Powerleague at Kingsbury High refused planning permission on noise grounds

Kingsbury High School's bid to run a Powerleague football facility in its grounds has been refused planning permission. The plans were strongly opposed by nearby residents in Roe Green Village. LINK

The Brent Planning Department refusal is based on the level of noise and disturbance to neighbours which would be caused by the late opening of the facility until 10.30pm:

The proposed development, by reason of the levels of noise associated with the use (including the ancillary activities), having particular regard to the hours of operation of the use and likely frequency of those activities throughout the week and year, will result in an unduly detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining occupiers through the exposure to noise beyond levels that may reasonably be expected within this specific context. This is contrary to Policy DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan Development Management Policies 2016 and Policy 7.15 of the London Plan (March 2016).

 The delegated report elaborates: (bold is my emphasis)

Council officers are of the opinion that the submitted hours of operation (until 10-10.30pm), represent an excessive intrusion on the reasonable expectation of amenity in this location for local residents. In this circumstance the council would normally seek to restrict the hours of operation as suggested by the NPS.

As it stands, the proposal raises amenity concerns for the local residents in terms of the noise generated by activities inherent on the site when other background noise levels are low. Specifically, a number of football games occurring at the same time with numbers of people and cars attending the facility in hours considered to be sensitive.

Whilst these would reduce noise from the activities emanating from the facility, it is clear that the duration and length of time of noise and disruption resulting from this facility are a function of the late hours of operation.

It has been suggested that a condition be applied to any consent restricting the hours of operation. However, it is understood that a restriction in the hours of operation would render the proposal unworkable as the operators of the football centre rely upon the submitted hours in order for the scheme to be commercially viable.

Whilst this may be the case, it is held that the business model required by the operators cannot be at the expense of the amenity of neighbouring properties, particularly in a suburban setting such as this where an increase in noise, light, activity and vehicle movements is accentuated to the point of being intrusive in an environment of low-level ambient noise, movement and light that reduces even further as the evening progresses.

For this reason, the proposal is considered contrary to London Plan Policy 7.15 and DMP 1 and a reason for refusal based on these policies would be reasonable and sustainable.

Huge disappointment as Brent approves controversial development proposals for Corrib and Gladstone Parade

The divide between local residents and Brent Council widened further last night when despite opposition from local residents, supported by their councillors, the Planning Committee followed officer advice and approved controversial developments at the Corrib Rest, Queens Park, and Gladstone Parade, Dollis Hill.

Although listed as objecting to the Corrib Rest proposal, Robin Sharpe representing the 400 strong Queens Park Area Residents Association, actually spoke in support of the application although he felt it could be improved.  He suggested that QPARA had been successful in increasing the number of hours that the replacement community space would be available to 40 hours although they would like it to be available until 3pm on Fridays rather than just Monday to Thursday.  He urged the developer to work with the community to make the project a success. Full text HERE

 A Hopefield Avenue resident also spoke in favour claiming that the new proposal would reduce the 'nuisance' previously experienced by homeowners in Hopefield because the community space would now be on the ground floor, rather than the first floor, and would not have an entrance in her street.

Opposing the application Kevin Barratt, representing Irish Pensioners and the 2,000 people who had signed a petition opposing the development, wanted to see more community involvement before a decision was made. He said that the Council would be better off keeping the Corrib as a community facility, rather than using money generated by the development to fund other community facilities.

He argued that with no street entrance in Hopefield Avenue, users would have to access the ground floor community room by walking through the bar, which would not be appropriate for some users. He suggested that the community space had been 'designed to fail' so that eventually the developer could convert it into housing.   He said that the replacement space was smaller than the current two first floor spaces that were to be replaced by flats. The proposed ground floor community room lacked light and space and the number of toilets had been reduced.

Dan Judelson who had tried to co-ordinate meanwhile space at the Corrib said that opposition to the scheme was 'wide and deep' and that their submission explained whey they had pulled out. He said that they were dealing with a property developer and not a community organisation and that the best guide was to look at the developer's track record in Camden. We shouldn't rely on businesses to provide community spaces of their own volition, such facilities should be supported and protected by councillors and the Council.

