Friends of Gladstone Park statement on plans for the Gladstone Centre

 The proposed Centre

 

The Gladstone Centre

 

There has been much discussion about plans for the development of the Gladstone Centre, which is still in Pre-planning stage.

Some people are for the new development, and some are against it. 

 

The Friends of Gladstone Park was formed to represent the views of all users of the park.

 

Therefore, following a vote, of the eligible trustees of the Friends of Gladstone Park, on the ongoing plans for the new Gladstone Centre development, we find that at this point we are neutral (neither for nor against). 

 

Below is a detailed statement of our position. 

 

 

There will be a public consultation in the future, at which everyone will be able to have their say. When the date is announced we will post it here.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

The Gladstone Centre

Statement 5 August 2026

 

Friends of Gladstone Park (FoGP) has been concerned about the Gladstone Centre for many years and have made requests on behalf of the community, to Brent Council to repair or rebuild it.

 

FoGP campaigned to get the centre reopened after it was closed during COVID. It became clear it needed considerable investment just to patch it up. Redevelopment or demolition were the realistic options. Brent Council was not willing to take it on. FoGP suggested a sports centre, but Brent Council was not in favour, citing other options nearby.

 

FoGP held public meetings and events where park users were asked what they would like to see happen to the building. These were the most common requests and FoGP maintains these goals for the new centre:

A community space of the same size as before
The community part of the building to have an independent entrance - and management.
Is available to the public every day including evenings and weekends
There is a cafe that is accessible to all
There are toilets that are reasonably accessible for park users
The visual aesthetics of the building must fit in with the environment
The size of the building to be confined to the existing footprint and never allowed to go above the treeline (at today’s height)
The building must be aesthetically pleasing and in keeping with a park environment.

FoGP again approached the council with our requests, but it was clear that the Council would not solely fund a community centre. The only concrete option that arose was the proposal from Willesden Green Surgery (WGS) to redevelop the building as their new surgery.

 

With no real alternatives on the table, FoGP felt the best course of action was to engage constructively with WGS and Brent Council, and to try to ensure that the design allowed for the requirements the community had asked for – as per the list above.

 

FoGP requested that the new building be built on the same footprint* as the existing centre and would ideally be only two storeys high. We understood that the Kilburn Cosmos Rugby Club, who have rented part of the Gladstone Centre building for many years, would be offered an alternative space in the Sports Pavilion, and the Pavilion café would be relocated into the new building.

 

*Friends of Gladstone Park Trustees, in line with the wishes of the park users, do not condone or support any reduction of open space in the park itself.

 

Plans have evolved, but FoGP has never wavered from pursuing the objectives that the park users originally requested. FoGP is conscious that we represent ALL park users and there are people for and against the development. At this stage the development is at the pre-planning stage and will need to go before the Planning Committee at Brent Council for approval. This will be in public so anyone who wishes to can have their say.

 

The Friends of Gladstone Park Trustees feel it is right to step back and let due process take its course.

 

FoGP is an apolitical group and Trustees who happen to be councillors do not have voting rights on matters related to Brent Council.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Who are and what is the Friends of Gladstone Park (FoGP?

 

· FoGP is a group of ordinary local residents who care about the park and volunteered to act as a conduit between the park users and Brent Council.

The mission statement is to Protect, Preserve and Promote Gladstone Park

· The group has grown in 12 years from 6 to 13 in number, meeting once every few months

FoGP is an apolitical group and trustees who happen to be councillors do not have voting rights on matters related to Brent Council.

· To let people know the FoGP existed for everyone, public meetings, walks, talks and litter-picks are held during the summer months.

 

· The Gardening Group of volunteer gardeners was formed to maintain the Walled Garden, shortly followed by the Woodland Copse group. It was at that point Friends of Gladstone Park became a charity and the original regular volunteers became trustees. This meant we could accept donations for plants, seeds, compost, tools – and obtain public liability insurance. We have virtually no admin costs as everyone gives their time free of charge.

