Brent Planning Officers wriggle on an Objector's hook: Their unconvincing Supplementary Report on Broadview infill application

 

The test for proposed developments - Philip thinks the application fails on at least three of these factors

I admire Philip Grant's tenacity in attempting to persuade Brent Planning Officers that words and facts do matter in terms of their reports to the Planning Committee.

 Unfortunately their response seems to be, 'We note what you say but we know what we mean so it doesn't matter and we will ignore what you say.'

The Officers have written a response to Philip's  detailed Objection to their latest infill application and I leave you to make your own mind up as to whether their response clarifies matters or is further obscuration. Their response in the form of a Supplementary Report is embedded below followed by Philip's Response to the Case Officer.

The Planning Committee will be discussing the application on Wednesday.

 

 

These are  Philip Grant's further comments that he has sent to the Case Officer and copied to David Glover and Gerry Ansell in response to the Supplementary Report above.

I have now read the Supplementary Report, published on 13 December, and these are my comments on it:-

Affordable Housing:

The planning policy position at Broadview Garages is exactly the same as it was for the Rokesby Place application in August 2022. Both were Brent Council “infill” schemes providing two family sized houses. 

The Supplementary Report argues that ‘each application is assessed on its individual merits.’ The merits in both applications were identical.

The Rokesby Place consent letter, as recommended by Planning Officers and approved by Planning Committee, included a planning condition stating that: ‘The residential dwellings hereby approved shall be provided as affordable housing in perpetuity, and shall be delivered as London Affordable Rented units ….’

The reason for that condition was stated to be: ‘To ensure the delivery of affordable housing within the development ….’

The affordable housing condition in the Rokesby Place consent, and the reason for it, are just as necessary on the Broadview Garages application, if it is given consent.

There is no justification for Planning Officers to say, over the Broadview Garages application, ‘a condition is not considered necessary in this case.’

Trees:

The Supplementary Report says: ‘The plans submitted as part of this application shows T1 tree to be within the site close to the boundary.’

However, my objection comments of 9 December included photographic evidence to show that tree T1 is growing with the wooded area of Fryent Country Park, NOT within the site.

The Supplementary Report tries to cast doubt over where exactly the boundary might be, saying: ‘Council's park team have also been consulted on this aspect and it has been stated that the boundary would require surveys which in most cases accurate boundaries are difficult to be established.’

But the boundary is NOT difficult to establish in this case, because Wembley Council put a fence along it when the Broadview Estate was built, c.1960. The concrete fence posts are still in place, and as my photograph BV7 showed, the trunk of tree T1 is on the Country Park side of the boundary, not on the garages side. 

This attempt to try maintain the false view, put forward in the AIA, that tree T1 is within the site boundary gives every impression of Officers deliberately misleading the Planning Committee.

The Supplementary Report fails to include, and respond to, the final point I made, in bold type, in my objection comments document, which I will repeat here:-

The Officer Report recommends: ‘That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.’ But the application includes the removal of tree T1, so that it DOES NOT meet the requirements of Section 197, and should therefore be refused.

To go ahead with that recommendation, without bringing my objection on this point to the attention of Planning Committee, and explaining to them why you believe I am wrong (if that is the case), would be a grave error.

You appear to be arguing that removing tree T1 would be acceptable, because a similarly sized replacement tree would be planted away from the site. Are you honestly saying that Brent Council will plant a 15+ metre high semi-mature ash tree to replace tree T1?

Brent’s Broadview infill plans – do genuinely affordable homes and the environment matter?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Aerial view of the Broadview Garages site. (From Google Maps website)

 

I first mentioned Brent’s plans for infill homes on a small garage site behind Broadview in August 2021, when I wrote about Brent’s “secret” Council Housing Projects. I was not aware of the current planning application for two houses on this site until I saw it on the agenda for next Wednesday’s (14 December) Planning Committee meeting. I took a quick look through the Officer Report, initially just out of interest, but what I read left me knowing that I had to object to the application!

 

I will ask Martin to attach a copy of my illustrated objection comments document at the end of this article, so that you can read it if you wish to. It is another application where Planning Officers recommend approval, because what they describe as ‘the limited conflict with policy’ would be outweighed by building new homes.

