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

Sunday 12 November 2023

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

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

Dear Brent Councillors and Committee members, 

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 



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

 

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

 


 

 

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

 

 




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

 

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

  1. Brent's own Heritage Officer has concerns about the uncharacteristically narrow modern dwelling at the end of the row of traditional properties and the harm it will do to the conservation area. 
  2. Brent’s own Transport Officer had recommended refusal of the proposal on the grounds that the development would:
  • be contrary to Local Plan Policy BT2
  • the imposition of parking restrictions for the existing residents would not be reasonable, as their properties do not form part of the planning application. 
  • add to on-street parking demand in an area that is unable to safely accommodate a significant amount of parking
  • be detrimental to on-street parking conditions 
  1. Brent’s own Tree Officer has serious concerns about impact on the trees (which fall within the Barn Hill Conservation area) if this proposal goes ahead.

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

 

 

 

Thursday 19 October 2023

Harlesden Gambling Centre refused, Mumbai Junction approved, and Kilburn Square abandoned at last night's Planning Committee

 

 Speakers against the Mumbai Junction planning application

 

Last night's Planning Committee was a funny old meeting. The Chair had to send for a bucket because water was leaking through the roof of the Civic Centre (c£100m) and evetually the meeting was abandoned when the water got into the audio system and made participants sound like fish.  Cllr Maurice raised a concern about noise coming from the floor below - it turned out not to be a riot but Navratri celebrations.  Eventually the meeting had to be abandoned because of the water seepage and the Kilburn Square application hearing was not completed.

Matt Kelcher vacated the chair for the first item because he had, prior to becoming chair spoken out against the application, (not because his Cabinet member wife Mili Patel was one of the main speakers against the Adult Gaming Centre in Harlesden).

A strong squad of ward councillors opposed the application and quoted police evidence on the damaging impact of yet another gambling joint in Harlesden. Acting Chair Cllr Saqib Butt (whose brother is leader of the council) did his best to sway the committee but four members voted against and only Butt and two others for the application. A senior officer intervened to suggest deferment but that was a gamble too far and the refusal decision stood.

The long-running Mumbai Junction application was another matter.  This had been first refused and then deferred at the August Planning Committee (after an officer intervention) so that defensible reasons for rejection could be compiled. These were included in the officers' report but despite representations by three ex-councillors (Mitchell-Murry, Lloyd and Perrin) and one current councillor (Lorber) the Committee, rather unconvincingly, over-turned their previous decision.  I couldn't possibly comment on post-meeting suggestions that they had been got at.

In answer to a question in comments, the final vote on Mumbai Junction was 5 for, 1 against (Cllr Maurice) and 1 abstention (Cllr Mahmood).

Sunday 13 August 2023

Mumbai Junction site: a record of floods and accidents that Brent Council doesn't appear to know about

 

 Recorded 9th August 2021


 The applicant denied all knowledge of flooding at 231 Watford Road and last week's Planning Committee when the Mumbai Junction plannin application was approved. The above video has been sent to planning officers as they need to be awate of the real situation.

A resident writes:

There are usually 3 or 4 event like this per year when the drainage manhole on Sudbury Court Drive near the junction with Bengeworth Road blows out due to a lack of capacity in the surface water drainage systems locally. The water runs down hill to the roundabout and across the road towards 23 Watford Road. Thames Water are often contacted via the council to resolve.

Officers also appeared to minimise the number of traffic accidents on roads in the area. Twitter tells a different story.


 


 




 

Wednesday 21 June 2023

Petition launched calling on Brent Council to protect our parks and green spaces from development

 

After the very unpopular decision of Brent Planning Committee to allow the building of 4 bulky houses in Barham Park, residents have been concerned that a precedent has been set which could threaten our other parks and public spaces. This is particularly the case where there are existing buildings in the park or green space that could be declared redundant or poorly maintained and the site redeveloped.

We learnt how important green spaces are during the pandemic and open access is important. Access has already been lost to the Copland Fields and green space is likely to be lost in South Kilburn. The St Raphael's green space may be eaten into in future redevelopment.   At the same time Brent's tower block building boom means that the population has increased and the new residents have no gardens, just access to a balcony or a small shared space consisting mainly of concrete. An exception will be the new Union Park near the stadium.

