Willesden Green councillors oppose the bank closures 'blight' on small businesses and the elderly

 

Wembley Matters published a letter LINK on January 12th setting out the impact of the closure of the Willesden Green branch of National Westminster Bank on the elderly, disabled and those without internet access.

 

It was good to hear thatWillesden Green councillors, Tom Miller, Janice Long and Saqlain Choudry had taken up the issue. with the banks

 

This is their letter in full:

 

We are writing to express our serious concern and disappointment over the announcement to close two bank branches – Lloyds and NatWest – in Willesden Green, both of which are due to close by the end of March this year. With uncertainty over the future of other branches looming, too, Willesden Green has now fallen victim to the surge of branch closures that is blighting local small businesses, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups. 

 

This is very disappointing news, especially given how NatWest has been rooted in the community; and there is real risk that cash provision and access to basic services will be severely affected. We have been contacted by several residents who have expressed their apprehension over this decision.

 

High street bank closures have become an epidemic in the last few years, with over half of bank branches in the UK shutting their doors in the eight years since the Conservatives came to government in 2015. There are now just 3,200 remaining in England – and Willesden Green and Brent are no exception to these dwindling numbers. The banks are a vital point for the community. These closures are yet another nail in the coffin for the UK’s high street banking infrastructure and will see some towns lose more than one bank within a matter of days or weeks – suggesting little thought has been given to the impact on the communities they serve. 

 

Many people, particularly older people and those with disabilities, need access to physical banking services which go much further than access to cash. It’s often about having a real person to talk to, especially for those individuals with serious financial concerns and who are unable to make the transition to an entirely digitised banking system. Trust is greatly enhanced by personal contact, and greatly reduced when there is none. Some services do require in-person verification, and safety concerns over potential financial abuse are often better spotted when customers are able to use these essential face-to-face services. Many local businesses also bank with NatWest, so the feeling of regularity and social interaction will be omitted in other branches. Do you plan to hold sessions for residents explaining the impact of the closure and advising customers further, especially on the more complex, in-person banking operations? Are both NatWest and Lloyds willing to meet with senior management, cabinet lead and local councillors at Brent Council to discuss the implications on residents? 

 

We, of course, understand that regular reviews are a necessary part of business operation, particularly as we move to a more digital world. But we are very disappointed in the lack of consultation with local councillors and residents on this closure. There has been a distinct lack of visibility and inclusion on surveys and feedback from both NatWest and Lloyds, and we have not seen any detailed data regarding the decision to close. Are NatWest and Lloyds willing to share with us any additional data or metrics they have collected that led to the decision to close? Were the views of local councillors or the local authority taken into account at all in this decision? 

 

Communication has been minimal, reasoning obscure, and not enough consideration given to alternative provisions. Residents have told us that they have been advised to use branches elsewhere – such as in Kilburn High Road, Golders Green, and Swiss Cottage – but longer travel times will make journeys more difficult or impossible for some. We are also concerned about a wave of potential job losses with these continued closures, and would welcome some reassurance on the future of your current team members in the Willesden Green branches. 

 

It is clear that, if these closures are unequivocally going ahead in Willesden Green as they are elsewhere in the UK, an alternative course is needed. The Social Market Foundation found that 7 million people, most of them older and poorer, do all their banking in their local high street branch. But it’s not just these groups: research from LINK has found that around a quarter of Britons still use cash at least once a week, and about 10% of the country use it daily. The latest figures from the British Retail Consortium also show that shopping with cash has risen for the first time in a decade, as household budgets are increasingly stretched and the cost-of-living crisis continues to bite. At the same time, over half of bank branches have closed, and the Conservatives’ rollout of banking hubs has been much delayed. 

 

The rollout has been painfully slow, leaving many communities to become banking deserts. This has become a particular problem in town centres and on high streets such as ours in Willesden Green. The current plans are totally inadequate for creating a much-needed national network of accessible services, and so we are pleased that the Labour Party have recently committed to accelerating the rollout of banking hubs where people can deposit and take out cash, as well as access wider banking services, as part of our Plan for Small Business. The hubs are designed to be shared by major banks, so customers from almost every bank will be able to use them. 

