Community groups face delay in decisions on Community Grants Fund applications

 Souce LINK

Community organisation who undertook a lot of work in preparing applications to fund their activities face a frustrating delay in hearing whether they have been successful as a result of staffing issues and the volume of applications.

The Community Grants Fund is the new name  for the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy which is derived from payments made be developers.

Councillors were told by Brent Council that they had received 146 applications in total for the Community Grants Fund which is a 100% increase when compared to the last standard NCIL round in 2021.

 

The initial due diligence checks by the grants team have been completed.  However, due to capacity within the Brent Council team and the volume of applications received there will be delays in completing the initial project assessments.  

 

As a result, the Council will not be able to meet the scheduled internal department review dates and the Brent Connect panel dates that were scheduled to be held in February and March. 

 

This means that the team are still at the 12-18 weeks stage of the process shown in the above table.

 

Officers are continuing to work through the initial project assessments and have informed all applicants of the delay.

 

Councillors will be provided with a with a further update on the timeline before the end of January 2024.  In the meantime, all the meetings scheduled will be removed from your calendars.

 

Only 3 days left to comment on new boxing club building in King Edward VII Park, Wembley

 

Comments on th new building (above)  to replace the pavilion in King Edward VII Park in Wembley closes on December 31st 2023 although comments received after that date may be considered providing a decision had not already been made.

The planning application comes after a previous application that had proposed refurbishment of the current building (below) . This is now considered not viable due to the poor state of the building:

It should be noted that the Site has an extant planning permission (ref. 22/2526) to refurbish and extend the current pavilion.

However, further investigation has since been undertaken which has uncovered that the building is not structurally capable of facilitating the approved development. Likewise, further feasibility work has been undertaken which established that a far better facility can be provided by instead progressing with a redevelopment option.

The proposed new building is a much bigger footprint than the current building 643square metres compared to 285 square metres and so takes up more of the park. The removal of four trees is proposed.

The application comes from  the Stonebridge Boxing Club previously housed in a building in Wembley High Road  and being redeveloped by Regal. The Club seems to have 'most favoured status' as Regal also ear-marked a 3 storey building at the controversial Wembley Point development for them. Details below:

The Club in a Facebook entry about its temporary premises  that thanks Muhammed Butt, Brent Council leader, seems to expect a move to the park - or perhaps it is going to have two locations?

The Planning and Design Statement states:

Stonebridge Boxing Club was established as a charity in July 2010 and has in excess of 650 members. It is currently located in Fairgate House on Wembley High Road, which has planning permission for redevelopment, and therefore there is a need for a new facility.

 

Accordingly, the proposal is to demolish the existing dilapidated building located in King Edward 7th Park and replace it with a modern, high quality boxing club, which includes gym and sporting facilities, physio, ancillary office space, toilet and change facilities, and a café.

 

It should be noted that the Site has an extant planning permission (ref. 22/2526) to refurbish and extend the current pavilion.

 

However, further investigation has since been undertaken which has uncovered that the building is not structurally capable of facilitating the approved development. Likewise, further feasibility work has been undertaken which established that a far better facility can be provided by instead progressing with a redevelopment option. This is explained in greater detail within this submission.

 

Through considered design development and consultation with London Borough of Brent  the proposals result in the following key public benefits, many of which are either in-line with or in excess of those resulting from the extant permission:

 

• Providing a new, modern boxing facility which will serve the local community;

• Demolishing an unused building and replacing it with a useable recreational facility at the heart of the community that will animate King Edward 7th park and improve safety within it;

• A replacement building of a much higher architectural quality, which enhances the setting of the locally listed park within which it is located, according with Paragraph 197 of the NPPF;

• Landscape improvements and habitat improvements;

• A car free development with cycle parking spaces provided in excess of policy requirements, supporting aspirations for providing sustainable transport solutions in the area;

• A building that provides improved energy efficiency and sustainability to the existing pavilion; and

• Both the construction and operational stages of the development will provide additional employment and investment in the local area.

