Have you say on Brent Budget at Brent Connects tomorrow or give your views via on-line consultation

Thursday's zoom Brent Connects will focus on the budget proposals for 2021-22 and 2022-23 as well as a briefing on the new round of CIL bids.

There is also an on-line consultation which closes on January 31st.

 

 

Brent Connects is a space for local communities to come together and discuss the things that matter most to you.

About this Event

The upcoming Brent Connects session on Thursday 14 January 2021, 6-7.30pm will focus on the council's draft budget and NCIL funding.

The session will focus on the proposals for the council’s 2021/22 and 2022/23 budget.

Join us to learn more about how budgets are developed, why cost savings are needed and the council's priorities over the next few years.

We want to hear your thoughts on the draft budget proposals and give you the opportunity to get any questions answered.

The Grants Team will also tell you all about the upcoming round of NCIL funding and how you can apply.

You'll be invited to join a breakout room where you can discuss these topics in more detail with others in your community and there will also be a soapbox slot where you can raise any issues or promote activities in your local area.

Voices of the community and generating new ideas are key to making Brent a better place to live, work and visit, so book your place today.

The meeting will be held virtually via Zoom, but do not worry if you’ve never used Zoom before as we’ll be sending detailed instructions to all attendees beforehand.

If you have any questions, please email brent.connects@brent.gov.uk

You will need to book in advance HERE

ON-LINE CONSULTATION

Residents are being invited to take part in the consultation on Brent Council’s draft budget proposals for 2021/22.

Over the past ten years, Brent like many other local authorities, has been faced with increasing financial pressures caused by significant funding cuts and a growing demand for services.

Some tough decisions were made early on which has left the council in a strong financial position, however the unprecedented effects of COVID-19, including increased spending and a loss of income, has meant that the task of balancing the budget is more challenging this year than it has ever been.

Councillor Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader of Brent Council, said:

“I want to encourage all residents to get involved and give their views on this year’s budget, which may be our most important ever.

“The budget will affect everyone so it’s vital we hear as many views as possible to help make sure we get this right.”

The budget consultation will remain open until 31 January 2021.

View the full report outlining the budget proposals and take part in the consultation today.

Brent Council's lead member for education shares union concerns over opening of early years settings

Following this weekend's letter to Brent Council from the National Education Union  LINK expressing strong fears about the safety of fully opening early years settings, Cllr Tom Stephens made the following statement:

I fully share the concerns which have been raised, by the NEU, GMB and others, about the Government’s position on the opening of early years settings. The Government has failed to set out the scientific basis of closing primary schools to face-to-face teaching whilst keeping early years settings open. 

The decision to fund early years settings based on attendance this term also needs to be urgently reversed. Settings should be given the funding they need to sustain them throughout this crisis, based on their 2019 attendance. These twin issues have put early years settings under a period unprecedented pressure and confusion.  

Guidance on the opening of these settings is set nationally and not locally, and is a matter for each relevant governing board. 

 

Given this, Brent Council is regularly and actively engaging with unions and schools to support them in developing robust risk assessments and management arrangements, as we have done throughout this crisis. 

The council will continue to support settings in developing these. Given the current context, this is the best way of navigating these issues in a way which supports schools, staff and children.

Sainsbury's message on keeping staff and shoppers safe

 Following concern over the lack of Covid safety measures at some supermarkets, Simon Roberts, CEO of Sainsbury's, issued the following message today:

Dear Martin,

I have spent a lot of time in our stores over the past few days and I need to ask for your help with two key issues to keep you and all my colleagues safe.

When shopping in our stores, you must wear a mask or visor unless you have a medical exemption. And you should also shop on your own. Thank you for your support.

Security guards will support our colleagues at the front of store and will challenge customers who are not wearing masks or who are shopping in groups. I know you’ll understand and support what we are trying to do.

We have also significantly reduced the number of customers allowed in our stores at any one time to ensure social distancing is maintained at all times.

Together, these steps will go a long way to keep everyone safe, whether you are shopping or working with us.

Please wear a mask or visor and please shop alone in our stores. Thank you for helping us to keep everyone safe.

Best wishes  Simon

Brent Planning Officers recommend refusal of major Willesden development application

 

In a move that is quite unusual in Brent, planning officers are recommending that the Planning Committee refuse the application for a major development on an industrial site that lies between Dudden Hill Lane and Willesden High Road.

