Thursday 5 September 2024

Mega re-development site for South Kilburn to maximise site capacity

 From Brent Council

 

Blake Court

 

Austen House and Blake Court

We are excited to announce the proposed integration of the Austen and Blake sites with the neighbouring MWD site (Masefield House, Wordsworth House, Dickens House, Kilburn Open Space, and Carlton Vale Infant School), a pivotal step in maximizing site capacity and enhancing project viability.

Initially conceived as separate schemes, these sites are now being considered as a single, cohesive redevelopment effort aimed at delivering a transformative impact on the local community.

Project Vision

This combined redevelopment aims to create a vibrant, sustainable, and inclusive community. The proposed plans will introduce:

  • mix of new residential units
  • Community facilities
  • Green spaces, fostering a dynamic urban environment that caters to the needs of existing and future residents.

Design and Sustainability

Leading architectural firm Karakusevic Carson Architects along with the London Borough of Brent are spearheading the design efforts. The integration of Austen and Blake with the MWD site will ensure a seamless blend of modern architecture, sustainable practices, and community-oriented spaces.

Key design elements include:

  • Diverse mix of housing tenures, including affordable units, to accommodate South Kilburn residents.
  • Thoughtfully designed public spaces and green areas that encourage social interaction and foster a sense of community.
  • Preservation of mature trees and implementation of green building practices to minimize environmental impact.

The redevelopment will also include the construction of a replacement primary school, providing state-of-the-art educational facilities for children aged 3-11. The school will feature provisions for a nursery and support for children with special educational needs, ensuring an inclusive learning environment.

Community Engagement

We are committed to involving the local community throughout the redevelopment process. Regular consultations and feedback sessions will be held in due course to ensure that the project aligns with the aspirations and needs of the residents.

Timescales

The planning application for the combined Austen and Blake and MWD site redevelopment is anticipated to be submitted in the first quarter of 2025. The development will be phased, with the first phase expected to be completed by late 2028.

Stay tuned for more updates as we embark on this exciting journey together.

 

A South Kilburn resident notes:

Over a 100 tenants are still living in the 5 buildings  and are waiting to be decanted. The council cannot develop the scheme until every building is empty.

Currently the demolition notice for Blake Court is due to expire by June 2025 so I assume the Council will need to rehouse the  remaining tenants as soon as possible in order to demolish it.


The replacement school for Kilburn Park Junior and Carlton Vale Infants, as a primary school, may prove controversial, particularly in terms of viable pupil numbers.


Barham Park Trust Committee moves to revise charitable purposes to allow for income boosting activities

 

Barham Park Studios - ACAVA

 

The Barham Park Trust Committee (made up solely of Brent Labour Cabinet Members) will approach the Charity Commission to widen the Trust's purposes. A report to the Committee that meets on Tuesday September 10th LINK  states:

The Trust's charitable purposes, primarily to serve public recreation, restrict broader activities that can generate revenue, limiting potential income.

Earlier proposals for the park buildings that included a boutique hotel and a small supermarket aroused local opposition as did the building of four houses on the site inside the park, currently occupied by two park workers' houses.

The Trust has realised that it cannot get full vacant possesion of the park properties, let to voluntary groups, until 2031 so is opting for a new strategy. This involves introducing service charges for all current occupants of the buildings, revising rents and leases and adopting a tougher approach to those in debt to the council:

Discussions are ongoing to establish a repayment plan with tenants who have fallen into arrears. However, the Trust Committee should be aware that proactive measures, including forfeiture or legal action, may be necessary for tenants who fail to comply with payment plans or do not settle their arrears. The delegated officer (Director of Property and Assets) will actively enforce contractual obligations. The total debt is approximately £62,3551 as of Q2 2024/25 financial year.

Given that Trust income is insufficient to carry out the necessary maintenance of the site one wonders why the arrears have been allowed to mount to this level. One debtor owed £44,500 so Brent Council gave the Trust this sum as a cash advance to aid the Trusts' cash flow position. The council is paying the Trust interest on the advance...

Two lease renewals are due and Brent Council will issue Section 25 notices (See our recent story on Brent Property Strategy LINK)

Lease Renewals for Unit 1 (Tamu Samaj UK), Unit 2 (Veterans’ Club

(Wembley), and Unit 8 (Brent Council - Children Centre)

Tenants currently occupying these units on expired leases are to be offered the opportunity to renew their leases. Officers will commission independent valuations and issue Section 25 notices to ensure lease renewals occur within statutory time limits, with independent valuations guiding negotiations. These renewals will align with strategic objectives, ensuring leases terminate before the anticipated redevelopment in 2031. They will include appropriate breakclauses and exclusion from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to obtain vacant possession at the proper time.

