Showing posts with label planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label planning. Show all posts

Friday 3 November 2023

Do you want to participate in Brent planning process re quality and benefit? Consider joining the Community Review Panel. Applications close December 4th

 

Brent Council has retweeted the invitation above which may indicate a lack of response. This is what the Council website says about the Panel:

 

Community Review

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) emphasises the importance of involving communities in the decision-making process. The aim of this is to increase design quality and place benefit. Whilst no specific mechanism on how to do this is set out in the NPPF, community review panels are becoming increasingly popular amongst local authorities for enabling greater participation in the planning process.

Brent Community Review Panel

The council is looking to recruit local people to a new Brent Community Review Panel (CRP). This aims to give a voice to local people on new developments in their area.

The panel will help the council to better understand the needs of the local community by playing an independent advisory role in the planning process through discussion of issues around housing, transport, public and green spaces, and the environment. This will help ensure that new developments are of the highest design quality, and meet the needs of people living in, working in, studying in and visiting Brent in the future.

Frame Projects, who manage the Brent Quality Review Panel on behalf of the council, is responsible for recruiting and managing the panel, ensuring that it is independent, well-briefed, and able to effectively communicate its views. Frame Projects will provide panel members with the support needed for their role through free training sessions.

Who can be on the panel?

The panel is aimed at residents, workers, students and regular visitors within the Brent community who are at least 16 years old. We are keenly looking for candidates who do not already have a strong voice or position of influence in their area. Councillors and Brent Council employees are not eligible to apply.

Will I be paid to be on the panel?

Panel members will receive a £25 voucher for each two-hour review meeting they attend, with reasonable expenses for travel and other necessary costs also covered.

How can I find out more and apply to join the panel?

You can email Frame Projects at brent@frame-projects.co.uk or call 020 8164 9980 to find out more and request an application form.

Application forms must be submitted by 5:30pm on Monday 4 December 2023.

If shortlisted, you will be invited to a selection workshop in January 2024 (exact date to be confirmed) with other candidates, from 6.30pm to 8.30pm.

Panel Chair

Daisy Froud

Daisy is a community engagement strategist, design critic and educator with over 20 years’ experience of devising tools and processes that allow communities to meaningfully contribute to built environment decision-making. She has particular expertise in enabling diverse groups to find common ground in situations where policy constraints or low budgets pose challenges, specialising in brokering productive communication between professionals and non-professionals. Daisy sits on a number of design review and advisory panels across London, including serving as the Chair of the Ealing Community Review Panel.

Thursday 7 September 2023

Sudbury Court Residents Association: No more deferral of the Mumbai Junction application at Planning Committee - REFUSE IT!

 

Claimed improvements to original plan

 

The Sudbury Court Residents   Association have added several further submissions to the Brent Council Portal on the Mumbai Junction (formerly John Lyon pub) site planning application.

This morning the total number of comments, mainly objections, stood at 546.

 

This is a follow up objection by the SCRA as the documents and reports have altered since the Consultation Period closed.

The SCRA believe and demand that this application is refused at the next Planning Committee Meeting and not deferred any longer because of the following reasons, but not excluding many other valid reasons previously articulated to the Planning Department:

The current building design, materials and finishes matched the Conservation Area properties across the road and can be seen from Carlton Avenue West, The Crescent, Watford Road and Pasture Road, well over twenty properties within the Conservation Area will be able to plainly see this development from their homes. For some reason that remains unexplained the Brent Heritage Officer has changed his view from it damaging the Gateway to the Conservation Area, to not doing so and not being visible from the Conservation Area which is clearly untrue. Meanwhile 266 Watford Road's red roof tiles as a replacement for the original green tiles are being enforced against as it damages the Conservation Area.

The applicant states in mitigation of the size and massing that the representations of the proposed building allow for 10 years growth of the surrounding trees. The surrounding trees are approaching 100 years in age, the majority having reached maturity and will not increase in size. The out of character building will not be hidden by trees.