Cllr Denselow pointed to the 25% reduction in the number of London pubs and thus the need to protect the Corrib's Asset of Community Value status and to follow the Council's pub protection policy.  He wanted to see a thriving community space funded by the Council. He raised the question of whether Brent Council had the necessary skills to implement the Business Plan for the project.

Cllr Nerva said he had been trying to work out why no separate entrance had been provided for the community space and asked if there were plans to rescue the dance floor by re-installing it on the ground floor or making it available to another organisation.  The pub's viability would depend on the rent to be paid to the landlord (both for community space and the weekend commercial lettings) and he wanted to see upfront information on comparable rents locally. He asked how the community room provision could be revoked by the owner of it turned out not to be successful.  He thought an entrepreneurial landord would seek to extend the hours for the community space.

Cllr Pitruzzella was concerned that the community space would not be available at the weekend (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) for community activities. Cllr Conneely sent a written submission objecting to the privatisation of a community facility if the development went ahead and remarked that she had used the Corrib as a community hub for 30 years and did not want to lose it. She queried representation on the community board that would oversee the community space. Cllr Duffy sent in a request that the Committee defer a decision pending further consultation.

Paul Clough, Brent Legal Adviser, said that the landlord would have to apply to the Council for any variation in conditions attached to the community space.  Summing up the Brent Planning Officer said that they were satisfied that the developer's was a 'generous offer' and warned that it was important not to make too many conditions that would mean the pub became unviable.  He said that they had investigated a stand alone community space with its own entrance but could not ignore the concerns of Hopefield Avenue residents and their experience of anti-social behaviour.  He said it was not reasonable to request availability of the space earlier in the day as this had not happened before. Officers would look into how to advertise the space to ensure community groups knew about it and would set up a review if it was not being used. He suggested that wording be added to say that hire rates should be comparable to local authority rates.

Planning Committee members then voted unanimously for the application. Cllr Choudhary's hand did not appear the be raised but he confirmed later that he had voted for the proposal.

Afterwards it was clear that some of the long-term users of the Corrib felt that they had been scuppered by Hopefield Avenue resident protecting the value of their properties from a Corrib user profile which did not match their, or the Council's,  aspirations for the area.

Next up was the proposal to demolish Gladstone Parade on the Edgware Road, Dollis Hill, with its local shops and flats above, with a much bigger development.  Alison Hopkins spoke as lead petitioner saying that the shops were a local community asset, the hairdresser had been there for 50 years and the grocery shop had recently been refurbished. There was no guarantee that the current shopkeepers would be offered a lease or tenure of the replacement shops or would be able to afford it. Residents objected to over-development of the site as well as the replacement accommodation being unaffordable to locals. Instead they wanted the current properties, which appeared to have been deliberately run down, with vacant properties not marketed by the freeholder (in order to help his application?),  to be regenerated and refurbished - not demolished and replaced by something that did not meet local needs.

Andy Thompson for Dollis Hill Residents Association, a statutory consultee, said that that the proposed development was inappropriate for the area and did not meet density requirements. Its position on the busy Edgware Road, with high air pollution, meant that the development would not be suitable for families, with children's health particularly at risk.

To cries of denial from the residents and shopkeepers in the public gallery, the developer claimed to have had discussions with the fish and chip shop owner and others (a claim later repeated by Brent planning officers) and that that there had been detailed reapplication discussions with planning officers to ensure the proposal was acceptable.  Six of the housing units were 'intermediate' and four 'affordable' although the latter rate was not defined.

Cllr Liz Dixon, representing residents, said that at first she had been in favour of the development recognising that it provided much needed housing, However, she had been inundated with  comments from local people and shopkeepers and realised that the Parade was a vital part of the local community.  It was very much an elderly community who have known each other and the shops for years.  She had been educated along with the campaign and a sense of community was at the heart of the issues.  It was true that the community had not been consulted properly and this was a major concern. Addressing the developer she said, you haven't learnt about the community.  The new homes would be at the expense of the existing community - there was a need to balance what we need with what we have. In a phrase which would serve for many of the developments in the borough, including or perhaps especially, Wembley, she said that new developments had to benefit the existing community.

The Committee then voted 7-1 in favour of the application with Cllr Maurice the lone councillor voting against.