Whether the current occupants will be able to afford the new rates remains to be seen.

 The Officers' Report states:

The recommendation is that the Trust Committee defers the investment options proposed by RLB [boutique hotel etc] until vacant possession of the whole building can be acquired in 2031 (due to existing fixed-term leases with the longest one expiring in October 2031) at the latest and seeks to implement the vision in a phased approach, starting with regularising leases, carrying out urgent repairs and, subject to Charity Commission approval, expanding the permitted uses to attract a broader range of tenants to improve cash flow. This phased and incremental investment approach addresses immediate concerns and sets the stage for sustainable long-term growth and success. It is the most responsible, pragmatic and strategic path forward for the future vision of Barham Park.

Clearly there is much that the public and current occupants of the buildings would like to question but such contributions have been barely tolerated recently.  Most importantly, do the Brent public support the moves to change the charity purpose to allow for more development, probably commercial, to boost income? 

Will they be asked their views?

 

 


The Pageant of Empire, 1924 – Part 2: Eastward and Southward Ho!

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant

Extract from the programme cover for Part 2 of the Pageant. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

Welcome back to my second article about this Pageant, which took place during the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley Park in 1924. If you have not read Part 1, you will find it here.

 

The Pageant was performed in three parts, and I have already dealt with the opening section of Part 2, “The Days of Queen Elizabeth”, which was played by local people from Wembley. Here are a few more pictures of that, which are screenshots from a British Pathé newsreel film. I found that on YouTube, incorrectly described as Wembley Exhibition Reel 3 (1925). It is definitely from 1924, and was almost certainly filmed at the matinee performance of Part 2 of the Pageant of Empire, on Saturday 16 August 1924.

 

More scenes from Wembley’s Elizabethan Episode. (Screenshots from a British Pathé newsreel film)

 

Part 2 continued with a scene from 1655, in which Admiral Blake and his naval squadron defeated Barbary pirates, making the Mediterranean safe for British ships and rescuing some sailors who had been captured and put to work as galley slaves. The commentary in the programme concludes: ‘The English flag has broken the power of the Corsairs’.

 

Although Part 2 was entitled “Eastward Ho!”, its next section was about, and staged by, the Dominion of South Africa. Its prelude depicted Phoenician sailors landing at the Cape, on a voyage around the coast of Africa on behalf of the Egyptian Pharoah Necho, around 606BC, ‘two thousand years before the first white man set foot in Africa.’ Scene 1 depicts the first Europeans to land on this coast, Portuguese sailors, including Vasco de Gama in 1496.

 

Scenes 2 and 3 show the first Dutch settlers arriving at Table Bay in 1652, and being joined by French Huguenot refugees, at the invitation of the Dutch East India Company, from 1688. It is not until scene 4 that South Africa’s first British settlers arrive, in 1820, under a Government financed scheme to claim “Cape Colony” for Britain. 

 

Two images from scene 4, showing British settlers arriving in South Africa.
(Screenshots from a British Pathé newsreel film)

 

It is this scene which helps to show the scale of the scenery used in the Pageant. It was all designed by the artist Frank Brangwyn R.A., and used 25,000 square feet (over 2,300m2) of Baltic timber. The full-size replica sailing ship did move across the scene, and the artificial sea at one end of the stadium, on which real boats were rowed, held 220,000 gallons of water.

 

Zulu warriors preparing to attack the Boers at Blood River. (Screenshot from a British Pathé newsreel film)

 

Scene 5 shows the British meeting the Zulu King Tchaka in 1824, and getting permission to start a small coastal colony in Natal. Moving on to 1886, scene 6 shows a breakdown in relations between the Dutch Boer community, who wish to move further inland, and a later Zulu leader, resulting in a staging of the Battle of Blood River (on Wembley’s “hallowed turf”!). The Boers defenders overwhelm the native warriors’ spears with gunfire, and ‘demoralise the Zulus and completely rout them. Thus the Boers are left to settle where they please.’

 

The British were also trying to settle where they pleased, and push north into what is now Zimbabwe. Scene 8 is described in this extract from the Part 2 programme, and it is this patriotic version of how our country treated the lands of other peoples that I find so distasteful.

