Wednesday 6 April 2022

Little change post-consultation in the Neasden Stations Growth Area Supplementary Planning Document which sets out far-reaching changes to the area over the next 20 plus years


The last Cabinet of these dying days of the current Brent Labour adminstration is set to approve the  extremely far-reaching Neasden Stations Growth Area Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) following consultation.

Very little has been changed as the result of the consultation and the Council's responses make it clear that the designation of the area as a tall building zone will limit what tweaking may be done on individual planning applications within the scheme.

The Severn Way and Selbie Residents Association, who occupy the island of low rise housing between the two high-rise sites (see the middle of the image above) are clearly worried about their future, especially the mention of compulsory purchase orders. I am not sure that the Council's response will allay their fears:

It is recognised that the inclusion of Severn Way and Selbie Avenue properties within the site allocation may be of concern to existing residents.

However, the borough's housing needs and targets set in the London Plan are very high compared to historic levels. This, together with national policies and those within the London Plan, which promote the most effective use of land near railway stations, has meant that the Council has had to consider the potential of sites with higher levels of public accessibility in the borough to be used much more intensively.

The existing and potential public transport improvements in this area, together with the obvious availability of large areas of land around the stations for redevelopment, has resulted in the identification of the Neasden Stations
Growth Area. This is not unlike numerous other parts of the borough where people currently live, which from a planning policy perspective, are acceptable for redevelopment for more intensive residential development.

Currently, as set out in the SPD, it is not considered likely in the short to medium term that the Selbie Avenue/ Severn Way estate will come forward for comprehensive redevelopment. Although many of the homes are still owned by the Council, other sites are more of a priority for delivering greater intensity of use of land to accommodate much needed affordable homes. The Council in regeneration schemes at South Kilburn has engaged with occupiers and leaseholders throughout the renewal process. It has offered better quality homes for tenants and options for leaseholders either on-site or through financial compensation that more than adequately addresses needs. The Council will always look to work with existing tenants/ property owners to effectively address any issues through co-operation and agreement, rather than the compulsory purchase alternative, which is rarely used. The allocation in the Local Plan and the development that comes forward on adjacent sites is likely to increase property values considerably above those that currently exist as the area's potential is realised, to the benefit of existing property owners.

Section 7 on Delivery shows the phasing plan from 0 to 20+ years within NSGA. However, the phasing plan in section 7 will be updated to show the timeline for the short/medium and long term.


Pinnacle Investment, the likely developers for the  College of North West London, Dudden Hill site, seem keen to limit commitments:

[We] Support overriding vision for growth and principles set out within the SPD. The SPD should clarify that the delivery of high-density development within this identified Growth Area is not linked or dependent on the delivery of this infrastructure project. (Such as the West London Orbital) as it already benefits from excellent transport links. Support the need for infrastructure identified in the SPD and interested in engaging with residents to establish infrastructure priorities. Supportive of the principles set out within the SPD. 

 The SPD should clarify and explain that the indicative figures stated for each site are not intended to guide or limit the development amount and opportunity. The guidance should not be overly prescriptive and refer to “two 0.2ha pocket parks”. This requirement has not been informed by a detailed feasibility study and there are other relevant planning policies regarding the appropriate quantum of open space and communal space.

Remove reference to the need to deliver health infrastructure removed unless there is a clear known need.

 A District Heating Network is also queried.  Although a medium-term sustainable option it is also affected by the current energy situation in that the energy cap does not apply to residents served by such systems. 

Pam Laurance suggested:

Access to their own outdoor space. Range of different kind ofgreen space catering to different user groups, kids, youth,adults. Places for people to meet; pubs, bars, laundrettes, parents and toddler groups etc.

And did get a positive response:

 We acknowledge the suggestions made regarding the kind of spaces and need for focused community activities. We will include these suggestions within the character area section that showcases future characteristics of the area.

Please note that all development proposals on individual sites are subject to statutory consultation as they come forward for planning determination. This will be an opportunity for you to provide further feedback on the detailed proposals.

