Existing Hereford House and Exeter Court
The planned new buildings
The long awaited plans for the South Kilburn Hereford House and Exeter Court site in South Kilburn, where Brent Council is the developer, come to Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday. The number of social units is lower thatn previously provided and intermediate units have been converted to rpivate as a result of the viability assessment.
The development proposes the demolition of the existing Hereford House and Exeter Court buildings and the construction of four new residential buildings ranging from 3-13 storeys, the provision of flexible non-residential floorspace at ground floor of Block C1, a new public urban park and new access road along the western side of the site, cycle and blue badge car parking and associated infrastructure. An overview of each area is summarised below:
Block A:
A six storey mansion block fronting Granville Road. The building contains a total of 42 social rent homes (8 x 1 bed, 11 x 2 bed, 15 x 3 bed and 8 x 4 bed). The building has rear balconies and access to the rear private communal courtyard shared with Blocks B and C. A residential lobby, refuse stores and cycle stores are provided at ground floor.
Block B:
A six storey mansion block fronting Carlton Vale. The building contains a total of 68 market homes ( 34 x 1 bed, 22 x 2 bed and 12 x 3 bed). The building has rear balconies and access to the private communal courtyard shared with Blocks A and C. A residential lobby, refuse stores are provided at ground floor
Block C:
Block C consists of two blocks C1 (13 storeys) and C2 (nine storeys) connected by a one storey ground floor that fills the footprint and bridges the two block. The building fronts the public park. The building contains a total of 124 homes. C1 contains all market homes (45 x 1 bed and 28 x 2 bed) while C2 contains 51 social rent homes (29 x 1 bed, 20 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed). The ground floor contains a large glazed shared lobby which divides into a market residential lobby and social rent lobby, a commercial unit of 135 sqm, refuse stores and cycle stores. A basement would be constructed to provide addition cycle storage for Blocks A, B and C. The building has balconies on each corner of the block and has access to the private communal courtyard shared with Blocks A and B.
Block D
A row of three storey terraced houses with fourth storey pop-up elements. The building fronts the access route on Granville Road. Block D creates 16 social rent homes (8 x 4 bed and 8 x 5 bed). Each house has a front and rear garden with separate refuse and cycle storage.
The plans have been revised as a result of fire regulation changes, demand changes and the viability assessment (my highlighting):
A number of amendments were made to the scheme as a result of comments raised by officers and the GLA/ TfL during the course of the consultation exercise as well as updates to Fire Safety Regulation and changes in viability.
The main changes to the scheme when compared to the initially submitted scheme are a result of updates to Fire Safety Regulation Standards and London Plan Guidance. This effected the internal and external arrangement of Blocks A, B and C. The alterations also alter the housing layouts on the residential floors of the proposed blocks and changes at ground floor level to communal and ancillary spaces in order to accommodate the different core geometry.
The housing tenure and unit mix was also reviewed. The South Kilburn Housing Need Assessment review identified that a larger number of smaller units are required to facilitate the decant of residents from future phases of the masterplan. The Hereford and Exeter project continued to face significant viability issues. The intermediate affordable units have been removed from the scheme in lieu of private tenure units. The provision of social rent affordable housing has therefore been maximised for those most in need and assists the viability position for the scheme.
As a result of these amendments a number of updates were required to the scheme:
· The change in unit numbers, size and tenure mean that there is a slight reduction in child yield and therefore the required play space provision
· The increase in the footprint of the buildings to accommodate fire safety requirements has resulted in a reduction to the soft landscaping measures within the private courtyard and Urban Greening Factor score
· A slight reduction in size of the Public Open Space provided at 2,400 sqm
· Increase in quantum of cycle parking spaces
· The daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessment has been updated to reflect the alterations to the massing
· The commercial and residential refuse arrangements have been changed to reflect the new layouts
The number of social homes on the site is reduced from 150 to 109 (from 90% to 44%)
Officers justify the changes:
Of the existing 167 residential units, 150 are affordable dwellings (100% social rent). These will be replaced with 250 dwellings of which there will be 109 affordable dwellings (All social rent). Although there would be 41 less affordable dwellings than existing, there is a significant increase in the provision of family sized dwellings and an increase in floorspace.
In addition, the scheme includes the provision of 16 four-bed homes and 8 five-bedroom homes that have the capacity to house larger families which is a benefit given the existing site does not have any provision.
Locals familiar with flooding problems on the estate will be interested in the section on flooding:
In terms of infiltration techniques, surface water runs off from paved surfaces within the site towards landscape planting, rain gardens, tree pits and permeable pavements. In day-to-day rainfall, the absorption, evaporation and infiltration of surface water through the Sustainable Drainage System features will fully drain paved areas within the site. However, owing to the typically poor permeability of the site’s geology (made ground on London Clay), the infiltration rate of the ground beneath the SuDS features would not be sufficient to drain the site in severe storm events. Gullies and slot drains are therefore also utilized to supplement the SuDS features. The attenuation of rainwater in ponds or open water features was not considered to be feasible for the development. Surface water overflows from SuDS features will drain into the below ground drainage system and attenuated in tanks for gradual release to the sewer system. There are no watercourses suitably located within vicinity of the site to receive run off. The local sewer network is combined. It is proposed that surface water is continued to discharge to the existing combined water network in the vicinity of the site.
