UPDATE: Is the proposal to build 60 social rent infill homes on garage sites on Chalkhill Estate what it seems?

 

 

Is a Cabinet Report LINK about delivering 60 homes for Social Rent at Chalkhill what it seems?

Item 11 on the agenda for the Cabinet Meeting on 11 March is headed: ‘Proposal to deliver 60 homes for Social Rent on the Chalk Hill (sic) Estate.’ That’s great news, surely? But you have to read the Report to find out what it really means.

Social Rent is the most affordable of the “genuinely affordable” rent levels. It is the rent level at which the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission Report recommended the Council should build as many homes as possible, because most local people in housing need could not afford anything more expensive. And the Council has, so far, failed to build new homes for this rent level, unless they are existing tenants being moved from homes to be demolished.

But, hang on, does Brent own the Chalkhill Estate? Well, no. In the Report’s “Background” information section, it confirms that Brent Council transferred it to Metropolitan Housing Trust in 1996.

[It also claims that ‘Chalkhill was one of the major estates constructed in the borough by the Greater London Council in the 1960’s.’ Either current Council staff don’t know their local history, or they are trying to rewrite history, to distance themselves from the problems that led to the late 1960s “Bison” blocks being demolished only 30 years after they were built!]

In fact, it is now owned by Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing Association (“MTVH”), and it is their scheme which the Cabinet Report is considering. Cllr. Promise Knight’s “Cabinet Member Foreword” still maintains that: ‘we committed to deliver 5,000 affordable homes in the borough and are on track to achieve this.’

Her Foreword goes on to say: ‘This report sets out an opportunity to work closely with one of our strategic partners MTVH Housing to unlock 60 new social homes for residents by repurposing garage sites.’ [Note that these are now ‘social homes’, no longer ‘homes for Social Rent.’]

So, it is another infill scheme (something which Brent has not been particularly successful with so far - see my October 2023 guest post: Council housing – Does Brent know what it is doing?). But this time it is a Housing Association infill scheme, so why is Brent Council involved?

The part of the Chalkhill Estate involved in this scheme is the low-rise brick-built “Scientists” area at the eastern side of the 1960s estate. The land that MTVH want to build on ‘is subject to several outstanding third-party interests’.

It is Brent Council which has the statutory powers to over-ride these “third-party interests”, using compulsory purchase orders and stopping-up orders. As the Report puts it: ‘the scheme will be delivered by MTVH but the Council’s support will be necessary to enable delivery.’

If the proposed infill scheme does go ahead, it may produce ‘around sixty’ new homes. Although these will not be Brent Council homes, the Report does say ‘it is proposed all new homes delivered as part of the regeneration proposal on the Chalkhill Estate will comprise social housing, and the Council will hold nomination rights.’ Possibly some good news for the future.

 

UPDATE:

 This, from the Council's website, is what was decided at Cabinet on March 11th:

'Cabinet RESOLVED:

(1) To approve in principle the Council working with Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing Association (MTVH) to support the development objective of delivering new social housing within the Chalkhill Estate.

(2) To approve in principle to make Compulsory Purchase Orders of land interests within the Chalkhill Estate as identified on Plan 1 under Planning or Housing legislation to bring forward the development objectives, subject to a further specific resolution of Cabinet in respect of the making of each order.

(3) To agree advancing the preliminary stages of the compulsory purchase process on the Chalkhill Estate, including, but not limited to, land referencing, issuing section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 notices (section 16 notices), engaging, consulting and negotiating with landowners, and preparation of documentation and undertake all matters that the Council might need to undertake to inform a further report to Cabinet to make, confirm and implement the CPO, if required.

(4) To approve in principle to appropriate, subject to planning,the land identified on Plan 1 under section 203 of the 2016 Housing and Planning Act, subject to a further specific resolution of Cabinet in respect of the making of each appropriation.

(5) To approve in principle to make stopping up orders using planning or highways legislation for any land identified on Plan 1 and comprising public highway.

(6) To note the potential for the delivery of new social housing illustrated by MTVH’s current design proposals and that the current proposal will be subject to further consultation, design refinement and following that be subject of an application for planning permission to the Local Planning Authority.

(7) To delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Resident Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security to enter into an indemnity agreement with MTVH to indemnify the Council for all costs associated with the compulsory purchase process on Chalkhill Estate.'

