Angry residents knock on Muhammed Butt's door to complain after weekend of football ends in mayhem

 


Residents angered by the behaviour of football fans at the weekend contacted Brent Council calling for action and some residents even turned up on Council Leader Muhammed Butt's doorstep to complain.

There were three matches, one on each day of the bank holiday, but it was theAston Villa v Derby County match on Bank Holiday Monday that was the main focus of complaints.

Photo: Blog on the Block

 Wembley Park Residents Association, in a widely circulated email said:

Yesterday’s football match was one that generated a number of complaints, worries and concerns amongst residents in both Forum House and Quadrant Court.

WPRA have received a multitude of videos and pictures as well as concerning messages but residents sent it via our WhatsApp group so we have tried to compile a list of the evidence for your perusal as it shows a lot needs to be done during such match days.

Please note that fans began arriving in the area at around 8/9am yesterday morning and the noise levels were ever increasing nearing hours before kick off so residents were extremely disturbed and felt the effects of this especially since our local Tesco remained closed for a number of hours before the match even began and Police were also called to the area but through what we have attached you can see there’s a need for a strategy that can look into local policing during match days.  

In addition, it further adds to the Wembley Park Estate charges for residents feel this should not be covered by residents on such match days as the litter and antisocial behaviour during yesterday’s Bank Holiday Monday shows why residents feel Quintain should recoup such payments directly from the FA and or Brent should subsidise our council tax (as per discussions during our meeting last week).

May you please get back to us with your thoughts on how best to address this as residents are seeking direction on how best this will be resolved so that it is not repeated in the future.

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt responded:

I had residents calling me and knocking on my door because of the issues you mention. 

I can assure you we are looking at what happened on Monday. 

The behaviour of the fans was not acceptable and will make sure that all the relevant stakeholders are involved in trying to get to the bottom of this.  

I was sent some of the pictures and videos. 

Let us look into this and will keep you informed. 

This morning Brent Council tweeted:

To which another resident replied

St Raph's residents move to 'take back control of our community' April 8th

Wembley & Alperton Residents' Meeting March 18th

Brent Council hails estate redevelopment ballot of St Raphael's residents

Brent Council has issued the following press release on their plans for the St Raphael's Estate. See article on Wembley Matters HERE

Muhammed Butt is quoted in the PR as saying he is 'committed to putting residents in the driving seat, making decisions about where they live.'   This may ring hollow to residents elsewhere in Brent who have found their voices ignored when they oppose redevelopment they felt detrimental to their neighbourhood.

BRENT COUNCIL'S PRESS RELEASE

Residents on St Raphael’s Estate could be among the first in London to be balloted on proposals to build new homes and community facilities in their neighbourhood.

This is a ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity for the community of St Raphael’s Estate, local partners and Brent Council to shape the area for future generations. To kick off the process Brent’s Cabinet will be asked to give the go ahead to a full resident-led master planning process at its meeting on November 12.

The report, which is set to be considered by Cabinet, identifies two options as a starting point to be refined and developed by residents. One option would see the existing buildings refurbished with possibly limited new build on green space. If this is the final preference there would be no requirement for a ballot. The other option is for a comprehensive redevelopment of the whole estate which would be subject to a public vote of people who live there. 

Local people would design the area including the number of new homes, what community facilities are needed and where, and the layout of the roads. This plan would be put to a public vote on the estate, which would make Brent one of the first boroughs to action the Mayor of London’s ballot policy on regeneration.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s new policy requires major estate regeneration schemes to have residents’ backing before they can receive City Hall funding, a policy which Brent fully supports. 

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said:

 “We are committed to putting residents in the driving seat, making decisions about where they live. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for residents to redesign the estate they love. People have told us they want to live in modern homes in a safe, crime-free neighbourhood. 

“Tackling the housing crisis is a priority for Brent and this is a unique opportunity to build brand new homes that meet the needs of the families who live on St Raph’s. I’m proud that Brent residents could be some of the first to have the chance to participate in a ballot before anything goes ahead.”

James Murray, London’s Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development, said:

 “When estate regeneration is done well, it can improve homes for existing residents and see more social housing built for local people.

“The Mayor wants residents to be confident they will have a real say over the future of their estate when regeneration is planned, so he has put ballots at the heart of his approach for schemes where demolition of existing homes is involved. We very much welcome Brent Council’s clear commitment to giving residents at St Raph’s a vote on their plans and look forward to continuing to work together to build more of the council homes that Londoners so desperately need.”

