Brent Planning Committee will make a decision on this application this Wednesday October 16th. It is Item 4 on the Agenda. LINK
Some of the residents of suburban housing in Brook Avenue, adjacent to the Metropolitan line at Wembley Park, have objected to a planning application going to Brent Planning Committee next week. This would see their property demolished and built on. They say no terms or conditions have been agreed with the developer. One resident told the planners:
The developer has not got any agreement on purchasing my home, and I have no intention of moving, but the plans show my house being demolished and built over.
Brent planners responded:
This is a civil matter. Any person/entity can apply for planning permission on land not in their ownership but must first serve notice on the land owner that planning permission has been applied for. Notice (Certificate B) was served on all affected property owners on [Editor's note - this sentence breaks off at this point and new paragraph follows]
Should planning permission be granted, the permission cannot be implemented unless the developer has acquired all of the individual plots that form the application site.
The appplication involves demolition of 22 mainly 3 bedroom family houses with gardens backing on to Wealdstone Brook.
Most of the objections on the planning portal come from the blocks of flats opposite the proposed development regarding loss of light, over-development and traffic. The development is proposed to be car free.
The proposal is for two linked blocks of purpose built shared living accommodation, 6 and 15 storeys,and two linked blocks of residential flats between 4 and 9 storeys.
As you can see from the above this actually amounts to at least 7 blocks. They will face across the road to recently built blocks on ex-railway land and just up the road to the blocks currently being built close to the Wembley Park station steps.
Purpose built shared living accommodation LINK is a comparatively new concept and a kind of cross between student accommodation and a care home. Longer term than students and no care provision. It is marketed as suitable for single people who want their own space but with access to other facilities such as large communal kitchens, gym and outside areas. These plans also include a cafe that would be open to non-residents as well The development would supply 517 units.
These plans will give you an idea of what is envisaged for shared living:
The Planning Officers' Report notes:
LSPBSL (Large Scale Purpose-built Shared Living) generally provides accommodation for single-person households who cannot, or choose not to, live in self-contained homes or HMOs. This accommodation type may be used on a transitional basis until residents find suitable longer-term housing. Whilst LSPBSL provides an additional housing option for some people, due to the unique offer of this accommodation type it does not meet minimum housing standards and is therefore not considered to meet the ongoing needs of households in London. It is therefore not recognised as an affordable housing product because it does not provide accommodation suitable for households in need of genuinely affordable housing, including families.It should however be noted that as a recognised housing choice, they are counted towards housing supply on a ratio of 1.8:1 basis as per London Plan Policy H1.
Responding to whether there is a need for co-living accommodation an assessment was made:
The Assessment confirms that 27% of a total of 118,602 households in Brent are 1-person households, or a total of 31,985 people. There are 17,000 HMOs in Brent, which compete with 3-bedroom family housing, therefore at least 51,000 residents are living in HMOs and most likely the estimate is higher. Co-living would not only meet the needs of a significant population of single renters, but also potentially free up family housing currently in use as HMO.Brent has 38% of residents aged between 20 and 44, and Wembley 39%, which are both above the UK population average of 32%. Nationally, 66.9% of market renters are in this age range. In Brent, 32% of people live in the private rented sector, compared to 18% nationally. The proportion is 34% in Wembley area in isolation. Brent therefore has above national average proportions of people in the ideal age range and who are renting.
The residential accommodation would consist of 26 one bedroom, 48 two bedroom and 26 three bedroom flats.
The total net internal floorspace (NIA) of the development is 19,549sqm, comprising of 12,665sqm for the co-living element and 6,884sqm for the C3 dwellings. The proportion of C3 floorspace therefore equates to 35.2% of the total provision thereby satisfying the minimum threshold of 35%. Moreover, the tenure mix proposed is a policy compliant 70% low-cost social rent and 30% intermediate rent. The proposal, with regard to affordable housing, satisfies the requirements of the London Plan and the Local Plan, subject to an early stage review mechanism.
