WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Friday, 17 December 2021
1 Morland Gardens – why Brent should not award a contract
Guest post from Philip Grant in personal capacity
Despite being given many good reasons why they should not go ahead with their proposed redevelopment of the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, the current home of the Brent Start adult education college, notice has appeared on the Council’s website of the intention to award a contract for the work.
I have responded to that by sending an open letter to
Brent’s Strategic Director for Regeneration, who can authorise that award, and
to the Lead Member for Education, who should be consulted before that decision
is made. I have asked Martin to publish my open letter, so that Brent’s
residents are aware of the reasons why that contract should not be awarded:-
To: Alan Lunt, Strategic Director
(Regeneration)
Cllr. Thomas Stephens (Lead Member
for Education)
From Philp Grant
(copy to Neil Martin, Schools Capital Programme Team)
This is an Open Letter
16 December 2021
Dear Mr Lunt and Councillor Stephens,
Proposed award of a Design and Build contract for work at 1 Morland Gardens NW10
I note from Brent Council’s website that Mr Lunt will be requested to decide, on 4 January 2022, to approve the award of ‘a contract to enter into a Two Stage D&B JCT Contract’ in respect of the Council’s proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens, Stonebridge.
There are a number of reasons why no such contract should be entered into, at least until several outstanding matters have been resolved. I would set these out as follows:
1. Stopping-up of highway and/or footpath:
There has been previous correspondence, and Freedom of Information Act requests, about this issue, yet Brent Council has still not sought to obtain a stopping-up order for the highway or footpath which runs in front of 1 Morland Gardens. Unless or until such an order is obtained, the land which that right of way runs across cannot be built over or obstructed with hoardings around a construction site.
This was confirmed by Brent’s Development Management Manager in an FoI response of 25 May 2021, when he said:
‘An application to formally stop up the highway has not yet been received. This would need to be submitted and approved prior to any development taking place on the areas that are currently adopted highway. Until the stopping-up process has been completed under S247 of the Town & Country Act 1990, works will not be able to start on the development insofar as it affects highway land.’
As the proposed redevelopment at 1 Morland Gardens is dependent on that highway / footpath being available to be built over, it seems reckless to award a contract for that development until it is clear that it is legally permissible to do that.
2. Appropriation of Land for Planning Purposes:
As with 1 above, it does not appear that either of the two parcels of land required for the proposed redevelopment have been appropriated for planning purposes.
The land and buildings at 1 Morland Gardens itself are currently used for educational purposes. That may well need to be appropriated for a mixed-use development to take place on the site.
The land in front of 1 Morland Gardens, as well as the highway / footpath, is open space used for a community garden. Its trees and gardens (although the Council has allowed them to fall into some disrepair) still provide an area of peace for residents, shielded from the busy traffic of Hillside and Brentfield Road, and a haven for wildlife. In a time of climate emergency, they also help to deal with air pollution and CO2 emissions.
Can you honestly say that this land is no longer required for those purposes? If not, it cannot be appropriated for planning purposes. And as the plans for which the Council received approval depend on building over that land, the redevelopment could not proceed without appropriation, so awarding a contract for that work would be pointless (and costly).
3. Legal pre-requisites:
Both the stopping-up and the appropriation are legal requirements before the Council’s plans can go ahead. I would remind Mr Lunt of what he wrote in an email to me on 2 June 2021:
‘I confirm that the demolition of “Altamira” will not take place until all necessary legal pre-requisites are in place.’
The demolition of the locally listed Victorian villa, originally “Altamira” and now the Brent Start college at 1 Morland Gardens, is required if the proposed new development is to be built. If that cannot be demolished (and as a heritage asset, Brent’s own adopted policies should mean that it is not demolished!), there is no sense in awarding a contract reliant on that demolition.