Supplementary reports on Gladstone Parade and Corrib Rest for tonight's Planning Committee

Officers still recommend approval. Corrib Rest has added conditions and obligations.

1.      Site visit - Gladstone Parade

1.1       Members visited the site on Saturday 24 June and viewed the site from the north, east and south. Members raised the following queries:

How the building line would change 


Whether existing occupiers have been offered new tenancies 


Trees 


Amenity space 
1.2 The change in the building line has been addressed in paragraph 6.2 and 6.3 of the committee report. The building is currently set back from Edgware Road by 9 metres. The proposed building would be sited closer to Edgware Road and would be angled rather than straight. The building would be located 4 metres from the road on the northern side of the site and 8 metres from the road on the southern side of the site. 
1.2 The applicant has been in contact with the existing tenants of Skippers Choice fish and chip shop about occupying the proposed A5 use. With regard to the other existing tenants, all of the existing leases of the current units in the shopping parade with the exception of the Estate Agents have expired. However informal negotiations regarding their leases have also been ongoing over the past few weeks. 
1.3 he existing tree is of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years. In mitigation, the proposals include replacement tree planting of five trees to the landscaped areas along Edgware Road as well as new tree planting to the communal garden to the rear of the property. Further details of this replacement planting would be secured by condition 14. 
1.4 The amount of amenity space has been addressed in paragraph 4.2 of the committee report (page 72). Residents would have access to a mixture of their own private balconies and 388sqm of communal roof terraces that combine to meet Brent DMP19 amenity space requirements. 
2. Further representation 
A local resident has provided written comments on the following issues: 
2.1 Loss of retail of community value
As set out in paras 1.1 to 1.5 on pages 70-71 of the report, the existing units are afforded no policy protection with the exception of the public house. The public house and an A5 takeaway unit will be re-provided as part of the proposal. As well as this two A1/A2 units will also be provided that could accommodate a shop or hairdressers in the new development. 
2.2 Harm to character
The impact of the proposal on the character of the area is covered in paragraph 6 – Impact on character and design of the committee report (page 74). 


2.3       Parking and traffic

The issue of parking and traffic has been covered in paragraph 5 of the committee report. A resident has also raised concerns with potential congestion in the area. Overspill parking is addressed in para 5.1 (page 73). The volumes of vehicle trips that are likely to be generated are not significant, particularly compared with flows on the Edgware Road.

2.4       Daylight and sunlight
The issue of daylight and sunlight has been covered in paragraph 7.3 of the committee report (page 75). A resident has raised concerns about overshadowing of the school to the north of the application site. As is normal practice the school was not included in the daylight and sunlight report because it is not a residential building. However notwithstanding this due to the separation distance of the proposed building of 30m from the school building and 18m from the edge of the playground it is considered that there would be no materially harmful loss of light or overshadowing to the pupils and teachers.

2.5       Fire safety
Fire safety is not a planning consideration however in light of recent events the applicant has submitted a fire safety briefing outlining measures such as access, heat and smoke alarms, means of escape and necessary signage and lighting.

2.6       Lack of benefit for the area
The proposal would result in a net increase of 32 homes to the borough, 10 of which would be family sized units and 10 of which would be affordable housing. The proposal will also provide training and employment opportunities for Brent residents that will again be secured by a legal agreement.

Recommendation: Remains approval subject to conditions and section 106 legal agreement.

1.      Committee site visit  - Corrib Rest

Members visited the site on 24 of June 2017 and viewed the site from the surrounding area. Members also viewed the ground floor where the proposed function room would be located and the first floor where the current function rooms are located. Members queried:

how people would access the community space; 


how the booking system would operate; and 


what would constitute a ‘community’ activity. 
1.1 People would access the function room via the ground floor main entrance of the public house located in Salusbury Road. 
1.2 Bookings could be made up to six weeks before an event and would be made either over the telephone or in writing at least 10 days before the event. This would be secured as an obligation in a s106 agreement. 
1.3 There is no statutory definition of ‘community’ activities however the draft s106 has provided a definition of ‘community groups’ that are defined as “groups or organisations set up for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes that include a substantial amount of activity or control by members of the public in a voluntary capacity, or provide organised training in the performing arts associated with specific cultural groups”. 
2. Further representations 
2.1 Cllr Duffy has raised the following concerns: 


