Showing posts with label Corrib Rest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corrib Rest. Show all posts

Thursday 29 June 2017

Huge disappointment as Brent approves controversial development proposals for Corrib and Gladstone Parade

The divide between local residents and Brent Council widened further last night when despite opposition from local residents, supported by their councillors, the Planning Committee followed officer advice and approved controversial developments at the Corrib Rest, Queens Park, and Gladstone Parade, Dollis Hill.

Although listed as objecting to the Corrib Rest proposal, Robin Sharpe representing the 400 strong Queens Park Area Residents Association, actually spoke in support of the application although he felt it could be improved.  He suggested that QPARA had been successful in increasing the number of hours that the replacement community space would be available to 40 hours although they would like it to be available until 3pm on Fridays rather than just Monday to Thursday.  He urged the developer to work with the community to make the project a success. Full text HERE

 A Hopefield Avenue resident also spoke in favour claiming that the new proposal would reduce the 'nuisance' previously experienced by homeowners in Hopefield because the community space would now be on the ground floor, rather than the first floor, and would not have an entrance in her street.

Opposing the application Kevin Barratt, representing Irish Pensioners and the 2,000 people who had signed a petition opposing the development, wanted to see more community involvement before a decision was made. He said that the Council would be better off keeping the Corrib as a community facility, rather than using money generated by the development to fund other community facilities.

He argued that with no street entrance in Hopefield Avenue, users would have to access the ground floor community room by walking through the bar, which would not be appropriate for some users. He suggested that the community space had been 'designed to fail' so that eventually the developer could convert it into housing.   He said that the replacement space was smaller than the current two first floor spaces that were to be replaced by flats. The proposed ground floor community room lacked light and space and the number of toilets had been reduced.

Dan Judelson who had tried to co-ordinate meanwhile space at the Corrib said that opposition to the scheme was 'wide and deep' and that their submission explained whey they had pulled out. He said that they were dealing with a property developer and not a community organisation and that the best guide was to look at the developer's track record in Camden. We shouldn't rely on businesses to provide community spaces of their own volition, such facilities should be supported and protected by councillors and the Council.

Cllr Denselow pointed to the 25% reduction in the number of London pubs and thus the need to protect the Corrib's Asset of Community Value status and to follow the Council's pub protection policy.  He wanted to see a thriving community space funded by the Council. He raised the question of whether Brent Council had the necessary skills to implement the Business Plan for the project.

Cllr Nerva said he had been trying to work out why no separate entrance had been provided for the community space and asked if there were plans to rescue the dance floor by re-installing it on the ground floor or making it available to another organisation.  The pub's viability would depend on the rent to be paid to the landlord (both for community space and the weekend commercial lettings) and he wanted to see upfront information on comparable rents locally. He asked how the community room provision could be revoked by the owner of it turned out not to be successful.  He thought an entrepreneurial landord would seek to extend the hours for the community space.

Cllr Pitruzzella was concerned that the community space would not be available at the weekend (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) for community activities. Cllr Conneely sent a written submission objecting to the privatisation of a community facility if the development went ahead and remarked that she had used the Corrib as a community hub for 30 years and did not want to lose it. She queried representation on the community board that would oversee the community space. Cllr Duffy sent in a request that the Committee defer a decision pending further consultation.

Paul Clough, Brent Legal Adviser, said that the landlord would have to apply to the Council for any variation in conditions attached to the community space.  Summing up the Brent Planning Officer said that they were satisfied that the developer's was a 'generous offer' and warned that it was important not to make too many conditions that would mean the pub became unviable.  He said that they had investigated a stand alone community space with its own entrance but could not ignore the concerns of Hopefield Avenue residents and their experience of anti-social behaviour.  He said it was not reasonable to request availability of the space earlier in the day as this had not happened before. Officers would look into how to advertise the space to ensure community groups knew about it and would set up a review if it was not being used. He suggested that wording be added to say that hire rates should be comparable to local authority rates.

