Brent Planning Committe this afternoon passed the planning application that will see three towers, 21 storeys, 25 storeys and 28 storeys, built on the Alperton Bus Depot site. (Ealing Road/Bridgewater Road) Planning offices said that the Alperton Masterplan policy of a limit of 14 storeys had been superseded by the Emerging Local Plan policy on tall buildings.
A planning officer said that the character of the area would change as a result of the cluster of tall buildings but that as this particular site was not next door to low buildings the usual step down of height did not apply.
None the less Cllr Maurice voted against the application on grounds of over-development, height and its destruction of the area's once pleasant suburban character.
Cllr Anton Georgiou (LD Alperton) having opposed several applications with similar speeches on ground of height, unaffordability and lack of infrastructure, took a different approach this time. Taking a leaf out of the technique used by Jeremy Corbyn, when opposition leader, Georgio quoted the views of ordinary residents. He said he was certain that none of the Committe had actually been to, or spoke to anyone in Alperton so he would bring their voices to them. He read out their statements:
Kit and Mai of Crabtree Avenue say:
“Our local community feels abandoned and unloved with the constant addiction of this Council to approving massive tower blocks, whilst no tangible investments are made in infrastructure and facilities.”
Bob from Vicars Bridge Close says:
“Having lived in Alperton for nearly a quarter of a century now, I have seen it change massively, and not for the better. The emphasis seems to have been on changing the nature and the character of the area forever and not at the behest of the people who live and work here. Enough is enough.”
Mel from Bridgewater Road says:
“This is/ was a residential area. More developments are also planned in this small area which adds nothings to the community and residential streets that surround it. Just more congestion, more people, more high rise monstrous ugly buildings with no infrastructure to cope built in – enough!”
Hiren and Anita from the Abbey Estate say:
“The scale of this development is ridiculous. The Alperton master plan claimed that no new development would be over 17 storeys. Why should this development be any different? The height of these towers will block sunlight for existing residents nearby, as well as overlooking Alperton Community School - a safeguarding issue.”
Donnamarie from Lyon Park Avenue says:
“Loss of the skyline - we already can’t see it, and when I look out of my windows, whether the front or the back all I can see are tall cranes and high rise flats that have already been built, yet more eyesores.”
Frances from the Abbey Estate says:
“I am against any more tower blocks. They block out the light and there is no parking people who will be living in the blocks will be parking in the Abbey Estate as they are at the moment from the last two Tower blocks that went up! We have lost our front gardens because the majority of us could no longer park outside our front doors!”
Ingrid from Bridgewater Road says:
“We need to call a halt to the ever increasing number of tower blocks in what is principally a low rise residential area. They do absolutely nothing for the area in terms of infrastructure, aesthetics and wellbeing. They serve only those who want to make money. Alperton has been blighted enough with the current construction - dark and oppressive. Just for once, try thinking about those of us who live here on a permanent basis.”
Sammy from Heather Park Drive says:
“It looks like Hong Kong / New York not Alperton! The essence of Alperton is gone.
As a result, my family who live on Bridgewater Road are so fed up that they’re moving out of Wembley soon. Not everyone can do that.”
Mrs Jani from Stanley Close says:
“I have lived in Alperton for the last 35 years and the way it has developed in recent years is creating lots of problems with overcrowding and traffic congestion. The multi-storey complexes are not what we need here.”
Ravi from Longley Avenue says:
“I have been a resident in Longley Avenue since 1983, day by day our living conditions are becoming worse. We cannot get GP appointments, parking issues, since Covid, we need more health supporting services (Alperton Station lift).”
Chirag, Chair of the Wembley Central and Alperton Residents’ Association says:
“Representing residents of Alperton and neighbouring residents on Bridgewater Road, Carlyon Road, Ealing Road, Burnside Crescent and Clifford Road, the proposed development is over-bearing, out-of-scale and out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing developments in the vicinity.
The development does not take into account the burden it will place on existing neighbouring properties and the infrastructure required to accommodate such a large scale development. The development would also adversely affect highway safety, and the convenience of existing road users as there are no plans to mitigate the increased number of cars owned by residents of this new development. WCARA objects to this development.”
Gabi from 243 Ealing Road says:
“Many of us who moved here to 243 six years ago have done our research and were aware the area was up for development. But we are in shock and disbelief about the density and the overall lack of long term structure/ planning of how are all these people supposed to coexist together without healthcare/education/travel provision. In the meantime from our complex many people are desperate to leave due to extortionate service charges that no one can really afford...”
