Detrimental developments – What’s Brent Council’s Game?

 Guest post by Philip Grant

1 Morland Gardens, Stonebridge.

What do these three proposed developments have in common?

 

1.    1 Morland Gardens, Stonebridge, with its planned demolition of a locally listed heritage building;

2.    St Raphael’s Estate, with plans to build on part of Brent River Park; and

3.    Kilburn Square, where it’s proposed to build extra homes on an existing green space with trees.

 

The answer is that all three were drawn up by Brent Council officers, and all three go against Brent Council’s own adopted planning policies.

 

Brent River Park, looking towards Wembley Point, with St Raphael’s to the left.

 

How could officers in Brent’s Regeneration major projects team even consider proposals that breach those planning policies? I found out, from a Freedom of Information Act request into the origins of the 1 Morland Gardens proposals, that as early as December 2018 (three months before the first official pre-application meeting between the project team and planning officers), an unnamed planning officer had told them that ‘we’re not likely to refuse a scheme due to loss of this building.’ Planning officers had given the green light to ignore Brent’s heritage assets planning policy DMP7, and backed that up all the way to the Planning Committee meeting twenty months later.

 

A recent protest against Brent’s Kilburn Square proposals.

 

In a recent blog on the Kilburn Square proposals, the Chairman of the local residents’ association said that Brent was ‘playing games’ with existing residents and their near neighbours. There are certainly some games being played by Council officers, and some of those involve “funny business” and questionable practices.

 

It’s perhaps not unexpected that Brent’s planning officers will “aid and abet” their colleagues in Regeneration’s capital projects team, and maintain that ‘on balance’ it is ‘acceptable’ for some of Brent’s planning policies to be broken, where Brent Council is the applicant. But how do they get around other legal requirements over which the Council does not have total control?

 

The 1 Morland Gardens scheme included building out over a highway / footpath and a community garden. As I couldn’t see that the Council had taken the necessary steps to make this possible, I submitted an FoI request in April to get some answers. In a guest blog last month, I was able to show that the Council had not yet followed those legal processes, which meant that the project would be delayed. I wondered whether this was just a careless oversight, or whether Council officers had not bothered to take those steps, hoping that as they were “the Council” they could get away with ignoring them!

 

But surely they had appropriated the main site for planning purposes? After all, the details of what was required to fulfil that legal requirement had been set out in the report to Cabinet on 14 January 2020, and Brent’s Cabinet had delegated responsibility to the then Strategic Director for Regeneration to carry out the required process for this. 

 

I put in another FoI request, and will ask Martin to attach a copy of the response I received last week (the replies provided by Brent are in red). You will see that, eighteen months on from being given that authority, Council officers have not even begun the process. Perhaps they never intended to (after all, you’d have to provide supporting evidence to justify that the heritage building is “surplus to requirements”, among other hurdles). Now they will have no choice!

 

To make my point, I forwarded a copy of the FoI response to Alan Lunt, the current Strategic Director, and referring to this and the earlier failure over the stopping-up order asked:

 

‘Please let me know whether this means that Brent Council does not intend to proceed with its ill-conceived planning application 20/0345, involving the demolition of the locally listed heritage asset, the Victorian villa "Altamira".’

 

I received this prompt response from him:

 

‘Thank you for your email. The Council intends to continue with the proposed development of the site in question.’

 

The demolition of the Victorian villa, currently used by the Brent Start adult education college (for which it was acquired, restored and converted from a disused members’ club in 1994), was meant to be principally so that a more up-to-date college facility could be built on the site. But the FoI response (see attached) claims that the “compelling case” for the appropriation of the site will be ‘housing needs’.

 

The shortage of housing in the Borough is a real problem (and a continuing one, because it was a problem 45 years ago, when I worked for a Harlesden-based housing association!). This is a common theme in all three proposed developments that I listed at the start of this article. Yes, Brent has been set challenging targets for the number of new homes which should be built in the borough over the next 20 years. But does this justify some of the tactics being used to force through developments which are clearly detrimental to the environment of the areas they are proposed for?

 

Council officers are ‘playing games’ with the lives of Brent’s residents. But why are they playing those games, what right do they have to play them and who is encouraging this behaviour? It is about time that this was explained, and if our elected councillors won’t challenge what is happening and let us know why, perhaps we need to demand some answers ourselves.

 

Philip Grant.

 

Brent Council's Response to Philip Grant's Freedom of Information Request

 

Shams Court residents in revolt as yet another development on their doorstep removes their right to light

 

Shams Court, Fulton Road

A four storey block of flats, Shams Court is tucked away between Olympic Way, North End Road and Fulton Road. Gradually it has been encircled by high rise buildings and now more are on their way.

Yesterday comments closed for the existing 6 storey building facing Olympic Way (3 Olympic Way below) to be replaced by a 6 storey hotel extension, an 8 storey building and 22 storey and 25 storey towers.