Newland Court resident: 'The site is not a good or viable long term option for houses. We ask that the Councillors deny the application.'

This is a letter written to Brent Council by a resident of Newland Court, Wembley Park. The Council's planning application will be heard at Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday. 

Dear Brent Councillors and Committee members, 

 

I am a resident at Newland court and wish to express my dismay and concern at the Newland Court infill proposals.

 

By the Council’s own admission the residents have raised 45 objections affecting:

1. Impact of the development on the trees within the Barn Hill Conservation Area (a designated Heritage site)
2. Accuracy of the submission
3. Design and massing
4. Wildlife and ecology
5. Flood risk
6. Parking reduction 
7. Highway and antisocial behaviour
8. Safety concerns
9. Noise concerns 
10. Mental health impact 
11. Equalities concern

 

In their response, the Council have themselves acknowledged that the proposals will cause HARM, yet they have:

1. Provided yourselves with false/inaccurate/misleading/unsubstantiated information to provide assurances in favour of the development (examples of such false/inaccurate/misleading information is provided below)
2. Disregarded the reports of Council’s own officers (eg. Transport officer, Heritage officer, Tree officers etc) highlighting the flaws with the proposal and recommending for the proposal not to be accepted. (examples also provided below).
3. Brushed aside all objections by such broad-brush statements as " The potential harm is outweighed by the overall planning benefits of the scheme". Despite acknowledging the HARM, they brush them to one side, without providing any basis, or analysis on which their 'conclusion' is reached. Were potential benefit and harm criteria determined against which an unbiased analysis could be undertaken? Was there any verifiable, transparent and jointly agreed assessment carried out? No. Just broad brush statements to give you, our Councillors, false assurance to get your "yes" vote. 

 

Please don't let yourselves be hoodwinked or used through these tactics. Act fairly and with discernment. Your decision will impact the lives of many and will lead to a problem development that will be long remembered for its flawed decision-making. What is the legacy you want to leave behind? How do you want to be remembered for what you did?  

 

Examples of inaccurate/false/misleading/unsubstantiated statements provided by the Council include: 

 

 1. The Council states that “the majority of residents that expressed support for the proposed development” - This statement is incorrect and without any basis

We have asked the Council to provide the list of flats/residents who support the proposals and they have failed to provide this. The majority of residents and those living on Grendon Gardens OPPOSE this development and this is evidenced by the 45 letters of objections which the residents have raised. You need to challenge these statements made by the Council to provide you with false assurance.

 

2. The Council’s Ecological Report says that “the site does not lie within an Ecological site” but that despite this they carried out an Ecological survey. 

Yet the Council uses a chart survey dated 2007, which is outdated and ignores Philip Grant’s 2023 follow up Ecological Report which identified species of protected Bats  in the trees by the garages (protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and regulations Act 1984).  

 

3. The Council’s Arboricultural Report has mis-categorised a number of trees, provided incorrect and unsubstantiated claims about previous pruning of these trees and contradict Julie Hughes, Brent Councils’ own Tree Officers report and Grendon Gardens Arboricultural tree report.

 

4. The Council’s Submission on parking originally falsely stated that we had NO parking and their proposals increase our parking by 12! (See the image taken from their application below for yourselves)

 

Although the parking spaces were increased to 28, this provides an example of the level of false information that has been presented. We have 41 car parking spaces (which is not enough as it is) and the Council under its current plans plan to only provide 28.  

 

The Council’s Submission says that no new public roads are being created within the site and no new public right of way is being given. Yet this is exactly what is happening. Our Private Road is being turned into a Public Road with public access.

 

 

 

5) Open spaces: Council’s application states that there is no loss or change of use of any open spaces. Yet they are planning to build a play area in the one open space we have inside Newland Court.

 

 

Brent Council's application is regrettably riddled with such false claims and the proposals are built on this false foundation. 

 

Examples of the Council disregarding the recommendations of its own officers  include:

1. Brent's own Heritage Officer has concerns about the uncharacteristically narrow modern dwelling at the end of the row of traditional properties and the harm it will do to the conservation area. 
2. Brent’s own Transport Officer had recommended refusal of the proposal on the grounds that the development would:

• be contrary to Local Plan Policy BT2
• the imposition of parking restrictions for the existing residents would not be reasonable, as their properties do not form part of the planning application. 
• add to on-street parking demand in an area that is unable to safely accommodate a significant amount of parking
• be detrimental to on-street parking conditions 

3. Brent’s own Tree Officer has serious concerns about impact on the trees (which fall within the Barn Hill Conservation area) if this proposal goes ahead.

