Developer's proposal to add extra floors to Fairfield Court, Harlesden, at Planning Committee on Wednesday

 

Fairfield Court, Longstone Avenue, Harlesden

The site

With potential building sites at a premium the strategy is to build high on small footprint sites.  In Wembley this has been new towers but across the country it is becoming common for develpers to add extra storeys to existing buildings.

This is what is happening to the sequence of blocks making up Fairfield Court in Harlesden where the proposal to be heard at Planning Commitete on Wednesday May 10th is:

Proposed two second floor extensions and third floor extension to create six new self-contained dwellings including 4 rear dormer windows and new solar panel. Construction of two rear access staircases

The proposal would create additional floors to the building accommodating no’s 5-6 and 20-21 Fairfield Court increasing the height of the building from two- to three-storeys. The other additional floor would be above no’s 7-12 and 14-19 block of units, increasing the height from 3 to 4-storeys. Accommodation would also be provided in the roof of that block. The blocks would be composed to increase from 2 to 3 and then 4-storeys with the taller blocks situated further into the site.

Planning officer are recommending that the application be approved.

Proposed structure - blue line is current height

 The proposal has received 41 objections as recorded on the Brent Council Planning Portal, a 105 signature petition objecting to the plans and opposition for Cllr Jumbo Chan.

This objection is froma Fairfield House resident:

 

As a Fairfield Court resident, I have several reasons to object to this planning application.


This proposal not only changes the original character of this charming purpose built 1930s block but has a significant impact on the amount of light coming to the flat.


Being on the ground floor and due to the new build opposite; the flat has significantly lost light coming in. This would be exacerbated by this proposal. One of the attractions of moving into this building was the garden and amount of light. I already have a low level of sunlight into my living room- this is going to be made much worse. The daylight report makes clear that windows to my flat will be negatively and permanently impacted. To note, Fairfield suffers from damp which will worsen if both height and the staircase is added.


The data within the report about Vertical Sky Component, and No SkyLine is illegible. The conclusions are made that the impacts are not enough to reach the threshold of concern. I cannot decipher or assess the illegible data. However, the tables show that the development WILL negatively impact my flat. Saying the threshold is 20% but the damage to my flat is only 18% seems disingenuous and cruel. There is nothing to stop 18% sunlight being lost today and further 18% being lost in the near future.


The proposed staircase and its footfall would be directly outside my living room and bedroom. I would experience visual intrusion and a lack of privacy into my sitting room and front bedroom. This is not only a visual intrusion but also could add to anti-social behaviour. The space in which the proposed staircase would go has previously been closed to stop antisocial behaviour. This would overall have an overall negative impact on my quality of life and wellbeing.


I see the proposal does not speak about the increased pressure that would be on the communal garden which is well used by the number of children and families living in the block.


For example, any new 'refuse storage' construction would mean we would have to lose more of the front garden and possibly even the trees. With the proposed 'additional car and cycle parking spaces' at the front of Fairfield, would result in the loss of more of the communal front garden area, leading to more noise disturbance and air pollution caused by vehicles. There would be further limited communal garden space for residents.

 

 Planners of course see the high rise building opposite as a reason to support the proposal as it would be 'appropriate in the context' of the surrounding area.

 

The negative impact on the current attractive amenity space is  mentioned by a number of objectors. This is the developer's response.

 

As no affordable homes will be provided in the development the Council is asking for a Section 106 agreement for a payment of £300,000 from the developer for affordable housing elsewhere.

 

Officers' Report Conclusion recommending approval (Application 22/3634)

 

The proposal would not involve any private amenity space for the proposed units, however, there is a substantial amount of communal external amenity space existing within the site, with approximately 1500sq.m of shared gardens space to the rear of the buildings and additional areas to the front. This could clearly cater for the existing and proposed residents (exceeding current standards) and would provide high quality external space. Therefore, in this instance the absence of private external amenity space is accepted. It is noted that the site is also in close proximity of Roundwood Park which provides other good quality external amenity space

 

The proposal would create additional floors to the building accommodating no’s 5-6 and 20-21 Fairfield Court increasing the height of the building from two- to three-storeys. The other additional floor would be above no’s 7-12 and 14-19 block of units, increasing the height from 3 to 4-storeys. Accommodation would also be provided in the roof of that block. The blocks would be composed to increase from 2 to 3 and then 4-storeys with the taller blocks situated further into the site.

