Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
In August last year I wrote about Brent’s “secret” Council Housing projects, a list of proposals ‘not yet in the public
domain’ for building extra homes on existing Council housing estates. A map
presented to a Cabinet meeting in July 2021 included three possible new homes
for “Rokesby”, which was then in Sudbury Ward.
I was recently asked to have a look at planning
application 22/1400, which has now been submitted for building two homes at
Rokesby Place. When taking a look through the Design & Access Statement for
the application, this page caught my eye:
Fifteen sites in Brent where FBM have been
appointed ‘to develop proposals’.
The Statement in support of application 22/1400 was
prepared in March 2022 by Fraser Brown McKenna Architects (“FBM”). As it was
written on behalf of Brent Council (client), and submitted to Brent Council (Local
Planning Authority), the glowing details about Brent’s New Council Homes
Programme seem rather unnecessary, but the final sentence reads: ‘FBM were
appointed in April 2021 to develop proposals across 15 sites within the borough.’
The map shows the locations of those fifteen sites, and if there is a blue dot
close to where you live, you may wish to ask your local councillors what
“infill” schemes the Council is planning near you!
There is no doubt that Brent needs to build more
Council homes for people on its waiting list and those who are homeless. At
first sight, the plans for the two new houses (below) at Rokesby Place look
attractive, as they are 4-bedroom / 7-person family homes, for which there is a
real shortage of affordable housing in the borough.
Architect’s drawing of the proposed new houses at
Rokesby Place, from planning application.
The Council does need to make use of any spare land
it owns which is suitable for building homes on (like the vacant Copland School
site – so why are all 250 homes there NOT going to be genuinely
affordable Council homes?). But
it also needs to consider the existing residents of the estate it is
considering adding new homes to. That is why in my “secret” Council Housing
projects article last year I made the point that early consultation with
residents was needed.
Cllr. Southwood, then Lead Member for Housing,
replied to the points I’d raised, saying:
‘I absolutely agree that Brent Council must work
with residents to shape housing development projects, not just on the housing
itself but also on the improvements that are made as part of each development
we deliver. We take this responsibility
seriously - with workshops, public events, newsletters and questionnaires all
used to discuss and get input on our proposals.’
However, this is what the Rokesby Place Residents’
Association have said about the consultation they are supposed to have
received, in their objection comments on the current planning application:
‘Apart from a generic questionnaire which had only
one relevant question that was listed last, the whole questionnaire was
irrelevant to the proposal. The only information sent with the questionnaire
was a publicity leaflet from Cllr Southwood which did not give any detailed
information. There has been no consultation with Rokesby Place residents or the
neighbouring community. All the information we have found out has been from
perusal of the documents on the planning portal.’
Another objection comment, from a leaseholder of
one of the Rokesby Place flats, was also very critical of the application’s
claims over consultation:
Extract from the “View Comments” section for
application 22/1400 on Brent’s planning website.
Brent certainly needs to improve its consultation
with existing residents of estates where it is proposing to add “infill”
housing, in order to try to reach agreement on proposals which are acceptable
to them, as well as providing at least some of the additional homes which are
needed. If they had done that at Rokesby Place, they might have avoided putting
forward plans which have produced more than a dozen objections, some of them very detailed.
The proposed homes would be built on an existing
car park, used by many Rokesby Place residents. One of the main concerns is the
effect of the proposals on the availability of parking, with a net loss of nine
parking spaces on the estate. The assumption in the application that because
the new homes will be “car free” (in that no parking spaces will be provided
for them), no one in either of the seven-person households will own a car or
van, also seems naïve.
The Design & Access Statement admits that the
level of "parking stress" would increase from 65% to 107%. Residents
have stated that the problems caused by the loss of parking spaces would be
worse than that. The consultee comments by Brent's Transportation Officer (included
in the “View Documents” section) make clear that insufficient data has been
supplied by the applicant to justify the Statement's claim that the loss of
parking spaces would be acceptable.
Aerial view of Rokesby Place, with sites A&B
marked, from the planning application.
In order to restrict the level of “parking stress”
to what the application claims is an “acceptable” 107%, the existing car park
at A on the photo above, where the two houses would be built, would be replaced
by a new five-space car park at B. As you can see, it would be built on what is
currently an open green. That has led the Residents’ Association to point out,
in its objection comments, that this would go against Brent’s policy over the
amount of external amenity space needed to satisfy (existing) residents’ needs:
‘By taking away the only green space which is
relatively level, quiet, private and safe will leave no usable place sit out
and enjoy the good weather. Residents have always used this area to have
picnics, barbecues and ladies get togethers. During the lockdowns this space
was a lifesaver for all residents who used this area.’
The loss of parking spaces and the loss of green
open spaces and trees (the loss of three mature trees, and severe cutting back
of others, is another point raised by objectors) are likely to be key issues in
many of the proposed Brent Council “infill” schemes. It will be very
interesting to see how these matters are dealt with in the Report by Planning
Officers on the Rokesby Place application.
And what will the response of Planning Committee
be, if it comes before them for a decision (as it will have to, in view of the
number of objections, unless the Council withdraws its application in the face
of strong opposition)?
I understand that one of the objectors is a Labour
councillor for Wembley Central Ward (in which Rokesby Place now sits, following
the boundary changes ahead of the 5 May local elections). Will other Labour
councillors have the courage to stand up for their residents, in the face of
Brent’s New Council Homes “infill” proposals? And if so, will it make any
difference?
Philip Grant
