No return until it’s safe! Joint Education Unions urge caution whilst mourning their own member

Contributed

Pamela Mistry

In response to the government’s “five pillars” that needed to be met before relaxing lockdown, the NEU has published its own “FIVE TESTS” which must be met before any increase in the opening of schools:

1.     Much lower numbers of cases

2.     A national plan for social distancing

3.     Testing, testing, testing (regular for staff and children)

4.     Whole school strategy (ie test whole school and isolate when one case occurs)

5.     Protect the vulnerable

The NEU has also presented the government with a 250,000 strong petition against opening on 1^st June if the five tests are not met which has also been supported by parents’ organisations.

NEU, NASUWT, UNISON, NAHT, GMB and UNITE unions have now all issued a joint statement to urge caution on reopening. The NEU has produced a stringent model risk assessment for schools, which we understand is being sent to Brent Council on Monday, and members are being advised on the areas of health and safety law that will protect them.

Meanwhile Brent NEU members have paid tribute to Pamela Mistry, a 50-year old teaching assistant who had, until recently, been employed at The Village School and was an active union member there. She sadly died of coronavirus in April after several weeks in hospital, leaving a much-loved partner, children and grandchildren. NEU members and colleagues, denied the chance to attend a funeral due to lockdown, have posted in an online condolence book, paying tribute to Pamela and her lovely family, and describing her as a beautiful, kind and caring lady. One member describes her as a lovely, kind lady who spoke about her family and partner every day sharing funny anecdotes. Staff have been devastated by the news and have said she will never be forgotten.

Staff and children across our Brent schools have suffered family losses too, with the high number of cases in Brent. Brent Council have been consulting unions on their school strategy during the lockdown. Unions are extremely likely to strongly resist anything other than a cautious, phased approach in line with the five tests advocated by the NEU.

Brent Cyclists lobby Council on Post-Covid-19 local transport

The Brent Cycling Campaign has published an open letter to Brent Council officials and councillors setting out proposals for 'A Shared Future' for local transport in the post-Covid-19 era.

The proposals would complement the 'London Streetspace' programme announced by Sadiq Khan and TfL LINK .

This is a tremendous opportunity to build on the gains we have all noticed in terms of air quality and other factors that have made our area more 'liveable' as a pleasant by-product of the current cruel crisis.

The full letter is below. Click on bottom right hand corner for full page version.

VE Day – why they were celebrating then, and what it tells us now

Philip Grant, of Wembley History Society, reflects on difficult times, past and present.

‘Wembley Goes Gay!’ If you saw that headline now, you would think it was about a Pride march. But that was the headline in a local newspaper exactly 75 years ago, marking the borough’s celebrations for VE Day, the end of the Second World War in Europe.

1. "The Wembley News" title, from a 1944 edition. (From a copy collected by the late Richard Graham)

I had hoped to show the actual headline, which I saw on a microfilm some years ago, but I have been “staying at home” for nearly two months. With our libraries also now closed, and my friends at Brent Archives working from home, they have not been able to access the local newspaper microfilms to retrieve it for me. 

I first thought of writing an article to mark this 75^th anniversary before the Covid-19 emergency. I can’t help seeing some similarities, as well as differences, between the situation now, and what it was like, in the Wembley area in particular, during the Second World War. Will we have a party to celebrate when the coronavirus outbreak is over, as it certainly will be, one day?

2. A street party in Church Lane, Kingsbury, 1945. (From “Brent’s War”, published by Brent Libraries, 1995)

There was good reason to celebrate then. Britain had been at war for nearly six years when the remnants of Hitler’s German regime surrendered in May 1945, but the shadow of the conflict had hung over the country for even longer. In December 1937, the government asked local councils to start making air raid precautions (“ARP”). Early the following year, because of fears that Germany would use poison gas as a weapon against civilians, and not just on battlefields as in the “Great War”, millions of gas masks started to be issued.

Wembley’s choice for its ARP Officer in February 1938 may have surprised some. Jack Eddas, had been appointed as an Entertainments Manager in 1937, a temporary post to organise celebrations for King George VI’s coronation, and the Urban District being elevated to Borough status. The Council had seen how good his organisational skills were, and chose the right man. 