FoGP communicates regularly with the Parks Department at Brent Council. (It is worth noting that while Gladstone Park is one of the larger parks in the Borough, Brent has over 85 parks and open green spaces, and FoGP is just one of the groups who fiercely protect their local park.)
FoGP successfully campaigned for the public toilet near the Walled Garden and will continue to campaign for more toilets in the park
FoGP continues to lobby the council and campaign against motor bikes and other motorised vehicles
FoGP continues to campaign against littering in the park, support litter picking, lobby for more bins and other initiatives to combat the problem
FoGP continues to plant and maintain the Walled Garden and the Rose garden
FoGP continues to protect and maintain the Woodland Copse which is now a designated Local Nature Reserve
FoGP supported the campaign for the refurbishment of the lower children’s playground
FoGP continues to lobby the council to maintain the pond
FoGP continues to lobby for drinking fountains in the park
FoGP continues to lobby against commercialisation of the park
 
Gladstone Park is a beloved and necessary open space in a busy city, for families, walkers, runners, dog owners, sports enthusiasts, nature lovers, bird watchers, pond watchers. Our aim is to protect it.
 
FoGP represents ALL users of Gladstone Park

The People's Emergency Briefing + Panel Lexi Cinema 8.20pm Wednesday 19th August - Film & Panel Discussion on how to respond to the climate and nature emergency

 

 

Summer 2026 is making history in Europe for record heat, forest and heath fires, and crop failures. What better time to take a serious look at the National Emergency Briefing with other concerned citizens, back the case for a national screening on TV and discuss how to respond to the crisis.

  

The People's Emergency Briefing + Panel

 

Lexi Cinema 8.20pm Wednesday 19^th August

 

The screening will be followed by panel discussion led by Beninio McDonough-Tranza, Co-ordinator, Brent Green Party, featuring:

 

Councillor Marijn van de Geer, Green Party councillor for Ealing North Acton 

 

Paul Stephens, Protest Liaison spokeperson, Extinction Rebellion; former Met Police officer

This film sets out the National Emergency Briefing on the climate and nature emergency, given to MPs at Westminster by leading experts in November 2025.  It is now being screened in communities across the UK, bringing people together to hear the evidence on what the emergency means for our lives and our future, and to discuss how to respond.

 

 

 

 

 

BOOK YOUR SEAT/S BY CLICKING ON THE IMAGE BELOW:

 

 

Hidden Contributions: Black Workers Who Built Brent - are you one? Get in touch?

 

Kilburn High Road Festival July 31st to August 15th - creativity, culture, connection

 

Barry Gardiner MP joins ward councillors in opposing the loss of Samovar Space and Market Square to hotel development

 

England fans on Market Square ahead of the 2020 Euro Cup Final - July 11th 2021 

(Credit & Copyright Alamy)

 

Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) has joined Wembley Park ward councillors Cllr Ahamadi Moghaddam and Cllr Najib Warsame in opposing the building of a  hotel on Market Square and Samovar Space, currently in use as a public open space.

Barry Gardiner writes:

   

Planning Team

Brent Council

 

29 July 2026

 

To whom it may concern,

 

Objection to planning application 26/1351 for Plot NW04

 

I write to object to the above-referenced planning application for the erection of a hotel between two and 17 storeys tall on what is currently the Market Square/Samovar Space.

 

You may be aware that I do not normally intervene in planning matters except in exceptional circumstances, including if the planning application is a major infrastructural development. These developments have knock-on effects with wider political ramifications within the local community such as traffic generation, overcrowding of doctors’ surgeries, and inadequate number of spaces in local schools.

 

This application is one such exception. I have been alerted to it by my constituents and I agree with their concerns that these proposals would have severe detrimental impacts on Wembley Park, visitors, and most importantly, residents.