The officers state that the benefit of the building somehow out ways the damage caused by is height and massing along with it being out of character. This is the view of some planning officers; however, several hundred residents disagree with them along with the SCRA who represent circa 3,000 homes. Officers should reread the Local Plan 6.5.22

Although not a Planning Issue as such there is a large telecom installation in front of the site. Recently trees in front of the site were substantially pollarded, the reason used to gain Council approval was that the trees were affecting the Emergency Telecom signals from the installation. The proposed building is substantially higher and the top two storeys appear to be clad in metal which would almost certainly interrupt the Emergency telecom signals.

Page 11 para 5 of the officers committee report attempts to justify the extreme massing and height because it is near a roundabout, but totally ignores the surroundings of mainly two store buildings, many now known to be within the Conservation Area (evidence can be provide on the ground and from Streetview and Google Earth. The Design Council's workshop with the Developer and Brent Council stated the building was far too large for the site and would not meet carbon targets, nor transport emission targets. Interestingly almost all the objections to the proposal consider the proposal to be too tall and bulky.

The Officers state: The building is of good design quality, relating well to its context and would enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Unfortunately the are at complete odds with local residents on this point as the building is totally out of character and belongs with buildings of a similar bland design tenet and not in the midst of Metroland.

Officers state that there will be no loss of amenity to surrounding properties; however, all residents surrounding the site strongly disagree and will have to provide themselves with forms of shielding to regain their privacy and amenity.

The Met Police were consulted and recommended not using on street parking because of the friction that would be created with other users of the service roads and surrounding residential streets. Basically, the officer is saying that the Design Council and Police are wrong! Additionally, it has not been proven that there is available parking other than after 2am in the morning.

Page 13 para 1 Highways state that "All servicing arrangements are acceptable and safe" This statement is completely unfounded as there are no servicing arrangements on site; all forty two flats will have to be serviced from the busy and the constantly heavily parked service road as the onsite service road is now to be a car park. Furthermore, the bin store opens out across the very narrow pavement in front of the site, itself an illegal obstacle and in addition it would open onto the designated as the unmanaged pedestrian crossing, and the proposed Zebra Crossing funded by a S106. One wonders if officers actually visited the site or fully deciphered the plans presented to them.

The EMF Report regarding the Sub-station is so porous it should be ignored as meaningless. SCRA extrapolations show the EMF levels to be outside the SAGE recommended levels even without being monitored under peak loads which are normally expected in the mornings and evenings. Variations in EMF reading already provided to Planning Comments show a 1446% variation in EMF emissions outside of peak loads.

Ignoring the wildlife corridor running at the rear of Sudbury Court Drive and Amery Road which joins the SINC of Harrow School and Northwick Park is unforgivable even if it is not a designated wildlife protected area.  No bat survey has been completed regarding this foraging and commuting route and therefore the law protecting bats may well be breached if the development is allowed with its current height and massing along with substantial increase in light levels. It is the Council's duty to ensure that the bat foraging/commuting route is protected. There is no doubt that bats utilise the current restaurant's kitchen warmth as an adhoc and winter roost which would not have been noticed during the internal inspection.

Sudbury Court Drive and the John Lyon roundabout had been flooding for several years after and during heavy rainfall a video is available. The manhole cover near Bengeworth Road is ejected due to the large volumes of water travelling at speed down the hill of Sudbury Court Drive and Bengeworth Road. It is becoming obvious that the surface water drain is now overloaded at peak times, possibly due to all the recent explosion of property extensions and paving of gardens to provide parking due to the very heavy on street parking demand. The proposed building would require a flood defence and a substantial SUDS to reduce the flood risk to the ground floor flats, some of which are deemed accessible.

Page 13 para 3  Of the fire statement states: "All floors are served by a central protected stair including an evacuation lift. The stair is accessed by common corridors that do not exceed 15m in length."  Unfortunately the distance from the front doors of flats 1.06, 1.07, 2.06, 2.07, 3.06 and 3.07 are in excess of 18mtrs from the protected stairwell and therefore the building does not comply with London Plan Policy D5(B5) (7), BS9991 (6), ADB 2019 (3).