Within a few weeks, he had started recruiting Air Raid Wardens, and setting up a training programme. His planning would see 2,500 wardens in place by the time war was declared. Some were employed full-time, at £3 a week, but 95% of the men and women were volunteers. They were organised into teams, based on eighty warden posts across the borough, fifty of these in specially built blast-proof shelters.

3. Wembley's Warden Post No. 32, c.1939. (Image, possibly IWM Collection, from a 1964 magazine article)

When the photo above was taken, the wardens had yet to be given uniforms, just a helmet and an ARP lapel badge. They had named Post 32 “Bell & Rattle”, after the equipment they were given to signal the all clear to, and threat of, gas attacks. Fortunately, no poison gas bombs were dropped, but air raids on Wembley began, with incendiary bombs, on 27 August 1940.

4. 443-449 Kingsbury Road, after the 25 September 1940 bombing. (Brent Archives online image 8536)

The borough’s first fatalities were suffered a month later. This time the Luftwaffe dropped parachute mines, a 500kg weapon that drifted through the air to kill indiscriminately (like the tiny droplets that carry the coronavirus). On the night of 25 September, Daisy Cowley and her baby son Robert, and Maud Hawkins and her 7-year old daughter Barbara, died in their flats above shops in Kingsbury Road. Minutes later, married couples John and Iris Pool and their neighbours, Bill and Caroline Western, were killed in their homes at District Road, Sudbury.

The King and Queen paid a surprise visit to the rescue services and survivors of the Sudbury blast. King George VI praised the wonderful spirit of the local people. Wembley had to survive many more months of “the Blitz”, until May 1941, although it got off quite lightly compared to some places. Keeping up morale was important, and messages of encouragement from the Mayor were part of the way that was done, then as now.

5. A message from the Mayor of Wembley to ARP workers. (Wembley A.R.P. Magazine, December 1940)

The Civil Defence workers whose efforts the Mayor was commending were more than just ARP Wardens. Other branches of the service included trained Rescue Teams, First Aid and Casualty Ambulance Units. These were based at a variety of locations around the borough, and would be called out from a control centre in the basement of the Town Hall, in Forty Lane. It was manned 24 hours a day by volunteers from the Council’s staff, who responded to emergency reports ‘phoned in by the wardens.

6. "Coat of arms" of one Wembley First Aid Post, and Mobile Unit from another. (Photo from Brent Archives)

The home-made “coat of arms” above was designed by a nurse’s husband, for her First Aid Post at Preston Manor School. The photograph shows the team at First Aid Post No. 5, based at a sports ground in East Lane. The nurse all in white was a Sister from Wembley Hospital, who led the team when she was not on duty there. In the days before the NHS, Wembley had a “voluntary hospital” in Chaplin Road, which opened in 1928. It was funded by charitable donations, a week-long summer Carnival and Fete, and a scheme where over 20,000 local residents paid sixpence a month, for free treatment in the “public wards” if they needed it.

A wartime Auxiliary Fire Service (“AFS”) was organised by Wembley’s professional Fire Brigade, set up in 1935 after forty years of a volunteer brigade. As well as their new fire stations at Harrow Road and Kingsbury Circle (now an ambulance station), it had units based at four garages across the borough. Their busiest night in Wembley was on “Black Friday”, 15/16 November 1940. Around 3,000 incendiary bombs were dropped, resulting in 62 separate call-outs. Many homes and business premises were damaged or burnt out.

7. Newspaper report of three A.F.S. deaths, “Wembley News” 17 January 1941. (Brent Archives microfilms)

As the article above shows, three of Wembley’s AFS volunteers died when a bomb fell beside their vehicle, close to St Paul’s Cathedral, as they were helping to fight fires in the City of London in January 1941. The widespread incendiary bomb attacks meant that, from February, compulsory Fire Guard duties were imposed on all eligible adults. Around 25,000 people, almost a quarter of Wembley’s total population then, had to spend 12 hours a week on fire-watching duties, organised on a rota system by ARP wardens for residential areas.

