How Brent MPs voted on the Assisted Dying Bill

 Dawn Butler (Brent East) and Barry Gardiner (Brent West) voted against the Bill and  Georgia Gould (Queens Park and Maida Vale) voted for the Bill.

Morland Gardens – now there is a real chance to save the Victorian villa!

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant in a personal capacity

The Victorian villa, “Altamira” and community garden, at the corner of Hillside and Brentfield Road.

 

My first guest post about the 1870s Italianate-style Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, in February 2020 (!), asked “Housing or Heritage? Or both?” Now BOTH is a real possibility again, following the exhibition and its subsequent consultation on Bridge Park and the Hillside Corridor (see Martin’s recent post for details).

 

If you are interested in the chance to save this beautiful and historically important local landmark, and see it put to good use for future generations of local residents to enjoy, please read on. I will outline the current position, and how you can help, in this latest guest post (there will be “links” to earlier ones, if you would like more information).

 

The Council’s original plans for redeveloping 1 Morland Gardens, which had been the home of Brent’s adult education college since the 1990s, were approved by the Cabinet in January 2020, and then by five (out of eight) members of the Planning Committee later in the year. They included demolishing the locally-listed heritage building (against national and Brent planning policies) and building over the community garden outside the property, which the Council had no legal right to do, and would have breached its air quality and climate change policies.

 

The project failed, after the Council’s planning consent expired at the end of October 2023, without construction work having begun. Since November 2023, Brent Council have been carrying out a review of their future plans for the Morland Gardens site, after the Brent Start college was moved out to a “temporary” home (meant to be for just two years while the redevelopment was carried out). One year on, I would have expected the Council’s ‘outline proposals’ from this review, which were unveiled as part of the Bridge Park and Hillside Corridor exhibition on 28 November, to be more than this:

 

‘This site, formerly Brent Start’s home before they moved to Twybridge Way, is going to be redeveloped. The Council plans to build new council homes and community facilities here. We want to hear what you think is needed.’

           The entire Morland Gardens section from the exhibition.

I had a good conversation at the exhibition with Brent’s Head of Capital Delivery. One thing he made clear was that site for the new proposals, following the consultation, would only be for within the 1 Morland Gardens boundary. They no longer plan to build on the community garden land outside ('we have learned some lessons from last time').

 

The plans for Brent’s new leisure centre building at Bridge Park show that the new Brent Start college, and the affordable workspace, which were going to be at Morland Gardens under the Council’s failed 2020 scheme, will be at Bridge Park instead. This means that they do not have to be part of the future plans for the 1 Morland Gardens site.

 

A section drawing through Brent’s proposed new Bridge Park building, from the exhibition.

 

It is ironic that Brent are now proposing to rehome Brent Start on the Bridge Park site, as that is what I suggested in October 2021, before they moved the college out of Morland Gardens. That suggestion was made in correspondence with Stonebridge Ward councillors, with a copy to the Cabinet members and Council Officers involved. It would have allowed Brent to go ahead with its Stonebridge Phase 2 housing scheme at Twybridge Way, which received planning consent in May 2020.

 

I repeated that suggestion to Brent Council’s Leader in an email of 19 January 2022, sending the text of this comment I had made under Martin’s blog “Muhammed Butt hails High Court's Bridge Park Appeal ruling”, reporting the Court’s decision and Cllr. Butt’s reaction to it:

 

‘This decision means that the development of the long-blighted Unisys building can also go ahead.

 

That would give Brent the opportunity to work with the developer, to include in the redevelopment scheme the modern college facilities that Brent Start Adult College needs, paid for by the £15m of CIL money which the Council has set aside for that.

 

The new college on that site would be ideally placed, next door to 'the fantastic new leisure and employment centre that local people need and deserve' at Bridge Park.

 

Building the new college facility there would mean only one disruptive move for the college, rather than a move into temporary accommodation in the "Stonebridge Annexe" building at Twybridge Way, then back again to Morland Gardens after two or more years.

 

A decision to pursue the "Unisys" option for the college would immediately free-up the Twybridge Way site for Phase 2 of Brent's Stonebridge Housing scheme, including family houses and much-needed New Accommodation for Independent Living flats.

 

It would also mean that the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens would not need to be demolished, but could be sympathetically incorporated into a new housing scheme on that site, once the college had moved to its new facilities.

 

That looks like a win/win/win situation, and should be quickly and seriously considered.’

 

The exchange of emails is recorded in full in the comments under that article (which some might find interesting reading!). The first response to my suggestion was from Cllr. Muhammed Butt: ‘Morland Gardens is not part of the work around Bridge Park and will continue to progress in its current form separately to Bridge Park.’

 

The last response was from Brent’s then Director of Regeneration on the Leader’s behalf: ‘The proposed developments at Morland Gardens and Bridge Park will continue as planned. There will be no changes to the proposed re-development at Morland Gardens as a result.’ My “final word” to the Director on 31 January 2022 was: ‘If (or when) your proposed [Morland Gardens] redevelopment comes to nothing, the Council won't be able claim that it was not warned of the mistakes it had made, and the risks it had decided to take.’

