Brent Council challenged on apparent attempt to restrict public information on the Barham Park restrictive covenant

 

The elephant in the room at the Planning Committee that approved George Irvin's planning application to build 4 three storey houses in Barham Park was the restrictive covenant on the two small park workers' houses on the site.

'Not a planning issue' residents were told by officers as they consigned the poor elephant to invisibility.

Perhaps not but the elephant was perhaps a fly in George Irvin's or Muhammed Butt's ointment.

Now a Barham Park Strategic Property Review, including the covenant, is to take place with Muhammed Butt heading it up as Leader of Brent Council. He is also Chair of the Barham park Trustees charged with preserving and enhancing the park for the benefit of residents in the spirit of the Titus Barham bequest. 

Unfortunately residents who hoped to see the elephant properly dealt with in an open and accountable manner may be kept in the dark as a restriction has been placed on publication and thus public discussion of any proposal:

Barham Park Strategic Property Review

By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Explanation of Reasons

• By Virtue of Paragraph 3

  Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

  Condition:

  Information falling within paragraph 3 above is not exempt information by virtue of that paragraph if it is required to be registered under-(a)the Companies Acts (as defined in section 2 of the Companies Act 2006); (b)the Friendly Societies Act 1974; (c)the Friendly Societies Act 1992; (d)the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1965 to 1978; (e)the Building Societies Act 1986; or (f)the Charities Act 1993

  Information is not exempt information if it relates to proposed development for which the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission pursuant to regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992

  Information which-(a)falls within any of paragraphs 1 to 7 above; and (b)is not prevented from being exempt by virtue of paragraph 8 or 9 above, is exempt information if and so long, as in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information

Cllr Paul Lorber is challening the claim in the restriction that:

....the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information

In a letter to Brent Council officers he says:

I note the latest Forward Plan mentions a number of Reports coming to the above meeting including on issues of the Covenant, Architects Report and Governance.

There is a suggestion that some of the information may be exempt and not provided in the public reports. 

As you are aware there is a great deal of public interest and concern in relation to these matters. 

In relation to all the matters to be reported on it is clear that the Public Interest in disclosing the information outweighs any public interest in maintains the exemption.

In view of this I trust that you will ensure that all information is published in full in all the reports to be presented to the meeting (including any information & advice given in pre meetings) on which any recommendations or decisions will be based.

If any information is to be withheld please provide a list of this information and the grounds on which it is withheld and the justification why the public interest withholding it outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. 

Please confirm that this will be done.

Mumbai Junction site: a record of floods and accidents that Brent Council doesn't appear to know about

 

 Recorded 9th August 2021

 The applicant denied all knowledge of flooding at 231 Watford Road and last week's Planning Committee when the Mumbai Junction plannin application was approved. The above video has been sent to planning officers as they need to be awate of the real situation.

A resident writes:

There are usually 3 or 4 event like this per year when the drainage manhole on Sudbury Court Drive near the junction with Bengeworth Road blows out due to a lack of capacity in the surface water drainage systems locally. The water runs down hill to the roundabout and across the road towards 23 Watford Road. Thames Water are often contacted via the council to resolve.

Officers also appeared to minimise the number of traffic accidents on roads in the area. Twitter tells a different story.

 

 

 

Hyde tenants on Stonebridge, hit by huge faulty energy bills, put forward their demands

Some of the residents faced with massive bills

Residents of the Hyde Housing Company's development in Stonebridge are in despair over huge gas bills that have put many tenants in arrears with no hope of being able to pay.

Hyde boasted of the energy efficiency of the district heating network that supplies the homes but this appears not to be reflected in residents' bills.

The situation has left residents accumulating arrears of between £1,500 and £3,000 plus.

 

The energy network is supplied by Switch2 and supplies heating and hot water to more than 50 homes. Tenants reported erratic billing and Switch2 admitted that 22 homes had been given estimated bills because their meters were not working properly. Tenants think it is many more homes than this.

As reported before on Wembley Matters heating networks are classed as commercial when they have a shared system, rather than domestic when the flat or house has its own boiler. This means that residents  served by a heating network do not benefit from the energy price cap that applies only to domestic customers.

Residents told me that their complaints about erratic and inaccurate billing have been passed backwards and forwards between Hyde Housing and Switch2, leaving them with nowhere to go to resolve the problem.