That was just one of the restrictions on everyday life that people had to put up with during the war. There was also rationing of food and other items. Petrol could only be obtained for essential business use. Travel to some places was restricted. The police were watchful, and shopkeepers, or anyone else who broke the rules, could be fined, or even sent to prison. As we see now, sometimes curbs on basic freedoms during an emergency are necessary.

Between May 1941 and February 1943, there was a lull in the bombing, but the ARP services had to stay vigilant. In February 1944, a pair of semi-detached Council houses at Birchen Close took a direct hit from a high-explosive bomb on a Saturday evening. Eight members of the Whitfield family and seven members of the Metcalfe family were killed. Even though they had lived just across the road from the graveyard at Old St Andrew’s Church, Kingsbury, they were buried at Alperton Cemetery, as was the case for all Wembley’s bombing victims. 

We have seen recently, in the news, the grim scenes of mass graves in New York City. Wembley also had contingency plans, and a site set aside, in case mass burials were needed. Thankfully they were not, so allotment-holders at Birchen Grove needn’t worry when digging!

8. Wembley Borough Council's WW2 Roll of Honour memorial. (Currently in storage at Brent Museum)

ARP Warden Henry Randall was injured by the blast from the Birchen Close bomb in February 1944, and died in hospital two days later. His name is on Wembley Council’s memorial to its staff who died ‘in the service of their country’ during the war, as is that of Horace Townley. He was killed when a bomb hit his ARP Post in Alperton, two weeks later. Albert Brooker, Stanley Conniff and William Knight, the three AFS men who died in 1941, are also honoured. They too had worked for the Council, as well as volunteering to be firefighters in their own time.

9. Photos of V1 Flying Bomb damage, from a recently rediscovered album. (With thanks to Jo Locke)

The final onslaught Wembley’s Civil Defence services had to deal with was V1 Flying Bombs. Fourteen of these “doodlebugs” fell on the borough between June and September 1944, and the first on 19 June was particularly hard to bear. Among the victims at Station Approach, Sudbury, were Cecil and Alice Hyatt, both ARP Wardens. Their son was in the Casualty Ambulance Unit based at Barham Park, and had married a young lady from that team earlier in the war. His wife, Joan, and their 2-year old son Rodney, also died at his parents’ home.

The second photo above shows Wembley Hill School, which was destroyed by a V1 in July. Luckily no pupils or teachers were in the building, but William Harris, on Fire Guard duty, was killed. For the rest of the war its pupils had to be spread around other local schools, meaning class sizes of 50 or more. Copland School was built on the site in the early 1950s.

At the end of 1944, some of the wartime censorship restrictions were lifted, and the full extent of the bombing and casualties was made public. Around 9,000 bombs had been dropped on Wembley, and more than half the homes in the borough had suffered some damage, with 528 being completely destroyed. 149 people had been killed in the air raids, over 400 seriously injured, and a similar number less badly hurt. Sadly, when the final figure for Covid-19 deaths in the area is known, it may be more than the wartime fatalities.

10. VE Day games at Audrey Gardens, Sudbury Court Estate - the potato in the bucket race.

11. VE Day games at Audrey Gardens - catching the train race. (Both photos courtesy of Judith Meredith)

With what local people had endured, it is little wonder that Wembley celebrated VE Day. As well as parties, neighbours came together to organise other simple entertainments, like the games for children shown in the photos above. They could finally relax, have fun, and look forward to a brighter future. The little girl in the race above thought the war ending would mean sweets were no longer rationed, but as now, it would take time for normal life to return.

 

One thing that the Second World War and the current emergency have in common is the number of people ‘doing just that bit extra for their neighbours’, as Wembley’s Mayor put it in his 1940 message. That community effort, as well as the vital efforts of those in the NHS, care services and other key workers, are something to be thankful for, and to build on in future.

