A triumphant Sudbury Town Residents Association published the above on Twitter this afternoon. The Sudbury Court Residents Association (SCRA) waged a well-researched battle including uncovering covenants to stop the building of a block of flats to replace the present modest houses.
They deserve credit for this long-running. extremely determined, grassroots campaign LINK which had latterly been joined by some local councillors.
Sudbury Labour announced the withdrawal of the application on their website LINK
The painstaking work of Sudbury Court Residents Association (SCRA) can be seen in this exchange of emails that are likely to have influenced the application withdrawal. Readers may remember that Wembley Matters drew attention to the fact that Brent Council Leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt, appeared to have taken on the chairmanship of the Barham Park Trust Committee since its last meeting.
SCRA wrote to the Barham Park Trust Committee:
Re: Brent Planning Application 21/1106 | Demolition of dwelling houses and erection of a four storey residential building comprising 9 self-contained flats with roof top terrace and associated access, parking and landscaping | 776 & 778 Harrow Road, Wembley
Dear Barham Park Trust Committee
I am writing on behalf of the Sudbury Court Residents Association. We represent approximately 2800 households on the Sudbury Court and Pebworth Estates. Some our residents are located less than 850m from the site.
We wish to draw your attention to and OBJECT to the above application and we support the objection submitted by the Brent Council Member for Barnhill Ward.
In addition, we strongly feel that this will cause numerous problems for our residents, detailed below:
1. Initial soundings of residents have been a resounding rejection of any development over and above the Covenanted limits especially as the site is 'within' the Barham Park boundary.
2. As our residents use Barham Park for recreation and exercise, their enjoyment and even privacy will be compromised as this large building will completely spoil its view. It is the nearest park for many of our residents, so it is critical that it is preserved as such, especially as we recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and both physical and mental health have been affected.
3. This development will increase congestion on an already busy road, increasing pollution and road danger.
4. Vehicles turning into the site will increase danger for pedestrians and cause disruption to traffic flow, including buses. This is at the start of the number 18 bus route and this may delay the bus further and increase danger for pedestrians accessing the bus stop.
5. There is no provision of delivery parking so this will either lead to obstruction of the road or footway.
6. Car parking provision is contrary to the Council's policy on parking provision in developments.
7. There is likely to be significant impact on wildlife, especially bats, which are a protected and rare species.
8. Damage to the Cedar of Lebanon tree is unacceptable.
9. There are restrictive covenants placed on the site, which forbid such a development. The covenant limits use on the two separate parts of the site (776 & 778) in each case to 1 single private dwelling houses and garage.
Councillor Butt replied that he would pass the comments on to the planning team.
SCRA responded:
My apologies as I don't think I clarified the purpose of my email to the Barham Park Trustees.
Our email was meant to have been addressed to yourself as Chair.
We wished to draw your attention to the above application in case you were not aware of it, as it would be the expectation of the SCRA that the Barham Park Trust would be lodging a strong and robust objection to the application.
Titus Barnham gifted the site to Brent in 1937, and as a Charitable Trust, it has an obligation protect the endowment.
To allow the park to be ruined by permitting the building of a residential block of flats, would be ignoring the obligations of the gift and is in direct contradiction of the restrictive covenants (inserted at the end of my email).
The roles of the Barham Park Charity LINK are:
What the charity does:
· Education/training
· Arts/culture/heritage/science
· Amateur Sport
· Environment/conservation/heritage
· Economic/community Development/employment
Who the charity helps:
· The General Public/mankind
How the charity helps:
· Provides Buildings/facilities/open Space
It does not have a role in providing/facilitating private housing.
We are aware that errors were made when the cottages were originally built and when they were sold, I am sure that the Charity Commission have taken a dim view of the management of this gift to the people of Brent.
If the site was to be developed for the benefit of the public, eg a park cafe or other community facility, this would perhaps be acceptable, but to build a private block of flats is, in our view, a direct breach of the covenant.
If any land is disposed of, we envisage that the Trust would seek to obtain a good market value for such a desirable site.
Councillor Butt, we trust in your role as Chair of the Board of Trustees, you will be leading a strong objection to this application.