 

If only they had listened! It would have saved several wasted years and millions of pounds of Brent Council money! But, to quote the words of a song, ‘they would not listen, they did not know how, perhaps they’ll listen now.’

 

“The Starry Night” by Vincent van Gogh, which inspired the song, (Image from the internet)

 

I was assured at the exhibition that the Council still has an open mind on whether to retain the Victorian villa as part of the new redevelopment proposals. Officers will await the outcome of the consultation process before drawing up their recommendations for Morland Gardens. I am as sceptical as many of you will be about Brent Council “consultations” (‘they would not listen, they’re not listening still, perhaps they never will’), but I hope, and believe, there is a real chance that a strong show of support for retaining the Victorian villa would swing the decision that way.

 

Brent Council’s stated policy on valuing heritage assets. (From a supporting document to the Local Plan)

 

That is why I am asking for your help, please. If you agree that this important heritage asset should not be ‘lost forever to the community and future generations’, and that it should ‘be used for regeneration and place-making purposes’, please share that view as part of the consultation exercise. Please do that as soon as you can, and definitely before 6 January 2025.

 

There is an online consultation, but that is mainly about Bridge Park, with a few tick box options for possible Morland Gardens facilities at the end of the long survey form. If you are responding to the survey on the Bridge Park proposals, you could give your views on keeping the Victorian villa in the “other” box at the end of this Morland Gardens section:

 

The Morland Gardens section of the online survey form.

 

To be sure that your views reach the decision makers, I’d suggest instead that you send your views, including that the heritage building should be retained, in an email headed “Morland Gardens consultation” to: bridgepark@four.agency , with a copy to: neil.martin@brent.gov.uk  

 

Thank you!

 

Philip Grant

UPDATED: Bridge Park consultation exhibition boards published. Unisys, Bridge Park, Morland Gardens, Twybridge Way, Roy Smith House, Bernard Shaw House are all affected. Second public consultation tomorrow 10am to 2pm

 The Unisys site

 

The boards for the Stonebridge/Bridge Park/Unisys/Morland Gardens development have been published today to coincide with the first public consultation:

Brent Start, Twybridge Way, London NW10 0ST on Thursday 28 November, from 3 to 7pm or Saturday 30 November, from 10am to 2pm (Note Saturday is a Wembley Event Day - England v USA).

 The Unisys site would provide more than 1,000 homes (tenure to be decided), a hotel and commercial premises. It appears that the current twin Unisys buildings on the site will be demolished.

Interesting it is now proposal to move Brent Start to Bridge Park rather than Morland Gardens as first proposed. The plans are for new council homes and community facilities here. It is not clear that this means the Altamira Victorian house will be saved from demolition as previously proposed. 

The online consultation can be found HERE. Please note this is much more than a consultation just about Bridge Park. The Hillside Regenration Corridor includes Unisys, Twybridge Way, Morland Gardens, Roy Smith House and Bernard Shaw House as can be seen below.

 

This is a portion of one board that points to 'High Level Views' - unfortunately the image leaves out 32 storey Stonebridge Place and 24 storey Argenta House next to 'The Wem'. You would have to be pretty high yourself to see past those blocks. In fact the two blocks in the corner of the Unisys Site (North Circular and Harrow Road) are 32 and 34 storeys high. The hotel on Harrow Road itself will be 16 storeys high.

Planned  new developments below with Argenta House in black. Stonebridge Park station is white roof in bottom left corner.

Below are some of the exhibition boards for you to review before responding to the consultation or visiting the exhibitions inperson and discussing with staff there.

Click right bottom X for whole page view. 

Bottom right to download a copy.

 

ONLINE CONSULTATION

UPDATE

I went to the exhibition yesterday and chatted to some of the architects and the developer but most importantly some of the local people who had dropped into the session.

The architects were proud of the work that had gone into the planning of the greens spaces and gardens that address flooding  and run off potential on the site. The site historically included an oxbow, a loop, in the River Brent to the south of what is now the North Circular over which was a stone bridge. The river was rerouted so it flows alongside the North Circular and is joined by the Wembley Brook at Argenta House. Place names on the south side give a clue to water courses in the area: Brentfield, Conduit Way, Miitchell Brook, Sladebrook and the canal feeder.

Bridge Park Leisure Centre is currently in the centre of the site but will be tucked into the southern corner under the current plans.  Residents were concerned that there was no car parking allocated or space for a coach to park to let off  parties of school children using the planned swimming pool.

The Morland Gardens site is earmarked for a community space and homes but there was no detail except that the Memorial Garden will no longer be built on and Brent Start adult education will not be housed there. The future of the Altamira Victorian villa appears to be subject to further discussion.

The plans showed Brent Start on 3 floors beneath a residential tower adjoined to the Leisure Centre and concerns were voiced that this would be insufficient for its needs.

 

There was inevitable scepticism about the proposals given the history and this was particularly true of the 1,000 new homes promised for the Unisys site. There were no details regarding tenure and one local insisted (without much hope) that they should be council or social rent homes.

