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: Biodiversity and geological conservation not taken into consideration in Brent Council's Newland Court infill proposal

 Guest post by Marc Etukudo in a personal capacity

I just been made aware that Brent Council have failed to conduct a SPECIES SURVEY for their  proposal at Newland Court, planning application 22/3124  as numerous habitual wildlife are living in the trees in a conservation area where they intend to remove 13 trees. The numerous species of wildlife includes BATS, MAGPIES, PARAKEETS, ROBINS and even SQUIRRELS. BATS are a protected SPECIES under the wildlife and countryside ACT 1981 and regulations ACT 1994.

 

The Royal Town Planning Institute states that ‘PRE-APPLICATION INFORMATION GATHERING 5.3 Chapter 2 deals with the way that planning authorities can develop and maintain any evidence based upon which to plan for biodiversity and geological conservation. This will supplement the further information required to determine a planning application.’

 

SPECIES SURVEYS 5.10 Many individual wildlife species receive statutory protection under a range of legislative provisions and licences may be needed when they are affected by development. The development control process plays a critical part in ensuring that the statutory protection of species is applied and the Circular sets this out in detail. PPS9 also requires that other species identified as requiring conservation action as species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England are protected from the adverse effects of development, where appropriate, by using planning conditions or obligations.

 

Bats are a protected species under schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. It is illegal to kill, injure or capture a bat, or to recklessly disturb their roosts.

 

SOME OF THE 13 TREES BRENT COUNCIL WANT TO REMOVE

 

Having read through Brent Council’s planning application that they have submitted I have also found that they have answered numerous questions with misleading answers. I have highlighted them in yellow with comments of what should be the right answers in blue below. (PDF Version HERE)

 

 

 

 

 

 

So as you can see, Brent Council have submitted their planning application with lots of misleading answers. I have raised these same misleading answers and the fact that they are also breaching numerous of their own planning guidance rules to the Brent Council’s planning department. With this and other culminating factors, if this was a private planning application submitted, it would have been rejected, shredded and binned straight away. But it’s not, it is Brent Council’s own application so let’s see what happens.

 

Marc Etukudo

 

 

Allegations of misleading information in Newland Court Planning Statement

Following what he sees as unsatisfactory answers to his questions at the Full Meeting of Brent Council, Marc Etukudo has returned to the fray with a comprehensive email to Brent planners citing what he alleges is misinformation in the Planning Statement prepared by Maddox Planning on behalf of Brent Council as the applicant. I have edited the email  to conform with editorial requirements - words in []:

The residents of both Newland Court and Grendon Gardens first found out of Brent Council's proposal to build 7 town houses by demolishing the garages in Newland Court for the very first time in late June 2022 and only gave us until 13th July 2022 to respond to the newsletter. Only because of this proposal has made me investigate the way LABOUR RUN BRENT COUNCIL operates and I am totally appalled with my findings. They tell their own residents across the borough what they think we want to hear and then do what they want to do when it suits them.

 

I have just been reading the Planning Statement from Maddox Planning dated September 2022 and have found out that these plans were first made in 2020 yet we only found out late June 2022.

 

On page 9 Community Engagement 2.6 it states.....

 

'The Community Communications Partnership, acting on behalf of the London Borough of Brent, carried out a communication consultation programme. A newsletter that included details of the proposed development was delivered to neighbours of the site. The newsletter was accompanied by a feedback form for residents to complete if unable to access the internet. Alongside the newsletter an online consultation was created on Brent Council’s Public Participation Platform (https://haveyoursay.brent.gov.uk) that hosted a PDF version of the newsletter that was delivered and the feedback form as a survey to be completed. Additionally, a virtual exhibition video was included on the online consultation that provided residents with a narrated video tour of the site and plans. The consultation has received 42 responses with the majority if residents expressing support for the proposed development'  

 

[Misinformation]. The communication consultation programme was completely flawed. They made sure that not everybody received the newsletters by delivering them to every other flat in Newland Court and to only a few houses in Grendon Gardens. I know this for a fact because a neighbour and I went to every flat continuously to get signatures for a petition and found out that some flats never received the newsletters. We also got signatures for our petition from the affected houses on Grendon Gardens and all the residents there except one were against this proposal. At Newland Court, 4 were not bothered, 1 said they supported it and 5 did not want to know since they were renting and said it was the leaseholders responsibility. We got about 55 valid signatures (since Brent is saying more than one objection from one household counts as one) from Newland Court and Grendon Gardens, so for Brent to say that they

received 42 responses from residents expressing support for this development is [Misinformation]!!!!! 