Regards SCRA
Restrictive Covenants as filed with the Land Registry and belonging to the Barham Trust on 776 Harrow Road (778 is the same)
12.4
Restrictive covenants by the Transferee
12.4.1
The Transferee covenants with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982 to observe and perform the restrictions contained in clause 12.4.2 ('The Restrictions') and it is agreed and declared that:
12.4.1.1
the benefit of this covenant is to be attached to and endure for each and every part of the Retained Land that remains unsold by the Transferor or has been sold by the Transferor (or by any person claiming through the Transferor otherwise than by a transfer on sale) with the express benefit of this covenant
12.4.1.2
the burden of this covenant is intended to bind and binds each and every part of the Property into whosoever hands it may come
12.4.1.3
an obligation in the Restrictions not to do any act or thing includes an obligation not to permit or suffer that act or thing to be done by another person
12.4.2
The Restrictions are the following:
12.4.2.1
not to use the Property otherwise than as a single private dwelling house and the garage for any purpose other than as a ancillary private garage
12.4.2.2
not to divide the Property into two or more dwellings or residential units
12.4.2.3
not to erect or cause to be erected on the Property any building or structure whatsoever except a greenhouse or shed of not greater length than 4 metres and of not greater height than 3 metres or permit or suffer any person under the Transferor's control to do so
12.4.2.4
not to stand or support any vehicle, commercial vehicle trailer, mobile home, caravan, trailer, cart or boat on any part of the Property, and
12.4.2.5
not to carry out any development within the meaning of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in or upon the Property
12.4.2.6
not to park any motor vehicle on or otherwise obstruct any part of the accessway hatched yellow and hatched green or any part of the Retained Land at any time
12.5
Positive covenants by the Transferee
The Transferee covenants on behalf of itself and its successors in title with the Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of the Retained Land and each and every part of the Retained Land and with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982
12.5.1
to contribute and pay within 14 days of demand (ll) fifty percent (50%) of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing the accessway shown hatched yellow on the Plan
(b) a fair and due proportion of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing sewers drains pipes cables party walls and all other structures apparatus or installations which service the Property in common with any neighbouring or adjoining property
12.5.2
to maintain repair and renew at all times hereafter to the satisfaction of Transferor
12.5.2.1
a good and sufficient metal palisade fence and timber fence or wall on any of the boundaries of the Property marked with ''T'' (if any) within the boundaries of the said plan.
12.5.2.2
the pathway hatched brown stippled red and the accessway hatched green stippled red on the Plan to a reasonable standard
12.5.3
not to transfer the Property or grant a lease of the Property or the Transferee's freehold estate in the Property or any other estate or interest in it to any person without first ensuring that the person has executed a deed directly with Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of each and every part of the Retained Land containing the covenants and provisions of clause 12.5. mutatis mutandis including this present covenant 12.5.3.
Member for Sudbury Ward, Members Room, Brent Civic Centre (Objects)
Comment submitted date: Mon 10 May 2021
Comments of Councillor Mary Daly in response to statuary consultation by Brent Planning Department to application 21/1106
The park keepers Cottages in Barham Park was built to provide accommodation for workers maintaining the unique park with diverse habitat and historic features.
The Park no longer had park keepers the empty cottages were sold The Barham Trust in 2012 to fund maintenance pf the park.
Since that time the new owner has submitted a number planning applications for the redevelopment of the site.
As a local Councillor the majority of my residents have supported sustainable developing of the cottages.
Two applications have been approved '16/1209, 17/5067 but clearly not built out.
Two applications (14/2078), 19/0788) refused because of their detrimental impact on Barham Park
It is concerning and puzzling that the applicant claims the receipt of extensive preapplication advice and that that advise was that 'that the principal of the development is acceptable'
Barham Park is not an asset owned by Brent Council but is a bequest to the people of Wembley (subsequently the London Borough of Brent) to be managed on the people's behalf by Brent Council.
The site in question is within the curtilage of Historic Barham Park. It is not as suggested in a densely built up area. The nearest taller buildings are across the busy Harrow Rd in Barham Village. The Harrow Rd acts as a border between Barham Park and the residential streets.
