UPDATED: Triumph for campaigners as planning application to build flats on Barham Park withdrawn

 

 

A triumphant Sudbury Town Residents Association published the above on Twitter this afternoon. The Sudbury Court Residents Association (SCRA) waged a well-researched battle including uncovering covenants to stop the building of a block of flats to replace the present modest houses. 

They deserve credit for this long-running. extremely determined, grassroots campaign  LINK which had latterly been joined by some local councillors.  

Sudbury Labour announced the withdrawal of the application on their website LINK

The painstaking work of Sudbury Court Residents Association (SCRA) can be seen in this exchange of emails that are likely to have influenced the application withdrawal.  Readers may remember that  Wembley Matters drew attention to the fact that Brent Council Leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt, appeared to have taken on the chairmanship of the Barham Park Trust Committee since its last meeting.

 

SCRA wrote to the Barham Park Trust Committee:

 Re: Brent Planning Application 21/1106 | Demolition of dwelling houses and erection of a four storey residential building comprising 9 self-contained flats with roof top terrace and associated access, parking and landscaping | 776 & 778 Harrow Road, Wembley

 

Dear Barham Park Trust Committee

 

I am writing on behalf of the Sudbury Court Residents Association.  We represent approximately 2800 households on the Sudbury Court and Pebworth Estates. Some our residents are located less than 850m from the site.

 

We wish to draw your attention to and OBJECT to the above application and we support the objection submitted by the Brent Council Member for Barnhill Ward.

 

In addition, we strongly feel that this will cause numerous problems for our residents, detailed below:

 

1.     Initial soundings of residents have been a resounding rejection of any development over and above the Covenanted limits especially as the site is 'within' the Barham Park boundary.

2.    As our residents use Barham Park for recreation and exercise, their enjoyment and even privacy will be compromised as this large building will completely spoil its view. It is the nearest park for many of our residents, so it is critical that it is preserved as such, especially as we recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and both physical and mental health have been affected.

3.    This development will increase congestion on an already busy road, increasing pollution and road danger.

4.    Vehicles turning into the site will increase danger for pedestrians and cause disruption to traffic flow, including buses. This is at the start of the number 18 bus route and this may delay the bus further and increase danger for pedestrians accessing the bus stop.

5.    There is no provision of delivery parking so this will either lead to obstruction of the road or footway.

6.    Car parking provision is contrary to the Council's policy on parking provision in developments.

7.     There is likely to be significant impact on wildlife, especially bats, which are a protected and rare species.

8.    Damage to the Cedar of Lebanon tree is unacceptable.

9.    There are restrictive covenants placed on the site, which forbid such a development. The covenant limits use on the two separate parts of the site (776 & 778) in each case to 1 single private dwelling houses and garage.

 

Councillor Butt replied that he would pass the comments on to the planning team.

 

SCRA responded:

 

My apologies as I don't think I clarified the purpose of my email to the Barham Park Trustees.

 

Our email was meant to have been addressed to yourself as Chair.

 

We wished to draw your attention to the above application in case you were not aware of it, as it would be the expectation of the SCRA that the Barham Park Trust would be lodging a strong and robust objection to the application.

 

Titus Barnham gifted the site to Brent in 1937, and as a Charitable Trust, it has an obligation protect the endowment.

 

To allow the park to be ruined by permitting the building of a residential block of flats, would be ignoring the obligations of the gift and is in direct contradiction of the restrictive covenants (inserted at the end of my email).

 

The roles of the Barham Park Charity LINK  are:

 

What the charity does:

·       Education/training

·       Arts/culture/heritage/science

·       Amateur Sport

·       Environment/conservation/heritage

·       Economic/community Development/employment

 

Who the charity helps:

·       The General Public/mankind

 

How the charity helps:

·       Provides Buildings/facilities/open Space

 

It does not have a role in providing/facilitating private housing.  

 

We are aware that errors were made when the cottages were originally built and when they were sold, I am sure that the Charity Commission have taken a dim view of the management of this gift to the people of Brent.

 

If the site was to be developed for the benefit of the public, eg a park cafe or other community facility, this would perhaps be acceptable, but to build a private block of flats is, in our view, a direct breach of the covenant.  

 

If any land is disposed of, we envisage that the Trust would seek to obtain a good market value for such a desirable site.

 

Councillor Butt, we trust in your role as Chair of the Board of Trustees, you will be leading a strong objection to this application.