4. Effect of the proposed demolition on Climate:
It is now well established that demolition and rebuilding on the same site emits far more CO2 than simply refurbishing an existing building, and the difference between the two figures is very large. Brent Council, having declared a Climate Emergency, should not be embarking on projects which contribute more to the harmful effects of Climate Change than is necessary.
I have argued before, and still believe, that Brent Start would be better served by building a new college facility as part of another redevelopment (such as that at Unisys / Bridge Park). That would mean the college only has to move once, and 1 Morland Gardens could them be the subject of a sympathetic redevelopment for social housing, which retains the historic parts of “Altamira”, and only demolishes the later additions.
As well as being better for the climate, Brent’s acceptance of my proposed option would free up the Twybridge Way site, so that Phase 2 of Brent Council’s new housing plans for Stonebridge (including family houses and the much-needed independent living flats) can go ahead, rather than delayed for years by being tied to your flawed Morland Gardens plans.
Again, entering into the proposed contract would commit Brent to the current scheme, or incur substantial costs in getting out of it.
5. Design and Build contract:
In the “Authority to Re-tender Report” last summer, this type of contract was described as follows:
‘With a two-stage D&B contract, the first stage is the Pre-Construction Services Agreement (PCSA). The PCSA will define the services that are required of the contractor during the pre-construction phase and is generally similar to a consultancy agreement. It will make clear the contractor is undertaking design work, the design liability and what will happen to this liability if they are not appointed for the second stage. If the contractor operates within the GMP and approved budget, the Council triggers the second stage by entering into the D&B Contract and the building works then commence.’
Why is it proposed that ‘the contractor is undertaking design work’ and ‘design liability’, when full planning permission was given for a detailed design by architects Curl la Tourelle Head? That design was given an award in September 2020.
The approved and award-winning design would have a ‘cross-laminated timber structure’ (and be one of the tallest buildings in this country to use that method), with ‘innovative hybrid steel reinforcement’ supporting external cladding. If the contractor given the proposed D&B contract wishes to keep within Brent’s maximum price (“GMP”) for the scheme, there is a severe risk that they would cut corners, both in modifying the design and carrying out the building work.
That appears to be what happened over another award-winning innovative design, for the 2009 development called Granville New Homes in South Kilburn. You are (or should be) well aware of the problems and additional costs to Brent Council which that has caused! Awarding the proposed D&B contract for 1 Morland Gardens could well lead to similar results, and you should reconsider the situation very carefully before doing so.
6. Water Main:
Although the Officer Report to Planning Committee glossed over this point, Thames Water pointed out that because the footprint of the proposed building would take it within 5 metres of major water mains along Hillside and Brentfield Road, construction should not take place. This was “dealt with” by including a condition (No. 44) in the formal planning consent:
‘No construction shall take place within 5m of the water main. Information detailing how the developer intends to divert the asset / align the development, so as to prevent the potential for damage to subsurface potable water infrastructure, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water. Any construction must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved information. Unrestricted access must be available at all times for the maintenance and repair of the asset during and after the construction works.’
In other words, the water main under these roads, and at a very busy junction, must be “diverted” before any construction on the site can take place. Has this major work been done, or has Brent Council set aside the money for this work? If not, there is again a built-in delay before any construction could take place at 1 Morland Gardens. No contract should be awarded until that matter has been resolved.
I hope that you, Mr Lunt, and Cllr. Stephens (who should be consulted as Lead
Member on this project), will consider the points I have raised very carefully,
before reaching a decision on whether to award the proposed Design & Build
contract for 1 Morland Gardens.
If you feel that the reasons I have given, for not awarding the contract, should be ignored, I would be grateful if you would write to me to explain why. Thank you.
Best wishes,
Philip Grant.