There are no other tall buildings within the Curtilage of the park and as pointed out less than two years ago in 19/0788 when refusing permission on that occasion ' the an inappropriate height associated with bulk and massing would appear prominent and have a negative impact on the open nature of the park setting'
Application 21/1106
Application 21/1106 is also four stories four stories In addition to being tall it is also sprawling with balconies reaching to and possibly beyond the development boundaries. ( the report is not specific but illustrations suggests it)'
The building extends beyond four stories and is out of character because there appears to be s pergola like structure and a garden on the roof '(again the report is not specific but illustrations suggest it)
The Developer claims to be bringing the character of suburban Sudbury into the park when describing its design. The park however has a different history and purpose with buildings reminding park users of the area's nineteenth/early twentieth century farming past. for example the eighteenth/ nineteenth century buildings, the walled gardens and walkways.
The extensive cover of trees includes as the almost 300 year old mulberry tree. And a very old plane tree. The historic park is a space residents go to walk and contemplate (it is common to see people sitting on the many benches in the park), enjoying the extensive natural life in the park or playing and exercising.
Application 21/110
The new application invites Brent Planning to consider a four story sprawling building with the additional element of a car park within the curtilage of Barham Park on the application site
The Car Park and Parking on the site
It would be unwise to assume that the car park is for the sole benefit of the future residents of the Proposed development. It is common in such developments to seek parking simply to sell it to enhance the profit to be gained from the development. The addition of a six place car park on an historic Barham Park seems even more incoherent when considering the applicant argued for the benefits of the site in terms of its excellent public transport links. The site (4x2 beds, 3x3 beds 2x4 beds) normally warrants 11/12 parking spaces. There is no discussion about the parking needs of all the car owning potential residents (up to 40 people) were the application to be granted.
This will raise demand for on street Parking. The applicant and planners may argue the surrounding streets can absorb the amount of off on street parking generated by the development .
That is not the case because the regeneration of Barham Village where parking was sacrificed to a larger number of housing units the majority of whom are permit free resulting in a very large overspill into neighbouring streets.
The accelerating breakup of family homes in the area into Houses of multiple occupation or flats
Commuter parking
Shopper parking
Further developments already approved 18/3069 is also permit free and 19\1241 (currently being appealed) will rely on onstreet parking if built out.
The applicant has further failed to provide disabled parking as required by policy
It appears the applicant has not considered the incongruity of creating a car park within the curtilage of an historic park.
Biodiversity
The Applicant pretty much dismissed the existence of Bats on Barham Park, however the Boroughs own SINC Review 2014. suggests evidence of species of bat was recorded some years earlier. And recommended that 'until further survey work is done the precautionary principal should be used and the site considered as a bat foraging site' it is unclear if that work has ever been done.
Species supported by habitat in Barham Park includes reptiles, birds, invertebrates, foraging as well as possibly roosting bats were reported by the 2014 SINC report .
The bird species observed at the time of the report in the area nearest the proposed development site include Long tailed tits, starlings, ring necked parakeets. A resident a very experienced Ornithologist reported seeing the rarer lesser spotted woodpecker within the last few months.
The tree species sited nearest to the proposed development within the park includes Horse Chestnut, London Plane and 'Willow. the developer makes reference to a mature Cedar of Lebanon to the front of the site whose canopy is acknowledged to be only meter from the balconies of some of the proposed flats.
The applicant also acknowledges that there are nesting birds within the site.
There is no description of the proposed development in relation to the rear perimeter of the proposed development but illustrations seem to show balconies reaching beyond the rear fence. What is clear is that Barham Park with its hundreds of trees is home to a diverse habitat which have not properly been surveyed and the preliminary surveys presented by the developer is not acceptable. The planning department must request more comprehensive independent surveys to establish the impact of such a dense development especially on that very vulnerable section of the park.
The population of the New Development
The development would see for the first time since the park was bequeathed to the people of Brent a population at least forty people living within the parks Curtilage. Driving to and from the site. attracting other vehicular activity on the site such as delivery vehicles etc . those impacts on the park has not been addressed Requiring large industrial sized waste disposal bins within the site.
The area immediately surrounding the proposed development on Barham Park is already degraded because it was used to store heavy materials and machinery to facilitate the regeneration of Barham Estate.