 

At the time of writing, the application has attracted 131 comments on your planning portal. Every single one of them objects. I note from these comments that residents have not been properly notified or consulted by the applicant. I am also aware of a Change.Org petition against the application which has almost 700 signatures to date.

 

Benefit of the Samovar Space

 

The Market Square/Samovar Space is one of the few free, open spaces in Wembley Park that people can spend time in. It hosts markets and community events and is one of the most attractive spaces in an area which is increasingly dominated by high-rise blocks. Samovar provides a free play area for local children, many of whom live in high rise flats that lack outdoor space. The plot is currently a much needed ‘third space’ in which people socialise and form community without having to patronize a business.

 

I understand that the proposals include plans for a new square. This does not afford the same community benefit as the existing space. It would likely suffer from wind tunnelling, and would effectively be the courtyard of commercial premises rather than a genuine public space. The space would also be completely lost with no alternative provision during multiple years of construction.

 

Supposed benefit of the development

 

There is already a plethora of hotels in the immediate vicinity. In Wembley Park we have two Premier Inns, a Holiday Inn, Best Western, Novotel, Hilton Hotel, Wembley International, St George’s Hotel, ARK Wembley, CityLiveIn, and the Ibis which is being refurbished. There are also a number of smaller establishments and further options in neighbouring wards.

 

A new hotel is of very little benefit to the residents who live here and does nothing to diversify the area. Residents actually benefit from community services such as the social and leisure space that already exists on the plot.

 

This is already an intensely developed area. Regeneration projects, commercial services, and the custom and footfall they create need to be balanced across Wembley and Brent, rather than further concentrated in Wembley Park.

 

Harms of the development

 

While the benefits of the proposals are extremely limited, this development would cause a range of active harms to the area, residents and visitors. On top of the loss of the community space, these harms include:

 

·     Years’ long construction causing noise and physical disruption as well as dust and debris;

 

·      Reduced sightlines and sunlight due to the huge scale of the proposed building;

 

·      Exacerbation of the Olympic Way wind-tunnel and echo effects;

 

·      Traffic from construction, hotel guests and ongoing servicing will exacerbate road congestion;

 

·      Trees are unlikely to survive relocation or, if retained, to survive the nearby construction;

 

·      Reduced attractiveness and vibrancy of the area.

 

Many of the consultation’s respondents have quite rightly raised critical safety concerns about the development.

 

Baroness Casey’s review into the disorder in and around Wembley Stadium during the Euro 2020 Final concludes that there was a series of ‘near misses’ in which serious injuries or fatalities were only narrowly avoided. She highlights issues with crowd control specifically on Olympic Way and Engineers Way, and notes that ‘excess crowds overloaded in confined spaces’ were ‘deemed to be one of the highest risk scenarios’ that day.

 

The existing plot provides much needed open space for event day crowds to gather and dissipate, as well as potential space for evacuation of the high volume of visitors we often welcome to Wembley Park. The proposals would remove the Wembley Splay route, which eases pedestrian congestion. Without this, event day crowds will be even further concentrated.

 

The Casey Review quotes a FA/Wembley official: ‘the outer perimeter [of Wembley Stadium] is hard to manage because of the residential blocks’. Constructing a further block so close to the Stadium and Arena can only exacerbate this concern.

 

Planning compliance

 

I understand that outline permission for this development was granted in 2011 under decision 10/3032. Since then, the Market Square and Samovar Space has become a well- established community facility, and Wembley Park has seen the proliferation of similar high-rise blocks. The Planning Committee must consider the site’s current use and setting rather than rely on 15 year-old proposals and assessments.

 

 

I understand that in 2018, Brent Council contributed £12.1 million to improve the site on the condition that the developer would not pursue the full outline parameters. However, I understand that this proposal of a 17 storey building does reach the full parameters. The planning committee must consider whether the approving this application would default on this agreement involving public funds.

