Rokesby Place – Brent tries to justify its planning malpractice

 Guest blog by Philip Grant, in a personal capacity.

 

Architect’s drawing of the two infill houses for the Rokesby Place car park.

 

I will try not to make this guest post too long, as I will ask Martin to attach two long letters at the end of it. But I hope that as many “Wembley Matters” readers as possible will take the trouble to read this, and the letters. This is a follow-up to my article earlier this month, which included my letter of complaint to Brent’s Chief Executive over alleged planning malpractice.

 

The letters are about the level of rent which the future tenants of two “affordable” New Council Homes on an infill scheme at Rokesby Place will have to pay. More importantly, though, they deal with the way in which Brent’s Planning Officers went against the rules meant to ensure that the Council’s own planning applications are dealt with impartially and transparently – and how they have tried to justify the actions they took.

 

Extract from the Rokesby Place planning application, 22/1400.

 

The planning application for Brent’s Rokesby Place “infill” housing scheme was made in April 2022, and was quite clear that the two houses would be for Social Rent. But when the Officer Report was prepared on the application, for the Planning Committee meeting in August, no mention was made of Social Rent, and the “affordable housing” condition in the draft consent letter said that the homes must ‘be delivered as London Affordable Rent units’. 

 

There was nothing in the published documents to show how or why Social Rent had been changed to the more expensive London Affordable Rent (“LAR”). I had to issue an FoI request to uncover that information. This led to the first part of my 5 September complaint, that there was no reason for, and no justification for, any change from Social Rent to LAR, and Planning Officers had been wrong to change it.

 

I received the reply to my complaint letter from Carolyn Downs on 16 September, but I believe it was probably drafted for her by the top officer(s) in Brent’s Planning Department. This was the reason given for why they recommended LAR, rather than the Social Rent level shown by the application they were asking Planning Committee to approve:

 

Extract from the letter of 16 September from Brent’s Chief Executive.

 

I have set out my response to that in my letter of 22 September below. Briefly, Planning Officers should not be changing what an application says just because they think it should be different, to do so for one of Brent’s own applications (although why, when it’s a Council application, was the Project Manager ‘the applicant’?) was not being impartial, and no ‘clarification’ was needed, because the application was clearly for Social Rent!

 

The action which Planning Officers took raises serious concerns for other Council housing schemes, especially a number of forthcoming “infill” schemes (Newland Court, Kilburn Square, Clement Close, to name just a few): 

 

·      Will they treat other applications for Social Rent housing (as recommended by the Brent Poverty Commission Report, and as supposed to be provided under the GLA’s 2021-26 affordable housing programme) as if they should be for LAR? 

 

·      Will they interfere with other details which have been published in the application documents, and recommend different conditions to Planning Committee, without disclosing that they’ve done so?

 

Even though they had failed the “transparency” requirement in the Local Government Association’s “Probity in Planning” guidance, by not telling Planning Committee that the application was for Social Rent, the Council’s view was that members, when making their decision, ‘were aware that the application was originally for the provision of Social Rented homes.’ I could hardly believe the reason they offered to justify this:

 

Second extract from the letter of 16 September from Brent’s Chief Executive.

 

This was the conclusion which Brent’s Chief Executive came to (on the advice of Senior Planning Officers) in response to my complaint(s):

 

The conclusion from the letter of 16 September.

 

I have not accepted that conclusion, for reasons set out in detail in my letter of 22 September. In case you don’t feel like reading it in full, here are some paragraphs from near the end of it which sum-up my position:

 

‘Planning Officers seem to take the view that as Social Rent and LAR are, on the present figures, ‘very, very similar’, then it does not matter whether the affordable housing provided is one or the other. That would not matter for compliance with policy BH5, but as I pointed out in my letter of 5 September, it would matter for the tenants of the two new homes at Rokesby Place. 

 

As you quoted, from the Brent Local Plan Glossary, these affordable homes will be ‘for those whose needs are not met by the market.’ They will be Brent families in housing need, quite probably on limited incomes. By charging them LAR rent levels, rather than Social Rent, even on present figures, they will have to pay £772.20 a year more. As the annual rent increases for these two types of affordable housing are linked to CPI, by the time the houses are built each tenant will have to find nearer £1,000 a year more if LAR is charged, rather than Social Rent.