 


Scene 9 shows Cecil Rhodes, a leading figure in the expansion of the British Empire in Southern Africa, travelling without an army to negotiate with the Matabele kingdom in 1896. He is successful in getting agreement for British settlers to come and start farming in their lands. The fruits of his success were seen at the Exhibition less than 30 years later, when the South African Pavilion included a section for Southern Rhodesia (a country named after him), showing the produce of its British-owned tobacco plantations.

 

Postcard showing Southern Rhodesia tobacco at the BEE in 1924. (Brent Archives online image 9961)

 

The final scene 10 of this section of the Pageant is entitled “An Allegory of the Union of South Africa”. It portrays the benefits of a federal state, in which both British and Boers can govern their own provinces, within the British Empire, and the scene ends with the choir and orchestra performing “Land of Hope and Glory”. The Pageant’s history of South Africa does not include the significant (but uncomfortable to the storyline!) episode of the Boer War, 1899-1902.

 

Part 2 of the Pageant, “Eastward Ho!”, ends with India. It has only one scene, “The Early Days of India”, but that puts on a spectacular show. It depicts the Mogul Emperor Jehangir receiving Sir Thomas Roe, an envoy from the British East India Company, in 1626, seeking to set up trading ties. The scene begins in a busy eastern bazaar, then a parade featuring seven elephants shipped in from the subcontinent, and camels from Egypt. We also see Sir Thomas having his audience with the Emperor.

 

Some scenes from the Indian section of the Pageant. (Screenshots from a British Pathé newsreel film)

 

Most readers will know that there was more to the history of Britain’s relations with India than trading between equal nations! Yet this is how the Pageant’s programme notes move on from this scene to sum up that history in two short paragraphs:

 

Extract from the Part 2 Pageant programme. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

You may recall that in an article at the start of this BEE centenary year I wrote: ‘It was an Act of Parliament in 1876, not any rulers of its many states, which awarded an additional title to Queen Victoria: Empress of India!’

 

Moving on, Part 3 of the Pageant was “Southward Ho!”, performed on Wednesday and some Saturday evenings between 27 July and 30 August. Its prologue shows King George III at Windsor Castle, sending Captain Cook on an expedition to “the Southern Seas”, where he has heard ‘there are great new lands there which may be added to our Realm’. Sure enough, the first scene of New Zealand’s section shows Captain Cook “discovering” the North Island of that country in 1769. After an initially hostile meeting with a Maori tribe there, his crew are allowed ashore to fill their water barrels. Cook takes the opportunity to stick a pole in the ground, hoist ‘the British Flag’, and take possession of the land ‘in the name of His Most Gracious Majesty’.

 

New Zealand’s scene 2 shows the first British settlers arriving in 1840, after ‘an attempt by French adventurers to establish a claim on the islands finally drove the British Government into a formal annexation.’ A New Zealand Land Company had been set up, which ‘bought a vast tract of land from 58 Maori chiefs.’ The programme notes record that this was soon followed with ‘the Treaty of Waitangi, by which the chiefs ceded the sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria, receiving in return a guarantee of the rights and privileges of British subjects.’

This section of the Pageant is quite frank in revealing that the Maori people of New Zealand did not understand the “bargain” they had made with the British. I will include the programme text for scene 3 in full, because it does show the reality of how the Empire treated the indigenous people of the lands they annexed, if they resisted.

 

Extract from the Part 3 Pageant programme. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

New Zealand’s final scene 4 is entitled “Peace and Prosperity”, and begins with these words: ‘The Maori rebellion died out after many years. Much of the land of the rebel tribes which had been confiscated was returned to them, and under tolerant and tactful administration their troubles were soon forgotten.’ That may be largely true, but when King George V visited the Maori house, beside the New Zealand Pavilion at the Exhibition in 1924, a Maori delegation complained to him that Britain had not honoured its side of the Treaty of Waitangi!

 

Postcard showing King George V, with Queen Mary and his officials, visiting the Maori house in 1924.
(Brent Archives online image 969)

 

The Maori’s had rebelled in the 1860s because of the growing number of emigrants from Britain settling on their land. But at Wembley Park in 1924, the New Zealand Pavilion was still handing out leaflets, like this one, encouraging more people to come!