Pam was less successful in her comment that the housing provided should be truly affordable  with enough space:

The draft SPD Section 6.4 Development principles -DP4 New and affordable homes set out recommendations based on London Plan Policy H4 Delivering Affordable Housing and Brent Local Plan Policy BH5 Affordable Housing. Any development coming forward must adhere to the policy requirements set out in the London Plan and Brent Local Plan on affordability and mixed tenure developments

This restates the status quo that has been far from satisfactory.

The decision the Cabinet will take on Monday, without any meaningful public debate, will have far reaching consequences for the people of the borough over the next 20 years or so.

The full report on the consultation with the Council's responses can be found here:


The full Masterplan is here:



Anonymous said...

Poor sad Brent being run by a cabal of developer friends at the expense of Brent residents, who's views mean absolutely nothing to their elected councillors who sit on Brent's Cabinet through Butt's patronidge and those that support him again through patronidge and cronyism.

Begone we say for all the good you do.

David Walton said...

Take a look at a real Brent Stations Growth Area re-development forever zone....

Kilburn Stations Growth Area machine has been in developer colonial play since 2001 and is re-development live it forever, given poor modern build quality and permitted development allowing two extra floors on top of all blocks starting soon.

Neasden Stations Growth Area machine is a new imperial land war front where housing the only infrastructure feeds more housing the only infrastructure of course zoned, a zoned total market dependency where tax and council tax are paid as tribute by London third class subjects red-lined zones.

I see how roof parks are illustrated on every roof for NSGA, yet from Kilburn Stations GA visuals what is shown, should happen but does not happen in reality- too expensive and developers want to build flats on this air space/ care noting of drainage/floods either- they sell leases and harvest service charges for global beneficiaries unknown. Narrow vehicle roads everywhere to access underground car parks as per Kilburn Stations GA is NSGA guaranteed, as is no car free local environment to good growth compliment the car free flat towers shown.

Kilburn GA had a similar not planning required SPD in 2004, so not required that the entire neighbourhood was even allowed a landlord vote! This SPD was formally council revoked in 2017, though in fact it was cancelled by Brent Local Plan major changes planning required in 2010, then changed again to unrecognisable tall building zone in the 2022 new BLP. The Planning Committee waves through each 'site allocation' bit-by-bit and the BLP has nothing planning required of sites beyond housing in KSGA. Kilburn Station Growth Area since 2001 has had a mass of social, health, youth, education and parks infrastructure planning requirements and pledges colonial cancelled forever as plans are revoked and replaced -housing ( narrow adopted roads and underground car parks) the only infrastructure.

Neasden Stations GA SPD is not planning required and the site allocations in the BLP 2022 is where local residents need to look. Kilburn Stations GA in the BLP 2022 has many sites not revealed which I guess have nothing planning required and so are housing the only infrastructure sites. What is not Brent GA visualised is interesting.

Kilburn Stations GA developer imperial colonial greed is a brutal urban forever fail zone contained by City of Westminster protected wellbeing zones, Camden protected wellbeing zones and Queens Park Conservation Area (the richest and most protected de-growth neighbourhood in Brent). Neasden Stations GA looks to be un-contained given Brent political consensus failure to achieve communal housing support infrastructure gains from developers- so a race to the developer colonial bottom that Brent politics has clearly won. (It is important to note that Growth Areas zoning is not national policy as the Planning Bill where it lived is government cancelled).

Another lesson from Kilburn Stations GA since 2001 is that developers love to escalate street uncare and neglect, sanctions and community facilities destructions too, as this all generates more land and more services charges on leases in what is after all colonial land waring.

The ONS says 1.7 million people in the UK have long Covid, it is so lucky for colonial development that none of these people apparently live in Brent Growth Areas, it must be the mega density that immunises? "Learn to live with it"- Brent politics is clearly only getting started.

Unknown said...

6. Delivering the homes to meet Brent’s needs
a) Housing delivery will be maximised, with sufficient planning permissions to support delivery of more homes than the minimum London Plan housing
target of 23,250 between 2019/20-2028/29. A minimum 46,018 dwellings will
be delivered for the whole plan period of 2019/20-2040/41 to meet
principally Brent’s housing needs but also those of wider London;

The section above is an extract from the Local Plan rushed through by Labour Councillors at the last Council Meeting - supposedly mean to agree the budget but useful to rubber stamp a decision without proper scrutiny or debate. The only person who understood the implications and therefore voted against was the Liberal Democrat Anton Georgiou.