 

The outline permission was granted ahead of various new policies such as the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the Brent Local Plan 2019 – 2041 and the London Plan 2021. Application 26/1351 must be assessed against current requirements. Particular attention should be paid to the following:

 

The National Policy Planning Framework 2012

 

Section 8: Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities

 

102. Planning policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence requirements by:

 

a. anticipating and addressing possible malicious threats and other hazards (whether natural or man-made), especially in locations where large numbers of people are expected to congregate…

 

103. Access to a network of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for the health and well-being of communities,

104. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields and formal play spaces, should not be built on unless:

 

a. an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or

 

b. the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or

 

c. the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

 

105. Planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails.

 

Brent Local Plan 2019 – 2041

 

Policy DMP1: Development Management General Policy

 

Development will be acceptable provided it is:

 

a. of a location, use, concentration, siting, layout, scale, type, density, materials, detailing and design that provides high levels of internal and external amenity and complements the locality;

b. satisfactory in terms of means of access for all, parking, manoeuvring, servicing and does not have an adverse impact on the movement network;

i. resulting in no loss of, and where possible enhancing, community facilities or other land/buildings for which there is an identified need.

 

Policy BD1: Leading the Way in Good Urban Design

 

6.1.12 The policy seeks to create buildings and places of high quality that will be appreciated by future generations. High quality design is both visually interesting and attractive and should enhance local character. Good design is not just about what things look like, it is also about how places function and how individual buildings and the spaces around them contribute to the public realm and community well-being... Good design makes places that put people first, promote health and are welcoming, feel safe, are enjoyable and easy to use for everyone.

 

London Plan 2021

 

Policy G4 Open space

 

B. Development proposals should:

1. Not result in the loss of protected open space

 

Policy S4: Play and informal recreation

 

B. Development proposals should:

1. Increase opportunities for play and informal recreation and enable children and young people to be independently mobile

5. Not result in the net loss of play provision, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no ongoing or future demand.

 

Policy S5 Sports and recreation facilities

 

C. Existing sports and recreational land (including playing fields) and facilities for sports and recreation should be retained unless:

1. An assessment has been undertaken which clearly shows the sports and recreational land or facilities to be surplus to requirements…

2. The loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or

3. The development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

 

Concluding remarks

 

It is my view that this application offers very little benefit to residents and in fact risks damaging the community, whereas the existing use of the plot as the Market Square/Samovar Space has visible and proven benefits.

Permission should not be granted without wider consultation of residents. I  support my constituents’ calls for the application to be heard at the Planning Committee with public speaking rights for local residents, and for a public explanation of how the developer has met the conditions to benefit from £12.1 million of public funds in submitting this application.

 

Nor should permission be granted prior to the publication of independent reviews on matters including wind, daylight, trees and construction impact as well as assessments from the Metropolitan Police, Wembley Stadium/the FA, the Safety Advisory Group, and any other relevant authorities.

 

I would be grateful if you could please register my objection and ultimately reject this application.

 

Yours faithfully,

Barry Gardiner

Member of Parliament for Brent West

 

To make your own comment follow this LINK Ref 26/1351 

Controversial Wembley Hospital site planning application back at Planning Committee on Wednesday August 5th

 

The Wembley Hospital site was marketed for the NHS in September 2024

 The proposed development of the site

 

There was a degree of panic at Brent Planning Committee's July meeting when the controversial proposals for redevelopment of Wembley Hospital having been passed on the chair's casting vote, was declared void when it emerged that a member of the committee had not been present during the whole consideration of the item. Removing his vote meant that the proposals were rejected. Planning Officers quickly moved to suggest the item be deferred and it will return to the Planning Committee on Wednesday next week.