 

Outside cover of a New Zealand promotional leaflet from 1924. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

The Australian section of the Pageant followed on from New Zealand, but I will not spend much time on it. It begins with the first settlement in the newly-created Colony of New South Wales in 1788, passes through an “era of development” in the 1800s, before ending with a great parade celebrating the produce and resources that Australia wants to trade with the rest of the British Empire, and the world. 

 

Unlike its New Zealand neighbour, there is not a single word in Australia’s Pageant about the aboriginal people of this southern continent, and how appallingly they were treated (and in some ways, continue to be treated). For an insight into their story, we have had to wait for programmes like The Australian Wars (still available on BBC iPlayer).

 

Part 3 closes with a finale, featuring all the nations taking part in the British Empire Exhibition, and the people from them. This is how the programme describes it, although history shows it would be a few more decades before there was a true ‘Commonwealth of Free Nations’:

Extract from the Part 3 Pageant programme. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

The Burmese contingent on their way to the Pageant finale. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

I am lucky that, in 1964, Wembley History Society received donations of several albums put together by people involved in the Exhibition forty years earlier. One featured Burma (above, now Myanmar), and another was from Mr Beck, who had been the Resident Superintendent of the Nigerian Village at Wembley. In his album were copies of photographs taken by a daily newspaper of the Nigerians rehearsing in the stadium for their part in the Pageant’s finale. 

 

The Nigerian “horse race” at the stadium rehearsal, with Mr Beck arrowed. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

Mr Beck had annotated some of the photographs, and in the one above he had marked himself (disguised in Nigerian robes) with a “x”, which I have replaced with an arrow, for clarity. His caption shows that he was meant to be leading the group of horsemen (plus a horsewoman in disguise, Mrs Cumberbatch – any relation of Benedict?) at a trot. Instead, Bala, a silversmith from Kano, led a charge down the stadium, just for fun, during the rehearsal!

 

There were other photographs showing the Nigerians in high spirits, but the “News Chronicle” chose to print just this one, showing Mamman, Bala’s young brother and apprentice, in a more docile pose from the Pageant rehearsal, with two donkeys.

 

Mamman and two donkeys, at the rehearsal in the stadium. (Source: Brent Archive – Mr Beck’s album)

 

In all, the Pageant made use of fifty donkeys, which when not taking part in performances were kept at the nearby Oakington Manor Farm (known locally by the farmer’s name, as Sherren’s Farm). Wembley’s police force became familiar with them, when every available policeman was called out to round them up, after they escaped from their field one night in August!

 

Article from “The Wembley News”, 14 August 1924. (Brent Archives – local newspaper microfilms)

 

On that lighter note, I will end my description of Part 3, and of the Pageant of Empire at the British Empire Exhibition in 1924. But what are we to make of that event? The “Daily Express”, at the time, described it as ‘the climax of centuries of British heroism, pride, endeavour and struggle.’ My own view is less glowing, as you will have gathered from reading these articles.

 

Yes, the history is important, but we need to look at it honestly, the bad as well as the good. We need wider education about it, seeking and listening to the views of people from the countries which were part of Britain’s Empire, in order to get a wider perspective and understanding of the past. This centenary year of the Exhibition at Wembley Park provides a good opportunity to start doing that.

 

You will have the chance to share your views, and your family’s stories of Empire, through the “Becoming Brent” project. You can find details of its events on the Brent Libraries, Arts and Heritage Eventbrite site, or read about it on the Museum and Archives blog. Or, if you prefer, add a comment below.


Philip Grant.

Barnet Unison mental health social workers remain in year-long dispute after talks with Barnet Council break down. 50% of permanent workforce have left since January

 

Photo: Barnet Unison

Mental health work is one of the most under-funded and under-valued part of the public sector. Here Barnet Unison explain what their year-long dispute is all about.

Barnet UNISON mental health social workers dispute with Barnet Council since 1 September 2023 has been over the failure to agree a recruitment and retention payment due to high turnover of staff across three mental health social worker teams.

On Monday 15 July 2024 UNISON wrote to Barnet Council suspending strike action and agreeing to go into talks to try and resolve the dispute.

Unfortunately talks broke down as it became clear in the meeting that Barnet Council was not prepared to reconsider their position.

The following facts provide a glimpse of the scale of the crisis facing Barnet Council.