3 Olympic Way (today)

Proposed

This is the description of the plans on the Brent Council Planning Portal:

21/2130 | Demolition of existing building at 3 Olympic Way and erection of 3 buildings of basement, ground and 8, 22 and 25 storeys (excluding rooftop plant) to provide 178 residential units (Use Class C3), new hotel accommodation comprising 260 rooms (Use Class C1) and a retail food store (Use Class E). 6-storey extension to existing hotel at 5 Olympic Way to provide 95 additional hotel rooms (Use Class C1) and amenities, extension of ground floor to create new colonnade and public realm improvements to Olympic Way. Other works associated with development include new access from North End Road, disabled car parking, cycle parking, private and communal amenity spaces, public realm works and other associated works | Olympic House, 3 and Novotel, 5 Olympic Way, Wembley, HA9 

Only 22 comments are recorded on the portal and as usual Brent Council hasn't published the Consultee comments for the public to see.  All 22 comments from Shams Court, Danes Court and MacLaren Court object to the development. A resident from Shams Court claims that they only found out about the proposals by accident and were thus able to inform the other 8 flats, despite the developer admitting that Shams Court is the building most affected by the plans.

This is typical of the comments:

This planning application will have a serious, detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the homeowners of the 9 flats at Shams Court, a 4 storey block.


Shams Court flats were sold in 2014 and were a part of the development holding Pinnacle Tower flats, the Novotel Hotel and other affordable housing flats. Since then we've had non-stop construction works and high rise buildings built around us, namely the Scape Wembley (29 storeys) and Felda House (17 storeys) which tower over Shams Court (to the East of Shams Court).


The development of these 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) left us with very little natural light and a claustrophobic environment to live in. We are overlooked in our flats and on our roof garden, leaving us with little privacy. Noise levels, anti-social behaviour, disturbance and nuisance from overcrowding of a small area with thousands of people greatly depreciated our quality of life since we first bought our new homes at Shams Court.


To grant the application of a 25 storey block immediately at the back of Shams Court (to the South) would be shameful. We are already overcrowded and overlooked. We would be left with no natural light from every single direction and be subjected to enduring increased noise pollution, disturbance, loss of privacy and anti-social behaviour.


It is without doubt that the new norm for the majority of working professionals would be to spend most, if not all, of their time working from home, without access to offices. These proposal will be detrimental to our health and well-being as Shams Court will be the place we reside for the vast majority of our days.


I must also stress that Shams Court was sold as a means of affordable housing (shared ownership). To have yet another massive building towering over us will severely lower the value of our homes, trapping the residents of Shams Court in negative equity, within homes they cannot sell due to the poor quality environment that's been created by non-stop construction of high rise structures around us.


We put faith in Brent Council to understand the detrimental effect this proposal will have on the residents of Shams Court. We hope you will protect us from these deleterious proposals. The idea of a small 4-storey block being immediately towered over by high rise buildings on every side (in very close proximity) is ludicrous. Yet this is what is being proposed.


I would urge you to visit Shams Court, or view a satellite map of the existing towers surrounding us to see the detrimental impact that this proposal would have on Shams Court residents.


When the original development was built in 2014, it's assumed the developers were granted the permission to build our development, under a section 106 agreement. The grant of which would have relied heavily on the provision of affordable housing. They are now intending to subject the same residents of their affordable housing to awful living conditions, ruining our prospects and well-being by building yet another tower on top of us. This is nothing short of cruel and deceitful behaviour.


Within the documentation provided on this portal, I can say that there are false claims of consultation between the developers and residents. There's a mention of ongoing communication with residents Dec 2020, Jan 2021 and Feb 2021. This has simply not happened and these proposals have only recently come to our attention.


The Daylight Assessment document also fails to include Shams Court on various parts of the document, for example the '2 hours of sunlight before and after' impact assessment. I believe the developers are purposefully misleading Brent Council on the impact that these structures will have on Shams Court.


For the sake our physical and mental health I sincerely hope that these plans are refused.

Another residents says:

I am a key worker who was born, lived and worked in Brent and that's why I was able to buy within our block. We really enjoy living here and generally feel that the development in the area is for the good. However, when plans will (admitted by the developer) have a detrimental effect on our living standards (and therefore our health), it is unfair that we and our baby twins (and our lovely neighbours) are either being forced to live in a terrible environment (during building but more importantly, after) or being forced out from our homes.


The developer is the same company that owns the Novotel and the Pinnacle Tower. They, in fact, built our flats as part of the then planning agreement to have part of the requirements to have a certain proportion of the development available for keyworkers - but they themselves are now pushing us out by making living conditions uninhabitable, or proposing and writing plans that will have that effect.

 

Given what happened last Sunday at Euro202 it is important that planning officers consider the impact of another high density development of Olympic (Wembley) Way on security and crowd control.

The plans have wider repercussions regarding the protections that are supposed to be in place for protected views of Wembley Stadium and what has been described as the claustrophobic, canyon like, approach to the stadium along Olympic Way.

The 'protected' cumulative view from Barn Hill. The 3 Olympic Way towers are in green outline and those in the pipeline in pink - including plans for the Wembley Stadium Retail Park and Fountain Studios site.

 The view along Olympic Way with the green and pink outlines of the proposal and those that have preliminary agreement.

 

 Danes Court in North End Road (now opened up to through traffic) the proposed development will be on the right.

Sudbury Town Residents call on Brent Council to withdraw Barham Park block of flats planning application Public Consultation

 Sudbury Town Residents Association have challenged Brent Council over the planning application to build a block of flats on Barham Park. LINK

They have received backing on Twitter from Wembley Central and Alperton Residents Association who say the plans affect their residents too.