Adjacent sites are also earmarked for development and other nearby developments are a major housing project at the College of North West London  and flats on the Learie Constantine Community Centre site. This application would form part of a Masterplan for the area.

Taken together the developments will change the face of this part of Willesden and continue the proliferation of high rise developments in Brent. Although the maximum height of these blocks is less than half of those around Wembley Stadium they would still make a major impact on the local streetscape as can be seen from the images above. The two storey terraced houses on Colin Road would be dwarfed by this development and experience a significant loss of light.

 

The proposal

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 5 mixed use blocks ranging from 4 to 10 storeys plus basement levels, comprising; 245 residential units at 1st to 9th floors, and light industrial floorspace (Class B1c), food retail floorspace (supermarket) (Class A1), gym (Class D2), nursery (Class D1), commercial units (units 7 and 9) (flexible use for Class A1, A2, A3, D1 and/or B1c) and HA office (Class B1a) at basement, ground and part 1st floors, together with associated vehicular access, car and cycle parking spaces, bin stores, plant room, substations, landscaping and amenity space (Amended description)

Housing

Given the current controversies over the short-comings of shared ownership it is noteworthy that the officers' report states that  95% of those in affordable housing need cannot afford intermediate products such as shared ownership. There has been considerable dialogue between the developer and the council over the housing provision and compliance with policy:

The Brent Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2018 identified a need for 42,000 additional homes between 2016-2041. Using a limit of 33% of gross household incomes to be spent on rent/mortgages, affordable housing comprises 52% of that need. Of the affordable need identified 85% was for social rent (council house type rents) and 10% was for London Living Rent-LAR (pegged at a percentage of median incomes). Just 5% was for people able afford to between that and 80% of median local rents (typically these people might seek to buy shared ownership units). Whilst the headline figure provided by the applicant, being 66% affordable housing, is well in excess of the 50% overall target set out in DMP 15 and emerging policy BH5 , this figure is weighted heavily in favour of intermediate product (shared ownership units) and therefore the proposal is not in accordance with this policy. As stated above, the SHMA identifies that intermediate products are essentially unaffordable to 95% of those in affordable housing need and are more likely to be occupied by people who have a choice within the market for alternative accommodation e.g. market rent.

The final offer presented by the applicant shows that even with 100% affordable workspace and on a policy compliant tenure split the development could reasonably deliver 13 additional London Affordable Rented homes which would help the most specific needs of the borough. Whilst this would be at the expense of a large proportion of intermediate units, there is far less need for this type of housing.

Given that primary need in the borough is for LAR homes (as reflected in adopted and emerging policy) the overprovision of Intermediate Housing and other benefits of the scheme are not considered to be of sufficient benefit to outweigh the harm associated with the under-provision of affordable rented homes to meet local need.

Comments on the planning consultation portal were fairly evenly split between those in favour and against.  The provision of a supermarket (named as Lidl in the drawings) was seen as positive as was a nursery, but the impact on traffic and parking in the are was a negative factor, as well as the loss of daylight to the local two storey terraced houses in Colin Road.

Officers' recommendation

Whilst the proposed development would undoubtedly bring forward significant benefits, largely in the form of modern affordable workspace and the provision of a large number of homes to meet borough housing targets, including a high overall number of Affordable homes, the development would also fall short in a number of policy areas. In particular, the proposal fails to deliver the maximum reasonable amount of Affordable housing on a policy compliant tenure split. Whilst the headline affordable housing figure is high, this is not considered sufficient to justify the number of London Affordable Rented homes, which are proposed at less than the maximum reasonable number. There is a significant need within the borough for the lower cost Affordable Homes (Social or London Affordable Rent) which look to cater for those most in need in accordance with adopted and emerging policy. 

 

 Furthermore, at the scale proposed the development would result in significant daylight impacts to a number of neighbouring properties. The benefits of the scheme are not considered to outweigh the harm identified to these properties. 

 

Finally, the development would provide parking for the supermarket well in excess of standards without an appropriate parking price regime to encourage non-car access and would therefore encourage additional unnecessary car journeys to and from the site and from the area in general. Again whilst policy deviations can be accepted when having regard to a wider planning balance, in the case, the benefits of the scheme are not considered significant enough to outweigh the harm associated with the failure to provide adequate means to encourage non-car access to the supermarket. 