  • 50% of the permanent workforce will have left one of the three mental health social work team workforce since 1 January 2024.
  • 31 mental health social workers will have left one of the three mental health social work teams in the last two years.
  • 12 mental health social workers have left the mental health social work team North in the last two years.
  • 19 mental health social workers have left the mental health social work team South in the last two years.
  • Did you know that 40% of AMHPs have left the AMHP team in the last two months.
  • 100% of AMHPs across the North and South mental health teams resigned and left the Council by the end of August 2024.
  • In July 2023 Barnet Council informed UNISON that they had a budget of £266k to resolve this dispute.
  • In a meeting with Acas in March 2024 with UNISON they doubled their budget to £532k.
  • It would cost £150k to settle this dispute

You can read more facts about this dispute here on our website h

At our last meeting with Barnet Council our reps informed senior management that they were leaving because it had become clear that Barnet Council does not value their staff or service users. Our members strongly believe that it is not safe to practice as a mental health social worker in the three frontline mental health teams.

 John Burgess, Branch Secretary, Barnet UNISON said:

It has become apparently clear that Barnet Council has chosen confrontation rather than negotiation to resolve this high-profile dispute. It is not about the money because we know there is a pot three times bigger than what would be needed to bring this dispute to a close. The sheer scale of the numbers of social workers leaving these three teams should have set alarm bells ringing with senior management. The fact that they appear unconcerned about the risks of the chronic levels of turnover has left mental health social workers feeling deeply unsafe. We still have some members who are currently still working but feeling very scared about what could happen in terms of risks. Failure to end this dispute will leave Barnet Council exposed as an uncaring and unsafe workplace for mental health social workers.

I have recently reached out to the Chief Executive and Leader of Barnet Council to come back with a revised offer which may be able to retain some of the current staff and encourage experienced mental health social workers to come and work for Barnet.

Until there is a credible offer the Barnet UNISON mental health social worker dispute remains live and we will continue to report on the dispute. It is our duty to advocate for a safe working environment for our members and no one will silence our voice for our members.

 

Tuesday 3 September 2024

Brent refuses Woodcock Hill 20 metre mast application but Appeal possible

 



Brent Council has refused permission for the siting of a 20 metre tall telecommunications mast on green space on Woodcock Hill. The refusal was based on the siting and appearance of the mast:

Although the proposal would bring benefits in terms of technology and communications, its siting, together with its height and appearance in an area of open character, would result in a harmful impact on the visual amenities of the street scene and the surrounding area.

 

The proposal is therefore considered unacceptable in terms of siting and appearance. Prior Approval is therefore required and refused having regard to Part 16 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended.

It should be noted (as set out below) that some of the issues raised by objectors (see LINK) including CPRE, Friends of Woodcock Park, Northwick Park Residents Association and Cllr Michael Maurice have not been supported  in the officers' report. A request to send the application to Planning Committee by Cllr Maurice was refused on the ground that it would delay a decision beyond the statutory period which would have the effect of granting automatic approval - 'deemed consent'.

Nevertheless, the 31 objectors will be pleased with the decision but will note that the applicant can appeal.  The refusal on just one major ground (siting and visual appearance, impact on the street scene) could lead to an Appeal.

From the officers' report:

Assessment

 

This application has been submitted as a prior approval submitted under Part 16 of the GPDO 2015 (as amended). The application therefore requires whether prior approval is required from the Local Planning Authority regarding the siting and appearance of the proposed development.

 

The proposal meets the requirements as set out in Class A1 of Part 16. However, the siting and appearance is required to be taken into account, as assessed against Condition A.2 Part (1) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended).

 

Appearance, Design and Location:

 

Paragraph 119 of the NPPF (2023) emphasises that sites for radio and telecoms masts should be kept to a minimum. Where new sites are required, equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate.

 

Brent's Local Plan policy DMP1 states that 'development will be acceptable provided it is retaining existing blue and green infrastructure including water ways, open space, high amenity trees and landscape features and providing appropriate additions or enhancements where possible'. An appropriate addition may be 'of a location, use, concentration, siting, layout, scale, type, density, materials, detailing and design that provides high levels of internal and external amenity and complements the locality'.

 

The current application is primarily concerned with the installation of a 20 metres high monopole supporting associated antennae, transmission dishes and equipment cabinets to the site.

 

The application site is designated as SINC Grade II (Wealdstone Brook) that constitutes an area of protected open space and therefore is also of ecological value. The location is considered to act as a physical connection between the green corridors in the area, which contribute to sustaining biodiversity in the area. Although an Ecology Report was not submitted, the council’s Ecology Officer has reviewed the application and considered that, whilst located close to the SINC, no direct impact on the watercourse is likely to occur. The Ecology Officer states however that the construction works should follow best practice and maintain a no work zone within a minimum 10m buffer from the watercourse.

