Will Kilburn's 'Good Ship' sail again?

Voter registration event held at the 'Good Ship'

Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday December 12th will decide whether to approve an application for the site of the 'Good Ship' pub in Kilburn High Road. In June an application was turned down because it did not conform with the Council's pub protection policy (DMP21) and concern over the quality of accommodation that was to be provided. LINK

The application will be heard in the context of concern that Kilburn High Road is losing its live music venues and local residents will want to ensure that the pub that is now included will be financially viable and attract a tenants who will continue to put on events.

Camden Council objected to the frontage design but unfortunately their comments and those of local Brent councillors are not now available on the Planning Portal:

The officer's report LINK contains a detailed section on the proposed pub space. Note the reference to the fact that it is proposed that this provision is classified as A4 rather than D2 which would be appropriate for a venue that had  entertainment as its primary purpose:

In this submission the A4 unit is proposed to be retained, although it would have a different layout to the existing unit and be split level, occupying both the proposed basement and ground floor levels. Whilst the proposed development would no longer result in a loss, it is nevertheless important to give consideration to the principles behind DMP21. Whilst the A4 unit is being re-provided, the layout is changing and therefore attention needs to be given to the quality of the unit and its ability to operate in the long-term as a viable A4 use, even if the re-development is not resulting in a loss in itself. Therefore whilst criteria a) of DMP21 is no longer relevant to the proposal, the other criteria are to be considered in turn.

Criteria c) of DMP21 states that the proposal should not constitute the loss of a service of particular value to the community. There is no evidence to suggest that the premises were and are used to host local community events such as residents or local interest group meetings. However, a significant number of objectors have referred to the value that the premises provided in terms of the local night time economy, space for bands to play in, creative space and as one of the only places in the Kilburn area to provide live music and entertainment. The premises and its former function with Kilburn is therefore clearly valued to certain sections of the local community. It is therefore important that an acceptable A4 unit is retained. It would then be down to the operator to decide whether to continue to hold music events.

The layout of the unit is proposed to change and concern has been expressed the A4 unit would not offer good quality and usable floorspace so to appeal to a wide variety of tenants or to be used in future as a live entertainment venue similar to ‘The Good Ship’ .The existing unit occupies the ground floor with a sunken area to the rear and mezzanine level, with a floor area of 138m2 at ground floor with the mezzanine providing a further 22sqm of floorspace. Due to the creation of the basement, the proposed new unit would have a total floor area of 332m2, however it is acknowledged that greater floorspace does not necessarily equate to greater quality and part of the basement cannot be considered usable given that it would have to accommodate additional storage and toilets. Nevertheless, the basement would still increase floorspace and would be an open area contributing to the quality of the unit with the potential to operate in various ways associated with an A4 use.

In order to properly assess the quality of the space, a comparison of the usable areas of the proposed and existing ground floor, which is considered the most significant, has been undertaken. In relation to the existing unit, the main bar area measures some 6.5m wide x 11.3m long with the lower level measuring 6.6m x 4.6m. There is a circulation area adjacent the sunken floor level measuring 2.1m wide leading to the back of house area. It is raised that this area would typically not be considered practical usable space, nevertheless it has been counted as such in this assessment in that it would probably be a suitable standing area for people. In relation to the proposed unit, the main front area would measure 6.8m wide x 11.3m long (slightly wider than existing), with the opening through to the rear area measuring 4.7m (less than the existing 5.5m). At the rear the area measures between 6m / 5.1m wide x 10.5m long which equates to a total ground floor area of 146m2. Therefore whilst noting that the layout would differ from the existing, with no mezzanine proposed, the area of useable floorspace at the ground floor and the proposed layout of the unit would not be very different ( a loss of approx 14sqm at ground floor) from the existing so to conclude that the unit could not be used in a similar fashion to ‘The Good Ship’ or as a viable A4 unit in the future. The ground floor would also be double height throughout which would further ensure the quality of the space. Again, floorspace would be maximised through the provision of the basement

Objections have been received from local residents noting that Kilburn High Road has been identified as an important location for the night time economy and that the subject site makes an important contribution largely due to the fact that it is the only remaining live music venue on Kilburn High Road. The extent to which the reconfigured A4 unit would be viable as a future entertainment venue has already been discussed above, however, it is important to note that an entertainment venue would fall under use Class D2. Planning history indicates that the subject site was in A4 use long before it became the Good Ship (previously occupied by ZD bar) and there is no evidence of a planning application ever being submitted for the change of use to D2. Furthermore, if the opening hours of ‘ the Good Ship’ are considered these would support its primary use as an A4 unit given that the premises were open Monday to Sunday with long openings hours (17:00 – 02:00 and until 04:00 Fridays and Saturdays ). Therefore whilst the previous occupiers may have found their niche in terms of providing live entertainment to ensure their longer term viability, this does not appear to be the primary purpose of the unit and as such it is correct to assess the unit as an A4 use. Nevertheless, and as above, it is important to ensure that a similar venue could operate from the premises and it’s considered that this would be possible.

