UPDATED: Harrrow Council warn Plymouth Brethren that killing slow worms at The Ridgeway, Harrow, development site would be a criminal offence

Slow Worm

 

Steve Whitbread, Harrow Council’s Biodiversity Officer, has responded to the concerns expressed by Emma Wallace (Green Party GLA candidate for Brent and Harrow) over destruction at the Ridgeway development site LINK.  It appears that slow worms (often called ‘legless lizards) a protected species may come to the aid of the struggle against environmental vandalism. Protection of slow worms has delayed development elsewhere. LINK

 

The destruction carried out by the Plymouth Brethren

 

He wrote:

 

Whilst I can't comment on whatever reason the owners of the site might have had for the clearance of the trees and shrubs on their land, they were within their rights to carry out such work since these had no direct impact on protected species or  their shelters. I have advised the local Wildlife Crime Officer accordingly.

There was nothing that the Council could have done to prevent the clearance. However, I can assure you that the consideration of any planning application for the site will still take the vegetation into account as if it had never been carried out.

This has already been emphasised to the applicant and their agent and they have confirmed that there will be no disturbance of the felled area where protected slow-worms are likely to be hibernating.

The Council is due to hold a meeting with local residents and councillors to address resulting concerns next week. For your information, I have appended the comments I provided to interested parties last month, attempting to ensure that everyone understood the both the situation and the constraints within which the Council is working:

Dear Residents, Councillors and Colleagues,

Beverley Kuchar, the Chief Planning Officer, will be seeking to organise a virtual meeting, early in the new year, to discuss the situation in relation to the Ridgeway development proposals and the weekend clearance of the trees and shrubs along the boundary with the allotment site.

Ahead of that meeting, I thought it might be helpful to address points raised in relation to biodiversity matters. That is mainly to separate out what legal protection measures might be relevant to the species found on or adjacent to the site from what will be of 'material consideration' in relation to any planning application.

What I should emphasise is that the belt of woodland and its role within the green corridor and local ecological network will continue to be of material consideration regardless of the recent clearance. The recent actions will make no difference to how the scheme will be appraised and, where evidence is lacking, the approach will be to assess what has been lost at the highest reasonable value, taking account of other information as needed.

Considering protection for biodiversity relevant to the site, the ecological consultancy Ecosa was appointed by the applicant to undertake required surveys and prepare an Ecological Impact Assessment in the wake of the comments I provided on the original Preliminary Ecological Assessment (produced by Ecology By Design in 2018).

 

The Ecosa consultant discussed the survey proposals and inquired about potential offsite compensation opportunities. He also contacted Simon Braidman for his views based on the investigations that he and others had already undertaken. I had the opportunity to view the draft EcIA and provided my comments on this. I have no definite knowledge of whether a final version has yet been provided to their client, but I would assume that this was done some time ago.

Taking different species groups in turn, whilst all birds and their nests, eggs and young are protected from destruction during the breeding season, this does not extend to protecting habitat in which they might nest. Whilst there are exceptions and additional protection for certain vulnerable species, these don't apply in this case.

Similarly, whilst bat roosts and hibernacula are protected, whether bats are in occupation or not, habitat areas which bats use for commuting or foraging purposes aren't protected, unless the sites of which they are part are appropriately designated, e.g. as a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

 

It should be stressed that under current legislation, this would not extend to the SINC area. Whilst such wildlife sites identify important areas for wildlife locally, and their protection is of material consideration within the planning system, such designation does not preclude the landowner from damaging or removing the features of interest unless this would otherwise conflict with the law or statutory obligations, such as harm to protected species.

Simon Braidman, Huma Pearce and others have done an excellent job of recording wildlife in the environs of the proposed development site, and there is every likelihood that West Harrow Allotments now has a longer recorded species list than any other Harrow allotment site.

Protection for badgers also relates mainly to the animals themselves and their setts. The report of a sett entrance having been filled is necessarily of concern, but this appears to have been carried out at some time in the past. The information provided via surveys of the development site indicate that whilst it provides some suitable habitat for setts and foraging there was no evidence of any onsite activity that could be attributed to badger.