The architectural quality of the new building has been questioned by local residents who have seen the illustration above and suggest it looks like a temporary metal marque. Is it appropriate for an Edwardian heritage asset:

King Edward VII Park is a locally listed park (a non-designated heritage asset). It was formerly part of Read's Farm and was purchased from Edward Spencer Churchill by Wembley UDC in 1913 and laid out as a public park in memory of the late king and also in compensation for the loss of Wembley Park as public open space. The park was opened on 4 July 1914, reputedly by Queen Alexandra. The park had a lodge, a rustic bandstand and picturesque refreshment pavilion; a children's gymnasium with swings, a giant slide and see-saws, a shallow pond and a drinking fountain. There were facilities for tennis and bowling, and the lower part was laid out for cricket and hockey, separated by a belt of elms. There were gravelled walks and seating, formal planting and numerous beds with shrubs and trees.

At present there is only one comment on the Brent Planning Portal. It refers to practical problems of having a building in the middle of the park with associated access problems that emerged when the previous application was considered LINK:

I am writing to express my objection to this proposal. Not only are we losing valuable green space, but the chosen boxing location appears inadequate and unsuitable.

1. How can people be expected to attend in a location that lacks proper lighting?
2. What measures are in place for parking management?
3. The loss of trees is concerning, especially considering the ongoing reduction of trees in the park. It seems counterintuitive to propose further tree removal.

I fail to understand the rationale behind allowing the establishment of a facility in a location unfit for use and seemingly inappropriate. The current choice appears to be a misguided decision, leading to a loss of space. Additionally, it raises questions about safety, given the inadequate lighting, and the potential risk to people-especially considering they have another location pending approval. Building a large gym in the middle of the park, which is not safe at night, puts more people at risk. Have we forgotten about the previous murder in the park.

Full details on the Brent website HERE

 

 

 

Consultation meeting at Birchen Grove Garden Centre on Barnet's West Hendon Playing Fields plans - Saturday 18th November 2023

 

 

 

From COMMON PLACE CONSULTATION

 

Barnet Council wants to transform West Hendon Playing Fields into an exciting new park and we want your views on how it should be improved. The new park proposals will include new play areas, recreational spaces, sports facilities, improved infrastructure, and expanded leisure amenities.

Your input is vital to creating a thriving destination that is inclusive and accessible. We are planning engagement opportunities where we would love to hear from you.

1- You can join us in person at our drop-in events to meet the project team, learn more about the project proposal and share your aspirations for the park:

• Session 1: Wednesday, 15 th of November 2023 at Barnet Multicultural Community Centre, NW4 3TA from 3:00pm – 7:30pm.
• Session 2: Saturday, 18 th of November at Birchen Grove Garden Centre, NW9 8RY from 10:00am – 3:00pm.

Both venues have accessible wheelchair entry and toilets.

2- For those who are unable to attend in person, we are running two online webinars on 21st of November for you to learn more about the project proposal and ask any questions that you may have:

• Session 1: 6:00pm – 6:45pm. Register here.
• Session 2: 6:45pm – 7:30pm. Register here.

3- Take part in our survey by 17th of December. This will help us understand how you currently use the park, and your vision and aspirations of the West Hendon Playing Fields.

 

 

Our emerging project vision is to breathe new life into the site, turning West Hendon Playing Fields into a thriving destination that puts People, Place, and the Planet at the core of improvement efforts. The park will be inclusive to all ages and abilities, enhance local wildlife and biodiversity, and offer ample opportunities for physical activity and recreation.

We came up with this vision based on Barnet Council's aspirations for West Hendon Playing Fields, past engagement exercises, and what we know about the area. We need your input to make sure the final vision captures what the community wants. Complete our survey to share how you experience the park, your feedback on the vision and your ideas for improvement. We will use your feedback to design a park that you will enjoy.

 

Who will we be engaging?