 

While officers note that the proposal would be built over some (non-designated) green space within the site, the extent of this is minimal and the submitted revised landscaping plan confirms the planting of new trees and shrubs within the site which officers consider would mitigate against impacts associated with this. Further, the proposed parking arrangements would be made of permeable paving which would be beneficial in terms of drainage.

 

While officers note that the proposal would be built over some (non-designated) green space within the site, the extent of this is minimal and the submitted revised landscaping plan confirms the planting of new trees and shrubs within the site which officers consider would mitigate against impacts associated with this. Further, the proposed parking arrangements would be made of permeable paving which would be beneficial in terms of drainage.

 

The proposal would result in the creation of six new homes, including 4 family sized homes, and a contribution towards the provision of off-site Affordable housing would be secured in line with policy. The proposal would increase the height of the existing buildings above that of some of the homes in the area. However, the resulting scale is considered appropriate when considering the full context of the site including the taller buildings on the eastern side of Longstone Avenue.

An objector has commented that the submitted daylight and sunlight assessment incorrectly assesses whether the development projects above a 25 degree line from the middle of windows of Springwell Avenue properties. This has been examined by officers and while the proposal is likely to comply with the 25 degree line taken from the objector’s property, it appears likely that it will project above a 25 degree line taken from the middle of the nearest windows of two other properties (Nos. 34 and 36). However, the presence of very large trees is likely to already significantly impact the light received by these windows and it is considered unlikely that the proposal will result in a material additional impact. Additional parking capacity would be provided through changes to the frontage parking area, and while over-spill parking is not anticipated, it is likely to be easily accommodated on street.

 

The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan when read as a whole and it is recommended that planning permission is granted.

Republic: "We will continue to protest with one simple message: Charles is not our king, it is time to abolish the monarchy"

Graham Smith, CEO of Republic, has issued the following statement: 

"Yesterday, as we prepared for a peaceful and lawful protest, a number of Republic's team were arrested and detained for the rest of the day.

These arrests are a direct attack on our democracy and the fundamental rights of every person in the country. Each and every police officer involved on the ground should hang their heads in shame. They showed no judgement, no common sense and no basic decency. This was a heavy handed action which had the appearance of a pre-determined arrest that would have occurred regardless of the evidence or our actions. 

The right to protest peacefully in the UK no longer exists. Instead we have a freedom to protest that is contingent on political decisions made by ministers and senior police officers.

The right to dissent and protest is one of the most profound and important rights in a democracy. Many people will disagree with what we were protesting about, but that right to protest must be protected. Anyone may find themselves wanting to protest against a government policy, a grave injustice or in solidarity with victims of a visiting world leader. Such protests must always be freely conducted as a matter of right, not on the basis of permission from the state.

I have campaigned on the issue of the monarchy for twenty years. Time and again I have been told the monarchy protects us from tyranny, that the monarch guards our democracy and freedoms, defending us against the excesses of government. These arrests put the lie to those claims and are another example of the weakness of our constitution and the failure of our constitutional monarchy.

The Crown is one part of our failing constitution that concentrates too much power in the hands of government at the expense of parliament and people. We need a fundamental shift in power. We need elected representatives who are able to resist such draconian laws as those introduced this week, and a constitution that empowers the people to defend their rights.

These arrests have also destroyed whatever trust might have existed between peaceful protesters and the Metropolitan police. What is the point in being open and candid with the police, working with their liaison officers and meeting senior commanders, if all their promises and undertakings turn out to be a lie?

It is notable that King Charles has said nothing about these arrests. Rather than defend our liberty and values he is content celebrating his anointment as monarch while citizens are locked up. What is the point of a head of state who will say nothing and do nothing to defend the people?

These arrests were not about protecting people from harm, but about protecting the King from embarrassment. It was the state wanting to stamp down dissent in order to present an image of a grateful and consenting public at the time of the coronation.

Rather than a puppet-king, doing the bidding of the government, we need an independent elected head of state, there to stand on the wall and guard our constitution and our rights from government power. 

Republic has a strong track record of peaceful and lawful campaigning and protests. We will not be deterred from further protest. We will protest on Trafalgar Square, we will protest on The Mall, outside Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace. We will protest outside Downing Street and parliament, in Windsor and around the UK. As much as possible we will  continue to protest wherever Charles goes, wherever William goes. We will continue to protest with one simple message: Charles is not our king, it is time to abolish the monarchy."

Lack of transparency on Islamia Primary School move is becoming a scandal

 The consultation on the move of Islamia Primary School from its Queens Park site finished in November 2022 and since then there has been a wall of silence from the Yusif Islam Foundation, the school and Brent Council. The school is due to move in September 2024 after refurbishment and new build on the former Strathcona site in Preston ward.