 

The weakness of the current banking hub system is its voluntary character. It arguably shows the weakness of the present regulation when banks are closing thousands of their branches all around the country, withdrawing services to their customers, and then promising banking hubs that they are under no obligation to introduce. The current protocol between lenders and the Government is toothless, and so we support the Shadow Chancellor’s calls for stronger additional powers for the FCA. When a local community demonstrates need and meets the relevant criteria, a banking hub ought to be guaranteed. Considering the shift Willesden Green is about to undergo, we believe that this will be the best course to steer for us as a community. 

 

We therefore will be submitting a formal request to LINK to undertake a review of Willesden Green in light of these branch closures, asking that they assess the viability of opening a banking hub to guarantee that local residents and independent businesses still have access to these essential services. As Labour councillors, we will continue to fight for our communities and ensure that no one is left behind. 

Willesden Green councillors call for LINK to open banking hub in the area in the wake of bank closures

 The Kilburn Times has followed up LINK the letter published last week on Wembley Matters about bank closures in Willesden Green and the impact on the elderly, disabled and those without a smart phone or internet access LINK.

It reports that Willesden Green councillors have written to both National Westminster Bank and Lloyds Bank about the impact on residents:

In a joint letter to Lloyds and NatWest, Willesden Green ward councillors Saqhain Choudry, Janice Long and Tom Miller called the closures "deeply disappointing" and asked for cash machine operator LINK to open a ‘banking hub’ so customers of all banks have a physical premises.

The councillors said: “Willesden Green has now fallen victim to the surge of branch closures that is blighting local small businesses, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups.”

Landlords who rent out properties in Dollis Hill, Harlesden & Kensal Green and Willesden Green, will legally be required to have a licence from 1 August - Cost £540 before August 1st, £640 after

 Press release from Brent Council

Landlords called to get licence to rent A new law requiring landlords in three Brent wards to pay for a selective licence will come into force on 1 August 2023. Landlords who rent out properties in Dollis Hill, Harlesden & Kensal Green and Willesden Green, will legally be required to have a licence from 1 August. A licence will cost £640 for up to five years. Anyone who applied in the next few weeks before 1 August will be able to purchase a licence at the current rate of £540. Dollis Hill, Harlesden & Kensal Green and Willesden Green were selected for licensing following a borough-wide consultation that began in autumn 2022. A report to cabinet members showed that a selective licensing scheme would have a positive impact on poor property conditions and high levels of antisocial behaviour in the three areas. Cllr Promise Knight, Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters’ Security, said:  The landlords who work with us take pride in renting out properties that offer decent facilities and living conditions to tenants. The licensing scheme supports landlords in offering the best they can to tenants, ensuring that tenants’ safety and security are protected. We encourage landlords and agents with properties in Dollis Hill, Harlesden & Kensal Green and Willesden Green to apply for a licence as soon as possible. You can find out whether the property you are renting needs a licence by checking out:https://www.brent.gov.uk/prslicensing

Prior planning permission for 20m mobile mast in Willesden Green refused - visually intrusive and physically obtrusive

 

Where the 20m pole and associated cabinets would have been sited (corner of Walm Lane and Dartmouth Road)

 

In a blog post on January 3rd Wembley Matters drew attention to a proposal for a 20metre phone mast and associated cabinets to be built on the corner of Walm Lane and Dartmouth Road, outside Westly Court and adjacent to the Queensbury pub in Willesden Green. There were only a few comments at the time and due to be closed on January 12th but eventually there were 26 objections including from Mapesbury Residents' Association. There were only two supportive submissions.

 

The final delegated report made on January 17th echoed many of the points made by objectors.

 

The decision

 

1 The proposed telecommunications street pole and associated cabinets by reason of their height, bulk, appearance and siting would be overly prominent and visually intrusive within the street scene adding additional clutter to a prominent location. Furthermore, the proposal would result in harm to the character, appearance and setting of the surrounding conservation area and listed buildings. This would cause unacceptable harm to the visual amenity of the area in conflict with Condition A.3 of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

2 The proposed telecommunications street pole and associated cabinets by reason of their siting would create an obtrusion to the footway by reducing the available footway width and severely affecting pedestrian movement and overall safety. This is contrary to Condition A.3 of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

 The delegated report describes some of the issues:

 

Siting

The application is for prior approval for a 5G telecommunications installation comprising a 20m street pole and additional equipment cabinets on the footpath adjacent to Westly Court on Walm Lane. The equipment cabinets are proposed to be located at the base of the new pole and all of the equipment is proposed to be placed in the middle of the footway. The site is located close to the road junction with Dartmouth Road, which means there are several open views from different angles in the streetscene. This would give the proposal a particularly prominent siting and be at odds with where telecoms and other equipment is generally located.