 

The first point that I felt really strongly about is that, although Brent’s application states that both new homes would be for London Affordable Rent, Planning Officers say that there does not need to be an affordable housing condition in the consent letter. I have explained why, if these homes are to be built (despite the good planning reasons why the application should be refused), the “benefit” of them needs to be guaranteed by making it a condition that they are let to Brent residents in housing need at “genuinely affordable” rent level.

 

The rest of my objection points arise mainly from Planning Officers relying on inaccurate, and at times wholly misleading, information in reports prepared on behalf of the applicant, and ignoring the true facts given to them by local residents in their objection comments. This is not the first time I’ve raised the importance of looking at such reports critically (because they are prepared by firms paid to support the application, so not impartial). Most recently this was in connection with trees, and the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (“AIA”) for the trees at the Newland Court infill site.

 

The Broadview Garages AIA (as well as the Ecological Impact Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment) were prepared by the same firm as the Newland AIA. That is not the only similarity, as the applicant (Brent Council, possibly with the same Project Manager), planning agent and Planning Case Officer dealing with the application are also the same as the Rokesby Place and Newland Court applications (cynics might say: ‘How “cosy” is that?’). The firm begins its Broadview Garages AIA as follows:

 

 
 

OK, that’s just a minor slip, probably because they are using the same template for many reports for Brent infill schemes! My main concern with their AIA is that they misrepresent where an important tree ‘on the boundary of the site’ actually is, so that they can justify having it cut down. It is actually growing inside Fryent Country Park, so that it should be protected. Their original AIA, later amended, said that both of the tall ash trees you can see on the left of this photograph could be cut down and removed!

 

The Broadview Garages site, with Fryent Country Park on the left, 8 December 2022.

 

My objection comments should give rise to a Supplementary Report to the Planning Committee meeting on 14 December. It will be interesting to see which change, if any, having the true facts, with supporting evidence, will have on the outcome of the application!

[]

Philip Grant.

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

 Guest post by Marc Etukudo in a personal capacity

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

SOME OF THE 13 TREES BRENT COUNCIL WANT TO REMOVE

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Marc Etukudo

 

 

LETTER: I accuse Brent Council of systemic discrimination against current estate residents

 

Dear Editor,

‘Systemic discrimination can be described as patterns of behaviour, procedures, routines, policies or practices that are part of the structures of an organization (Brent Council) and contributes to less favourable outcomes for minority groups (Newland Court Residents). Behaviours may include dismissive or derogatory comments, gossip, ignoring others, judgemental attitudes, isolating others, laying blame, lack of respect, labelling, intimidation, name calling, bullying, and physical altercations.’

 

Newland Court

 

  Brent Council have shown nothing but Systemic discrimination towards the residents of Newland Court over their proposed ‘infill’ plans of building 7 TINY town houses by demolishing the garages at Newland Court. They have shown no empathy been dismissive and ignored our thoughts and feelings to go ahead with this ‘infill’ contributing to a less favourable outcome for the residents (especially the elderly and disabled) of Newland Court who they are treating like a nobodies or a minority group.

 

These new 7 TINY town houses are so tiny that the width of the first unit is around 3.3 metres. The other units are between 5.8 and 6.2 metres in width and are going to be 3 and 4 bed roomed houses. These tiny houses are going to have their own gated security and their own bin and cycle storage with a front and back fore-court all within each unit. And Brent wants to reduce our urban green space and build a new playground for these new residents after all these years of ignoring our children’s needs for a play area. Our children are now adults.

 

For years we have asked for:-

1)     New security gates installed at both entrances for the safety of residents, to stop drug pushers, drug users and to stop fly tipping.

2)   Proper security lighting and cameras installed for the safety of residents.

3)   Not reduced parking spaces but more made with at least 4 disabled parking bays.

4)   Bins situated away from the flats because of the stench. (The bins have never been jet cleaned or disinfected and more bins not less to service 60 flats.

5)    Drainage sorted out because water accumulates when it rains heavily at the entrance of Newland Court.

 

We all know that there is a chronic shortage of social housing and the truth is, there always will be because the councils let it happen. Brent Council’s favourite slogan as an excuse is always ‘there’s a chronic shortage of affordable housing’ yet Brent Council are building 250 "New Council Homes" on the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue in Wembley. They have had full planning permission for this scheme since February 2021, although it will probably be early 2023 before work begins (so much for the 'urgent need' for new homes that they talk about). 

