Another Alperton development approved despite huge misgivings over height, amount of truly affordable housing and impact on neighbouring residents

 

 Existing store

The site

New development heights cross-section with Burns Road

Some familiar themes emerged at this week's Planning Committee discussion about the planning application for the Currys-PC World site in Alperton Lane off Ealing Road.  The site is away from the main high rises at the Grand Union Canal development and, as can be seen from the section drawing above, will dwarf the two storey terraced houses of Burns Road and Cromwell Road.

 

Apart from the out of local character nature of the development and the impact on the 'right to light' of residents, parking (or lack of it),  the amount of truly affordable housing, the height of the building exceeding local guidance, the affordability of the rent in the promised community space  and the pressure on local infrastructure were all major concerns.

 

On the parking issue a resident described how even without the development, parking spaces were so rare that she filled up her hot water bottle and sat in her car for hours until she could move into a vacated space.  On the 'right to light' she said she had served an obstruction notice  on Brent Council.

 

A Cromwell Road resident told the Committee that pandemic restrictions had made it hard to organise opposition through public meetings and collecting signatures on petitions.  She had never imagined that the area would change so much and in such a dramatic and negative way. They had been told that there would be no tall buildings in the area according to the 2011 Alperton Masterplan. Now Edwardian terraces will be sandwiched between tall buildings.

 

Residents pointed out that commercial premises incorporated into other developments with the promises of new shops etc, remained unlet and the rent of community spaces too high for local community organisations. 

Max Plotnek, the developer's agent promised low or even zero rents for the community space. He said that there had been 4 pre-planning meetings with council planning officers and the developer had responded to concerns with the highest point of the building away from residential streets. Two extra storeys had to be added to the building, over and above the 5 storeys in the local plan, because without it the development would be economically unviable. This has been confirmed by the independent consultants for the developer and the council and in fact the offer was above the maximum reasonable amount.  He said that the tricky aspect was that the profit generated by the development had to match the exisiting value of the site.  This was 'pretty high' because existing use was a large retail unit and it took quite a lot of development to overcome the deficit.

 

Responding to Cllr Matt Kelcher, Chair of Planning Committee, who had said he would feel better if the accommodation was genuinely affordable, Plotnek said, 'I appreciate people saying its not affordable but that's not this developer causing the problem. The housing marker in London is in the situation it's in. So this will be a range of unit types, studios and one bedroomed flats, that will be at the affordable end of the school. A huge CIL [£3.5m] contribution will go to the council to deliver wider benefits across the borough in whatever way the council wishes to spend it and the developer will contribute £75,000 towards a Controlled Paking Zone (CPZ) consultation.

Committee member Cllr Kennelly said that below guidance provision of amenity space, the two additional storeys, shortfall in the amount of affordable housing - particularly affordable rent, all added up to quite a large contradiction of the Local Plan.  He struggled to see how the development was policy compliant with such a huge shortfall. 

Mr Plotnek said that provision of more amenity space would move the development further away from viability and 5 storeys would reduce the amount of affordable housing.  He claimed that the amenity space specified in Brent's Local Plan was higher than the London Plan and the former was still at a draft stage, so too much emphasis should not be put on it. He said that the London Affordable Rent (10% of the entire development) was close to social rent rather than the 80% of market rent commonly called affordable. 

At the beginning of the meeting, Anton Georgiou, Lib Dem Alperton councillor, made a presentation that you will find below. The Labour councillors for Alperton did not make a presentation.

The planning application was approved by 5 votes to 3. The three against were Cllr Johnson (citing the low amountt of affordable housing, over-shadowing and lack of light to neighbouring properties), Cllr Kennnelly ( height, level of affordable housing despite the explanations) Cllr Maurice (non-compliant in many ways, height 30% policy, effect on Burns Road and Cromwell Road, above guidance; local residents had been ignored, it should never have come to the committee).

Cllr Anton Georgiou's Presentation

I am here to object in the strongest terms to the planned development on what is currently the Curry’s site on the Ealing Road. I do so, as I have done before, on behalf of countless residents in my ward who are simply sick and tired of what can only be described as the overdevelopment of Alperton.

This development continues the worrying trend in my ward, which has seen non-stop building of massive tower blocks, whilst established residents continue to struggle with a lack of GP and health services, limited leisure facilities, and in light of the last year, which has highlighted how important this is, a distinct lack of access to open green space. All the while this authority continues to hoard tens of millions, at last count close to £120 million in community infrastructure levy, collected in large part from developers building in Alperton, of which more will be collected from this application, if you, make the mistake of approving it. Where is all this money going? And why is this authority sitting on millions which could be spent improving the area as it is intended? 

I attended the public consultation regarding this application at the Fox and Goose Pub, where it was abundantly clear that vocal opposition to these plans exist. Since that consultation I have had many comments from residents in Alperton, especially in the residential roads close to the site, Burns Road, Cromwell Road, Riverside Gardens, who are alarmed that this is even under consideration. 

Firstly, approval would mean the loss of a much loved asset to the Alperton community, a large retail unit, that has until now been occupied by Curry’s. Many of the staff in store have worked there for a very long time and will face job insecurity. At a time as difficult as this, this would be tragic. 