-->

Wembley & Alperton Residents' Meeting Monday March 19th 7pm

This is the rearranged date for the meeting that was cancelled due to the 'Beast from the East'. Better luck this time!

Vital Deeds missing as proposals made for new build at John Perrin Place

Brent Council's plans to build additional housing on Brent Housing Partnership estates have run into trouble with tenants on John Perrin Place on Preston Hill.

BHP and developer JLL are consulting on proposals to build on the site of garages on the estate (Site A above)  and on a stretch of hedgerow that borders Preston Hill (Site B). Residents say that BHP has not actively encouraged use of the garages by tenants and claim the hedgerow shelters the estate from air pollution and traffic noise. Furthermore, residents point out, as can be seen on site, Site B has a complex sewage/drainage system beneath it and the adjacent brook is liable to flooding.

Garage site (A) - proposed part2/part 3 storey building with 1 one bedroom and 3 two bedroomed flats

Hedgerow site (B) Verge mostly retained, hedgerow replaced by two semi-detached houses

The brook where it borders site B

Planning permission may not be straightforward as Brent Council claims to have lost the Deed of Trust, dated January 1950 with a Deed of Assent dated 14th July 1958, which was drawn up when the land was handed over to what was then the Borough of Wembley by farmer John Perrin for a recreation ground.  It is registered as a charity (12th January 1967) registration number 302938.

The charity's object is:

A recreation ground of the public in such manner and subject to such regulations in all respects as the Mayor, Alderman and Burgesses of the Borough of Wembley may from time to time think proper.

This is pretty broad and residents fear, if a precedent is set by acceptance of these proposals, that the attractive open space (presumably the original 'recreation ground') may eventually be built on.

The only trustee listed on the Charity Commission site is Mr Martin Cheeseman, previously Head of Housing for Brent Council, with the address given as Mahatma Gandhi House.

John Perrin Place has 82 properties of which about 26 are leasehold and the others rented from BHP. The residents association say that the housing, mainly one bedroomed flats, was designated for people aged over 55 and for vulnerable adults. They fear that their small community is threatened not only by disruption caused by building works and loss of green space but by the eventual loss of its special designation. According to the residents' association many members of the community are elderly and not fluent in English so have not fully understood the proposals. This makes the effectiveness of future communication very important.

View along Preston Hill

This is what Barnhill ward councillor Michael Pavey wrote in his Newsletter earlier this year:

Since the day I was first elected, far more people have contacted me regarding housing than any other issue. Families living in overcrowded conditions, people working full time but still unable to afford their housing costs, squalid conditions in privately rented accommodation: London faces a housing crisis.

The only solution is to build more homes. But where? No-one wants to lose greenspaces, we need industrial land to generate jobs and we can’t let London sprawl endlessly into the countryside. This leaves “in-fill” sites: small pockets of land in developed areas. And that’s exactly what’s being proposed at a couple of sites just off Preston Hill.

Myself and Cllrs Choudhary and Marquis can see both sides to this issue. On the one hand, these plans will deliver six desperately needed new Council homes. On the other hand, the proposed sites are in John Perrin Place: a quiet and peaceful community with many elderly residents.

With the arguments so finely balanced we are adamant that the views of local residents are heard loud and clear. So we arranged for the Council to have a consultation session and we knocked on every door in the area to encourage residents to get involved.

It was great to talk with so many people and currently I’m thinking that the huge benefits of the new homes outweigh the undoubtedly negative impact of the construction period – but I’d very much welcome your views before I commit either way.

Hear what Brent residents and councillors said at the Planning Commitee on Wembley Stadium application

If you missed the Brent Planning Committee that approved Wembley Stadium/Tottenham's request for more high capacity events at Wembley Stadium you can get a flavour from the sound file below.

Speakers in order were:

RESIDENTS
Dr Ruth Kosmin, Barn Hill Residents' Asssociation and an economist (0.10)
Dr Michael Calderbank, Wembley Park Residents' Association (8.40)
Denise Cheong, Wembley Champions (15.00)
Niral Babla, Wembley High Road Business Association (25.14)
Fatema Karim-Khaku, Barn Hill Residents Association  and transport consultant (30.44)

COUNCILLORS
Cllr Shafiq Choudhary (Barn Hill ward) (36.50)
Cllr Sam Stopp (Wembley Central ward) (43.40)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY COUNCILLORS
Cllr Ketan Sheth (59.50)
Cllr Muhammed Butt (102.12)

Wembley Stadium's last minute lobby of Brent councillors with glossy PR brochure on planning application

If the David and Goliath nature of the battle between local residents and Wembley stadium over the increase in the number of events and increase in capacity proposed during Tottenham Hotspur's stay at the stadium needed any further it is exemplified by a brochure that Wembley stadium has sent to all Brent councillors and Alice Lester, David Glover and Chris Heather in the Brent Planning Department.

