Barry Gardiner opposed Barham Park development in 2021 so why silent in 2023?

 

I am grateful to a Wembley Matters reader for the link he sent to a letter  from Barry Gardiner opposing one of the proposed planning applications for the site in Barham Park, The letter was sent to Gerry Ansell, Brent Council's Head of Planning in May 2021 LINK.

Although the specific application was different (larger and higher) to that approved yesterday, most of the  arguments used still apply. I draw attention to the last line of the letter: 'I would ask that the application be rejected and the use of the land be returned to the people of Wembley in deference to the principle of Titus Barham's bequest.'

The letter:

Planning Application 21/1106  776 and 778 Harrow Road.

I am writing to express my strong personal objection to Planning Application 21/1106 which concerns the former park keepers' houses in Barham Park. I understand that the applicant is seeking to demolish these houses and erect a four storey residential building comprising 9 self-contained flats with roof top terrace and associated access, parking and landscaping.

I originally objected to the sale of the properties in 2010 and I was advised the following year that they were to be leased to a housing association for reuse by families on the Council's housing register. I was therefore appalled when, contrary to assurances, it became apparent that the sale had gone ahead in 2012.

I then objected to Planning  Application 14/2078 in 2014 arguing that the Housing was only ever appropriate on this land as it was built as tied accommodation for the park wardens and it would be totally wrong if the site were to undergo extensive redevelopment, I was therefore pleased when planning permission for application 14/2708* was rejected.

Having seen the proposed plans for this current proposed application, my strong objections to the redevelopment of this site remain. I am very concerned by the height of the new proposed development, which is one-storey higher than the proposals in 2014. I also fear that the inclusion of a roof top terrace on a building within a park, may lead to visitors of the park feeling uncomfortable and overlooked.

Barham Park is extremely important within the local community and has a specific historial significance which appears to be lost on the developer. Barham Park is also home to the war memorial where every year services are held and wreaths laid to remember those who, at their country's call, left all that was dear to them to hazard their lives in the cause of freedom. For all these reasons the Park should be regarded as a special place within the Borough and should be protected from this development.

While I appreciate that it was a council of a different political complexion which originally sold off the existing properties in the Park, the current Council should not allow that negative event to set a precedent for further despoilation. The existing houses and their gardens are within the Barham Park Estate and the Planning Committee are fully aware that this was bequeathed to the people of Wembley in 1937 for their use and enjoyment in perpetuity,

I would ask that the application be rejected and the use of the land be returned to the people of Wembley in deference to the principle of Titus Barham's bequest.

 

*discrepancy in the application reference numbers is in the original letter

Barham Park application approved. Dire implications for protection of our green spaces and validity of Neighbourhood Plans

 

 

Sudbury residents protest in the public gallery - 63 objections and a 160 signature petition

 

 Cllr Saqib Butt in a declaration at the beginning of the meeting said, 'Can I confirm that I am connected with the applicant and near enough all the signatories on the petition on social media' and Cllr Akram said he was declaring the same. * The legal officer confirmed they could take part. Cllr Rita Begum declared that she had received a gift, tickets for the developer's funfair, but confirmed these were below the £50 declaration limit. She might have well have reclused herself because her only participation in the discussion of the application was to vote for it.

 Cllr Paul Lorber, Lib Dem, (Sudbury)  made a decent fist of presenting all the things wrong with the planning application to build 4 three storey houses within Barham Park, replacing 2 small park keeper houses.

Cllr  Tea Benea, Labour (Sudbury) also spoke against the proposal and Cllr Ketan Sheth, Labour (Wembley Central) had his statement also opposing the development read out as he was chairing another meeting. Cllr Benea is a new councillor and Cllr Sheth a veteran who himself is a former chair of Planning Committee. 

Cllr Ketan Sheth said that when he was Chair of Brent Council’s Planning Committee he led on the conversations with residents for setting-up Neighbourhood Plans. Sudbury Town Residents’ Association was the first to engage with the Borough in drawing-up a plan, in consultation with the local community and planning officers. In 2015, the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan was put to voters, and the community, in its area, with more than 900 people voting to accept it, 93% of the total votes cast.

 

Following that the Council then adopted the approved plan, and it remains the relevant part of Brent’s Local Plan policies for the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood, which includes the location for the planning application. A new designation - Local Green Spaces, was introduced in legislation for Neighbourhood Plans. This allowed communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them. The Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan, at policy LGS1, identified four Local Green Spaces, one of which is Barham Park.