London Fire Brigade Guidance Notes GN29 - should be used to plan for new premises. As the proposed development site sits behind a narrow heavily parked service road and a large telecom site it has a very limited access for Fire Brigade vehicles and therefore does not comply with the GN29 guidance notes.  Furthermore, as the frontage of the building (within its curtilage) has now been turned from an access/service road into a car park the Fire Brigade would have to access the building from the external service road which is, because of the afore mentioned problems, is an impossibility. The SCRA therefore believe that the proposed building with regards Fire Safety is unsafe and dangerous.

The Highways Officer's report state that the area is not an accident hotspot because very little is recorded on Crashmap. Everyone knows that many accidents are not shown on Crashmap and to utilise its data id just lazy. The Crashmap data does not mean that the area is not a black spot. In the real world - during the last twelve months there have been circa 12 single vehicle RTAs within the locale, with several gardens being entered, bus stops and pedestrian crossings demolished along with street trees. Utilising Streetmap we have found evidence of many accidents on the John Lyon Roundabout over the last ten years including the felling of a substantial tree, a lamp post and several road signs demolished. On at least two occasions vehicles have been overturned and left blocking the pavements. Not more than a hundred yards away a lady was killed performing at right turn at the junction with The Green. The local chemist was attempting a right turn into their driveway on Watford Road just in front of the application site and has hit in the rear and pushed across the road and hit again in the front. The son of the local garage operator was involved in a collision on the service road at the entrance to the application site, besides being a dangerous cross road the concrete of the service road offers no grip in the wet.  Without doubt this is not a safe area for motor vehicles handling as it does 30,000 VPD on the A404 a London Distributor Road and 15,000 VPD on the A4127 a Local Distributor Road, one must not forget that the service road is used as a rat run to avoid queues at the John Lyon roundabout.

The SCRA are extremely concerned that staff at local businesses have been told by the owners of Mumbai Junction that they will get Planning Permission is very concerning, especially as the Developer met with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and the Planning Committee privately while residents were not allowed to approach the Planning Committee themselves.

The SCRA are also concerned at the lack of affordable housing on site nor a contribution to affordable housing. We suggest if the building were reduced to say three stories then the margins per unit and viability would increase due to lower building costs at these lower levels, this would obviously be at the expense of the overall profit to the Developers.

 

 

 

The Planning Committee Report dated 12th July Page 9 para 2 states "The refuse storage area would be sited to the property's frontage"



We would comment as follows:

Having referred to the plans, the refuse store gates open outward across the narrow pavement (highway) at the site of the current unregulated crossing of the service road and Watford Road.



Obviously this is totally unacceptable positioning and function and the use of the gates would block the Highway - The fundamental public right upon a highway is to pass and re-pass, and the obstruction of a highway can also be a criminal offence as well as a tort. Highway authorities are under a statutory duty to prevent, so far as possible, the stopping up or obstruction of highways in their areas.

 

 

 This is an additional objection by the SCRA having reviewed the revised documents published after the end of the Formal Consultation by the applicant and the planning officer.



The Planning Committee Report dated 12th July and the Daylight Sunlight Consulting letter.



9. Page 11 para 6 This statement about good levels of outlook and light are at complete odds with the letter from Daylight Sunlight Consulting Ltd that states that not all the properties have sufficient light. The Design Council stated that the health and wellbeing of residents will be harmed by the long corridors without any natural light or ventilation. Additionally, nearly half the flats are only single aspect and at least three of the flats will have very little natural light to the living area windows as the windows are positioned in corners on the northwest side of the building and have very poor outlooks over the car park and garage next door.

 

It is with great disappointment that we have to yet again point out that the EMF report applies to the current substation and not the new/replacement one mentioned in the previous officer report.