Having regard to the population profile of Brent and to the local housing market in terms of affordability, average incomes, household sizes/tenure, it is considered that co-living would be affordable based on the average salary in Brent of £43,215 (ONS/2022), the depth of the market is estimated between 20,697 and 28,741 people in Brent who could both have a requirement and be able to afford a co-living unit. This represents between 8% and 11% of the adult population aged 20 or over in the borough.
A Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessment has been submitted outlining the measures that would be considered or employed to reduce the carbon emissions arising from the development. Measures such as, but not limited to
Reducing the volume of concrete used and employing the use of recycled concrete;The sourcing of materials as near to the site as possible;The use of products that have low embodied carbonThe use of brick for the façade, a material that requires minimal maintenance over its lifetime;The use of materials that can be separated from each other to allow for more effective recycling at the end of life
The above measures are welcomed and would be reviewed further by the GLA as part of the Stage 2 referral. Appropriately worded conditions would be imposed following GLA input at Stage 2.
'Would be considered or employed' and 'measures such as' are rather vague so the conditions set by the Planning Committee will be important.
Satellite View
As can be seen from the above view there is green space, back gardens and mature trees alongside the Wealdstone Brook. Across the brook is a designated green corridor.There are concerns that biodiversity will be lost. The developer submits a plan for the outside areas that is essential to meet amenity space guidelines:
The extent of treet removal is demonstrated in this chart from the Arbicultural Assessment.
There is the usual promise of replacement tree planting. The GLA 1st Stage assessment argues:
The proposed development seeks to secure a net biodiversity net gain (BNG) of 1.73%, which falls below the 10% outlined in London Plan Policy G6. The existing site has a high biodiversity score. Although the design approach seeks to maximise BNG, given the low figure, there should be consideration of further on-site opportunities and the Council could secure payment to overcome the shortfall to enhance the adjacent Brook.
But Brent Council Planning Officers respond:
It should be noted that the application was submitted prior to a 10% BNG coming into force, therefore the scheme only needs to demonstrate a net gain, which it does.
A further issue is potential flooding from surface, fluvial and articial (Brent Reservoir) Most of the buildings will be lifted above potential flood levels and there are proposals for mitigation. The officers' report concludes:
From the Flood Risk Assessment we can establish that there are no sequentially better sites for the development proposal than the current site. In addition, subject to conditions such as securing the Flood Warning & Evacuation Plan, finished floor levels, engagement with Emergency Planning Officers, along with other measures, the proposal should provide sufficient safeguards to ensure the safety of occupiers.
The proposed drainage strategy, again subject to conditions, is considered acceptable and should sufficiently attenuate water and reduce the risk of flooding.
As Paul Lorber points out in comments this development was foreshadowed in the Adopted Local Plan. It puts the site capacity at 450 units, whereas the above totals 617 units.
If you have been disconcerted by this application it is worth looking at the detailed Local Plan for potential developments across the borough. You may find your home or business there. The Local Plan extends to 2041.
https://legacy.brent.gov.uk/media/16420376/brent-local-plan-2019-2041.pdf
This is what the Local Plan indicates for the Brook Avenue site:
Brent's chosen and unchosen suburbia's towards 2040.
ReplyDeleteIn other parts of Brent like Queens Park welfare state preservation zone, these same generic inter-war houses would be conservation area extension houses of historic architectural character- go figure? When such suburban houses are all over England and from a photograph you would not know which town these houses are even in, Brent or Bradford, Barnsley or Bicester.
The where and who for of current zonal planning is clearly controlled by and for Local special interest groups profit. Actual historic Brent doesn't get a look in.
We'd trust that Brent Council will refuse planning permission as the developers do NOT own the houses nor the land.
ReplyDeleteThey are very detailed proposals though so the developers must have been guided by Brent Council planning department???
Or there are professionals outside of the council who specialise in helping developers with such plans? Even if it was the council planning department that guided they’d probably see it more as a win-win.