Highway considerations

The proposed 20m high pole and three cabinets would be 4m from the edge of the carriageway and 4m from the back of the footway. All of the equipment is proposed in the middle of the footway which would add lot of clutter to the footway and a nuisance to pedestrians. In addition to this, there is an existing cabinet at the back of the footway which would mean that only a 2.2m wide footway is retained between the existing cabinets and the proposed new cabinets.

It appears that the doors of the cabinets would open away from the carriageway, although it is not clear. This would further clutter the middle of the footway and force pedestrians to walk closer to the carriageway. This siting would be inappropriate generally and pose a significant obstruction in an area which has been highlighted by objectors as being busy with a high number of pedestrian. In addition the proposal would be poorly sited create a safety risk for visually impaired pedestrians.

The proposals will not obstruct visibility for vehicles at this junction as it is set back 4m from the edge of the carriageway.

Therefore, the siting is considered to be unacceptable

 

Heritage and Design

In addition to the location on the footway noted above, page 2 of the ‘Site Specific Supplementary Information’ states that the proposal is outside the Conservation Area, which is incorrect. The site is located within the Mapesbury Conservation Area.

 

There are also several designated heritage assets in the area, which would need to be taken into account.

No heritage statement has been submitted with this application to describe the significance of the heritage assets or the Conservation Area and to understand the potential impact of the proposal.

It is clear that the position of the new pole would be obtrusive and prominent in the streetscene. The new pole would be seen directly in the context and on the edge of the Mapesbury Conservation Area. It would also be seen in the eyeline of the bell tower of St Gabriel’s Church, which is Grade II listed and one of the most significant buildings in the conservation area. Even with the treelined street (acting as a foil in summer) it would stand out in views from within the conservation area and along its attractive boundary. Furthermore, the trees cannot be replied upon as a permanent screen.

There is lessor impact on the Willesden Green Conservation Area and the Underground Station (listed Grade II), but it will impact a view from Dartmouth Road.

The equipment cabinets would be located in the middle of the pavement. It should be noted that there are existing cabinets on the edge of the footway, lampposts, signage a litter bin and other features in close proximity to the proposal. Although the existing items are generally positioned more discretely, the proposal in the centre of these items would be very cluttered, prominent, unattractive and would detract from the beauty of the area.

Overall, it is considered that the proposed mast and cabinets will cause harm to the significance of the Mapesbury Conservation Area and great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Being viewed both looking into and out of the Conservation Area, the proposal would impact on its setting and the setting of the attractive buildings and listed buildings. The proposal would result in 'less than substantial harm' to the heritage assets (Conservation Area and Listed buildings) When considered against the requirements of the NPPF. The prominence, out of place appearance and the surrounding views from several public and private vantage points, would result in the proposal having a moderate to high impact on a scale of 'less than substantial harm'.

There is no evidence or clear convincing justification that another location outside the conservation area has been considered that would diminish the impact. It has been noted that the proposal would result in technological improvement for the public, however, the public benefits would be clearly outweighed by the harm that the proposal would result in on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings, including the Conservation Area and the nearby Listed Buildings

 

 

Opposition to 20metre 5G Mast in Mapesbury Conservation area - consultation closes January 12th

 View of existing area where mast and cabinets would be installed outside 112 Walm Lane [Streetview] Note: Pole in foreground is not the proposed mast.

Mapesbury Conservation Area Border (Brent Council) - Site in red

 The placement of the mast and cabinets

 

The height of the mast against tree and 112 Walm Lane

Editor's Note: There has been a suggestion that there is a petition opposing this mast. I have not seen one and so do not have a link. If you know of one please send the link to wembleymatters@virginmedia.com  Individual responses to the Planning Portal LINK are more effective anyway as I understand petitions are counted as just one objection.

 

The latest controversy over the erection of a 5G roll-out mast is in Willesden Green, just within the Mapesbury Conservation Area border. Although the planning application gives the address of the Queensbury pub (due to be redeveloped) at 110 Walm Lane, the site is actually outside the block of flats at 112 Walm Lane, on the corner of Dartmouth Road.

The proposal sent to neighbouring residents and displayed nearby gives a closing date for comments of Thursday January 12th 2023.