 The application substitutes a bulky block of flats for the current two houses (776 and 778 Harrow Road).

This is the letter sent as a matter of urgency on Saturday:

 

ALERT - threat to Barham Park's green spaces. Make your views known.

 

The two modest 70s houses at present

The word 'green' has been one of the most often used words in the GLA election across the parties but when push comes to shove will politicians really stand up for our green spaces that have proved so invaluable in the covid period.

An upcoming planning application to replace two modest houses on the edge of Barham Park with a much larger block of 9 flats will be a test case and one which may have wider repercussions for other buildings in Brent parks.

Barham Park was gifted to the people of Brent by Titus Barham for their 'enjoyment' and held in trust by the Barham Park charity,  However it is managed by Brent Council who often seem to have their own unique interpretation of words, especially when it comes to planning, so they may well think Brent people will 'enjoy' a block being plonked in their park.

This is the latest in a series of applications most of which have been refused and locals are gearing themselves up to resist the erosion of their much-loved and appreciated green space.

They are supported by a Brent Council member for Barnhill who I suspect from the thoroughness of the comment is Cllr Gaynor Lloyd:

I am writing to object most strongly to the above planning application.  

Appropriateness to the public open space/Barham Park and extent of land comprised in the planning application

As set out in the Design and Access statement, the existing houses were built originally to house park wardens; such accommodation clearly has a functional link to the park, as related to its maintenance. 

I fully appreciate that the issue of the restrictive covenants on the land are irrelevant to planning; nonetheless, I would point out that the two separate transfers of numbers 776 and 778 dated 12 August 2011 to George Irvin/George Christopher Irvin (predecessor of the applicant) imposed  very strict limitations on the use of the site. 

These were obviously imposed in accordance with the instructions of the Trustees of the Barham Park Trust (i.e., the Council acting as trustee) and limiting use on the  two separate parts of the site (776 & 778) in each case to 1 single private dwelling houses and garage (as to the garages, site photographs show that these were evidently demolished by the applicant). The Transfer Deeds contain further strict limitations on items and vehicles which may be placed/parked/kept  on the site of the two dwelling houses ? covenants which can be seen from the photographs included in the applications as having been breached. 

These restrictions are entirely on all fours with the designation of the Park, its status as public open space, its local historical importance, and continuing links via its design and history with the owner who gave it for the recreation of the local populace

I will be writing separately to the Trustees, in case this application should have escaped their notice. The restrictions on use imposed by the two transfers will clearly have affected the value received by the trust on sale in 2011, when this part of its permanent endowment was sold ? and the financial asset that is the benefit of that covenant is clearly something to which the Barham Park Trustees must pay full regard in their role as trustees. However, that valuation and asset issue is clearly of subsidiary importance in planning terms to keeping the Park's nature and integral local importance intact, which ought to be important for planning policy.

Notwithstanding the restrictions placed on the freehold titles of 776 & 778 Harrow Road, of which the owner (and its predecessor) would presumably be well aware, I note that this appears to be the ninth in a succession of planning applications for this site. 

However, on this occasion, I should be glad if a detailed examination of the plans could be undertaken to see whether the application site in fact goes outside the boundaries of the two freehold titles belonging to the applicant. (See below for my comment on the "over sail" of the main entrance).

Of course, I fully appreciate that there is nothing to stop anyone from putting in a planning application for land which is not owned by the applicant. However, in this case, the surrounding land to the north is either owned by Network Rail, or is part of the ownership of the Barham Park Trustees (London Borough of Brent of such Trustees); in the latter case, it is part of public open space, and subject to the provisions of the Bar Park Trust.

I mention this because it would appear from examination of the plans that areas of car parking and an area (inconsistently marked on various of the plans to the application) surrounding the Cedar of Lebanon go outside the ownership of the applicant. For example, please see Design and Access Statement, page 26 (page 6 of PDF), where the "site boundary" is clearly set the other (Northern) side of the Cedar of Lebanon.

Even aside from that, a close examination of the various plans and comparison with the Land Registry filed plan is somewhat confusing. The moving of the access road (the northern boundary of which forms the site boundary for 778 Harrow Road) as part of the plans, with a new access road under an "oversail" as shown on the proposed plans is difficult to follow. However, taking a measurement from the hedge boundary to the south west of the site towards the railway line, it appears a frontage of some 16 m would extend to the edge of the current access road, which is the land registry site boundary for 778 Harrow Road. The new plans seem to indicate a site frontage of some 20 m. I attach two screenshots from Google Earth, on which appropriate markings have been made.

It is quite hard to tell where that boundary then  falls on the various plans but the Design & Access Statement on page 30 (page 10 of PDF) refers to the replacement of the current access road with a planting bed. The picture on the same page shows posts which I believe were installed by the Council in order to prevent parking by the applicant/users of the site; the land is owned by the Council (Trust). As above, the access road forms the outer limit of the land in the ownership of the applicant.