 

If a planning application states that the affordable housing tenure will be Social Rent, that complies with policy BH5, and should not be changed without good reason. And if there are reasons for changing from Social Rent to LAR, they need to be set out transparently, both for the Planning Committee and the public. That was not done on this application, so even if Brent Council believes it achieved the “right” answer, the way it was achieved was wrong. So wrong that it needs to be put right.

 

I hope you can now agree that the new Brent Council affordable housing at Rokesby Place must be for Social Rent, as applied for on the Council’s behalf under application 22/1400.’

 

I’m putting this correspondence “in the public domain”, so that anyone interested can read it and make up their own minds. If you agree that something has gone wrong here, please feel free to write to your local councillors about it, with a copy to carolyn.downs@brent.gov.uk .

 

Philip Grant.

 The letters - click bottom right corner for full page version.

Green Neighbourhoods Climate Fair - Kingsbury, Saturday 11am - 4pm

 

From Brent Council

Want to find out more about what we're doing in our Green Neighbourhoods in Kingsbury? Come along to our climate fair to get involved!

We will be joining forces with Barnhill Conservation Group's Open Day and holding our Kingsbury Climate Fair in Roe Green Walled Garden on Saturday 24 September from 11am - 4pm.

There will be a host of activities including an upcycling workshop, learn how to grow plants in small spaces, tips on reducing food waste and find out all about bees. You can also enjoy homemade baked goods in one of Brent's hidden gems! 

Residents can still have their say on the Green Neighbourhood pilots via our online surveys and interactive maps by clicking here. Engagement ends on 31 October.

For further details, please contact Brent Council's Climate Team by emailing climateemergency@brent.gov.uk.

Residents attempt to hold Brent Cabinet members to account with public questions. Did they succeed?

Useful information for Grendon Gardens residents re trees on the border with Newland Court

 The belt of Grendon Gardens trees that border Newland Court clearly visible in this satellite view

 

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity 

TREES:

I have not yet had chance to look at the planning application documents, but there is some information I can share with potential objectors to the Newland Court development, based on personal knowledge from having to advise a relative who used to live in the Barn Hill Conservation Area.

The boundary of the Conservation Area runs along the back fence/wall at Newland Court, with all of the back gardens, AND all the trees in them, of Grendon Gardens within the Conservation Area.

Para. 6.5, "Natural Environment", of Brent's Barn Hill Conservation Area Character Appraisal includes the following statement:

 

 

'Barn Hill has a very green character defined by the relatively densely planted trees to garden boundaries and along the roads of the estate. Species such as Cherry, Purple Plumb, Hawthorn, Oak and Ash proliferate. These trees help to provide a natural framing for views in and out of the area and between buildings. These trees are an essential part of the character of the area and the mix of deciduous and coniferous trees is part of the now prevailing character.'

 

The Barn Hill Conservation Area design guide, at para. 5.3, "Trees", in the "Gardens" section, says:

 

'All trees in the Barn Hill Conservation Area that have a diameter greater than 75mm [that's about 3 inches], measured at a height of 1.5m [about 5 feet], are protected. You will need permission to carry out even the most minor of work to a tree. It is always best to contact Planning & Development for advice on the best way to protect the trees in your garden.'

If you are a Grendon Gardens resident who has trees at the bottom of your garden, backing onto Newland Court and Brent's proposed development site, you might want to contact Brent Council's Tree Protection Officer (I wouldn't personally recommend contacting Planning!), and seek her advice on how the trees in your garden should be protected. 

 

Ask for her advice in writing, and quote it as part of your objection to Brent's planning application, if you wish to object to it.

Email address:  Julie.hughes@brent.gov.uk

High Court challenge on PEEPs (Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans) gets the go ahead

 From Disability News Service

Two campaigners have won permission from the high court to challenge the government’s refusal to ensure that all disabled people can safely evacuate from high-rise blocks of flats in emergencies.

