Opposition to 20metre 5G Mast in Mapesbury Conservation area - consultation closes January 12th

 View of existing area where mast and cabinets would be installed outside 112 Walm Lane [Streetview] Note: Pole in foreground is not the proposed mast.

Mapesbury Conservation Area Border (Brent Council) - Site in red

 The placement of the mast and cabinets

 

The height of the mast against tree and 112 Walm Lane

Editor's Note: There has been a suggestion that there is a petition opposing this mast. I have not seen one and so do not have a link. If you know of one please send the link to wembleymatters@virginmedia.com  Individual responses to the Planning Portal LINK are more effective anyway as I understand petitions are counted as just one objection.

 

The latest controversy over the erection of a 5G roll-out mast is in Willesden Green, just within the Mapesbury Conservation Area border. Although the planning application gives the address of the Queensbury pub (due to be redeveloped) at 110 Walm Lane, the site is actually outside the block of flats at 112 Walm Lane, on the corner of Dartmouth Road.

The proposal sent to neighbouring residents and displayed nearby gives a closing date for comments of Thursday January 12th 2023.

Application Number 22/4004
Location Street Record, Walm Lane, London Proposal Prior approval for proposed 5G telecommunications installation comprising a 20m street pole and additional equipment cabinets on footpath adjacent to 110 Walm Lane, London, NW2 4RS (Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) and is in accordance with the Electronic Communications Code (as amended))

You may comment on-line by using the ‘make comments’ tab or by e-mailing planning.comments@brent.gov.uk. Make sure you provide the application  number, your name and postal address. Your comments and address will be publically available, although your name won’t be. You may check what the final decision is by selecting “track application” on our website.

Please make your comment by 12/01/2023; after that we will make a decision on the proposal as soon as possible.

As with all such proposals the default position is approval to aid the roll-out of 5G transmission as part of the government's diginal vision. The applicant states:

The proposed installation supports the UK Government Digital connectivity vision and provide a basis for support from the local planning authority to speed up digital infrastructure rollout set by Ministers on 27 August 2020. Such development will facilitate educational benefits, providing access to vital services, improving communications with the associated commercial benefits for local businesses, enabling e-commerce and working from home as well as enjoying access to social, media and gaming for leisure time activities.
In accordance with the requirement set within National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) guidelines; the proposed ‘Streetworks’ design has been selected to minimise visual impact upon the street scene by integrating with existing street furniture.

 

The applicant claims their proposal meets Brent Council's criteria for 5G installations but note the final point regarding Conservation Areas.

One local resident has submitted a comprehensive Objection:

This proposal is completely misguided and should be rejected.

It would create an unacceptably intrusive, overbearing and incongruous feature at a very prominent location, wholly out of scale and inconsistent with nearby buildings and structures, and would materially impact the character and appearance of the Mapesbury Conservation Area and the Willesden Green Conservation Area, as well as of Willesden Green Station and St. Gabriel's Church, both grade II listed buildings.

It's extraordinary that the applicant has managed to find a site for this 20 metre mast that would materially impact the character and appearance of not just one but two separate conservation areas and two separate grade II listed buildings.

Further, while the applicant asserts that the site is outside of the Mapesbury Conservation Area, according to the official map of the Mapesbury Conservation Area (https://legacy.brent.gov.uk/media/16402740/mapesbury-conservation-area-map.jpg) the boundary of the conservation area runs down the middle of Walm Lane and therefore the site is within the conservation area. In any event our comments are relevant regardless of whether the site is or not within the conservation area: if outside it would still be on the boundary of the conservation area and would have just as a material impact on the visual amenity and character of the conservation area as if it was inside it.

In more detail, my objection is based on the following:

(A) The mast would be very significantly taller than all surrounding housing. At 20 metres it would be almost double the height of the adjacent Westerly Court (11 metres), which itself is taller than all other surrounding housing on the north side of the railway, and more than double the height of street lighting and trees.

(B) The mast would be very close to the top of the hill, which would increase even more its actual and perceived height compared to the surrounding housing, including the two conservation areas.

(C) The mast would be located in a corner plot, increasing its visibility and prominence.