Planning Committee members then voted unanimously for the application. Cllr Choudhary's hand did not appear the be raised but he confirmed later that he had voted for the proposal.

Afterwards it was clear that some of the long-term users of the Corrib felt that they had been scuppered by Hopefield Avenue resident protecting the value of their properties from a Corrib user profile which did not match their, or the Council's,  aspirations for the area.

Next up was the proposal to demolish Gladstone Parade on the Edgware Road, Dollis Hill, with its local shops and flats above, with a much bigger development.  Alison Hopkins spoke as lead petitioner saying that the shops were a local community asset, the hairdresser had been there for 50 years and the grocery shop had recently been refurbished. There was no guarantee that the current shopkeepers would be offered a lease or tenure of the replacement shops or would be able to afford it. Residents objected to over-development of the site as well as the replacement accommodation being unaffordable to locals. Instead they wanted the current properties, which appeared to have been deliberately run down, with vacant properties not marketed by the freeholder (in order to help his application?),  to be regenerated and refurbished - not demolished and replaced by something that did not meet local needs.

Andy Thompson for Dollis Hill Residents Association, a statutory consultee, said that that the proposed development was inappropriate for the area and did not meet density requirements. Its position on the busy Edgware Road, with high air pollution, meant that the development would not be suitable for families, with children's health particularly at risk.

To cries of denial from the residents and shopkeepers in the public gallery, the developer claimed to have had discussions with the fish and chip shop owner and others (a claim later repeated by Brent planning officers) and that that there had been detailed reapplication discussions with planning officers to ensure the proposal was acceptable.  Six of the housing units were 'intermediate' and four 'affordable' although the latter rate was not defined.

Cllr Liz Dixon, representing residents, said that at first she had been in favour of the development recognising that it provided much needed housing, However, she had been inundated with  comments from local people and shopkeepers and realised that the Parade was a vital part of the local community.  It was very much an elderly community who have known each other and the shops for years.  She had been educated along with the campaign and a sense of community was at the heart of the issues.  It was true that the community had not been consulted properly and this was a major concern. Addressing the developer she said, you haven't learnt about the community.  The new homes would be at the expense of the existing community - there was a need to balance what we need with what we have. In a phrase which would serve for many of the developments in the borough, including or perhaps especially, Wembley, she said that new developments had to benefit the existing community.

The Committee then voted 7-1 in favour of the application with Cllr Maurice the lone councillor voting against.


Wednesday 28 June 2017

Supplementary reports on Gladstone Parade and Corrib Rest for tonight's Planning Committee

Officers still recommend approval. Corrib Rest has added conditions and obligations.