Application Number 22/4004
Location Street Record, Walm Lane, London Proposal Prior approval for proposed 5G telecommunications installation comprising a 20m street pole and additional equipment cabinets on footpath adjacent to 110 Walm Lane, London, NW2 4RS (Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) and is in accordance with the Electronic Communications Code (as amended))

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.

Please make your comment by 12/01/2023; after that we will make a decision on the proposal as soon as possible.

As with all such proposals the default position is approval to aid the roll-out of 5G transmission as part of the government's diginal vision. The applicant states:

The proposed installation supports the UK Government Digital connectivity vision and provide a basis for support from the local planning authority to speed up digital infrastructure rollout set by Ministers on 27 August 2020. Such development will facilitate educational benefits, providing access to vital services, improving communications with the associated commercial benefits for local businesses, enabling e-commerce and working from home as well as enjoying access to social, media and gaming for leisure time activities.
In accordance with the requirement set within National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) guidelines; the proposed ‘Streetworks’ design has been selected to minimise visual impact upon the street scene by integrating with existing street furniture.

 

The applicant claims their proposal meets Brent Council's criteria for 5G installations but note the final point regarding Conservation Areas.

One local resident has submitted a comprehensive Objection:

This proposal is completely misguided and should be rejected.

It would create an unacceptably intrusive, overbearing and incongruous feature at a very prominent location, wholly out of scale and inconsistent with nearby buildings and structures, and would materially impact the character and appearance of the Mapesbury Conservation Area and the Willesden Green Conservation Area, as well as of Willesden Green Station and St. Gabriel's Church, both grade II listed buildings.

It's extraordinary that the applicant has managed to find a site for this 20 metre mast that would materially impact the character and appearance of not just one but two separate conservation areas and two separate grade II listed buildings.

Further, while the applicant asserts that the site is outside of the Mapesbury Conservation Area, according to the official map of the Mapesbury Conservation Area (https://legacy.brent.gov.uk/media/16402740/mapesbury-conservation-area-map.jpg) the boundary of the conservation area runs down the middle of Walm Lane and therefore the site is within the conservation area. In any event our comments are relevant regardless of whether the site is or not within the conservation area: if outside it would still be on the boundary of the conservation area and would have just as a material impact on the visual amenity and character of the conservation area as if it was inside it.

In more detail, my objection is based on the following:

(A) The mast would be very significantly taller than all surrounding housing. At 20 metres it would be almost double the height of the adjacent Westerly Court (11 metres), which itself is taller than all other surrounding housing on the north side of the railway, and more than double the height of street lighting and trees.

(B) The mast would be very close to the top of the hill, which would increase even more its actual and perceived height compared to the surrounding housing, including the two conservation areas.

(C) The mast would be located in a corner plot, increasing its visibility and prominence.

(D) The mast would be directly in line with the north face of Westly Court, meaning that its entire height would be visible from the whole north side of Dartmouth Road.

Factors (A), (B), (C) and (D) will exacerbate the visual prominence of the mast which will be seen over a wide area. It is likely that it would be visible from every first or second floor south facing window in the Mapesbury Conservation Area.

The streetview up and down Walm Lane between St. Gabriel's Church and the top of the hill where Willesden Green Station is located is a critical and integral element of the Mapesbury Conservation Area's character and appearance. Further, the northward streetview up Walm Lane and across the top of the hill in front of the Willesden Green Station is a critical and integral elements of the Willesden Green Conservation Area character and appearance. Both of these would be completely ruined by the mast, which would tower above and overbear all of these views.

(E) The mast would be in very close proximity (70 metres - 3.5 times its height) to Willesden Green Station, which is a Grade II listed building, and would significantly impact the appearance of the station and of the open space in front of it (which is part of the Willesden Green Conservation Area) when approaching from the north (from the Mapesbury Conservation Area) and the south (through the Willesden Conservation Area).

(F) The mast would be right in the straight line of sight between Willesden Green Station and St. Gabriel's Church, which is also a Grade II listed building and is located about 10 meters lower down the hill (meaning that it would tower above the church in the background when approaching the church southwards along Walm Lane).

The applicant has taken no account in its application of the fact that the visual amenity and character of two Grade II listed buildings will be materially impacted by the proposal, as set out in (E) and (F) above.

(G) Finally, given that the applicant has taken no account of the above factors in the design of the mast (other than to say that the site is outside of a conservation area, which appears to be inaccurate and in any event is immaterial), the proposal itself does not comply with the design principles set out in the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England (2016 Edition) - in particular those set out in Appendix A.

