LETTER: Kilburn Square - Decision Time Approaches!

  'Save Kilburn Square' demonstration

 

 

A Letter from the Chair of Kilburn Village Residents’ Association

 

Dear Editor

 

Wembley Matters has faithfully reported on the laborious journey of the controversial Kilburn Square housing expansion project through the “pre-engagement” process for the last two (!) years. This plea from a KS resident was the most recent: (LINK) But decision time is almost here. 

 

In late October, Brent finally filed its Planning Application; 140 documents and counting if anyone is stuck for some light reading. Go to pa.brent.gov.uk and search for reference 22/3669. The Planning Statement is a good overview – but check out the Affordability statement too. 

 

That says 99 of the 139 units will be at London Affordable Rent. But since the PA was filed, the report to the November 14 Cabinet has made clear that the scheme as filed is not financially viable; and many of the new flats will have to be changed to Shared Ownership, or even outright Sale. How will the Planning Committee deal with that…?

 

Viability aside, the local community – KS residents and neighbours alike - has the same complaint it has had since February, when Brent announced it was freezing the scale and shape; it fails to address two of the three main objections we had to the rejected original scheme (180 units): loss of green space and mature trees, and excessive density of residents.

 

Comments on the Planning Portal are building steadily. All are Objections – with one exception: the submission from our MP Tulip Siddiq. That is officially classed as neutral; but we know that in reality she is urging Brent to listen to, and take account of, our concerns. A supportive Comment has also been submitted by the CPRE, reinforcing our concerns about the loss of mature trees and green space (which the Application has the gall to claim is “under-utilised” and therefore ideal for hosting a 37-unit new Block). CPRE is extremely concerned at the problem of Council Infills on green space across London: https://www.cprelondon.org.uk/news/londons-housing-estates-infill-and-green-space/

 

Read the comments for yourself; search Kilburn Square on WM and browse the sad history of this protracted saga; visit https://save-our-square and email us at savekilburnsquare@gmail.com to join our campaign. And then feel free to post a comment for yourself.

 

Registering and posting on the portal is ideal since we all get to be inspired by what you’ve said. Or the simpler route is to email planning.comments@brent.gov.uk (including 22/3669 and “Objection” in the subject line); and bcc us at that gmail address if you can

 

To whet your appetite, I’ve copied three rather different Objections already posted

 

1.This from a Victoria Road resident:

 

I have been a resident of Brent for 40+ years and have lived in the same house in Victoria Road, which will be directly opposite the new block C of the Kilburn Square development.

 

Direct impact – light and privacy

 

I am worried about the impact on light and privacy as they have admitted that this overshadowing will fall below accepted daylight standards. 

 

More broadly I am disappointed that the Council’s process of engaging with Brent residents not actually living on the Square but as directly affected neighbours has been poor and tokenistic and I do not feel there has been an enlightened approach to co-creation and coordination with the views of the whole local community. I want to stress that I am not objecting to the entire scheme; my concerns are about the scale and densification of the current proposal with the imposition of a huge block (C) removing green space and mature trees and impacting on our outlook through the canyoning effect of a multi-level block right up against the Victoria Road boundary.

 

Loss of green space

 

Brent West has been rated E (an area most deprived of green space). Those of us living next to Kilburn Square and in close proximity to the Kilburn High Road are both most deprived of green space and most exposed to the traffic pollution hotspot of one of the main transport arteries into and out of London. Trees and green space are essential for health, wellbeing and for helping to reduce the impacts of pollution and carbon. Kilburn Square is not a public park, but its lawns are not ‘underutilised brownfield’ as claimed by the application. It provides a vital environmental and visual asset for the wider neighbourhood. 

 

Kilburn Square is a much-needed green lung for estate and local residents; the latter will not benefit from the promised landscaping; instead of open green space and trees we are faced by a fortress-like apartment block. The green space also plays a part in flood risk mitigation as it can absorb excess water when it runs off concrete and overwhelms sewers. This is an increasing risk as we are already getting street flooding, especially in Brondesbury Road and backed-up drains and this will only increase as extreme weather events become more frequent. Brent’s Climate Strategy seeks to increase green space – this proposal is in direct contravention by concreting it over. 