The Stadium has full-time advisers and public relations officers spearheading their campaign while residents rely on their own resources and campaign in the free time available after they have done their jobs.

In an email to councillors and officers, Chris Bryant, Wembley Stadium head of operations says:

I contacted you on 26 January 2017 regarding our proposals and planning application for Wembley Stadium to host Tottenham Hotspur Football Club during the 2017/18 season, to enable the development of their new ground in Tottenham to be completed.

Since that time Wembley Stadium and Tottenham Hotspur (THFC) have been through an extensive period of consultation and discussion with the local community, key stakeholders and your officers. The Council itself has sent out around 41,000 consultation letters.

During our discussions we have obtained a much better understanding of the impact on local residents and businesses that additional events at the Stadium will have. Some will be negative, others positive. We recognise there are aspects of the event day management that can be improved, including closer partnership working with the Council and THFC. We have also learnt from the European games THFC has recently played at Wembley.

Consequently, as well as reducing the total number of additional games sought during the temporary period (August 2017 to July 2018) from 31 to 22 in response to public, stakeholder and officer feedback, we have also discussed and agreed with officers an extensive package of mitigation measures for all the additional full capacity THFC events. Many of the initiatives included are in addition to our existing commitments, which are ongoing. These will be secured by a legal agreement.

In addition, THFC has outlined an extensive package of community measures, which will be delivered through the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation during its tenancy. The Foundation has already made a significant positive impact in Haringey, Enfield, Barnet and Waltham Forest, and would extend its programme to Brent residents for the coming year if THFC is hosted at Wembley.  Details of the agreed mitigation measures and the work of the Foundation are provided in the enclosed brochure for your information.

Wembley Stadium has valued the longstanding support of Brent Council since before even the initial bid for the new Stadium and associated local regeneration was made in the 1990s and we welcome the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission.

We look forward to working with the Council and THFC over the coming year and beyond and will be asking the Planning Committee to support a temporary variation of the event cap. We ask you to please consider the enclosed information. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Here is the brochure sent with the email:

Spurs planning application for Wembley Stadium now open for comments

Click on image to enlarge

The application to increase the number of event days at Wembley Stadium and to increase the number of full capacity events has now been published on the Brent Council website.  Full documentation can be accessed and comments made. LINK

I was interested in the fact (see image above) that no local residents in the neighbourhood, nor residents' associations or other organisations, schools etc have been directly written to with a 'unique letter' about the plans.  Consultation with them seems to be limited to a presentation at Wembley Connects, a poorly advertised and attended event at Chalkhill Community Centre on Monday, and an advertisement in the Kilburn Times.

The proposal in summary is:

[Previously] the number of major sporting events held at the stadium in any one year was restricted to no more than 22 (to exclude European Cup and World Cup events where England/UK is the host nation), and the number of major non-sporting events to 15. After this, additional events over and above this were permitted subject to the number of spectators being limited to the capacity of the lower and middle tiers of the stadium.

The proposal would allow for up to an additional 31 major sporting Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) events between 1 August 2017 and 31 July 2018. A major event (which may or may not include THFC) would be considered to be an event in the stadium bowl with a capacity in excess of 10,000 people.

Spurs set out their responses to concerns about the application in their 'Statement of Community Engagement' which addresses issues such as urinating in public, obscene and racist chants, congestion, pay back for residents. I have embedded it below for ease of reference. In particular see pages 5-9. The current 'standard' expiry date for consultation is February 23rd 2017.



There is an ongoing discussion about the application on the Streetlife website LINK

High Speed Rail Project can't deliver low speed public notices to those affected by test drilling in South Kilburn

This image does not necessarily  reflect the views of our guest blogger

Guest blog by Pete Firmin, resident on the South Kilburn Estate

Just a few notes from the exhibition event HS2 held in South Kilburn studios on Monday, which might be useful for those who couldn’t make it (and even for some who did).