 

It is likely that common newt and potentially common frog and common toad occur within the development site, at least at its margins as part of meta-populations centred on the allotment site. However, protection for these species only extends to sale or barter. Nothing protects habitat on the basis that these species are present.

The situation is somewhat different in relation to slow-worms, however. Whilst these do not enjoy the same level of protection as rarer reptiles, it is not only an offence to sell but also to kill slow-worms. Whilst the felling of the belt of trees would be unlikely to have caused any direct harm to slow-worms, any efforts to excavate ground in which slow-worms are presently hibernating would be likable to result in mortality. This would constitute a criminal offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The developer's agents have been advised accordingly.

In recognition of its alarming decline, the common hedgehog will be added to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act under the provisions of the Environment Bill, and it is presently protected from being killed or captured. It is highly likely that hedgehogs would move between the allotment and the development site and, whilst the latter does not contain a significant area of foraging habitat, there is certainly potential for hedgehog to be hibernating within the felling area.

Whilst not subject to legal protection, the other species mentioned in correspondence and reports, taken as a whole and, in some cases, individually would be of material consideration in relation to the determination of the planning application. It is useful to have knowledge of what is found in the vicinity in this regard.

Lastly, queries were raised about the making of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to cover the trees in the identified area. TPOs are made a local planning authority in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), for amenity and landscape purposes, where these would be impacted adversely were the tree(s) or group of trees to be removed. Usually this depends on how visible the trees are from highways and publicly accessible space, but trees that have landscape value, contribute to the character of a conservation area or have historical importance may be TPO-worthy.

Given the nature of the trees and the fact that, other than from the development site, they could only be viewed from allotments to which access is restricted, they did not satisfy the necessary criteria. I should add that whilst biodiversity, as well as climate change considerations, might be taken into account in the making of an order, a TPO could not be applied on such grounds alone.

I hope that helps to explain the Council's viewpoint as to why the actions over the weekend did not constitute a wildlife crime and why a TPO would not have been appropriate in this instance. As stated, however, any planning application will be assessed as if the trees and shrubs were all still there, in accordance with the code of practice provided by the British Standard BS 42020:13.

Responding today Emma Wallace, Green Party GLA candidate for  Brent and Harrow said:

I am pleased to hear from Harrow’s biodiversity officer Steve Whitbread that the Council will act as if the removal of the tree belt by the Brethren just before Christmas had not occurred when considering the 265 The Ridgeway planning application.  This unfortunately does not negate the fact that this act of eco-vandalism has been carried out and that this green space is now much depleted because of it, removing habitat for wildlife and breaking up a green corridor.  

 

It is disappointing to hear that Mr Whitbread does not believe the Brethren should be held to account for their actions, due to not having "direct impact on protected species or their shelters."  Of the protected species, there is no clear evidence that slow-worms do not directly inhabit the area or indeed hedgehogs, who may have been hibernating there, and consequently, have now been impacted by this destruction.   In regards to the many other species listed as having been found in the area, these would have travelled, foraged and made their home, which has now been eradicated.  How can this be ok?

I understand Steve Steve Whitbread listing in his response the individual legal protections of the animals recorded in the area and how, bats, badgers, birds and the common newt, frog and toads do not fall under the relevant laws of protection in these circumstances, or at this time of year etc.  This dispassionate response does not reflect the fact that the sum of these species together, forms a rich eco-system that depend on each other to survive and flourish.  As has been diligently recorded by Simon Braidman and others, this whole area is a haven for a diverse range of wildlife and no one species should be considered of lesser importance – they form a whole that needs protecting.  

 

The Council has declared a Climate emergency, has created and published a Climate Change Strategy and also, has a Biodiversity Action Plan, committing to “conserve, enhance, and promote biodiversity in Harrow” https://www.harrow.gov.uk/downloads/file/23181/harrow-biodiversity-action-plan I hope Harrow Council stand by these words and recognise the essential role they play in protecting this rich, biodiverse space and the species that inhabit it.

 

In an email to Emma, Cllr Adam Swersky said:

Thanks very much for getting in touch. I read your blog with interest - thanks for the sincere and factual account of what took place.   

 

I am really appalled by [the Brethrens'] actions. I've told their representative in no uncertain terms that I fully oppose their application and find their behaviour deplorable. I will be throwing my support in full behind the thousands of local residents who oppose the proposal.