 

He said that today, local Green Spaces have the same protection in planning law as Green Belt land and that the Neighbourhood Plan’s green spaces policy BP1 is very clear about the nature of that protection, which applies to Barham Park, stating ‘Any proposals for the re-use or redevelopment of park buildings for residential use (Use Class C3) will not be supported.’

 

776 and 778 Harrow Road are park buildings. Originally, they were built within the park as homes for park-keepers. The proposal in this new planning application is seeks to demolish these park buildings, and redevelop the site to provide four residential townhouses. He recognised that these additional units could be a place for new residents or existing to call home but said it was clear, that this new planning application falls within the type of proposal, which policy BP1 states will not be supported.

 

Cllr Sheth went on to say that he was acutely aware that the current buildings lack any architectural merits; and suggested it is a moot point whether they are fit for habitation. However, he said it would be wrong for the current application to seek to override the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan, unless there is convincing strong evidence to the contrary. To approve the application, in its current form, would be contrary to the Local Green Space policy BP1, which takes precedence over any contrary Brent planning policies, and would undermine the fundamental purpose of this Neighbourhood Plan. He suggested that the application should be reconsidered, and a revised application for a like-for-like replacement be encouraged.

When the agent for the developer spoke he said he would focus on the technical aspects of the proposal and when questioned said he knew nothing about the covenant on the site. Rather extraordinary.

One councillor on the Planning Committee had to be put right by the chair when he told an objector that the proposed houses would reduce the council's waiting list for council homes - they are not council homes, nor likely to be affordable at private sale.

 

 

Even more extraordinary though was the senior planning officer who went round in circles about the weight to be given to the Sudbury Neighbourhood Plan, the Brent Core Strategy, the Local Plan and the London Plan.

Eventually he said that all were relevant but you can ask, 'what harm would it cause if you break it?' and if the harm was less then go ahead.

This raises obvious questions about whether Neighbourhood Plans, despite all the work put into them by residents, are worth the paper they are written on.

There was an Alice in Wonderland discussion about whether buildings in parks are park buildings...

Clearly our green spaces are not in safe hands.

My impressionwas that Cllr Collymore did not vote (I was sitting behind her) but I have since been told she claims to have voted in favour along with her Labour colleagues. Cllr Michael Maurice (Conservative) voted against.

Cllr Muhammed Butt was in the room when I arrived but left before the meeting was due to start. In fact it started 30 minutes late due to technical problems.

Probably that was the least of the problems connected with this application which has succeeded at the 11th attempt but the covenant may still be the elephant in the room.

*Updated after listening to the recording of the meeting

Crunch time for defence of Brent's Green spaces at Planning Committee this evening

 

The application by property developer and funfair owner George Irvin to build four 3 storey houses in Barham Park comes to Brent Planning Committee this evening.  There are fears that if this application is approved (and planning officers recommend approval) that it will set a precedent for building on other Brent green spaces where there are existing buildings.

As documented by Wembley Matters the application has been surrounded by controversy:

• The failure of Trustees of the Barham Park Trust Committee to make any comment or act on the restricted covenant on the site
• Failure of the Trustees/Council to secure a professional valuation of the covenant
  
• The make-up of the Trust Committee chaired by Muhammed Butt leader of the Council and consisting of members of his Cabinet with no other representation
  
• Irvin's offer of free tickets to his funfair to councillors. Rita Begum, a member of the Planning Committee took advantage of this
• Long-standing concerns about the make-up of the Planning Committee that is alleged to include   Muhammed Butt's  brother Cllr Saqib Butt and his brother-in-law Cllr Ajmal Akram. The Chair is the partner of the Deputy Leader of the Council. 
• The failure of planning offices to answer an allegation of misrepresentation of planning guidance made by Philip Grant LINK
• Misleading information in the notification of the meeting to residents which said that attendance was restricted to on-line. Though corrected that was later repeated on the council's website
• The publication  of the Supplementary Report on the application after 5pm on Friday giving no time for new requests to speak at tonight's meeting
• The failure of North Brent MP, Barry Gardiner, to intervene despite making defence of Barham Park a major local issue in the 2010 General and local election.

The Planning Committeee Meeting is in the Conference Hall at Brent Civic Centre at 6pm or you can attend online HERE.  

There are several remarks on the planning portal regarding the difficulties many residents have had downloading documents and being timed out. Clearly accessibility is central to proper democratic participation. Not helped today by this announcement:

Marsh family quick off the mark as always. Cheerio to Johnson.

Here’s a rousing new 🎶 version of the convict folk classic “Botany Bay” adapted as a cheerio to @BorisJohnson.