 

And guess what? 152 of these new homes at Cecil Avenue, on land Brent Council already owns, will be for Brent's "developer partner" to sell privately, for profit. But under the proposals for Cecil Avenue, approved by Cabinet on 16 August, only 37 of the 250 homes will be for London Affordable Rent, and none will be for Social Rent (which the Brent Poverty Commission Report in 2020 said should be the Council’s priority for genuinely affordable homes). That is why Brent Council needs to squeeze 7 new TINY homes on the Newland Court estate, and other such Council "infill" schemes. 

 

Brent Council have known for years that the roofs of these garages that they want to replace with the 7 houses have asbestos but have deliberately let them run down and have done nothing about it. A few years ago an elderly disabled resident who still parks her car in one of these garages contracted lung cancer, believes she got it from the asbestos but can’t prove it. She only has one lung now. What measures are going to put in place to ensure the safe removal of the asbestos and the safety of the current residents? Probably none as the residents are just nobodies, a minority group to Brent Council. 

Asbestos roof

Three councillors, their architect and other team members met with residents living at Newland Court as part of the pre-planning stage of this development. This enabled residents to directly feed into the design of privacy, parking and trees. It was a waste of time and just a pen pushing procedure just to say that they had consulted with us. 

They said no trees would be removed during the site meeting. LIES!! In the final plans they are removing 13 trees from our view which were specifically positioned where they are many years ago to make a screen between Newland C0urt and the gardens of the residents of Grendon Gardens. They prevent overlooking between Newland Court and the residents gardens of Grendon Garden.

 

These trees which are a mix of sycamore, lime and ash were designed to make a pleasant landscape and form part of our URBAN GREENERY and are therapeutic to residents, especially those who can’t get out much as it helps their mental wellbeing and reduces depression and anxiety. They are homes to robins, magpies, parquets and even the occasional bats that have been sighted by keen residential bird watchers. Birds have their nests in these trees and the different chirping and tweeting sounds that they make will be greatly missed if these trees are removed.

 

Some of the landscaped trees to be removed

We spoke about the need to retain our parking spaces, being reduced from (around 40 down to 12) as we have at least 5 residents who are disabled badge holders, several cab and delivery drivers and other self-employed car users. They haven’t even factored any disabled parking bays in their new plans and to drive us into despair they intend to introduce pay and display all around the streets by Newland Court because of the impact of the overflow this will cause. Instead Brent Council are now trying to imply that parking along Newland Court is not designated for car parking (even though we’ve parked there for years) as there are no formal demarcated parking bays.

 

Loads of estates don't all have designated parking bays but have controlled parking with signage stating valid permit holders only just like Newland Court has. I have lived at Newland Court since 1988 and about 15 or so years ago Brent introduced parking restrictions and charged us £10 for permits and another £10 to have a visitors permit. Earlier this year we received letters from Wing Parking saying that we wouldn't be charged anymore for our permits. We still had to have them displayed or we would be ticketed. We all wondered why?? But guess what??? We were still all clueless about this proposal and now we know why.

 

They are actually reducing our residual waste bins from 14 to 6 and taking some of our urban green space to make way for the limited 12 car spaces they intend to leave us with and create a playground for the new residents. Not only is it unfair to have our residual waste reduced from 14 to 6 as the 14 we have is not enough for the current residents but we want them away from our urban green space so that the residents and visitors do not have to endure the stench every time we enter our flats. When emptied they stink and have never been jet washed or disinfected.

 

The 10 metre overlooking rule is actually around 8 metres at one point and around 9 metres at another even though Brent’s planning guidance recommends 18 metres for overlooking. Do you know how imposing and close the proximity of having buildings only 8-9 metres that close will feel like? So as you can see, there are lots of flaws in their plans apart from them ignoring a lot of their own Brent planning guidance. Brent Council DO NOT care about their residents’ interest. Brent Council have shown nothing but Systemic discrimination towards the current residents of Newland Court.