DeleteThe draft Committee Report, already predated 16th October, recommends that planning permission is granted with a long list of money that the developer needs to pay to Brent Council yet there appear to be no requirements to protect the rights of the current property owners?
ReplyDeleteThis is an awful situation.
The developers can get the house prices lowered as who would buy a house that's got planning permission for it to be knocked down hanging over it, they can get a compulsory purchase order declared and put in problem tenants as they buy up some of the propertylies - it's not rocket science.
ReplyDeleteBedsit land for those people who are not Students
ReplyDeleteBrent's planners have actually encouraged this planning application through the Local Plan 2019-2041.
ReplyDeleteIn a site specific policy, BCSA3: Brook Avenue, they suggested that the semi-detched homes on the Wealdstone Brook side of Brook Avenue, together with the Premier Inn site, could provide around 450 residential dwellings if redeveloped.
In describing the site Brent's planners said: ' To the north of Brook Avenue recent development has established a higher density which should be reflected in redevelopment of this site.'
Under the "Planning Considerations" section they said: 'The Premier Inn site has the potential to accommodate a larger hotel or a hotel and range of other main town centre uses or residential. The remainder of the site along Brook Avenue can accommodate much higher density residential.'
As "Justification" for the site specific proposals Brent's planners wrote:
'• Excellent public transport accessibility levels.
• Potential to improve the public realm as a gateway to the new Wembley Park development.
• Given the high levels of development around this site, it would benefit from good access to local shops and services.
• Redevelopment of this site can contribute towards an improved setting for the Wealdstone Brook, including the delivery of open space and river restoration work to improve ecological diversity and climate change adaptation.'
Having given an open invitation to developers to apply for planning permission for this site, without having to get ownership of the land, or even the agreement of the landowners, Brent's planners are now recommending an application for approval.
Whatever happened to Brent's planning policy of preserving the borough's suburban character?
It's appauling that this is allowed to happen - Brent Council should be ashamed 😡
ReplyDeleteThe 'Planning for the Future' white paper August 2020 on planning reform proposed zonal planning of an England divided into growth, renewal and protected zones. This proposed bill was later shelved due to adverse consultation responses, however government decided to continue on anyway with zonal planning practices -the focus being on what inward investors want.
ReplyDeleteObviously brownfield land having no definition in English law has zero impact on legal protected conservation zones, but move that no legal definition of brownfield land to non protected growth zones and its carnage for all community, social , health and green infrastructure.
Book Avenue here is an example of a Brent Growth zone spatial expanding. Brent Protected zones were also expanded this year.
Harsh times.
Philip Grant has set out the position very clearly. The LOCAL PLAN (that very few people would have noticed or been properly consulted on) has a number of Site Specific Policy examples which highlight locations suitable for much more intensive development. The plan is to demolish the traditional 1930s to 1950s homes with gardens and replace them with blocks of flats with limited parking and local amenities.
ReplyDeleteIn Alperton and Sudbury parts of Bridgewater Road where houses back onto the railway line and Station Approach close to Sudbury Town Underground Station where back gardens back onto small green space have been identified as being suitable for demolition and replacement by numerous blocks of flats with much higher densities.
In the case of Station Approach Brent Council bought a house in June 2023 for over £500,000 which still stand empty 16 months later. The excuse is that the Council 'did not realise' it was infested by rats and needed a lot of work' but the real motive is of course rather clearer now. The local plan specifically stated that "smaller' sites will be needed if the ambitious Mayor of London Housing Targets for Brent are to be achieved. From recollection the shortfall was about 4,000 units which means that many more areas like Brook Road are at risk of being swallowed up. The Brent Council approach is somewhat devious as the 'specific site allocations' were well hidden in the massive Local Plan document and no warning was given and no 'specific' consultation carried out. Brent Labour Council is acting simply to assist the Labour Mayor of London and what local people think or want is irrelevant to them.