 

 

 

Mapesbury Residents' Association oppose developer's plans for the Queensbury pub

Residents making representations to the Planning Committee on the first Queensbury applicationMarch 2014

There is still time to comment on the developer's two (hardly) different plans for the Queensbury post. These are the links: 18/4675 and 18/4701

There are 26 submisisons on 18/4675 and 37 on 18/4701. All object to the plans. Some comments accuse the developer of being 'underhand' or 'devious' while others give very detailed objections.

Mapesbury Residents' Association submitted the following objection:

This objection is on behalf of the Mapesbury Residents’ Association Planning and Conservation Sub-Committee. We regret that this is after the 21 days deadline but understand that Brent Planning are willing to consider comments before their report to Planning Committee is finalised.

We wish to object for the following reasons:

1. The proposed new building is too tall and too bulky and would detract from the appearance of the area and does not preserve or enhance existing conservation area. The existing building makes a positive contribution to the setting of the listed station, which according to the previous Appeal inspector, would be desirable to preserve. The Planning Authority ought to respect that view and act consistently with it. The existing building also makes a positive contribution to the historic interest of the area.

- The applications are described as 4 and in part 5 storeys; however, both schemes are 6 storeys visible height across the frontage with 5 storeys behind. This is a misrepresentation by the Developer. In addition, each floor is taller than those of no 112 next door and the roof level would therefore be 1.5 storeys higher than the 5 storeys on no 112.

- There is no attempt to harmonise the building with no 112. It does not carry across the basic simple flat front wall with rectangular balconies of 112. Instead there are prominent bays forming a modelled front, stepping in and out. This draws attention to the bulk of the new building. The proposed horizontal banding for the brickwork between the bays and balconies is whimsical and unnecessary. The proposed design is a hotchpotch of irregular shaped bays and balconies that also results in lost floor space in the bedrooms.

- The vertical line style of shading at the roof level implies a lot of metal or timber cladding. Metal cladding is for industrial sheds and timber cladding has no feel of permanence and quickly deteriorates in appearance.

- The bedrooms within each flat are too long and narrow and do not provide adequate accommodation. The bedrooms with bay windows are a poor shape with useless area.


2. There are fundamental faults with the layout of the current ground floor layout plan:

- There is no sound proofing between the community room and the pub and between the pub, community room and the flats above. Noisy exercise classes and music / dance / singing / drama etc. activities will interfere with the pub. The floor over the Function / Community room and the pub need to be sound proofed to avoid disturbance of the flats above.

- The bins are in two locations, one of which is on the front of the building and inconveniently accessible for all users.

- The main entrance to the flats is a constricted passage next to the bin store.

- The combination of bin store at the front and narrow entrance make the front aspect of the building very unattractive and out of kilter with the adjoining buildings.


3. The ground floor spaces for the public house and function / community room are not well proportioned for their intended uses:

- The area of the proposed Function / Community Room is too small. It is only 81 sq. metres (ignoring the entrance corridor). This represents only 1.6% of the total floor area. To be useful twice this would be necessary for the activities that are normally provided by a Function / Community room,

- The Function / Community room is a poor layout and badly located; tucked around the corner behind the retained shops past a narrow gap next to the shops. The entrance is in an insecure place, especially at night and is next to the bin store.

- The size of the Function / Community room is not of sufficient value in relation to the value of the planning permission being sought.

- The floor plan of the pub is too long and narrow,

- The replacement pub has neither a kitchen nor ventilation in the proposed plan which will severely limit its menu.

- The poor floor plan and absence of a kitchen must impact upon its popularity with residents. It would be a completely inadequate replacement for the existing pub and brings into question the viability of the proposal for this space as a replacement for a popular and important local amenity.


4. The ownership, maintenance and management of the Function / Community Room are not defined. The tenure should be in-perpetuity so that the benefit of the land and its associated frontage onto Walm Lane is carried forward if the associated / adjoining owners of the Pub get into financial difficulties. Points that need establishing in the contract include:

- What will be the legal status of the Function / Community room, who will own the ground on which the room sits?