The Site is not a good or viable long term option for houses. We ask that the Councillors deny the application. 

 

 

 

Say after me, 'The benefits of the scheme outweigh the harm/impact/conflict with policy'. Brent Council infill proposals come to Brent Planning on Wednesday

 

It promises to be quite a marathon meeting at the next Brent Council Planning Committee. on Wednesday Three of the proposals are from Brent Council itself and propose infill plans on existing council estates that have been opposed by current tenants and leaseholders.

The officers' recommendations now follow the established pattern of recognising various problems with the applications but end up narrowing them down to a judgement that benefits outweigh the pronlems, even when those are loss of green space, trees, light or a conflict with policy.

Clement Close, Willesden. 68 objections and petition against of 267 signatures, Demolition of one bungalow to be replaced with 21 residential units of 2 terraces and 3 flatted blocks,

 

“Whilst the proposal results in some impacts such as the loss of trees and open space across the site, officers consider that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to accord broadly with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions. The proposal would deliver 21 homes that would contribute the Council's housing targets, and the limited conflict with policy would be outweighed by the planning benefits. The benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh any less than substantial harm to  the trees within the gardens of neighbouring properties.”

 

Kilburn Square, Kilburn. 117 letters of objection alongside several letter of objection from Kilburn Village Residents Association. Infill of 139 units in four blocks of 5-8 storeys.

 

“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. It is therefore considered that the application should be approved subject to the conditions”

 

 

Newland Court, Wembley Park. 45 objections. Demolition of all garages replaced by five new homes.

 

“Whilst the proposal does not meet the 0.4 target for the Urban Greening Factor as set out within policy BH4 and is likely to result in the trees along the northern boundary within the conservation area to require more frequent re-crowning as a result of the development, the scheme would deliver significant benefits including the provision of five affordable family sized homes. Officers consider that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to accord broadly with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, and that the application should be approved subject to conditions. The proposal would deliver five family sized homes that would help to meet the Council's housing needs, and the limited conflict with policy would be outweighed by the planning benefits. The benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the impacts associated with the potential higher frequency of work to the trees within the gardens of Barn Hill Conservation Area and the less than substantial harm to the conservation area that may occur.”

 

I will be publishing more from the objectors over the next tw days.

Brent Council's latest proposals for Newland Court infill road demonstrates it 'just isn't a viable site'

 Marc Etukudo of Newland Court, Wembley Park, one of Brent Council's infill sites has written to BrentCouncil about the impracticability and potential danger of their proposals on parking:

 

I had a meeting with a few residents of Newland Court last night and quite a few issues were raised regarding this proposal at Newland Court Ref: 22/3124. As you already know, none of the residents want this proposal to go ahead for so many reasons which you already know about but mainly because it JUST ISN'T A VIABLE SITE. Nothing about this proposal makes sense to start with and neither are any of the plans. Today, I want to bring to your attention the NEW PLANS that Brent has submitted in regards to the 12 parking spaces outside the block between flats 49 - 60 by the barrier gate end of Newland Court at the Barn rise entrance.

 

  

Please note that the 12 parking spaces already exist but what Brent's NEW PLANS intend to do is to move the parking spaces from the south side by the pavement to the north side against a raised wall and fencing in some parts, and with shrubs in the other parts. This means that everytime cars want to park they will have to let passengers off, including the elderly and kids onto the road from the passenger side because once parked up, no one will be able to get in or out of the car on the passenger side. This will also be the case anytime a car wants to pull out with passengers because it will not be possible to open doors on the passenger side.

 

IT IS A LOT SAFER AND MORE PRACTICAL TO HAVE THE CARS PARKED SOUTH OF THE ROAD BY THE PAVEMENT AS IT IS AT PRESENT

 

It also means that all the parked cars will be situated directly under the trees, constantly getting all the sticky residue from the trees and acidic bird poo that will damage the paintwork of cars that are parked there. Is Brent going to compensate for any damage to the paintwork of cars? And this is because Brent wants to turn a private road into a NEW ONE WAY PUBLIC HIGHWAY which is a very, very dangerous move for many reasons. It is going to be less than 5 metres wide and will encourage even more cars to use Newland Court as a cut through to avoid traffic on Forty Avenue which runs about 20 metres parallel with Newland Court. 