 

Viability of landscaping proposals

 

The landscaping proposal is impressive but new trees take years to mature; there is no guarantee that any new vegetation will be properly maintained, and I am worried about the safety of our street plane trees with the amount of soil and root disturbance so close to them caused by months of heavy construction.

 

There have been concerns expressed about the financial viability of the scheme with rising costs; it would be likely – if completely unacceptable for both residents and neighbours - for the ambitious and sustainable landscaping plans which slightly mitigate the loss of green space to be the first things to be cut when budgets are stretched.

 

Pressure on local services and parking

 

I also object to the densification of this scheme as I have seen no reference to the overall impact on the provision of local GP, health, leisure services, schools and other youth and community facilities.

 

We have been given reassurance that no additional parking will be provided for new estate residents and that research has shown that on-street parking is adequate and available. I do not know when such a survey was carried out, but I can say confidently that that is not my experience living near the High Road at various time during both weekdays and at weekends and that no research has been done on the impact of visitor and delivery parking on surrounding streets.

 

Quality of life

 

I have been very happy living in Victoria Road for 40+ years and consider the Kilburn Square estate as near neighbours. It is a well-run, well managed estate – greatly improved in terms of safety, amenity value, visual impact, and overall garden maintenance since the early 1980s. It has a great sense of place, and its open outlook has kept it from ever feeling like a closed (or gated) community. I welcome some new build but don’t want to feel that a big increase in overcrowding radically changes the atmosphere and sense of security that I currently feel living as a single person directly opposite the Square.

 

A reduced scheme

 

Brent Cabinet has publicly admitted the scheme in the Application (with 40 Extra Care Flats and 99 homes at London Affordable Rent), is NOT financially viable and many flats will have to be moved to Shared Ownership or outright sale; this would move the tenure mix further away from the reach of the neediest families on the waiting list - undermining Brent’s justification for overriding proper concern for the mental and physical wellbeing of existing residents by considering a smaller scheme.

I would urge the planning committee to think about the bigger picture rather than seeking to maximise all available space for new build – the existing footprint of redundant buildings and the plan for the tower already provide a substantial number of new homes. I feel that a compromise that removes Block C and E would be acceptable and would avoid concreting over all our precious and valued green space, undermining the benefits it brings us all.

 

 

2.This from the Committee of the Kilburn Forum:

 