This is also relevant, as the design includes an area of over-sail for the entrance which intrudes into land which does not appear to be in the ownership of the applicant; this is clearly of some importance, as it appears to indicate that the actual building goes outside the land ownership of the applicant. A similar comment applies to the installation of services (Section 14) which again appeared to be outside the boundaries of the site.

Tree works and Local Green Space and Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan

The Cedar of Lebanon is a tree within Barham Park, and again the ownership of the Council (trust); that the suggestion that "4 lower branches" should be removed to facilitate this development is completely unacceptable (Tree Report). 
There has been a recent tree survey of the trees in Barham Park (by Council officers following a survey for public liability purposes),  which has resulted in some trees in the vicinity of the application site being removed, and leaving a gap in the boundary trees for Barham Park at its western frontage. To suggest that any works be undertaken to this major tree on the boundary of the Park is quite unacceptable.

This building will block the view of the Cedar of Lebanon from the south of the Park, and create a huge artificial interruption to the views of this important area of local green space flowing naturally, as it always has, with uninterrupted aspect towards the railway line. This is a piece of public open space

Further, whilst  the Design and Access Statement refers to the proposed development blocking views of the railway line, a further objection that I wish to make is that the railway line in fact forms part of the heritage setting of the Park.

The heritage of the legacy of Titus Barham, and his father Sir George Barham before him was based on the dairy industry, and the foundation of Express Dairy; the great innovation was the use of the railway lines to bring chilled milk in from the countryside to London. The railway line on the embankment form part of the framing of Barham Park, and are not an intrusion at all. Unlike this building.

The Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan 

https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16409470/sudbury_neighbourhoodplan.pdf refers to Barham Park as an important area of local green space and specifically states "any proposals for the re- or redevelopment of Park buildings for residential use (Use Class C 3) will not be supported)." (Page 39) Policy BP1 Barham Park . Local Green Space policy: "Green infrastructure contributes to the quality and distinctiveness of the local environment. It creates opportunities for walking and physical activity and generally adding to quality of life. Green infrastructure is diverse in character and can include formal parks and gardens, informal grassed areas, linear paths, towpaths, sports pitches and various other kinds of landscaped area.

For many local communities, securing high quality green infrastructure in and around their neighbourhood is important. Neighbourhood plans can include policies for green spaces and can be used to designate 'Local Green Spaces' to protect them for current and future generations." In context of Green Belt/Metropolitan Open Land, a  legal case has referred to "death by 1000 cuts" https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8d260d03e7f57ecdcac; of course, this is "only" public open space, but the principle is the same. This large intrusive building will slice a corner away from the park, blocking the use of the tree line at the northern end, breaking the tree margin along the western boundary and completely changing the character and extending the Sudbury "town centre" beyond the railway line and into the park ? moving the built environment into an important and historic piece of local green space, interfering with the aesthetics and original design of the piece of parkland which we are lucky to have still surviving. 

It seems somewhat ironic that the design and access statement goes to some trouble to emphasise the historic association of the Irvin funfair with the Park, when, if this application goes ahead, undermining of the historic integrity of the Park will take place as a result of this massive development. (In fact, however, I am not too sure where the author of the Design and Access Statement gets the suggestion that it was a "condition applied" by Titus Barham that a fair should take place annually in the Park; it is certainly not in the terms of the trust deed but, for the interest of our local historians, if that is a fact, then it would be useful to see the evidence. References to fairs to support the then  local Wembley Hospital are quite different, and relate to fundraising for another local asset close to the heart of Titus and Florence Barham.)
Flooding risk and recent works funded by the Barham Trust and managed by the Council

I note the Flooding Risk Assessment, and the indication of both the surface water sewers, and the foul water sewers shown on page 36. Looking at the flood risk map, there are areas of high flood risk shown on parts of the park. It may be a statement of the obvious but it is of quite some importance to local users of the Park that is much of the parkland as possible is available for use ? and when it is flooded, obviously, it is not available for recreation. Section 16 of the Flood Risk Assessment refers to surrounding areas of the park getting "saturated", and there is a clear indication that the works which have been carried out by Thames Water have not been successful in resolving the problem. Indeed these works (already long-standing) continue to this day and further extend along the boundary with the railway line, already causing significant disruption. 

The result of the investigation which was to have been undertaken with Trust funds of £5000 as to the flooding of the main field where the fair takes place each year are unknown to residents. However, it is notable that various surface water sewers cross that field, which may have required building over in view of the weight of vehicles and structures which sit on them at fair time, and this also should be looked at if there is a "system problem" for surface water disposal  in the Park.

For approximately a year, there have been works in the Park in this area in connection with drainage problems; an application was made by the Barham Park Trust to the Charity Commission for permission to spend up to £90,000 of (precious and non-renewable) restricted trust funds on drainage works in the Park. It goes without saying that this development ? if it goes ahead ? would substantially increase the area of hard surface; whilst it may be of comfort to the applicant/developer that the floor level of the development will be raised to avoid flooding risk for the building, as referred to in section 16 it is not of much comfort in the Park, if it exacerbates the risk of flooding in the main field abutting. I would certainly not want to see either the damage to surrounding park, or the possible consequential expenditure again from Trust funds in connection with these drainage works, if this development goes ahead. 