As ever, lots of boards with maps and lots of HS2 people standing around waiting to sell you their  pet project. Though whenever I asked a question it was never the person I asked who could (attempt to) answer it. We, of course, are expected to understand every aspect of what is going on. While I was there (late afternoon) there were not many members of the public (maybe 6 during the 3/4 hour I was there). As ever, this may well get portrayed as a lack of interest, taking no account of the fact that of those who heard about the event (see below) many would have felt there wasn’t much point in going, or couldn’t make the times (3-7) it was held. Funny how they could send everybody a letter (twice) by recorded delivery saying they might need to CP0 their property, yet can neither rescind these notices (by sending everybody a letter) nor ensure delivery of letters they consider less important).

My first question was about distribution of the notice of the event, knowing that I only knew about it by other means and at least some others in Gorefield House had not had notice. First reaction – as always – was to say it had been delivered, then to retreat into “I know there was at least one block the contracted delivery firm couldn’t get into and we asked for them to send them via Royal Mail, I will check if that happened”. I pointed out that I live on the ground floor with direct access, but that didn’t seem to compute. I also said that it was bit late if they found out now that it never happened.  This is a recurring problem, whether with the Council direct or others (such as the film company last year). They either don’t bother to deliver, or do not check if it has happened.

Another issue which comes up regularly is the maps that are used (people may remember that at the parliamentary enquiry into HS2 we pointed out the inaccuracy of their maps). In this case it seemed questionable as to whether they recognised that Canterbury Road does not continue on to Coventry Close, but that there is a section which is just footpath. Cathedral walk was certainly not named on any of their maps. Maybe this is why some people seem to think it is okay to drive vehicles along the footpath.

Part of the significance of Cathedral Walk is that during their test drilling, and later during the main work, they may find they have problem with utility pipes etc, in which case they would need to do work on them, which could mean taking up part of Canterbury Road and Cathedral Walk, something they will otherwise not need to do.

This event was primarily just about the test drilling, not the main construction. Even so, I was able to ask again about lorry movements etc. This will be of particular interest to people in Albert Road and Canterbury Terrace. For the main construction there will be 100 heavy lorry movements a day (50 in, 50 out). They will enter the site along Albert Road from the Queens Park end, entering  the site through the railway entrance at the end of Albert Road. They will leave through Canterbury Works and turn into Canterbury Terrace and back down Albert Road. When I raised (again) the issue of the narrowness of Albert Road to take these vehicles, I got the response from the “traffic guy” that he had just realised this and they would need to look at how they overcame the problem! We’ve only been pointing this out for years, after all. One thing they will probably do is make Albert Road one way (for other traffic, not HS2) with a diversion.

Their plans also show the loss of 15 parking bays on Albert Road during construction. When I asked where those people were expected to park, I was told wherever they can. No provision will be made for alternative parking. When I pointed out the lack of parking spaces in the estate already, I got a shrug of the shoulders. I also asked where site workers were going to park and was told they would be `expected’ to use public transport. When I asked `yes, but what if they do bring their cars”, he said they would need to pay for parking. And what if they use residents parking bays, as was a constant problem with the construction site on Alpha Place? `That’s up to the Council to enforce’. More wry laughter from me.

An issue of particular concern to many of us is working hours and enforcement of them. I was told that working hours are restricted to 8-6, BUT that they are allowed half an hour each side for preparation. They said they would also take account of the fact that they would be next to the school, but I could not get an answer as to what this concretely means. From bitter experience, I asked how all this would be enforced and was told “these are top tier contactors who will know that have to keep to the rules”. I pointed out that Wilmott Dixon is also considered a pretty “top tier” construction company and had repeatedly flouted the rules, I was told this wouldn’t happen with HS2. When I asked about enforcement, I was firstly told the Council (wry laugh from me!) and that people could send in reports and photos of infringement. As if we hadn’t been doing so for years with no effect. They gave me a copy of their “Residents Charter” and their “Code of Construction Practice”, but we have seen such promises before. Hopefully these are worth more than the paper they are written on, but we will obviously need to keep a close watch.

Lastly, I have been asking at every opportunity for years whether it creates problems that they will be tunnelling for HS2 underneath the Bakerloo line and never got an answer. Finally spoke to someone who knew what he was talking about, who said, yes, there are particular issues and `we will need to monitor whether our tunnelling causes the Bakerloo tunnels to sink. We don’t expect them to, and we don’t foresee having to close the Bakerloo line (or the mainline nearby) at all’.