 

Marc Etukudo

Address supplied

 

Newland Court residents call on Kilburn Times to cover their concerns over Brent's infill proposals

 

Newland Court

 

The residents of Newland Court and Grendon Gardens have written to the editor of the Brent and Kilburn Times asking him report on their concerns over Brent Council's infill proposals:

Dear André Langlois,

 

I am sure you are aware of Brent Council's 'infill' programme to build as many properties as possible in existing estates within Brent at any cost, even the mental health and wellbeing of all the residents that these 'infill' proposals will affect. I would like to invite you or one of your newspapers' representatives to come to our estate and see for yourself why building 7 new townhouses at Newland Court just doesn't make sense on so many grounds including the fact that Brent Council are prepared to ignore their own Brent Council's Planning Guidance and go ahead with this proposal. This proposal also affects residents of Grendon Gardens whose gardens back onto the proposed site and whose trees will all either be damaged or destroyed and are all sited in a conservation area of Barnhill. 

 

We are all aware that there is a housing shortage especially for 3-4 bedroom family homes and that some families wait an average of 15 years. After all, I was one of them but this housing shortage has been a problem for over 40 years and Brent have been aware of this and have done nothing.  Suddenly because of pressure from the government to build new social homes and the fact that they may lose a certain amount of funding if they don't by a given date, they have decided to build in almost all their existing estates at any cost. Why??? because they have sold all or most of their plots of land to private developers to build unaffordable homes that are either bought or rented by foreign investors. You only have to see what has happened around Wembley Stadium as one example. 

 

Brent council moved their headquarters to the Civic Centre (at a cost of about £100 million but rumoured to be a lot more) from the former Brent Town Hall on Forty Avenue and sold the land which is now a private French School. That land could have been used to create 100's  of council homes. There are numerous little plots of open spaced land scattered across Brent that could be used for homes. There are lots of derelict homes that Brent could gain purchasing orders for and of course the former Unisys building on the corner of Harrow Road and the North Circular that has stood empty for 25 years in wasted legal disputes. Below is a link to Wembley Matters with a letter I wrote to Councillor Promise Knight and a few other Labour Councillors including MP Barry Gardiner regarding this issue.

 

So I hope you can write an article in your newspaper highlighting our issues and concerns regarding this matter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Marc Etukudo

On behalf of residents of Newland Court and Grendon Gardens. 

 

 

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/07/newland-court-residents-objection-to.html

 

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/08/newland-court-residents-put-question-to.html

 

Loss of green space and tenure change are issues in Rokesby Place application that Planning Committee must discuss

 

Two 4-bedroom houses are planned for this site (Site A)

Many issues have arisen over Brent Council's plans for infill housing in its council estates but the two main ones have been loss of green space and trees to the detriment of existing residents and the proposed tenure of the new developments.  

The Brent Planning Committee will consider the Brent Council planning application on Wednesday August 17th at 6pm. I understand that are likely to be representations from residents and a local councillor. The webcast can be viewed live HERE.

Both issues are involved in the proposal for infill  at Rokesbury Place in Harrow where two four-bedroom houses are proposed on the site above at the end of a dead-end street. The tenure of the houses has been changed from the Social Rent originally proposed to London Affordable Rent.

The proposal would remove three mature trees and reduce the green space, used for leisure, and parking.

These trees are to be removed:

Birch

Cherry

 

 

Lime

 

Planning Officers have recommended approval of the proposal and say: 

Whilst it is noted that there is a part loss of the existing grassed space, (next to 34 Rokesby Place) the scheme would provide a new communal amenity space next to the new homes and enhancement to the remaining space within site B (next to 31 Rokesby Place) including new drying facilities. The benefits of the scheme to provide two new affordable family sized homes would be considered to outweigh the harm of any loss of existing green space as discussed within para 67-69 below (see report)

 

An area of approximately 160 sqm of green space is proposed to be changed to hard surfacing to accommodate the enhanced turning head and the parking spaces within site B. Site A has landscaped areas at either end of the car park, with a total area of approximately 145 sqm. These will be removed, but a new communal landscaped area of approximately 80 sqm will be re-provided. It is acknowledged that it is possible that some residents may be currently using some of the grassed area for recreational functions, and that this may have some local value despite not falling within the boundaries of a designated public open space. (My emphasis)

 

Policy DMP1 seeks to retain existing green infrastructure including open space, high amenity trees and landscape features, and providing appropriate additional or enhancements where possible. Where the loss of open space is proposed, this would be required to be balanced against the benefits of the proposal. While the loss of the green space is acknowledged, the scheme would deliver the provision of two affordable family sized homes within the Borough for which there is an identified need. This is considered to outweigh the harm, particularly given the proximity to Barham Park which provides a large area of open space in very close proximity and access to this park would remain unrestricted for nearby residents. On balance, the loss of this green space is outweighed by the benefits of the scheme as a whole, including the delivery of two affordable family sized homes.