The foul water sewers shown on the plan run straight underneath the two existing houses. As above, there is a network of surface water sewers across the open field and to the north of the site, which will be well used (see high flood risk); no mention of the detail of the extensive works taken in the last year appears in the Flood Risk Assessment; enquiry should be made of Chris Whyte who brought details of the proposed works (and the estimate) to the meeting of the Barham Trust committee, and details of which were submitted to the Charity Commission for approval to the expenditure from the reserved funds, so that the Commission will wish to know that this substantial expenditure will not have been wasted/prejudiced.

Damage is already caused to field as a result of the fair held on the site. The photograph in the Design and Access Statement shows the vehicle access to the park in a poor and muddy and rutted state, indicative of what happens when the field becomes wet.

Ecological assessment

There have been a series of ecological assessments in connection with the various planning applications; the one attached to this application is very disappointing, and previous surveys have contained much more detail. Once again, it is notable that reference is made to daytime inspection in respect of bats. In 2014, we submitted some detailed comments to the then head of planning Stephen Weeks about a previous bat survey. These are reattached, because they make points of relevance and deal with comments made in this brief survey, such as dismissing evidence of droppings as being made by mice, and referring to the presence of cobwebs as indicating that bats also would not be present ? which is simply not correct!

I have recently commented about the Council's dealing with bat surveys in the case of Altamira, Moreland Gardens, and the consideration of bat protection issues. I am no expert ; however, once again this survey was carried out during the day in February. There is the identification of the possibility of bat roosts but, of course, at this time of the year, let alone during the daytime, no one is going to find any evidence of bat emergence. However, the survey does refer to the foraging corridor along the railway line. Indeed, it is specifically refers to the importance of intrusion of lights along that "corridor" at the Northern edge of the park. It does not seem that the ecological consultant is aware of the nature of the construction of this four-storey building, which will be so close, for example, to the Cedar of Lebanon that its branches are proposed to be cut. For example, in the Consultant's own report (paragraph 4.1.1.2), he refers to "corridors for bat flight must be retained where present"; he also states in paragraph 4.1.1.3 "no trees will be damaged". He evidently is unaware of the full scope of the application. The oversail will penetrate the Cedar of Lebanon canopy; branches will be cute. Pictures of the northern elevation of the 4 storey building with large balconies and a roof terrace make it quite clear that lights will shine over the foraging corridor in the evening. How can it be thought that there will not be interference with bats?

Most importantly, there must be proper dusk and dawn emergence surveys undertaken during the period April to September to ascertain the true position, and ensure that the presence of bats in the existing buildings is checked. The Council must not countenance the potential to disturb bats  in a manner prohibited by legislation, and potentially involving the developer in criminal liability. The houses are buildings of a type, and era and within  a wooded environment along a railway verge corridor with a strong potential for bat roosts and bat foraging corridors. I can supply (from our experience with Morelands) more specific general guidance in  circumstances where a high probability of bat roosts, foraging , presence etc is identified, which I hope will be of help - but I am sure after that experience the Council contains more expertise on this topic. It is perhaps unfortunate, however, that, in none of the records for the previous planning applications is there any evidence of bat surveys (dawn/dusk emergence in the period when bats are active, rather than, for example, in the dormant period - Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (Collins, 2016)), so there seem to be no efforts by the applicant to establish whether there is any bat presence in those two properties.

Bats are a European protected species. The Council has a statutory duty to have regard to the requirements of the EC  Habitats Directive in carrying out its functions ? the deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places is prohibited. 
Field surveys in form of at least three dusk emergence and dawn re-entry surveys be undertaken during the bat emergence/re-entry survey season in 2021 to determine the presence/absence of roosting bats within the structures. 

Possible works affecting these spaces would very likely have negative impacts on potential bat roosts. These impacts could be killing or injuring of bats, physical disturbance (bats will abandon their young if disturbed) and lighting disturbance (bats may be prevented from re-entering their roosts by construction lighting).Demolition has the potential to kill bats and destroy bat roosts if present .

The surrounding habitats offer a range of green and blue corridors for roosting bats and the northern boundaries of the site have been assessed as being potentially important areas for commuting bats. Inappropriate construction lighting in these areas could therefore have a negative effect on bats, potentially preventing them from accessing on-site roosts.

"Communal use" and "Surveillance"

I note that all the flats are intended for rental; there is no indication whatsoever of contribution to Borough's desperate need for affordable social housing ? but yet another "contribution" to the private rental sector of the housing provision within the Borough. These flats, whilst including family units, will clearly be very desirable, benefiting from uninterrupted views over Barham Park, thus attracting a high level of rental. 

The Design and Access Statement reference  to "communal use" and inference of some sort of social value seem singularly inappropriate.

Further, it is hardly the function of the development to "police" the park; Section 5.3 of the Design and Access statement contains the following somewhat alarming statement: " The second objective suggests a development with a more Formal gardens and features of former Barham mansion at the heart of the park Former nursery glass house now part of the Jubilee Garden War memorial public character where the architecture is one of communal use rather than individual ownership, and where the residents benefit from the use of the park but also offer a degree of surveillance that might enhance the standard of behaviour in the park." Surveillance?? Enhance the standard of behaviour - this smacks of vigilante-ism. This is a park for the use of the public.