12. The Defence Medal, for Second World War service. (Brent Museum, object no. 1977.166f)

How will we remember those efforts? Some people have suggested a medal, and there was one for civilians who had served on the “home front” for at least three years between 1938 and 1945. You can find out more about The Defence Medal, and about Wembley’s ARP services, on the Brent Museum website.

 

Another medal was the MBE, awarded to Jack Eddas in the 1941 New Year Honours. His work in preparing Wembley Council’s ARP services not only helped to save lives in the borough. It showed how an effective organisation should be run, and helped guide and provide training advice to other Councils across Middlesex.

Will there be “Roll of Honour” boards to remember those who have died from Covid-19, while working to look after others during the outbreak? That is something to think about, as we remember VE Day, 75 years ago, and why it was celebrated. Please feel free to share your own views.

Philip Grant.

Planning Officer explains next steps in Sudbury Town Station Car Park planning process

There have been raised eyebrows over the decision to defer the Sudbury Town Station Car Park planning application last night after a 4-3 majority voted against against it.

This exchange may help explain (perhaps):

Dear Mr Lorber,

I write in response to your e-mail to Carolyn Downs within which you have questioned the deferral of the Sudbury Town Car Park application.

Members voted against the recommendation to grant planning consent and were minded to refuse planning permission due to impacts associated with the mix of housing (lack of Affordable Rent accommodation and family sized home), loss of station car parking and the impact on the surrounding streets.  Where members are minded to grant or refuse planning permission contrary to the recommendation, officers will often recommend that the application is deferred so that a report may be presented to the Planning Committee setting out the policy basis for their decision.  This is undertaken to ensure that any divergence from policy and the associated impacts of this have been clearly set out.  It strengthens the decision and is vital when defending the decision should the applicant choose to appeal or in the instance that a legal challenge is mounted (a Judicial Review).

The views of the relevant members were clear and a report clearly setting out the policy basis for these matters will be presented to the next Planning Committee meeting.  There was some discussion between members about applicants revising schemes to address concerns raised by members.  In some instances applicants do choose to make changes to schemes to address the concerns raised by members but whilst the Council must accept changes to the scheme that do not result in the need for further consultation, amendments will not be requested by officers.

Development Management Manager

Planning and Regeneration

Thank you for your email. I am aware of the arrangement.

My concern is that none of that was explained during the web screening.

A lay person watching would be confused at seeking the application being Refused after a 2 hour discussion only to find that there was then a 2nd vote to defer it.

They will be even more surprised (shocked) that when brought back with some minor cosmetic changes the Refusal decision may then be reversed and the plans approved.

I hope that if the applicants do make changes they resubmit so that a further consultation takes place which is subject to a site visit where the concerns raised will be easier to highlight and explain.

Regards

Paul Lorber

Sudbury Labour hail Planning Committee decision on Sudbury Town Station planning decision

Sudbury Labour on its blog has given an account of theor contribution to tonight's Planning Committee decision LINK.

After strong objections from Sudbury Councillors, Brent Council’s planning committee today voted 4-3 against the Pocket Living application. A vote to refer this back to Council Officers and the applicants was then passed by a vote of 5-2. This follows strong objections from local residents and Sudbury Councillors.

For over a year, Sudbury Cllrs Tom Stephens and Mary Daly have provided consistent opposition this proposal, submitting several written objections to the development (all of which are noted in the Committee Report) and supporting residents to carry out their own survey of car park usage. We also spoke out against the application at today’s meeting. You can watch our speeches on the Brent Council website, and a note of our speeches is also copied below (check against delivery).

Councillor Saqib Butt, as a Member of the Planning Committee, remained neutral and objective throughout, but after a fair hearing of the concerns raised decided to vote against both the application and the decision to refer it back to Officers and the developer.

The main reason Councillors gave in voting against the proposal was because it was contrary to the planning policy of both the Local Plan and the London Plan, both of which stress the need for genuinely affordable family housing units to meet the severe need for housing in London. The provision of 52 1-bedroom units, which only just meet the technical definition of “affordability” without being genuinely affordable, will simply not meet this severe need.