Georgie Hulme and Sarah Rennie, co-founders of the disabled-led leaseholder action group Claddag and both of them wheelchair-users who live in high-rise buildings, have been told they can apply for a judicial review of the decision made by former home secretary Priti Patel.

Patel rejected the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s recommendation that all owners and managers of high-rise residential buildings should be forced to prepare a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) for all residents who might find it difficult to “self-evacuate”.

That rejection – on the grounds of “practicality”, “proportionality” and “safety” – came despite a promise from prime minister Boris Johnson that he would implement all the recommendations from the inquiry’s first phase.

Hulme and Rennie have now been granted permission to seek a judicial review of the decision and have been told they have an “arguable” case.

It is hoped the court will hear their legal challenge by the end of the year.

The judge who heard their application has also agreed to cap their costs, so if they lose their case they will have to pay a maximum of £20,000 towards Home Office costs, as well as court fees that are likely to be no more than £1,500.

Claddag has so far raised nearly £16,000 through a crowdfunding appeal, but still needs to raise about another £5,500 to continue with the case.

Claddag’s solicitors, Bhatt Murphy, are working on a “no win no fee” basis, and if Rennie and Hulme are successful with their case, all the unused donations will be returned.

Hulme told Disability News Service: 

“Whilst the permission for a hearing is great news, the fact that the government needs to be held to account in this way is sadly another example of how it considers disabled, deaf and older people’s lives as less worthy.

“We appreciate the devastating impacts of both the cost of living and the building safety crises, but any small donation will help us, as a community, to get our day in court.”

The government’s rejection of the PEEPs recommendation came even though those who responded to a consultation on the proposal overwhelmingly supported their introduction.

Question Brent police at Civic Centre or On-line tomorrow 7pm-8pm

 

From Owl Messaging

Ask Chief Superintendent Sara Leach questions then meet your local sergeant to ask about your neighbourhood and suggest ways for police to meet more community members.

Brent Safer Neighbourhood Board public meeting from 7pm to 9pm on Thursday 22 September at Brent Civic Centre, Grand Hall.

Refreshments from 6.45pm. No need to pre-register.

The meeting will also be webcast live at https://brent.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/703560

Make suggestions to boost public trust and confidence in the police and to help reduce crime.

Send your questions and suggestions before 22 September via www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/ZV2JMK/

The date for submitting questions has been extended.

Open Studios at Wembley Park this weekend - view works, discuss creative ideas, working methods & techniques - even buy them!

 

Open Studios are the highlight of our annual programming, forming a major part of our ongoing commitment to local and wider community and public engagement.

We warmly welcome all visitors to our Open Studios events. We sincerly hope that the time spent walking around the studios and meeting our studio members in their creative spaces offers not only an engaging and uplifting experience, but also the perfect opportunity to discuss creative ideas, working methods and techniques, veiw original works of art, craft and design, and of course provide an opportunity to purchase works directly from the maker commission free.

Newland Court application is now on Council Planning Portal - comments open. Some background from residents.

Application 22/3124 | Demolition of all garages on site to provide seven new homes with associated cycle and refuse storage, resurfacing of Newland Court to provide a shared vehicular and pedestrian access surface, provision of on-street car parking along Newland Court, new refuse storage facilities to serve existing residents at Newland Court and all associated landscaping works. | Newland Court Garages, Forty Avenue, Wembley

The redevelopment site at Newland Court outlined in red - note the proximity to the back gardens of Grendon Gardens (image from planning application)

I tweeted at the weekend that the planning application for Newland Court LINK submitted on behalf of Brent Council had appeared on the Council's Planning Portal but that residents of Newland Court, Corringham Road and Grendon Gardens had not received notification letters. I understand that they are now due to be sent out.

Not a great start to what is going to be a controversial application.

I popped down to the estate today to see for myself and talk to residents about the issues.

The garages that will be demolished

Impression of what will replace them and landscape changes (image from planning application)

Residents say that the garages have been deliberately run-down and attempts to rent them have been refused. This is a familiar story from other estates, including Kings Drive, one of the earliest to get infill proposals. Various reports accompanying the application states there are 32 garages of which 5 are occupied but elsewhere says none are used for parking.