1.      Site visit - Gladstone Parade

1.1       Members visited the site on Saturday 24 June and viewed the site from the north, east and south. Members raised the following queries:
How the building line would change
Whether existing occupiers have been offered new tenancies
Trees
Amenity space 1.2 The change in the building line has been addressed in paragraph 6.2 and 6.3 of the committee report. The building is currently set back from Edgware Road by 9 metres. The proposed building would be sited closer to Edgware Road and would be angled rather than straight. The building would be located 4 metres from the road on the northern side of the site and 8 metres from the road on the southern side of the site. 1.2 The applicant has been in contact with the existing tenants of Skippers Choice fish and chip shop about occupying the proposed A5 use. With regard to the other existing tenants, all of the existing leases of the current units in the shopping parade with the exception of the Estate Agents have expired. However informal negotiations regarding their leases have also been ongoing over the past few weeks. 1.3 he existing tree is of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years. In mitigation, the proposals include replacement tree planting of five trees to the landscaped areas along Edgware Road as well as new tree planting to the communal garden to the rear of the property. Further details of this replacement planting would be secured by condition 14. 1.4 The amount of amenity space has been addressed in paragraph 4.2 of the committee report (page 72). Residents would have access to a mixture of their own private balconies and 388sqm of communal roof terraces that combine to meet Brent DMP19 amenity space requirements. 2. Further representation A local resident has provided written comments on the following issues: 2.1 Loss of retail of community value
As set out in paras 1.1 to 1.5 on pages 70-71 of the report, the existing units are afforded no policy protection with the exception of the public house. The public house and an A5 takeaway unit will be re-provided as part of the proposal. As well as this two A1/A2 units will also be provided that could accommodate a shop or hairdressers in the new development. 2.2 Harm to character
The impact of the proposal on the character of the area is covered in paragraph 6 – Impact on character and design of the committee report (page 74).
2.3       Parking and traffic
The issue of parking and traffic has been covered in paragraph 5 of the committee report. A resident has also raised concerns with potential congestion in the area. Overspill parking is addressed in para 5.1 (page 73). The volumes of vehicle trips that are likely to be generated are not significant, particularly compared with flows on the Edgware Road.
2.4       Daylight and sunlight
The issue of daylight and sunlight has been covered in paragraph 7.3 of the committee report (page 75). A resident has raised concerns about overshadowing of the school to the north of the application site. As is normal practice the school was not included in the daylight and sunlight report because it is not a residential building. However notwithstanding this due to the separation distance of the proposed building of 30m from the school building and 18m from the edge of the playground it is considered that there would be no materially harmful loss of light or overshadowing to the pupils and teachers.
2.5       Fire safety
Fire safety is not a planning consideration however in light of recent events the applicant has submitted a fire safety briefing outlining measures such as access, heat and smoke alarms, means of escape and necessary signage and lighting.
2.6       Lack of benefit for the area
The proposal would result in a net increase of 32 homes to the borough, 10 of which would be family sized units and 10 of which would be affordable housing. The proposal will also provide training and employment opportunities for Brent residents that will again be secured by a legal agreement.
Recommendation: Remains approval subject to conditions and section 106 legal agreement.