Use of the term ‘minimum’ in referring to the number of hours the community would be able to use the function room 


Request the hearing be deferred to permit further public debate where Planning Officers explain the reasoning behind the recommendation. This has also been raised by a local resident. 
2.1.1 The use of the word ‘minimum’ refers to the fact that legally the owner will have to provide priority access for community groups for 40 hours per week from 12:00 to 22:00 hours Monday to Thursday. This would not prevent the owner from hiring out the room to individuals or community groups outside of the set 40 hours: it would be for the pub operator to determine what would best ensure the viability of their business. 
2.1.2 The committee hearing is the public meeting at which a planning application is debated. The application has been widely publicised between the end of February and the report’s publication in mid June. 
2.2 Cllr Denselow has queried the use of a restrictive condition on the occupation of the proposed flats unless the public house is occupied. Officers recommend a planning obligation or condition is imposed requiring approval of an effective marketing plan for the pub and that the applicant uses reasonable endeavours to ensure the pub is operational before occupation of the flat. Officers consider this to be reasonable because if the applicant was not able to find a tenant they would not be able to change the use of the public house without first obtaining planning permission due to recommended condition 7 and the ACV status of the 
 premises. However Cllr Denselow confirmed that he would still be objecting to the proposal.

2.3       A local resident raised a query regarding the amount of notice individuals would have to give before booking the function room. Please see response in paragraph 1.2.

2.4       A resident has reiterated their concerns with the accuracy of the Daylight/Sunlight report. This was addressed in paragraph 6.3 of the committee report however the applicants’ consultant has provided a further response to the points raised. As a consequence, Officers remain satisfied that the daylight/sunlight report has been properly prepared and the impact on neighbouring amenity would be acceptable.

2.5       A resident has raised concerns with the timing of the building being listed as an Asset of Community Value (ACV). The asset was listed in July 2015 and the title updated to reflect this in April 2016. This is not a material planning consideration as it does not affect the status of the ACV listing. It is understood that the delay was due to the applicant not providing a relevant information.

3.  Notifications of committee

3.1         Ward Councillors did not receive the standard notification letter detailing the committee date. All Ward Councillors are aware of the meeting and as such have not been prejudiced in any way.

4.  Corrections to the report

4.1         The consultation dates in the ‘Consultation’ section of the committee report were incorrectly listed and should have read that neighbour consultation letters were issued to 68 properties on the 21/02/2017. A site notice was displayed on 24/02/2017. Press notice advertised on 02/03/2017.

4.2         The number of objections received was incorrectly listed in the ‘Consultation’ section of the committee report as 149 and should have read 151. All objections were however taken into account during the assessment of the application.

5.  Additional conditions and obligations

5.1         Officers recommend a further planning obligation be imposed, draft text as follows: Within 3 months of material start submit to the Council for its approval a marketing plan for the public house and function room and not to occupy any part of the residential development unless the marketing plan has been approved and implemented and the public house and function room marketed in accordance with the approved plan for an agreed period of time and the applicant uses all reasonable endeavours to ensure the public house and function room is operational before occupation of any part of the residential development.

5.2         The applicant has also requested that they be permitted to place table and chairs on the Salusbury Road frontage. Officers recommend condition 5 be varied to expressly prohibit the placing of tables and chairs on Hopefield Avenue frontage and to place no tables or chairs on the Salusbury Road frontage unless in accordance with a plan covering their siting and hours of use to be approved by the local planning authority.

Recommendation: Remains approval subject to conditions and section 106 legal agreement.

What are Brent's housing providers doing post-Grenfell?