- Who or what organisation will own the space, how will the public / local residents’ ownership and rights be defined?

- Who or what organisation will manage the room and its use?

- How will the structural envelope of the room be maintained?

- How will access to the toilet facilities and basement and kitchens shared with the Pub be defined, maintained and delivered in-perpetuity?

- How will access to the toilet facilities and basement and kitchens?


5. This third proposal is essentially the same as the second proposal which was refused permission last year and the fact that that application is now subject to appeal should not be considered as a relevant factor. Permission for this proposal should also be refused.

Brent Council turns down Queensbury Pub plans

In a damning decision notice Brent Council has thrown out the developer's plans for the Queensbury pub in Willesden Green. They cite massing, poor design, inadequate standard of accommodation, failure to provide maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing,  lack of control of carbon dioxide emissions and impact on parking and transport infrastructure.

The decision notice states:


The scheme does not comply with guidance and the pre-application advice received has not been adhered to:
 

The proposed development, by reason of its massing, poorly designed front elevation and lack of articulation, would appear unduly prominent and out of character in the street scene and in the wider locality. The development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Mapesbury Conservation Area in which the site is located. As a result, the proposal fails to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Policies 3.4, 3.5 and 7.4 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016); Core Strategy (2010) policy CP17, Development Management Policies (2016) DMP1 and DMP7; Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 “Design Guide for New Development”, October 2001; and the Mapesbury Conservation Area Design Guide.

The proposed development would not provide an adequate overall standard of accommodation for future occupiers, by virtue of the lack of amenity space for all units, the undersized nature of units AF3, AF5, AF8, AF11 and AF15, the poor outlook of units 2.06, 3.06 and 4.05 and the poor layouts, narrow widths and usability of the units which would be contrary to Developmen Management Policy (2016) DMP1 and DMP19, Policy 3.5 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016) and the Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standards (2015). 

The proposal would fail to provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing which would be contrary to Core Strategy (2010) policy CP2 and Development Management Policy (2016) DMP15, policy 3.12 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March  2016) and policies H5 and H6 of the draft London Plan. 

 In the absence of a legal agreement to control the matter the proposal would result in additional carbon dioxide emissions within the borough in an Air Quality Management Area, without any contribution to carbon reduction measures in the area. The proposal would also fail to demonstrate that a BREEAM rating of at least ‘Very Good’ could be achieved. As a result the proposal would be contrary to London Plan  consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016) policy 5.2, 5.3 and 7.14, Core Strategy (2010) policy CP19, Development Management Policy (2016) DMP1 and the Mayors Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2014).

In the absence of a legal agreement to control the matter, the development would result in additional pressure on servicing, parking demand and transport infrastructure to the detriment of the free and safe flow of traffic and pedestrians which would be contrary to Development Management Policies (2016) DMP1 and DMP12.

-->

Brent Council to instigate recording of legal advice & (some) meetings with developers in response to criticism

The Audit Advisory Committee is not the most high profile of Brent Council committees but is has an important role, not least in these times of controversy.  The Committee has a fairly independent membership so it is to be hoped they give matters a good airing.

Next Wednesday's meeting has three items relating to stories published on Wembley Matters where officers seek, in two of them, to respond to some of the criticisms.

Firstly there are recommendations made by the auditor following his consideration of the objections to Brent Council accounts regarding the payment made to Cara Davani, former Head of Human Resources LINK. Despite not finding for the objectors he did suggest some actions in areas highlighted in their evidence.

Click to enlarge

The report puts on record Brent Council's  view of the initial case in which Cara Davani was found guily by a Watford Employment Tribunal of racial dscrimination and bullying of Rosemarie Clarke:

It remains the Council’s position that the sequence of events resulting in the unfair dismissal of Rosemarie Clarke reflect poorly on the organisation as it then was, and caused harm to the Council’s former employee. Lessons have been learned and new procedures have been implemented and the Council hopes that with this report the long-standing matter may now be brought to a close.

Another controversial issue has been Cllr Butt's meetings with developers, the lack of a note of what took place at the meetings and absence of any officers at these meetings LINK.

The Committee will consider proposed changes to the Brent Planning Code of Practice and will need to ensure that the changes are sufficiently robust as to restore public confidence in the planning process before they go to the Cabinet for approval.