1.      Committee site visit  - Corrib Rest
Members visited the site on 24 of June 2017 and viewed the site from the surrounding area. Members also viewed the ground floor where the proposed function room would be located and the first floor where the current function rooms are located. Members queried:
how people would access the community space;
how the booking system would operate; and
what would constitute a ‘community’ activity. 1.1 People would access the function room via the ground floor main entrance of the public house located in Salusbury Road. 1.2 Bookings could be made up to six weeks before an event and would be made either over the telephone or in writing at least 10 days before the event. This would be secured as an obligation in a s106 agreement. 1.3 There is no statutory definition of ‘community’ activities however the draft s106 has provided a definition of ‘community groups’ that are defined as “groups or organisations set up for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes that include a substantial amount of activity or control by members of the public in a voluntary capacity, or provide organised training in the performing arts associated with specific cultural groups”. 2. Further representations 2.1 Cllr Duffy has raised the following concerns:
Use of the term ‘minimum’ in referring to the number of hours the community would be able to use the function room
Request the hearing be deferred to permit further public debate where Planning Officers explain the reasoning behind the recommendation. This has also been raised by a local resident. 2.1.1 The use of the word ‘minimum’ refers to the fact that legally the owner will have to provide priority access for community groups for 40 hours per week from 12:00 to 22:00 hours Monday to Thursday. This would not prevent the owner from hiring out the room to individuals or community groups outside of the set 40 hours: it would be for the pub operator to determine what would best ensure the viability of their business. 2.1.2 The committee hearing is the public meeting at which a planning application is debated. The application has been widely publicised between the end of February and the report’s publication in mid June. 2.2 Cllr Denselow has queried the use of a restrictive condition on the occupation of the proposed flats unless the public house is occupied. Officers recommend a planning obligation or condition is imposed requiring approval of an effective marketing plan for the pub and that the applicant uses reasonable endeavours to ensure the pub is operational before occupation of the flat. Officers consider this to be reasonable because if the applicant was not able to find a tenant they would not be able to change the use of the public house without first obtaining planning permission due to recommended condition 7 and the ACV status of the premises. However Cllr Denselow confirmed that he would still be objecting to the proposal.
2.3       A local resident raised a query regarding the amount of notice individuals would have to give before booking the function room. Please see response in paragraph 1.2.
2.4       A resident has reiterated their concerns with the accuracy of the Daylight/Sunlight report. This was addressed in paragraph 6.3 of the committee report however the applicants’ consultant has provided a further response to the points raised. As a consequence, Officers remain satisfied that the daylight/sunlight report has been properly prepared and the impact on neighbouring amenity would be acceptable.
2.5       A resident has raised concerns with the timing of the building being listed as an Asset of Community Value (ACV). The asset was listed in July 2015 and the title updated to reflect this in April 2016. This is not a material planning consideration as it does not affect the status of the ACV listing. It is understood that the delay was due to the applicant not providing a relevant information.
3.  Notifications of committee
3.1         Ward Councillors did not receive the standard notification letter detailing the committee date. All Ward Councillors are aware of the meeting and as such have not been prejudiced in any way.
4.  Corrections to the report
4.1         The consultation dates in the ‘Consultation’ section of the committee report were incorrectly listed and should have read that neighbour consultation letters were issued to 68 properties on the 21/02/2017. A site notice was displayed on 24/02/2017. Press notice advertised on 02/03/2017.
4.2         The number of objections received was incorrectly listed in the ‘Consultation’ section of the committee report as 149 and should have read 151. All objections were however taken into account during the assessment of the application.
5.  Additional conditions and obligations
5.1         Officers recommend a further planning obligation be imposed, draft text as follows: Within 3 months of material start submit to the Council for its approval a marketing plan for the public house and function room and not to occupy any part of the residential development unless the marketing plan has been approved and implemented and the public house and function room marketed in accordance with the approved plan for an agreed period of time and the applicant uses all reasonable endeavours to ensure the public house and function room is operational before occupation of any part of the residential development.
5.2         The applicant has also requested that they be permitted to place table and chairs on the Salusbury Road frontage. Officers recommend condition 5 be varied to expressly prohibit the placing of tables and chairs on Hopefield Avenue frontage and to place no tables or chairs on the Salusbury Road frontage unless in accordance with a plan covering their siting and hours of use to be approved by the local planning authority.
Recommendation: Remains approval subject to conditions and section 106 legal agreement.


Loss of the Corrib will cause material and cultural harm to the community


The planning application for the site of the Corrib Rest, Salusbury Road, Queens Park, will be heard this evening at Brent Civic Centre.

Save The Corrib campaigners have written the following to the Planning Committee.


We are campaigning for a better solution for the Corrib Rest pub and community rooms as we do not feel that the planning officers have grasped fully the community value of the Corrib planning scheme and its value to the wider community. 

We would draw your attention to details which we consider are important and yet not considered in any detail.  we appreciate the workload of councillors is high and so have kept this simple without great detail and hope you can give this some of your attention.

The report fails to mention that The Corrib started as the Irish Culture Centre in the 1980's, and was a publicly owned building covering an area 4 times the current Corrib. In 2000 much of the Corrib was converted to social housing with the remaining portion being sold on the clear legal understanding that the public function rooms on the first floor were to be protected by the 106 agreement, ensuring that they served as a community facility.  They are, in effect a publicly owned asset, held in trust by Brent for the community.  Ashcross bought the building with the 106 conditions attached, it is these conditions, set in place to protect this asset that he now is asking Brent to ignore. Brent should resist this request and follow the example of Camden and reject the loss of community space.T

The report does not reflected the wider use of the Corrib, which extends well beyond the QPARA area. The report gives, we consider, undue due weight to the QPARA involvement to the exclusion of other parties.  The views of Kilburn, Kensal and Cricklewood residents associations are not recorded, nor are other stakeholders views included, for example, Tulip Siddiq's  letter of objection, is not mentioned. The planning history not addressed and the previous rejections are not outlined in sufficient detail.