Barham Park is supposedly protected by covenant, a fact that the Planning Committee discounted as not a planning consideration, but unfortunately even that is not the case with other parks.

In Brent only King Edward VII Park, Wembley; Roe Green Walled Garden in Kingsbury and Mapesbury Dell in Cricklewood are protected by Fields in Trust. Their mission is to protect parks and green  spaces.  Owners can apply to Fields in Trust whether private, community or local authority for a potection agreement. Brent Council is of course the owner of our parks and public spaces apart from Queens Park which is owned by the Corporation of London.


 

Brent Council as the landowner would have to apply for a protection agreement and that will need pressure from residents to persuade them that such action is vital.

Meanwhile a petition has been launched in the wake of the Barham Park decision calling on Brent Council to uphold its Strategic Plan commitment to protecting parks and open spaces.

The petition is on Brent Council's website HERE

 

Save Brent Parks from house building & development

 

We the undersigned petition the council to uphold its long standing Strategic Policy of protecting Brent Parks and Open Spaces at all cost.

 

We are concerned that Brent Council's Planning Committee has ignored Strategic Core Policy of protecting Parks and Open Spaces and also the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan, which designated Barham Park as a Local Green Space and developed a specific Planning Policy BP1 which stated that any housing building or redevelopment in Barham Park should be refused. That decision has effectively undermined Neighbourhood Planning, ignored the views of local people and put at risk other Parks and Open Spaces across Brent.

 



Wednesday 7 June 2023

UPDATED: 'I STILL can't believe it!' - Brent Council does it again

 

Having admitted earlier this week that the letter to residents encouraging them to attend next week's vital Planning Committee online was a mistake - an old format that cited covid restriction, the Council said that residents could attend in-person.

However, the council website front page notice of Monday's  Planning Committee states, 'If you wish to attend this meeting we ask that you join online using the live webcast.'

It's enough to turn this 76 year old into Victor Meldrew! 

 

UPDATE - Brent Council has amended its announcement on the website but it is not exactly encouraging the public to attend in-person as is their right! Anyone would think they really do not want the public there.

 



Monday 5 June 2023

'Misrepresentation' by officers cited in Objection to the Barham Park Application Committee Report before Brent Planning Committee on June 12th: Application must be refused.

 Philip Grant informed readers of this objection on a comment to the earlier article on the Barham Park planning application. With his permission I am publishing it as a guest post:

Barham Park objection comment on Officer Report to 12 June Planning Committee:-

This is an objection to a misrepresentation made in the Committee Report by Planning Officers to the Planning Committee meeting on 12 June 2023.

A Supplementary Report to the meeting should be prepared, setting out IN FULL the grounds for this objection, and the Officer response to it.

The heading of the Report states that the Planning Area for application 22/4128 is “Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Forum”. The misrepresentation occurs over the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan, referred to in paragraphs 11 and 13 of the Committee Report.

Paragraph 11 correctly states that: ‘It is set out within Neighbourhood Plan policy BP1 (Barham Park) that any proposals for the re-use or redevelopment of park buildings for residential use (Use Class C3) will not be supported.’

That should be the conclusion of the matter, with a recommendation that application 22/4128 should be refused, because the application proposes the redevelopment of park buildings, increasing their size, height and number of dwellings for residential use.

However, paragraph 13 seeks to turn the clear policy position over the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan (as set out in paragraph 11) on its head!

It begins the attempt to do this by saying that: ‘Neighbourhood Plan Policies LGS1, LGS2 and BP1 ARE RELEVANT to the proposal ....’ (note: my capital letters, for emphasis). Those policies are more than just relevant. They are what should decide the matter, for the reason I will explain at the end of this objection comment.

Paragraph 13 goes on to say: ‘... the proposal is not considered to result in the redevelopment of park buildings.’ However, at the top of the Officer Report “The Proposal” is described as: ‘Demolition of 2 existing dwellings and construction of 4x new three storey dwellinghouses.’

The definition of “redevelopment” in ordinary English usage is: ‘the action or process of developing something again or differently.’ The proposal should clearly be considered as a redevelopment of park buildings, and the Officer Report has misdirected the Committee on that point.