 

To conclude, the development is contrary to policy, and would fail to deliver the degree of benefit necessary to outweigh the harm associated with the proposal.

The statement on shared ownership will be significant for future planning applications in the borough.

 

 

 

UPDATED: Harrrow Council warn Plymouth Brethren that killing slow worms at The Ridgeway, Harrow, development site would be a criminal offence

Slow Worm

 

Steve Whitbread, Harrow Council’s Biodiversity Officer, has responded to the concerns expressed by Emma Wallace (Green Party GLA candidate for Brent and Harrow) over destruction at the Ridgeway development site LINK.  It appears that slow worms (often called ‘legless lizards) a protected species may come to the aid of the struggle against environmental vandalism. Protection of slow worms has delayed development elsewhere. LINK

 

The destruction carried out by the Plymouth Brethren

 

He wrote:

 

Whilst I can't comment on whatever reason the owners of the site might have had for the clearance of the trees and shrubs on their land, they were within their rights to carry out such work since these had no direct impact on protected species or  their shelters. I have advised the local Wildlife Crime Officer accordingly.

There was nothing that the Council could have done to prevent the clearance. However, I can assure you that the consideration of any planning application for the site will still take the vegetation into account as if it had never been carried out.

This has already been emphasised to the applicant and their agent and they have confirmed that there will be no disturbance of the felled area where protected slow-worms are likely to be hibernating.

The Council is due to hold a meeting with local residents and councillors to address resulting concerns next week. For your information, I have appended the comments I provided to interested parties last month, attempting to ensure that everyone understood the both the situation and the constraints within which the Council is working:

Dear Residents, Councillors and Colleagues,

Beverley Kuchar, the Chief Planning Officer, will be seeking to organise a virtual meeting, early in the new year, to discuss the situation in relation to the Ridgeway development proposals and the weekend clearance of the trees and shrubs along the boundary with the allotment site.

Ahead of that meeting, I thought it might be helpful to address points raised in relation to biodiversity matters. That is mainly to separate out what legal protection measures might be relevant to the species found on or adjacent to the site from what will be of 'material consideration' in relation to any planning application.

What I should emphasise is that the belt of woodland and its role within the green corridor and local ecological network will continue to be of material consideration regardless of the recent clearance. The recent actions will make no difference to how the scheme will be appraised and, where evidence is lacking, the approach will be to assess what has been lost at the highest reasonable value, taking account of other information as needed.

Considering protection for biodiversity relevant to the site, the ecological consultancy Ecosa was appointed by the applicant to undertake required surveys and prepare an Ecological Impact Assessment in the wake of the comments I provided on the original Preliminary Ecological Assessment (produced by Ecology By Design in 2018).

 

The Ecosa consultant discussed the survey proposals and inquired about potential offsite compensation opportunities. He also contacted Simon Braidman for his views based on the investigations that he and others had already undertaken. I had the opportunity to view the draft EcIA and provided my comments on this. I have no definite knowledge of whether a final version has yet been provided to their client, but I would assume that this was done some time ago.

Taking different species groups in turn, whilst all birds and their nests, eggs and young are protected from destruction during the breeding season, this does not extend to protecting habitat in which they might nest. Whilst there are exceptions and additional protection for certain vulnerable species, these don't apply in this case.

Similarly, whilst bat roosts and hibernacula are protected, whether bats are in occupation or not, habitat areas which bats use for commuting or foraging purposes aren't protected, unless the sites of which they are part are appropriately designated, e.g. as a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

 

It should be stressed that under current legislation, this would not extend to the SINC area. Whilst such wildlife sites identify important areas for wildlife locally, and their protection is of material consideration within the planning system, such designation does not preclude the landowner from damaging or removing the features of interest unless this would otherwise conflict with the law or statutory obligations, such as harm to protected species.

Simon Braidman, Huma Pearce and others have done an excellent job of recording wildlife in the environs of the proposed development site, and there is every likelihood that West Harrow Allotments now has a longer recorded species list than any other Harrow allotment site.

Protection for badgers also relates mainly to the animals themselves and their setts. The report of a sett entrance having been filled is necessarily of concern, but this appears to have been carried out at some time in the past. The information provided via surveys of the development site indicate that whilst it provides some suitable habitat for setts and foraging there was no evidence of any onsite activity that could be attributed to badger.