(D) The mast would be directly in line with the north face of Westly Court, meaning that its entire height would be visible from the whole north side of Dartmouth Road.

Factors (A), (B), (C) and (D) will exacerbate the visual prominence of the mast which will be seen over a wide area. It is likely that it would be visible from every first or second floor south facing window in the Mapesbury Conservation Area.

The streetview up and down Walm Lane between St. Gabriel's Church and the top of the hill where Willesden Green Station is located is a critical and integral element of the Mapesbury Conservation Area's character and appearance. Further, the northward streetview up Walm Lane and across the top of the hill in front of the Willesden Green Station is a critical and integral elements of the Willesden Green Conservation Area character and appearance. Both of these would be completely ruined by the mast, which would tower above and overbear all of these views.

(E) The mast would be in very close proximity (70 metres - 3.5 times its height) to Willesden Green Station, which is a Grade II listed building, and would significantly impact the appearance of the station and of the open space in front of it (which is part of the Willesden Green Conservation Area) when approaching from the north (from the Mapesbury Conservation Area) and the south (through the Willesden Conservation Area).

(F) The mast would be right in the straight line of sight between Willesden Green Station and St. Gabriel's Church, which is also a Grade II listed building and is located about 10 meters lower down the hill (meaning that it would tower above the church in the background when approaching the church southwards along Walm Lane).

The applicant has taken no account in its application of the fact that the visual amenity and character of two Grade II listed buildings will be materially impacted by the proposal, as set out in (E) and (F) above.

(G) Finally, given that the applicant has taken no account of the above factors in the design of the mast (other than to say that the site is outside of a conservation area, which appears to be inaccurate and in any event is immaterial), the proposal itself does not comply with the design principles set out in the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England (2016 Edition) - in particular those set out in Appendix A.

While not directly relevant to my objection to the application, I would also like to highlight that:

- The area in the vicinity of the site is already very well served by broadband internet and further developments are currently ongoing (e.g. Hyperoptic is currently installing fibre underground throughout the conservation area), so there is no "critical need" for this 5g infrastructure, notwithstanding what the applicant says in its application. This should be taken into account when considering the balance between the need for this specific 5g mast and other public policy considerations (such as public amenity) when assessing this application.

- The proposed siting of the equipment boxes at the street level is completely irrational. It is proposed that they will be located in the middle of the public footpath, significantly reducing the available space for pedestrians and other users. What is the applicant's rationale for occupying so much footpath space and inconveniencing pedestrians, rather than siting the boxes beside the existing boxes on the east edge of the footpath?

- There is already a telecoms mast located along the train line on the south side of the Tube railway tracks, adjacent to Lydford Road. Given the presence of multiple conservation areas and listed buildings in the vicinity of the proposed mast, what consideration has the applicant given to reinforcing and/or sharing that mast, consistent with the requirements of the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England (2016 Edition), or otherwise siting the mast along the railway at a suitable distance from the existing tower, where it would not be as much an eyesore?

- There is already a telecoms mast located along the train line on the south side of the railway tracks, adjacent to Lydford Road. Given the presence of multiple conservation areas and listed buildings in the vicinity of the proposed mast, what consideration has the applicant given to reinforcing and/or sharing that mast, consistent with the requirements of the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England (2016 Edition), or otherwise siting the mast along the railway at a suitable distance from the existing tower, where it would not be as much an eyesore?

 Regarding alternatives, as suggested by some of the Objectors, including updating existing masts in the area, the Applicant states:

The very nature of installing new 5G mast infrastructure within such an urban setting requires a highly considered balance between the need to extend practical coverage reach with that of increasing risk of visual amenity intrusion. In this location, existing mast sites are not capable of supporting additional equipment compliment to extend coverage reach across the target area and prospective ‘in-fill’ mast sites are extremely limited.

There is an acute need for a new base station to provide effective service coverage and in this case, the height of the proposed street pole is the minimum required to bring the benefits of 5G to this area.