We are committed to broad-reaching engagement with a diverse range of communities. We will be engaging with a wide range of groups, including: 

• West Hendon Residents
• Tenants of West Hendon Playing Fields
• Conservation and Nature Groups
• Accessibility-focused groups
• Sports Groups
• Schools in the area
• Voluntary, Community and Faith (VCF) groups
• Local councillors

We will also be consulting with the following organisations to ensure that our proposals meet statutory requirements. They include: 

• Brent Council
• Sport England
• Greater London Authority
• Canal and River Trust
• Metropolitan Police 
• Environment Agency
• Natural England
• Thames Water
• UK Power Networks

How will we be engaging?

We are committed to engaging with residents and stakeholders in a way that is: 

• Resident-first: We put residents first and emphasise the importance of the local community in shaping our proposals.
• Existing Knowledge: We leverage existing knowledge bases and networks from voluntary organisations and other groups to ensure that all communities, especially under-represented groups, have an opportunity to participate. 
• Transparent: We establish clear parameters of engagement from the beginning to promote honesty and transparency.
• Innovative: We use best practices and innovative approaches, both online and in person, to engage with the community.
• Engaging: We raise awareness of West Hendon Playing Fields and generate excitement for our proposals to ensure early activation.
• Tailored: We tailor our engagement topics to the specific aspirations and needs of the community and stakeholders.
• Ongoing: We engage and communicate throughout the project lifecycle to keep you updated and involved.

We believe that these principles will help us to build strong relationships with you and your community, ensuring all voices are heard as we develop the proposals for West Hendon Playing Fields. 

Our Promise of Feedback - Your voice matters!

We will listen to and record every comment you make. Our communication channels will be open, consistent, and transparent. We offer both offline and online communication channels to ensure accessibility for everyone. At the end of each key stage, we will tell you how we incorporated your input into the design of the Playing Fields. Where feedback has not been incorporated, we will clearly explain why. 

 

 

LINK TO KNOWLEDGE MAP to comment on different aspects of the park.

 There was a Master Plan for the area back in a 2018 consultation that includes various proposals LINK

 

Underdevelopment of Wembley Steps undercroft for community benefit

 

 

Undercroft Activities from the developer's Design and Access Statement September 4th 2018

 

Every now and again I decide to check up on whether some of the promises included in planning applications and planning officer reports (designed to persuade the Planning Committee of the benefits of the development) actually come about.

These have included artist's impressions of the attractive banks of the Wealdstone Brook flowing through s development where you can imagine dipping your toes into the cool water- that turns out to be steep banked concrete conduits full of rubbish and polluted water. Even that is 'Private'.

The steps that replaced the Stadium  Pedway were a highly controversial project and one of the benefits claimed was the use of the 'undercroft' beneath for various activities that would increase income for Brent Council.

This was meant to soften resentment at the £18m of Community Infrastructure Levy that Brent Council handed over for the steps replacement and other 'improvements'. 

Officers Final Report  4^th September 2018

 

The 33.5m wide pedestrian link area beneath the landing of the steps (‘The Undercroft’) has been identified as an area that could provide for community activities and ‘pop ups’. It is considered acceptable as it maintains permeability across the front of the stadium for pedestrians on Stadium Event Days.

 

This covered area is also proposed to be used as an occasional event space and for use as play space and/or a market area. Incorporated into the steps at concourse level would be roof lights to provide lighting for the undercroft in addition to the LED downlights proposed

 

Nearly five years on here is the undercroft today:

 

 

 

Brent launches consultation on recycling and street cleaning as Veolia contract comes to an end - details

From Brent Council website

We want to hear your views on changes we want to make to recycling and street cleaning in the borough.

The contract we have to pick up your waste and recycling and to keep streets clean is coming to an end next spring. We have invited companies to bid for the new contract.