We too felt this was by far the strongest grounds for objection, and gave Councillors a clear material reason to reject this proposal – hence why this featured very strongly in our objections. But it was by no means the only concern we had. Between us, we also covered a range of other issues such as the severe lack of disabled parking space, the lack of amenity space for residents and the impact the developement could have on parking pressures for residents. All of these were highlighted in our objections.

We were glad to see that after a fair hearing, the majority of Councillors in the Planning Committee shared these concerns, and declined to offer the application their approval. We will continue, as we have always done, to fight for Sudbury residents on this issue and to closely scrutinise any future applications which come forward.

Speech opposing the development from Cllr Thomas Stephens

Many other objectors speaking today have already given powerful reasons for rejecting this proposal. But in my representation, I wish to focus on the one issue in particular, which I feel which the Committee by far the strongest grounds for refusal.

There are others and I can talk about these in response to questions.

It is simply this: the affordability and housing mix in this proposal is a direct contravention of our Local Plan and the London Plan. None of the grounds the Committee have been given to accept the proposal in spite of this hold water, as I will explain later.

***
I wish to acknowledge at the outset the acute housing crisis facing this country, with Brent the least affordable borough. All of us see this clearly in our surgeries. People who need stable, genuinely affordable homes for themselves, their families, and their children.
But it is exactly these needs which I want to emphasise here in my objection: the needs of families, with children, without a stable home.

***
As Policy CP21 of our own borough’s local plan acknowledges, this acute need can only be addressed through the provision of genuinely affordable family housing units. It requires that new housing provides, and I quote:[1]

“[F]amily sized accommodation … capable of providing three or more bedrooms … [on] sites providing 10 or more homes.”
Planning policy also contains similarly clear provisions on affordability, with the London Plan (Policy H6A) requiring 30% of affordable homes to be either London Affordable Rent or Social Rent.[2]

This need cannot be met through 52 one-bedroom units which only just meet the technical definition of affordability. Indeed this is expressly acknowledged in numerous parts of the committee report you will have all read:

• It is acknowledged on the front cover, where it states the development is a “departure from policy CP21 of Brent’s local plan.”[3]
• It is acknowledged on page 6, where it states that the housing mix, “does not fully accord with Brent and London Plan policy targets.”[4]
• And it is acknowledged in paragraph 14, page 15, where it states “the scheme would be contrary to Policy DMP15(b) of the Local Plan, and both Policy 3.11 and emerging Policy H6 of the London Plan as no flats would be offered at a social or affordable rate.”[5]

***
In all good conscience, I cannot accept the grounds that have been proposed for passing this application, in spite of this direct contravention of our Planning Policy…
***
I accept that if no viable alternative in keeping with our Planning Policy was available, that could offer grounds to accept. But paragraphs 15 and 16 of the committee report clearly state that a viable alternative, in keeping with our planning policy, could be provided on this site.[6]
***
The committee report notes the unmet need for 1-bedroom intermediate housing in our borough.
But this isn’t grounds for ignoring our own Local Plan, Paragraph 5.94 of which expressly argues against the then-Mayor changing the social / intermediate housing ratio.[7]
 
If we do not think it is addressed in our Local Plan, the proper process would be to address this as a policy in our new Local Plan – and not by simply deciding on the hoof to contravene our own planning policy.

But even more fundamentally than this, the demand for intermediate housing can also be met by freeing-up existing overcrowded smaller housing in a way which is entirely in keeping with our Local Plan: providing suitable, new build family units, at genuinely affordable rates.
***
In conclusion, I wish to stress that there are many other grounds for the Committee to challenge the developers on this application. And I’m sure these will be addressed by other speakers:

• The issue of disabled parking space for commuters still isn’t resolved in this proposal. In fact TfL’s planning condition could mean there are just two disabled spaces for general public use, and not three as stated.[8]
• The availability of parking remains a concern. And there is even an admission in paragraphs 89 and 92 of the report that 38 cars and many blue badge holders could be displaced to residential streets – including streets already in a CPZ outside of CPZ hours.[9] [10]
• There is a serious lack of amenity space, to the tune of 913 square metres
• And concerns have been raised about running this Committee online, I’ve asked for further info on this and I’d be happy to discuss in questions

But there is no clearer argument for rejection than the direct contravention of the Local Plan and the London Plan which I have mentioned.