Thursday, 16 December 2021
YOU can appear at Wembley Stadium on Sunday - for a Covid-19 jab! GIVE COVID-19 THE BOOT! Details
Pfizer Vaccination bookings for Wembley Stadium pop up event Sunday 19th December
About this event
Pfizer vaccination event Wembley Stadium
You can choose a booking in an allocated time slot. If there are no tickets left, then we will also be allowing walk-ins ( but bookings are prioritized )
12-15 year olds: First dose ( must be accompanied by an adult )
16-17 year olds: First dose and second dose ( 12 weeks after first )
18+: First dose, second dose ( eight weeks after first ) and boosters ( 3 months after second dose)
Wednesday, 15 December 2021
Bridge Park v Brent Council ends. Draft Order available in due course.
I was unable to attend today because I had to impersonate a mythical person in connection with an imminent festival.
Thanks to an attendee who was able to provide this summary.
The hearing commenced at 10:30 with Katherine Holland, QC, for Brent Council summarising her final legal arguments begun yesterday. Lord Justice Lewinson questioned her on the issues of the the deeds for the land being dated some 6 weeks after the transfer documents dated May 5th 1982, when the sale was executed. Neither Katherine Holland, or her assistant Matthew Smith were able to provide answers to points raised.
There were further discussions on whether the real estate was at Brent’s free disposal, on legalities related to the deeds and to the matter of charitable trust.
Peter Crampin, QC, for Stonebridge Community Trist ended the legal arguments with,
“The question still remains ….a fiduciary obligation…owed to the public in Brent being the beneficiaries of a charitable trust…..something for the community in Brent to achieve…very ambitious political objectives, which the GLC had in mind”.
Lord Justice Lewinson ended the hearing at 11:43.
“Thank you for your interesting submissions…a lot of public interest seen by the attendance of a number of participants following remotely”.
The draft Order will be available in due course.
BREAKING: DECISION DEFERRED: Friends of Woodcock Park voice flooding and ecological concerns over in-fill proposal on site of Lidding Road garages - Planning Committee 6pm tonight
BREAKING: After a discussion which focused on the foul water surface water flooding danger - of the Lidding Road site and immense concern that Thames Water had not addressed the long-standing issue, the Planning Committee decided tonight to defer a decision on the planning application.
Committee members wanted assurances that the sewage pipes, descibed as 'broken, damaged and collapsing' by John Poole making representations on behalf of residents, would be repaired, replaced and upgraded, otherwise the new development would exacerbate the problem.
Thames Water had said that the system had capacity for the new development but councillors were sceptical and did not appear to be reassured by the statement.
Some members also wanted a construction vehicle management plan give the nature of the local road,
The development site from planning report (outlined in red)
Satellite view
Wembley Matters has been been covering concerns over fluvial (river) flooding and surface water flooding in the borough in the wake of climate change. Local residents are usually better informed about the history of such events than planning officers, but this local knowledge is often dismissed and plans go ahead.
Tonight's Planning Committee will be discussing a Brent Council in-fill development at Lidding Road, Kenton, which residents say will exacerbate flooding problems from the Wealdstone Brook and current sewage draining problems. Trees and some green space will also be lost according to objectors.
This is what Friends of Woodcock Park had to say:
The site is totally unsuitable. It is in Flood risk 3 area. Flooding in this area is a problem as is water run off.
On the opposite side of the Brook the grounds of the Kenton Synagogue are constantly flooded by rainwater run off. This development will only increase the problem of rainwater run off.
Sewer pipes are shown running directly under the proposed development. Plot 5 has been designed with a manhole underneath it. This is contrary to Thames Water's policy of building over sewers. Thames sewers are constantly being blocked and require access to clear the problem.
Only yesterday (September 28th) work was being carried out to clear a blockage in this sewer which runs from Woodgrange Close across the Park to Brookfield Crescent. These are old sewers which are prone to collapse, which has happened several times within the park itself and at the end of Lidding Road. The ground at Lidding Road is now sinking because of these problems.