The Officers' Report notes:

  

This application was presented to Planning Committee on 2 July 2026, with a recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 legal agreement. The majority of members voted against the recommendation to grant planning consent, with members indicating they were minded to refuse the application due to the following aspects of the proposal (not all issues were raised by all members who voted against the recommendation to grant permission):

 

1. Insufficient provision of affordable housing (3 members);

2. Insufficient parking provision on-site and the impact of congestion on surrounding streets

3. Lack of community space (1 member);

4. Lack of on-site play space for older children (1 member);

5. Insufficient provision of family sized housing (2 members);

6. Harm to neighbouring amenity, including loss of daylight (1 member); and

7. Impact on non-designated heritage asset and character of the streetscene; (2 members).

 

A decision was taken by Members to defer a final decision to a future committee meeting to enable officers to provide a further report setting out an analysis, assessment and testing of the potential reasons for refusal cited above by Members.

 

Their further report includes some small changes won from the developer, warnings that some reasons for refusal will not stand up to Appeal, and in some cases result in possible costs to the Council. Their recommendation remains approval incorporating the changes but they include draft reasons for refusal if committee members are so minded. No draft reasons are included for family housing: '...officers do not consider there to be any reasonable grounds to refuse the application owing to the provision of family housing proposed.'

I recommended you read the full report HERE to read the complete arguments but I summarise below:  

 

1. Insufficient provision of affordable housing

 

There is no evidence to substantiate the refusal of the application based on the insufficient provision of Affordable Housing as it has been demonstrated through the consideration of technical information by industry leading experts acting on behalf of the council that the proposal would deliver the maximum reasonable amount of Affordable Housing in line with the relevant policies. Without such evidence, the Council is unlikely to be able to defend the refusal of planning permission at appeal on these grounds and is likely to be subject to the award of costs against the council for unreasonable behaviour.

 

Notwithstanding this, if Members are minded to refuse planning permission due to the insufficient provision of affordable housing, then a reason for refusal has been drafted as follows:

 

The proposal would fail to deliver the maximum level of affordable housing that is deliverable within the scheme and therefore would not make an appropriate contribution to identified local housing need within the Borough. This would be contrary to Policy BH5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policies H4, H5 and H6 of the London Plan (2021).

 

2. Insufficient parking provision on-site and the impact of congestion on surrounding streets

 

Following the July Committee meeting, the applicant has proposed minor site layout changes which result in the provision of one additional on-site parking space, taking the total provision to 13 spaces. The additional parking space is not required to ensure that overspill parking does not occur (as this is mitigated through the parking permit restriction that would be secured). However, it does represent an increase that is in direct response to Members’ parking concerns with, and this increase can be supported when balanced against the

policy requirements set out above to move towards more sustainable modes of travel and for car-free development to be the starting point for all development in accessible locations.

 

A reason for refusal of planning consent must be contrary to a policy and result in identified harm. The proposal is in line with adopted London Plan policy T6.1, meeting minimum requirements for blue badge parking and being below the maximum parking standards. The site is in an accessible location with good access to public transport options, where Brent policy BT2 sets out that car-free development should be the starting point. With only 13 car parking spaces proposed on-site, the development would not be expected to lead to unacceptable congestion on the road network generally from trip generation and technical information to support this has been submitted to the council and reviewed by the Council’s own experts. To address the potential for increased parking demand on surrounding roads (and associated congestion), a parking permit restriction will be secured which is in accordance with Brent policy BT2 (b). A Car Park Management Plan would be secured through condition to ensure that car parking spaces are leased rather than sold which is a requirement of London Plan Policy T6.1 (B).

 

As such, the proposal is not contrary to the planning policies which relate to parking and congestion and would not result in material harm in relation to parking and congestion. The Council is unlikely to be able to defend the refusal of planning permission on these grounds and at appeal would likely to be subject to the award of costs against the council for unreasonable behaviour.

 

Notwithstanding the above, if Members are minded to refuse permission due to the insufficient provision of parking and the impacts of the development on congestion on the local streets then a draft reason for refusal is as follows:

 

The proposed development fails to provide an adequate level of on-site parking and insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the resulting parking demand would not lead to overspill parking stress and congestion on surrounding streets. This would be to the detriment of the safe and efficient operation of the highway network, contrary to policies T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021) and policies BT1 and BT2 of the Brent Local Plan.

