Saturday, 21 August 2021

Council accused of sneaking designation of Kilburn Square as a 'Tall Buildings Zone' into Local Plan to pre-empt opposition at planning application stage

 

Brent Council's proposal with building heights (storeys) - Kilburn High Road is top right


Guest post  by Keith Anderson, Chair of Kilburn Village Residents' Association

Ten months on from first publication of the “mini-Master Plan” for a huge infill housing expansion on the Kilburn Square Co-op Estate, while Cllr Southwood continues repeating that “Nothing is decided” about the scale of the project, Brent is still busy clearing away potential obstacles…

 

Last month Cabinet approved (LINK) a series of enabling measures. And in the proposed modifications to Brent’s Local Plan, lo and behold they’re seeking to designate Kilburn Square a “Tall Buildings Zone” – to pre-empt formal objection to a new 17-storey tower when a Planning Application is made in October.

 


  The existing tower and otherwise low profile estate from Kilburn High Road. The Council claims a new tower block will 'mirror' the existing tower to create a 'landmark'. LINK




 

Kilburn Village RA (whose territory includes the estate)  submitted this objection  on Thursday – with a request that the relevant clause be deleted…

 

  • To seek to designate the tiny area of Kilburn Square as a Tall Buildings Zone is a ridiculous mis-reading of the thrust of the Tall Buildings policy laid out in MM94 section 6.1 Design, which explicitly envisages clusters of Tall Buildings
  • On this really small footprint there is theoretically room for one tall building, and no scope for the prescribed stepping down…in no way can that constitute a cluster or a Zone
  • MM3 4.1.2d requires that Tall Buildings should “add quality to and complement Brent’s character and sense of place”
  • MM77 5.6 SE Place BSESA20 Design Principles (p222) notes the  Brondesbury Road Conservation Area adjacent to Kilburn Square and states “Development should integrate well with the surrounding context and consider character, setting and the form and scale of surrounding buildings”
  • Brent has draft housing plans for a new 17-storey tower on the Kilburn Square footprint. KVRA strongly contends that such a building would fail all three policy tests. An existing 17-storey tower dates back over 30 years, and is already an anomaly in the skyscape of the surrounding area – we believe it would not be approved today. 
  • The Council has produced no Heritage or Urban Design report in support of this proposed new clause; nor any evidence of potential compliance with its Climate Emergency strategy or other environmental impacts; nor of consultation with the neighbouring Borough of Camden on a Tall Building zone.
  • KVRA rejects  as absurd suggestions by Brent’s New Council Homes (NCH) project team that a second tower would create a ”Landmark” for Kilburn and bring desirable “symmetry” with the (not even matching) existing tower
  • In July 2021, NCH held pre-engagement Zooms with KVRA and our neighbouring RAs; in four live sessions, and at least fifty subsequent feedback forms, the proposal for a second 17-storey tower was unanimously rejected as not being consistent with the surrounding context
  • With residents on the KS estate itself, an extensive engagement process by independent advisors Source Partnership is nearing completion and we are confident its conclusions will show negligible support for a new Tall Building.  
  • And a petition launched by a KVRA Committee member, rejecting a new Tower, has over 800 signatures
  • Clearly the current residents and neighbours of the small Kilburn Square site roundly reject the proposition that a new tower would “be a positive addition to the skyline, that would enhance the overall character of the area”
  • This representation is also supported by the Chairs of neighbouring RAs Brent Eleven Streets (BEST), Queen’s Park Area Residents’ Association (QPARA) and Brondesbury Residents and Tenants (BRAT).

 

See https://save-our-square.org and sign our petition http://chng.it/xwxLyYcDhP if you haven’t already!

 

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

A second tower seems reasonable in this inner city location.

Lloyd Fothergill said...

Well why does Brent’s Local Plan exclude Kilburn from being a “Tall Building Zone? Assuming the methodology that supported existing original iteration of the Local Plan, still hold true how do Brent justify the alteration of the status of Kilburn as regards to “tall buildings” designation?Sadly it appears that political condensations override planning ones, this being the case the Local Plan has much in common with the proverbial chocolate teapot.

Lloyd Fothergill




Unknown said...

Do you work for Brent council? Putting 17 storey block of flats in an already highly densely populated area with no more amenities toupport ever increasing population seems crazy. Not to mention tower blocks on council estates have been a problem since the 60's crime, mental health, lifts not working trapping less mobile people in their flats. Haven't we learnt nothing from the past about estate planning?

Taylor said...

Reasonable under what bases?

Anonymous said...

When will the local authorities stop running roughshod over local communities for short term gains and long term overdevelopment problems. These civil servants are paid not inconsiderable salaries to just tick boxes and hit arbitrary targets. When will they learn to think for themselves????

Anonymous said...

Isn't this exactly what happened with Alperton? Quote: "Last month Cabinet approved a series of enabling measures. And in the proposed modifications to Brent’s Local Plan, lo and behold they’re seeking to designate Kilburn Square a “Tall Buildings Zone”"

Cabinet changed the rules on building height not long after Butt and Tatler met with Alperton developers. What secret meetings were there this time?

Poor Brent residents lose yet again. What do the Brent Cabinet members gain out of all these rediculously high tower blocks? Is it the Council Tax on the empty property or something else?

Anonymous said...

Yet tower blocks are fine abroad and when you go and stay in one on holiday in a hotel or apartment building you probably have a delightful time. Many people love living in towers which is shown by the premium attached to higher floors. I agree with the initial poster it is perfectly reasonable. Tower snobbery in a city is not.

Unknown said...

Hotels have concierge,porters,security and other members of staff keeping it safe and clean. Private tower blocks residents pay service charges which help employ concierge, security and maintenance staff. Council blocks all you get is key fob! A little CCTV which records crime and thats it! Have you ever lived in a council tower block? I have and if the lifts work then there is urine in the corner as well as the stairs. Not very safe for single females on stairs or lifts late at night! Snobbery really? You don't live in the real world my friend!