The 1937 Barham bequest was that the land, i.e. park and its buildings,  be left for the enjoyment of local people. The park keepers cottages were sold by the trust but with tight restrictions, and planning considerations will keep the uses appropriate the park. 

Brent Council as trustees must keep their corporate and statutory duties (including as the provision of housing under the planning policies), and should be objecting to this application.  Especially since they will realise it involves a breach of restrictive covenants imposed by the Council as trustee to preserve the small scale development in that corner of the Park.  Not only that but it would involve an unjust enrichment of a landowner at the expense of the Trust's permanent endowment were such covenants to be breached, the transfer value having reflected the tight land use.

It is not acceptable in any event that this piece of public open space should be developed anymore.  Improved, perhaps, but not demolished and rebuilt.

This new major access for vehicles will affect pedestrian access to the park from this corner and make this area of public open space for the limited benefit of the residents of this block, so that the park will become in the nature of a private facility and advantage simply benefiting these residents, and irrevocably change the nature of this important piece of local historical public space.

Balconies and roof terrace and intrusion into enjoyment of the Park
 
As above, the park is the enjoyment of local people; it is not for their activities to be observed from the "large balconies" at every level of the building, and the roof terrace. Park users are entitled to enjoy the park without being "surveilled". The lights from the building will inevitably affect ? once again ? wildlife in the park, along the darkened areas along the railway embankment.

Highway safety

The current bell mouth access from under the bridge is likely to give rise to issues of Highway concern; I note from the drawings that there is an intention to extend the bell mouth but with no detail and ? as above ? this land is not owned by the applicants, and the land itself is subject to the trust which, if it is going to dispose, will need the consent of the Charity Commission. The land is part of the Trust's permanent endowment, and sales have to be in pursuance of objects of the charity. It is hard to imagine how this particular use can fit within such criteria.

Looking at concerns of Highway safety:

a)            considerable increase in vehicular access to the site including collection of waste by using 1,100 litre bins requiring HGV access to the site, and reversing in or out of the site across a bus lane and heavily used A road.
b)            driveway crossing the vehicle access to the park, and depending on a right of way over a limited area (shown hatched yellow on the land registry plan attached) which will simply be insufficient for the development and the HGV access; again increase in this easement will require consent of the trustees and consent of the Charity Commissioners for the increase in width, as there is no legal easement available to the applicant.
c)            proximity to a very busy bus stop and the access point crossing a bus lane.
d)            No U Turn designation at this location which is generally ignored 
e)            potential danger and traffic delay from right turns into the site which will become much more of a problem with this large residential use . Vehicles exiting the site towards Harrow would cause disruption to traffic flow; this is a major bus route, and initial bus stop for the number 18 service to central London.
f)             there are insufficient parking spaces for the number of bedrooms but, in any event, this is contrary to the Council's policy on parking provision in developments.
g)            there have already been historic problems with the residents of the site blocking access to the park access road. Large number of bollards had to be installed which only went part way to resolving the problem. 
h)            it appears to be no delivery area so that there is a risk of delivery and service vehicles parking on the main road; there is a bus lane immediately outside service would be completely unacceptable. 

Consultees 

This point has been made in previous applications; there are many regular park users, including the walking group sponsored by the Council. There is a local residents association, and neighbourhood Forum (Sudbury town Residents Association). Yet, once again only the residents of Williams Way - i.e. the recently built flats opposite ? have been consulted. Most of those residents have not lived there long enough to appreciate the history of the park or to care about it as passionately as longer standing residents ? or indeed know some of the historical issues such as flooding problems.

I have spoken to the various neighbours, and residents of the surrounding area, and none of them were aware of the proposals put forward. It was only sheer good luck that the site notice (close to the development site) was noticed at all. There should have been much wider consultation, and it would be interesting to know what criteria were applied to decide on the range of properties consulted .

Philip Grant has pressed Brent Council to publish the comments by 'consultees' on the Council's planning portal but under 'View Consultee comments' this is what we see.  Hardly a demonstration of a commitment to fully informing the public and ensure transparency:

To make your views known go to LINK 

Boxpark advertising – public safety or profit? An update

 A Guest Post by Philip Grant

Last month, I wrote a guest blog about a planning application, which seeks to remove a condition from an existing planning consent. That condition was put there for public safety reasons. You can read the details in my earlier blog here.

 

The Olympic Way crossing on Fulton Road, and the LED screens (“JD WE’RE BACK”)

 

The condition prevents moving image adverts from being shown on large LED screens fixed to the Boxpark building in Olympic Way, when vehicles are using Fulton Road. It is designed to protect pedestrians on Olympic Way, as they use the busy crossing at Fulton Road, from drivers who may be distracted by the moving images.

 

After I submitted my objection to that planning application, the Planning Case Officer decided that the application was invalid, because ‘the proposals appear to be unclear in terms of which screens they are referring to and which screens the Highways Assessment appears to be relating to.'

 

Drawing from the planning application, noted to show where moving image adverts are proposed.

 

Now the application has been resubmitted, and has been validated, with the original planning application number, 21/0379. The new public consultation period on the application runs until 22 April 2021, so if, like me, you are concerned that it would be unsafe to remove that condition, you can make your objection on the Brent planning website for 21/0379. There is also a related advertisement consent application at 21/0427.