The energy supplier is procured by Hyde and tenants have no say regarding the supplier and were not consulted when Hyde recently renewed the contract, despite high levels of of dissatisfaction.  Residents are able to seek the best deal for their electricity supplier.

Some residents stopped heating their social housing properties because of the high bills, putting their own health and that of their children at risk.

Some of the Hyde social housing

Hyde told residents in an email:

Hyde only passes on the unit cost of the heat per kw/hr (plus 5% VAT), the utility provider's standing charge) plus 5% VAT and Switch 2's metering and billing costs (plus 20% VAT). Hyde's energy costs went up significantly in 2022 due to the conflict in Ukraine when both electricity and gas cost increased due to shortage of supply and other market forces. Hyde does not make any surplus on these costs and there are no 'hidden' charges.

The last sentence appears to refer to the practice of some housing providers that get a percentage of bills back from energy providers that they procure - thus having a motivation to support higher bills.

The Standing Charge on the bills shown to me by one tenant was £8.87 a month previously and reduced to £7.37 via the new contract from  July. That is an annual standing charge of £88.44 for heating and hot water before any metering charge.  In contrast OVO energy's gas standing charge for domestic customers is £5.82 per month, £69.84 annually.

Some residents said their standing charge had been much higher and said that Hyde failed to give them full information about the heating system at the beginning of their let. 

I turned to Trust Pilot to see how Switch 2 fared in terms of customer experience.

 

 The reviews are mixed but this very recent review seems to reflect the experience of Hyde tenants:

This company needs to be honest and take the comments and complaints of the customers seriously. Switch2 company is the most ineffective and expensive energy provider in the UK. They are ripping off and send brutally high charges to customers. In terms of customer services and dealing with inquiries of the customers they are the worst.

Date of experience: 05 August 2023

And this:

They have increased standard unit price by 350% and increased a standing charge from 40p to around 1 pound a day meaning that in average I would have to pay 700£ just for standing charge a year that's no gas usage included. Not even given the fact that the current unit price at 31p is three times bigger than current average of around 7-10p per kWh

Date of experience: 31 July 2023

 

The Hyde tenants have decided to put a number of demands to the Hyde and Switch2:

1. Switch 2 to check ALL meters (not just those identified by Switch2) and replace where necessary, providing Smart Meters to be provided for all residents.

2. Because of the unreliability of billing, faulty meters and administrative errors Switch2 to write off accumulated customers' debt and start the new contract with a clean slate.

3. Hyde to consider changing the heating network supplier in consulation with residents.

Changes to 79 and 83 bus routes from August 26th

From TfL

 From Saturday 26 August, we are making some changes to our services on bus routes 79 and 83 around Alperton.

Route 79 will no longer serve stops between Alperton station and Alperton, Sainsbury's. Instead, it will be extended to Stonebridge Park station via Mount Pleasant and Beresford Avenue.

Buses on this route will continue to run every 12 minutes during the daytime Monday to Saturdays, and every 15 minutes during the evenings and all day on Sundays.

Route 83 will be extended from Alperton station to Alperton, Sainsbury's.

Buses on this route will continue to run every eight minutes during the daytime Monday to Saturdays, every 10 minutes during the daytime on Sundays and every 12 minutes during the evening on all days.

For travel between Alperton station and Alperton, Sainsbury's, use newly extended route 83 or existing route 224.

We will keep these changes under review to ensure we continue to offer the best service we can. For more information on these and other service changes, visit our bus changes page.

Children's activites at the Welsh Harp (Barnet end) starting on Sunday

 

 

I saw a lot of delighted children and parents leaving the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre today after a school holiday session, One parent, said it was 'Awesome. I didn't even know the reservoir existed.'

The above events are at the other end of the Harp and go beyond the summer holiday. 

Sign up for these FREE nature workshops for kids!  Happening at the Welsh Harp. First event this Sunday! Sign up: http://tinyurl.com/WHtreekids

 

Join us for FOUR FREE summer workshops for children at the Welsh Harp (Brent Reservoir)! SIGN UP FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING WORKSHOPS!

 West Hendon Community Hub Marsh Drive London NW9 7QQ

1. Let's Create a Nature Diary

Date: August 13th, Time: 2-5pm

Calling all young adventurers and nature enthusiasts! In this immersive workshop, children aged 6-14 will get the chance to create their very own nature diaries. They will explore the Welsh Harp's diverse ecosystem, observe plants and animals, and document their findings through drawings, descriptions, and personal reflections. Encourage your child to connect with nature and nurture their artistic talents in this engaging and hands-on experience.