The report states: 

There is a new section on ‘Discussions between members and meetings with developers or their representatives’. This in part incorporates into the code ad hoc advice issued by the Monitoring Officer to Members in the recent past and in part strengthens the Council’s commitment to being seen to be promoting good practice. The requirements aim to strike a proper balance between promoting public confidence in the integrity of the planning process and the legitimate reality of local government life. Of particular note is the requirement that pre-application discussions or discussions about undecided applications between Members and developers (or their representatives), are arranged, attended and documented by an officer.

This is the full section:*

Provided Members comply with the practical requirements  if this code and the Members Code of Conduct, there is no legal rule against Members, whether of the same group or not, discussing strategic planning issues, general policy issues or even future decisions.

Similarly, joint working, both formal and infornal, and dialogue between members of the Planning Commitee and members of the Cabinet is recognised as a legitinate reality of local government life. Members of the Planning Commitee need to ensure that when making planning decisions, they make up their own mind and on the planning merits.

Relevant members of the Cabinet are entitled to meet with developers or their representatives and other relevant stakeholders as part of their role to promote Brent and the regeneration, development and other commercial opportunities available in the borough.  In doing so Members of the Cabinet must always act in the best interests of the council and ultimately in the public interest, and in accordance with the high standards of conduct expected of Members, to ensure that the integrity of the planning process is not undermined and the council is not brought into disrepute.

Reasonable care and judgement should be exercised in relation to such meetings, taking into account the purpose of the meeting, the nature of the issues to be discussed and the timing.  In appropriate circumstances, exercising proper judgement may include ensuring a record is kept of the meeting. Cabinet members should make sure it is understood that their participation in marketing events or commercial discussions is separate from the adminstrative and regulaltory role of Members of the Planning Committee.

Although members of the Cabinet are entitled to express support or opposition to development proposed in the borough, they cannot use their position as a Member improperly to confer on or secure for any person an advantage or disadvantage.

As pre-application discussions or discussions about undecided applications require particular care, the following additional rules apply. An officer must make the arrangements for such meetings, attend and write notes. The meeting arrangements must include agreeing an agenda in advance. (my emphasis)

* The report on the Committee Agenda is a 'tracked changes' Word document converted into a PDF and very hard to read, particularly for anyone not versed in Word. Without a 'clean copy' I find it hard to see how it could receive proper scrutiny. See it HERE  It's ironic that a document trying to increase accountability and transparency is itself not readily accessible.

The last item is controversial and will remain so as Brent Council has restricted public access to the information. There is an update on the issues surrounding the asbestos contamination in Paddington Cemetery, first raised by Cllr John Duffy on this blog LINK but the update is not publicly available and the public will be excluded from the discussion about it.   No glimmer of light here.

22 storey block incorporating a pub to replace The Boat in Alperton

The Boat (Pleasure Boat) as was

As planned

Plans revealed at today's consultation propose the replacement of the two storey 'The Boat' public house in Alperton by a 22 storey block incorporating a replacement pub and 'affordable' workspaces.

The joint venture between developers and Heineken includes 99 'affordable' homes with parking for 6 disabled Blue Badge holders only.

Brent Council would  achiueve £1.5m planning gain.

Today's consultation ends at 8pm this evening. The second consultation session is Thursday September 21st  3.30pm-8pm at Brent Play Association, Peppermint Point, Alperton

MAP

Residents step into Welsh Harp Field Centre leasing controversy

Following my story on the Brent Council notice offering a lease on land and buildings belonging to the Welsh Harp Environmental Educatio Centre LINK a local residents association has written to Brent Council:

LEASE OF FIELD CENTRE AT THE WELSH HARP, BIRCHEN GROVE 

My residents and I were dismayed to read of the lease of this Field Centre. We hope you can understand our concern regarding anything to do with the precious Welsh Harp, after we were so very badly let down and betrayed by Barnet Council and the Barratt development.

Therefore, could you please advise on the following:

-  How long is the lease and would it be easily renewed?

-  Who will this be leased to?

-  For what purpose?

-  Will there be structural changes to the building or the surrounding land, now or in the future? If so, what restrictions will there be in place to preserve the area?