The Wealdstone Brook is blighted by sewage, due largely to the infrastructure of dual manholes. We are in constant discussions with Thames Water, but this has been an ongoing problem for decades and will not be completely eradicated until the sewage system is rebuilt. This area is also plagued by rats which run along the Wealdstone Brook and there is often a foul smell of sewage. Who would want to live near an open sewer, liable to flood, where you are unable to open your windows.
To site properties so close to the Wealdstone Brook is contrary to NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE GUIDANCE, Chapter 11, making effective use of the land, sets out how the planning system should promote use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Councillors would be failing in their duty to provide safe and healthy living conditions.
The land at the end of Lidding Road is a greenfield site. maintained by Brent Parks department, at the entrance to Woodcock Park. The loss of green space in Brent, which is already short of green spaces, should not be permitted.
The properties are situated too close to the SINC site, also known as the Wealdstone Brook Wildlife corridor.
Bats: A significant amount of foraging activity was recorded around the dense scrub and scattered trees in the southern portion of the site, and some commuting over this area. In accordance with best practice guidance relating to lighting and biodiversity (Miles et al, 2018; Gunnell et al, 2012), It is essential that any new lighting should be carefully designed to minimise potential disturbance and fragmentation impacts on sensitive receptors, such as bat species. Examples of good practice include:
- Avoiding the installation of new lighting in proximity to key ecological features, such as hedgerows and woodland edges.
The parking spaces allocated next to the Wealdstone Brook will create light disturbance from the headlights of the cars. In addition what guarantees are there that residents of these properties don't add their own external security lighting.
Security is a big issue in this area. Anti-social behaviour continues to be problem in and around Woodcock Park, we have drug dealing and have even had a stabbing in the Park. The footpath between Lidding Road and Shaftesbury Avenue across the Wealdstone Brook needs to have clear sight lines. The area should be kept open, with space either side of the footpath. The development should not go right up to the footpath.
Visualisation next to Wealdstone Brook
The officers report LINK argues that the disbenefits are outweighed by the benefit of supplying 8 housing units, 5 of which are family sized at London Affordable Rent and that the plans will actually improve drainage and mitigate the risk of flooding. Some failures to meet amenity space guidelines are said to be made up for by the proximity of Woodcock Park.
On the sewer over-load issue the report airily hands over responsibility to Thames Water:
Concerns have been raised that the development would be impacted by on increase these issues. The local sewers are owned and maintained by Thames Water and as such Thames Water is responsible for the maintenance of this system.
This is a common feature in many planning applications.
LIVESTREAM 6pm HERE
Met warn people thinking of buying or gifting an e-scooter for Christmas of the restrictions on use
https://www.met.police.uk/e-scooters
E-scooters are controversial in Brent and have even been the subject of a Conservative Group motion at a Full Council meeting.
Some see them as dangerous to pedestrians, particularly the young and the elderly, when used on the pavement, and a menace to driver safety when used on the road.
Others cite their potential in reducing car use, particularly the single driver taking up a lot of space on the road, and in reducing the pollution and fossil fuel use that would otherwise be caused if the scooter rider was driving a vehicle.
The police have taken the opportunity, ahead of Christmas purchases, to remind the public of their legal status and the Fixed Penalty Notices applicable for misuse.
As always, given limited police resources, there is the question of enforcement.
Jay Mastin of Stonebridge Community Trust appeals for community support as Bridge Park hearing enters second day
At yesterday's Appeal Court hearing the case of Appellant 1, Leonard Johnson, against the findings of the High Court in the case of Bridge Park versus Brent Council was dismissed as having no legal basis.
The case of the second Appellant, Stonebridge Community Trust, began in the afternoon and continues this morning. It is based on the case made at the original hearing.
In the video above Jay Mastin, of Stonebridge Community Trust, laments the failure of attempts to get the two appellants to work together but urges the community to get behind the Trusts's case.
The hearing continutes at 10.30am this morning. To attend the hearing virtually apply to katie.patel@justice.gov.uk
Preston Community Library re-opens on Saturday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)