  A objector from Copland Avenue points out:

On the previous application in 2015, the Tree Officer appraised the two trees to the rear of the site (Bird Cherry T2 and Lime T3) and provided root protection recommendations (in fact the cherry is a prunus lusitanica, a tree with an Award of Garden Merit which produces food for pollinators and berries for birds). That report stated ..." the retention of trees identified as T2 and T3 is recommended as this will enhance the screening between the new houses and the adjacent gardens. The retention of existing groups of trees will be beneficial in maintaining the character and appearance of the site and locality as well". Additionally, in the final report of the 2015 application it stated, "One tree would be lost as a result of the proposal, however, a Bird Cherry and Lime which provide a valuable food source and attract various wildlife would remain on site". There doesn't appear to be a tree officer's report for this application, just a report by the developer which is not going to be impartial. These two valuable trees, plus a nice silver birch, are all to be sacrificed, it seems - heartbreaking! We strongly object to this. Surely Brent should adhere to its previous recommendation to retain these trees. We would also request a BAT survey has they are in our garden every summer.

 This is the overall plan for the Rokesby Place:

 

The applicant claims that when surveyed only one car was using the car park which appears to be disproved by this photograph from a resident:

Incidentally the building behind the car park, an extension to a Crawford Avenue house, is not shown in the application plans.

 

Work will also go on at the green space adjacent to 31 Rokesby Place. This is currently a green space with a washing drying area where residents have carried out planting. Cars are morked next to it but the council say this is a turning area. They claim 5 'new' car parking spaces are provided in the new design but this does not take account of the loss of spaces on the northern site or the spaces needed by the new houses. Objectors dismiss claims that residents could park on nearby streets.

 

 

Visiting this morning it was clear that this small, peaceful community really care for their estate as can be seen from the planting that has taken place outside the terrace of houses:

The second issue, previously high-lighted on Wembley Matters, and of particular significance to Watling Gardens, is the never-ending ambiguity around Brent Council's definition (or lack of it) of 'affordable housing.

The Brent Poverty Commission in the report adopted by Brent Council was clear:

The application form clearly stated that the tenure for these 4 bedroom  houses would be for Social Rent. LINK.

 

But Scedule B of the Officers' Report going to Planning Committee as the Letter of Approval states that tenure is London Affordable Rent  LINK :

 

However, the Planning Statement, prepared by Maddox Planning for Brent Council as the applicant, clearly states a proposed Social Rent LINK:
 

 

The justification for the harm this application will do to the existing residents of Rokesby Place is the benefit that two new four-bedroom Council homes will provide.

On the application form it was said that these new large family homes would be for Social Rent.

Social Rent was identified by the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission Report as the only genuinely affordable housing which the majority of families in housing need could afford, and the rent level which Brent Council should be aiming to provide its Council housing programme at.

But the proposed Condition 3, which the Officer Report recommends the Planning Committee should approve, has changed the tenure of these two homes to London Affordable Rent, which  is not what the application offered, and would not be affordable to most families on the Council's waiting list.

By making these two homes for London Affordable Rent, rather than Social Rent, it undermines the benefit which is supposed to justify this application. If Planning Committee is minded to accept the application, it should insist that Condition 3 be changed, so that the affordable housing is delivered as two Social Rent units, as originally set out in application 22/1400.

This is particularly important as these 4-bedroom houses are clearl meant for large families so rent level wil be particularly important for them - as the Poverty Commission recognised. 

Back in 2018 the Scrutiny New Developments Task Group on Affordable Housing LINK said:

Brent’s future housing strategy should be explicit about the need for social rent. It is not acceptable for the viability process to lead to a lack of social rented accommodation, but significant proportions of “affordable rent” and intermediate products such as shared ownership, when we know these simply are not genuinely affordable options for residents of the borough in housing need.

That is even truer today.