Residents call for wider and extended consultation on controversial Ealing Road Library plans

Ealing Road Library (centre) set back from Ealing Road

Residents around Ealing Road Library, Wembley, are calling for the consultation plans on the development of the Ealing Road Library site in Ealing Road to be extended on the grounds that few residents knew about the plans and the very limited circulation of letters asking for views on the plans.  In addition the notice of the planning  application posted near the library was obscured.

 The plans envisage bringing forward the boundary of the library to the pavement edge by building a community enterprise hub on one side and a 'tea house' cafe on the other  with a courtyard between the two that could be used for community events, a market or an outdoor cinema.

According to the application the aim is to bring more outside visitors into an area that residents advise is already congested.

As with many such developments residents feel that the application has been hidden from them and now that they have found out about it there is too little time to respond. They question whether the Council has fulfilled its statutory responsibilities in terms of consultation.

One of the application documents found on-line states:

The investment will deliver a new cafe, a new public space and a community and enterprise hub which will be used for gathering, extended library activities, performance, market days and other events that will attract local and London wide visitors.  The project is the first element in the wider series of Gem Chain projects which aim to attract visitors London-wide to Ealing Road and reinstate the place’s status as a premier high street place.

 Local residents concerns  are as follows:

The poorly promoted consultation with poorly sited planning notice dated 27th October which states deadline for comments on the application is 17th November - just three weeks?  Also the planning notice states docs would only available to view on line from 2nd November – so not even the full three weeks to study the docs and comment if you are able to access them on line, a lot of older residents are not?  Why such a short amount of time for local people to comment? When pushed the library finally had hard copies to view on from 11th November, over two weeks already into the consultation period.

Developing the library space and re-promoting Ealing Road as a major shopping destination could have a further serious impact on the environment for local residents who are concerned about the potential of even more traffic in grid locked Ealing Road, more pollution, more noise pollution and more rubbish on local streets.  Ealing Road is already gridlocked most weekends.  If shoppers are coming to buy in bulk or buy gold or buy expensive clothes they will want to come by car – they will not want to come by bus or tube!  Yet Montrose Crescent car park is being closed to build flats, so if they also close the small library car park and also loose around 10 spaces from the slip road outside the library due to the forecourt being extended what other parking provision is going to be offered – will they take away resident only parking bays and allow shoppers to use them?

These plans have clearly been drawn up and put together over a considerable period of time and considerable expense with no apparent consideration for these issues and their impact on local council tax-paying residents who believe the consultation needs to be re-promoted and the deadline for comments extended:

(a)       there are lot of local people who would not have seen the planning notice due to the poor location of the planning notice;
(b)      there are lot of local people who would not have heard anything about this development due to lack of information locally;
(c)       there are lot of local people who do not have Internet access to view the plans on line - if they do go to the library to view them on-line it is very time consuming to try and look through the 42 individual documents on your website, these should be printed out and put on display in Ealing Road Library;
(d)      there are lot of local people who are not able to get up to the Civic Centre to view the plans at all (lack of mobility, traffic problems, parking restrictions, etc);
(e)       there are lot of local people who are not able to get to the Civic Centre to view the plans between 9-5pm during weekdays (people who work, have childcare or family commitments etc);
(f)       some local residents don’t even know how to use a computer yet there is no address on the planning notice for people to write to should they wish to comment on the application.

The Planning Application(Ref 16/4527) can be found HERE

This is one of the main documents supporting the application:

Click bottom right for full view

Revised parking changes for Brent including £25 diesel car supplement

The Brent Cabinet on June 27th will consider recomendations LINK for revised parking charges.

.        2.0  Recommendations 
Cabinet is asked to formally express its thanks to all those who responded to the on-street parking consultation, and then agree: 
Demand-Led Pay and Display Tariffs: 


.        2.1  To freeze parking prices in Pay & Display bays borough-wide. 
Daily Visitor Parking Charges: 


.        2.2  To proceed to formal consultation on a Traffic Management Order, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, introducing new visitor parking charges in CPZ areas, with a £1.50 charge for up to 2 hours, a £3 charge for up to 4 hours, and a £4.50 charge for ‘all-day’ visitor parking of more than 4 hours. 


.        2.3  To delegate authority to implement the price changes following formal consultation, including amendment of any relevant Traffic Management Orders, to the Strategic Director Regeneration & Environment, in consultation with the Lead Member for Environment. 
Visitor Household Permit 
 

.        2.4  To retain the Visitor Household permit.  