 

One of my original concerns was that only two people (one of which was Quintain) had been consulted on this application, and no local residents. Now letters about the application have been sent to a number of addresses in the Olympic Way area, although 16 of the 23 were to various parts of floors in the Olympic Office Centre (I wonder how the Covid-19 vaccination centre there will respond!).

 

An extra address has been added to the formal consultees, but this is “Environmental Health – Noise Team’ at the Civic Centre (although I think the proposal is for moving images, not movies to be shown on the screens). One of the specific points made in my February objection comments was:

 

‘When the original application was considered, both Brent's Public Safety Manager and the Metropolitan Police submitted comments on public safety matters. It is imperative that their comments should also be sought on this application.’

 

Why have they been omitted from the revised list of consultees? That is a question I will not just ask in this post!

Philip Grant.

Quintain's revision to Wembley Park's North East Lands consent approved by Brent Planning Committee

 

Despite the large number of residents' objections to Quintain's revisions to its consented plans for the North East Lands section of the huge Wembley Park development, there were no questions for a resident of Marathon House after he had spoken about its impact on the daylight and skylines of residents' flats. He claimed that the application demonstrated no benefits compared with the original consent. Furthermore, he suggested that by breaking down applications into small bite size chunks  developers masked the larger impact on the area.

The revisions increase the height and density of the development but move some boundary lines.

Having no questions the Committee moved on to the developer's agent who basically came out with rather a lot of what appeared to me to be greenwash.  He claimed that the loss of light to residents of Marathon House was neglible and their balconies already reduced light and gave the impression of a larger loss of light than was otherwise the case.

An officer said that the benefits of the scheme was more open space, a larger capacity park (they haven't increased the size but ditched the lake and replaced with a couple of ponds), an attractive public realm with trees along Rutherford Way and making it a car free development.

 

 Cross section of Rutherford Way

Officers argued that changes to the scheme would break up a potential 'canyon' on Rutherford Way between Marathon House (tower on right) and Unite Students on one side, and the lower Quintain development on the other.  The officers' report repeated the claim that loss of light did not matter in student accommodation as it was transitory. They argued that BRE guidelines allow for special situations in urban environments and did not have to be strictly applied. They spoke about 'mirror massing' when buildings on one side of the road mirror that of the other side. The implication was that this was avoided here.

Officers echoed the agent's view that the Marathon House balconies meant more loss of light than would be the case if they were not there. They said that the Quintain blocks were set back and thus further from the middle of the road than Marathon House.

Cllr Maurice pressed on the loss of light,   due to Covid more people would be working from home and there most of the time and loss of light could affect their mental health. An officer responded that the impact would be negligible on Marathon House and Unite Students.

Cllr Kennelly asked about the use of rooftop space and was told that although there was no detail yet it would be provided for amenity and bio-diversity to provide recreational and ecological benefit.  The officer recognised that that the area was 'somewhat of a concrete jungle' and has been so for almost 100 years since the British Empire Exhibition and it would be nice to reintroduce the biodiversity that had been there before the BEE (watch out for cows on the roof!)

Cllr Saqib Butt said that he could not see any additional benefit compared with the oriiginally consented scheme, there were no additional housing units and he could only see loss to  residents in the neighbouring blocks.  Officers again pointed to trees on Rutherford Way and more space in the park due to the reduction in the size of the lake.

Cllr Kennelly said that keyworkers needed housing and often needed a car for work.  Making this a car free development would exclude them. Lead officer David Glover said that there was a recent reduction in demand for parking and that people were unwilling to buy parking spaces. The development may not be suitable for such keyworkers and the Council recognised that there was a need for a range of different housing to cater for differing needs that would be open to keyworkers. Wembley Park was an ideal site for car free development being so close to Wembley Park station and other public transport with a very high PTAL rating. Kennelly expressed concern that increasingly key workers have to move out of the area and  travel in to work. They needed access to centrally located housing. An officer said that Quintain recognised the need to provide some central parking for those in car free developments such as Rutherford Way.

Lead officer David Glover, discussing the impact on Marathon House residents said that there could not be a 'who comes first has the final say.' system/  Merely because their development went up first occupants could not then decide what was built opposite them - such a polcy would tie the hands of developers and planners.  The revisions had an 'acceptable' impact on surrounding properties.

 

 

 

Boxpark advertising – public safety or profit?

Guest post by Philip Grant

As I am “staying at home”, and not out and about to notice what is going on, I usually have a quick look at the “Legal and Public Notices” in the online edition of the “Brent & Kilburn Times” each week. One entry in the planning notices last week caught my eye; an application (ref. 21/0379) for ‘Removal of condition 13’ from a planning application (ref. 17/4877) which was approved in February 2018.

 

Google aerial view, showing the site location, from a planning application document.

 

The location turned out to be the Boxpark building, at the junction of Olympic Way and Fulton Road. But what was the planning condition they wanted removed?

 

‘Condition 13: Moving images shall not be displayed on the Fulton Road façade and the northern section of the Olympic Way façade of the building (within the area marked as ‘Zone A’ on drawing no. A00_MIC_01 P2007903) at times when Fulton Road is open to vehicular traffic, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.’