We want to take this opportunity to make some changes to the service you have received for the past few years. There are a few reasons for this:

1. The government is likely to change the way it asks us to provide recycling services over the next few years, to align with changes to national policy contained in the Environment Act 2021.

2. We are working together with local people to make Brent a carbon neutral borough by 2030. We know lots of you want to do your bit to live more sustainably and through the Let’s Talk Climate conversation, you told us that we could help by making it easier to do the right thing and recycle – including making it easier for you to know what can and can’t be recycled.

3. The council’s budgets have been stretched by the pandemic, rising prices, a growing population and a reduction in the funding we get from the government. We need to save money and so have to think differently about how these services are delivered in the future.

Proposed changes to recycling include separating certain materials in to weekly collections. The adjustment to the recycling service will save the council money and evidence suggests that it will also improve recycling rates within the borough.  

Councillor Krupa Sheth, Brent's Cabinet Member for Environment, said: 

 

These changes will mean that the council can save money and keep running service the residents need the most. This is so important after drastic funding cuts from the government since 2010. We all know that times are hard at the moment and difficult decisions have to be made to improve services in the present day, whilst also having a lasting impact for future generations.

Evidence from other councils show an increase in recycling rates when using this collection method. This is just one way of us improving in our fight against climate change.

The council has committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2030 and we are serious about making changes that will benefit the residents, the borough and the planet. 

I urge residents to share their views and help to shape how their recycling is collected.

This consultation asks for your views on the changes we are proposing, please complete the survey now.

Current process for collecting recycling

At the moment, you put all your cardboard, paper, plastic, tin cans and glass recycling into one bin and we collect it once a week.

Proposed changes

We’re proposing giving you a sack to separate out ‘fibre’ (mixed paper, cardboard, newspapers etc.) from ‘containers’ (e.g. plastic, tin cans, tubs).

We would collect the two sets of materials on alternate weeks. For example:

Week 1 - we collect your containers in your existing blue top bin.

Week 2 - we collect your fibre sack, and repeat.

You will therefore still have weekly recycling collections.

With this option, general waste would continue to be collected fortnightly and food waste weekly – remaining as they are now.

Other London boroughs have tried this and found that people recycle more – this is better for the planet and on balance would likely save the council money because it’s costly to dispose of general waste and we can sell recycling to providers.

We are also looking at introducing a new free bookable Small Items Collection Service to make it easier for you to recycle textiles, small electrical items, batteries, coffee pods and paint.

Changes to street cleansing

We are also looking at moving to an intelligence-led approach to street cleaning. This means that teams will be deployed where it is needed most, supported by rapid response teams who will be on call to clean areas when needed.

This will be a move away from the current approach that focuses on teams being deployed to different streets on a rota system, regardless of whether they need sweeping. 

There  are further details of proposed changes in a document on the consultation website site HERE

Wembley Park road closures on July 31st to 'facilitate a sports procession' likely to create more controversy

 Following the controversial use of Fryent Country Park for car parking during the Ed Sheeran concert weekend recently, sharp eyed Philip Grant has spotted this notice in the Brent and Kilburn Times.

Philip commented:

One of the big events coming up at Wembley Stadium is the Women's EUROs football final at Wembley Stadium on 31 July. Will Fryent Country Park, or Fryent Way itself, be used as a car / coach park for that event?

Did anyone else see Brent's notice of a temporary prohibition of traffic, in the Legal Notices section on page 21 of last Thursday's "Brent and Kilburn Times"?

In order 'to facilitate a sports procession' (people having to walk from Fryent Way to the Stadium?), Brent proposes to close the following roads to traffic on 31 July:

'Fryent Way (between Broadview and The Paddocks)
The Paddocks (between Fryent Way and Forty Lane)
Forty Lane (between The Paddocks and Bridge Road)
Bridge Road (between Forty Lane and Brook Avenue)
Brook Avenue (between Bridge Road and Olympic Way)'

There is precedent for closing Fryent Way so that it could be used as a coach park for an international football match LINK.  So far Brent Council has not explained why Fryent Country Park was used as a car park recently and fears have been voiced that this set a precedent for similar future action. The action was particularly controversial because it was on the weekend of RMT strikes and appeared to seek to undermine the effectiveness of the action.