 

Regards SCRA

 

Restrictive Covenants as filed with the Land Registry and belonging to the Barham Trust on 776 Harrow Road (778 is the same)

 

 

12.4

 

Restrictive covenants by the Transferee

 

12.4.1

 

The Transferee covenants with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982 to observe and perform the restrictions contained in clause 12.4.2 ('The Restrictions') and it is agreed and declared that:

 

12.4.1.1

 

the benefit of this covenant is to be attached to and endure for each and every part of the Retained Land that remains unsold by the Transferor or has been sold by the Transferor (or by any person claiming through the Transferor otherwise than by a transfer on sale) with the express benefit of this covenant

 

12.4.1.2

 

the burden of this covenant is intended to bind and binds each and every part of the Property into whosoever hands it may come

 

12.4.1.3

 

an obligation in the Restrictions not to do any act or thing includes an obligation not to permit or suffer that act or thing to be done by another person

 

12.4.2

 

The Restrictions are the following: 

 

12.4.2.1 

 

not to use the Property otherwise than as a single private dwelling house and the garage for any purpose other than as a ancillary private garage

 

12.4.2.2 

 

not to divide the Property into two or more dwellings or residential units

 

12.4.2.3 

 

not to erect or cause to be erected on the Property any building or structure whatsoever except a greenhouse or shed of not greater length than 4 metres and of not greater height than 3 metres or permit or suffer any person under the Transferor's control to do so

 

12.4.2.4 

 

not to stand or support any vehicle, commercial vehicle trailer, mobile home, caravan, trailer, cart or boat on any part of the Property, and

 

12.4.2.5 

 

not to carry out any development within the meaning of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in or upon the Property

 

12.4.2.6 

 

not to park any motor vehicle on or otherwise obstruct any part of the accessway hatched yellow and hatched green or any part of the Retained Land at any time

 

12.5

 

Positive covenants by the Transferee

 

The Transferee covenants on behalf of itself and its successors in title with the Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of the Retained Land and each and every part of the Retained Land and with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982

 

12.5.1

 

to contribute and pay within 14 days of demand (ll) fifty percent (50%) of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing the accessway shown hatched yellow on the Plan

 

(b) a fair and due proportion of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing sewers drains pipes cables party walls and all other structures apparatus or installations which service the Property in common with any neighbouring or adjoining property

 

12.5.2

 

to maintain repair and renew at all times hereafter to the satisfaction of Transferor

 

12.5.2.1

 

a good and sufficient metal palisade fence and timber fence or wall on any of the boundaries of the Property marked with ''T'' (if any) within the boundaries of the said plan.

 

12.5.2.2

 

the pathway hatched brown stippled red and the accessway hatched green stippled red on the Plan to a reasonable standard

 

12.5.3

 

not to transfer the Property or grant a lease of the Property or the Transferee's freehold estate in the Property or any other estate or interest in it to any person without first ensuring that the person has executed a deed directly with Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of each and every part of the Retained Land containing the covenants and provisions of clause 12.5. mutatis mutandis including this present covenant 12.5.3.

 

    

 

Road restrictions announced for Wembley Event Days

With event days returning to Wembley Park,  Brent Council has issued notice via the Kilburn Times of prohibition of entering or proceeding along sections of roads in the area from 10pm the day before an event day until 8am the day following the event day. With the number of event days increasing this will be of interest to local residents.

The Order is made on the recommendation of the Commssioner of Police  fur purposes relating to 'danger or damage connected with terrorism'.

In addition there is also notice of a weight restriction of 7.5 tonnes on the new North End Road extension leading up to where it will connect with Bridge Road.

 

 

Cricklewood B&Q development - the consultation they didn't want you to know about? 2 weeks to respond

 

NorthWest2 Residents Association are drawing attention this morning to a poorly advertised new consultation on the controversial  development of the B&Q site in Cricklewood, close to the border with Brent.

Full details are on their website HERE

Main points:

New consultation now open – tell them again!

 

Barnet council have launched a new consultation, running for only two weeks from 17 May to 31 May 2021.

 

Barnet are not advertising this consultation. There are no notices around the site. They haven’t written to the thousand objectors or emailed them either. They didn’t tell us. We only found it when we looked on the website.

 

Will our thousand objections still count?

 

They had a thousand objections already in 2020. Maybe someone’s hoping that those can be ignored now that there are pretty new pictures and fine words to “prove” our objections aren’t justified.

Our view

Our view is that these are just as we thought – overbearing, overwhelming, out of keeping with Cricklewood and not even providing any social housing.

 

Tell Barnet Council what you think HERE

  

Edwards Yard – a name that’s part of Alperton’s heritage: let's retain it

Guest post by Philip Grant

 

One of the large schemes approved at Brent’s Planning Committee meeting in February 2021 was for a mixed-use redevelopment of the Abbey Manufacturing Estate and Edwards Yard, at Mount Pleasant in Alperton. I’ve since found out how Edwards Yard got its name. This is the story behind it, and the reason why that name should be retained in the new development.