 

It is likely that common newt and potentially common frog and common toad occur within the development site, at least at its margins as part of meta-populations centred on the allotment site. However, protection for these species only extends to sale or barter. Nothing protects habitat on the basis that these species are present.

The situation is somewhat different in relation to slow-worms, however. Whilst these do not enjoy the same level of protection as rarer reptiles, it is not only an offence to sell but also to kill slow-worms. Whilst the felling of the belt of trees would be unlikely to have caused any direct harm to slow-worms, any efforts to excavate ground in which slow-worms are presently hibernating would be likable to result in mortality. This would constitute a criminal offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The developer's agents have been advised accordingly.

In recognition of its alarming decline, the common hedgehog will be added to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act under the provisions of the Environment Bill, and it is presently protected from being killed or captured. It is highly likely that hedgehogs would move between the allotment and the development site and, whilst the latter does not contain a significant area of foraging habitat, there is certainly potential for hedgehog to be hibernating within the felling area.

Whilst not subject to legal protection, the other species mentioned in correspondence and reports, taken as a whole and, in some cases, individually would be of material consideration in relation to the determination of the planning application. It is useful to have knowledge of what is found in the vicinity in this regard.

Lastly, queries were raised about the making of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to cover the trees in the identified area. TPOs are made a local planning authority in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), for amenity and landscape purposes, where these would be impacted adversely were the tree(s) or group of trees to be removed. Usually this depends on how visible the trees are from highways and publicly accessible space, but trees that have landscape value, contribute to the character of a conservation area or have historical importance may be TPO-worthy.

Given the nature of the trees and the fact that, other than from the development site, they could only be viewed from allotments to which access is restricted, they did not satisfy the necessary criteria. I should add that whilst biodiversity, as well as climate change considerations, might be taken into account in the making of an order, a TPO could not be applied on such grounds alone.

I hope that helps to explain the Council's viewpoint as to why the actions over the weekend did not constitute a wildlife crime and why a TPO would not have been appropriate in this instance. As stated, however, any planning application will be assessed as if the trees and shrubs were all still there, in accordance with the code of practice provided by the British Standard BS 42020:13.

Responding today Emma Wallace, Green Party GLA candidate for  Brent and Harrow said:

I am pleased to hear from Harrow’s biodiversity officer Steve Whitbread that the Council will act as if the removal of the tree belt by the Brethren just before Christmas had not occurred when considering the 265 The Ridgeway planning application.  This unfortunately does not negate the fact that this act of eco-vandalism has been carried out and that this green space is now much depleted because of it, removing habitat for wildlife and breaking up a green corridor.  

 

It is disappointing to hear that Mr Whitbread does not believe the Brethren should be held to account for their actions, due to not having "direct impact on protected species or their shelters."  Of the protected species, there is no clear evidence that slow-worms do not directly inhabit the area or indeed hedgehogs, who may have been hibernating there, and consequently, have now been impacted by this destruction.   In regards to the many other species listed as having been found in the area, these would have travelled, foraged and made their home, which has now been eradicated.  How can this be ok?

I understand Steve Steve Whitbread listing in his response the individual legal protections of the animals recorded in the area and how, bats, badgers, birds and the common newt, frog and toads do not fall under the relevant laws of protection in these circumstances, or at this time of year etc.  This dispassionate response does not reflect the fact that the sum of these species together, forms a rich eco-system that depend on each other to survive and flourish.  As has been diligently recorded by Simon Braidman and others, this whole area is a haven for a diverse range of wildlife and no one species should be considered of lesser importance – they form a whole that needs protecting.  

 

The Council has declared a Climate emergency, has created and published a Climate Change Strategy and also, has a Biodiversity Action Plan, committing to “conserve, enhance, and promote biodiversity in Harrow” https://www.harrow.gov.uk/downloads/file/23181/harrow-biodiversity-action-plan I hope Harrow Council stand by these words and recognise the essential role they play in protecting this rich, biodiverse space and the species that inhabit it.

 

In an email to Emma, Cllr Adam Swersky said:

Thanks very much for getting in touch. I read your blog with interest - thanks for the sincere and factual account of what took place.   

 

I am really appalled by [the Brethrens'] actions. I've told their representative in no uncertain terms that I fully oppose their application and find their behaviour deplorable. I will be throwing my support in full behind the thousands of local residents who oppose the proposal.