Your most urgent attention would be appreciated, as there is not much time left for objections, if necessary.

Thanking you,

Sincerely,
 
Zerine Tata, Chairwomin, Hillcroft Crescent Residents Assoc. and Co-ordinator of the Neighbourhood Watch

Developers and affordable housing, can Brent learn from Islington?

The issue of regeneration and development in London caused much controversey in London last year as property prices and rents soared and much new development was bought up by overseas investors.  In Brent the Willesden Green Library development was a prime example as the development was sold on twice and the price of a one bedroomed flat rose to £450,000. In Barnet West Hendon social housing tenants are being moved out to make for high rise luxury developments on the bank of the Welsh Harp.

In a widely quoted Guardian article LINK Oliver Wainwright wrote:

Across the country – and especially in superheated London, where stratospheric land values beget accordingly bloated developments – authorities are allowing planning policies to be continually flouted, affordable housing quotas to be waived, height limits breached, the interests of residents endlessly trampled. Places are becoming ever meaner and more divided, as public assets are relentlessly sold off, entire council estates flattened to make room for silos of luxury safe-deposit boxes in the sky. We are replacing homes with investment units, to be sold overseas and never inhabited, substituting community for vacancy. The more we build, the more our cities are emptied, producing dead swathes of zombie town where the lights might never even be switched on.

Islington Council moved to fine 'buy-to-leave' investors up to £60,000 for leaving house units empty LINK and decided LINK to clamp down on developers making 'artifically pessemistic' assessments of the viability of affordable housing schemes:

The council last week launched a consultation on supplementary planning guidance that would require all viability studies to be supported by ‘robust evidence’. This will include details of arrangements between landowners and developers, and information provided by the developer to banks.

Viability studies are commissioned by developers to assess how much affordable housing a scheme could provide while remaining financially viable.

Islington said it has received a ‘significant number’ of viability studies that do not provide underlying methodology and modelling.

These studies are ‘unsupported by robust evidence’ and create ‘an artificially pessimistic outcome’, leading to what the council calls ‘super-profit’.

The council proposes that viability studies that lack ‘all relevant information required’ to have a reduced weight in terms of decision making.

Speaking at a Communities and Local Government committee meeting on 10 September, James Murray, executive member for housing and development at Islington, said: ‘The modelling is often not shared with the council, so we have to try to extrapolate from that. We need national action.

London Councils, the body that represents local authorities in London, said it is ‘aware of concerns from a number of councils’ about viability studies and transparency.

Richard Lemon, associate director of planning at property consultancy CBRE, said: ‘One can be as transparent as you like, but you need skills in-house to be able to properly scrutinise viability.’

In October Isling Council took steps to ensure that there was hoising at social rents at the soon to be developed Clerkenwell Firer Station which had been closed by Boris Johnson. LINK

Another issue is around Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy, 'planning gain' monies paid by developers to Councils to provide infrastructure for projects.  The regulations for CIL in Brent can be found HERE and there is a process by which developers can claim exceptional relief.

In 2013 Quintain, developer of the area around Wembey Stadium, last year challenged Brent Council over Section 106 obligations LINK

WEM36 and WEM38 set out requirements that major new development provides new open space and food growing facilities. Such exceptional provision, which also includes the provision of play space in WEM40 and wildlife enhancements inWEM41, will have an impact on viability and thus will have an impact on Section 106 obligations, after CIL.

I said in that article report that Quintain seemed to want to build dense and build high. It appears from the recent application to build high rise flats on land behind the Civic Centre  LINK that Quintain has overcome Brent Council's earlier reluctance to approve high density, high rise housing units in the area due to their concerns about open space, loss of light and concealing views of the stadium.

Open space, play space and food growing areas do not seem to be priorities at present.

Blocks up to 20 storeys high are planned for the Quintain site

Last year's Localis Report on local authorities and development was reported by Public Finance  said that they were now acting more like developers themselves:

Councils across England will redevelop £13.5bn worth of land and assets over the next five years as part of local plans to turn underused land into a source of revenue, an examination by Localis has found.

A survey of local authorities by the think-tank found many were reacting to ongoing austerity by acting more like property developers.