 

 

HOW ARE CARS EXPECTED TO PARK ON THE LEFT WITH RAISED WALLS, FENCING, SHRUBS AND DIRECTLY UNDER TREES

 

Over the years and till this present day we already have cars flying down Newland Court till they get to the Barn Rise entrance and find that there is a barrier and then have to reverse back. Having the cars parked south by the pavement acts as a cushion and protection for pedestrians ,especially those with kids. If the cars parking spaces were to be moved north of the road then it will become a very dangerous road for both pedestrians and  also residents trying to cross over a NEW ONE WAY PUBLIC HIGHWAY to get into their car and then have to pull out to let families including children and the elderly into the car in a very unsafe situation constantly.

 

 

YOU CAN SEE HOW NARROW THE ROAD IS THAT BRENT WANT TO ADOPT INTO A NEW ONE WAY HIGHWAY

 

And because of this, over the years kids have almost been run over by speeding cars and one child was actually hit but luckily it wasn’t fatal. But these are only the ones I know about. Introducing speed bumps a few years back has made no difference whatsoever because some cars almost take off when they hit some of the speed bumps. By building houses north of the road too with families who will have kids that will sometimes probably run out into the road will be a complete fatal disaster waiting to happen. Is Brent Council willing to take this risk????? Isn't it time common sense prevailed?????

Kilburn Square development paused. All scheme options to be reviewed but Brent Council will still seek planning approval for the designed scheme.

The saga of the controversial Kilburn Square development continues with a letter distributed to residents today. The Council's plans have encountered much opposition,

Search 'Kilburn Square' on this blog for the previous posts.

As Life in Kilburn (highly recommended) pointed out on Twitter, this is the second site paused as Windmill Court was also paused. The two sites were allocated GLA money with a strict on-site start deadline of March 31st 2023. 

Newland Court in Wembley Park is also putting up resistance to infill proposals on their estate.

 The Planning Committee due to be held on March 15th, where the contested Planning Application may have been presented, has been cancelled. 

 

Guest Post: Why the Newland Court garages planning application should be withdrawn.

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Policy DMP1, from Brent’s Local Plan.

 

“Wembley Matters” has been following the progress of Brent’s New Council Homes “infill” planning application, 22/3124. Most recently, Martin shared an email sent by Newland Court resident, Marc Etukudo, to the Council’s Head of Planning.Marc’s uncovering of the Barn Hill Conservation Area boundary change (adopted by Brent’s Executive – now Cabinet – in June 2013), which puts the site of the proposed new houses within the Conservation Area, made me review my own earlier objection comments. Last Friday I submitted my updated objections. 

 

I will ask Martin to include the illustrated pdf version of these at the end of this post – which includes screenshots from Brent’s massive Local Plan document of the policies which the Newland Court garages scheme would breach. Please have a look at these, if you think they could be useful for future objections you may wish to make on applications affecting you!

 

It was now clear to me that the Newland Court planning application should be refused, so I have sent the following open email to the Cabinet Member and Council Officer(s) behind it, calling on them to withdraw the application. I have asked Martin to share it’s text with you, so that it is available for anyone to read (and to write in support of, or comment on).

 

Dear Councillor Knight, Ms. Baines and Ms Sweeney,

 

This is an open email

 

As you are, respectively, Brent's Lead Member for Housing, Head of Affordable Housing and Head of Estates Regeneration, I think you should see my latest (and illustrated) comments document, which sets out further objections to Brent's Newland Court garages planning application, 22/3124.

 

It explains, in section 1, why the site on which you propose to build seven new Council homes is actually inside the Barn Hill Conservation Area. This was the result of a minor change in the boundary, adopted by Brent's Executive (now Cabinet) in June 2013. 

 

It lists the reasons why your application fails to comply with a number of Brent's Local Plan policies, including those on Heritage, Trees, Ecological Impact and Parking.

