Following yesterday's Planning Committee meeting Philip Grant has sent the following letter to Gerry Ansell, Brent Council's Head of Planning. (Illustrations are for the benefit of readers amd were not sent to Mr Ansell)
Dear Mr Ansell, I watched and listened to yesterday evening's
Planning Committee meeting when application 22/4128 was considered, and there
was an important planning policy point which was not explained. I would ask
that you do not issue a consent letter on this application until this matter
has been resolved. I will set that point out, in bold type, below,
and would ask you to reply to it promptly, please, with copies to the Chair of
the Planning Committee, the councillors who are probably as puzzled by this
issue as I am, and the Chair of the Sudbury Town Residents' Association. Cllr. Dixon and several other committee members
asked Officers for clarification over the relative importance of the Sudbury
Town Neighbourhood Plan policies in considering the application.
Slide of site in Barham park displayed at yesterday's Planning Committee Meeting
Paragraph 30 of the National Policy Framework on Neighbourhood Plans
It was clear that Officers accepted that the
application site was within the Barham Park Local Green Space, so that the
Neighbourhood Plan policies LGS1, LGS2 and BP1 applied. Several other more
general Local Plan policies were also relevant. No answer appeared to be given, by either of the
Planning Officers who spoke at the meeting, to the question raised over whether
policy BP1 took precedence over the more general policies. However, at the end
of a long answer by your Development Management Manager he appeared to state
that what mattered, more than all of those policies, was that the application
would not cause harm. Planning applications have to be determined 'in
accordance with the relevant planning national, strategic, local and
neighbourhood policy framework.' What is the planning policy, relevant to application 22/4128,
which dictates that if an application would not cause harm, that overrides
policies such as those in the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan?
Please provide the
full text of that policy, as well as its source and policy number, in reply to
this email. Thank you. Best wishes,
Philip Grant
Philip adds for Wembley Matters readers:
NOTE: '...The councillors who are probably as puzzled by this issue as I am', who I copied my email to, were the two Sudbury Ward councillors, Paul Lorber (Lib Dem) and Teo Benea (Labour), who spoke against the application at the meeting, Ketan Sheth (Wembley Central, Labour) the Ward councillor whose written statement against the application was read out at the meeting, and Michael Maurice (Kenton, Conservative) who as a member of the Planning Committee clearly understood the arguments involved over planning policy, and voted against the application mainly on the grounds that it went against Neighbourhood Plan policy BP1 (Above image).
There was three-way cross-party support that the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan and its policy BP1 should be upheld, yet this did not affect the votes of the seven Labour members of the Planning Committee.
Detectives investigating a fatal stabbing at a residential
address in Wembley are appealing for help from the public to trace a man
they wish to speak with.
Keven Antonio Lourenco De Morais, 23, who is from Wembley, is wanted for questioning in relation to the murder.
Anyone who sees De Morais or who knows where he is should dial 999.
Detective Chief Inspector Linda Bradley said: “Keven Antonio Lourenco De Morais is a Brazilian National with links across London.
“If
you think you have seen him or know where he is please call police on
999 immediately – it is important that you don’t attempt to approach
him.”
Police were called by London Ambulance Service [LAS] at
09:59hrs on Tuesday, 13 June to reports of a stabbing at Neeld Crescent,
Wembley.
Officers, LAS and London’s Air Ambulance attended. At
the scene two women, aged 27 and 28, were found with
knife injuries.
The 27-year-old woman died at the scene despite best efforts of emergency services.
The 28-year-old woman was taken by LAS to a north London hospital where her injuries are not life threatening.
A
male, and a female, no further details, were arrested on suspicion of
murder. They were taken to north London police stations where they
remain at this time.
Enquiries are underway to inform the victim’s next of kin. A post mortem examination will be scheduled in due course.
A crime scene remains in place.
A
murder investigation has been launched by detectives from the Met’s
Specialist Crime Command led by Detective Chief Inspector Linda Bradley.
Anyone who witnessed this incident but has not yet spoken with police should call 101 or Tweet @MetCC quoting 2380/13JUN.
To remain 100% anonymous call the independent charity Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111 or visit Crimestoppers-uk.org.
A resident of the King's Drive/Pilgrims Way estate has written to Barnhill councillor, Kathleen Fraser, about the impact of the curtailment of the 206 bus at Brent Park on event days. Thirty minutes ago I had to inform people waiting in the heat at The Paddocks stop that there were no buses due to a concert at the Stadium.
As the writer points out we were promised that an advantage of North End Road being rejoined to Bridge Road was that the 206 could avoid the main stadum area by using North End Road on event days.
Dear Councillor Fraser
I am writing to you with regard to the 206 bus route which, for many living in Kings Drive, The Paddocks, Salmon Street areas, is a real boon. That is until there is an event scheduled at Wembley Stadium when no service is provided after 11.00/noon.
I believe I am correct in saying that in Brent's local plan for our area it was stated that the opening of North End Road to allow traffic to and from Bridge Road would mean that the 206 would be able to serve our area on event days.
The changes to the road layout have been completed and yet we are still deprived of our bus service.
Could I ask you to please enquire as to why this is the case and when we may expect a service to run regardless of events at the stadium.
May I point out that the suspension of this service disproportionately affects our most vulnerable residents - the elderly, disabled, parents with small children and women travelling home alone at night.
This week commencing Sunday 11 June we will be without a bus on no fewer than 5afternoons and evenings.
The bus company seems to suspend the service at the earliest time possible, even when traffic is light.
I would be most grateful for your help in this matter. Residents have been putting up with this for far too long.
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
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
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:
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' LINKA flavour is provided by the extract below which made my head hurt when I tried to grapple with it!