2. Forest Bathing & Believing

Date: August 19th, Time: 2-4pm

Immerse your child in the magic of nature and inspire their belief in the wonders of the natural world. Through mindful forest bathing techniques, storytelling, and imaginative activities, children aged 6-14 will experience the healing power of nature and discover their own connections to the environment. Join us for a unique workshop that nurtures belief, imagination, and a deep appreciation for the Welsh Harp's serene forest.

3. Litter Scavenger Hunt

Date: August 27th, Time: 2-4pm

Calling all eco-warriors! Join us for an exciting and educational litter scavenger hunt at the Welsh Harp. Children aged 6-14 will become environmental detectives, exploring the area and uncovering hidden litter in a fun and interactive way. They will learn about the impact of litter on our environment and participate in a rewarding cleanup activity. Let's empower our children to make a positive change and keep the Welsh Harp beautiful!

4. Exploring Nature through Imagination & Writing

Date: September 10th, Time: 2-4pm

Unleash your child's creativity and curiosity as we embark on a journey of exploring nature through imagination and writing. Through interactive activities and guided exercises, children aged 6-14 will learn to observe the natural world around them and use their imagination to create captivating stories inspired by the Welsh Harp's scenic beauty. Let their creativity flourish in this enchanting workshop!

The boring stuff:

• All children must be accompanied by a parent/guardian
• Please dress children sensibly and for outdoors - that means waterproof gear, sunscreen, sturdy shoes etc
• Please register for one or more of the workshops using the 'more options' tab under 'When and Where'.
• If you have any queries or have trouble registering please email friendsofwelshharp@gmail.com
  

Residents urged to write opposing threat to Welsh Harp SSSI

  Route of new bridge across north marsh wetlands as they were in 1990s (IMAGE: COOL OAK)

Ben Watt, founder of the the Cool Oak group (Welsh Harp) has written a disturbing blog post LINK about the proposed 200 metre long steel and concrete footbridge across the Welsh Harp from the private estate that has replaced the West Hendon estate. 

This goes straight through the north marsh threatening breeding species and may also endanger the area's  SSSI (Site of Special Scientic Interest Status).

Ben Watt points out that this undermines the Joint Vision for the Welsh Harp that Barnet Council and Brent Council and other agencies have recently signed.

Brent Parks Forum is urging everyone to write to Barnet Council along the lines below:

Email Councillor Alan Schneiderman, Cabinet Member for Environment & Climate Change for Barnet Council at cllr.a.schneiderman@barnet.gov.uk, and Anne Clarke,  London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden at anne.clarke@london.gov.uk

Dear Cllr Schneiderman and Cllr Clarke,

We object to the new bridge due to be built over the North Marsh of the Welsh Harp by Barratt PLC. We understand Barnet Council has statutory powers under s.97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to stop this. The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 clearly states: "It is an offence to intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage the listed features of a SSSI or disturb its listed fauna, without reasonable excuse".

Unless the bridge is cancelled or the route altered, all of the signatories to the newly published Joint Vision for the Welsh Harp - which includes Barnet Council - will be party to the partial destruction of one of the oldest and most famous SSSIs in the UK.

Sign off with full address for your objections to be lodged with the Councillor.  Keep a record of the email. 

It is also important that Brent Council, as a signatory to the Joint Vision, also opposes the plans.

619 bed student towers in Wembley Park approved. Prospect House double towers in Stonebridge Park approved

 Student towers from Empire Court, North End Road

Consented towers are the blue images

Despite opposition from nearby residents who said they had not been consulted and would lose light and suffer ASB from students, the planning application for 619 bed student accomodation in Watking Road, Wembley Park, was passed by Brent Planning Committee last night. The committee were told there was demand for such accommodation from London colleges as well as the Football Business University in Wembley.  They were also told the provision would relieve pressure on other accommodation including HMOs  and would deliver the equivalent ot 247 units towards Brent's Housing target. Officers argued that students would support the local night-time and cultural economy.

 

A double tower on the site of Prospect House on the North Circular Road was also approved. The site is on a flood plain and framed by the River Brent and the Grand Union Canal, as well as the polluted North Circular Road.