Following on from this misdirection, paragraph 13 states: ‘The proposal is considered to accord with policies LGS1, LGS2 and BP1.’ The proposal DOES NOT accord with those policies, because those policies in the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan, specifically policy BP1 relating to Barham Park, state:

‘Proposals for the re-use of the existing Barham Park buildings to provide a new community facility (D1 or D2 Use) or any other use that would support and complement the function of the park will be supported. Any proposals for the re-use or redevelopment of park buildings for residential use (Use Class C3) WILL NOT BE SUPPORTED.’

Paragraph 13 concludes by trying to counter the point I have just made: ‘if one contended that Policy BP1 relates to all buildings within the area designated Local Green Space as opposed to all buildings within the park itself, it is noted that the fall-back position for the applicant would be the continued use of the houses and their curtilages for their current lawful use, for purposes within Use Class C3.’

Yes, the applicant can continue to use the two existing houses in the park, built originally as homes for park-keepers, but no longer required for that purpose, for their current Class C3 use.

But that does not entitle the applicant to demolish those two houses and redevelop the site for four new houses. To do that would require planning consent, which is what application 22/4128 is seeking to achieve. However, policy BP1 clearly states that such a proposal ‘will not be supported’. It should not have been supported, and recommended for approval, by Planning Officers, and it should not be approved by Brent’s Planning Committee.

The Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan was adopted by Brent Council in 2015, and forms an integral part of Brent’s current Local Plan. When the idea of neighbourhood plans was put forward in the original version of the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), this stated:

‘Local communities through local and neighbourhood plans should be able to identify for special protection green areas of particular importance to them. By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances.’

There are no ‘very special circumstances’ which would support the proposed development in application 22/4128.

The most recent version of the NPPF (July 2021) states in paragraph 30:

‘Once a neighbourhood plan has been brought into force, the policies it contains take precedence over existing non-strategic policies in a local plan covering the neighbourhood area, where they are in conflict; unless they are superseded by strategic or non-strategic policies that are adopted subsequently.’

There is no evidence that policy BP1 in the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan has been superseded by policies adopted subsequently. Therefore, policy BP1 takes precedence over any other Local Plan policies covering the neighbourhood area of which Barham Park forms a part. As a result, application 22/4128 MUST be refused.

Philip Grant, Submitted 5 June 2023.

Brent letter restricting attendance at Barham Park development hearing was a mistake - you CAN attend in-person


 

The proposed development in Barham Park

 

Opposition councillor Paul Lorber has received a response confirming that the Council made another mistake (the first was failure to consult everyone affected) in their letter apparently restricting public attendance at the June 12th Planning Committee. It was 'old wording'.

The Committee are due to consider George Irvin's application to build 4 three storey houses in Barham Park on a site currently occupied by a pair of two storey houses.


New letters are being sent advising that there are no restrictions and people can attend in-person or on-line and that the meeting is going ahead on Monday 12th June  at 6pm as planned.
 
The meeting is particularly crucial because it could set a precedent for application for other parks and green spaces where there are existing buildings.
 
To address the committee you must notify Executive and Member Services by 5 pm on the working day before the committee meeting. Please email committee@brent.gov.uk or telephone the Executive and Member Services Officer, Mrs Dev Bhanji, on 07786 681276 during office hours. 


Saturday 3 June 2023

UPDATE:Lorber challenges attendance restriction. Brent Council recommends approval of application to build in Barham Park and restricts attendance at the Planning Committee considering it

 

The proposed four 3 storey houses in Barham Park


Residents who have made comments on funfair supremo and developer, George Irvin's, controversial application to build four 3 storey houses in  Barham Park, have been surprised to receive letters apparently restricting attendance at the Planning Committee that will decide the application on June 12th.

The letter (below) cites Covid restrictions but these were not in evidence at the Council's Annual General Meeting and currently not in evidence in the public areas of the Civic Centre.

The UK Government website says, 'There are no coronavirus (Covid-19) restrictions in the UK.' 

Despite widespread opposition to this proposal the Chief Planner is recommending approval.