While not directly relevant to my objection to the application, I would also like to highlight that:

- The area in the vicinity of the site is already very well served by broadband internet and further developments are currently ongoing (e.g. Hyperoptic is currently installing fibre underground throughout the conservation area), so there is no "critical need" for this 5g infrastructure, notwithstanding what the applicant says in its application. This should be taken into account when considering the balance between the need for this specific 5g mast and other public policy considerations (such as public amenity) when assessing this application.

- The proposed siting of the equipment boxes at the street level is completely irrational. It is proposed that they will be located in the middle of the public footpath, significantly reducing the available space for pedestrians and other users. What is the applicant's rationale for occupying so much footpath space and inconveniencing pedestrians, rather than siting the boxes beside the existing boxes on the east edge of the footpath?

- There is already a telecoms mast located along the train line on the south side of the Tube railway tracks, adjacent to Lydford Road. Given the presence of multiple conservation areas and listed buildings in the vicinity of the proposed mast, what consideration has the applicant given to reinforcing and/or sharing that mast, consistent with the requirements of the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England (2016 Edition), or otherwise siting the mast along the railway at a suitable distance from the existing tower, where it would not be as much an eyesore?

- There is already a telecoms mast located along the train line on the south side of the railway tracks, adjacent to Lydford Road. Given the presence of multiple conservation areas and listed buildings in the vicinity of the proposed mast, what consideration has the applicant given to reinforcing and/or sharing that mast, consistent with the requirements of the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England (2016 Edition), or otherwise siting the mast along the railway at a suitable distance from the existing tower, where it would not be as much an eyesore?

 Regarding alternatives, as suggested by some of the Objectors, including updating existing masts in the area, the Applicant states:

The very nature of installing new 5G mast infrastructure within such an urban setting requires a highly considered balance between the need to extend practical coverage reach with that of increasing risk of visual amenity intrusion. In this location, existing mast sites are not capable of supporting additional equipment compliment to extend coverage reach across the target area and prospective ‘in-fill’ mast sites are extremely limited.

There is an acute need for a new base station to provide effective service coverage and in this case, the height of the proposed street pole is the minimum required to bring the benefits of 5G to this area.

Brent Renters call for 'RENT FREEZE NOW!'

 

As part of a Day of Action called by London Renters Union, Brent Renters were outside Willesden Green Station today.

On Twitter they said:

Brent renters came together. There IS power in a union! By coming together in our communities we can win. We need a rent freeze now! We went to Foxtons and made our point then to an agents who've failed to act to deal with rat infestation Tenants! Join.

 

 

Pics from @Brentrenters

 

Enough is Enough! West London Rally, Central Mosque Willesden Green. November 11th 7pm

 

Join us in West London to hear from speakers across the Enough is Enough! Campaign and to get organised to end the Cost of Living Crisis.

November 11th  7pm-9.30pm  Brent Central Mosque, 41 Station Road, Willesden Green, NW2 4NX  Willesden Green Station (Jubilee line) is next door.

FREE RESERVE TICKETS HERE

By Enough is Enough! West London - Campaign to End the Cost of Living Crisis

We were founded by trade unions and community organisations determined to push back against the misery forced on millions by rising bills, low wages, food poverty, shoddy housing and a society run only for a wealthy elite.

We can't rely on the establishment to solve our problems. It's up to us in every workplace and every community.

Join us and turn anger into action.

Speakers:

Dawn Butler NP (Brent Central)

Eddie Dempsey (RMT Senior Assistant General Secretary)

Jo Grady (UCU General Secretary)

 

Parking available, accessible venue.

www.wesayenough.co.uk

Marley Walk Residents' Association appeal for expert help in opposing building of block of flats on Willesden Green Mosque car park

 

The Marley Walk Estate is tucked away beside the Metropolitan and Jubilee railway line  in Willesden Green with only one road at the end of Station Parade, Lennon Road, leading to the estate.

People on the estate are aghast at plans by the Willesden Green (Brent Central) Mosque  to build a four storey block of 21 flats, with a double basement, on the mosque car park next the the Pakistan Community Centre on Lennon Road, which will overlook the estate's Elvis Road. Such is the opposition to the plans  Marley Walk Residents Association are appealing for a expert on planning to come forward to help them prepare their case against the development. They are willing to pay for advice CONTACT.