I will ask Brent Council for an explanation.

Brent Climate Emergency Question Time Tonight Online 7-9pm

Brent Climate Emergency Question Time Event 7-9pm Online

 
To attend register HERE

This online event will follow the BBC Question Time format, but all questions will be about the climate and the environment. Ollie More from Sustrans and Ian Saville from Brent Friends of the Earth will join Cllr Krupa Sheth (Lead member for the Environment, Labour Party), Cllr Kansagra (Conservative Party), and Cllr Georgiou (Liberal Democrats) to form a panel to discuss environmental issues raised by you. Register via Eventbrite (linked
provided above) and submit a question by emailing localdemocracyweek@brent.gov.uk

 The session will be split into 4 key themes:

• Consumptions and waste
• Transport
• Homes and buildings
• How you can get involved
  

 

 

UPDATED SCANDAL: South Kilburn blocks so badly built for Brent Council that remediation exceeds the original purchase cost

A report going to Brent Council's Wellbeing and Scrutiny Committee next week LINK reveals that blocks built in 2009 on the South Kilburn Estate by Higgins suffer from water penetration and cladding, fire safety and window issues. The blocks are known together as Granville New Homes.

The problems are so bad that demolition was one of the options considered. Brent Housing Partnership purchased the properties for £17.1m and the estimated cost of remediation works is £18.5m.

The report summarises the issues:

First Wave Housing (FWH)  is one of the Council’s wholly owned housing companies. It is a registered provider with 326 properties. Of FWH’s 326 properties, 110 are located at Granville New Homes. These 110 properties comprise of 84 social rented properties, 25 intermediate rented properties, and one leaseholder. 

 

Granville New Homes is a residential development that completed in 2009. It was developed by the Council and Higgins. The Council’s Arms Length Management Organisation, Brent Housing Partnership (BHP), purchased the properties at a cost of £17.1m. This figure met the Council’s development costs and was funded via a loan from the Council. BHP also received 45 one bedroom market rented properties in order to cross subsidise the acquisition, as on its own, the purchase of Granville New Homes would not have been viable for BHP. Since 2009, the properties have been managed as part of BHP/now FWH’s portfolio. 

 

FWH commissioned a report from Ridge Consultants to investigate water penetration, cladding, fire safety and window issues at FWH’s Granville, Princess, and Canterbury blocks (otherwise known as Granville New Homes). Ridge have recommended that works be carried out at the blocks to remediate these issues. It is estimated that the cost of works will be £18.5m.

A report going to Cabinet on October 11th after Scrutiny has considered the issue set out the options that were rejected: 

The Ridge Report that was commissioned by the Council outlined the main problems:

The Ridge report stated that the issues identified are not easily repairable in a way which will offer a guaranteed and satisfactory solution. On this basis, the only available option is to replace the facades, roof coverings and balcony waterproofing systems. These works include:

· Removing and replacing all cladding (both cementitious and brick effect panel) with non-combustible A1 or A2 fire rated materials;
· Stripping external façades and removing all external doors and windows;
· Providing new external doors and windows within a new panelised cladding system;
· Replacing insulation; and
· Stripping roofs and providing new roof coverings. 3.9 Including consultancy services, the waking-watch, the fire alarm system and contingency allowances, the estimated total cost of remediation works is circa £18.5m (including VAT). This figure includes £2m of contingency costs. If the remediation is carried out as outlined, the estimated completion date is September 2023. At present these costs are not affordable for FWH. It should be noted that the £18.5m is an estimated value from Ridge; until works are tendered and completed the actual cost will not be known.