If you like it, you can show your appreciation by pre-ordering our NEW SINGLE out next Friday for #RefugeeWeek called “See Your Face Again”
👉 https://t.co/Wpim6A61yY pic.twitter.com/SaOOAkM5S9

— MarshFamilySongs (@MarshSongs) June 10, 2023

Last minute Supplementary Report on Barham Park Planning Application - Brent Planning Officers still recommend approval. Barham family submission disregarded.

 

 

A Supplementary Report was published this afternoon by Brent Planning Officers regarding the application by George Irvin to build 4 three storey houses within the park on the site currently occupied by a modest pair of two storey houses. The Planning Committee in at 6pm on Monday June 12th. The public can attend in-person or on-line.

Some of the Supplementary Report is concerned with the actual boundaries of the site followed by a consideration of some of the 'further representations' that have been reported on this website:

 A number of further comments have been received in objection to the proposals since the publication of the committee report including comments from 4 people who commented previously. In total (including previously reported and new objections), 46 residents objected to the proposal in addition to the petition with 160 signatures, the Sudbury Court Residents’ Association, Wembley Central and Alperton Residents’ Association and Cllr Lorber. An objection has now also been received from the Brent Parks Forum. The objections include some issues previously raised and some additional concerns.

The Supplementary Report requires close scrutiny as the wording is often unclear or ambiguous. The officers continue to recommend that the application is approved and state that the covenant on the park is not a material planning consideration. They do not refer to the Barham family's submission. In my view they fail to adequately answer Philip Grant's allegation of misrepresentation of planning policies.

Philip Grant emailed the head of planning this evening having seen the Supplementary Report:

Dear Mr Ansell,

Further to my email to you last Tuesday morning, 6 June, attaching a copy of my objection comment about the Committee Report on the 776 & 778 Harrow Road application, I am frankly disgusted by the response in the Supplementary Report, which has appeared on Brent's website this evening.

This is my further comment on application 22/4128 this evening:

'I have just read the Supplementary Report, published on Brent Council's website this evening.

It is totally unacceptable that the objection comments which I made on 5 June, about the misrepresentation in the Committee Report over the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan policies. should be "dealt with" merely with an Officer Response of:

'This is discussed within paragraphs 5-16 of the main report.'

My comment had explained in detail why paragraph 13, in particular, was incorrect.

If Planning Officers are not prepared, or not able, to explain why Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan policies LGS1 & 2 and BP1 should not override the other policies which they rely on to support this application, then the application should not proceed to a decision at the Planning Committee meeting on 12 June.'

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.

 

 This is a link to the 'main report' LINK  A flavour is provided by the extract below which made my head hurt when I tried to grapple with it!

Paragraph 13

It is time for Barry Gardiner to speak out on Barham Park and match his 2010 pledge to protect it from development

 

Yesterday I tweeted Barry Gardiner MP to ask him to intervene in the Barham Park issue where George Irvin has applied to build four 3 storey houses in a site in the park. The existing pair of  modest houses were originally for park workers so had a connection with the park.

Today an election leaflet from 2010, when the General Election and local elections were held on the same day,  has come to light that shows that 13 years ago the Brent North MP made an election issue of what he claimed were Lib Dem plans to build on the park:

 

 

Apparently the then Brent Council Executive (Lib Dem-Conservative Coalition) had rejected the proposal to build in the park.* 

The question now is, 'Why is Barry Gardiner silent on plans going forward to Planning Committee to build houses in the park? He could make his views known to the public and it is open to him to make representations at the Planning Committee. He could even write to the Trustees of Barham Park, chaired by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt, to ask them to fulfill their obligation to protect the park and  enforce the covenant protecting the park from development. 

I presume Barry Gardiner still believes what he said in the 2010 leaflet, about protecting the park  - surely it cannot be just  something he said  at election time?

 

 

* In 2010 Barry Gardiner was attacking Liberal Democrat and Conservative councllors who decided to use the two empty houses in the park for decanting purposes as part of the total rebuild of the 215 crumbling flats in Roundtree and Saunderton Road council estate on the opposite side from Barham Park.

Barry Gardiner was opposing the sale of the two houses to  the Notting Hill Housing Association and claimed that Brent Council was planning to build a massive 20 storey tower (see leaflet image) block in Barham Park.

In reality I understand the then Executive was advised that Notting Hill was interested in the two houses and wanted to redevelop the site for a "small" number of flats to help with the decant while the Estate was being rebuilt. When Notting Hill overstepped the mark and proposed a block of 14 flats on the site they were turned down and the proposed sale to them was aborted.

