' has been identified to the significance of the Kilburn Conservation Area. However, a balancing exercise has been undertaken with regard to paragraph 202 of the NPPF, it is considered that the very limited 'less than substantial harm' that has been identified is significantly outweighed by the public benefits that would be afforded as a result of this development.

 

249. When considering other impacts, the development would result in some impact to the light and outlook of a number of neighbouring occupiers both within and adjacent to the existing site. Although the proposal has been designed to limit the degree of impact , it has been noted that there would be some losses of daylight which would be material to a limited number of windows on existing properties. When considering the impacts on the overall living conditions of these neighbouring occupiers, the would largely be modest and not have a significant effect on the function of the function of the properties as a whole. Furthermore, when considering the site allocation, the requirement to make efficient use of land and the impact of any meaningful development would have in comparison, the proposal would achieve an appropriate balance. The benefits of the new dwellings, a policy compliant provision of affordable housing and the NAIL accommodation, for which there is an identified need.

 

250. In addition, the development would enhance security within Kilburn Square by providing natural surveillance, CCTV and appropriate security features. Landscaping would be improved with additional planting and a layout that would provide an attractive setting for the resultant buildings and more useable areas for recreation.

 

These public benefits are significant and would far outweigh any harm that has been identified and the application is considered to be in compliance with the Development Plan when read as a whole.

251. It is therefore considered that the application should be approved subject to the conditions set out,

 

 If you along to the meeting in person it may be an idea to take a flask and sandwiches - it may be a long one. (Also accessible online).