Friday, 16 January 2015
Committee Meeting, Resident Speech 2 (13th Jan 2015):
This proposal in effect takes away a community sporting facility from local residents and replaces it with a private business operating as the London Welsh School. Their Registered Company Number is 3952000. This sets a dangerous precedent.
At the site visit, Mr Richards said that they will require parking for 9 vehicles daily and will have keyholder access to the park car park. This car park has been closed to the public for many years with access only granted for sporting events, for example, weekly football, park bowls club use or special Council events.
The idea of compensating for the loss of the open space adjacent to the pavilion with the steeply sloping bank next to Colin's Lodge is not comparable and unusable. In fact this will make Colin's Lodge vulnerable to vandalisation and arson. As an attractive notable architectural feature of the park and the wider Wembley area this would be tragic.
The Tree Officer's report has not been available within the submitted documents. As no tree survey was submitted with the application there is a real need for formal proof before this category B Monterey Cypress tree can be removed. Category B trees have the ability to contribute to the quality of an area for up to 20 years. Granting permission without such proof would be a travesty.
Child protection is important. The location is too exposed to the public being in the middle of the park. This would not be a secure site for children. The rear elevations of several Princes Court properties face the bowling green. The proposed site would be a very vulnerable location for the children. e.g. Dunblane shooting occurred because the site was open and therefore vulnerable.
I stop here. Where will the planning department stop at permitting the taking of open space from the people of Wembley and Brent? We urge our elected planning committee members to look at the limited evidence base, lack of transparency in the planning department's provision of supporting statements and timeline of supplementary document submission for this application, alongside the case officer committee report, to ultimately refuse this flawed proposal.