The site has some dubious history worth reading in this article by Alison Hopkins. LINK

UPDATED: Decision making shambles on Mumbai Junction planning application leads to deferral

 

 

 

 

UPDATE

 This is the official one sentence Minute of the Deferral Decision:

On the basis that a majority of Members on the Committee had indicated they were minded to refuse the application, it was agreed to defer a final decision to a future Committee meeting in order to  enable a further report to be provided addressing the indicative reasons outlined as the basis for refusal, relating to affordable housing and viability, the height and design of the scheme  in relation the surrounding area and whether the development of the site had been optimised  in order to maximise the potential planning benefits.

After more than two hours of discussion, possibly a record, at the end of Brent's Planning Committee's consideration of the Mumbai Junction application, only Chair Matt Kelcher and Vice Chair Saqib Butt (Council Leader Muhammed Butt's brother) voted to approve the planning application. The other six councillors voted to reject the application.

Rejecting an application against the advice of planning officers is highly unusual and usually results in warnings of costly appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and the likelihood of losing the case if the reasons for rejection are not sustainable in planning terms.

This is what happened last night when the members of the committee who had voted against had difficulty in articulating their reasons for rejection. In one case their reasons were also in conflict, with most members against the bulk of the design while Cllr Liz Dixon wanted the building to be bigger, claiming that increased height could enable affordable housing to be included in the development.  It wasn't a conservation area so why not build higher? Tower Block Tatler watch out - you have a rival!

Councillors'  concerns over the lack of affordable housing in the development were answered by officers in terms of two viability reports that, despite different figures, claimed that the development would not be financially viable if affordable housing was in the mix. As it was the developer would only return a profit of 13% against an industry standard of 17.5%

Interventions by the Head of Planning and a senior planning officer stated that the reasons given for rejection would not be sufficient to win an appeal and could incur costs on the council, were accompanied by a suggestion that instead of rejecting the application, the committee should defer it. This was taken up with relief by a shaken Cllr Kelcher who sought to persuade his committee members that this would be the best approach: officers would return with a new report that would address some of their concerns at a subsequent meeting.

One by one the councillors who had voted against the application agreed to deferral, although it was hard to see what could be changed in order to satisfy the critics who were concerned about the impact of the develoment on the wellbeing of local residents (including traffic), the design being out of character with the local suburban area, the height (2 different views) and environmental concerns - as well as the lack of affordable housing.

There were several public speakers the first of whom was ex Labour and Conservative councillor Wilhelmina Mitchell-Murray who asked, 'Is Brent Council there for the residents or for the developer?'

Cllr Bajwa (Northwick Park) opposed the development citing environmental issues, access to parks, parking and traffic. There was nothing in the application for local people.

Cllr Collymore (Northwick Park) who was only supposed to answer questions from fellow councillors became very angry and seemed to suggest that the commitee were letting down the Labour Group (I can't be sure so please check the video above that begins with her intevention). She said that the way Cllr Kelcher was behaving meant that the decision would not go in favour of her residents who paid Council Tax.

Cllr Kennelly in his submission emphasised the importance of the hospitality industry and the continuation of a hospitality venture on the Mumbai Junction/John Lyon site. He said that the application offered nothing in terms of afforable housing which should be a council priority.

Cllr Lorber (Sudbury) said that the committee should have had a site meeting with residents. The developer had paid £2,000 for a pre-application meeting with committee members but residents were unable to speak to them on site. He spoke of 'devious moves'.  Cllr Kelcher reacted angrily saying that that the pre-application meeting was part of the normal process and said that the way Lorber had raised it was 'Trumpian'. He gave an assurance that the decision on the application would be madse in accordance with guidance.

The applicant, the owner of the Mumbai Junction, said it was a family run business that for various reasons including ageing and illness in the family, they had dcided to discontinue. Despite looking busy they had never had the current level of difficulty in running the business until now. He rejected Cllr Maurice's suggestion that he was using covid as an excuse.

Twitter was busy during the meeting with one person tweeting that information given on traffic accidents by officer was wrong: '12 single RTAs in the last 12 months. Road rage every day at the exit of the roundabout' and 'at least 3 vehicles in the last few years went straight on the roundabout (literally) and a lady died in an RTA 50 yards away. Officers do your job properly, speak to residents.'

Cllr Collymore's references to the Labour Group perhaps reveals misunderstanding. The Planning Committee is supposed to be non-political in its quasi-judicial role and members are not whipped. The Labour Group should play no part.

Or perhaps it is not a misunderstanding and just revealing.