You will note two key messages:

1. "Housing delivery will be maximised"
2. A minimum of 46,018 dwelling will be delivered meet principally Brent needs but "also those of wider London".

Somewhere else in the document the planners admit that provision of key services often lags a long way behind the house building. So expect traffic and parking congestions, shortages of school places, GPs, Dentists etc

The implication of this is that we can expect taller buildings, higher densities and demolition of the metroland housing and large scale replacement by blocks of flats.

Anyone objecting to a specific planning application will of course be told in no uncertain terms that "it is in the Local Plan" and "Brent Council Policy" and that their objections and concerns are of no substance.

When Sudbury Town Residents Association raised their concerns at the actual implications of the Local Plan, which in one section shows a terrace of 15 two storey houses in Station Approach Sudbury as suitable for demolition and its gardens built on with blocks of 5 storey flats they were accused of 'scaremongering' by Labour Councillor Mary Daly.

The Brent Planners admit that their 30 storey Tower blocks alone cannot meet the doubled target set for Brent. "Intensification" in existing residential areas is therefore required to achieve the "maximised" delivery.

Needless to say Brent Council is not rushing to explain to local people the implications that the Local Plan will have on their area.

David Walton said...

Housing the only infrastructure policy is enabled by officers and councillors regularly revoking and cancelling plans for housing support infrastructure in South Kilburn Land. And 2022 we reach the new Brent Local Plan where nothing is planning required but for a few ad hoc water supply and drainage upgrades in this high flood risk zone?

If Brent Council is to Shanghai Brent (Brent Imperial Colony Cake), it must look at Shanghai and the other East China coastal growth cities (where a housing tower can be built in two weeks, the desperado direction of the new Brent Local Plans travels in ambiguity?) South Kilburn 2004 Supplementary Planning Document and viability test involved off-shored master plan leads, US Treasury officials and China urban planning expertise even then.

What's going on in Brent real politic 2022? Brent politically seems to have won the London 'housing the only infrastructure' race to the bottom and is the cancelled by government Planning Bills outlier. Other London boroughs have either won on housing support infrastructure protection, resilience enhancement for de-growth or else are cautious, careful and wait for the governments new none zoning planning offers pending. Maybe government itself should Judicial Review the new Brent Local Plan on public safety and emergency resilience grounds?

Brent developers don't want active ground floor space underneath its Imperial Colony Cake towers which is common practice in China towers. This could bring nurseries, indoor markets, enterprise, opportunities and services to Brent towered diverse communities needs direct, local owned and accessible. If tower owners chose to leave these flexible spaces empty, unsupported and sanctioned then a Council law could be in place to heavily tax the towers owner and force communal use of these spaces. Make developers lives support the common good and a communal life happening at Brent Imperial Colony Cake towers many bases.

The same with the Brent stations Growth Areas of car free housing planning required, developers must be Council forced to green and active travel route these zones by law. Developer decides brings only narrow adopted roads and underground car park it all in Kilburn Stations Growth Area so far.

Anonymous said...

Butt's vision of Brent, the taller the better, we are going to be a Megga City

David Walton said...

To add

Looking at this 2022 Neasden Stations Masterplans visual as the markets year zero start point; South Kilburn first Masterplan visual in 2004 (year zero start point also) at least had no towers visualised (local consumers were tired of and opposed to modern mismanaged towers being on site and the council of that time as partner and landowner was in agreement). In 2022 South Kilburn is become a Tall Building Zone and a giant crane on Peel Precinct is ready now to build a 16 storey tower! Community and council are long since divorced.

"Moveable feast"/ "other ideas"/ "we can do whatever we want" has land colony taken over and I would expect that Neasden Stations visual will look way more market demanding in 18 years time- higher towers, zero public green space- housing the only infrastructure zoned.