The five towers proposed to be built between Brook Avenue and the Metropolitan railway line, previously the station car park, have been approved. Philip Grant wrote about the planning issues involved HERE.
It is ironical that this has been announced on the day Full Council is set to approve the new Local Plan that will pave the way for many similar developments.
Construction News writes:
Transport for London (TfL) and Barratt Homes have been given the green light for a 454-home development near Wembley Park.
The minister of state for rough sleeping and housing Eddie Hughes MP made the decision to green light the project on behalf of communities secretary Michael Gove.
Planning permission for the scheme was initially granted by the London Borough of Brent in November 2020. However, the scheme was called in by former communities secretary Robert Jenrick in May last year.
Up to five new residential buildings will include replacement train crew accommodation, retail space, parking facilities and other communal areas. Up to 152 of the new homes will be classed as affordable housing.
The project faced a delay after concerns were raised that the scheme could impact heritage and listed buildings in the neighbourhood, especially the Barn Hill Conservation Area and the Lawn Court Conservation Area. Other listed spaces included Wembley Arena.
The minister accepted a report from the Planning Inspector, submitted in November, that the benefits of the scheme were enough to outbalance “the less than substantial harm” to the conservation areas.
Some of the benefits identified were the regeneration of brownfield land, increased affordable housing, delivery of a car-free development, and economic as well as environmental improvements to the local area.
The project spans 0.7 hectares, with Wembley Park Station and Olympic Square to the east, and railway lines that serve Wembley Park Station and the Chiltern Railway to its north. The project has an estimated value of £123.2m.
17 comments:
Absolutely ridiculous, blatant disregard for those who live in Wembley and have to face the consequences of this whilst those up top make decisions for us in their comfy townhouses. Disappointing but can’t say I expected any less from an already corrupt government.
Highly sustainable location for high density development providing housing,40% of which is affordable, that meets national, GLAc and Brent standards.
A unsubtle Westminster message to Brent for tonight's Local Development Plan decision.
The Planning Bill is suspended in England, but it's long live the suspended Planning Bill in Brent!
So unacceptable - absolutely shambolic that they allowed the proposal to go ahead. They don’t care at ALL about the people already living there and just want to squeeze in as many people as possible. Absolutely devastating that they don’t care about the repercussions for the communities.
So unacceptable - absolutely shambolic that they allowed the proposal to go ahead. They don’t care at ALL about the people already living there and just want to squeeze in as many people as possible. Absolutely devastating that they don’t care about the repercussions for the communities.
I was surprised to learn of this news through "Wembley Matters". I was one of the objectors, and should have been notified by the Planning Inspectorate!
However, I have now downloaded a pdf copy of the decision letter (dated 22 February) from the Planning Inspectorate website. If you want a copy yourself, go to that website and search case number 3275339.
It appears that Brent's planners and the applicants, Barratts and TfL, had sight of the Secretary of State's draft decision last month. One of the points the Planning Inspector had made was that the applicants relied on policies in Brent's DRAFT Local Plan ("DBLP") to support their application. But:-
'On 25 January 2022 the Secretary of State received correspondence from Brent London Borough Council bringing to his attention the intention to take an item to Full Council on 24 February 2022 recommending adoption of the Local Plan.'
In making his decision the Housing Minister relied on assurances from Brent Council that the Draft Local Plan WOULD be adopted at this evening's Full Council meeting!
The Inspector and the Secretary of State agreed my assessment that the plans went against the tall buildings policy in the Wembley Area Action Plan ("WAAP"), but that the Draft Local Plan changed that policy for the Station Car Park. He also noted that the proposed height went against the height restriction set out in the Site Location Plan, BCSA7, in the DBLP itself:
'28. He agrees with the Inspector at IR12.68 that there is no doubt that the development constitutes tall buildings as defined by LP Policy D9 Part A and DBLP Policy BD2. He notes that the role of identifying appropriate tall building locations and heights falls to the WAAP for the adopted plan and the DBLP for the emerging plan (IR12.68).
29.The Secretary of State notes the Inspector’s analysis of internal policy tensions within the development plan at IR12.69-12.76 and IR12.90. For the reasons given there he agrees at IR12.74 that insofar as DBLP Policy BCSA7 relates to tall buildings, the development would not be consistent with the design principle set out in that Policy. He further agrees, however, that height limits are incompatible with the rest of the DBLP for the reasons set
out at IR12.75.'
The decision letter also notes a number of other failures to comply with planning policy in the applicant's plans, but like Brent's own Planning Officers, also chooses to ignore those breaches!
'For the reasons given at IR12.77 and IR12.91, and as noted at paragraph 23 of this decision letter, the Secretary of State agrees at IR12.77 that while there would be shortfalls in relation to the provision of family and accessible housing (CS Policies CP2 and CP21 and LP Policy D7), private outdoor space (DMP Policy DMP19 and DBLP Policy BH13), play space (LP Policy S4), urban greening factor (LP Policy G5) and BREEAM rating for non-residential floorspace (CS Policy CP19 and DBLP Policy BSU11), the shortfalls would be minor and/or justified by the site-specific circumstances. He therefore does not consider that the shortfalls weigh against the proposal.'
The main factors in favour of approving the application were:
'33.The Secretary of State agrees, for the reasons set out at IR12.84, that the re-use of a surface car park next to an Underground station within an urban area should be afforded substantial weight. As set out above, he agrees that the delivery of 454 homes including 152 affordable units would be a significant benefit.'