When I first objected to this development almost a year ago, I assumed that the developer would take steps to address this. I’m disappointed to see that this hasn’t happened.

In the absence of clear reasons to accept such a contravention, and with the grounds for doing this discounted, the Committee is left with just one option: to reject the proposal put forward today.

---

[1] Brent Council, Local Plan: Core Strategy, Policy CP21, page 78. NB Objective 7 (p21) also sets a goal of “ensuring that at least 25% of all new homes built in the borough are family sized (3 bed or more) and 50% (approx.) are affordable.”
[2] Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, page 14
[3] Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, page 1
[4] Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, page 6
[5] Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, paragraph 14, page 15
[6] Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, paragraph 15 and 16, page 16
[7] Brent Council, Local Plan: Core Strategy, Policy CP21, paragraph 5.94, page 78.
[8] This is because TfL asks that “a parking design and management plan to be submitted for approval prior to occupation of any units, in order to ensure at least one disabled space is secured for occupiers of the flats.” See Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, page 11
[9] Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, paragraph 92, page 24
[10] Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, paragraph 89, page 24

Speech opposing the development from Cllr Mary Daly

Para 1 of the report speaks of getting rid of an 84 space underused car park car park and replacing it with two residential blocks

This statement is factually incorrect in the summer of 2019 TFL fenced off the rear end of the site and reduced the size of the car park to 66 spaces this is important because the very sketchy information the developer provided is as a consequence is incorrect. 

Para 87 describes a survey undertaken by the applicant claiming that there was a 30% use of the park based on the incorrect number of spaces.

A survey undertaken by members and residents found a different pattern of use. This was reported to the council but not included im the report to members of the planning committee. Over three weeks during the morning and afternoon members found a consistent 54% occupancy of the 66 space car park. Members observed use was predominantly by commuters. Morning users were different from afternoon users so the car park is not as described underused.

There is no evidence that the statuary bodies TFL or Brent Council undertook any activity to establish use of the car park in contravention of legal equalities obligation.

Parking

Para 97 advises that DPM 12 requires that all overspill be safely accommodated on street
Policy BT2 that developments will be supported where it does not add to on street parking
Policy 90 acknowledges that the nearest Brent streets are heavily parked but claims that Ealing streets can absorb some on street parking.

1. With this in mind it is worth looking at that they will absorb.
2. The site is so tight that even the one disabled space a policy requirement for disabled future disabled residents is proposed to be put on the highway.
3. If future disabled commuters need additional spaces it is proposed they are put on the highway
4. The report advises that Para 96 that the parking allowance for such a development is 39 spaces. Because they cannot be provided it is permit free but not future vehicle owner free. It has nto been estimated how many future professional higher income residents will own a vehicle clearly they will compete with local residents for parking when CPZ are not in operation.
5. Because there has been no comprehensive survey of commuter parking at the car park it is impossible to know how many commuters use the car park for sure  certainly it is considerably more than that suggested by the applicant.
6. Service vehicles for the proposed development including online deliveries, maintenance vehicles, displaced TFL staff  TFL staff using the yard to the back of the site.

None of which can be accommodated on site because it is simply an overdevelopment.
As stated above policy is in place to prevent this level of pressure on existing communities.

Amenity
Para 77 advises the policy DMP19 and emerging policy BH 13 that all new dwelling be required to have external private amenity space this is expected to be 20 sqm of private outdoor space for 1d-2 person dwellings. Based on the policy 1050sqm of space is required Only 11 of the 52 proposed units have outdoor amenity space falling short by 913 sqm.
Para 79 suggests that this cam be mitigated by communal amenity space 476 sqm of amenity space in the communal courtyard. However this space appears to have two uses it is also intended to be a turning space for large vehicles there are two descriptions of this space para 80 “ a communal amenity space” and   “ a turning space for servicing buildings
Para 102 describes the same space as “a turning facility has been incorporated into the lauout between the two proposed blocks to allow refuse vehicles emergency vehicles so that they are not required to reverse long distances” 

In Para there are contrary statements about the courtyard/turning point “ para 80 states “ the communal courtyard has been improved it would be usable”  whereas Para 102 states “ officers recommend a condition of the surfacing of the turning point”  it is clear is that the development is marginally short of private or even communal amenity space requirements it is so unacceptably short as to warrant refusal.