 

In case you don't feel that you have time to read the whole of the attached document, here are some highlights from its conclusion:

 

'There is already a long list of Brent Local Plan policies which application 22/3124 fails to comply with: BP1 Central, BGI1, BGI2, BHC1 and BT2. To that list can also be added the main development management policy in the Local Plan, DMP1. This policy states that ‘development will be accepted provided it is ….’ It then sets out nine tests, and this application fails at least five of them: a), b), d), e) and h). It cannot be claimed that there is ‘a minor conflict with policy’. The application is so far in conflict with Brent’s adopted Local Plan policies that it must be refused.'

 

'Although this “infill” scheme may have looked possible “on paper”, it is not practical or sustainable when the reality of its proposed site is taken into account. That, on top of its many failures to comply with Brent’s adopted planning policies, must mean that the application should be refused.'

 

It is not just me, or residents of Newland Court and neighbours in Grendon Gardens, who believe that your application should be refused - several Brent Council experts have also said so in their consultee comments on it.

 

I am bringing this to your attention because I think it is time you accepted that the Newland Court garages scheme was a mistake. Your planning application should be withdrawn, and no further money, or Planning / Housing Officer time, should be wasted on it.

 

I hope to hear that you have taken, or will now take, that sensible decision. Best wishes,

Philip Grant

 
(a Brent resident with an interest in housing matters)

 

 

Newland Court residents' champion reveals Brent Council's potential crime over bat roost within the local vicinity of infill development (Amended)

 

Soprano Pipistrelle (Photo: eurekalert.org.)

Writing on behalf of Newland Court, Wembley Park, residents, Marc Etukudo has submitted an email to Brent Council officers and councillors that raises serious issues of possible environmental law breaking:

 I would like you to accept this email as a formal objection being submitted amongst others submitted against Brent Council’s proposal to build 7 townhouses at Newland Court garages, planning application reference 22/3124. It has been brought to my attention that out of all the ‘infill’ proposals submitted by Brent Council's agent* on behalf of the Council's New Council Homes Team  not a single one has been refused planning permission and every single one has gone to a planning committee meeting and all have been approved. Can you please confirm if this is correct? 

BAT ACTIVITY AND ROOSTING  

I have been informed by the Bats Conservation Trust that if I think a wildlife crime has been or is being committed I should report it to the police. Once I have done that I have to ensure I get a reference number and then let them know about the incident by emailing investigations@bats.org.uk. They will then be able to assist the police, bat workers, members of the public and professionals by giving advice and information about bats, roosts and the legislation. 

So, as I feel that a crime is about to be committed at Newland Court garages by Brent Council in terms of the removal of trees where at least 2 species of bats are active and may roost, I intend to file a report at Wembley Police Station against Brent Council if the proposal is approved in its present form*. The reason being is that although the ecological report from Waterman’s survey does show two species of bats active along the line of trees, their survey is unreliable, because only one surveyor carried it out, at the wrong time and without covering the line of trees properly. 

         

               

The survey was done more than two weeks after it should have been carried out to check whether there was any bat roost in the garage building they identified as a low possibility roost site. Furthermore, carrying out bat surveys when street lightning could influence an inaccurate reading as bats would only normally be seen in dark conditions as they are sensitive to bright lights. Hence the survey reported a sighting of a soprano pipistrelle that was recorded 28 minutes after sunset and 11 passings of the common pipistrelle were recorded 55 minutes after sunset proving that the whole survey wasn’t conducted properly and therefore unreliable.

 

The same can also be said of the survey on birds. The survey reports sightings of starlings, bullfinches, dunnocks, sparrows and song thrushes. I believe that this is an inaccurate survey recorded as it was taken from a reference grid recorded between 2002 and 2018. If a proper survey was conducted then sightings of robins, magpies, pigeons, crows and even parakeets would also have been sighted and recorded because those are the birds we see out our kitchen windows on a daily basis therefore also acknowledging that the bird survey is also flawed and inaccurate.  