Never again

Brent Council has published details of registered housing providers in Brent for residents who wish to check up on fire safety following the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The amount of information varies between the providers:

Catalyst	www.chg.org.uk/residents/all-residents/resident-news/37128/keeping-our-residents-safe-grenfell-tower/
Family Mosaic	www.familymosaic.co.uk/statement-grenfell-tower/
Genesis	www.genesisha.org.uk/customers/advice_and_support/fire_safety.aspx
Homegroup	www.homegroup.org.uk/Media/News/Home-Group-news/Home-group-statement-on-fire-safety-following-Grenfell-Tower-fire
Hyde Housing	www.hyde-housing.co.uk/news/local-news/grenfell-tower-west-london/
Innisfree	www.innisfree.org.uk
Inquilab	www.inquilabha.org/news_feeds/detail/information-for-residents-following-the-fire-at-grenfell-tower
L&Q Group	www.lqgroup.org.uk/about/media-centre/news/details/31
Metropolitan	www.metropolitan.org.uk/statement-on-fire-safety/
Network Homes	www.networkhomes.org.uk/firesafetyupdate/
Notting Hill Housing	www.nhhg.org.uk/news/news/resident-news/grenfell-tower-fire-information-for-residents/
Octavia Housing*	www.octaviahousing.org.uk/news-events/news/233
Origin Housing	www.originhousing.org.uk/media-hub/news/fire-safety

*As far as we have been made aware, so far, only Octavia Housing has been told that there are concerns with one of their properties following the Government’s testing of their cladding samples. There are questions surrounding the cladding used on Octavia's Elizabeth House development in Wembley. However, following an extensive check of the building the London Fire Brigade has advised Octavia that Elizabeth House does not require evacuation nor immediate removal of cladding.

The Government has said that it will notify the relevant registered housing provider and the council of any other blocks in Brent which have concerns over cladding, once samples have been tested, and the council will publish any new information we receive widely – including on this web page LINK

Brent Council and Cara Davani – when (if ever) will we really know what happened?

 

Brent and Kilburn Times June 30th 2016

Guest blog by Philip Grant

Cara Davani – didn’t she leave Brent Council two years ago? And it was a year ago that the Council finally admitted that she had been given a “pay-off” (of £157,610). Surely the enquiry into this must have been sorted out by now? I’m afraid not.

When I last gave an update about “progress” on the investigation of objections to Brent’s 2015/16 accounts LINK we had been told by the Auditor that he anticipated sharing material documents with the objectors by the end of June. When the agenda for Brent’s Audit Advisory Committee meeting on 26 June appeared on the Council’s website,  KPMG’s “External Audit Progress Report” said that they expected to share the documents, and other material, ‘in July’.

As the Auditor had agreed to share those material documents (which he received from the Council in mid-December) with the objectors, and we had been expecting to get them early in 2017, I asked to speak about this item on the agenda for Monday evening’s meeting, and the committee Chair (David Ewart, an independent member) agreed in advance that I could. I hope that Martin will be able to attach the text of what I said to this blog, so that you can read it in full if you wish to. There were two points that I wished to raise with the committee, and the Chair asked me to deal with them separately. 

The first was the objectors’ disappointment with the lack of progress in KPMG’s enquiries, and our concern that the investigation process might have been changed, without explanation. We were originally told that we would have the chance to make further comments before the Auditor reached any ‘provisional findings and views’. The latest progress report spoke of sharing ‘our provisional view and material documents’ at the same time. I asked the committee to invite the Auditor to clarify the position, and to encourage him to provide a timetable for the remaining steps in his investigation, through to his final decision on the objections.

The Auditor, Andrew Sayers, did not seem to accept that there was any real change from what his predecessor had set out in November 2016. He thought that knowing what his provisional views were would help us and the Council when he shares those views and material documents with us. He still wants any further comments from us, and assured the meeting that his provisional views will be open to change in the light of any further comments and evidence he receives. On how long it was taking, his response seemed to be that he had to do his job properly [I would agree that he should, but does it really need to take so long?]. 

The Auditor seemed to suggest that the material would be shared in about six weeks (so August, rather than July?), but said the timetable after that would depend on what further comments he receives and what further investigations he may need to make, so he could give no indication of when his final decision might be published.

There were murmurings from the committee over how long his investigation was taking, and what it would cost (Mr Sayers did not know how much it had cost so far, but he would write with a figure that could be passed on to committee members). Cllr. Davidson, in particular, was concerned over the costs, and appeared to suggest that KPMG could be carrying out unnecessary work, just to increase their fees.