 

 

 

Brent to underwrite Northwick Park Spine/Access road with £10m Strategic CIL money

 

The Partnership Development site

 The new spine/access road (Download PDF HERE)

Brent Cabinet is expected to approve a £10m Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy underwriting of the new spine/access road to be built on the Northwick Park One Public Estate development. The money is required upfront for the road building but should, if conditions are met, be repaid from the Housing Infrastructure Fund.

The development is a partnership between Network Housing, University of Westminster, London North West Health Authority and Brent Council. The Brent Council Highways Team will be responsible for the project.

The project as a whole is expected to raise  £19m CIL from developers.

It should be noted that the future of Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy are currently under review by the government.

OFFICERS REPORT

Brent NEU issues urgent appeal to Brent MPs and Council leaders on contagion dangers of full opening of nursery classes

 Continuing his hapless mismanagement of the education service during the pandemic, Gavin Williamson has changed guidance on the opening of nurseries from that initially sent out at the beginning of term.  The opening of school-based nurseries had initially been left to headteachers to decide and in schools open to only vulnerable and critical workers (the latter a widened category compared with key workers) it made little sense to open nurseries to all children and thus increase the potential of contagion.

The DfE has now issued guidance that nurseries should be full open.

 Brent NEU has written a letter to Brent MPs Barry Gardiner, Tulip Siddiq and Dawn Butler; Muhammed Butt leader of Brent Council and Cllr Tom Stephens lead member for schools asking them to intervene in what could be a life or death matter.

 

Dear Brent Councillors and MPs,

 

As you know, there is great pressure to open nurseries and special schools fully during this lockdown despite the fact that Sadiq Khan has today declared a major incident and school settings have been shown to be a major transmission factor with the new variant of Covid-19.

 

In Brent our nursery and special school headteachers have, as usual, put safety first, and resisted opening to increased numbers of children. As you know this is in line with the policies of all education unions, the NEU included.

 

However they are now being pressured to implement this government's shameless edict just at the moment that deaths and cases reach a record high, the virus is out of control, we hear of deaths of our workers every day and the NHS in London is at breaking point.

 

I'm afraid I have to be brutally honest with you here. I cannot morally bring myself to advise my members (when they write to me concerned that their settings are going to fully open to children and staff) that they must go into their school or nursery, because the reality is that I know that if I give this advice, some will subsequently become seriously ill or die. This is the reality.

 

I feel I have no option but to advise against this. However it is within the gift of the council and MPs to come out publicly and state that you will not require your schools and council officers, in Brent, to adhere to DfE advice where that advice contradicts with the evidence we have on safety, risk and the headteachers' own risk assessments.

 

With that in mind I am asking you now if you can offer this support? Of course, not only would this protect my members from harm but it would help halt the spread of the virus, help save hospital beds and also prevent the deaths of pupils, bearing in mind that children with learning disabilities are six times more likely to die from Covid-19.

 

I am happy to meet with any of you to discuss this further, or indeed, organise a public meeting so that you can hear the views of our Brent community on this.

 

I look forward to hearing from you on this matter, as soon as possible.

 

Jenny Cooper

 

Brent NEU Joint District Secretary.

Vice Chair, NEU National Health and Safety Organising Forum.

 

Meanwhile the National Governors Association (NGA) has drawn attention to the problem of more than the expected number of vulnerable and critical worker children attended school, undermining the intention of school closures to stop the spread of the virus. Boris Johnson had insisted both that schools are safe and should close as they are vectors for the spread of the new strain:

One of the main issues we are currently in dialogue with the DfE is on the number of children who are attending schools despite there being a national lockdown with a stay at home request from the Prime Minister with supposedly schools closed to most pupils: significant numbers of governing boards are reporting that they have between 40 and 70% of their pupils attending in strong contrast to the first lockdown.  We are also aware that there are particular challenges for special schools, alternative provision and those with large numbers of disadvantaged children, but it is helpful to make the case if we have your stories to bring the points alive.

 

Mail to: covidfeedback@nga.org.uk

Flagship project? On the curious case of Prospect House, NW10 7GH - guest article by Alison Hopkins

 

 Prospect House

Yesterday former Brent Liberal Democrat councillor, Alison Hopkins, published a thread of intruiging tweets on the goings on around Prospect House in Brent - a conversion from offices to accommodation.