 

1.   Aerial impression of the Abbey Estate development. (From application 20/3156 drawings, with notes added)

 

My quest began when I was seeking information about another Alperton business, Cousland & Browne, to help answer a local history query I’d received. They had been timber merchants, beside the canal. One of the answers I received was from Diane, whose father used to deliver timber for them. She remembered, along with her mother, going in the lorry with him all the way to Saundersfoot in Wales, on one of those trips in the late 1950s.

 

2.   Cousland & Browne advert. (From Curley’s Directory of Wembley. 1956)

 

The Paddington branch of the Grand Junction (now Grand Union) Canal opened in 1801. It cut its way through the village of Alperton, and helped bring lots of trade and small canal side industries to this mainly rural part of Middlesex. Bricks, gravel and hay were sent into London, while rubbish and other waste products were brought out to be processed. The boiling of food waste to feed the pigs at three farms, and the manufacture of oil and manure from fish refuse meant that Alperton had a smelly reputation in late Victorian times! 

 

3.   A busy canal wharf at Alperton, 1923. (From Geoffrey Hewlett’s “Wembley”)

 

Diane’s grandfather, John William Edwards, was born in Wembley in 1869. By the early 1900s he was employed as the farm bailiff at Clyde Vale Farm. He lived in Alperton Cottage, at the eastern end of Honeypot Lane (later renamed Mount Pleasant), where the rear entrance to Lyon Park School is now. He and his wife had a number of children, including Diane’s father, David, who was born in the cottage in 1909.

 

By the early 1920s, John Edwards was trading as a haulage contractor. His sons Albert, Henry and David joined him in what became the family business of J. Edwards & Sons. At first it was horse-drawn carts, and as well as general haulage the jobs they took on included delivering materials to Wembley Park, for construction of the Empire Stadium and some of the British Empire Exhibition buildings.

4.  J. Edwards & Sons horse and cart, 1920s.

 

In 1923, the sports equipment manufacturers, Charles Webber & Co, had purchased a 5-acre site in Honeypot Lane, formerly the Alperton Park brickfields. The following year they sold a plot of land to John Edwards, as he needed a larger base for his business. The rest of the Webber’s land became the Abbey Trading Estate.

 

Edwards built a house, with stables for 11 horses in a yard behind it, in 1925. “Meadow View”, soon to be addressed as 122 Mount Pleasant, was beside a row of workers’ cottages built by Alperton’s Victorian entrepreneur, Henry Haynes. In 1931, John Edwards bought more land behind the cottages, creating the site which has been known as Edwards Yard ever since. 

 

5.   John with one of his horses at Edwards Yard, 1930s.

 

The extra land was used to build garages for the firm’s growing number of lorries. The family home, where John Edwards lived for the rest of his life, was also where the business was run from. A sign on the front of the house read:

 

Meadow View
J Edwards & Sons
Motor & Horse Transport Contractors
Phone Wembley 1922

6.   John Edwards with one of his sons, sitting on the running board of a lorry, 1930s.

 

The rapid expansion of suburban estate building in Wembley and surrounding areas, from the mid-1920s onwards, meant that J Edwards & Sons were rarely short of work. John Edwards finally retired from the business in 1943, gifting it and the yard to his three sons. After the end of the war their lorries were busy, both with general haulage work and clearing of bomb-damaged sites.

 

Henry Edwards retired from the partnership in 1954. As not all of the yard was still needed, some of the garage buildings were rented to other small businesses. David was left running the business by himself once Albert retired in 1963. He kept on transporting goods and clearing rubbish from local factories, with several lorries and a couple of employed drivers, until he retired in 1967 and the haulage business ceased. After that, all of Edwards Yard was let out to small businesses, many of which operated from there for decades.

 

7.   An artist’s view of the Abbey Estate development, with the potential new Edwards Yard on the left.
(From planning application 20/3156 drawings)

 

The yard stayed in the ownership of the Edwards family until it was finally sold to Zedhomes Limited in 2019. Now Diane has asked the developer to retain the Edwards name as part of the new development. A block of four houses is planned to be built on the site of the old yard. Edwards Yard would be an ideal name for these, to remember a place that has been a part of Alperton’s heritage for nearly 100 years!

Philip Grant (with thanks to Diane for the information and Edwards family photos).

Should Barham Park Trust Committee be protecting the open space from over-development of its two covenanted houses?

 

The Barham Park houses 

 

The Trustees of the Barham Park Trust are all Brent Council Cabinet members: Cllr Muhammed Butt, Cllr Thomas Stephens, Cllr Margaret McLennan, Cllr Harbi Farah and Cllr Krupa Sheth. 

Cllr Butt has joined the Barham Park Trust Committee since their last meeting in September 2020 and from the listing on the Council's website appears to have taken over from Cllr McLennan as Chair. I have found no public explanation for this change.