The report does not address the local need for community space. The Corrib is the largest community centre in South Brent centre out side the Granville. There is no impact assessment on the loss of this facility and that existing resources are booked up for over 3 months. Brent will look extremely foolish if they give away their interest in this community asset at the same time as advertising in the Brent Magazine for community facilities they can fund, especially in Kilburn

The proposed 106 agreement is not compared with the existing and the report seeks to underplay the loss in space, facilities and access. The so called community room is 70% smaller than the current ones and the usage time is reduced by 50%. The new Corrib can only cater for a max of 225 persons whilst the existing Corrib can take up to 1000 persons

The main first floor function room, with its high ceilings, sky lights, spring floor, kitchen and bar is our "village hall". Its unique ambiance and airiness provide an ideal location for weddings, and musical events etc, as well as the usual leisure activities. The second function room also has a bar and kitchen. Plus the rooms can be combined to form a single room of over 350sqm. The rooms are accessed directly from the street via a magnificence stair case. The facilities also benefit from 2 sets of WC's and showers / changing room, topped of with disabled lift, access via rear.

In contrast the proposed room is 153sqm, has one shared WC opening directly onto it, the ceiling will be low, light and ventilation limited. Access is via 3 sets of doors, difficult for the elderly, impossible for those carrying drinks, also access is right through the bar area, not ideal for children or those who's religious beliefs require them to avoid alcohol. Lack of changing facilities will further reduce its amenity value. As does the lack of street access to Hopefield, as requested by 2 Hopefield residents

No weight is given to the fact that since it closed there have still been noise complaints. Noise is a management issue not a planning one. No mention is made of the fact that Brent officers did not consider the historic noise complaints sufficient to take action against the Corrib

Report conclusion says ‘would make efficient use of site and reopen the pub. The Pub was closed by developer solely to enhance planning application and was viable and in use when sold.  It was sold just to fund one partners retirement fund.

The report missed out the fact that the loss of 530 sqm of space on first floor gives a gain to developer of £5M in property value. With a further £3M from the conversion of the 3rd floor.

The report dismisses the threat to the viability to the pub of the community room, which will reduce the bar area by 50% and will put the pub at risk conflicting with Brent’s policy to protect pubs and not convert them. CAMRA define this type of application as a "Trojan Horse", where the reduction of pub size deliberately aims to render it unviable leading to its eventual conversion to residential. The report fails to mention that looking at the layout of the pub it is clear that the massive hall way to the flats separating the community room from the pub will render this room unusable in the long term, thus finally killing the Corrib.

No mention is made of the fact that Ashcross are considered by QPARA as unsuitable as guardians of any community asset, backed up by Ashcross's treatment of Kensal to Kilburn Transition Town. No mention is made of Ashcross's and Iceni's  involvement with previous "asset stripping" of pubs. 

We consider there will be immense material and cultural harm to the community from the loss of this facility . We believe the rooms should be retained as set out in the existing 106 agreement and this application rejected.  We hope, for the benefit of the communities of Kilburn, you will agree also.

Regards
Kevin Barrett and Lloyd Fothergill
for the Save the Corrib Campaign
representing the near 2000 petitioners and 148 objectors
 

Tuesday 27 June 2017

It could only happen in Brent! John Duffy on the Corrib

Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn) has intervened in the controversy over the planning application for the Corrib Rest in Queen's Park which is being discussed at Brent Planning Committee tomorrow. He has written the following to members of the Planning Committee and requested that it be read out in his absence. (Note the original has been lightly edited)

Dear Cllr Agha,

Following a meeting  a number of residents raised some concerns about the report concerning the lost of a community  asset to build private housing at the Corrıb Rest.

Let me clarify somethıng whıch offıcer seem to continually mentıon and to make everything as clear as possible. I have no complaints about the initial consultation. Officers continue to answer this question that was never asked , to add unrelated information as a smoke screen. 