Image from the Design Statement
Comment from a South Kilburn resident received by email:
ReplyDeleteAfter more than 9 years waiting for planning permission, it looks like the regeneration of Hereford House & Exeter Court is about to get it.
This project will go a long way in providing new homes to all those SK tenants who have been waiting many years to get a new home. However it will take several years to develop the project but at least it will now finally start.
Good that it will - eventually - provide homes for those decanted from elsewhere in South Kilburn, but as the article says, it offers fewer social homes than at present. At the end of the day we will be lucky if the regeneration of South Kilburn provides any more social rent homes that there were at the start. Not even a scratch on the waiting list. Its well-documented that most on that list can't afford more than social rents. But brent is providing more housing for those least in need.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Pete.
DeleteWhat Brent desperately needs is more genuinely affordable housing (that is why I was a long-time critic of the Council's plans for its Cecil Avenue site in Wembley, where 153 of the 237 homes will be for sale!).
They say it is not viable to provide any more social housing on this South Kilburn, and other, schemes. All that this "regeneration" of a 1960s Brent development will deliver as social housing is homes for existing Council tenants being decanted from other blocks they are going to demolish and redevelop.
Yet, at the same time, the Council is having to spend millions of pounds (£13m over budget, if I remember correctly) on providing temporary accommodation for local people who are being made homeless because they can't afford private rents that are too high.
"Viability" is a theoretical calculation, in part invented by professional advisors paid by developers, to support claims that it would be "unviable" to include as much (or any) affordable housing in their schemes as planning policy rightly requires.
I believe it would make more sense for Brent to borrow enough to make this (and other) redevelopment a totally social housing project, so that more people in need could be given a modern Council home, and less money would need to be spent on paying private landlords to supply temporary accommodation.
That would not solve all of the problems posed by the current housing crisis, but it would be a small step in the right direction.
Also of concern is the likely blocking-up of Granville Road by the new building on Granville Pocket Park (renewed in 2010) of houses. How wide, usable scale and forever protected from 'blockers' will this since C19 established east-west local public right of way be?
ReplyDeleteThe replacement 'park' (much smaller than 1.3 ha Granville Road Public Open Space), should it have a vehicle road straight through the middle of it as is planned when a new road is also being built west side of blocks in this proposal?
What is this parks long-term maintenance plan. Growth zone parks are Master Developer kept 'poor.' 'as waste' and 'non invested in' in regeneration year 23- see Cambridge Gardens, see South Kilburn Public Open Space 2ha. Yet, car-free housed population is more than doubled since 2001.
How about a cycle route through this park rather than a vehicle road, surely more in keeping with 'good growth' Master planning of a car-free housing tall building population growth zoned?
Flooding is about perceptions, perspectives and who is being impacted in 2024 UK decision-making practice true.
ReplyDeleteBut, in reality this new high density development proposal is building inside the Maida Vale Flood Area (see London Flood Review part 3). It should mitigate this known flood risk in every possible way rather than rely on increased building insurance being added onto tenants service charge bills- the way on other nameless London developments in population Growth zones.
The central vehicle road in the middle of this smaller size new 'park' design proposed could be more relevant to this car-free housing population Growth zone as a linear pond feature for holding excess flood waters as and when required. This new landscape resilience feature could be the start of making South Kilburn more appealing as place/ home for its walk, cycle, scoot, public transport forced at highest UK density population?
Pack more tenancies into Growth zoned is the only political message. How can that be called change?
ReplyDeleteJust pile towers into growth zoned where build quality and urban quality is of no concern as growth zoned is 'another country'- populations being exiled by design and policy from the UK's welfare state.
Conservation areas can just sit back and enjoy their forever funded bespoke ever expanding public services infrastructure building. As I say net-zero retro fitting of freehold family house public grants in conservation areas is pending- to be paid for and sustained by Growth zoned pile-ups.
How will South Kilburn Growth zoned integrate with its surrounding conservation areas? Ever building, so its worth thinking about and raising the issue. Politicians would say by building more towers in zone closer together and providing no amenities or quality of life, no space.
Conservation areas policy also expanding (lowering population density as flats convert back to family homes) is certainly well thought through politically as a way (the only way?) of shrinking the welfare state to become structured for a select few taxpayers rather than all taxpayers. Growth zoned extracts the funds for this regressive project.
A lot of South Kilburn tenants from the start of the regeneration 2001 are dispersed and re housed elsewhere never to return to this growth zoned.