 

3. Lack of community space

 

It is not feasible to provide community uses on all sites, with larger developments better suited to enable thedelivery of such facilities. A new community facility is being delivered with Brent Wembley Housing Zone development on the corner of the Wembley High Road and Cecil Avenue.

 

Acknowledging the concern raised by Members it is proposed that the scope of the s106 Heads of Terms be broadened, so that the play space contribution of £50,000 could also be utilised for enhancements to nearby existing community facilities, if that was deemed a more appropriate use for the contribution at the relevant time.

 

The proposal is not considered to be contrary to adopted policy in relation to the provision of community facilities, nor is it considered that the proposal will result in material harm, and with no specific requirement for the provision of a community facility within this site, the council is unlikely to be able to defend a reason for refusal on this basis and at appeal may result in the award of costs for unreasonable behaviour.

 

Nevertheless, should members choose to refuse permission on this basis, a draft reason for refusal is as follows:

 

The proposed development, by reason of the absence of community facilities, would fail to meet social infrastructure requirements by securing provision for needs arising from the development in relation to the provision of community facilities. This would be contrary to Policy BP7 of the Brent Local Plan.

 

4. Lack of on-site play space for older children

 

Considering the improved on-site play offer proposed and the remaining reduced shortfall for the 12+ age group that would be experienced by future occupiers, alongside the mitigation to be secured through the Heads of Terms, Officers remain of the view, that on balance, the play strategy is considered to be acceptable.

 

In view of the mitigation that has been agreed by the applicant, which as referred to above is to provide a contribution of £50,000 to address the identified deficiency in play space provision, Officers do not consider there to be reasonable grounds for refusal based upon lack of on-site play space for older children, which could be successfully defended at appeal.

 

Notwithstanding the above, if Members are minded to refuse permission due to the insufficient provision of play and recreational facilities, a draft reason for refusal is as follows:

 

The proposal would fail to provide an adequate quantity of on-site play space for children aged 12 years and over, resulting in an identified shortfall. The lack of sufficient on-site play and informal recreation would fail to adequately meet the needs of future occupiers, particularly older children. In the absence of sufficient on-site provision, the proposal would be contrary to policies S4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) and policy BH13 of the Brent Local Plan.

 

5. Insufficient provision of family sized housing

 

The scheme presented to Members in July 2026 proposed that 26 of the 108 dwellings would be family sized (with at least 3 bedrooms). It was acknowledged in the main Committee report that this would represent a marginal shortfall (1 home) below the Local Plan BH6 policy target of 1 in 4 new homes to be family sized.

 

Notwithstanding this marginal shortfall the development, it was considered that the proposal would provide a meaningful contribution of much needed family sized homes (including family sized affordable homes). For these reasons, the proposed development was considered acceptable in respect of family sized housing provision.

 

Following the July Committee meeting the applicant has proposed an increase in family sized housing provision to directly address Members’ concerns. An additional family sized 3-bedroom dwelling is proposed at ground floor level within block A, by converting a 1-bedroom affordable dwelling into a 3-bedroom affordable dwelling through the relocation of a bicycle store, which will result in the overall provision of family homes being 27 of the 108, meeting the 1 in 4 policy target. As referenced above, almost half of the affordable homes (45%) would now be family sized also, which is positive given the significant need for family sized affordable homes. The increased level of family housing proposed is fully in accordance with Local Plan policy BH6. As such, officers do not consider there to be any reasonable grounds to refuse the application owing to the provision of family housing proposed.

 

6. Harm to neighbouring amenity due to the loss of daylight

 

Following the July Committee meeting the applicant has sought to further demonstrate the relationship between the proposed townhouses, namely unit 101, and 15 Fairview Avenue, in response to Members’ concerns that the proposal would cause harm to neighbouring amenity.