Additionally no mention has been made about the emergency telecom signals from in front of the site which required the pollarding of trees which were half the hight of the proposed  building.

We residents within the SCRA despair at the lack of meaningful consultation over our valid concerns and the council's total intransigence regarding this application. Several residents have put their properties up for sale this month already as the believe this is a done deal.

 

 

The current EMF Report describes the current substation and current usage and emissions from the Sub Station. Unfortunately, as detailed in the Officer Report to Committee it transpires that the substation will need upgrading due to the application property and no doubt for the adjoining site which according to the report will be subject of a future planning application.

It is therefore true to say that the current EMF report will not apply to the proposed building and therefore we must be sure that the future substation does not put residents at a high risk of developing leukaemia from the emissions of the new substation for which there is NO report.

The current substation apparently has negligible risk, presumably an enlargement of the substation could well increase the  risk to low or medium. We therefore recommend that this application is not determined until a new report is produced which includes a substantial increase in power usage. To ignore this request could potentially and knowingly put people’s lives and well-being at risk well into the future.

 


Monday 7 August 2023

Mumbai Junction application hearing goes ahead on Wednesday. Independent review says Brent's pre-application approach 'well regarded'.

 

The controversial Mumbai Junction Planning Application will be heard on Wednesday at Brent Planning Committee, unless there is another last minute challenge. The application was pulled from the July meeting after a challenge regarding the pre-application process.  The application has been opposed by more than 500 local residents.

 

The officers'report, and recommendation to approve the application, remains the same apart from this new intorduction:

 

This application was deferred from the July planning committee meeting to allow further time to consider and respond to an e-mail complaint / objection that was received following the publication of the committee report.

 

Within the e-mail, the objector set out their view that the pre-application engagement with the applicant has compromised its Planning Committee members. It was alleged that the members who took part would be in the position of having a pre-determined state of mind in relation to the consideration of the planning application. It was also submitted that there was a lack of a constitutional basis for this and that this meant that these members cannot be in an unbiased position and should therefore be recused from the consideration of the case.

 

This complaint was not upheld. There is a long standing and sound basis nationally for the conduct of pre application engagement through the National Planning Policy Framework and the Localism Act and the involvement of members in pre-application is actively encouraged and not discouraged.

 

Planning Committee members have a specific responsibility and role to play in determining planning applications. Pre-existing guidance in the form of Brent's Planning Code of Practice already gave a good basis for acting with probity at the time of the committee pre-application presentation. This was then strengthened in line with an independent review that confirmed that Brent's approach was already well regarded.

 

Meetings that took place were conducted properly and in an appropriate way. Documents relating to these meeting that were previously disclosed to the objector reinforced this and showed transparency.

 

In view of the above, it was not upheld that members who took part in the planning committee pre-application presentation should recuse themselves


Thursday 13 July 2023

New building for College of North West London in Wembley Park approved by Brent Planning Committee - present Wembley Park and Dudden Hill sites will be redeveloped

 

Brent Planning Committee last night approved a new building for the College of North West London on Olympic Way/Fulton Road the site of the current Olympic Office Centre.

 


The building will replace both the current building in Wembley Park at the station end of Olympic Way and the Dudden Hill campus of the college which will be developed for housing.

 


 Early plans for Dudden Hill site (part of Neasden Stations Master Plan)

 

The current Wembley Park building will be redeveloped alongside the shopping centre, McDonalds and the theatre. The Wealdstone Brook flows within that college site and under Olympic Way.

After the CNWL's amalgamation with Westminster College as United College Group there were a number of property deals. The other Wembley Park building was sold to the DfE and now houses the Michaela School and the fairly new £5.5m Kilburn Centre LINK  building was disposed of.  LINK

Although the applicant's image above shows an open area around the college it emerged that it is likely to be secured by additional measures  given the large crowds using Olympic Way on event days.  Planning officers said that the new building  at 8 storeys would be just 2 metres higher than the Olympic Officer Centre.