The Cabinet Report suggests the following complex  option to resolve the issue:

5.1 The recommended option is for FWH to dispose of the blocks to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and for the HRA to carry out remediation works as recommended in the Ridge report. There are nuances to this option in regards to how the transaction would be structured. These are detailed in section 6.

However, broadly, under this option:

 

· The transfer occurs at zero value as the blocks’ asset valuation of £12.5m is offset by the £15.4m of works required to the asset (the figure excludes VAT as this is reclaimable by the Council). The HRA as part of the Council will come
within the scope of public law principles. Therefore, it cannot act unlawfully or irrationally. Therefore, the HRA cannot pay a sum for the blocks.
· The HRA carries out the remediation works.
· The 84 social rented tenants would become secure Council tenants.
· The 25 intermediate rented tenants would be transferred to i4B under the recommended option; the HRA will recharge i4B for its proportion of the works.
· FWH’s loan for the blocks would be refinanced to a more affordable rate.
· As the transfer will formally be valued at zero value by the valuer no capital gains or SDLT costs are anticipated. As the transaction is a commercial transaction to support the ability of FWH to trade as a going concern, any tax
implications to the transfer are incidental and would be in accordance with General Anti avoidance Rules operated by HMRC. Tax advice from the Council’s tax advisors have confirmed this position.

 

5.2 The following assumptions have also been made:
· It is assumed the housing management function will be managed within existing staffing resources. There will be a reallocation of resource time and cost from FWH to the HRA to reflect the work associated with the transferred units.
· Rent inflation at 1.5% in line with CPI+1 and cost inflation at 2% per annum in line with Bank of England target rates.
· The cost assumptions in this report do not include estimates for decarbonisation works, as this is a known budget limitation across the sector.
· Further major works at £2,000 per property assumed from year 8 of the HRA Business Plan. 

 

5.3 This option balances the cost between FWH, i4B, the Council’s General Fund and the HRA. It also offers the minimum disruption to residents in the blocks by offering the most rapid solution to addressing the remediation works required.

Furthermore, it is acknowledged that this is a reasonable way to achieve appropriate levels of different types of housing tenure in the borough.

 

Higgins and Brent Council celebrating the start of the current Stonebridge scheme in December 2020 (first published on Brent Council & Higgins' websites)

 

The elephant in the room is of course Brent Council's partner in the development Higgins and what their responsibility is regarding these very expensive defects. Higgins, who appear to go under various names - Higgins Partnership, Higgins Homes, Higgins Group, seem to be a favoured partner of the Council with a £22m contract for 73 council homes in Stonebridge signed last August and another South Kilburn development at Chippenham Gardens.

 

I am sure councillors on the Scrutiny Committee will be keen to find out more about the partnership and its future.

 

UPDATE - Comment from Wembley Matters contributor Philip Grant

 

 First Wave Housing Ltd is the same company as Brent Housing Partnership Ltd - there was simply a change of name in 2017. It's details on the Companies House Beta website (Company No. 04533752) make for interesting reading.

The Chairman of the company appears to be Martin Smith (other details unknown), and other directors are Akintoye Durowoju (who appears to be a Chartered Surveyor and Brent Council employee), two senior Brent Officers, Phil Porter and Gail Tolley (although there is conflicting evidence about whether one or both have resigned or are still in post), and Councillor Saqib Butt (appointed in November 2020, after the previous councillor directors George Crane - to September 2020 - and James Denselow - Sept. to November 2020 - had both resigned).

The most recent accounts submitted are for the year to 31 March 2020. These include a £1.1m increase in the value of its properties, based on valuations by Jones Lang LaSalle. It will be interesting to see what their valuation is at 31 March 2021!

The balance sheet shows net assets of around £26.7m, but this includes a revaluation reserve of £15.5m. The cash flow (profit or loss) for the year showed a deficit of £264k.

There were loans of £36.8m from Brent Council, and the accounts were prepared on a going concern basis, as 'The Council has confirmed, in writing, of its intention for FWH to remain as a going concern for at least twelve months from the date of approval of the annual report and financial statements.' The financial statements were approved on 29 September 2020!