Instead of deciding to sell buildings and land for one-off capital receipts, authorities were looking to redevelop assets to derive revenue income from them that they can use to help support public services.

To help further develop this process, today’s Public Land, Public Good report called for councils to come together to establish a ‘hit squad’ of highly experienced council officers who could provide advice on maximising returns on council assets. The report suggested that if they could deliver a 5% increase on the £13.5bn assets, this would produce almost £700m of extra revenue.

Certainly the Corporate Risk Register being considered by the Audit Committee this week makes no bones about Brent Council's role. Addressing the risk of lack of external investment in the borough the risk reduction strategy is:

De-risking  by assisting with planning permissions etc. on behalf of developers; Maintaining dialogue with investors / developers. Reviewing other sources of capital finance.

This reflects what Andy Donald, head of Brent Regeneration and Growth, said at a MIPIM Round Table discussion back in April 2010:

What I’ve learned is, when times are good, the big scale projects work well, but when times are not so good, it is best to try and present projects to politicians in a more chunked-up way, where they can generate momentum. Once things have started and momentum builds up it is really difficult to stop it, for funders to walk away. So as local authorities we try and take more responsibility to get things started, which might mean acting as a developer, to take things through planning ourselves, which builds confidence

The Regeneration and Growth department covers both development and planning and I have discussed before whether there is a conflict in these two roles. Planning Officers write reports for the statutorily independent  planning committee on developments that their department have helped instigate.  The experience in Brent seems to be that this approach of smoothing the way for developers leaves out the local community. The default position is in favour of development and a close relationshiop with developers. The public become an irritant when the public oppose developments which change the nature of the neighbourhood or seem aimed at overseas investors rather than local people in need of affordable housing.  The Willesden Green Library development, advertised overseas as having the unique selling point of no affordable or key worker housing on site is a case in point.

That irritation is evident in another section of the Regeneration and Growth section of the Corporate Risk Register when this risk is recorded.

Political pressure from local community/ groups affect abiility to deliver the  new Willesden Green Cultural Centre to budget and time.

That pressure, I presume, is about the new Cultural Centre fulfilling the promises made as a result of consultation and the 'gain' embodied in it for the local community at the cost of a development that has no affordable housing and removes a public open space. 

I think the question that should be asked is whether being 'hand in glove' with developers is preventing  Brent Council from adopting the much more robust approach we see in Labour Islington? Certainly Scrutiny Committee needs to examine the 'deal' that it is getting from Brent's approach as far as 'planning gain' and returns on council assets are concerned.

Dave Hill has written more fully on  Islington's approach HERE

Police pass Kensal Rise e-mail fraud information to CPS

Andrew Donald, Brent's Director of Regeneration and Mayor Projects, has told local campaigner Meg Howarth that the Brent police have passed information regarding the Kensal Rise Library Development fraudulent e-mails on to the Crown Prosecution service for their consideration.

It is not known when any further information will be available.

Fruadulent e-mails using the names and addresses of local people were submitted in support of Andrew Gillick's first planning application for the redevelopment of Kensal Rise Librray which was closed down by Brent Council.

Subsequently Brent Legal ruled that the police investigation was not something that the Brent Planning Committee could take into consideration in its decision making and Gillick's second planning application for the library site was approved.

The news comes just as the Guardian publishes a scathing article on the pressures on planning officers and local councillors from ruthless developers LINK:

One former planning officer is frank about the reality of the imbalance in our confrontational system. “If you throw enough resources at a planning application, you’re going to manage to tire everyone out,” he says. “The documentation gets more and more extensive, the phone calls get more frequent and more aggressive, the letters ever more litigious. The weight of stuff just bludgeons everyone aside, and the natural inclination is to say, ‘Oh yeah okay, I’ve had enough of this one,’ and just let it through. It’s like a war of attrition.”

It is a long article but well worth reading for local residents interested in the Quintain-Wembley, Willesden Green Library , Queensbury, Bridge Park, Alperton developments and the failure to build genuinely affordable housing or achieve amenity gains for the community.