There does not seem to be any mention that many of the 'affordable units' would be for shared ownership - something which is not of much use to many of the families in housing need in our borough!
I’m sorry I struggle to understand where you are coming from. If you’ve been following this application at ALL you would know that it is neither sustainable, nor is it affordable, nor does it meet Brent standards (which doesn't mean much anyway considering how easily Brent ignores it’s own policies). Do you really think that only 152 homes out of nearly 450 being affordable is enough?? Out of these homes, only 46 will be 3 bedroom. Where is the provision for families who should be encouraged to stay and contribute to the establishment of a long term mixed community?? Where is the funding for infrastructure? Do you really think that the nearly 1000 people who will inhabit these homes won’t put even more of a strain on already burdened infrastructure? You clearly don’t live in Brent. I guess we’ll all just have to watch as Wembley turns into a concrete jungle.
Anonymous 24 February 2022 at 17:52
Highly sustainable location (life expectancy of 20 years for the exterior finish) for high density (over crowded with no amenity space) development providing housing (rabbit hutches),40% (who would take a dual ownership property, unless they have a really bad solicitor) of which is (totally un)affordable (to Brent residents), that meets national, GLAc and Brent standards (and we know what happened to Grenfell that complied).
However, what do they mean by affordable, definitely not Social Rents in this and many other cases, they mean rents set at 80% of (inflated) Local Market Rates. As Brent's own Poverty Commission Report said, only Social Formula Rents are affordable to the average Brent Residents.
Poor old Brent is moving further and further into least desirable an unafordable parts of London. However, if you are here in Brent short term, renting these flats for a few months may be acceptable.
Brent has issued a press release today, celebrating the Minister's decision to approve the Wembley Park Station car park planning application - proof (if any more were needed) of how out of touch with local residents our Council has become in recent years!
One paragraph in the press release says:
'The plans to build 454 new homes – including more than 30% affordable – along with new retail facilities, open spaces and all-important public realm improvements can now progress. It will feature five blocks between 13 and 21 storeys tall, connected by a first-floor podium.'
More than 30% affordable homes? Of the 454 new homes, 302 will be for private sale, and of the 152 "affordable", 79 will be for shared ownership. Only 73 out of 454 (16.1%) will be for rental at London Affordable rent level, and none will be for Social Rent, which is what the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission report said should be the priority for Brent Council.
Open spaces? What open spaces! There are none in this proposed development. All that this application offers is a financial contribution of £31,000 towards the "improvement" of open space. Brent plans to spend this on improved signage and way marking between Chalkhill Park / Chalkhill
Linear Park, St David’s Close Open Space and Chalkhill Open Space +
improvement to paths and access between Chalkhill Open Space and Quainton Street Open Space.
New retail facilities? This would be '115sqm of retail (use class E)' - in other words, a small shop at the corner of the building 'closest to the station and Olympic Square', suitable for a coffee shop.
All-important public realm improvements? A wider pavement along Brook Avenue in front of the building, with some new trees.
The press release goes on to quote the views of Brent's Lead Member for Regeneration:
“The council is pleased with this outcome” said Cllr Shama Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning at Brent Council.
“Planning committee unanimously granted planning permission for the scheme in November 2020, after carefully assessing the proposals.
“London is still in the midst of a housing crisis and this development will help to provide more than a hundred much needed affordable homes, along with new shops, open spaces and play areas for all of the local community to enjoy.
“It will also generate new employment and apprenticeship opportunities during construction and it’s sustainable features, including solar panels and green roofs will set the tone for future responsible and sustainable development in the borough.”
I'm sure that readers will be able to spot truth from fiction - but it is worrying that our local Council is spreading more of the latter.
A P.S. to my comment above:
Cllr. Tatler's claim that 'Planning committee unanimously granted planning permission for the scheme in November 2020' repeats a lie that has appeared in previous statements by Brent Council to the press.
The actual vote was 7 to 1 in favour of approval. It was only "unanimous" if you count the votes of Labour councillors and ignore that of the other councillor on the committee (Cllr. Maurice), who gave many good planning grounds on which the application should be refused.
Come on Tower Block Tatler, we need more of this ...., it is nearly spring and the garden needs mulching again.
Have you got a consultancy with Wimpey yet?
Strange that we are being told by Butt's sicophants that Brent residents love and want more tower blocks. Personally I've not met a single Brent resident that agrees with that, other than a few egotistical councillors.
Absolute state power, anti-democratic state, anti-welfare state, with taxation stolen as tribute - that's third class citizenship Brent Growth Areas, zoned for exclusion and zoned for poor life outcomes guaranteed.
We ain't seen nothing yet.... Add two floors to every Growth Area zone enclosure block no planning permission required.
A brutal zoned impact mechanism for staving off TFL's Sars Covid 19 pandemic induced bankruptcy?
The sale and planning predate Covid David
Brent council is disgustingly out of touch with the very people they’re supposed to be representing. Also as another commenter pointed out, it’s very strange that in making his decision, the Housing Minister relied on the fact that Brent council said the draft local plan would for sure be adopted in a council meeting on the 24th. How could they be so sure of the outcome of the meeting on the 24th and how could they use it to influence the housing ministers decision?? Surely that’s not legal??
Apologies Anonymous, so this railway land was sold ages ago by TFL and Barratt lobbied hard ever since to tower it?
Looks like extremely bad TFL business if that is the case, inflicting an un-necessarily extortionate tab on UK taxpayers and transport users in 2022 for bailing TFL out.
Post a Comment