The developer describes their proposal:

The proposal is for the erection of a new building with access to the building off Lennon Road and provides 2 levels of underground parking and parking on the ground floor for a total of 48 car parking spaces to serve the mosque replacing the existing 48 parking space on site as well as secure parking for 42 cycle spaces.

There is a provision of three floors of residential apartments on the ground floor, first, second and third floor providing 7  one bedroom apartments, 7  two bedroom units and 7 no. three bedroom apartments along with a communal roof garden.

Each flat comprises an open plan lounge/kitchen diner, bedrooms and bathroom as well as private balconies accessed via the open plan living area (excluding caretakers flat). The balconies have been designed to provide shelter and privacy from neighbouring properties.

The proposed development also includes lifts and stair cores which provides access to each floor within the building, including the basement car parks. There is a provision for two lifts – one for residents to access their flats and the roof top amenity space from the car park and the second lift for the users of the car park from the basement levels to ground floor level.

The roof top amenity area comprises of a decked seating area with walking routes interspersed with green areas and a pergola in the centre of the amenity space is also proposed. The amenity space on the roof terrace measures a total of 506m².

The housing, apart from one flat on the ground floor reserved for the Mosque caretaker, is described as 'affordable/social' but details regarding rents are not given. A number of housing associations are listed as possible managers of the property.  The developer, apart from arguing that the housing will be a community benefit, also suggests that the development with a double basement and a ground floor car  park (which includes the caretaker's flat in a corner) addresses long standing car parking problems.

 

 Brent officers covering Policy and Transport have submitted critical Consultee comments:

Policy Comment: In summary, whilst the proposed residential use of the site is supported in increasing the efficient use of land in conjunction with its existing community facility, there are some policy concerns with this application. Most significantly this is around the provision of an amount of car parking on site which has not been sufficiently justified. In addition there are concerns about the design of the scheme, particularly at ground floor whereby vehicle entrances and bin stores create inactive frontage. FULL PAPER

  

 

Transport Comment: This proposal should be resisted, on the grounds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed car park for the mosque complies with Brent Council’s parking standards or is required to meet a transport need that cannot be met by other forms of transport, contrary to Policy DMP12 of the adopted Development Management Policies 2016. FULL PAPER

At the time of writing there were 58 submissions on the Brent Council Planning Portal. 33 in support, 24 objections and 1 neutral comment. The objections tended to be very local and the supporters spread further afield. The supporters' comments were shorter than several of the more detailed objections. Below is the one neutral statement  and one each from a supporter and objector:

 

The present car park on the left and mosque on the right

NEUTRAL

A block of flats will make a difference to the area but the real issue is the parking problems generated by the mosque. But although the proposed flats will be car free this still needs to be managed. In particular the residents of Marley Walk are concerned about the access to their estate being blocked by illegally parked vehicles on Lennon Road, which is the only road into the estate and the only access by emergency vehicles.

The refuse plan does not identify an area for bulky item storage or food waste. There are already flytipping hotspots on the Marley Walk estate so how the occupiers of the new flats will get rid of bulky items must be addressed. And clarification on the food waste disposal, individual bins or a communal bin. (Albeit these are not popular)

A loading bay area should be identified on Lennon Road for deliveries to the new block. This is to prevent Lennon Road becoming blocked. Some of the current parking bays could be changed to a loading bay.

The skyline will change if the flats are built. But given the journey of the sun will have result in some reduced sunlight. This will impact on the houses at the entrance of Marley Walk and the rear gardens of Riffel Road in particular. Lennon Road may feel safer as it will be more overlooked by the new flats. Also there are claims of people currently misusing the car park so this will stop..

If residents are not to have access to the car parking areas then access to the flats from the car parking areas must be secure so that non-residential car drivers cannot access the communal areas of the flats.

It is one thing for individual residents to drive in/out of a car park but a mass exodus of cars at the end of an event could be disruptive to residents. There must be adequate sound insulation so that cars in the parking areas cannot be heard from the residential flats when they leave the site. There must also be no light penetration from headlights into residential properties or communal areas or surrounding properties.

The Affordable Housing Statement and Statement of Community Involvement states "....the proposed car park will provide much needed private parking for the community when visiting the Mosque. As a result, the proposed stresses that the current uncontrolled parking has on the surrounding streets will be removed." I disagree. The mosque has a capacity of 1k plus. The parking pressures are experienced by residents on many of the surround streets in CPZ zone MW and GB as well as the Marley Walk estate. Residents just grit their teeth on Friday and put up with cars parked on double yellow lines, across drives and on drives. And access to Marley Walk has been blocked by cars parked on the Lennon Road pavement / double yellow line making access by emergency vehicles impossible. Access/egress by residents of Marley Walk and delivery vehicles is also problematic due o the parking issues.