The 'Battle of the Brook' returns on April 20th over flooding and sewage fears regarding the Lidding Road Garages planning application

 

One of several teenagers seen crossing the Wealdstone Brook recently - if they fell in the water they could swallow something very nasty

A comprehensive objection has been submitted on the Brent Planning Portal to the Lidding Road Garages Planning Application. The Planning Committee will consider the application next week (Wednesday April 20th) after its deferral to consider a report from Thames Water.

Planning Officers are recommending approval LINK .

Comments can still be made on the Planning Application HERE

 

LIDDING ROAD GARAGES PLANNING APPLICATION number 21/3248  APRIL 2022

 

The Wealdstone Brook is a river that starts from a spring on Stanmore Common in Harrow and runs through Harrow, into Brent near Woodcock Park in Kenton and then onto the river Brent beyond Wembley. By the time water enters the London Borough of Brent at the cross roads of Kenton Road and Kenton Lane it is already seriously polluted and reading counts taken of the E.coli bacteria in the water at the end of Lidding Road in Kenton, were one of the highest recorded from waterways in the London area. E.coli is a naturally occurring bacterium that is found in the human gut and is therefore an indicator of foul raw sewage in a water course.

 

This serious level of water pollution is due in part to known and unknown misconnections of the foul surface water and foul raw sewage water connections throughout its course through Harrow and the additional misconnections in this part of Kenton, Brent. Under severe rainfall events the Wealdstone Brook quickly fills to its maximum capacity before it reaches Woodcock Park and, due in part to poor maintenance, blocked and damaged foul surface water and foul sewage drains, the areas around the Brook quickly get flooded and badly polluted. The most recent recorded foul raw sewage overspill was from the manhole on the grass area at the end of Lidding Road on the 5^th October 2021. This raw foul sewage over spilled onto the grass area, onto the area next to it known as the Legion Hall site and then into the Wealdstone Brook.

 

The Wealdstone Brook was an earth bank water course and there are numerous recorded flooding events between 1927 and 1981. In 1977 on the 16^th and 17^th August the Brook burst its banks and the whole surrounding area of Kenton was flooded including numerous residential properties. Following this 1977 event, works were undertaken along the length of the Brook up to and including the junction of the Kenton Road/Kenton Lane interchange – in other words mainly on the Brent side. These works included the widening, deepening and brick-walling sections of the Brook from Woodcock Park down to Wembley. The aim of these improvement works was to increase the capacity of the Brook and to speed up the flow of the water. An engineer’s report at that time indicated that these improvements would alleviate problems of flooding for 50 years – and that was 43 years ago.

 

The Wealdstone Brook is simply incapable of coping with the expected water run-off during storm events because it is, according to a recent Thames Water engineer, attempting to operate at over 130% capacity during severe weather events. There is an important difference between the Wealdstone Brook over-spilling its banks and the flooding which occurs around the Wealdstone Brook during severe weather events. This distinction is important in the light of the recorded history of the Brook. As stated earlier, the Brook starts its life from a spring on Stanmore Common in Harrow and continues to receive surface water from several sources as it runs towards the river Brent:

 

1.    Surface road drains taking rain water from roads and into the Brook. Most of the outlets of these drains can be seen on the sides of the Brook and most are at a low level where their outlet enters the Brook. Many are blocked with debris due to poor maintenance and soon become unable to discharge when the flowing water level in the Brook rises.

2.   Water run-off from saturated ground – such as the parks, school grounds as well as gardens which abut the sides of the Brook.

3.   Damaged, broken and leaking clean water drains.

4.   Misconnected foul sewage water and surface water pipes which connect to the surface water drains as in 1).

5.    Springs

Even in the driest of summers and the coldest of winters, water continues to flow in the Brook.

 

It is when there are torrential downpours and storm like conditions that we see the full force of the Brook. Within 30minutes of a storm event in the NW London area, the Brook can be full of water moving along it at a rate of 20 tons per second. In these situations the Brook is at full capacity when it hits the culvert that runs under the Kenton Road/Kenton Lane interchange and the roads around here become flooded. The poorly maintained road drains cannot cope and cannot discharge into the Brook. By the time the water reaches the Falcon Way culvert it is also full to capacity. Again, road flooding around this area and around Lindsay Drive roundabout occurs for the same reasons. These are all HA3 0 areas of Kenton. If any problems occur further down the Brook such as blockages of the road and railway culverts or the opening of the sluice gates on the Welsh Harp, then the flow of water in the Brook is slowed resulting in areas around the Brook higher up flooding even more severely.