 

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (as amended) THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

Re: 776 & 778, Harrow Road, Wembley, HA0 2HE 

 

I refer to the planning application for the above site which proposes:- 

 

Demolition of 2 existing dwellings and construction of 4x new three storey dwellinghouses, associated cycle and refuse storage, amenity space and boundary treatment 

 

The application will be formally considered at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 12 June, 2023 starting at 6pm. 

 

As a result of the current regulations allowing the Council to hold meetings of the Planning Committee remotely coming to an end, the Council is now required to hold this as a socially distanced physical (face to face) meeting. 

 

This meeting of the Committee has therefore been arranged to take place in the Conference Hall, at the Civic Centre. 

 

As we are still operating under existing Covid restrictions, capacity within the meeting venue has been strictly limited to ensure compliance with the necessary social distancing guidelines. 

 

We are therefore encouraging those who wish to observe proceedings to continue doing so via the live webstream which we will continue to make available on the Council’s website

 

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/democracy-in-brent/local-democracy/live-streaming/ 

 

It is possible to speak at the Committee Meeting, which (in advance of the current restrictions coming to an end) can continue to be undertaken online (including via the telephone) or now, as an alternative, in person at the meeting, subject to the restrictions set out in the Council's Standing Order. These provide for one objector and/or one supporter of the application to speak. The Chair has the discretion to increase this to two people from each side. In doing this, the Chair will give priority to occupiers nearest to the application site or representing a group of people. 

 

To address the committee you must notify Executive and Member Services by 5 pm on the working day before the committee meeting. Please email committee@brent.gov.uk or telephone the Executive and Member Services Officer, Mrs Dev Bhanji, on 07786 681276 during office hours. If you would prefer to attend the physical meeting to speak in person then please could you indicate this when notifying us of your request, as attendance will need to be strictly managed on the night. This may involve you having to wait in a separate area outside of the meeting room until you are called to speak.

 

The Chief Planner's recommendation for this application is to Grant Consent

 

 UPDATE:

 

Following expressions of concern from local residents about the restriction on attendance at the consideration of a very controversial planning application, Sudbury Lib Dem councillor Paul Lorber has written to Brent Council:


This is a very odd letter to be sent to Councillors and residents about a Planning Meeting.

There are no COVID restrictions in place and none were applied at the recent Council AGM.

This has confused resident concerned about this controversial Planning Application and given an impression that residents are being dissuaded from attending and show the strength of local opposition.

Can you please clarify the position and if the letter and references to COVID restrictions were sent in error a new notification sent out and if appropriate the item postponed to a later date.

Regards,
 
Paul Lorber

 

 




Monday 1 May 2023

355 new hotel rooms for Olympic Way plus 26 storey private residential block. Nearby residents complain of daylight and sunlight impact,


 The new hotel tower replacing 3 Olympic Way and the Novotel upper extension

The rattle of luggage trolleys will become louder along Olympic Way if Brent Planning Committee approves a new 23 storey hotel to replace the  current much lower 7 storey building at 3 Olympic Way  and a further 6 storey upper floor extension to the Novotel making it 16 storeys  high.

The officers' report states;

The proposed hotel accommodation would comprise of an upwards and infill extension to the existing Novotel at 5 Olympic Way, as well as separate, new hotel directly adjacent at 3 Olympic Way. The application states the new hotel would be a 3 star model and that the reception area to the existing Novotel would be transformed to create a shared reception area for the both the existing and proposed hotels, with extended restaurant offer to cater for both hotels too. The leisure facilities proposed (i.e. swimming pool and gym) at basement level below the proposed hotel will also serve the existing Novotel.

 

In apparent contradiction to this description of shared facilities the officers also state:

 

This hotel is planned to be used by a different hotel operator, (i.e. it would not constitute a further extension to the Novotel), and would have 260 hotel rooms.

The planning application is not limited to the hotels. The site includes a large car park space between Olympic Way and North End Road that will be built on. 

Plans for this space includes a 26 storey  residential building with 142 private homes named the 'Central Residence' and a 10 storey bullding of 30  apartments facing North End Road for 'affordable' housing.