The Car Park Management Plan states at 2.2 "During the site visit it was observed that illegal and irresponsible parking occurs on the surrounding highway network due to the high numbers of people attending BCM." There are photos illustrating this on Lennon Road and Station Parade but any street corner with a double yellow could have been used. Illegal parking on street corners extends to Melrose Avenue.

A councillor from another ward arranged for bollards to be installed on the Lennon Road pavement outside the mosque. However this has merely narrowed the pavement and not resolved the parking issues.


The mosque car park is open to anyone to use and is frequently used by visitors to the Pakistan Community Centre. They have events running into the late evening. Some people use the car park when they travel from Willesden Green station. Use of the car park by the PCC must be incorporated into the car park management plan else it will lead to on-street parking issues.

The open access to the car parking spaces should cease and access should be managed at all times. 24/7, 365 days.

The parking bays in Lennon Road are invisible to passing motorists so are only used by drivers who know they are there. Often the bays are empty. To keep the road clear for access to Marley Walk the bays should be removed or converted to disabled parking bays, a loading bay for the new flats or bike storage.

The membership of the mosque now has older members and this has to be acknowledged. Many are disabled and cannot walk long distances. Many will be unable to walk from the car park. But often they do not drive to the mosque themselves. There should be better utilisation of taxi firms by mosque users. And drop off points outside the mosque marked out, albeit this may mean the removal of the parking bays on Lennon Rod.

To stop drivers unable to enter the car park in the new development driving into the Marley Walk estate or doing 3-point turns there should be a turning circle at the end of Lennon Road where it meets Elvis Road. At mosque times traffic marshalls should be on duty at the junction of Lennon Road / Station Parade to prevent cars entering Lennon Road unless they have a parking space booked or have a legitimate reason for accessing Marley Walk.

The parking provision in the new development will not resolve the parking problems generated by the mosque A new audit of where the mosque users who drive there come from should be undertaken. The submitted survey was done in 2020 which is not a typical year given the pandemic. A full traffic survey and transport management plan must be done, agreed and implemented before the building can be occupied.

The Travel Audit document in the planning submission is inadequate. 2020 was not a typical year for mosque usage. People who arrive early get a space in the car park. Those who arrive late park on double yellow lines etc. Evidently announcements are made requesting people not to park on double yellow lines or across drives but this clearly bas no impact.

The people who arrive early are likely to be the people who pre-book a space in the new car park. Action must be taken against those who arrive late and park on the street. Parking enforcement is non-existent as it would likely require police presence. I have been verbally challenged whilst taking photos of the parking and it is obvious I am not a parking attendant. A new Travel Plan must be undertaken to establish where the latecomers drive from.

Often the car park is used by the Pakistan Community Centre. If access is agreed by the building owners the use of the parking in the new block by the PCC must be incorporated in the transport management plan.

A parking plan is required for the construction period, both for mosque users and for builders lorries.

Whilst construction is underway there will be no car park. There must be a planning condition for a plan for where the cars that currently use the car park will park And lessons learnt from this period of time should be incorporated into a new travel plan.

 

SUPPORT

For several months past, I have worked at the mosque vaccination centre queues and admin within the vaccine centre. Never have I ever had an issue with any of this. Whilst managing the queues allowed me to observe this site and all traffic movements, including those during Friday prayers.

The site at present consists of an open space offering, somewhat disorganised, car parking ancillary to the mosque, together with surrounding rough grass and scrub, together with a 6-track railway line at rear. It is a most unprepossessing spectacle.

Having inspected the deposited plans and elevations, I have no doubt that the proposed residential block will hugely improve the visual aspects of this location, without adversely impacting on the appearance or light of adjoining premises

I understand that some local residents are concerned at the car parking situation in Station Parade and Lennon Road but my, extended, direct observation does not bear out those concerns.

It is true that, on each occasion I was present, an undue concentration of worshippers' vehicles existed during some 90 to 120 minutes around Fridays' midday prayers. At other times - my shifts included Monday and Thursday evenings as well as Friday and Saturday daytimes - there was no traffic congestion, with even the existing car park no more than half full.