 

Flooding from the Wealdstone Brook is therefore a more complex issue than simply saying that the Brook is overflowing its banks. It is a combination of hydrology issues which vary from event to event and include such factors as the direction of the weather storm event, the intensity of the downpours, the length of the downpours and, crucially to begin with, the state of the drains. Once a storm event has started both surface foul water and domestic foul water sewer drains quickly become full, house drains overflow and the mixture of these waters pollutes the surrounding land and intensifies the pollution of the Brook.

 

The main Wealdstone Trunk Sewer, which follows a similar path to the Wealdstone Brook through Woodcock Park and onto the northern section of the grounds of Uxendon Manor School, has been known to discharge its contents from 6m underground to well over 3m above ground during severe storm conditions. All this foul and surface water attempts to flow into the Brook.

 

To put it bluntly, the drainage infrastructure in the area simply cannot cope and is not fit for purpose. For the Environment Agency and Thames Water to say that housing developments close to the Brook can tap into the present infrastructure is to ignore the numerous occasions that Thames Water and Lanes for Drains have had to clean, repair and replace various pieces of drainage pipework in the area in the past few years. And to attempt to build on and next to the present drainage infrastructure as suggested in the Lidding Road garages development proposal (Planning Application 21/3248) would land Brent Council with a substantial structural and economic ongoing problem which would be both a disaster for the residents of these new builds, the residents in the surrounding area as well as an ongoing and increasing economic burden for the Council tax payers of Brent Council. Hash Patel, a past Principal Engineer, Transportation Service with Brent Council, following flooding around the Brook on Wednesday 26^th August 2015 and Wednesday 16^th September 2015 stated the following:

 

“Regarding the River Brent and Wealdstone Brook, I am not aware that surface water has topped the banks (of the Brook). I am aware of flooding in your catchment and majority is related to inadequate capacity in the public sewer network” (my emphasis)

 

Thames Water knows it has to divert the damaged, broken and dysfunctional Victorian sewer pipe that runs from Woodgrange Close, through Woodcock Park, across the green field sites at the end of Lidding Road, through the back gardens of numbers 9 to 14 Brookfield Crescent and onto the manhole junction in Brookfield Crescent, before any works can take place on the site of the old Legion Hall and the grass area at the end of Lidding Road. This would be a very expensive piece of restructuring work. Best not to let them pass the buck to Brent Council.

 

It is wrong to consider housing developments in a flood plain zone 3 area and it is wrong to build over foul water sewers and surface water sewers. The Environment Agency and Thames Water are wrong to approve to the proposed housing development at the end of Lidding Road (Planning Application 21/3248). They are, in my opinion, acting irresponsibly.

 

Brent Council declared a Climate Emergency in 2019 (www.brent.gov.uk/climateemergency) and their pamphlet ‘Nature, green space and the climate and ecological emergency’ should surely be the foundation and driving force in the local Planning agenda. ‘Protect the remaining green spaces, support biodiversity, stop flooding or reduce their severity by preventing surface run off’ – all good intentions which need to be put into practice.

 

An Independent London Flood Review has been announced (Wednesday 22^nd December 2021) into the flooding events of July 2021. The review seeks ‘to better understand the extent and causes of these floods, to assess how the drainage systems performed, and to recommend how the increasing risks of future flooding events can be managed.’

 

‘The review, which has been commissioned by Thames Water, will play an integral part in ensuring that the company future proofs its infrastructure to protect its customers, their communities and the environment as such severe weather events look set to become the norm across the UK.’

 

‘The review will also play an important role in improving the collaborative working between all parties responsible for managing future flooding risks. As part of its focus, the review will provide insights on London’s wider drainage infrastructure and broader recommendations that could be adopted by all organisations with surface water responsibilities. It is anticipated that the review will take no more than 6 months with interim reports published as it progresses.’