 

 

DESIGN GUIDE

 

In the design guide document which was approved by Planning Committee and Brent's Executive (now Cabinet) in 2013, the boundary shown in the Design Guide, which includes the site of the Newland Court garages within the Barn Hill Conservation Area, must be treated as the correct boundary since 17 June 2013. Yet Brent Council’s agent has submitted a different conservation map boundary showing Newland Court garages outside the conservation boundary lines which is yet more evidence they continued to submit misleading information on their planning application to fast track this proposal through at any cost. * 

 

The evidence is there in the Design Guide itself, which states:

 

'This Guide was produced by the London Borough of Brent and adopted by its Executive on 17 June 2013. On 16 January 2013, the Planning Committee agreed to consult publically on a draft Barn Hill Design Guide which had been prepared in discussion with the Barn Hill Residents Association. Letters were sent to all owner/occupiers in the Barn Hill Conservation Area and Ward Councillors on 28 January 2013, giving 28 days to comment on the draft Design Guide. A ‘drop-in session’ for residents was held at Brent Town Hall on 12 February 2013 to give residents an opportunity to discuss the proposals with Officers. On 17 April 2013 the Planning Committee considered the consultation responses and the resulting proposed changes and agreed that the revised Design Guide be reported to the Executive for adoption.  Executive agreed to this on 17 June 2013.' 

 

 

HERITAGE REPORT submitted by the Heritage Officer states that:-

 

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 (as amended) requires that with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. NPPF. Paragraph 189 recognises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and seeks to conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.

 

This statement reveals reasonable doubt from the Heritage officer in regards to whether this proposal will preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area. This is also taking into consideration that all the officers’ reports (Heritage, Transport, Tree) have been done on the assumption that Newland Court garages do not fall within the conservation boundary. This is yet another misleading application submission by Brent Council planning officers.

 

TRANSPORT OFFICER

The Transport Officer's report also states that ‘At the current time, the application cannot therefore be supported, given the large volume of parking that would be likely to be displaced from the site onto surrounding narrow streets’. This is even probably after he had seen the parking survey which I have already previously noted as being flawed and misleading.

TREE OFFICER

Even Brent council’s own Tree Officer, Julie Hughes has significant concerns relating to the impact that this development will have on protected trees. She also goes on to say that she has some significant concerns regarding the increased pressure that will be placed on the Council to permit lopping, topping or felling the trees within the rear gardens of Grendon Gardens, and the impact that this will have on both the visual amenity of the local area, and specifically the adjacent Barn Hill Conservation Area.

 

Below is a Topographical Survey map sheet of the coverage area from the canopies of the trees that overhang above the Newland Court garages from the gardens of the residents of Grendon Gardens. They show the extent of the tree canopies of the trees in the back gardens of Grendon Gardens much more clearly than the site plans submitted before to Brent Council. I believe this is the reason why the garages at Newland Court are within the boundary of the Barn Hill Conservation area. The diagram below shows that the canopies and roots of the trees cover most of the garages in Newland Court. It would mean that one half of all the trees would have to be chopped off if this proposal were to go ahead. If this doesn’t kill the trees, then the trees would then need constant pruning and lopping every few months as the pruned branches continue to re-grow.    

 

 

With all these mitigating factors:-

 

• The fact that Brent is breaching a lot of their planning guidelines to fast track this proposal.
• The overlooking rule for one in which you and I measured and found Brent's measurements inaccurate.
• Misleading information on the garages being within the boundary line of Barn Hill Conservation Area
• Unclear clarification of the boundary wall between Grendon Gardens and Newland Court. 
• The removal of or damaging protected healthy trees in the Barn Hill conservation area.
• Misleading information supplied by planning officers on the parking survey.
• Misleading information on the ecological report made by Watermans. 
• The systemic discrimination on existing Newland Court residents.
• The reduction in residual bins for existing Newland Court residents.
• The removal of 40 car parking spaces and reducing it to 12.
• The site not being suitable for the proposed development.
• The Heritage Officer having concerns on this proposal.
• The Transport Officer having concerns on this proposal.
• Brent's Tree Officer having concerns on this proposal. 

 

Even MP Barry Gardiner after seeing the facts and not normally one to get involved in planning issues wrote to the Chief Executive voicing his concerns on the way the planning officers were treating the existing residents of Newland Court over this proposal. With all the objections and facts that you have before you regarding this particular proposal, I’m sorry but there is no way that this planning application should be granted. That is, if every single detail in the form of objections and real facts that you and your team now have before you which should form a serious case for refusal. But if it doesn’t then there is something also very seriously wrong. 

 * Note an earlier version of this blog has been edited to remove inaccuracies in the original email to Brent Council for which Marc Etukudo has apologised.