Lucie Gutfreund, End our Cladding Scandal campaigner and Brent resident says:
“As the buildings safety crisis unfolds across the UK and with the Government still not ensuring that new build homes are built safely or guaranteeing residents’ physical financial protection from defects, I would strongly oppose the new high-rise development in Alperton. I would also particularly also like to raise concerns about Telford Homes; the developer is known to refuse to take responsibility for their existing unsafe homes or to even respond to MPs, having been named and shamed in the House of Commons on 27th April.”
Cllr Kennelly asked if Telford Homes was a fit and proper developer for Brent in the light of this but the agent addressing the Committee said she did not know about the Hansard mention and that they had no outstanding cladding issues.
10 comments:
Alperton Planning Committee
I viewed / listened to the Planning committee this afternoon in disbelief.
I don’t live in Alperton, but I work there, and there is already a large amount of development which is causing many problems. Too many people, in too small a space…no parking…and the Tube is ridiculously overcrowded so families will always keep their cars, and therefore look for parking in the neighbouring streets. This is already happening, but will become far worse when these developments are built.
Cllr Georgiou used his 3 minutes allotted time to speak wisely by outlining the real residents’ objections to this planning application.
The other two local councillors were conspicuous in their absence.
His speech was a palpable reality check…as he stressed what the residents really feel.
He raised concerns about the company who plan to deliver these massive developments Telford Homes whose record has been far from exemplary and who talk of affordable homes…. pocket parks, improved infrastructure … etc
One example of the ‘improved open space’ they offered was the space within the 243 development in Bridgewater Road, which in fact is a tiny area dwarfed by the many high-rise blocks already surrounding it, which clearly displays ‘Keep of the Grass ‘signs!
Possibly Alperton’s best features are the canal and the river Brent. Parents are reluctant to let their kids anywhere near the canal towpath because it is a high- speed cycle highway, and the river Brent is inaccessible and therefore a constant site for the dumping of rubbish.
Instead of improving and opening up these features for the community, all the developers are intent on doing is building massive high-rise blocks that the local community clearly do not want, they claim are ‘affordable’ but are not …. especially if you consider the ridiculous service charges being hiked day after day for the poor tenants who have no recourse to challenge.
The Councillors who voted this through should be ashamed.
Alperton Planning Committee
I viewed / listened to the Planning committee this afternoon in disbelief.
I don’t live in Alperton, but I work there, and there is already a large amount of development which is causing many problems. Too many people, in too small a space…no parking…and the Tube is ridiculously overcrowded so families will always keep their cars, and therefore look for parking in the neighbouring streets. This is already happening, but will become far worse when these developments are built.
Cllr Georgiou used his 3 minutes allotted time to speak wisely by outlining the real residents’ objections to this planning application.
The other two local councillors were conspicuous in their absence.
His speech was a palpable reality check…as he stressed what the residents really feel.
He raised concerns about the company who plan to deliver these massive developments Telford Homes whose record has been far from exemplary and who talk of affordable homes…. pocket parks, improved infrastructure … etc
One example of the ‘improved open space’ they offered was the space within the 243 development in Bridgewater Road, which in fact is a tiny area dwarfed by the many high-rise blocks already surrounding it, which clearly displays ‘Keep of the Grass ‘signs!
Possibly Alperton’s best features are the canal and the river Brent. Parents are reluctant to let their kids anywhere near the canal towpath because it is a high- speed cycle highway, and the river Brent is inaccessible and therefore a constant site for the dumping of rubbish.
Instead of improving and opening up these features for the community, all the developers are intent on doing is building massive high-rise blocks that the local community clearly do not want, they claim are ‘affordable’ but are not …. especially if you consider the ridiculous service charges being hiked day after day for the poor tenants who have no recourse to challenge.
The Councillors who voted this through should be ashamed.
When run by sensible and responsible people Brent Council had a plan to redevelop empty sites such as the BQ site and others. Residents were consulted and Alperton was designated a growth area for the extra new homes needed for Brent residents. The Alperton plan had a target of 1600 new homes with a maximum height of new buildings of 14 storeys or less.
Without any meaningful consultation and without any effective action or proposals to tackle the problems of traffic congestion and parking the Labour run Brent Council decided to change the Alperton Plan and now want to squeeze a staggering 6,000 homes into the area. This is why the quality of life for Alperton residents is being destroyed by 29 storey monsters.
The Alperton Bus Garage development will take 40 months to build. It will include 3 towers of 460 flats with workspaces and businesses at ground, 1st and 2nd floor level. The only parking for all of this will be 14 spaces for disabled people and 2 spaces for a car club.
To suggest that residents will not have cars or visitors or deliveries, that the businesses can function without cars, vans or deliveries or that the problems of parking and more traffic congestion will not exists is a lie being perpetuated by the Labour run Brent Council that is imposing its policies on local people without any concern for their well being and the consequences.