 

It would be prudent of Brent Council Planning Committee to await the findings of this review in areas where flooding has occurred and is occurring not just in severe weather events but under normal rainfall conditions. This should be particularly applied to areas designated as Flood Zones 3a and 3b by the Environment Agency such as in the Lidding Road garages Planning Application 21/3248.

 

‘This Independent Review will also assist with Thames Water’s role (as a Risk Management Authority) in supporting Local Authorities in undertaking their flooding investigations as required by Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010).’

 

‘As part of its Independent Review this inquiry will examine the flooding mechanisms and consider the performance of drainage systems against design standards.’

 

This will hopefully set a standard whereby Brent Council Planning Officers and Brent Council Planning Committee members can assess whether a housing development such as that proposed at the end of Lidding Road meets the necessary flood risk assessment standards or is too risky to consider until major changes have been undertaken to the surface water and foul sewage water drainage infrastructure in the area of the proposed development.

 

Finally, I would like to conclude on the assumed role of the Environment Agency (EA) with regards to the Wealdstone Brook and its maintenance including its banks. The EA claim in an email letter to John Poole dated 28^th April 2021 that they do not own the Brook and are not responsible for its maintenance including the banks of the Brook. The EA claim the maintenance is the responsibility of the riparian owner where the banks are owned by the landowner which in the case of my garden would be me. There is just one problem with this approach to the responsibility for maintenance and repair and that is that the EA does not allow me to enter the Brook to carry out any necessary maintenance or repair. The other issue to do with this denial of responsibility from the EA and delegation of responsibility to riparian owners is that Brent Council would have to take over stretches of the Wealdstone Brook and its banks where Brent Council owned land joins the Brook or where the Council owned properties with gardens end at the Brook since they would be designated the riparian owner. This is particularly relevant in the case of the Planning Application 21/3248 since Brent Council would be deemed to be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Brook and its banks from the footbridge near the Woodcock Park Mural, through Woodcock Park, past the end of Lidding Road, past the site of the ex-Legion Hall grounds and down to the Falcon Way bridge at least on the Uxendon Manor School side of the Brook. Needless to say, if this was proven to be correct this would have very serious financial implications for Brent Council.

 

References:

 

BRENT COUNCIL – Flood Risk Management Strategy – Managing the Floods Risk in Brent - 2015

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL – Public Services and Safety Committee Report (30.09.77) – from the Director of Public Health Engineering  - Flooding on 17^th August 1977.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD – Departmental Investigation into Flood Warning Arrangements in North West London – Report – (25^th April 1978)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL – RIVER BRENT FLOOD ALEVIATION SCHEME – ENGINEERS REPORT – MAY 1982 –WEALDSTONE BROOK.

HALCROW REPORT – The Environment Agency Thames Region – Wealdstone Brook Investigations – Scheme No 3721 – February 1999

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL FOR RIVER BRENT FLOOD ALLEVIATION SCHEME – WEALDSTONE BROOK VOLUME 3 (Contract no.BD3) LEDWAY DRIVE TO KENTON ROAD – January 2002.

WATER FLOW RATE (m3/s) READINGS OF THE WEALDSTONE BROOK FROM THE UNIT AT THE JUNCTION OF KENTON LANE AND KENTON ROAD – from 30^TH November 1976 to 14^th November 2020 DURING SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS.

SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS: WRITTEN STATEMENT-HCWS161 made by Eric Pickles (Secretary of State of Communities and Local Government) – 18^th December 2014.

NOTES FROM THE KENTON DRAINAGE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12^TH OCTOBER 2016

Water Industry Act 1991 – Chapter 56 – Sewerage Services – as amended.

Wealdstone Brook Water Quality meeting Thursday 22^nd August 2019 which includes a map of all the misconnections of foul sewage water pipes and surfaces water pipes known at that point in time in the Harrow area.

THAMES WATER – Building over or close to a public sewer – undated but updated on a regular basis on the Thames Water website.

PINNACLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS – PROBABILITY OF FLOODING – A flood risk assessment revision 1 as part of the Planning Application for temporary classrooms on the Uxendon Manor School site – undated but probably around 2015 and includes a detailed Thames Water Drainage and Water Enquiry of the area around the school.

Flood Risk Assessment – Uxendon Manor Temporary Classrooms – April 2015 – Price and Myers – contains important information with regards to flood risk assessment in the area of the proposed Lidding Road development.

Email correspondence with Hash Patel, Principal Engineer, Transportation Services, Brent Council September 16^th 2015.

London Flood Review (https://londonfloodreview.co.uk/) December 2021

Environment Agency email from Catherine MacDougall – Asset Performance Team Leader (Colne, Brent and Crane) dated 28^th April 2021 (ref: HNL 12715 HH) – to John Poole. 

 

 

UPDATED: Triumph for campaigners as planning application to build flats on Barham Park withdrawn

 

 

A triumphant Sudbury Town Residents Association published the above on Twitter this afternoon. The Sudbury Court Residents Association (SCRA) waged a well-researched battle including uncovering covenants to stop the building of a block of flats to replace the present modest houses. 

They deserve credit for this long-running. extremely determined, grassroots campaign  LINK which had latterly been joined by some local councillors.  

Sudbury Labour announced the withdrawal of the application on their website LINK

The painstaking work of Sudbury Court Residents Association (SCRA) can be seen in this exchange of emails that are likely to have influenced the application withdrawal.  Readers may remember that  Wembley Matters drew attention to the fact that Brent Council Leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt, appeared to have taken on the chairmanship of the Barham Park Trust Committee since its last meeting.

 

SCRA wrote to the Barham Park Trust Committee:

 Re: Brent Planning Application 21/1106 | Demolition of dwelling houses and erection of a four storey residential building comprising 9 self-contained flats with roof top terrace and associated access, parking and landscaping | 776 & 778 Harrow Road, Wembley

 

Dear Barham Park Trust Committee

 

I am writing on behalf of the Sudbury Court Residents Association.  We represent approximately 2800 households on the Sudbury Court and Pebworth Estates. Some our residents are located less than 850m from the site.

 

We wish to draw your attention to and OBJECT to the above application and we support the objection submitted by the Brent Council Member for Barnhill Ward.

 

In addition, we strongly feel that this will cause numerous problems for our residents, detailed below:

 

1.     Initial soundings of residents have been a resounding rejection of any development over and above the Covenanted limits especially as the site is 'within' the Barham Park boundary.

2.    As our residents use Barham Park for recreation and exercise, their enjoyment and even privacy will be compromised as this large building will completely spoil its view. It is the nearest park for many of our residents, so it is critical that it is preserved as such, especially as we recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and both physical and mental health have been affected.

3.    This development will increase congestion on an already busy road, increasing pollution and road danger.

4.    Vehicles turning into the site will increase danger for pedestrians and cause disruption to traffic flow, including buses. This is at the start of the number 18 bus route and this may delay the bus further and increase danger for pedestrians accessing the bus stop.

5.    There is no provision of delivery parking so this will either lead to obstruction of the road or footway.

6.    Car parking provision is contrary to the Council's policy on parking provision in developments.

7.     There is likely to be significant impact on wildlife, especially bats, which are a protected and rare species.

8.    Damage to the Cedar of Lebanon tree is unacceptable.

9.    There are restrictive covenants placed on the site, which forbid such a development. The covenant limits use on the two separate parts of the site (776 & 778) in each case to 1 single private dwelling houses and garage.

 

Councillor Butt replied that he would pass the comments on to the planning team.

 

SCRA responded:

 

My apologies as I don't think I clarified the purpose of my email to the Barham Park Trustees.

 

Our email was meant to have been addressed to yourself as Chair.

 

We wished to draw your attention to the above application in case you were not aware of it, as it would be the expectation of the SCRA that the Barham Park Trust would be lodging a strong and robust objection to the application.

 

Titus Barnham gifted the site to Brent in 1937, and as a Charitable Trust, it has an obligation protect the endowment.

 

To allow the park to be ruined by permitting the building of a residential block of flats, would be ignoring the obligations of the gift and is in direct contradiction of the restrictive covenants (inserted at the end of my email).