It is also subjected to heavy vehicles and machinery during Irving's Fair several times each year. the upshot is the section in question is compacted and degraded and subject to more flooding as a result. It is the first section of the park a visitor one sees approaching the park from Sudbury Town and one of the most frequently visited.
The prospect of more materials and heavy machinery further degrading the site as a result of further building on the curtilage of the park
The recent and proposed degradation of this section of the park is contrary to the bequest of the park for the enjoyment of the people of Brent. The area needs to be recovered not face another developer onslaught.
The Sudbury Neighbourhood Plan, a Brent Planning Policy is clear in its vision for Barham Park
'recognises the need to restore. Repair and improve existing landscaping in the park'
'Create enhanced eco -habitats for wildlife and educational purposes'
'the park contains a limited amount of play facilities and Play equipment. 'The consultation demonstrates there is a demand for improving and expanding the range and amount of sports and play facilities '
It needs to be recognised that the proposed development site is within the Curtilage of Barham Park and any development of the site needs to adhere to Sudbury Neighbourhood Plan because it echoes the objectives of the original bequest to entrust the Barham Park for the enjoyment of the people of Brent. The present proposal abutting a particularly degraded section of the park, risks further degradation of the ecology of a particularly prominent and used section of the park by introducing a car park onto the Curtilage of the park in an overdevelopment which is not intended to enhance the Park for the people of Brent.
The development
I am not able to comment on the development because there is insufficient information in the
oapplication relating to
The height of the building
The large balconies, their exact overhand,
the relationship of the building to the perimeter of the site,
the relationship of the site to Harrow Rd .
I will this week seek an appointment with Planning officers to view documents not in the application and reserve the right to make further comments if that is required.
Having imagined the building whilst on site it is clearly a dominant and overbearing feature and more inappropriate than 19/0788 because as well as being tall it is also more sprawling and introduces a car park within the Curtilage of Barham Park.
A brown field site
The characterisation of the former parkkeepers cottages as ' brown field land' without the context of its siting within the curtilage of Barham Park has caused particular offence amongst residents. It is recognised that the park keepers cottages have been unused for some years and that sustainable development is welcomed would enhance the Park.
A consistency of approach
Application 17/5067 was approved by Brent Planning. I consulted residents including Sudbury Town Residents Association Representatives during the consultation. It is worth noting there was no objections to the plan because there was unanimity in the community that the proposal was an enhancement of the site. This highlights the pragmatism of the local community who want sustainable development not high density development within the curtilage of Barham Park because it degrades heritage of Barham Park.
(The statement 'the site lies within the setting of the Holt Conservation area' is puzzling, as the Holt Conservation Area appears to be in Wrexham in Wales).
The National Planning Policy Frameworks PPG states that that 'where a proposal would lead to harm' there must be a demonstration of the proposals public benefits
Such demonstrations of public benefit
'should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not be a private benefit'
Application 21/1107 is clearly a private benefit to the applicant and any future residents of the site there is no benefit to the park users. For that reason alone it should be rejected
Brent Planners have already rejected a less dense less sprawling fourstory development (19/0788)
'the proposed development would incorporate an inappropriate height and associated bulk and massing that would appear prominent and have a negative impact on the open setting of the park'
Cllr Stevens and I were the only objectors on that occasion but our comments were informed by consultation with residents.
Whilst I appreciate the site is in private ownership and the developer has a right to submit the serious of planning applications the and have them considered by Brent Planning authority has a duty to consider them. Consideration must always be given to the fact it is within the Curtilage of Historic Barham Park a bequest to the People of Brent.
It is worth noting that consideration of the importance of Barham Park as a local heritage asset, its value to the health and wellbeing of the Boroughs peoples, Its fragile ecosystem, Its precious but vulnerable building has not been acknowledged.
The application is presented as the redevelopment of a brownfield site in an urban area inviting high density housing and car parking A readthrough of my comments demonstrates a united community pragmatic about improvement by sustainable development of the site but consistently resistant to dense overdevelopment because of the impact of the park they value so highly.
There is also consistency in the approach of Brent Planning in interpreting policy to the benefit of the park by accepting sustainable applications for the site and rejecting overdevelopment.
I request officers of the council refuse this application please