With the loss of rental income when a third of its properties are passed to Brent Council (and i4B), and the value of its Granville New Homes properties written down to NIL, but still with interest to pay on the loan from the Council to purchase those homes in 2009, there must be some doubt over whether First Wave Housing Ltd can continue as a going concern.

 

 First Wave Housing Ltd outstanding £17.8m loan on Granville New Homes from the Companies House Charges Register

Key questions asked over Network Homes suitability as a development partner in Northwick Park scheme

 

Network Homes, with its head office located in Wembley, is one of the partners in the massive development at Northwick Park as well as an adviser to Brent Council on the building of council houses in the borough LINK.  Network's other partners at Northwick Park are Brent Council,London NW University Healthcare NHS Trust and the University of Westminster. It comes under the auspices of the government's One Public Estate policy which aims to maximise the return on public property.

Network Homes have been embroiled in the cladding scandal and warned in January 2020 that it would need to pass on most of the £200,000,000 that needed to  spent on remediation of its estate would have to be passed on to leaseholders. With its properties requiring so much work doubts have been raised over the quality of its housing.

 Although the Planning Committee has a quasi-statutory role and is supposed to be non-political Brent Council is a developer itself in this case.

Cllr Daniel Kennelly, a member of the Planning Committee, took up concerns over  Network Homes  at last night's meeting.

He wanted reassurances of the long-term viability of the project with Network Homes as a partner given its financial difficulties  and wanted to be assured that they properties they built would be safe. He noted that Network was facing long-term difficulties regarding its cladding responsibilities 'down the road' - what they had done had been 'criminal'. 

Officers responded that they did not look at the financial viability of the developer itself but of the financial viability of its project - did it give sufficient return to the developer on the basis of what they would build and the income it would derive. Network would have to adhere to fire regulations and the plans were for brick build with no cladding. The fire strategy would be considered under reserved matters and rigorously checked.

Kennelly continued to press on the impact of the overall scheme if one partner collapsed financially:  would other partners be liable to its costs? A lead officer responded that different entities in the partnership would be responsible for their own section of the development and would not be responsible for the other parts. He pointed to the  financial collapse of a building company which, after it crashed, its development had been bought by another company and completed.

The councillor sought assurances that although there was an undertaking that there would be no ground rent on the scheme would there be other costs on top of the rent. An officer replied that planning did not control service charges. Cllr Johnson was concerned that the existing NHS residents on the Network Homes estate that was to be demolished would get first refusal on new 'intermediate' (MF not genuinely affordable) properties. He was concerned that they would not be able to afford them. Officers replied, rather obviously, that this would depend on their salary. Network Homes had been engaging with them about their options. NHS staff would not be eligible for London Affordable Rent properties as these were allocated to people on the Council's housing list.

Cllr Kennelly also asked about the large number of trees that would be removed in the development and asked how long it would take for the present level of carbon capture  by existing trees to be reached by the new planning. An officer commented that this issue was not captured by planning guidance at the moment while another said it would depend on the rate of growth of the different tree species planted and what was done with the felled trees - if they were burned and released carbon this would add to the carbon capture requirement. Replacement trees would not  all be saplings and there woduld be a substantial increase in the overall number of trees.

Representations by Brent and Harrow Cyclists over  safe routes around and  through the development were largely dismissed as referring to the new through road that had already been approved. Officers said there was not enough space on the road for segregated cycling and that a single crossing at the junction with Watford Road would make life easier for cyclists and pedestrians, but as there was heavy traffic flow on Watford Road, maintaining the flow was the priority. John Fletcher (Highways) said they would take the representations into consideration as the scheme got underway and offered to meet with the cyclists to walk through the site.

Given some of the less than convincing  answers by officers (I have never heard so many 'sort ofs' in such an important meeting), it is surprising that the application was unanimously approved.