The Barham Park Trust Committee is 'responsible for the trustee functions in relation to Barham  Parham Park Trust, including taking decisions on the disposal of land, varying or ceasing the charitable purpose and changing the trust.'

 So pretty powerful...

This  is significant as one would expect the Trust Committee to defend the Barham Park Open Space from development if it is to ensure the protecting of Titus Barham's 'enduring gift' to the people of Brent, and of course there is a proposal to replace the two houses (above) with a much larger development (below).

 

The Restrictive Covenants on the houses (776 and 778 Harrow Road) suggest the proposals infringe the conditions:

Restrictive Covenants as filed with the Land Registry and belonging to the Barham Trust on 776 Harrow Road (778 is the same)

 

12.4

Restrictive covenants by the Transferee

12.4.1

The Transferee covenants with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982 to observe and perform the restrictions contained in clause 12.4.2 ('The Restrictions') and it is agreed and declared that:

12.4.1.1

the benefit of this covenant is to be attached to and enure for each and every part of the Retained Land that remains unsold by the Transferor or has been sold by the Transferor (or by any person claiming through the Transferor otherwise than by a transfer on sale) with the express benefit of this covenant

12.4.1.2

the burden of this covenant is intended to bind and binds each and every part of the Property into whosoever hands it may come

12.4.1.3

an obligation in the Restrictions not to do any act or thing includes an obligation not to permit or suffer that act or thing to be done by another person

12.4.2

The Restrictions are the following: 

12.4.2.1 

not to use the Property otherwise than as a single private dwelling house and the garage for any purpose other than as a ancillary private garage

12.4.2.2 

not to divide the Property into two or more dwellings or residential units

12.4.2.3 

not to erect or cause to be erected on the Property any building or structure whatsoever except a greenhouse or shed of not greater length than 4 metres and of not greater height than 3 metres or permit or suffer any person under the Transferor's control to do so

12.4.2.4 

not to stand or support any vehicle, commercial vehicle trailer, mobile home, caravan, trailer, cart or boat on any part of the Property, and

12.4.2.5 

not to carry out any development within the meaning of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in or upon the Property

12.4.2.6 

not to park any motor vehicle on or otherwise obstruct any part of the accessway hatched yellow and hatched green or any part of the Retained Land at any time

12.5

Positive covenants by the Transferee

The Transferee covenants on behalf of itself and its successors in title with the Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of the Retained Land and each and every part of the Retained Land and with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982

12.5.1

to contribute and pay within 14 days of demand (ll) fifty percent (50%) of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing the accessway shown hatched yellow on the Plan

(b) a fair and due proportion of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing sewers drains pipes cables party walls and all other structures apparatus or installations which service the Property in common with any neighbouring or adjoining property

12.5.2

to maintain repair and renew at all times hereafter to the satisfaction of Transferor

12.5.2.1

a good and sufficient metal palisade fence and timber fence or wall on any of the boundaries of the Property marked with ''T'' (if any) within the boundaries of the said plan.

12.5.2.2

the pathway hatched brown stippled red and the accessway hatched green stippled red on the Plan to a reasonable standard

12.5.3

not to transfer the Property or grant a lease of the Property or the Transferee's freehold estate in the Property or any other estate or interest in it to any person without first ensuring that the person has executed a deed directly with Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of each and every part of the Retained Land containing the covenants and provisions of clause 12.5. mutatis mutandis including this present covenant 12.5.3.

 

Well clearly the proposed block of flats is not a greenhouse or shed...

 

 The entry from the Land Registry is embedded below and I am sure will be of interest to those opposing the plans. (Click bottom right for full page)

 

Couple retire from Barnhill Post Office after being an essential part of the community for 42 years

 

Barnhill  Newsagents and Post Office, Grand Parade, Wembley

'Community Hubs' are trendy these days but the Barnhill Post Office and Newsagents on Grand Parade, Wembley Park has been an unassuming community hub for 42 years where Pravin and Sheila Gadhia have served the local community quietly and diligently.

They have written to customers informing them that they have sold the business and will be retiring later this month.  In the letter, headed 'A Tough Farewell',  they say that their business has been created through the support of customers and this is embedded in its underlying culture.  They assure their customers that the new owners recognise that the price they are paying for the business includes 'a premium for the goodwill that has been created through our built, trusted and good relationships with our existing customers, and so they are keen to ensure that they protect and value by working hard and keeping our customers happy.'

Pravin and Sheila will stay on for a while as part of a transition agreement and this will give a customers, many of whom they know by name,  to voice their appreciation.

The couple conclude their letter by thanking their customers for 'continued support which has truly touched our hearts in no way that words can explain.'

In a Wembley Park that has seen many changes, particularly in the last few years, Pravin and Sheila have been part of the cement that holds us together.  They will be greatly missed.