The Planning Committee heard three pre-application presentations at their meeting on October 9th and the Minutes of the meeting have been published. All three have featured onWembley Matters. LINK
Minutes:
The Committee
received a briefing on a pre-application scheme for a mixed
use development consisting of 224 residential units, a supermarket,
nursery, gym, café, workshops and amenity space.
Peter Mahoney and
Nick Francis (R55) presented the scheme and answered members
questions. Members then went into a session during which
they examined the proposal and raised the following issues for
further consideration prior to submission of a planning
application.
The main issues raised at the meeting
were:
Issue 1 – Locally
Significant Industrial Site
·
Concern about loss of existing shopping parade and
jobs.
Issue 2 – Affordable
Housing and Workspace
·
Advocate 25% family housing.
·
Ensure no ‘poor doors’ for affordable
housing provision.
·
Questioned reduction from initial proposal in terms
of level of affordable housing provision from 65% to
50%.
·
Queried tenure split not following
policy.
Issue 3 – A1 retail use
in out of town location
·
Concerns about large servicing vehicles and impact
on residential amenity.
Issue 4 – Scale, massing,
height and impact on daylight/sunlight
·
Concern raised about the amount of development on
the site.
·
Potential for public space to attract ant-social
behaviour.
·
Difficult to provide detailed comments without full
information (i.e. daylight sunlight report) for
analysis.
Issue 5 – Public
Realm
·
No further comments.
Other Comments
·
Question whether adequate servicing and parking
provided.
·
Assurance pre-application consultation carried
out.
·
There should be an extra pedestrian crossing and
traffic calming (particularly in view of proposed
nursery).
·
Should be crossings at both ends of
development.
·
Not clear on need for pedestrian route through
development as other quicker alternative routes.
·
Question how parking for LIDL shop would be
managed.
|
|
Minutes:
The Committee
received a briefing on a pre-application scheme which proposed
thedemolition of existing community centre and erection of
three buildings ranging in height from 3- to 6-storeys containing
150 residential units (including private, temporary and NAIL tenure
housing), including a replacement community centre.
Stephen Martin and
Charlotte Pollard (PRP Architects) presented the scheme and
answered members questions. Members then went into a session
during which they examined the proposal and raised the following
issues for further consideration prior to submission of a planning
application.
The main issues raised at the meeting
were:
Issue 1 – Principle of
development
·
Full detail of community centre would be
required.
·
Queried rationale behind loss of open
space.
Issue 2 – Housing, tenure
mix, including Affordable Housing
·
Council own development should be 100% affordable
housing.
Issue 3 – Design, height
and massing of development within its local context.
Queried rationale behind building heights.
Issue 4 – Impact on
amenity of neighbouring properties
·
Need clarification on daylight/sunlight.
Issue 5 – Quality of
residential accommodation
·
Concern over stacking of units.
·
Concern as to whether sufficient amenity space is
being provided.
·
A compromise on quality for temporary accommodation
should not be accepted (temporary can be for a fairly long period).
E.g. Lack of windows to kitchens not considered
acceptable.
·
Queried whether space would be provided in the NAIL
accommodation for visitors to stay.
·
Provision should be made in NAIL accommodation to
store mobility vehicles.
Issue 6 –
Transport
·
Need to consider ‘no right turn’ to
London Rd from Wembley High Rd.
·
Over provision of cycle parking?
·
Concern over additional activity on London Road,
particularly on event days.
Other Comments
·
Detailed construction plan required to include
routes for vehicles, hours operation etc to ensure impact on residents
minimised.
·
Queried level of community engagement.
|
|
(4. |
(Queensbury pub)
Minutes:
The Committee
received a briefing on a pre-application for a scheme for
the replacement of existing building (containing a public
house and former members club) with a mixed use development
comprising a public house and function room (A4) and 48 residential
flats (C3)..
Luke Raistrick, Nick Mokasis
and John Losi (Martin Robeson
Planning Practice) presented the scheme
and answered members questions. Members then went into a
session during which they examined the proposal and raised the
following issues for further consideration prior to submission of a
planning application.
The main issues raised at the meeting
were:
Issue 1 – Principle
·
Need to ensure that the community space is not just finished to
‘shell and core’ standard.
Issue 2 – Design, Heritage and Impact on
Conservation Area
·
Concern regarding massing and density.
·
Concern regarding modern design.
·
Concern over loss of existing building- consider façade
retention?
·
Queried how it can be demonstrated that the building will be of
high quality.
·
Queried depth of frontage.
·
Restrictions should be placed on use of balconies to avoid
clutter.
Issue 3 – Scale, massing, height and
impact on daylight/sunlight
·
Would require confirmation that complies with Council’s
standards.
Issue 4 – Public Realm
·
No further comments.
Issue 5 – Affordable Housing
·
Require up to date financial modelling.
Issue 6 – Standard of Accommodation
·
Noise mitigation needed in view of proximity to railway line.
Other Comments
·
Queried response to consultation.
·
Comments have not suggested that the proposed building is
exceptional.
·
Queried licencing for existing pub and if there is a special
arrangement.
·
Noted the servicing bay – need to consider bus stop
opposite.
·
Blenheim Gardens Residents should be added to the consultation
list
|
7 comments:
Ideally this should be an area of open space, green space and an area where we should encourage a building for older people, who would love to hear the sound of childrens voices, enjoying the green space from Ark Elvin and Elsley Prmiary School, a nice chilled out environment a nice open space for maybe 50 properties for older people, not some big development not over sized just some nice bungalows or older people accommodation within a nice environment next to allotments, near schools which will support them. Where they feel safe and free. Off the beaten track and a good walk to trot up the high road to meet buses and trains when they have the mind to do it, oh if they fit and able. It's perfect for people that want a quiet life. Forget about Affordable housing. Just provide the housing that people want. Single properties for the elderly, in a nice environment, perfect. Some green space, allotments, and the sound of children having fun. What's wrong with that. We don't need tower blocks of more than 4 storeys, we dont need car park or turning round spaces, we just need decent accommodation, within the provision of the councils mandate who declared that we need social housing for the needy and desperate of this borough. Just sort it our Brent Council, We do not need tower Blocks or above 2 storeys in a residential neighbourhood. Who is giving you advice is all wrong.
Above is a comment on the London Road Wembley Youth Centre development.
100% agree with Anonymous at 2.02, this location is ideal for older residents. Give the Residents what is needed, the idea that there should be 3 and 6 storeys in the location is ridiculous. We need to preserve what little green space we have left, and the wildlife corridor of Wembley Brook.
I do so agree with the writer of this comment. The envisaged proposal is just so off kilter it would only be proposed in Brent.
I 100% agree with the proposal of Anonymous 2:02 and seconded by Jaine Lunn. This little green lung must be retained. It is the only bit now left.
Its good to see Planning Committee members raising important questions at pre-application stage.
But will they still "rubber stamp" the actual applications, if the points they have made are ignored by the developers?
Philip.
If they do there may well be consequences they will not like.
Post a Comment