The college will cater for 1,630 people including teenage and adult students but, unlike a school, attendance hours will vary,and it will operate at 60% capacity. Neighbourhood CIL will not be payable  by the applicant  but London CIL will apply.

Councillors expressed concern over security, particularly as the college is aiming to cater for more neurodiverse students, and one councillor was keen that there should be a separate entrance for them. The college responded that they believed in integrating such students as part of their inclusion policy.

A number of security features are included in the building such as anti-hostile vehicle devices but Cllr S Butt was puzzled that no accreditation for Secure by Design had been sought when this was the case with other buildings in the vicinity that had been considered by the Committee. Planning Officer David Glover insisted that this was not necessary but Butt warned that if there was an incident in the future the Council may regret that this had not been done. Glover said that the applicant could be encouraged to seek accreditation.

Councillors also asked about the loss of 27 trees as a result of the redevelopment with only one retained. The applicant will provide 41 new trees at ground floor and third floor level.

In contrast to the Mumbai Junction's 500+ objections only one objection had been received to this application and this was about disturbance during the construction period.

 (Olympic Way!)

 The Planning Statement by the applicant gives an overview of what the campus will offer:

Curriculum & Specific Requirements

 

The curriculum offer aligns with key local and national priorities and requires certain elements of specialist space. This modern and flexible building will provide the canvas for significant growth in these key strands of provision:

 

Academic teaching quality and student success

Technical and apprenticeship provision for young people, including STEM key stage

curriculum

Higher level technical skills qualification for adults

Increased quality of Profound Multiple Learning Disability facilities

 

The new campus will provide a whole of year approach to provision and will ensure access to education using multiple entry and exit points which will allow adult learners the opportunity to ‘retrain and return’ to the labour market quickly or progress to higher level qualifications. This meets the identified skills development needs of London Borough of Brent and the Greater London Authority, in a borough with a stated desire through the Local Plan (2022) to improve the skills level of its residents and increase the average wage.

 

The portfolio of provision also aligns with those areas that have been identified by Central

Government including STEM, precision engineering, green technologies, and the built

environment, as well as opportunities in practitioner qualifications in digital tech/communications and science.

 

The new campus will provide an inspiring learning environment that will impact positively on learning, learner outcomes and learner satisfaction. The site will provide for an integrated Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) provision through an inclusive ’Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties’ PMLD unit. The housing of this provision in one building with the rest of the student cohort, integrates PMLD students fully into the student body for the benefit of all.

 

Providing this consistent and inclusive approach does create additional servicing requirements as specific pick up and drop off is required as close to the entrance of the building as possible.

 

Through discussion with Brent and TFL officers, it has been agreed to maintain the existing layby on Fulton Way as also permitted within the extant scheme. Within the adopted highway, this layby will be capable of housing two dedicated mini bus shuttles for PMLD students, the college acknowledged that this will create a specific management requirement on the college, especially during a match day scenario. The College commits to working with the Council and Metropolitan Police to ensure that this public benefit does not result in any additional risks during special event days. We expect further details to be provided pursuant to planning conditions



Friday 5 May 2023

Ward councillor calls for site meeting and public presentation on the implications of the planning application to build 4 houses in Barham Park

 


 The proposed houses

 

 Cllr Paul Lorber, Liberal Democrat councillor for Sudbury, has sent Brent Council a petition from over 150 people about the controversial planning application LINK to build four 3 storey houses in Barham Park:

I have been asked by local residents and supporters of Barham Park to send in the enclosed petition from over 150 local residents opposed to the plans to build extra houses within Barham Park.

The residents are keen to ensure that the Planning Service takes into account the long standing Brent Council policy of protecting Public Parks and Open spaces irrespective of what ever pre planning application discussions may have taken place behind closed doors.