.        2.5  To increase the charge made for the Visitor Household permit, from 1^st October 2016, to a 2016/17 rate of £163 for a full year; £98 for 6 months and £66 for three months; and with future increases linked to the price of a third Resident Parking Permit for vehicles in the proposed ‘Standard’ emissions band. 
Carer and Support Permit: 


.        2.6  Dependent on agreement to recommendation 2.4 above, to withdraw the proposal to introduce a new Care and Support permit. 
School Parking Permits: 


.        2.7  In respect of parking for school staff: 
§ To allow schools within CPZs to purchase a maximum of 3 business permits, at the standard rate (£366 in 2016/17) and terms & conditions, with immediate effect; 
§ To introduce a new scheme allowing qualifying schools to:

§  Purchase a maximum of 3 school staff parking permits at a rate discounted by 25% 
to reflect term-time use only, providing the school has a bronze level accredited 
travel plan; 


§  Purchase additional school staff parking permits at the reduced term-time rate should 
they have either a silver (up to 6 school permits in total) or a gold (up to 9 school permits in total) level accredited travel plan. 
Residents Parking Permits: 


.        2.8  From 1^st April 2017 to amend the resident parking permit scheme as follows:

§  Simplifying emission-based bandings for resident household permits, as set out in 
paragraph 7.3, to provide a clearer signal and encouragement to switch to lower- 
emission vehicles 


§  Introducing a minimum charge of £25 for a resident’s parking permit for any 
vehicle (other than a powered two-wheel vehicle) 


§  Reducing the permitted size of vehicles with resident permits to those weighing 
no more than 3.5 tonnes 


.        2.9  To agree in principle to introduce a £25 supplement for diesel car permits, reflecting their additional contribution to air pollution, with effect from 1^st October 2018 to give adequate notice and therefore time for owners to change to less polluting vehicles or transport modes. 


.        2.10  To note that further research is required regarding the proposal to reduce resident permit entitlement from 3 permits to 2, as set out at paragraph 7.2. 
Visitor Permit Entitlement: 


.        2.11  Dependent on agreement to recommendation 2.4 above (to continue the offer of the Visitor Household permit), to cap the number of visitor permits any household can buy to a maximum of 300 permits p.a., commencing from 1^st April 2017. 
Trader Permits: 


.        2.12  To develop and introduce a new one-day All Zones trader’s permit, allowing a business vehicle to park in any CPZ within Brent for one day. 


.         

.        CPZ Concerns 
Cabinet 27 June 2016 On-Street                          2.13 To note that a further report detailing and scoping a comprehensive review of the operation of CPZs will come to Cabinet in the autumn.

Resident Association's concern over state of Brent Council's Planning Service

Queen's Park Area Resident's Association (QPARA) has written to the Chief Executive of Brent Council to express concern over the recent loss of key personnel in the Council's Planning Department:

Members of the Queen’s Park Area Residents’ Association (QPARA) are concerned about significant changes in the management and administration of the Planning Dept and how these are impacting upon the standard of service. At a time when planning applications seem to be at an all time high and residents find it difficult to keep up with even the most significant developments, we learn that the Planning Dept has lost key personnel.

Following the departure of the Area Planning Manager, Andy Bates, last year and the recent departure of the Head of Planning, Stephen Weeks, residents have voiced alarm that there does not appear to be anybody managing the department. At our recent monthly meeting (April 12) the following comments were made: Telephone and emails remain unanswered; enquiries about the status of developments and proposals are not consistently available; objections lodged are not appearing on the website and decisions not circulated. Examples in this immediate area are the Corrib Rest development which is a complex case with lawyers involved; Queens Studios where the question of the amount of affordable housing in the approved development is not clear; basement developments throughout the QP Conservation Area; and some more minor proposals such as for the Sunday Market signage and various breaches of the design guide relating to front gardens, walls and satellite dishes.

In short, this is a period where we know that there are always a lot of applications and the pressure on the Planners is intensive but without leadership, even on an interim basis, the situation is in danger of getting worse. More importantly there seems to be no one with an overall view on proposed developments and their impact not just on this area but on the ward as a whole. We worked closely with both Andy and Stephen over many years; they had a feeling for the character of this Conservation Area and were available through the planners to advise and consult. We are keen to establish such a relationship with a new team as soon as possible.

Please can you advise on who is managing the department and if a new Head of Planning has been recruited?