On the affordability breakdown of this development, I am alarmed that Brent are even willing to consider moving this application forward with so few ‘affordable’ units included. Obviously the term affordable is in itself an illusion that has no basis in reality, particularly for my generation who are consistently locked out of the housing market. This application comprises of just over 20% of ‘affordable’ units, which means roughly 80% are simply unaffordable. This breakdown is below targets Brent has in place and flies in the face of this authorities undertakings to ensure that homes are provided to and for Brent residents. I am astonished that Brent can justify continuing to allow unaffordable developments to invade Alperton. What considerations will this Committee be making on this matter? If anything, this past year has highlighted how many in are community are struggling financially, more luxury, unaffordable units is certainly not what my residents need. Let’s face it these units are not for local people, they will be marketed for across London and overseas.

As I have continuously argued, the traffic and parking issues in Alperton will only get worse if Brent continue to approve developments like this one, without thinking long and hard about reconfiguring our whole road network and the parking situation in the area. I accept the need to discourage car use, particularly in parts of London that are so well connected to public transport infrastructure. With Hanger Lane and Alperton stations close-by I can see that possibilities exist for residents to benefit from public transport, however in light of the pandemic, and given the continued possibility of COVID travel restrictions, I can also see why people will wish to use cars into the future, rather than public transport. With this in mind, the fact that only 15 parking spaces exist for the 132 units at this site, simply will not work.

As I have already alluded to, there are huge pressures on local services in Alperton. I am particularly concerned about the stretched local GP and medical facilities. As this proposed development falls into the location catchment area for the Sudbury and Alperton Medical Centre, the demand issues that this practice faces will only get worse, if you approve this application. Things are already dire for the practice and the service local residents are receiving is lacking. Anecdotally I have been told that often only one GP is available and appointments often take weeks to organise. My resident, Hiren Patel, who lives close to the proposed site, has told me that getting an appointment is like ‘winning the lottery’ – this simply isn’t good enough for my residents and any who would move into the area.

This past year has shown us all that we will have to change the way that we live into the future. We will get through the pandemic, though, as many expect our living habits will have to be altered. My final argument against yet another large development in Alperton, relates to the safety of such buildings with COVID and other potential air-borne, highly transmissible viruses we might face. With limitations on ability to social distance, particularly in communal areas, like shared lifts, I am fearful about the continued building of developments like this one, particularly in relation to public health.

If you make the mistake of approving this development, as I have said before, Alperton will continue to be a place to sleep and not to live. Brent are turning my ward into a concrete jungle, and we are simply fed up of it. Enough is enough. 

 

 

UPDATED: Details of the 'significant changes' in Dudden Hill/Willesden High Road application which led to deferral

 

Matt Kelcher, Chair of Brent Planning Committee, announced that the planning application for the very large development between Dudden Hill and High Road, Willesden, would not be taken at tonight's meeting.

The reason given was that the developer had submitted 'significant' late changes to the application, presumably to address the reasons planning officers had given for, unusually in Brent, recommending refusal of the applciation LINK.

Sceptics on social media had already suggested that 'the developer will be back with a few changes and then the planners and committee will back it.'

It may come back as early a next month when officers have had a chance to assess it and committee members have had time to review revised documentation.

Let's wait and see if the sceptics are right.

UPDATE 

Philip Grant sent the comment below which tells us much more:

I  think that the answer to what the 'significant late changes' were for application 18/3498 is contained in the supplementary report to the Planning Committee meeting (main text "copy and pasted" below for information).

Instead of changing the affordable housing offer for their own scheme, the developers are offering to pay the Council £1.5m, to build affordable rented accommodation somewhere else in the borough!

The current shortfall on "affordable rent" in their scheme is 13 homes. Would £1.5m cover the cost of building that many new Council homes?

Following this 'significant change', will Planning Officers now recommend the application for approval? I wouldn't bet against it!

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT:-

'Revised Affordable Housing Offer:

At the time of writing the Officers Committee Report, the formal offer proposed by the applicant was for 66% affordable housing on a non-policy compliant split, weighted in favour of Shared Ownership homes. The Officers Report outlines that the proposed affordable housing offer is unacceptable as it over delivers Shared Ownership homes at the expense of 13 London Affordable Rented homes, which would meet the most acute needs of the borough.

Since the publication of the report, the applicant has proposed a payment of £1.5 million to be used toward the provision of off-site affordable housing to mitigate the under-provision of London Affordable Rented (LAR) homes. This would be in addition to the 66% affordable housing discussed in the main report.

Revised Retail Parking Arrangements:  

The officers committee report also raises concerns with the quantum of retail parking without an appropriate parking price regime to encourage non car access and regarding the under-provision of residential blue-badge parking.

Since the publication of the agenda, the applicant has agreed “To enter into a retail car park management plan with the council and a space re-allocation plan allocating up to 10 retail parking spaces to disabled parking spaces”. This would allow for a strategy for parking management to be agreed with the applicant.

Application to be deferred:

 
Officers recommend that this application is deferred to allow the report to be updated to reflect and consider the revised offer and arrangements

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.