They are concerned about:

  • Over development
  • Over intensification  of residential uses in the Park
  • Extra traffic entry into the Park by visitors, delivery drivers and scooter food deliveries driving into the Park through an entry point under the Park ownership and close to the path created specifically for walkers.
  • This will not be a car free development what ever may be stated on paper as Brent Planning Service does not have the resources to either monitor or enforce this.
  • There are environmental issues including impact on mature trees (some subject to TOPs) near the site.
  • Loss of further Park land as the applicant is proposing to part of land not currently under his ownership.
For these and other planning reasons the residents are calling on the Planning Service to recommend refusal and for the Planning Committee to refuse this application.

As a local Councillor for the area I request a site meeting and public presentation of the proposal and implication for the Park.

By copy I am requesting that the Parks Service and the Barham Park Charity responds to this application and makes a clear statement about the policy on protecting Public Parks and policy of selling off further land inside a Public Park which this application and proposed development will require.

The deadline for comments on the application 22/4128 is nexy week on Tuesday May 9th although normally comments received after the deadline but beforew an application goes to Pllaning Committee are taken into account. You cna submit comments directly on the Planning Portal or by email. Unfortunately emailed comments are not published so if you want others to see your comments post on to the portal. LINK
 
There are about 30 objections at present.

Friday 10 February 2023

GLA statement regarding fire safety and tall buildings - second staircases

 This statement will have an impact on high-rise developments in the pipeline across London.

You will no doubt be aware that the government have published their consultation document shortly before the Christmas holiday on proposed changes to the Building Regulations, which includes mandatory second staircases in buildings over 30 metres in height. LINK


The Mayor has consistently expressed concerns that the fire safety requirements in the national Building Regulations are not fit for purpose, so the proposed strengthened requirements and clear direction at the national level are strongly supported. This consultation envisages a very short transition period with new developments being encouraged to prepare for this change now. In light of this – and given the requirements of London Plan policy D12 that all developments should achieve the highest standards of fire safety – we are clear that, with immediate effect, all planning applications which involve residential buildings over 30 metres in height will need to be designed to provide two staircases before they are referred to us at Stage 2 for the Mayor’s decision. We recognise that the earlier statement by the NFCC referenced over 18 metres but, to be clear, our requirement for two staircases applies to residential buildings over 30m in line with the national position.

 

The GLA’s Planning team is working with the Boroughs to progress schemes which are currently in the pipeline to ensure they include two staircases where necessary before any Stage 2 referral. We are all working hard to look at feasible options to secure this and try to meet key timescales, particularly given the impact planning delays may have on affordable housing grant funding. The GLA Housing and Land team are working alongside us with applicants and providers to achieve delivery of the current 16-23 Affordable Housing Programme. Investment partners should contact their Head of Area within Housing and Land to discuss the impact on AHP projects. The position of our Housing and Land colleagues is that any projects which were eligible for their funding, taking account of all criteria, and had full planning consents at all stages prior to the 23rd of December 2022 (when the government consultation was released) would remain eligible for funding subject to all other eligibility criteria still being met; but as mentioned, we still urge you to contact your relevant Heads of Area.

 

The Planning team would be happy to discuss specific applications you have that are affected by this so please get in touch via the relevant case officer. We are keen to work with you and partners to look at how we can progress these cases through to decision in a co-ordinated and pragmatic way.

 

Jules Pipe

Deputy Mayor, Planning, Regeneration and Skills

 

Tom Copley

Deputy Mayor, Housing and Residential Development

 

Monday 30 January 2023

1 Morland Gardens – How many more times can they get it wrong?

 Guest Post by Philip Grant in a person capacity

 

 

1 Morland Gardens, behind locked Heras fencing, 26 January 2023
 

 

It is almost three years since I first wrote about Brent Council’s plans to demolish “Altamira”, the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, and build a new adult education facility and 65 homes there. Ever since the project for an updated Brent Start college, intending to retain this beautiful heritage building, was “hijacked” at the end of 2018, to provide a large number of new Council homes, there have been mistakes and delays. Now there are more.