 

 On page 13, Loss of garages and principle of residential development 4.6 it states.....

 

'With regards to the loss of the garages, the majority of these are all vacant and underutilised. None of these garages are currently being used for car parking. As such, there will be no loss of car parking as a result of the demolition of the existing garages'. 

 

[Misinformation]. 3 garages are still being used for cars and rent is still being paid for them. One is used by a disabled badge holder who is so upset about this proposal and wants to know where she is going to park her car when the garages are pulled down . She claims a council vehicle reversed into her garage a few years ago damaging the door and roof. She had to wait 3 months for the council to repair the damage to  the door and roof and it was when the roof was being replaced that she discovered that all the garage roofs had asbestos. Less than a year later she contracted lung cancer and now only has one lung. She couldn't prove it was the asbestos from her garage so took no action.

 

 On page 14, Quality of Accommodation 4.20 it states that..... 

 

London Plan policy D6 states that housing developments should be of high quality design and provide adequately-sized rooms with comfortable and functional layouts which are fit for purpose. 

 

On page 15, Quality of Accommodation 4.22 it states..... 

 

Policy BH13 requires all new dwellings to have external private amenity space of a sufficient size and type to satisfy its proposed residents’ needs. This is normally expected to be 50sqm per home for family housing (3 bedrooms or more) situated at ground floor level and 20 sqm for all other housing. 

 

House 2 (3B5P) will have an amenity space of 41.6 sqm.

House 5 (3B5P) will have an amenity space of only 32.1 sqm.

House 6 (3B5P) will have an amenity space of 48 sqm.

 

The other houses, 3 and 4 will house up to 7 people. The size of these houses in the tiny plot of land with little amenity space and not fit for purpose.

 

How can Brent Council justify cramming families like tinned sardines in such a crammed site. At least 35+ people in 7 tiny houses.

 

 On page 16 of Neighbouring Amenity 4.29 it states....

 

The guidance states that directly facing habitable room windows will normally require a minimum separation distance of 18m, except where the existing character of the area varies from this. A distance of 9m should be kept between gardens and habitable rooms or balconies. Reduced distances between new frontages may be acceptable subject to consideration of overlooking and privacy as well as high quality design and solutions which can sometimes mitigate impacts and allow for efficient use of land.  

 

It says 'Reduced distances between new frontages may be acceptable subject to consideration of overlooking and privacy'. 

 

No consideration has been taken towards the existing residents of Newland Court as the 18m overlooking rule has been halved, yes halved. Brent Council's new plans states the overlooking distance is 10m but we have measured several times and the 2 angled out buildings that are closest to the new houses measure

8m and 9m from the windows. Do you know how close and imposing the proximity of these new houses are going to be???

 

In my previous emails to you I have highlighted the issues with...

 

PARKING

TREES
BINS 

 

I would now like to raise a point you highlighted in a letter to Mr. T Ghani who was the project manager then dated 31/07/20 where you pointed out....

 

REF: 20/0131/PRE Pre-application Consultation

 

In line with the Council's Statement of Community Involvement, we would encourage you to engage in preapplication consultation with the local community. This is recommended to be in the form of discussing the proposal with neighbours and other nearby occupiers/owners of properties/land / local interest groups. 

 

Equalities

 

In line with the Public Sector Equality Duty, the Council must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity, as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

 

The plans for the 'infill' of 7 TINY new houses in Newland Court were made since 2020 yet the first we ever heard about it was the end of June 2022. Brent Council have shown nothing but Systemic discrimination towards the residents of Newland Court over their proposed ‘infill’ plans of building 7 TINY town houses by demolishing the garages at Newland Court. They have shown no empathy, been dismissive and ignored our thoughts and feelings to go ahead with this ‘infill’ contributing to a less favourable outcome for the residents (especially the elderly and disabled) of Newland Court who they are treating like nobodies or a minority group.

 

With all the points I have raised above, the fact that there have been lots of misleading factors from Brent Council and the fact that if they are granted  permission to go ahead with these plans. I am sure they will just keep moving the post to suit them at the detriment of the existing residents of Newland

Court and I plead with you not to approve this planning application.

Yours Sincerely,

Marc Etukudo

Newland Court.

Forty Avenue. HA9 9LZ.