 

An illustrative section analysis of this proposed relationship has been provided which shows that the boundary fence provides a degree of screening to the existing kitchen (side facing) window to 15 Fairview Avenue. It shows that the first floor and second floor windows of the proposed home that are directly opposite the kitchen window of No. 15 are bathroom windows and would be obscure glazed (which can be secured by condition), and that the bedroom

windows of the new houses would be at an angle to the kitchen window. The illustrative plan shows the smaller pane of each bedroom window is to be obscurely glazed which would further reduce the overlooking and loss of privacy (again this can be secured by condition). The same obscure glazing strategy is also proposed to the rear façade of unit 100.

 

One member was minded to vote to refuse permission due to the impact of the proposal on the light received by the kitchen window of No. 15. As discussed above, the proposal will have an impact on the amount of daylight that is received within the kitchen of No. 15, and that impact will be noticeable. However, the No Sky Line assessment shows that the levels of reduction are 6 % beyond the threshold set out within the BRE guidance.

 

While the impacts are acknowledged, it is considered that they are considerably outweighed by the benefits of the development that are set out within paragraphs 358-373 of the committee report and include the provision of a significant number of new homes, with one in four of those homes being family sized and 11 of the homes being proposed as affordable homes.

 

Notwithstanding the above, if Members are minded to refuse permission, a draft reason for refusal is as follows:

 

The proposed development, by reason of its siting and proximity to the side facing kitchen window of 15 Fairview Avenue would result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of occupiers of this property.

 

7. Impact on non-designated heritage asset and character to the streetscene

 

Any historic association with the Barham Family, who originally donated the land to build the Old Wembley Hospital or the Copland Sisters, who funded the establishment of the hospital through the Copland Charity, is not legible when one views the site. The Council’s Heritage Officer has judged that these historic associations on their own do not represent an element of heritage significance special enough to justify retention.

 

In summary, the proposals would accord with relevant paragraphs of the Framework, including 203 and 216, and policies BHC1 of the Local Plan and HC1 of the London Plan. Overall, the harm/total loss of the Non Designated Heritage Asset(NDHA) could be overcome by public benefits delivered on the site. It is important that the lost buildings, which played an important role in the area’s history, are recorded. This has been done in part through the agreed Level 2 Building Recording and a condition is recommended that that an interpretation panel and/or plaque be placed on site to explain the former role the hospital played in the community (including its founding via a local charity and its use during the Second World War).

 

Impact on the character of the streetscene

 

Where building heights then step up to four/five/six-storeys, in terms of scale, this responds appropriately to the larger civic buildings. In terms of character, the proposed multi-tonal bricks are reflective of the surrounding residential context. Facades are broken down and well-articulated, including the feature brickwork detailing. Architectural inspiration for the scheme has been derived from the surrounding Metroland context, as well as the listed Wembley Fire Station, located nearby, built in an art-deco style. This inspiration is clear to see across the proposed scheme, and demonstrates the level of regard that has been had to the surrounding context.

 

In summary, the character of the proposed development represents a considered and appropriate response to the surrounding context. Officers consider the overall approach in terms of design and appearance to be appropriate in light of the site’s specific characteristics, and in design terms the requirements of Local Plan policy BD1 are satisfied.

 

Nevertheless, if, having regard to the discussion above, the Planning Committee are minded to refuse the application due to the concerns raised, then a draft reason for refusal is as follows:

 

The proposed development by reason of the demolition and loss of the existing non-designated heritage asset and the form, appearance and character of the proposed development would fail to preserve or appropriately respond to the significance of the heritage asset, resulting in heritage harm to Brent’s historic environment. Furthermore, the proposed development would fail to respect the prevailing character of development in the area, resulting in harm. The proposal therefore conflicts with policies HC1 and D3 of the London Plan (2021), policies BD1 and BHC1 of the Local Plan, and heritage and design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), which seek to conserve heritage assets and secure high-quality design that responds positively to local character and context.

 

Given that to all intents and purposes this was public land, the question is, are the public getting a good deal?