 

Brent Council does now have a vacant building, as the six month stay by Live-in Guardians has ended, and a barrier of Heras fencing now surrounds the outer wall of the grounds. They also have a contractor in place for their project, Hill Partnerships Ltd, under a two-stage Design & Build contract awarded last July. The first stage, a Pre-Construction Service Agreement, is underway, and as part of that the contractor submitted a Construction Logistics Plan (“the Plan”), as required by one of the conditions of the planning consent (given in October 2020!).

 

Condition 20, for a construction logistics plan, from the 1 Morland Gardens planning consent.

 

The submission of the Plan, in December 2022, was treated as a separate planning application (22/4082), but it was not advertised. I only discovered it online last week. It may not sound like a very interesting document, but when I read it, I found a number of things to comment on, pointing out in my objections how Brent, and their contractor, have got it wrong again.

 

The Plan treats the development site as a single plot of land, when it is actually two. Brent Council owns the public realm and highway outside the boundary of 1 Morland Gardens, which its proposed new building would partly cover. But it does not have any legal right to build on that piece of land. It first needs to obtain a Stopping-up Order for a section of the highway, and if it gets that order, the Council would need to appropriate that land for planning purposes. 

 

There are objections to the proposed Stopping-up Order, and Brent has yet to submit its request for an Inquiry by an independent Inspector. As far back as May 2021, Brent’s Development Management Manager confirmed that an order would need to be: ‘approved prior to any development taking place on the areas that are currently adopted highway. Until the stopping-up process has been completed under S247 of the Town & Country Act 1990, works will not be able to start on the development insofar as it affects highway land.’

 

The Plan has been submitted because it needs to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (Brent Council) ‘prior to commencement of the development’. If or when the legal hurdles I’ve just mentioned have been overcome, and the contractor has a site it can start work on, there are still plenty of problems.

 

The Key Site Constraints page from the Construction Logistics Plan.

 

As this early page from the Plan shows, there are a number of “constraints” involved in developing the site. Some of these are the result of the project’s designers trying to squeeze too many new homes into an unsuitable site, and ignoring the practical “constraints”. (Does that sound familiar? Newland Court and Kilburn Square come to mind, among others!)

 

One of the “constraints” listed is the single access/egress point to the site during construction, along the residential cul-de-sac of Morland Gardens itself, which would restrict the size of delivery vehicles. The Plan deals with this by saying that deliveries by articulated lorries will be unloaded from the lay-by, or “pit-lane”, on Hillside. What lay-by? 

 

Page showing where vehicles would deliver materials to the site, from the Logistics Plan.

 

Someone involved in Brent’s project has made a major mistake here. The lay-by on Hillside for deliveries and refuse collections was part of the original plans submitted in February 2020. Those plans had to be revised, because both TfL and Brent’s Transportation Unit objected that a lay-by there would be unacceptable. Hillside is a London distributor road and bus route, with no waiting allowed at any time along its frontage with 1 Morland Gardens because of the proximity to traffic signals. A lay-by there would also be too close to the bus stop, and make the footpath too narrow for safe use by pedestrians. It appears that the contractor has been given the original, and incorrect, plans! 

 

The site diagram above shows all deliveries by “rigid vehicles” coming through a gate from Morland Gardens, and then using the existing “turning head” to drive into and then reverse, so that they can exit forwards once they have been unloaded. But that “turning head” would no longer be available for vehicles making deliveries to, or collecting refuse from, the other properties in Morland Gardens. This, again, would ‘unduly prejudice the free and safe flow of local highways’, something the Plan should not be allowed to do, if it is to be acceptable to Brent’s planners.

 

Access for deliveries to Brent’s proposed Morland Gardens development is not an unforeseen problem. I raised it in an objection comment in July 2020 (see the “Transport and Access” section of a guest post I wrote before the Planning Committee meeting), after the revised plan removing the lay-by had been submitted in June 2020. However, Planning Officers dismissed my objection by saying it would be dealt with by a condition requiring a Delivery and Servicing Management Plan for the new college (ignoring the fact that there would also be deliveries and servicing for 65 homes!).