Sudbury Town Station planning application referred back after it was opposed 4-3 by Planning Committee

After members of the Planning Committee opposed the approval of the Sudbury Town Station car park planning application by 4 votes to 3, officers moved quickly to rescue the situation by recommending deferrral so that if could be refered back to officers and the applicant for further review and future resubmission.

When Cllr Maurice expressed concern that this would mean a 'cover up' Cllr Denselow, in his best avuncular manner (despite his youth) said of course not, 'it will be coming back to us.'

Reasons councillors gave for opposing the application  included its departure from several policies, the need for family homes rather than one bedroomed houses, loss of access to the step-free station for disabled people due to the loss of the car park, placing disabled parking spaces in already heavily used local streets, and one councillor who said he who didn't believe the planning officers report.

Sudbury Planners (part of Sudbury Town residents Association) were very active on Twitter throughout the discussion:

Sudbury Town RA's statement re Sudbury Town Station Planning Application currently under discussion at Brent Planning Committee

Sudbury Town Residents Association has sent the following information on the Sudbury Town Station plannin g application currently being considered by Brent Planning Committee:

The planning application is on the Agenda for the Planning Committee Meeting on Wednesday 6 May 2020 at 6pm.We have tried our best to liaison with Brent Council and arrange a meeting in situ so that residents and businesses can share their concerns in the context of the area and reach mutually beneficial solutions. 

Unfortunately, we have received no response to our request for this meeting.

We have also written to Carolyn Downs, requesting her to defer the Planning Application 19/1241 to satisfy Statutory Requirements.This has not happened.

The Local Authorities Executive Arrangements, Meetings and Access to Information, England, 2012 No. 208 9 PART 2 Regulation 7.1 (a) and (b) states that Local Authorities are required to provide all necessary documentation to the public  prior to any decision-making meeting being held.

Please find a summary of the Statutory Requirements that have not been met through this Planning Application process.

1. Documents unavailable from Brent Website

For the Public Consultation in April 2019, 58 documents were uploaded to the Brent Website and were available for the public to review.

There are now only 37 documents remaining as of 4 May 2020.

All documents should remain available for the public to view and should not be removed from Brent’s website.

2. Statutory Consultee Comments not available

The Statutory Consultee comments are not available on Brent’s website.

3. Statutory Consultee Comments DATES not available

There are no DATES provided on Brent Council’s Website of any of the Statutory Consultee Comments. 

4. Planning Officer’s Reports

STRA is a Neighbourhood Forum and a Statutory Consultee since 2012.

The Planning Officer’s report of 27 April 2020 concludes that the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan 2015 does NOT contain any relevant policies that require consideration by the Planning Committee. 

STRA disagrees with the Planning Officer’s conclusions.

The Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan (STNP) 2015 contains policies that are relevant and require consideration by the Planning Committee. 

STRA requests the opportunity to respond in detail.This 21-day period should commence from the date that we receive the last document, as set out in the Development Management Procedure 2016, Part 22. 

STRA requests this document be presented to the Planning Committee and be added to the file for Planning Application 19/1241

Instructions for participation at tonight's Planning Committee - Is this digital inclusion?

Readers will be aware of the discussion that has taken place over tonight's 'virtual' Planning Committee. Critics claim that it would be better to postpone the meeting until such time as residents can take part easily.

The Council claim that their arrangements via Zoom or telephone enable participation if requested with the usual notice.

These are the 8 pages of instructions for participation sent out by the Council. I will leave it up to readers to make up their own minds on whether 'digital exclusion' is at work here. Click bottom right corner for full page version.