At the end of the 113 page Planning Officer's Report on the Brook venue application (and we are meant to assume that all members of the Planning Committee have read and understood all 459 paragraphs of it) is the draft letter granting the application, which they have prepared, expecting the committee to approve their recommendation.
ReplyDeleteCondition 1 of the planning consent (common to virtually all such letters) does give the residents of numbers 1-22 Brook Avenue some hope. It states:
'1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning on the date of this permission.
Reason: To conform with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.'
It is highly unlikely that the prospective developer will have acquired all of the existing homes required to make up the site in time for development to begin within three years.
However, consent for this planning application will establish the precedent for development of this site, so that several years down the line the same, or another, developer will come along with a new application. It may be the same as this application, or with plans for a scheme with even higher density.
And because this application will have been approved, the next one will be as well (unless there is a change in the approach of Brent's planners, or a change in the membership of Planning Committee, as a result of a change in political control at Brent Council at the May 2026 local elections).
Brent Council website shows the draft document 'Brents committee report' already dated 16.10.24 confirming planning approval without these plans going to the planning committee - seems it just needs a final sign off on the 16th?
ReplyDeleteThat's routine unless they are recommending refusal.
ReplyDeleteIs it going to the planning committee? It says "Expected Decision Level: Delegated Team Manager" with no menytion of commitee?
ReplyDeleteIt is Item 4 for decision at Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday at 6pm. https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=115&MId=7952
ReplyDeleteI wish Brent Council and their Planners stopped using the term "Car Free Development". While the residents might be told they should not have cars there is nothing to stop them owning cars and parking them in nearby streets. That is exactly what has already happened in other 'car free' developments in Wembley. More importantly the term is highly misleading as it gives the impression that there will be no traffic in nearby streets to access the new homes. If the residents are not to allowed to have cars they will use - taxis/ubers/zip cars to get around, they will have more home shop deliveries and they will use more motorbike deliveries for their takeaways. And of course the new residents will have visitors who too will use some form of transport - all of these will create extra traffic movements and more congestion in local streets. By not having to provide adequate parking the developer avoids the cost of providing parking spaces and can therefore maximise densities and their profits.
ReplyDeleteno such thing as Car Free it just means no Parking on site
DeleteWhy do people need cars when there is do much local public transport and so many local shops and facilities?
DeleteIn South Kilburn the car free block style is often build to pavement and then over pavement on first floors, a kind of new Medieval design by greed.
ReplyDeleteThese Brook Avenue owners will be offered above market value for their homes. My advice would be move to a conservation area where you can buy the same house but be protected and at zero risk of being exiled by re-developments from the English welfare state that you pay for.
From South Kilburn Tall Building Zone across the rail tracks north is a vast and expanding legally defined protected conservation area of freehold family houses, so the kind of growth zone expansionism over rail lines seen here in Wembley is made impossible by Local decision makers and special interest groups.
Just thinking, is it right that a employee of a lobbyists company aligned to developers is chair of planning?
ReplyDeleteI think you need to give more detail to back up your allegation.
ReplyDelete'Anonymous14 October 2024 at 10:38' says "These Brook Avenue owners will be offered above market value for their homes" - how do you actually know that??? What is the market value for a home that's gonna be knocked down???
ReplyDeleteAnd what about compensation to cover: the loss of their established homes with their fixtures and fittings and memories; their legal fees when dealing with the developers; their conveyancing fees when buying another property plus estate agent fees, stamp duty on another property, removal fees, time off work to deal with all of this, etc etc etc - plus the impact on their mental health???
22.58 You have explained for yourself why the offer must be above market value. The value of purchasing these few houses for developers is clear, 7 blocks 517 units to tenant extract from.
ReplyDeleteBut why must the offer be above market value? Who else is gonna buy them? There is nothing to force the developer to pay a high price.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteEdited version of deleted comment to meet guidelines: Unbelievable that it was passed. Using the sewer that is Wealdstone Brook as amenity space and alongside a childrens playground is unbelievable.
ReplyDelete