Recently Brent Council has adopted a policy of opposition to such conversions as the resulting accommodation is often of poor quality and low space standards.

Alison has kindly given me permission to publish her the thread as a guest post on Wembley Matters.

It reminds me of a children's book I used to use in class: 'Why are there more questions than answers, Grandad?'

On the curious case of Prospect House, NW10 7GH. How flagship Brent Council/Shepherds Bush Housing Association housing project seems to end with evictions and very strange finances.

 

It starts with a story about nurse being evicted from social housing in Prospect House. Brent Council refuses to comment. ALL tenants to be kicked out by 23 May 2021. She's scared of temporary housing. I get that. But why the mass evictions by Brent? So, I dig. I like digging.

 

Find this, back in 2016. Shepherds Bush Housing Association & Brent Council proudly proclaim Prospect House converted to social housing paid for with lotsa cash from the Councils Empty Property Grants LINK   Leader and Mayor are there. It's FAB they say.

 

Link to publicity puff LINK

 

Apparently, office block owner Ashok Kumar Vohra contacted Brent. (This is all public domain stuff, btw.) He runs Sonal Trading who seem to refurbish ink cartridges. (!).  LINK. Seems to dabble in property development on the side.

 

Anyhow, perhaps this is all spiffy. But perhaps not: yes, this is Socialist Worker, talking about HEY, Prospect House!  LINK

All seems not well, despite the vast amount presumably spent on converting the offices to housing.

Now, we then look back at Sonal Trading & find it is a teeny company making not a lot of money, but yet had significant ownership by a Dubai based washing machine sales company from at least 2012. I do love Companies House.

 

In June 2020, the washing machine sales company seem to relinquish their holding and a new chap takes over 75 percent. Jagan Nath, who also seems to be Dubai based.This may all be irrelevant, but it's damn interesting if you've a mind like mine.

 

So, what happens next. By 2020, of course, the owners have had substantial rents. Let's say, oh, four years at £300 a week for 17 flats. Over a million? That empty property grant is, by the way, supposed to mean commitment of FIVE years social renting. Remember, December 2016.

 

The plot thickens. Still with me? Five years from Dec 2016 would be December 2021, yet the tenants are being evicted in MAY 2021. Hm. My suspicious evil mind kicks in again. Might there be a planning application.....?

 

Well, whoopie doo. Guess what happens in FEBRUARY 2017. Yup, three months after the presumed start of that FIVE YEAR commitment! This: 

Flats 1-17 INC and 18 Prospect House North

 

A planning application to add 4 storeys & redevelop Prospect House into 28 flats! It gets approved Oct 2018, DESPITE multiple breaches of policy. Yup, you guessed it: minimal affordable and minimal family accommodation. This is Brent, isn't it. Bear with me, I'm still going.

 

The officers report at para 15 makes cursory mention of the tenant decant costs, the cost of breaking five year lease & "repaying grants". That's the excuse used to justify not sticking with policy on affordable & family units.

 

There's also a throwaway about SBHA using units for "homeless" people. Yet, the existing tenants are being evicted, so will be homeless. Hm. The CIL amount is pretty low: £750K .

 

Oh and that CIL amount is BEFORE any reliefs for affordable units. The planning application was made by a company called Planning Co-operative in Ealing. Run by the former Brent head of New Investment & Policy & Projects.

 

Anyhow. The original conversion from offices to flats would now probably not get consent. I do know of other applications for the empty property grant related to offices which got bounced, too. Oddly, I can't find the original planning application.

 

So. We've tenants evicted from what seems to have become an unpleasant block rather fast. By a housing association. I can't find decant plans either.

 

We've a tiny company who had significant grants from Brent to convert offices to housing & lots of rental income. How much was the grant? Has it been paid back?

 

Why is Brent being so coy about commenting on Prospect House? How much due diligence was done? Why was there a redevelopment planning application almost as soon as the place was occupied? When did the pre application discussions happen?

 

Found the address, the place changed name & postcode. NW10 7SH. A chequered history: tried to convert to a college, then hotel. But the original successful application from offices to housing isn't there, so no financial details like CIL.

 

Now, there may be good reasons and explanations for evictions. I'd love to hear them. Transparency=good governance. The more I dig this, more convoluted it gets. I've my opinions on how planning is now manipulated.