 

The other page from the Plan which has caused me to make an objection comment is the one labelled “Proposed Sales & Marketing Area”. 

 

The “Sales & Marketing” page from the Construction Logistics Plan.

 

Sales and Marketing? The 65 homes in this planned Brent Council development are all meant to be “genuinely affordable” homes. Condition 3 of the planning consent confirms that, stating: ‘The development hereby approved shall be implemented and maintained for the lifetime of the development as 100% London Affordable Rent.’ Yet the diagram above shows a 2-bedroom, 3 person “show apartment”, available for viewing in the first section of the development (due for completion in week 64), to be used for sales and marketing purposes.

 

The 1 Morland Gardens planning application went totally against both Brent and London planning policies on the protection of heritage assets, and Planning Officers admitted that. The justification for doing so was the “public benefits” of the development, particularly the provision of 65 homes which would all be “genuinely affordable”. If some of the homes are to be sold, not let to Council tenants who urgently need them, that shifts the balance more towards scrapping the demolition, and keeping the Victorian villa as part of a more sensible scheme.

 

The Report to November 2022’s Cabinet meeting about the conversion of some LAR homes to shared ownership did include a paragraph on Morland Gardens, which suggested “value engineering” the project (without giving details). Martin published a guest post from me, including my open email to the Council Leader and Lead Member for Housing. I suggested, not for the first time, an alternative solution, but Cabinet members and Brent’s New Council Homes team seem determined to carry on with a project which is unviable and impractical.

 

How many more times can they get it wrong, before they realise they’re just throwing good money (our money!) after bad?

 

Philip Grant.

Sunday 27 November 2022

LETTER: The Minterne Road development will be an eyesore and infringe our privacy

 

Dear Editor,

 

I hope you are keeping well.

 

I wish to raise the granting of planning permission by Brent Council for a 4 bed house at Minterne Road, Harrow, HA3 9TA  in your publication Wembley Matters.

 

Planning Reference: 22/1386

 

All the neighbours of adjoining properties have raised objections on two occasions with Brent Council and in total there are 8 objections. In spite of this Brent Council has made a one-sided decision to proceed with this development as it suits their interests and without giving any consideration to the objections of residents in the area.

 

I had also participated in the Brent Planning Committee meeting in person on 16th November 2022 plus this objection was also raised in March 2022 with MP Barry Gardiner and Cllr Eleanor Southood but unfortunately there was no response.

 

This development is an eyesore and will affect the neighbour’s privacy, overlooking into their garden, kitchen, dining and bedrooms. None of the houses on Dorchester way have such a development overshadowing more than half of the immediate neighbours’ gardens so it is naturally out of character for the area.

 

DK (address provided)

Friday 8 July 2022

Harlesden celebrates after defeating planning application for another Adult Gaming Centre in the town

 

5-6 Park Parade, Harlesden, NW10


A combination of local residents and organisations were claiming success today after Brent Council turned down a planning application for conversion of  currently empty premises at 5-6 Park Parade, Harlesden, into a betting shop AND adult gaming centre.

78 objections were received in total inclusive of objections from Councillors, Harlesden Neighbourhood Forum and Harlesden Area Action Group, the Police Safer Neighbourhood Team and the Salvation Army. 

 

Wembley Matters wrote about the planning application in May:  Gambling Harlesden's Future.

 

A closely argued officers' report refers back to  the Planning Inspectorate's report on an earlier appeal. It is worth looking at the officer's  Final Delegated Report for the detailed arguments on planning issues as the applicant may well appeal again. 

 

The grounds for refusal of the application are summarised as:

 

The proposed change of use would result in an unacceptable over-concentration of Adult Gaming Centres, it would harm the vitality and viability of Harlesden Town Centre. The proposed development is contrary to DMP 1 and BE5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041.The proposed development fails to accord with the development plan and there are no site specific circumstances or material consideration to justify diverting from the policy in this instance.