 

The roles of the Barham Park Charity LINK  are:

 

What the charity does:

·       Education/training

·       Arts/culture/heritage/science

·       Amateur Sport

·       Environment/conservation/heritage

·       Economic/community Development/employment

 

Who the charity helps:

·       The General Public/mankind

 

How the charity helps:

·       Provides Buildings/facilities/open Space

 

It does not have a role in providing/facilitating private housing.  

 

We are aware that errors were made when the cottages were originally built and when they were sold, I am sure that the Charity Commission have taken a dim view of the management of this gift to the people of Brent.

 

If the site was to be developed for the benefit of the public, eg a park cafe or other community facility, this would perhaps be acceptable, but to build a private block of flats is, in our view, a direct breach of the covenant.  

 

If any land is disposed of, we envisage that the Trust would seek to obtain a good market value for such a desirable site.

 

Councillor Butt, we trust in your role as Chair of the Board of Trustees, you will be leading a strong objection to this application.

 

Regards SCRA

 

Restrictive Covenants as filed with the Land Registry and belonging to the Barham Trust on 776 Harrow Road (778 is the same)

 

 

12.4

 

Restrictive covenants by the Transferee

 

12.4.1

 

The Transferee covenants with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982 to observe and perform the restrictions contained in clause 12.4.2 ('The Restrictions') and it is agreed and declared that:

 

12.4.1.1

 

the benefit of this covenant is to be attached to and endure for each and every part of the Retained Land that remains unsold by the Transferor or has been sold by the Transferor (or by any person claiming through the Transferor otherwise than by a transfer on sale) with the express benefit of this covenant

 

12.4.1.2

 

the burden of this covenant is intended to bind and binds each and every part of the Property into whosoever hands it may come

 

12.4.1.3

 

an obligation in the Restrictions not to do any act or thing includes an obligation not to permit or suffer that act or thing to be done by another person

 

12.4.2

 

The Restrictions are the following: 

 

12.4.2.1 

 

not to use the Property otherwise than as a single private dwelling house and the garage for any purpose other than as a ancillary private garage

 

12.4.2.2 

 

not to divide the Property into two or more dwellings or residential units

 

12.4.2.3 

 

not to erect or cause to be erected on the Property any building or structure whatsoever except a greenhouse or shed of not greater length than 4 metres and of not greater height than 3 metres or permit or suffer any person under the Transferor's control to do so

 

12.4.2.4 

 

not to stand or support any vehicle, commercial vehicle trailer, mobile home, caravan, trailer, cart or boat on any part of the Property, and

 

12.4.2.5 

 

not to carry out any development within the meaning of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in or upon the Property

 

12.4.2.6 

 

not to park any motor vehicle on or otherwise obstruct any part of the accessway hatched yellow and hatched green or any part of the Retained Land at any time

 

12.5

 

Positive covenants by the Transferee

 

The Transferee covenants on behalf of itself and its successors in title with the Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of the Retained Land and each and every part of the Retained Land and with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982

 

12.5.1

 

to contribute and pay within 14 days of demand (ll) fifty percent (50%) of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing the accessway shown hatched yellow on the Plan

 

(b) a fair and due proportion of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing sewers drains pipes cables party walls and all other structures apparatus or installations which service the Property in common with any neighbouring or adjoining property

 

12.5.2

 

to maintain repair and renew at all times hereafter to the satisfaction of Transferor

 

12.5.2.1

 

a good and sufficient metal palisade fence and timber fence or wall on any of the boundaries of the Property marked with ''T'' (if any) within the boundaries of the said plan.

 

12.5.2.2

 

the pathway hatched brown stippled red and the accessway hatched green stippled red on the Plan to a reasonable standard

 

12.5.3

 

not to transfer the Property or grant a lease of the Property or the Transferee's freehold estate in the Property or any other estate or interest in it to any person without first ensuring that the person has executed a deed directly with Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of each and every part of the Retained Land containing the covenants and provisions of clause 12.5. mutatis mutandis including this present covenant 12.5.3.