The proposal goes to Brent Planning Committee at their meeting on Wednesday May 10th 6pm. Residents can apply to speak  on the proposal.  LINK

 


 The officers' report spends considerable space on the problems of 'viability of social housing provision' and ends with agreeing that despite much higher requirements in terms of guidance that 10.4% social rent and 6.97% London Shared Ownership is all that can be provided in terms of financial viability of the whole development.


 To summarise 142 homes (82.5%) will be private, 18 social rent (10.4%) and 12 shared ownership (6.97%) shared ownership.  So only 1 in 10 of the homes will be properly affordable.

As social and shared ownerships are all in one building on North End Road there is no impingement by 'affordabe residents' on the private area.

The officers' report addresses existing residents' concerns over access to daylight and sunlight  (they say Danes Court, Pinnacle Tower, Trabriz Court and Felda House are affected) with this statement:

The growth area designation which applies to this location, and which envisions significant housing growth within the locality of the site is given significant weight. The expectation for significant development within this growth area, as well as the expected high-density nature of development, would naturally reduce the expectations for full compliance with the daylight and sunlight guidance for new development in this location. As noted above, the undeveloped nature of a large proportion of the site affords some surrounding buildings access to a higher level of existing sunlight and a generous baseline scenario, however this is a location where change is expected to occur and the existing baseline conditions cannot realistically be maintained

The officers' report states that there are 22 objections to the development but there are 57 recorded (some going back to the 2021 application);

Here is a recent objection;

Danes Court resident: In response to your further letter regarding the application 3-5 Olympic Way HA9 0NP, I wish to again oppose these plans. I can see no significant change to the planning application for this site, which was first opposed by me in March 2022.

As I mentioned before, the proposal to develop and build a building on 3-5 Olympic Way of basement ground, nine, twenty two, and twenty five storeys will have a very detrimental impact on me and my family (and other Danes Court residents). I live in 22 Danes Court which faces and is adjacent to North End Road. Over a period of several years our quality of life has declined considerably due to the building of numerous very tall blocks of flats and student accommodation; Victoria Hall, Felda House, Scape, 1 Olympic Way, Anthology, and recently a vast Barrett tower block of flats. These have had a considerable impact on the light on my flat. Since these buildings have been erected and most recently 1 Olympic way where a 15 storey tower block had been built opposite our flat (to add insult to injury, this block appears to be unoccupied!), the light to my flat has almost disappeared. We now have almost no sunlight onto our flat. The days of enjoying an afternoon sitting on my balcony are a distant memory and with this proposal we will be almost constantly living in shade.

The proposal to build 9, 22 and 25 storey buildings plus add six storeys to the Novotel hotel will almost completely decimate any remaining light on our flat. This is not only detrimental to our well being, but our health as well. The reduction in light and privacy have impacted on our mental health and quality of life. Plants that used to thrive on my balcony now do not due to lack of sun (this may seem minor to you but is important to me). This proposal will significantly negatively impact on mine and others quality of life. Please consider the Right to Light Act 1959. I have lived in my flat for 28 years and enjoyed wonderful light for most of that, now it has lessened to very little and this proposal will take most of the little light we have particularly in the afternoons.

These buildings plus a supermarket will bring more people and traffic, which will also impact on the noise, litter (a huge problem since all these buildings have been erected in and near North End Road), privacy, anti-social behaviour and traffic. North End Road is a dangerous rat run of traffic, fumes and noise. It is almost impossible to cross without taking your life in your hands. Lorries, cars, vans and occasionally coaches thunder down that road. We are also often disturbed by vehicles sounding their horns in the midst of severe congestion of traffic during school pick ups and event days. Adding further congestion with traffic from these buildings will increase the nightmare of this hideous, dangerous road.


The Danes and Empire Court flats were built in around the 1930s. The recent buildings have smothered them, (they are now hidden by surrounding ugly concrete tower blocks,) and brought only negative impact on the residents.


Litter has increased substantially. Only today I watched a man empty his care boot of plastic water bottles and chuck them on the ground. Take away food containers and other rubbish had led to an increase in vermin and made the area look run down, which I am sure has contributed to an increase in crime. Ie drug dealing has become the norm.