Having read details of the car parking provision, and limitation, intended, together with the submitted Travel Plan, and noting the proposal for a parking superintendent to be supplied by the mosque, I have no doubt but that the present traffic problems and any associated with the proposed development can be resolved and that the current development also is within the Tall buildings act of Brent (sic) as it is only 4 floors high.

I have absolute no problem with this development as it will be an excellent development for the area to clean up the local area for both the local residents and the religious visitors in a time when religion is often frowned upon and ignored.

OBJECT

We oppose the proposed plans on four main objections outlined in detail below.

Objection 1: inadequate parking management

The car parking management plan (CPMP) prepared in support of the planning application acknowledges that congested on-street parking due to insufficient spaces in the current car park (currently 50 spaces) is a chronic issue due to usage by Brent Central Mosque (BCM) attendees, particularly for Friday prayers as well as other religious events. This is particularly the case for Riffel Road, which is reduced to single file usage, despite being used as a through-road for the surrounding area. Resultingly there is considerable disruption (both traffic, noise, and air pollution) caused by the overspill.

Firstly, the newly proposed car park of 48 spaces remains highly likely to be insufficient for current demand given that this is a decrease from existing capacity of the car park (50 spaces). Given the insufficient nature of current parking capacity and illegal/ irresponsible parking as noted in the CPMP, it is also highly probable that current demand may be an underestimate.

The Travel Plan projects a maximum of 600 visitors to BCM and given current car usage this relates to over 300 individuals including single use journeys and car sharing. Car sharing is unlikely to be feasible nor popular in current/future circumstances given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (which is likely to remain endemic in the population). Even if car sharing is taken up by the majority of car users, the proposed car park will do nothing to abate the parking issue it is trying to address, as the proposals indicate a decrease in the number of parking spaces. Furthermore we note that the estimated numbers (max 600 visitors) is a considerable decrease from the 1000 to 1500 estimated attendance for Friday prayer and other peak times as noted previously and clarification of realistic attendance is needed.

Secondly, the 21 residential flats are going to be sold 'car free'. Residents of new purpose-built developments are more likely to own a car than London residents as a whole (TfL report, 2012). In absence of allocated parking within the basement car park, residents will have to resort to using on-street parking therefore exacerbating the overcrowding and parking issues noted in the CPMP for Riffel Road and the surrounding area. There is also no indication of how this car free policy would be enforced among residents.

Thirdly, the proposed plans will not relieve the heavy congestion and traffic in the surrounding residential area including Riffel Road as BCM users arrive and leave the area. Therefore the congestion, noise pollution, and air pollution for the surrounding residential area including Riffel Road will remain the same, or will get worse.

Finally and relatedly, the proposal includes ten fast charging electric vehicle charging points. The provision of these points could draw more traffic towards the area including Riffel road given that they will represent the largest cluster of fast charging points for electric car users in the local area (for current electric charging points see: https://www.zap-map.com/live/).

Objection 2: loss of privacy and overlooking

The proposed four-storey building presents a serious loss of privacy and high risk of overlooking for residents in multiple properties living along Riffel Road. This is based on the following:

The height of the proposed development is four-storeys, which is substantially higher than the surrounding area (mostly two-storey buildings).

The large ceiling to floor windows on the north side of the proposed development will mean that gardens and rear windows of multiple Riffel Road properties will be clearly visible. This affects multiple households given that several Riffel Road buildings are converted flats.
The proposed rooftop garden will further risk loss of privacy in the gardens and households of the Riffel Road properties given the elevation.

Objection 3: overshadowing and loss of light

The proposed four-storey building will create a significant risk of looming and overshadowing. There are no nearby buildings of such a height, with the vast majority of properties in the area being two-storeys high. Moreover, the nearby three-storey properties on Lennon Road have their impact further reduced by the fact they stand at a lower position relative to sea level than the current car park. In summary, the proposed four-storey development will be considerably out of the pattern of developments and relative heights of the surrounding buildings; this significantly risks overshadowing.

Objection 4: community space usage

The proposed rooftop community space has been described as a big benefit to the current residents and future residents of the proposed development. It is unclear whether the rooftop garden will be made publicly accessible as indicated in the community consultation documents and reflected in the statement of community involvement. If it is a publicly accessible space, there is no indication of how this space will be maintained and monitored (for anti-social or illegal activities).

 

 If you are sympathetic to the Marley Walk Residents' Association case and would like to respond to their request for legal advice contact the Secretary HERE

 APPLICATION ON PLANNING PORTAL