As you would expect the 2 remaining Labour Councillors for Alperton were absent and the only Councillors to once again speak up and stand up for Alperton residents was Liberal Democrat Councillor Anton Georgiou.
SHARE YOUR VIEWS - USE YOUR VOTES
I will add another comment on this planning decision when I have marshalled my facts, but I would like to say this to the people whose views were quoted in the article, and to anyone else who is interested.
This sort of decision is becoming normal in Brent, and something has to change. If you feel strongly that what you have said over this (or any other) planning application was valid, but has wrongly been ignored, SAY SO.
Send an email, as a complaint if that is what you believe it should be, to the Brent's Head of Planning (gerry.ansell@brent.gov.uk), and/or the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment (alan.lunt@brent.gov.uk), and/or the Chief Executive (carolyn.downs@brent.gov.uk). Say what you think the Council has done wrong, and why you believe it was wrong.
Copy your email to the Leader of the Council (leader@brent.gov.uk), and to all three of your Ward councillors. Put copies of your email message on social media, if you wish to go public with your views, so that other people know what you think, and can express their support (or disagreement).
One way you can try to bring about change for the better is to use your vote(s) in elections. There are Mayoral and London Assembly elections next week on 6 May. If you have not already sent in your postal vote (I have), vote for whichever candidates for Mayor or Brent & Harrow Assembly Member you feel most represents your views, and will do the best job for you and your community.
It is not "a two horse race" between Labour or Conservatives, especially in the third ballot, where you can choose whichever party you wish, and those with the most votes can win "London-wide" seats in the Assembly. These have enabled representatives of some of the so-called "smaller parties" to make very positive contributions in the past. More of them could have an even bigger influence in future, if enough people back them. But the choice is yours, and I hope you will use your vote(s).
In a year's time, we will have local Council elections in Brent. That gives a chance to elect councillors who might actually listen to what people in their areas are saying, and act on them. If you are not happy with what your existing councillors are doing on your behalf, vote for someone who you feel would represent you better. But above all, vote, and encourage your family and friends to vote too.
In the 2018 local elections, only just over 37% of people in Brent used their votes, but under the "first past the post" system, this enabled Labour to win 60 of the 63 seats on the Council. This gives too much power to one party, and to a small number of people when a Leader and Cabinet system is used (as it is in Brent). If a larger number of residents voted, and elected people with a wider range of views, it could lead to better decisions being made.
Let's face it, Brent's Cabinet (almost totally controlled by Cllr. Butt) decided to increase the number of units to be built in Alperton from 1,600 to 6,000. Because of this decision by Cabinet - creating the Policy the Planning Officers and Committee could not refuse permission, and anyway, Cllr. Butt almost certainly controls the majority of the Committee anyway. Done deal? - could it have been in one of those private meetings with developers?
I wonder why he wants to turn Brent into the rental tower block capital of Europe while ignoring that Brent is the poorest Borough in London with the highest unemployment and residents claiming benefit. Maybe he's got it wrong? Surely he's not doing it on purpose? Or maybe he's just ........
Because, Brent Labour is like the old GDR CP, policy imposed from the top down to the masses, whilst the top tier comrades lived in luxury dachas by the lakes
Labour in Brent, its a one party dictatorship
THE ALPERTON MASTERPLAN, AND OTHER PLANNING POINTS:
I indicated above that I would make a further comment on some of the planning matters in this case, and some of what I was preparing to write does touch on issues raised by Anonymous (29 April at 20:05).
Martin's article above says: 'Planning offices said that the Alperton Masterplan policy of a limit of 14 storeys had been superseded by the Emerging Local Plan policy on tall buildings.' That does not give the whole picture.
The Alperton Masterplan was a specific planning policy document for the Alperton area, drawn up after extensive consultation with the local community, and adopted at a meeting of Brent's Executive (Cabinet) in July 2011. In his report to that meeting, Brent's then Regeneration chief referred specifically to high rise buildings, saying:
'Local residents have expressed concerns about building more high rise
buildings in Alperton. Response: The guidance actually restricts taller,
higher density housing to one area at the junction of Ealing Road and the
canal near to Alperton Station. This area is considered suitable for higher
density housing as it has good public transport links and is well served by
a range of local services and amenities.'
The "restriction" on 'taller, high density housing', was to just one part of the designated "growth area" (which did NOT include the bus garage site). The maximum height of tall buildings in the growth area would be 14 storeys, with up to 17 storeys maximum for one "landmark building.