I am submitting these objections on behalf of the Kilburn Neighbourhood Plan Forum Committee. While the committee recognises the urgent need for affordable housing in Brent to accommodate residents who are in temporary accommodation or homeless and appreciates Brent has a target to meet 1000 new homes by 2025, this plan to infill 139 new homes on a settled housing estate is over-development. The plan is in breach of the Brent Local Plan which proposes some additional housing (100 units in two phases) over the next 10 years. The Local Plan sets out a vision for Kilburn Square to be developed as the Kilburn Town Centre, linking the square with the market and shopping precinct. The sheer volume of housing in the plan makes this vision impractical as understandably the residents expect the enhanced housing estate to be fenced and secured from outsiders moving around, experiencing a wider 'square'.  The additional housing blocks inevitably reduce the amount of green space that is vital to the current residents. The corner of Algernon and Victoria roads is especially cherished by families and much of this is lost to new blocks. It appears that the reduced shared outdoor space is compensated for by the provision of balconies for individual flats. While this may comply with regulations for outdoor space allowances per person/flat and important for renters, it does not compensate for quality of life or achieve a reduction of carbon emissions. Although the plan is detailing elaborate landscaping and some of this is to be welcomed, the site is not suited to the concentration of housing proposed, especially because it is located on one of the most polluted high roads in the borough.  The Pollutants assessment currently show the location is below Air Quality objectives and although the plan suggests that construction emissions will add to the pollution, it is also assumed that construction management solutions will mitigate the high risk over the development period. The reality of dense development on this housing estate conflicts with Brent's policies on clean air and biodiversity. The plan proposes the demolition of two facilities which provide community and health services. While it is recognised that the services' needs have changed and the NHS facility has moved elsewhere, the community facilities must be re-provided. The Former Clinic was granted 'a change of use' for an Arts charity, albeit as a temporary measure as the building is being demolished. However, the need for community facilities for social interaction, youth, education, arts, and other community activities remains, even more so with the increased number of housing units. We are given to understand that all the housing units will be at London Affordable Rent, and this is set out in the planning brief. Providing 139 including the 40 extra care homes for residents in urgent need of housing is the justification given for the excessive infill proposed. This cannot then not be converted to some homes being partially sold for shared ownership or private flats for outright sale as this contradicts the whole basis of the proposal. The Neighbourhood Forum is very aware and concerned that residents are dissatisfied with the quality of consultation. Although the plan has been amended to reduce even more housing on the site, there has been little opportunity for co-design and improvements we would expect from a more co-ordinated and consultative approach.  The Forum had one consultation session with the planners and architects some time ago but there has been a lack of communication with the wider neighbourhood and stakeholders, including those on the Camden side of the High Road. We make this point because of the strategic importance of Kilburn Square to the many and varied Kilburn High Road stakeholders. Finally we should point out that the refurbishment of the Tower block is outstanding and, although it may not be a planning application matter, the residents in this block must be treated equally with others coming into the estate, in terms of the quality of their flats. We recognise that current residents have put effort into creating a harmonious and safe environment and that it is essential to maintain balance, fairness, and goodwill to sustain social cohesion. We ask for a full revision of the plan to address these points.     3.This from Kilburn Village RA:    Who we are Kilburn Village RA is the long-established Residents’ Association covering the quadrant in Kilburn Ward NW6 bounded by Kilburn High Road, Victoria Road, Donaldson Road and Brondesbury Villas. Our territory comprises the Kilburn Square Co-op Estate and six surrounding roads.   We work closely with our neighbouring Residents’ Associations and the Kilburn Neighbourhood Plan Forum. We will be submitting a comprehensive consolidated response to this Planning Application, but this document outlines our overall conclusions   Introduction and Summary  The tension between the acute need for new, especially affordable, housing and the wellbeing of potential host communities is currently the subject of intense national debate. And it’s at the heart of our response on behalf of our local community, residents, and neighbours, to this Application.   1.    The estate urgently needs the existing tower refurbished, and could benefit from some improved landscaping; but it’s a mature, stable well-balanced estate and any extra building will be disruptive and affect its “Sense of Place”   2.    But recognising the acute social housing shortage, most residents and neighbours would accept Blocks A and B, replacing daytime-use buildings, whose scale (80-100 homes) aligns with what Brent Cabinet envisaged in a March 2020 Network Homes agreement   3.    Promoting the ill-conceived, over-ambitious Mini Master Plan (180 homes) seriously increased the duration and cost of pre-engagement, and alienated the local community; after a near-unanimous rejection in Summer 2021, Brent Council agreed to reduce the scale   4.    But the scheme now adopted (only 21% smaller) has addressed only one of the three key concerns Brent acknowledged: it has cut down the proposed tower, but would still increase resident density unacceptably (by 60% vs 2019), and breach various policies, notably Amenity Space and Brent’s Climate Strategy, with Block C removing green space and trees   5.    The expected partial move to Shared Ownership will move the tenure mix further away from the reach of the neediest families on the waiting list, and undermine Brent’s justification for overriding proper concern for the mental and physical wellbeing of existing residents   6.    The superficially thorough pre-engagement process has in reality been tokenistic and ineffective - in particular since the re-set, with the residents’ Independent Advisor’s role reduced and neighbours’ views not welcomed   7.    We therefore oppose the scheme as filed; if it is approved and implemented, it will be without the support of the local community – residents and neighbours – which the Council has always insisted it will secure; but the Approval should include a Condition precluding “Value Engineering” of the design and materials specified in the Application