Whilst no longer a loss of the A4 use it is acknowledged that criteria b) of DMP21 states that the proposed alternative use should not detrimental affect the character and vitality of an area and should retain as much of the building’s external fabric and appearance as a pub as possible. In this case, although the building would be replaced, the existing building and in particular its frontage is not considered typical of the frontage of a traditional public house. The frontage does not have features typically associated with a public house that can be seen in other premises on Kilburn High Road and therefore the proposal is acceptable in relation to criteria b). Criteria d) is not applicable in this case as the premises are not registered as an Asset of Community Value.

Therefore when considering the quality, it is considered that the re-configured unit would have an acceptable layout so as to appeal to a wide variety of tenants and would have the potential to operate as a live entertainment venue if such a tenant wished to occupy the unit in future. Furthermore, given that the unit  would be of a suitable quality, it would not jeopardise or undermine the Kilburn High Roads designation within the draft London Plan as an important location for the night time economy. It is therefore considered that the previous reasons for refusal have been overcome and the principle of the re-development of the site is acceptable in this regard. A condition has been recommended to agree the fit-out details of the A4 unit, to ensure that it is constructed to a standard that will attract future occupiers and be viable.

-->

Muhammed Butt receives almost £3,000's worth of gifts and hospitality in five months

The latest declaration of gifts and hospitality by Brent councillors always makes interesting reading. As one would expect, Brent council leader Muhammed Butt tops the list. The value of his gifts and hospitality are for the period July 2018 to December 2018 but nothing is declared for November. The value of all his declarations so far in the period is £2,964.

Click bottom right corner to enlarge to PDF to full size:

'Slumlord' millionaire must pay £1.5m or spend 9 years in prison for flouting planning laws and exploiting desperate tenants

Press release from Brent and Harrow Councils

A notorious rogue landlord must pay £1,500,000 or spend nine years behind bars after justice caught up with him at Harrow Crown Court last Friday (30 November). The court found that Vispasp Sarkari had flouted planning rules for more than five years - converting properties across Brent and Harrow into substandard flats without planning permission.

Sarkari, 56, of Hawthorne Avenue, Harrow, had been cramming tenants into cramped and dangerous accommodation - charging them extortionate amounts in rent. His criminal enterprise included one property in Brent illegally converted into eight substandard box-room bedsits and four more similarly converted in Harrow.

He defied all planning enforcement warnings by both councils to stop the use of his properties and carried on with his criminal venture raking in thousands of pounds from people desperate to have a roof over their head.  

Cllr Tom Miller, Brent Council's Cabinet Member for Community Safety, said:

"Slum landlords won't be tolerated - plain and simple. If you ignore planning laws or leave tenants to languish in poor conditions, then we will find you, we will take action in court, and we will win. Anyone we find flouting planning or exploiting renters will feel a deep hole in their pockets after we've taken them to task."

Sarkari was also separately fined £12,000 and ordered to pay both councils' costs in full. It's believed that he may have several further properties across the two boroughs - making him responsible for a significant proportion of illegal flat conversions and HMOs blighting North West London. 

Cllr Keith Ferry, Harrow Council's cabinet member for planning, said:

"Justice means taking the ill-gotten gains off this slumlord millionaire. This is a man who thought he couldn't be stopped. He was wrong, and thanks to our joint work with Brent Council, Sarkari's criminal venture is finished.

"But he's not the only rackrent landlord out there, wrecking lives and ruining our boroughs by running illegal flats and HMOs. My message to the others is this: we'll never stop, we'll never give up, and when we catch you, we'll punish you too."

Extensive inquiries by both councils established the extent of Mr Sarkari's criminal activity. Brent also secured a restraint order against Mr Sarkari which means that he cannot dispose of his assets before the order is paid in full. If he doesn't pay up, then the Council can force the sale of his properties.


In sentencing Mr Sarkari, Judge Wood described the breaches as "a flagrant abuse of the Town and Country Planning legislation". She went on to thank everybody involved for their hard work in putting the case forward.


Harrow and Brent were represented by Counsel Mr Edmund Robb of Prospect Law. He said:

"The Confiscation Order of almost £1.5 m which has been made in this case represents major recognition by the Crown Court of the personal misery and amenity damage which is caused by blatant and longstanding failures by developers to comply with planning enforcement notices issued by local authorities in London."