The Masterplan began to unravel with the Minavil House planning application, which was unanimously approved by Brent's Planning Committee on 24 May 2017. Tall buildings up to 26 storeys were allowed. You can read Martin’s blog about this application at:
https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2017/05/now-26-storey-block-in-ealing-road-to.htm
Another application for relatively tall blocks of flats in Alperton was approved in August 2017 (on the casting vote of the Deputy Chairman, after a 3-3 tie). This was despite the application failing up to 13 different Brent planning policies! For an excellent "guest blog" about this by one of the Alperton residents who objected, see:
https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2017/08/uproar-over-brents-alperton-high-rise.html
[My comment is too long - so I will add a Part 2]
THE ALPERTON MASTERPLAN - PART 2
A review of the Council Leader's "register of interests", followed by a Freedom of Information Act request, led to the revelation that Cllr Butt, Cllr Tatler (Lead Member for Regeneration) and Brent's two most senior Regeneration staff had been invited out to dinner on 9 May 2017 (just two weeks before the Minavil House Planning Committee decision). Their host was a PR firm working on behalf of a number of property developers, who were also guests at that dinner, including R55, the applicants for the Minavil House development. You can read my "guest blog" on this situation at:
https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2017/10/cllr-butt-and-hospitality-from-property.html
In fact, the Alperton Masterplan was not 'superceded'. It was actually revoked, without any consultation with the local residents affected, at a Brent Cabinet meeting on 14 October 2019. You can read the Report to the meeting, by the then Strategic Director, Regeneration, Amar Dave (who was also a guest at that dinner with developers in May 2017), here:
https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s90071/15L%20ocal%20Plan%20Publication.pdf
The recommendation to revoke the Masterplan was tucked away in a longer report about possible amendments to Brent's Draft Local Plan, which was accepted by the Cabinet meeting without any discussion, towards the end of a very busy meeting. Mr Dave's justification for doing away with this Alperton planning policy document was:
'it is evident that as a material consideration the guidance ['guidance' = the Alperton Masterplan!] is becoming less relevant to current day decision making. In some cases, it has conflicted with schemes recently considered appropriate for grant of planning permission. This brings unnecessary uncertainty to the decision making process which the removal of the Supplementary Planning Document as a material planning consideration would address.’
Putting it bluntly: Brent's top Planning Officers (and the Council Leader and/or Lead Member for Regeneration?) felt that the Masterplan's provisions, on matters such as tall buildings, might be an obstacle to schemes they were discussing with developers, and wanted to see approved - so that it was best to get rid of the Masterplan, in case any Planning Committee members used it as grounds for refusing planning permission!
BRENT'S INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN ("IDP")
A number of Alperton residents whose views were quoted in the article above mentioned the lack of infrastructure to cope with the greatly increased population which all of these large new developments in Alperton will bring. Particular worries were healthcare, education and where will all of the extra cars park?
I have raised similar points on other applications, and the Council's answer is that, in conjunction with its "emerging Local Plan", it has an Infrastructure Delivery Plan. This was drawn up in 2019, and is meant to be updated regularly. You can read the plan here:
https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16414650/infrastructure-delivery-plan-2019-publication-stage-final.pdf
On healthcare, it does have a specific provision to meet the needs of a growing population in Alperton:'Provision of new primary care centre on Alperton Waterside development (previously Northfields).' It says that this will be delivered by the Brent Clinical Commissioning Group, using premises provided 'in kind' under a Section 106 agreement (included as part of the planning consent).
The estimated capital funding (c.£300k) and annual revenue contributions ('to meet additional market rent payable on new building - c.£250k per annum') for this primary care centre are projected to be met out of Community Infrastructure Levy ("CIL") and S.106 payments from other Alperton development schemes.
What about the extra school places that will be needed? There are no specific plans for Alperton's primary school needs in the IDP. It estimates that, borough-wide, Brent will need an extra 23 form entry at this level over the next 20 years. On current projections, there will be a funding shortfall for these extra school places of around £25m, which would have to be met by the Council (partly from CIL.
I did raise these projections recently with Brent's Children and Young People Director, and the Lead Members for Schools and Regeneration, over the need for a new Primary School in Wembley Park. The IDP says that this would be provided through the Ark free school on the York House car park site - but the DfE has scrapped that plan! I was assured that the IDP would cope with that problem, but there are no plans at the moment as to how it will do so. If you are interested, I wrote a "guest blog" at:
https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2021/01/site-for-future-wembley-park-primary.html
How will the IDP cope with the thorny problem of where people will park, and the extra traffic congestion that people trying to find somewhere to park will cause? Well, there is a specific answer to that for Alperton; but it is similar to the answer that Brent's Planners always give to that problem.
Developers in Alperton have so far been asked to make S.106 contributions of £150k towards the costs of establishing Controlled Parking Zones (but nothing towards the costs of any extra parking places for the residents of up to 6,000 homes!).
Post a Comment