 

The applicant, Open Outdoor Media Ltd, wants that condition removed, so that it can display ‘full-motion advertisements’ on the large LED screen mounted on the north-east corner of the Boxpark building all of the time. At the moment, the screen which they installed there in 2019 can only be used to display static advertisements, apart from 90 minutes before and after major Wembley Stadium events, when Fulton Road is closed to vehicular traffic. 

 

The LED advertising screen (‘I AM JD’) at the corner of the building, from an application document.

 

Why was that condition there in the first place? The answer is clear from the Report to the February 2018 Planning Committee meeting:

 

‘Highway safety: The Council’s Transportation Officers have expressed concern about the highway safety implications of displaying moving images readily visible to drivers using adjacent roads. In response to their concerns, a condition is recommended to ensure that moving images are not displayed on the Fulton Road façade and the northern section of the Olympic Way façade of the building at times when Fulton Road is open to vehicular traffic.’

 

So what is different now? Planning agents on behalf of the applicant have submitted a glossy report by the Manchester-based S-C-P Transport consultancy (‘Driven by the desire to help clients achieve their goals’). This looks at the highway safety aspects of the latest application, both at the Fulton Road crossing, and with case studies of other sites (mainly in the North and Midlands) where full-motion advertising screens have been installed near roads.

 

Their thorough review includes research, such as this:

 

‘In order to identify critical locations on the network with a poor accident record, the personal injury accident data has been obtained from the online resource CrashMap for the most recent 5-year period, ending December 2019.’

 

They found that, during that five-year period, only ‘one accident took place at the Fulton Road / Olympic Way crossing, which resulted in “serious” severity injuries.’ Their conclusion was:

 

‘Whilst all accidents are regrettable, the evidence … suggests that the area in the vicinity of the site does not have any recurring highway safety problems that could be affected by the development proposals.’

 

Their report does admit that the LED screen was only installed at the end of June 2019, and then was not displaying any moving adverts while vehicles were using Fulton Road during the six months to December 2019. However, as the serious accident on the crossing took place during the previous 4½ years, they claim it demonstrates that the LED screen advertisements ‘have not led to any material increase in accidents.’

 

The view along Fulton Road towards the Olympic way crossing, with the bright LED advertising screen (‘JD WE’RE BACK’) on the corner of the Boxpark building, from the S-C-P report.

 

The case studies (as you might expect) show that putting full-motion advertising screens near busy roads does not tend to increase the number of serious accidents or injuries. But although the amount of vehicle traffic along Fulton Road is not as great as a city centre road in Manchester, Liverpool or Nottingham, the number of pedestrians walking up and down Olympic Way, and crossing Fulton Road, is very large. It is also likely to increase even further as more and more Wembley Park developments are completed.

 

It would only take one driver of a bus or heavy lorry coming along Fulton Road, or one pedestrian walking up Olympic Way from the station, to be distracted by a moving advert on that screen at the wrong moment, for a serious accident to occur. In my opinion, even one such accident would be one too many. 

 

As advertising is involved, the screens also had to obtain advertisement consent, and the approval of that application (ref: 18/1796) contained an identical condition to “Condition 13” in the Boxpark planning approval. The agent’s covering letter with the latest application acknowledges the reasons given in the Planning Report for that:

 

‘Concerns were previously raised with regard to distraction of drivers from moving images along the Fulton Road frontage and the northern end of the Olympic Way frontage, with road safety studies undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory highlighting the significantly greater impairment to driving performance presented by moving images, as compared to static displays.’

 

Despite this, the letter goes on:

 

‘The applicant is however of the view that the provision of full motion images on the LED screens would be entirely acceptable in terms of public safety and highway safety and that Condition 13 of 17/4877 should be removed and an amended application for advertisement consent be issued.’

 

That view is unsurprising, because the application would not have been made unless Open Outdoor Media Ltd thought there was a chance that they might get that condition removed. And if it is removed, they will, of course, be able to generate more profits by selling full motion advertisements, rather than just static ones.

 

Surely, this latest application will be rejected, on the same public safety grounds that saw the condition imposed in the first place, won’t it? Having looked at Brent’s planning website, I do have some concerns, including that the expected decision level is “Delegated Team Manager”, rather than the borough’s Planning Committee which decided the original application.

 

A greater concern is the amount of consultation on application 21/0379. The list of those consulted on the application only contains two addresses. The first is Brent Civic Centre (the Council’s Transportation Unit has been asked to comment). The second is 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ. Puzzled? That is the registered office address of Quintain Ltd (joint owners, through BPQW Ltd, of Wembley’s Boxpark business).

 

On the original application, consultee comments on public safety matters had been submitted by the Metropolitan Police and by Brent’s Public Safety Manager. Why were they not consulted this time? And what about consulting Wembley Stadium, the residents’ associations for blocks of flats whose leaseholders use the crossing on a daily basis, or the owners of student accommodation buildings in the area? It’s almost as if Brent’s planners wish to avoid there being any objections to this application – but that can’t be right, can it?

 

In my opinion, the risk of death or serious injury at this location is too great for this application to be approved, so I have submitted an objection. If you agree with me, you can make your objection on the Council’s planning website for application 21/0379.

Philip Grant.