The result is anger, frustration and rumour from parents and community.

I have lodged an FoI result with Brent Council to try and get some very basic information LINK:

Dear Brent Borough Council,

Please provide:

1. Details of the outcome of the public consultation on the proposed move of Islamia Primary School that was completed in November 2022.
2. Update on when the school will move and operate on its new site (previously proposed for September 2024).
3. Update on any statutory consultation.

The Twitter account  Dignity Custodians has been very vocal from the beginning of the relocation proposals. 

Hello

@YusufCatStevens

a member of staff told parents that the Foundation planned to use vacated premises for the independent schools & a feeder primary school. Is this why you want

@IslamiaPrimary

as far away as possible? #Strathcona #Profit

@WembleyMatters

@Brent_Council

 

This confirms what a member of the governing body told a group of parents 3 years ago when there were attempts to turn the school into a one Form Entry and give priority to siblings of pupils attending the independent schools which was in breach of the #AdmissionsCode.

 

This GB member also said that

@Brent_Council

gave Islamia a "poor" catchment area and suggested Somali parents open their own school. The school's admissions policy has recently been found " unlawful and discriminatory " by the #OSA. Parents have reasons to fear discrimination.

Queens Park Meeting May 9th: Adapting Our Homes to Climate Change

 

In a very welcome initiative Queens Park Area Residents' Association (QPARA)  has published a 36-page report entitled Queen’s Park Towards Net Zero: Adapting Our Homes to Climate Change by retrofit assessor, Melissa Merryweather. QPARA had a grant from Brent’s Together Towards Net Zero fund towards the project. 

 
On Tuesday 9^th May QPARA are holding  a public meeting where the author will present the report and answer questions. Seats are limited so book early on register for Zoom. LINK

The report's main findings:

 

www.qpark.org.uk

Wembley Celebrates the Coronation – in 1953

Guest post by local historian Philip Grant

 

Queen Elizabeth II in the Coronation Coach, 2 June 1953. (Image from the internet)

 

When King Charles III is crowned at Westminster Abbey on 6 May, it will be almost 70 years since his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, had her Coronation. So much has changed during that time, in Wembley and elsewhere.

 

According to Brent Council, only eleven roads in the whole borough have applied to be closed for street parties on this occasion. Quintain have apparently not applied to close Olympic Way (which they are temporarily renaming King’s Way – a corruption of the 1924 British Empire Exhibition’s Kingsway) for the Coronation street party they are organising. (Do they think they own it, although it was adopted as a highway by Brent Council in the early 1980s?)

 

This article is not about the 2023 Coronation, but how it was celebrated in 1953. It felt like the dawn of a new age. The end was in sight for post-war rationing (sweets had come off rationing in February 1953, although sugar and some meats were still rationed). The country had a new, young Queen, and there was a feeling of optimism for the future.

 

Sitting down for a Coronation street party in Deanscroft Avenue, Kingsbury, in 1953.
(Courtesy of Susan Larter)

 

Kingsbury got its celebrations underway on Saturday 30 May 1953, with a Coronation Carnival. A quarter-mile long procession of decorated floats formed up in Valley Drive, before travelling along Kingsbury Road, up Honeypot Lane and along Princes Avenue, to a fête on the playing fields of the County grammar school (now Kingsbury High). The float carrying the Coronation “Carnival Queen” had a guard of honour from the local Sea Cadets, while all the other local youth organisations marched behind.

 

Kingsbury Swimming Pool, seen in the 1960s. (Brent Archives – Wembley History Society Colln.)

 

Kingsbury Swimming Pool, in Roe Green Park, also played a part in the celebrations, staging a Coronation swimming gala in which Kingsbury S.C. took on teams from Wembley, Willesden and other local swimming clubs in front of a large crowd. 

 

The weather over that weekend was perfect for several local street parties that were held, but Coronation Day itself, the following Tuesday, was cold and wet. The residents of Berkeley Road in Kingsbury had decided to hold their street party for seventy-five children on the big day itself, with food, singing and a fancy dress competition. It looked like being a washout, but the owners of Kingsbury Arcade, on the corner with Kingsbury Road, came to the rescue and let the party be held there free of charge.

 

The Deanscroft Avenue children in their home-made hats. (Courtesy of Susan Larter)

 

I don’t know whether the Deanscroft Avenue street party was held on the weekend before or after the Coronation, but the weather was fine for it. One feature of the party was that all of the children had to come in home-made hats or bonnets, and there was probably a prize for the best one.

 

A “Wembley News” report, with photograph of the Pilgrims Way Coronation tea party.
(Brent Archives – local newspaper microfilms)

 

An invitation to the Pilgrims Way Coronation tea party on 6 June 1953. (Courtesy of Paul Kennedy)

 

I do know which day the Pilgrims Way pre-fab estate had its Coronation celebrations, because I’ve got a copy of one of the invitations, sent to each of the 200 children living there. I heard about it from several of those who took part, during a Brent Archives “Pre-fabs Project” in 2011. Fancy dress was “optional” but many children, and adults, took up that option, especially as there was a competition with prizes for the best children in fancy dress.

 

One of the Pilgrims Way children, and two mums, in fancy dress, 6 June 1953.
(Photos courtesy of Paul Kennedy and Wally Robson)

 

Thanks to Sir Arthur Elvin (who I believe a member of the Tenants’ Association worked for at Wembley Stadium and Arena), there were special guests to judge the fancy dress competition. There were no photographs in the local newspapers then of the famous Harlem Globetrotters basketball players, who were in Wembley for their annual sporting entertainment show. But Sir Arthur had sent a photographer along, to capture their visit to Pilgrims Way, and this photograph appeared in the programme for the Globetrotters’ 1954 week at the “Empire Pool”.

 

Harlem Globetrotters players at the Pilgrims Way Coronation party, 1953.
(Brent Archives – Wembley event programmes)

 

The “Wembley News” did report the results of the fancy dress competition:

 

‘Probably the biggest street party held in Kingsbury on Saturday was the one organised for 200 children of the Pilgrims-way pre-fab estate. Six members of the Harlem Globe-trotters team arrived at mid-day to open the party and give an exhibition of their basket ball wizardry. They also judged the fancy dress parade. Their choice was: Up to five years old, Patricia Craig (Elizabeth the 1^st); 5-10 years, Pamela Bignell (Gypsy Girl); and 10-15 years, John Gibbons (Long John Silver).’

 

It wasn’t just Wembley that was celebrating Queen Elizabeth II’s Coronation. There were street parties all across the country. I was 3½ in 1953, growing up on a post-war Council housing estate in St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex. Our Coronation tea party, where nearly everyone came in fancy dress, is one of my earliest memories, and although it is not “Wembley” local history, I will finish off by sharing a couple of pictures from the event with you. 

 

The Blackman Avenue Coronation tea party, June 1953.

 

I was dressed up as a “Chinaman” (echos of Empire?) for the occasion. Judging from the look on my face, not wanting to be photographed, I was not too happy about it! But in the background, you can see the wide grassy open space which ran down the middle of our street, where the tea party was held, and which provided a great place for me and the many other (post-war baby boom) children who lived there to play throughout our childhood.

 

Philip Grant, in fancy dress, June 1953.

 

Will there be as much genuine excitement over the Coronation of King Charles III as there was for that of his mother? I doubt it, but perhaps, 70 years on, I’m getting old and cynical. Some other historian can write about it in future, if they are interested in doing so, as a piece of social history (“The dawn of another new age”, or “The last hurrah of the monarchy”?).

 

If you would like to watch a film produced for Wembley Borough Council to commemorate the way that the Coronation was celebrated in 1953, Brent Archives has a 28-minute silent film, mainly in colour, which is now available to view on the London Screen Archives website LINK.

It begins by showing Civic dignitaries attending services at St John’s Church and Wembley Town Hall, but goes on to cover a whole range of events, including the Kingsbury carnival procession and swimming gala, mentioned in the article. A selection of shops and houses decorated for the Coronation are also shown, and there are a number of sporting events (my favourite is the Tour de Wembley cycle race, from the Town Hall, with a “summit finish” on Fryent Way).

 

Philip Grant.

 

Editor's note for readers who may be puzzled by coverage of events in Kingsbury under a Wembley headline.

In 1953 the Municipal Borough of Wembley included the former Kingsbury Urban District. The Borough of Wembley was abolished in 1965 when it merged with the Borough of Willesden to become the London Borough of Brent.

Ward councillor calls for site meeting and public presentation on the implications of the planning application to build 4 houses in Barham Park

 

 The proposed houses

 

 Cllr Paul Lorber, Liberal Democrat councillor for Sudbury, has sent Brent Council a petition from over 150 people about the controversial planning application LINK to build four 3 storey houses in Barham Park:

I have been asked by local residents and supporters of Barham Park to send in the enclosed petition from over 150 local residents opposed to the plans to build extra houses within Barham Park.