 

Brent Renters launch #NotAnotherWinter campaign to tackle dangerous housing

 

The demonstration earlier today (Photo: London Renters Union)

 

 

From London Renters Union (Brent) 

 

Wednesday 7 June: Brent renters from the LRU today launched the #NotAnotherWinter campaign calling on the council to tackle the epidemic of unsafe housing across the borough. The campaign began with a protest outside Sathy Property Services NW10 4SY, responsible for letting out housing in a state of serious disrepair to two LRU members. The union is calling on Brent council to invest in housing safety and to take proactive enforcement action against dangerous landlords so that no one faces another winter of damp and mould.

Brent council estimates that around 10,000 privately rented homes in the borough present a serious health hazard. While properties remain in poor conditions, this hasn’t stopped landlords raising rents. Although Brent has the second highest level of poverty of any London borough, median monthly rents are now up to £1400, 57% of incomes. Last year, Brent had the highest rate of eviction of any local authority in England and Wales.

Brent Council has a responsibility to identify and deal with dangerous housing. But current plans for a selective landlord licensing scheme do not go far enough in tackling the scale of the problem, only addressing a small proportion of the estimated 10,000 hazards.

Damp and mould is a national issue of public health. Citizens Advice reports that 2.7 million households face damp, mould, or excessively cold homes. The NHS spends an estimated £1.4 bn per year treating patients with housing-related health conditions.

LRU members are calling on Brent council to invest in housing safety by expanding its enforcement team, inspecting more properties, and by fining landlords who profit from unsafe accommodation more swiftly and more often. Members are inviting local residents to sign a petition in support of the campaign. Earlier this year, the Hackney branch of the LRU won a similar £400,000 investment in housing safety.

 

Farhiya, LRU Member, says:

I'm paying £1900 a month for a two-bedroom flat but my house has had leaks, damp and mould for two years now. It's so bad that it's giving my children asthma. We've had to go to the doctors many times. But when I spoke to the landlord, he just ignored us. I just want my children to feel safe in their home. It shouldn't be this difficult to get our repairs done.

Aminah*, LRU Member, says:  

The damp and mould in my flat is so bad that I've developed asthma and serious lung problems. I've also tripped over in the bathroom because the floor gets completely covered with water from the leaks. Even my carer does not want to come round to the flat anymore because the damp and the leaks are so dangerous. I've complained to the agency so many times but they just refuse to deal with the problems. When the council came round to look at the problems, all I was told was to wipe off the mould.

Jacob Wills, Organiser at London Renters Union, says:

 Nobody should have to pay for a home that makes them sick. But thousands of people across Brent live in housing that presents a serious risk to their health. In the wake of the death of Awaab Ishak, it’s clear that the consequences of unsafe housing can be deadly. As long as councils fail to take swift and robust enforcement action, it will be more profitable for landlords to let out dangerous accommodation than to properly maintain their properties. The council urgently needs a credible plan to deal with the 10,000 unsafe homes across Brent. We are calling on the council to invest in housing safety and agree to a concrete timeline to ensure no one faces another winter of damp and mould.

 

How will the Mayor's new London Planning Guidance impact on Brent?

From the London Mayor

 

The Mayor of London has adopted four new pieces of London Plan Guidance (LPG) that will help build a better London for everyone, delivering a cleaner, greener, healthier, and more sustainable London. 

This suite of Design and Characterisation LPGs includes: 

·       Characterisation and Growth Strategy LPG ·       Small Site Design Codes LPG ·       Optimising Site Capacity: A Design-led Approach LPG ·       Housing Design Standards LPG

These LPG provide further guidance on the implementation of London Plan 2021 policies, including: 

·       Policy D1 (London’s form, character and capacity for growth) ·       Policy D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led) ·       Policy D6 (Housing quality and standards) ·       Policy D9 (Tall buildings) ·       Policy H2 (Small sites) among others

All of the areas are relevant for Brent but probably the most important, given Brent Council's activities in building dense and high, is 'Optimising Site Capacity' although it will also be interesting to see how Brent characterises our borough now, after recent developments in Alperton, Wembley Park and South Kilburn and those such as Neasden that are in the pipeline.

 

EXTRACT

 

1. "Good growth across London requires development to optimise site capacity, rather than maximising density. This means responding to the existing character and distinctiveness of the surrounding context and balancing the capacity for growth, need for increased housing supply, and key factors such as access by walking, cycling and public transport, alongside an improved quality of life for Londoners. Capacity-testing should be the product of the design-led approach, and not the driver."

 

 LINKS TO DOCUMENTS

·       Characterisation and Growth Strategy LPG

·       Small Site Design Codes LPG

·       Optimising Site Capacity: A Design-led Approach LPG

·       Housing Design Standards LPG