 

With regard to its siting, the proposed development would be positioned to the centre of this strip of land, which is short grassland surrounding by trees between Woodcock Hill, Woodgrange Avenue and Retreat Close. It would be located to the south of Wealdstone Brook and, on the opposite side, a row of family dwelling houses. The proposed development, particularly the mast, due to its height and location, would be visible from long views across the area, whereas the cabinet would primarily be seen from Woodcock Hill. The site is located on an open section of road, as explained above, where a portion of lawn provides a clear view, unobstructed by street furniture that might have otherwise helped to reduce the perceived size of the development. Additionally, while there are trees on the site, they would not provide a reliable or consistent screen for the structure. This is due to seasonal changes that affect the trees' foliage and the sizes of the trees, which are insufficient to offer permanent coverage.

 

Based on the assessment provided, the proposed telecommunications equipment would indeed create a visually incongruous and overly dominant structure that would negatively affect the visual appeal, character, and overall appearance of the streetscape and the broader area. Consequently, the proposal is considered to have a detrimental impact on the surrounding streetscene, and it is recommended for refusal on these grounds.

 

Transport Considerations:

 

The applicant proposes to locate the equipment approx. 6.8m from the back of the footway. The equipment will be sited on the riverbank of Wealdstone Brook, rather on the footway.

 

The location of the equipment, being clear of the Public Highway, does not therefore give rise to any highway and pedestrian safety concerns. The doors of the equipment would not open out onto the Public Highway. The transport team has also advised that for any maintenance, vehicles would not be able to stop on Woodcock Hill due to the restricted parking, so vehicles would need to stop further afield. The proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the safe use of the public highway at this location and therefore considered acceptable in transport terms.

 

Tree Considerations

 

The trees on the site are not subject of a TPO or growing within a designated Conservation Area, however they are growing directly adjacent to Wealdstone Brook which is a site of importance for nature conservation (SINC).

 

The application is accompanied by a Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment incorporating Arboricultural Method Statement by ACS Consulting. The survey identifies several trees such as T1 a category A Oak tree, T2 a category B Prunus and G1 a category B group of trees growing adjacent to the brook. There is also T3 a category C Prunus tree. The RPA of all trees and the current canopy area are all protected by the proposed development and associated Arboricultural Method Statement. T1 particularly does have scope to grow quite significantly, however its current canopy is taken account of in the proposals. Confirmation has been provided by the applicant that hardstanding is not needed in

relation to site access for maintenance purposes. Should the application be approved, an Informative would be attached to remind the applicant that the installation should fully comply with the Arboricultura Method Statement in terms of protection measures including fencing

 

Non-ionizing radiation (NIR) considerations

 

Paragraph 122 of the NPPF (2023) specifies (in relation to communication infrastructure), that Local Planning Authorities must determine applications on planning grounds and should not determine health safeguards if the proposal meets International Commission guidelines for public exposure. A certificate has been supplied stating that the equipment complies with the requirements of the radio frequency public exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation (ICNIRP) as expressed in EU Council recommendation of 12th July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields up to 300 GHz. The remit of the local authority is to ensure that a certificate has been provided and as this has been done, health considerations are not further considered.

 

Equalities

 

In line with the Public Sector Equality Duty, the Council must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity, as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. In making this recommendation, regard has been given to the Public Sector Equality Duty and the relevant protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation).

 

Other matters

 

As noted above, neighbouring occupiers did not receive their notification letters and a Ward Cllr requested that the application be considered at planning committee. In this instance, because the General Permitted Development Order requires that a determination is made before the expiry of 56 days beginning with the date on which the application was received, otherwise the application will have "deemed consent". Delaying the application for consideration at the next planning committee would have taken the determination beyond 56 days.

 

In relation to letters not being delivered, this is beyond the control of the Council. Records confirm that the letters were issued. Notwithstanding, a site notice had been erected.

 

Conclusion

 

Although the proposal would bring benefits in terms of technology and communications, its siting, together with its height and appearance in an area of open character, would result in a harmful impact on the visual amenities of the street scene and the surrounding area.

 

The proposal is therefore considered unacceptable in terms of siting and appearance. Prior Approval is therefore required and refused having regard to Part 16 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended.