Showing posts with label development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label development. Show all posts

Monday 2 October 2023

CONSULTATION LUNCHTIME TODAY ONLINE: Plans for a 4 storey block of 13 flats on the corner of Queens Walk and Salmon Street - consultation this evening and tomorrow lunchtime


 A large house at 26 Salmon Street, Kingsbury NW9, built within the last 10 years, is set to be replaced by a four storey block of  13 flats.

Wembley Matters warned that the approval of Krishna Court, a block of flats that replaced a family  house on the opposite corner of Queens Walk, could lead to similar applications. Krishna Court, claimed to have been an addition to Brent housing stock, is in fact an AirB&B and despite being notificed as far as I know Brent Council has taken no enforcement action on it. Krishna Court is 8 flats. The application for 26 Salmon Street (image below) is for 13 flats.

 

 

Developers are consulting with the public this evening and tomorrow about their plans. See LINK

Monday October 2nd 7pm BOOK A PLACE

Tuesday October 3rd 1pm BOOK A PLACE

 From the website: 

We are proud to bring forward this development of much need high quality homes, having undertaken a significant design process for this new building.  We are looking forward to meeting our neighbours, hearing your comments, and considering them before submitting an application in the autumn.

This proposal, for much-needed homes, is for a four-storey building with 13 new homes including:

Two studio flats

Three 1-bed flats

Four 2-bedroom flats

Four 3-bedroom flats

Community Amenity Area and Play Space

We are including a secluded courtyard and community amenity area and play space at the rear of the site.

At the ground floor, large amenity areas for all residents are provided fronting onto Salmon Street and adjacent to 43 Queens Walk.

Parking

Parking will be provided at the side of the property on the Queens Walk elevation. We are including 7 car parking spaces and 23 cycle spaces.

When residents commented that this post was the first they had heard of the proposal I rang the PR company and they say they wrote to neighbours on Salmon Street, Queens Walk, Deanscroft Avenue, Tudor Close, Bruno Place and part of Kingsmere Park.

On the other side of Salmon Street at Number 39. It says it is a family home...


 

 


Tuesday 5 September 2023

Muhammed Butt: You are not allowed to mention our plans to sell out the Barham Park covenant or proposals to destroy community facilities

 

Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt made an unconvincing effort not to notice the large attendance at the Barham Park Trustees Meeeting this morning - there were more present than shown in this photograph and extra chairs had to be wheeled into the room.

Residents were there to protect their park and said afterwards they had not been impressed by the proceedings.

The meeting began with an announcement that the agenda item on the accounts was to be deferred to the next meeting. The whole meeting should have been deferred as Trustee activities and their plans hang on the financial viability of the Trust. That proposition was rejected and the meeting continued.

Users of the community facilities were only allowed to report on their activities and forbidden by Cllr Butt  (Chair of the Trustees)  to comment on the proposals that were on the Agenda.  Cllr Lorber appealed to legal officers to comment on this ruling as no such restriction had been communicated but no response was forthcoming. An ill-tempered Butt interrupted Francis Henry when he quietly and politely tried to raise concerns.

 

 Butt interrupted several times when Francis Henry wanted to talk about the items on the agenda that would impact on tenants and threaten the future of the Barham Library and its community activites:

 

Butt: I am going to stop you again. You are here, right, as I said the offer was made to the people within that building to come here and talk about the  work that they have done in the previous year leading up to today.

I am not talking about the meeting. I am not talking about the agenda. I am not talking about the report.  I am talking about the work you have done in the building as part of your trustee role.


This is what Francis would have said if he was not interrupted. They are questions he and other tenants of the community buildings would like answered:

Barham Park Trust Meeting, 5th September 2023

Presentation by Friends of Barham Library

 

My name is Francis Henry, a resident of Wembley with a business in the area for over 30 years. I was the Chair of the Brent Sustainability Forum; I am currently the Chair of the Wembley Traders Association.

 

Today I am speaking as a Trustee of Friends of Barham Library who have been running a popular Community Library and Activity Centre in Barham Park since 2016 where hundreds of local people take part in a wide range of recreational activities.

 

In relation to Item 7, I wish to make the following points and raise some questions.

 

In my professional view as an local estate agent, no business person would contemplate making a decision involving around £4 million of public money on the inadequate information before Trustees today.

 

Can you please answer questions that any responsible Trustee would ask:

 

  1. What alternative premises are being offered to all existing tenants?

 

  1. Why were the tenants not consulted or involved?

 

  1. Will the existing tenants be guaranteed same size space on affordable rents once completed?

 

  1. Why do the officer recommended plans in the Silver Option not show a Community Library when the Library is shown in the Gold Option?

 

  1. What is the earliest possible date you can obtain vacant possession of all the Units?

 

  1. Is the £3.2 million cost estimate based on current year prices and what is the cost estimate in the earliest year the work can start.

 

  1. Why has the bronze option not been presented to the Trustees?

 

  1. The Report claims gross income of £300,000 to £400,000 from the completed development. What is the net income after interest and costs of managing the new facility.

 

  1. Have the Brent Planners confirmed that shops, restaurants, hotels and offices comply with Planning Policies for green spaces and the Sudbury Neighbourhood Plan?

 

  1. What sources of funding have been identified or been pursued to meet the expected costs?

 

  1. You have spent £25,000 on Architects fees, unspecified costs on the windows survey. How much more in consultancy fees will be incurred before you know if this project is financially viable?

 

In my opinion no responsible Trustee would consider committing any more Charity or Public money to this idea before these questions are answered or recommendation 2.5 on the covenant is pursued.

 

Thank you for your time.

The Trustees decided to go ahead with further work on the development proposals that officers described as 'hypothetical' - having spent £25K on a hypothetical report they now committed to spending  more with an initial investigation into funding streams that would enable developments to take place. Only after that will tenants of the community buildings be consulted on proposals which does suggest they will be involved in shaping the proposals.

The plans to remove the covenant restricting development of the plot containg two small houses will also go ahead enabling fun fair owner George Irvin to build four 3 storey houses on the site are going ahead.

On Governance the Committee opted to continue the status quo, giving the Brent Cabinet sole control of the Trustees. Cllr Butt nodded along as an officer inaudibly went through the reasons why the alternatives would not be effective or efficient. A suggestion that a Friends of Barham Park should be set up was the only sop to local people and no actual representation (apart from the Buttocracy) on the Trustees was rejected.

There was a rare moment when Cllr Krupesh Sheth, who is lead members for the environment and thus of parks, actually spoke - but only to correct the title of one of the officers.

There was no mention of any submission by Barry Gardiner MP who had previously strongly opposed the removal of the covenant and Wembley Central ward councillors, the ward now includes Barham Park,  did not make any representations.

 

 

Saturday 26 August 2023

Trustees set to rubber stamp process to remove covenant restriction on building in Barham Park

The proposed George Irvin development of four 3 storey houses in Barham Park that would require the removal of the covenant

Trustees Meeting Agenda September 5th 2023


Reader will be familiar with the controversy over the proposal by funfair owner and property developer George Irvin to replace two  modest two storey park workers' houses  in Barham park with 4 three storey houses. At Planning Committee the elephant in the room was the restrictive covenant on developing the site, dismissed by officers as not a planning consideration. Planning permission was granted despite massive resident opposition.

Readers will also remember that the Trustees of Barham Park consist of Brent Council Cabinet members, chaired by Brent Council Leader, Muhammed Butt. Readers will also recall disquiet over Irvin giving free tickets away to councillors and concern over alleged social connections between Irvin and councillors, including Muhammed Butt.

Now the elephant in the room is due to make an appearance at the Barham Park Trustees meeting at the Civic Centre on Tuesday September 5th. 

The proposal by the existing owner, contrary to the terms of the restrictive covenants, is to seek consent from the Trust Committee to amend the restrictive covenants to enable him to demolish the existing buildings and erect 4 houses on the combined plot, whereas currently the restrictive covenants allow for only 2 dwellings on the combined plot.

However, the public and backbench councillors will not be allowed to know the size and value of the elephant/covenant as the result of an Independent Valuation has been 'restricted':

"Appendix 3 is not for publication as it contains the following category of exempt information as specified in Paragraph 3, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, namely: “Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information."

There is a clue to how it could be worked out in the papers for the meeting:

The varying of the restrictive covenants is a matter for the Trust Committee and Charity Commission. As beneficiary of the restrictive covenants, the Trust Committee can negotiate a monetary consideration for varying the restrictive covenants. Simply put, the monetary consideration is usually determined by what the market value of the 2 additional completed properties might be and deduct from that the estimated development costs to arrive at a gross development value. This gross development value is then typically split 50/50 between the Covenantor and Covenantee by negotiation and is the formula used in the valuation for varying the restrictive covenant.

Developer, George Irvin,  will of course be a beneficiary as well but the report attempts to sweeten the pill by suggesting that the proceeds from varying the  covenant will be used to the benefit of the park, which as Trustees would have to do anyway, although they only refer to 'potential':

Officers will explore the potential to reinvest the proceeds from varying the restrictive covenants in respect of 776-778 Harrow Road back into the Estate as part of developing a multi-faceted investment strategy for the refurbishment project. Accordingly, the proceeds would count as permanent endowment funds (capital funds which are held in trust for the benefit of the charity over the long term and are subject to restrictions as regards how they may be used).

Those proposals on  refurbishment are a separate part of the agenda for the meeting and will be covered in a separate blog post.

So is there any mention of the 1,000 signatures plus petition calling for the covenants to be upheld? No - neither in the report or as as a Petition Presentaton Agenda item. A new elephant in the room!?

A key question is whether the Agenda or accompanying reports leave open the possibility of the Trustees deciding not to vary the covenants at all and thus fulfill their role in protecting the Tutus Barham legacy. The answer is already implied - they will protect the legacy by using the covenant variation monies to improve the park not by refusing to negotiate  a variation.

So what do officers' recommend to the Barham Park Trust Committee?

Recommendation(s)

 

That the Barham Park Trust Committee RESOLVES

 

Agree for the Director for Environmental and Leisure Services in consultation with the Chair of the Trust Committee to negotiate in principle the variation of the restrictive covenant in respect of 776 and 778 Harrow Road for the best terms that can reasonably be obtained, subject to final approval by the Trust Committee, and any approval required by the Charity Commission under the Charities Act 2022 and 201l.

 

So the Committee is asked to agree to hand over negotiation to Muhammed Butt and the Director and, subject to Charity Commission approval,  will then rubber stamp it. All done by a small group of cabinet members, albeit wearing trustee hats - with, as I said at the beginning no resident or backbencher input.

 

There is one other area that may be considered by supporters of the covenant and critics of the process regarding whether the owner/developer is a 'connected person' and thus a conflict of interest arises. This is the relevant section of the report:

5.7 Use of s117, pre-supposes that the owner of the cottages is not a “connected person” within the meaning of section 118. Connected persons2 includes:

 

“Who at the time of the disposition in question, or at the time of any contract for the disposition in question are, for example—

(a) a charity trustee or trustee for the charity…

(c) a child, parent, grandchild, grandparent, brother or sister of any such trustee or donor,

(d) an officer, agent or employee of the charity…

(f) a person carrying on business in partnership with any person falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (e)”

 

5.8 In accordance with s120, any disposal of Trust land over seven years to a third party is also subject to similar requirement imposed by s119 above.

 

Furthermore, the disposal of charity land, or letting for more than two years to a third party or connected person requires consultation in the form of being notified in the local press and onsite and providing for at least one calendar month, from the date of the notice, for members of the public to make representations.

 

5.9 Accordingly, if the owner of the cottages is a connected person, or a conflict of interest is deemed to exist in the decision making process re the disposal (for example, amongst other things because payment of a capital sum to the Council (as trustee) for releasing the covenant would reduce the contribution required to be made in practice by the Council (as local authority) to subsidise the running of the charity), the Trustees should request the Charity Commission consider the Qualified Surveyor’s Report (referred to under the 2022 Act as the Designated Advisor’s Report (DARs) (valuation) and release or varying the restrictive covenant pursuant to their s105 Charity Act powers, to authorise dealings with the charity property.

 

On the same Agenda there is an item on governance which proposes the first update since 2013. The item makes clear that Brent Council is the corporate Trustee of Barham Park but must ensure that the management of the Charity and its interests is separate from its responsibility as the Council and its interests Decisions have to be made solely on the basis of the former. What is in the interests of the  Charity may not be in the electoral interests of the Council. See 10a Appendix A for the changes.

Interesting...

Review of Barham Park Trust Governance Document pdf icon PDF 137 KB

This report sets out for review proposed updates to the Barham Park Trust Governance and Guidance Document. Primarily designed to reflect changes following organisational restructures in the council and updated guidance issued by the Charity Commission.

Additional documents:

 






 


Thursday 8 June 2023

It is time for Barry Gardiner to speak out on Barham Park and match his 2010 pledge to protect it from development

 

Yesterday I tweeted Barry Gardiner MP to ask him to intervene in the Barham Park issue where George Irvin has applied to build four 3 storey houses in a site in the park. The existing pair of  modest houses were originally for park workers so had a connection with the park.

Today an election leaflet from 2010, when the General Election and local elections were held on the same day,  has come to light that shows that 13 years ago the Brent North MP made an election issue of what he claimed were Lib Dem plans to build on the park:

 

 

Apparently the then Brent Council Executive (Lib Dem-Conservative Coalition) had rejected the proposal to build in the park.* 

The question now is, 'Why is Barry Gardiner silent on plans going forward to Planning Committee to build houses in the park? He could make his views known to the public and it is open to him to make representations at the Planning Committee. He could even write to the Trustees of Barham Park, chaired by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt, to ask them to fulfill their obligation to protect the park and  enforce the covenant protecting the park from development. 

I presume Barry Gardiner still believes what he said in the 2010 leaflet, about protecting the park  - surely it cannot be just  something he said  at election time?

 


 

* In 2010 Barry Gardiner was attacking Liberal Democrat and Conservative councllors who decided to use the two empty houses in the park for decanting purposes as part of the total rebuild of the 215 crumbling flats in Roundtree and Saunderton Road council estate on the opposite side from Barham Park.


Barry Gardiner was opposing the sale of the two houses to  the Notting Hill Housing Association and claimed that Brent Council was planning to build a massive 20 storey tower (see leaflet image) block in Barham Park.

In reality I understand the then Executive was advised that Notting Hill was interested in the two houses and wanted to redevelop the site for a "small" number of flats to help with the decant while the Estate was being rebuilt. When Notting Hill overstepped the mark and proposed a block of 14 flats on the site they were turned down and the proposed sale to them was aborted.

 

Monday 15 May 2023

Campaign launched for a low-rise sustainable development as an alternative to Ballymore's tower based proposal at Ladbroke Grove Sainsbury's site


 

We have covered several major developments on the borders of Brent because they will affect our local residents  including Brent Cross, Old Oak and O2 Centre at Finchley Road.  Now a major development of the Ladbroke  Sainsbury's site is the subject of a campaign by Kensal Triangle Residents' Association under the banner of Keep Kensal Green.

The Association wants a low rise sustainable development as an alternative to the tower blocks proposed by Ballymore and cite the Unity Place development in South Kilburn as a potential model. The campaign say that nearby residents in Brent should have been consulted:

Climate change threatens every part of the planet. The solution at local level requires collaboration between council, planners and residents.

Our mission is to promote an alternative proposal that provides affordable housing, more trees and green spaces; a plan that our local community can get engaged with that meets environmental standards

This campaign is being organised by KTRA (Kensal Triangle Residents Association) co-ordinating with the wider community in North Kensington, Ladbroke Grove and Notting Hill Gate.

We need 30,000 signatures to stop Ballymore’s existing large scale development in favour of a smaller, low rise, sustainable alternative which has the potential to provide North Kensington with attractive affordable canal-side accommodation which could be the pride of the community. (See our website for details)

 

The proposal

 

Campaigners' illustration of a possible lower rise development

Jude Allen, petition organiser and producers of the above video said:

In 2021, Ballymore announced a strategic partnership with Sainsbury’s to build “Project Flourish”, a £1.7 billion regeneration scheme with 3,500 housing units on the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s last remaining brownfield site.

This large scale development which stretches over 18 acres from Ladbroke Grove to North Kensington, features a bigger Sainsbury's surrounded by 20-30 storey high tower blocks, completely at odds with the low rise residential housing of the surrounding area. 

As a local resident, I made the video to provide more information about the development and raise awareness about its potential impact on our local community and the environment.

If we don't stop this development there will be increased traffic, more pollution, 10 years of noisy construction work and following the Southall Gasworks health scare reported in the Guardian on 27, April 2023, potential health risks to local residents from digging up contaminated land on the historical Kensal Gasworks site.

We only have 2 months left to object to this development before Ballymore submit their planning application to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea at the end of June.  

 PETITION SITE


Wednesday 19 April 2023

You have until May 9th to comment on George Irvin's plans to build 4 3-storey houses in Barham Park

 

The consultation period for  the planning application by developer and funfair owner George Irvin to replace two 2 storey houses in Barham park with four 3 storey houses has been extended to May 9th.

Brent Council has issued this notice:

Application Number: 22/4128
Location: 776 & 778, Harrow Road, Wembley, HA0 2HE
Proposal: Demolition of 2 existing dwellings and construction of 4x new three storey dwellinghouses, associated cycle and refuse storage, amenity space and boundary treatment.

View and track the application: Use the QR code or https://pa.brent.gov.uk
You can also use the computers at Brent's libraries.

Commenting on the application: 
You may comment on-line by using the 'make comments' tab or by e-mailing planning.comments@brent.gov.uk. Make sure you provide the application number, your name and postal address. Your comments and address will be publically available, although your name won't be. You may check what the final decision is by selecting "track application" on our website.

Comments should be made by: 09 May 2023.

This link should take you directly to the Comments page on the Planning Portal. LINK

Although Brent Council has said the existing Covenant on the houses is not a planning matter I have made an FoI request regarding the valuation of the Covenant which is pertinent to any arrangement between the Trustees of Barham Park (chaired by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt) and the developer:

 1. Please confirm if you have acquired a professional valuation of the Covenant attached to the two properties at 776-778 Harrow Road, Barham Park that were sold to George Irwin.
2. If not, have Brent Council officers made their own valuation and informed the Trustees of Barham Park accordingly?
3. If either have been done, what is the valuation of the Covenant?

I understand that some councillors will not be taking up George Irvin's offer of free tickets for councillors' friends and families for entrance to his Roe Green Funfair.  It may be worth asking your local councillor if they received the offer and have accepted.

 

Tuesday 4 April 2023

1 Morland Gardens –Brent’s latest NON-development (and a planning complaint).

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

1 Morland Gardens on 1 April 2023. (Photo by Margaret Pratt)

 

The photograph above is similar to one that introduced a previous guest post in January 2023 (1 Morland Gardens – How many more times can they get it wrong?). It was taken on 1 April, but this is no joke. The “April Fools” are at Brent Civic Centre. 

 

If the Senior Officers, Council Leader and Cabinet members had listened, to me and others opposing their plans for redevelopment of the (now former) Brent Start college at 1 Morland Gardens since early 2020, they could have amended their project. They could have retained the heritage Victorian villa they seem determined to demolish (in complete contravention of the Council’s own heritage planning policies), and had a scheme which still delivered perhaps 20 affordable homes as well.

 

The wide footpath, from Hillside, with community garden on the right. (Photo by Margaret Pratt)

 

Instead, they pressed ahead with plans which were supposed to deliver 65 affordable homes, built partly on land that is a wide footpath and a community garden. They currently have no legal right to build on that land, despite claiming it is part of their site, and there are objections to the Stopping-up Order they would need. That is because their plans would force pedestrians to walk through heavily polluted air, and remove many trees, in breach of Brent’s Air Quality Action Plan and Climate and Ecological Emergency Strategy.

 

The funding for the project, which Brent’s Cabinet approved in January 2020, included £6.5m from the GLA’s Affordable Housing Programme 2016-2021. Although this programme was extended to 2023, local authority projects for funding under it had to “start on site” by 31 March 2023. As a number of photographs taken around 1 Morland Gardens on 1 April by a Willesden Local History Society member show, no actual work had begun on the site by then.

 

Blue hut in the car park at 1 Morland Gardens, 1 April 2023. (Photo by Margaret Pratt)

 

An “Oasis” self-contained welfare unit (including canteen and toilet facilities) had recently been delivered to the former college’s car park, ready for any workers to use. But none of the “Start on Site Works”, as defined in the GLA’s funding agreement, had been carried out by the key date. Brent Council has therefore lost that £6.5m funding, for a scheme it was already admitting, in the November 2022 affordable housing report to Cabinet, was unviable. So the Cabinet approved recommendations to “value engineer” the 1 Morland Gardens project.

 

Construction details from the February 2023 Construction Logistics Plan.

 

From the latest documents I have seen, that “value engineering” means ditching the more environmentally friendly “award winning” design which was given planning consent in 2020, and switching to a traditional concrete frame, with precast infill panels. This will require much stronger foundations, involving 454 20-metre-deep concrete piles across the site. It seems all too reminiscent of the methods used to build Brent Council’s Chalkhill and Stonebridge estates in the late 1960s / early 1970s, which had to be demolished around 30 years later!

 

Construction of a “Bison” concrete block of flats at Chalkhill, c.1967.

 

My title mentions a planning complaint, and I will ask Martin to attach a copy of my open letter of complaint to Brent’s Head of Planning at the end of this post, for anyone interested in the details. It concerns the Construction Logistics Plan (“CLP”) for the Morland Gardens development (application 22/4082) which I wrote about in my January 2023 article.

 

That application could and should have been refused, yet I found out last week it had been granted consent on 27 March. But it wasn’t the CLP submitted with the application in December 2022, it was a completely new one submitted in February 2023. That new CLP was not published on Brent’s planning website until 17 March, there was no consultation on it, and even those of us who had commented on the original CLP were not notified of its existence!

 

I don’t think the secrecy over it was part of a “plot” to try to get the CLP approved in time for work to “start on site” at 1 Morland Gardens by 31 March (it was too late for that), but this is far from the transparency Brent residents are entitled to expect, especially when the application relates to a proposed Council development.

 

Will the loss of the £6.5m GLA funding make Brent Council finally accept that their current plans for 1 Morland Gardens are hopeless? It should do, but the past 3+ years have shown that their foolishness is not just confined to April.


Philip Grant.