The tower to be erected on the Argenta House site opposite Stonebridge Station. Wembley Brook flows on the site.
WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
And Mo uses the situation for another publicity shoot with his buddy Krupa!!!
ReplyDeleteWell they’re only stating the obvious.
ReplyDeleteSo they flood the local houses and once built it will obscure the fantastic view of Wembley Stadium as you pull onto Stonebridge Park Station 😞
ReplyDeleteWhy is anyone shocked or surprised?
ReplyDeleteThis has been happening for years, not always this bad.
Nil point for the Planning Team.
However a good photo opportunity for Tokyngton Councillors
Makes me thankful I live on Wembley Hill.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how the Greens will do at the next Council election, it's looking more and more like an open goal against this inept lot. Come on the Greens.
ReplyDeleteSee page 14 on this Brent Council Committee Report re this development https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s87497/18.4847%20Argenta%20House.pdf where it says:
ReplyDelete“The appropriateness of developing on land within a high risk flood zone:
7. The site is part of a wider residential allocation which identifies a sequential approach to reducing flood risk within the wider allocation by pursuing development in the areas least at risk of flooding. Although the policy considers the site as a whole, the wider allocation is however split into two land ownerships, with the owners of Wembley Point able to bring forward their own development (through prior approval at the very least) with no need to rely on the Argenta site. The Argenta House development site contains areas that in the current Strategic Flood Risk Assessment are identified as functional floodplain, although closer inspection of the boundaries points to anomalies in its extent compared to known physical attributes (e.g. the river channel is not shown as functional, but adjacent areas are). Notwithstanding the issue with boundaries, clearly some parts of the site are within functional floodplain as the river channel runs in a culvert through the site. More recent EA modelling apparently extends the functional floodplain taking into account climate change.
8. If the site were wholly greenfield then from a policy perspective, consistent with national policy there would be no desire to support development on functional floodplain within this site, other than that which is unavoidable/absolutely necessary (e.g. water compatible uses or infrastructure). The site however contains low quality buildings which if they were not there is on land that would otherwise appear to operate as functional floodplain.
9. The river channel itself is in a culvert which is suffering from structural stability issues with the channel and surrounding environment providing low quality aesthetic and bio-diversity functions. The buildings on site are in a poor state which taking account the location adjacent to the entrance to Stonebridge Park under/ overground station, a gateway to the Alperton Housing Zone does not give the best impression of this part of the borough.
10. At face value on the basis of evidence provided by the applicants it appears, notwithstanding that some of the site is within functional floodplain, from a technical perspective there is the ability to create betterment over the current situation through new development. This is in relation to flood risk onsite and elsewhere (though reducing footprint/obstructions within the channel), improving the aesthetic, recreational and environmental/ bio-diversity performance of the river channel/ environs and also the appearance/ perception of this gateway site whilst meeting the very real issue of meeting housing needs.
11. Keeping the site in its current use (or worse it falling into disrepair/further neglect) which a negative planning approach might promote is not considered from a policy perspective to be sensible when considered against the obvious potential for betterment that investment through a development would bring.
12. On this basis from a planning policy perspective it is considered that as long as there is no real increase in flood risk (and ideally betterment), together with the other positive elements identified, that a pragmatic approach of moving forward with a residential led scheme for the site is an appropriate position to support. The Environment Agency have been consulted on the proposal and have raised no objections.“
It also states here on the committee report https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s87497/18.4847%20Argenta%20House.pdf the following:
ReplyDelete“Local Lead Flood Authority – No objections to the development”
“Thames Water – No objections to the development subject to the following requirements:
1) Requested informatives relating to groundwater risk management permits and advice over carrying out works near Thames Water assets”
”The Environment Agency – No objections to the development subject to the following
requirements:
1) Requested a condition to secure the details of the Flood Risk Assesment
2) Requested a condition to secure a management plan for the management of invasive non-native species
3) Requested a condition to secure a detailed landscaping management plan
4) Requested an informative setting out the risks associated with Japanese Knotweed”
”Canal and Rivers Trust – No objections to the development.”
With the proposal to build such a massively tall building on this site you’d have expected more concerns regarding flood risks.
Thank you, Anonymous (4 August at 16:34), for sharing that extract from the Brent Council Planning Committee Report.
ReplyDeleteIt shows, yet again, how Brent's Planning Officers use complicated and drawn out language for what should be a relatively simple issue.
The result, I'd imagine, is that Planning Committee members would be confused if they tried to read the Report(s), but are more likely to be put off from reading, and trying to understand them.
In practice, I suspect that most of them just give the Report(s) a quick scan, then go to the Planning Officer's Recommendation, which they will be expected to approve.
After witnessing a planning committee meeting in person a few weeks ago it was very clear that they had made up their minds before the meeting even started and very clear that they were doing what the Brent Council Leader wanted for his buddy the developer 😡
ReplyDelete"ITN London suggests..." very disappointing and misleading headline from Martin. It wasn't ITN who suggested that building works had caused a blockage (which might lead readers to believe ITN had discovered something after investigation) it was residents who suggested it and ITN were merely reporting what residents think to be the cause
ReplyDeleteFair comment. I have changed the headline accordingly.
ReplyDeleteAnon 5 August 2023 at 08:16
ReplyDeleteAnd I suppose the flooding didn't happen.
Anon 4 August 2023 at 17:36
How right you are
Philip 4 August 2023 at 17:09
The Planning Committee only read the Summary Documents (and not very often) and besides they know that if officers recommend the members can't refuse permission if they like being on the committee. In the end not one of them represent the public or reality, as as for having listened to Objections from the Public, we all know they do not even consider them.
Before every Brent Council Planning Committee Meeting there is a pre meeting behind closed doors (Councillors and Council Officers only).
ReplyDeleteIf the applicant pays the Council they can have a lengthy pre application meeting with officers (and sometimes even with Councillors - The John Lyon controversial Planning Application for example) - where they can persuade them on the benefits of their proposals. In contrast any objector gets 3 minutes to speak at a Planning Committee when it is too late to make much difference.
Officers assess the planning application and make recommendations. If the recommendation is to approve Councillors are often warned that if they go against the officers recommendations the applicant is almost certain to appeal and there is a serious risk of the Council incurring substantial costs if the applicant wins the appeal. Councillors are therefore "persuaded" to accept officer recommendations.
The key to all of this are of course both Government and London Mayor targets for substantial house building in Brent and the Labour Cabinet boast to beat those targets. Officers have advised that the target (around 40,000 new homes in 20 years) can only be achieved if 5,000 units are built on small sites (hence the Barham Park decision) or infill development on estates or intensification corridors (hence the recommendation to accept a 5 storey development on the site of the former John Lyon Pub in Northwick Park).
The Labour Cabinet pushed through their Local Plan just before the local elections in May 2022 and the only Councillor who understood the consequences and voted against was Liberal Democrat Anton Georgiou.
The impression that members of the Planning Committee do not listen to local residents and that decisions are made behind closed doors before the Planning Meeting take place is a valid one - BUT the damage was done some time before by Councillors who voted for the Local Plan failing to understand the consequences.
We now have for example the farce of both Labour Councillors for Northwick Park and the local Labour MP objecting against the Mumbai Junction (former John Lyon Pub) 5 storey development when it is only possible because the Labour Administration imposed its Local Plan on Brent which encourages these types of developments against the wishes of local people.
One day we may be told whether the recent developments were responsible for the recent flooding in Tokyngton Avenue. In the meantime the damage caused by large scale over development in Brent will continue.
The London Borough of Bent
ReplyDelete