The Wembley Lion Returns

Local historian Philip Grant and the Wembley History Society are to be congratulated on getting a little piece of the British Empire Exhibition preserved. A preserved lion's head from Palace of Industry, that was demolished by developers last year, has now been erected on a plinth at the junction of Wembley Hill Road and Empire Way. It marks the end of the 90th Anniversary Exhibition at Brent Civic Centre.

Cllr Muhammed Butt, cut a ribbon today to inaugurate the lion and Philip Grant made a short speech. Rather typically for modern Wembley, he was almost drowned out by the noise of building works.

The short video below shows the demolition of the Palace of Industry and the carving out of the lion's head corbel.

Round 3 of Kensal Rise Library planning debate tonight as FKRL negotiate named 'actual' tenancy

 

-->The controversial Kensal Rise Library planning application returns to the Planning Committee tonight, 7pm Conference Room, Brent Civic Centre LINK
Despite the further legal advice that fraudulent emails submitted in support of the developer's previous application for the site were 'not a material consideration', the application is still the subject of hot debate and there are likely to be further pubic representations tonight.

Yesterday Friends of Kensal Rise Library announced that: LINK

After months of negotiations, the Friends of Kensal Rise Library are to be named as the ‘Actual’ tenants of the new library and community space in the Kensal Rise Library building.

Previously the Friends were named only as the ‘preferred’ tenants, leading many to think that the agreement FKRL had signed with both All Souls College and the Developer was not watertight and carried no legal weight, and, that after years of campaigning there was a chance that other groups might be offered the space. 

Mandip Sahota, Associate planner for the developer stated:

Further to advice provided by the LPA in respect of the Assets of Community Value Regulations 2012, I am pleased to advise that the applicant has today confirmed that he is naming FKRL as the ‘actual’ tenant, as opposed to his ‘preferred’ tenant, subject of course to lease negotiations, management plan etc being satisfactory. 

We trust this goes some way to giving the Council, the FKRL and the local community the confidence to support this planning application. 

As comments on the previous posting on this issue demonstrate LINK there are still concerns about the trustworthiness of the developer.

Other issues relate to the significance of the Option Agreement signed by All Souls College and the fact that it is not referred to in the Officers' Report LINK and the granting of Asset of Community by Brent Council and its significance for the redevelopement LINK
I suggest readers check the comments column below before the meeting as this is very much an ongoing debate.

After months of negotiations, the Friends of Kensal Rise Library are to be named as the ‘Actual’ tenants of the new library and community space in the Kensal Rise Library building.

Previously the Friends were named only as the ‘preferred’ tenants, leading many to think that the agreement FKRL had signed with both All Souls College and the Developer was not watertight and carried no legal weight, and, that after years of campaigning there was a chance that other groups might be offered the space.

Mandip Sahota, Associate planner for the developer stated:

Further to advice provided by the LPA in respect of the Assets of Community Value Regulations 2012, I am pleased to advise that the applicant has today confirmed that he is naming FKRL as the ‘actual’ tenant, as opposed to his ‘preferred’ tenant, subject of course to lease negotiations, management plan etc being satisfactory. We trust this goes some way to giving the Council, the FKRL and the local community the confidence to support this planning application.

- See more at: http://www.savekensalriselibrary.org/2014/07/15/july-15th-update/#sthash.CzlLl6Rn.dpuf

After months of negotiations, the Friends of Kensal Rise Library are to be named as the ‘Actual’ tenants of the new library and community space in the Kensal Rise Library building.

Previously the Friends were named only as the ‘preferred’ tenants, leading many to think that the agreement FKRL had signed with both All Souls College and the Developer was not watertight and carried no legal weight, and, that after years of campaigning there was a chance that other groups might be offered the space.

Mandip Sahota, Associate planner for the developer stated:

Further to advice provided by the LPA in respect of the Assets of Community Value Regulations 2012, I am pleased to advise that the applicant has today confirmed that he is naming FKRL as the ‘actual’ tenant, as opposed to his ‘preferred’ tenant, subject of course to lease negotiations, management plan etc being satisfactory. We trust this goes some way to giving the Council, the FKRL and the local community the confidence to support this planning application.

- See more at: http://www.savekensalriselibrary.org/2014/07/15/july-15th-update/#sthash.CzlLl6Rn.dpuf