My second point, asked the committee to recommend that Council Officers consent to Mr Sayers sharing the legal advice with us "in strict confidence". The papers around that advice comprise very ‘material documents’, as they provide the only evidence in support of Brent’s decision to make the payment to Ms Davani.

The Chair asked Brent's Chief Legal Officer, Debra Norman, to address them. She told the committee, effectively, that "Legal Privilege" was a fundamental principle that should never be breached. She did not appear to consider whether, in the particular circumstances of this investigation, refusal by the Council to allow the objectors access to the documents, in strict confidence, might appear to be unfair.

The Chair asked Mr Sayers whether the lack of consent from the Council was "impeding" his investigation, and the Auditor said that it was not, although it might mean that he had to take legal advice himself over whether to disclose certain documents to the objectors. I am not sure whether committee members realised that this would mean additional costs to the Council for the investigation.

I was allowed a brief reply, but like Mr Sayers, I had to say that I could not disclose the full nature of the allegations in the objection, but that they did involve matters which were 'contrary to law', and that this was more than a possible query over whether a QC's advice was correct.

There was no real discussion or vote on what action the committee should take over my second point. It was almost like a shrug of the shoulders to say "well, we can't go against the advice of the Chief Legal Officer".

I was probably naïve to think that the Audit Advisory Committee might, just might, be persuaded to recommend that the legal advice, which the Council claims as justification for the £157,610 “pay-off” to Cara Davani, could be shared with the objectors. But at least I tried to move things forward towards getting this long-running matter resolved, and the minutes of last Monday evening’s meeting will hopefully record the main points of what was said.

So, Wembley Matters readers, and the rest of Brent’s citizens, will have to carry on waiting for details of why the payment was made, if that is found to be different from the Council version(s), to be officially revealed. You can be sure, however, that the five local electors who objected to Brent’s 2015/16 accounts will do their best to see that the truth comes out, eventually.

Philip Grant.

London headteachers fear for the future of high quality education in the face of budget cuts

From London Councils
 

London is experiencing a school funding crisis that is damaging the quality of education schools can provide, research commissioned by London Councils has revealed. Headteachers face huge challenges in coping with reducing budgets, recruiting and retaining teachers, and managing teachers’ workload so that they can deliver the best quality education for our schoolchildren.

Talking Heads, a survey of nearly 400 London head teachers and senior school leaders, lays bare the negative impact of insufficient funding on teacher and teaching assistant numbers, curriculum options, learning resources such as IT equipment and textbooks, and the upkeep of school buildings.

Another key challenge addressed by the report is recruitment and retention of high quality teachers. London headteachers are finding it increasingly hard to recruit and retain teaching staff due to the challenges of the profession as well as high living costs and house prices. Primary schools are struggling to fill classroom teacher vacancies, while secondary schools are struggling most with recruiting subject leaders.

Cllr Peter John OBE, Deputy Chair of London Councils and Executive member with responsibility for education, said:

Our research paints a bleak picture of the financial challenges threatening the future of London’s education system from the perspective of the head teachers and school leaders who have worked to transform the capital’s schools into the best in the country.

Headteachers fear that young Londoners will not be able to receive a top-quality education in the years ahead due to increased costs and inadequate funding for schools.

The UK is on course to leave the European Union in 2019 and ensuring young people have the skills to succeed and contribute to the growth of the economy has never been more important.

We’re calling on Government to recognise that schools are facing significant additional cost pressures, and to protect school funding in real terms to address these pressures. This would give head teachers the freedom to focus on helping children to realise their potential at school so they respond positively to the challenges and opportunities that spring from Brexit.

Download the report HERE

Loss of the Corrib will cause material and cultural harm to the community

The planning application for the site of the Corrib Rest, Salusbury Road, Queens Park, will be heard this evening at Brent Civic Centre.

Save The Corrib campaigners have written the following to the Planning Committee.

We are campaigning for a better solution for the Corrib Rest pub and community rooms as we do not feel that the planning officers have grasped fully the community value of the Corrib planning scheme and its value to the wider community. 

We would draw your attention to details which we consider are important and yet not considered in any detail.  we appreciate the workload of councillors is high and so have kept this simple without great detail and hope you can give this some of your attention.

The report fails to mention that The Corrib started as the Irish Culture Centre in the 1980's, and was a publicly owned building covering an area 4 times the current Corrib. In 2000 much of the Corrib was converted to social housing with the remaining portion being sold on the clear legal understanding that the public function rooms on the first floor were to be protected by the 106 agreement, ensuring that they served as a community facility.  They are, in effect a publicly owned asset, held in trust by Brent for the community.  Ashcross bought the building with the 106 conditions attached, it is these conditions, set in place to protect this asset that he now is asking Brent to ignore. Brent should resist this request and follow the example of Camden and reject the loss of community space.T

The report does not reflected the wider use of the Corrib, which extends well beyond the QPARA area. The report gives, we consider, undue due weight to the QPARA involvement to the exclusion of other parties.  The views of Kilburn, Kensal and Cricklewood residents associations are not recorded, nor are other stakeholders views included, for example, Tulip Siddiq's  letter of objection, is not mentioned. The planning history not addressed and the previous rejections are not outlined in sufficient detail.

The report does not address the local need for community space. The Corrib is the largest community centre in South Brent centre out side the Granville. There is no impact assessment on the loss of this facility and that existing resources are booked up for over 3 months. Brent will look extremely foolish if they give away their interest in this community asset at the same time as advertising in the Brent Magazine for community facilities they can fund, especially in Kilburn

The proposed 106 agreement is not compared with the existing and the report seeks to underplay the loss in space, facilities and access. The so called community room is 70% smaller than the current ones and the usage time is reduced by 50%. The new Corrib can only cater for a max of 225 persons whilst the existing Corrib can take up to 1000 persons

The main first floor function room, with its high ceilings, sky lights, spring floor, kitchen and bar is our "village hall". Its unique ambiance and airiness provide an ideal location for weddings, and musical events etc, as well as the usual leisure activities. The second function room also has a bar and kitchen. Plus the rooms can be combined to form a single room of over 350sqm. The rooms are accessed directly from the street via a magnificence stair case. The facilities also benefit from 2 sets of WC's and showers / changing room, topped of with disabled lift, access via rear.

In contrast the proposed room is 153sqm, has one shared WC opening directly onto it, the ceiling will be low, light and ventilation limited. Access is via 3 sets of doors, difficult for the elderly, impossible for those carrying drinks, also access is right through the bar area, not ideal for children or those who's religious beliefs require them to avoid alcohol. Lack of changing facilities will further reduce its amenity value. As does the lack of street access to Hopefield, as requested by 2 Hopefield residents

No weight is given to the fact that since it closed there have still been noise complaints. Noise is a management issue not a planning one. No mention is made of the fact that Brent officers did not consider the historic noise complaints sufficient to take action against the Corrib

Report conclusion says ‘would make efficient use of site and reopen the pub. The Pub was closed by developer solely to enhance planning application and was viable and in use when sold.  It was sold just to fund one partners retirement fund.

The report missed out the fact that the loss of 530 sqm of space on first floor gives a gain to developer of £5M in property value. With a further £3M from the conversion of the 3rd floor.

The report dismisses the threat to the viability to the pub of the community room, which will reduce the bar area by 50% and will put the pub at risk conflicting with Brent’s policy to protect pubs and not convert them. CAMRA define this type of application as a "Trojan Horse", where the reduction of pub size deliberately aims to render it unviable leading to its eventual conversion to residential. The report fails to mention that looking at the layout of the pub it is clear that the massive hall way to the flats separating the community room from the pub will render this room unusable in the long term, thus finally killing the Corrib.

No mention is made of the fact that Ashcross are considered by QPARA as unsuitable as guardians of any community asset, backed up by Ashcross's treatment of Kensal to Kilburn Transition Town. No mention is made of Ashcross's and Iceni's  involvement with previous "asset stripping" of pubs. 

We consider there will be immense material and cultural harm to the community from the loss of this facility . We believe the rooms should be retained as set out in the existing 106 agreement and this application rejected.  We hope, for the benefit of the communities of Kilburn, you will agree also.

Regards
Kevin Barrett and Lloyd Fothergill
for the Save the Corrib Campaign
representing the near 2000 petitioners and 148 objectors