The residents are keen to ensure that the Planning Service takes into account the long standing Brent Council policy of protecting Public Parks and Open spaces irrespective of what ever pre planning application discussions may have taken place behind closed doors.

They are concerned about:

• Over development
• Over intensification  of residential uses in the Park
• Extra traffic entry into the Park by visitors, delivery drivers and scooter food deliveries driving into the Park through an entry point under the Park ownership and close to the path created specifically for walkers.
• This will not be a car free development what ever may be stated on paper as Brent Planning Service does not have the resources to either monitor or enforce this.
• There are environmental issues including impact on mature trees (some subject to TOPs) near the site.
• Loss of further Park land as the applicant is proposing to part of land not currently under his ownership.

For these and other planning reasons the residents are calling on the Planning Service to recommend refusal and for the Planning Committee to refuse this application.

As a local Councillor for the area I request a site meeting and public presentation of the proposal and implication for the Park.

By copy I am requesting that the Parks Service and the Barham Park Charity responds to this application and makes a clear statement about the policy on protecting Public Parks and policy of selling off further land inside a Public Park which this application and proposed development will require.

The deadline for comments on the application 22/4128 is nexy week on Tuesday May 9th although normally comments received after the deadline but beforew an application goes to Pllaning Committee are taken into account. You cna submit comments directly on the Planning Portal or by email. Unfortunately emailed comments are not published so if you want others to see your comments post on to the portal. LINK

 

There are about 30 objections at present.

Brent's new Mayor and a contest for Deputy

Deputy Mayor, Cllr Orleen Hylton, carrying out her civic duties

 

Residents may encounter the Mayor of Brent at various events as well as seeing them chair meetings of Full Council (often with whispered instructions from the Brent CEO who sits beside them) but may not be aware of the full 'job description'. This is taken from Brent Council's website:

The Mayor has many civic and ceremonial responsibilities and has an ambassadorial role as first citizen of the borough.

This means the Mayor will promote Brent and participate in, and help initiate, activities that help the economic, social, cultural and environmental wellbeing of Brent and its residents.

Mayoral duties carried out by the mayor include:

·       chairing Council meetings

·       signing documents under seal

·       conducting citizenship ceremonies

·       hosting civic events

·       attending local events.

During their period of office, the mayor will receive numerous invitations to events/functions in the borough and across London. The role played at these events varies, depending on their nature and the expectations of the organiser.

At the beginning of each municipal year, it is traditional for the mayor to select one or more local charities to support. The mayor’s office will organise a number of events to raise money for these charities and at the end of the mayoral year the proceeds of these events and any donations received will be evenly distributed to the chosen charities. The mayor may choose to establish a Charity Committee with representatives of the charity(ies) to assist and promote the fundraising efforts.

Although the Mayor and Deputy are officially installed at the Council's Annual General Meeting they are effectively elected at the Labour Group Annual General Meeting. At this meeting the current Deputy Mayor is rubber stamped as 'Mayor designate' and there may be an election for Deputy Mayor if more than one candidate comes forward. 

At the Labour Group AGM at Brent Civic Centre next Tuesday, May 9th, Cllr Orleen Hylton, (Preston ward)  current Deputy Mayor, will be put forward as Mayor for 2023-2024.  There will be an election for the Deputy Mayor, which in effect because the Deputy normally goes on to become Mayor the next year, will be an election for the 2024-2025 Mayor.

The candidates  are Cllr Tariq Dar, Cricklewood and Mapesbury Ward, and Cllr Tony Ethapemi, Stonebridge Ward. Both have been councillors since 2018. Their applications, forwarded to Labour councillors ahead of the AGM, include several sections that together have a total limit of 1,000 words, so this is just a summary. Unfortunately the full applications are not publicly available.

Cllr Tariq Dar MBE, emphasises his support for voluntary and community organisations. He is a charismatic leader and stresses his loyalty, resilience and social intelligence. He says that as Mayor he will be fair, consistent and respectful of others.

 

Cllr Tony Ethapemi claims that his professional background in local government and as a lawyer gives him the necessary leadership qualities for the role. These skills will enable him to ensure disciple and decorum in the Council Chamber.

The Brent Council Annual General meeting is on Wednesday May 17th.

Councillors are appointed to different Committees by the Leader of the Council and their attendance is recorded. These are the candidates' records taken from the Brent Council website.