Their state can be seen from these photographs. The roofs appear to be asbestos and some are broken.

The artist's impression does not convey the narrowness of the site, or the narrowness of Newland Court.

Newland Court today. Note the artist's impression includes 2m wide  pavement on either side.

The width of two garages on which houses will be built

One concern that the residents had was the proposed loss of trees.  As can be seen they are tall and dense in places. Some are in the back gardens of houses on Grendon Gardens and some are in the space between the retaining wall of Newland Court and the Grendon back fences.  The exact boundary seems unclear. The application states that the retainign wall forms the northern boundary of the site. The gardens are at a higher level than Newland Court so the space between appears to  possibly be 'No Man's Land'.

Although the text of the application says that 9 trees are to be removed, the plan indicates rather more (trees to be lost outlined in red) as does the table below.

It is actually a little more complicated than that as some of the trees in Grendon Gardens are very close to the garden fence and no man's land:

Tree on retaining wall

 The application does not shed much light on the precise location of the trees:

The site is within an Air Quality Management Area. To the east of the site is the Wembley Growth Area and Wembley Park Town Centre. The site is adjacent to Barn Hill Conservation area, on its southern border. A dense row of trees adjoins the northern edge of the site. These trees are located as they are located with the conservation area. (sic)

As well as the loss of trees, residents are concerned about the loss of some of their green space on the northern edge of the estate, adjacent to Newland Court road. A large bit is to be taken out of two existing triangular spaces for car parking.

 

One of the green spaces today

Recessed car parks - note 2 metre wide pavement on both side (image from planning application)

Residents are concerned about parking because the they currently use the length of Newland Court and this will be reduced to 12 spaces. They told me that no mention has been made of disabled spaces but they think the estate had 5 or 6 people who would need such a space. The 7 new homes are supposed to be car free but existing residents doubted that would hold up as some of the accommodation is for larger families.  A Pay and Display system will be brought in on Corringham Road and Newland Court but it is unclear whether that would apply to current residents.

As with many infill estates the proposals bring up some of the neglect residents feel and this is no exception.  Refuse collection is a problem with over-filled bins scattered in various places on the estate, including between the garages. And of course flytipping from vehicles that I am told drive into the estate.

With 60 households on the estate and the evidence of current full bins, the Council is proposing to reduce the overall number (current in brackets):

General Waste 6 x 1280 l (14)

Recycling  6x 1280 l (6)

Foodwaste 6 x 240 l (4)

 But will  provide permanent bin spaces.

Residents' claim that the required 10m gap to prevent overlooking is much less from the corners of the blocks at around 8m.

The nearest part of the flats to the new housing

 One of the houses most affected by the proposal is not in Newland Court at all, but in Corringham Road where it adjoins Newland Court.

The tree at the junction of Newland Court and Corringham Road (T20) will be removed (image from planning application)

 

Despite the loss of trees and green space the application concludes:

The Urban Greening Factor for the proposed development is 0.22, which falls slightly short of the London Plan and Brent target of 0.4. However, the significant planning benefits associated with the delivery of affordable family housing is considered to outweigh non-compliance with this policy and should be considered on balance, alongside significant enhancements to a sustainable, brownfield site

The new houses are actually London Affordable Rent rather than council rent or social rent. This appears to have become the norm for new council housing.

Overall the applicant reckons that the proposal will enhance the nearby Conservation Area:

As noted above, the Site abuts Barn Hill Conservation Area to the north. Having regard to proximity of the site to the conservation area, a Heritage Statement has prepared by Heritage Collective UK (‘HCUK’) Group and is submitted with this application. The report concludes that the ‘the proposed development will not result in harm to the character and appearance of the Barn Hill Conservation Area for the purposes of section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. In fact, the proposals bring about the potential for a material enhancement through the introduction of high- quality buildings and associated landscaping that elevate the appearance of Newland Court within the immediate setting of the conservation area.’ As such, the proposals are considered to significantly improve the setting of the Barn Hill Conservation Area in line with Local Plan Policy BHC1.

If you would like to make a comment on the proposal follow this LINK.