The Village School to stay with the LA for now and the NEU wants that to be permanent

I understand that the Village School, a special school in Brent that was to join a Multi-Academy Trust, will remain within the Brent  local authority into January 2019.

The academy and MAT conversion process has been “deferred” pending an ESFA investigation into financial “irregularities”. 

The investigation was triggered by whistleblowing from NEU members regarding allegations that  off-payroll consultants  were interfering with governance and Human Resources matters at the Woodfield Trust whilst receiving up to £240,000 for “services as defined by the school”. They claim the financial due diligence process carried out by governors was led by one of these consultants.

Furthermore they allege that since the MAT process was started, consultants have continued to be paid with funds intended for the education of SEND children in the borough. Restructure of the senior leadership teams has increased the funds at the top levels while vacancies remain unfilled and agency staffing increases in the classrooms.

NEU members at the school are seeking a further ballot for strike action, following their 13 days last year, to try to keep their school in the local authority.

--> -->

Brent Council Planning Committee to decide on a 23 storey tower near Empire and Danes Court, Wembley

The development and others planned (grey shading) from North End Road

Before

After

Cumalative massing

Brent Planning Committee on December 12th will consider an application to build a block of varying heights, maximum 23 storeys, on a site in Watkin Road currently occupied by single storey car repair buildings. It is just outside the Quintain Masterplan site but illustrates the way tower blocks are spreading across the area.

At 23 storeys it is lower than the 29 storey Apex House student accommodation tower which will be its near neighbour. There is a 34 story block planned at Quintain Plot NE06.

The new building continues the enroachment on


As has become custome and practice the report by Brent planners glosses over aspects where the application fails to meet or comes close to not meeting local and London guidance:

1. Provision of new homes and affordable workspace: Your officers give great weight to the viable delivery of private and affordable housing and new affordable commercial floor space, in line with the adopted Development Plan.
   
2. The impact of a building of this height and design in this location: The proposal replaces a poor quality commercial plot with a large modern high density development in keeping with the surrounding and approved built form. The development utilises good architecture with quality detailing and materials in order to maximise the site’s potential whilst respecting surrounding development. The development will not obstruct views of the Wembley Stadium arch from any protected viewpoints. A “tall building” is proposed within an area designated as “Inappropriate for tall buildings”. However, the height, layout, design and massing has been carefully considered and has been evaluated by the Design Council Design Review Panel, the GLA and by Brent Officers who all have concluded that the proposed building is appropriate for this context.
   
3. Quality of the resulting residential accommodation: The residential accommodation proposed is of sufficiently high quality. The mix of units is in accordance with the standards within the London Plan and reasonably well aligned with the Wembley Area Action Plan mix, and the flats would generally have good outlook and light. The amenity space is below our standard, but is still substantial and is high for a tall building.

4. Affordable housing: The maximum reasonable amount has been provided
   on a near policy compliant tenure split. This includes 35% affordable housing provision with a tenure split of 60:40 between affordable rented and intermediate flats when measured in terms of habitable rooms. 48% of the affordable rented accommodation are 3 bedroom flats when measured in terms of habitable rooms. The viability has been tested and it has been demonstrated that this is the maximum reasonable amount that can be provided on site. The requirements of affordable housing obligations are considered to have been met and a late stage viability review will be secured by S106.
   
5. Neighbouring amenity: There would be a loss of light to some windows of surrounding buildings, which is a function of a development on this scale. Many of the windows affected would serve student accommodation and/or do not yet exist as an established residential standard. The impact is considered to be acceptable given the urban context of the site. The overall impact of the development is considered acceptable, particularly in view of the wider regenerative benefits.
   
6. Highways and transportation: The alterations to the public highway as required in the S106 would be acceptable, considering the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. The highway works will include (i) providing a new loading bay on North End Road and (ii) extending a 20mph zone alongside the building. To encourage sustainable travel patterns, the scheme will be 'car-free' with the exception of blue badge parking spaces. A financial contribution of £110,000 towards extending CPZ's into the area is proposed with the removal of rights for residents within the development to apply for parking permits. A for bus service enhancements in the area, as required by TfL, will also be secured.
   
7. Trees, landscaping and public realm: Some low quality trees are proposed to be removed but they are not considered worthy of retention. The proposal is likely to substantially improve on the existing situation with a new public realm and associated tree planting proposed alongside a wider landscaping strategy. This will be assured through conditions.
   
8. Environmental impact, sustainability and energy: The measures outlined by the applicant achieve the required improvement on carbon savings within London Plan policy. Conditions will require further consideration of carbon savings prior to implementation.
   
9. Flooding and Drainage: Part of the site sits within a flood zone. A flood mitigation strategy and drainage strategy will be secured by condition to mitigate the risks associated with this. The development will also substantially improve the drainage capacity of the site through attenuation measures.
   