This proposal will considerably further add to the detrimental impact on mine and other residents qualify of life. Therefore I oppose it.

And one from April last year:

Shams Court resident:  

With reference to planning application 21/2130, I would like to register my strong objections to this application as it will have a major impact on all occupants of my address, all 9 flats in Shams Court, and I believe our opinions should be counted as we have clearly been identified in the plans as THOSE MOST AFFECTED. My reasons for objecting are as below:


1. Developers have stated that they consulted us (the owners of Sham's Court). This is entirely UNTRUE and NO attempt has been made by the developers to consult any of the owners of Sham's Court. This is just one example of the falsehoods mentioned in their planning application.


2. From the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessment you can see that the 8, 22 and 25 storey buildings will completely overshadow the ENTIRE SOURCE OF NATURAL LIGHT to our kitchen and bathroom. This is our MAIN source of natural light.


3. Shams Court is a small 4 storey building, which will be engulfed in full 360degrees by extremely high towers. The image attached has a mouse which points to the EXACT location of my flat. You can very clearly see the tower would block ALL daylight through my windows and is in touching distance of the building. It is visibly engulfing my apartment and the entire Shams Court. We would be left in darkness ALL DAY- you can literally see a full shadow on the developer's image of our flat.


4. In the new report our kitchen and Bathroom windows would get 1% of daylight and with the daylight from the front living room and bedrooms would be an acceptable daylight required. I completely disagree with this. Our living room is long and hence the daylight coming in will not get to the kitchen area and we will be below the living standard acceptable daylight. Also presently we have to leave the bathroom door open to have daylight in the hallway and entrance area. Therefore when the bathroom receives 1% daylight the area mentioned will be in total darkness. This is outrageous. How can you ignore where we receive such a significant proportion of our daylight. It is false representation of the effects of this project. The developers have omitted key information in their reports.


Additionally, the costs of electricity have sky-rocketed. Once the light has been reduced to a pathetic 1%, I will have to keep my lights on constantly, using an excessive amount of energy. This is bad for the environment and will put considerable strain on my finances due to the electricity price increase. Shams Court was purpose built as affordable housing - which it will no longer be


5. The buildings will tower over Sham's Court and we will be in engulfed in darkness. Our roof garden will be overshadowed leading to no daylight/sunlight and our privacy will be entirely lost. My mother who lives with me and is a key worker from home will be working in her room in a very dark environment. This is not acceptable for mental health or working conditions.


6. This development will have detrimental effects on our living standards, privacy and health. This is going to affect every resident's privacy. All of us will be under heavy stress which can cause significant damage to our health and everyday living conditions both during construction and even more-so after completion due to significant increase in population density, noise, nuisance and anti-social behaviour. There are six young children in our block and their lives deserve better than this scenario. This development, if approved, will have an unbearable impact on the mental and physical health of every resident and child in this small 4-storey building.


7. The development of towers next to Pinnacle Tower (18 Storey tower to the South of Shams Court) and the Novotel (19 storeys to the West of Shams Court) have already left us with very little natural light and an extremely claustrophobic environment to live in. Our privacy has already been significantly reduced with existing towers. Approving this development will remove any remaining privacy that we have.


8. The layout and density of this development is clearly over-development and is overbearing in depth and height. Leading to all forms of uncomfortable situations. The construction will have detrimental effects on living standards, noise levels, cranes, dust emissions, demolition, digging and construction and trackout of materials and heavy vehicle noise will lead us to living in a terrible environment.


9. Noise levels, anti-social behaviour, disturbance and nuisance from overcrowding of a very small area with thousands of people will significantly affect our quality of life on a daily basis. We already struggle with noise in the area and this will increase it infinitely.



10. The ground stability will certainly be compromised with the large-scale excavation proposed. We share an underground basement with the existing Novotel hotel and further construction of this nature can lead to a weak structure and compromise the safety and integrity of all the surrounding buildings.


We kindly ask Brent council to understand the detrimental effects this proposal will have on the residents of Shams Court. We trust you to protect us from this loss of all natural light, increased noise pollution, disturbance, loss of privacy and increase in anti-social behavior.


We hope you will protect us from these outrageous, inconsiderate proposals.