Our concerns are pure and sımply about the report and the recommendations within the report to cut the community/provision by over 70%. Officers are well aware that 140 residents objected to the lost of community space and a request to defer the report to the July meetıng  so a meeting could be called to discuss the recommendations. This was ın my opınıon not unreasonable, however thıs was denied by the offıcers. I asked them were there any  financial, staffing or legal reasons why the officers could not defer  the report to the July meeting. Offıcers faıled to give a reason why they are being so difficult on a issue of local democracy. The officers answer merely said officers have the legal power to ignore requests from the public. The issue I asked the commıttee, was do you believe they are acting reasonably.

The report itself is I believe being sugar-coated in favour of the developer,  officers have left out the ( no mention whatsoever ) the loss of 70% of the  community space available or the 50% cut in hours of its use. If a committee member were to read the report it would suggest the developer is offering an increase of community use not a massive cut.  Also I raised the issue of the use of the words “40HR minimum hours community use” by officers. The report is actually saying  is 40hr will be the maximum  amount of hours in the 106 agreement and any other hrs over the forty would be unenforceable. Again I am sorry to say officers deferred to legal-speak instead of answering my question saying there is no obligation on the developer to allocate more than the minimum hours. I think that’s clear and the reference to minimum is accurate and not misleading – more hours may be allocated, but are not required to be.” It is clear the developer has said NO to any additional hours.

However the most puzzling answer to my questions to officers was in answer to thıs  question 
Will you confirm that I as a elected representative in the Area and an objector was not sent notification of the meeting.

Legal offıcer’s answer  
“In relation to your email of today, I have been informed that there were indeed two people that did not receive a copy of the details for the Committee, and accordingly they will be provided with the relevant information by post today.

Frankly that answer would be better suited to a Kafka novel than a planning commıttee. I finally received notice today, Tuesday (48hrs) that they did not send me notifıcation of the meetıng 5 days before.

Would it not have been easier and save time, for the legal officer to have apologised  and told me last Thursday instead of going into legal speak. However the legal offıcer said it does not matter  that they did  not send me notifıcation as an elected councillor  and an objector , as a member of the public told me anyway. It’s for you to decided whether you think that is also reasonable.

The truth is if I had been informed at the right time, I would not have committed to a work related trip abroad and I would have been there on Wednesday nıght.

The other ıssue I have concerns about is the way officers have sought to divide opinion on the merits of the plannıng application. Whereas I believe the residents of QPRA have a rıght to have the major say in the planning application the size, structure, parking and opening hours. However the disposal of 70% of a community asset is not for only for QPRA  and QPRA alone , its for the users and residents whether it be a Salsa dance class or a food bank to have their say , these people come from the greater Kilburn  area and other parts of Brent. The entrance will be via the pub which will rule out religous groups (particularly Muslims), Mothers and Baboes groups and other children's groups. A further issues is that there is only one WC.
Finally and most importantly, I believe officers are bringing the council into disrepute, by their approach . It’s just over a year ago that the Cabinet tried to shut down the Granvılle community centre  wıthout even a cursory attempt at consultatıon. The cabinet apologised  and the lead member resigned. Sınce then the new lead member for planning and regeneration Cllr Tatler has said community use in Kilburn is a priority and wishes to see it expanded .

Cllr Tatler and the cabinet have now committed themselves to expansıon of community provision.
To confırm this Cllr Tatler  last week place a large ad in the Brent Magazine( page 45) saying one of the priority for bids for using the CIL is community activity in Kilburn and askıng for bıds to come forward. It beggars belief that officers are choosing to ignore a clear policy and are recommending a 70% cut in community space and 50% cut in hours at a time when we are askıng for more ......... If policy can be changed or ignored by officers to cut communıty services, it makes it look like the administration  are in power, but not in control wıthout a clear vision or strategy.

It could only happen ın Brent!!!!!

Thıs report is wrong and goes against council policy of expanding community provisıon in Kilburn. Therefore ı urge you to reject the plannıng applıcatıon.