I would be interested to hear what the residents of Empire and Danes Court think of the proposal.

Sponsor my December beard to raise money for bowel cancer research

I'm going to look even scruffier than usual for the next month as I am going to grow a Decembeard...

I don't usually write about personal issues on this blog so this is an exception to the rule.

I will be joining other men caross the country by growing a beard to raise money for research into bowel cancer. 

I had my last shave for a month on Friday morning, so all ready for spending December nurturing my beard. I am hoping for a thick, curly black beard with hints of brown and ginger but doubt that is going to be the case.   It is more likely to be useful for my annual role as Father Christmas but may be painful when the kids tug the beard to see if it is real.

Having spent the last almost 2 years undergoing investigations for all sorts of diseases after a sudden loss of weight and anaemia I realised that bowel cancer was a major issue, with 1 in 14 men being diagnosed with it during their lifetime and 2,500 people under 50 being diagnosed with it in the UK every year. I was given the all clear (my problem is kidney disease) but as a result of my experience and learning about it, want to do my bit for research into bowel cancer. If you'd like to sponsor my beard and support bowel cancer research please go to my Just Giving page here:  LINK

Proposed 15 storey block for Cricklewood opposed by many local residents

The relationship of the block to surrounding buildings

As the block will appear from Cricklewood Lane

Proposals for a  6-15 storey block on the corner of Cricklewood Broadway and Cricklewood Lane  (1-13 Cricklewood Lane) is being opposed by many Barnet and Brent residents who live close to the proposed development.

These two statements extracted from comments on the Barnet Council planning portal sum up the reasons for opposition:

COMMENT 1

The proposal is based on misleading claims and specious arguments which are factually incorrect. A 15 storey high-rise extreme-density tower would dominate everything around it and be totally out of keeping with the rest of Cricklewood.

FUL-PLANNING_STATEMENT-4245340
2.12 The Site is within the wider Brent Cross Cricklewood (BXC) Framework.
It is not.
5.9 The Site is designated, by the LBB and the GLA: Cricklewood/Brent Cross Opportunity Area:
It is not.
6.28 .......the Brent Cross Regeneration Area is situated in close proximity to the Site, which provides precedent for tall buildings.
It is not "in close proximity to the Site"; There is no precedent for tall buildings
6.28 "Cricklewood is not identified by LBB as one of the areas suitable for tall buildings".

There is no Affordable Housing
7.2-Affordable housing provision will only be "discussed further with the Council".

The scheme will be detrimental to the area:
6.24 The tower "will be situated to the rear of the Site to minimise townscape views and amenity"
6.50 The scheme proposes a residential density that "exceeds the current London Plan density matrix"
6.61 "....the scheme proposal will result in several breaches of BRE daylight guidance", due to the design

Public Consultation
4.6. "an extensive process of consultation was undertaken ..... between the Applicant and the local community". This is an exaggerated and misleading claim.
4.8 reveals that only 43 people attended the exhibition, and that only 15 feedback forms were returned. Most local residents were not told

7.0 SECTION 106: the developer is making no contribution at all other than a Carbon offset payment - this is unacceptable.

If planning applications are to be decided on the basis of this kind of falsehood, that is a subversion and debasement of due democratic process, This proposal by an off-shore speculator to exploit residents' environment for commercial gain constitutes town cramming. It should be refused

COMMENT 2

Let's not pretend that anything about this development is intended to benefit the local area. It's about developers making money. The development is not in keeping with the local area, it's far too big. The development is not about providing housing to local people, there is no social housing, despite the desperate need. There is no guaranteed affordable housing.

I was born and brought up in Cricklewood and at the age of 33 I have had to move back in with my parents to be able to stay in the area that is my home. This housing is not even within my reach and in many ways I'm luckier than many other local people I am proud to call my neighbours.

Cricklewood infrastructure is already under enormous strain. I have given up trying to drive down the Broadway, the traffic barely moves. The new housing development towards staples corner, plus the planned distribution site are already going to add to an already overburdened road network. A development of that many flats would be awful, not to mention the health effects from the added pollution. The train networks are overloaded, it's nearly impossible to get on a train at Cricklewood Station as it is.

Why are we intent on letting outside financial interests come in and create so much damage to the place we live. Let's redevelop Cricklewood, some areas desperately need it but let's do it in a way that works for local people, before we realise we've ruined our home for a quick buck.

If you wish to comment on the proposal or read more about it follow this LINK

Bridge Park: 'We own it - we must take it back!'

An angry, passionate account of the history of Bridge Park by one of its founders Leonard Johnson. He rallies the Black community to get behind the campaign for Bridge Park and calls on them to ignore rumours that attempt to undermine his reputation.