The Unisys site is to be developed by Stonebridge Real Estate Development Ltd, owned by General Mediterraean Holdings. GMH were there (though their badges said GHM) and were a rather isolated group.  I was interested in the financial viability of the development with an eye on the inevitable viability assessment that would reduce the amount of affordable housing on site. They did not want to discuss the financial position of Stonebridge Real Estate but assured me that GMH had plenty of money if there were any problems.

GMH is registered in Luxembourg and has an interesting history. See LINK

 

Alperton Bus Garage development and neighbours 3 years on -

 

Planning permission was granted for the redevelopment of Alperton bus garage in April 2021. The Planning Committee were informed that previous policy had a 14 storey limit on the height of buildings in the area. However, planning officers said that the 'emerging' local plan allowed for tall buildings on the site. Buildings  of 21, 25 and 28 storeys were approved. It is so close to Alperton station that residents are likely to be able to abseil on to the platform!

See 'Your neighbourhood turned upside down. Have your say on local plan'

 Cllr Maurice voted against the application on grounds 'of over-development, height and its destruction of the area's once pleasant suburban character.'

 Alperton councillor Anton Georgiou presented the case against the application quoting the views of local residents.  Many cited over-development, height and density as concerns. See:

Alperton residents' trenchant views on the Alperton Bus Garage planning application fail to stop approval of the development

 

 Above and below are views of the development as it takes shape.

Opposite the site is Minavil House where a low rise commercial site was demolished and replaced with a development that included a 27 storey tower, This development was valued at £64m.

From the Grand Union canal (developer before the bus garage development)

Last week

 

Emerging heights in the tall building zone (Alperton High School bottom right)

There several pipeline developments in the area. One on Ealing Road, wedged between two new developments is a  former  HSBC bank and the Plough public house.

In 2018 plans were approved for two buildings of 9 and 10 storeys on the site with a total of 92 flats. A member of the public asked a question at Full Council after doubts were raised about the application See:

Uproar over Brent's Alperton high rise approval, despite application “failing to meet requirements in 13 different matters”

 Councillor Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills:, in her response said:

Planning applications of this size raise a number of complex, and often competing issues; in this case, involving the redevelopment of the site to provide two buildings, 9 and 10 storeys, for 92 new flats, a pub and a community use, it raised many issues – the appearance and build of the new buildings, the amount of residential provided, the mix of units, parking arrangements, etc. Officers and Committee members balance all of the different issues, including the planning objections, and make their decision against national, regional and local policies. These issues are often finely balanced, and opinions will often differ as to the merits of a particular case. 

 

Sometimes, one policy objective, (e.g. securing additional housing, or maintaining a public house on the site) might be given more weight than, for example, a reduced level of parking. In this case, the planning merits of the proposal were carefully considered. Officers made some pragmatic judgments around the proposal to achieve, on this allocated site in a housing zone, some 92 new units – a quarter of which are affordable – that works on the site. The committee report makes it clear that whilst some policies are not met, many are, and taking the scheme in its entirety, members felt that the benefits outweighed any harm.

The question does not mention what safety regulations are broken here. However, it is a long established – and correct – principle, that planning does not duplicate requirements set out in other regulations and laws; these will be assessed by other bodies at the appropriate time, whether that be under Building Regulations or Health and Safety rules.

A new application for the site was lodged in August 2024, for two buildings of up to 10 storeys on the site. Planning Officers noted that the previous application had lapsed  because of new fire regulations and the requirement for additional evacuation cores. LINK

In addition to this development  the Boat/Pleasure Boat pub, opposite the bus garage has been demolished and the site is now behind hoardings.

 The last proposal I saw was in a consultation for a 22 storey tower and a replacement pub. Here, as at the Plough site this will probably be re-designated as a 'comunity facility'.

 

 

Family Yoga taster at Preston Community Library Saturday 7th December 10.30am - 11.15am

 

Rumi's Kitchen Reimagined: A New Chapter at 120 Craven Park Road and it is wonderful

 I was so impressed by seeing this on Rumi's Newsletter today that I felt I must share it with you. They have done a beautiful transformation job on this Harlesden building and their work contributes so much to the community.

Road closures and bus diversions for Saturday's England v USA match at Wembley Stadium

UPDATE: Bridge Park online Exhibition won't be live until Wednesday

The online exhibition on the proposals for the Bridge Park/Unisys site did not go live today despite the earlier  news announcement by Brent Council that it would do so.

Instead it will be live on Thursday when the first inperson consultation will be held. A spokeman for the  Four Agency who are managing the consultation said that they thought it better to have the launch and consultation on the same day.

The Hillside Corridor project also includes Morland Gardens, Twybridge Way and Bernard Shaw House.

Have your say at two exhibitions to find out more in person at Brent Start, Twybridge Way, London NW10 0ST on Thursday 28 November, from 3 to 7pm or Saturday 30 November, from 10am to 2pm

UPDATE

Reply from Brent Council to a query from Wembley Matters reader:

 

The online version of the exhibition will be available on Wednesday afternoon, apologies for the delay. The council’s web team will be updating the news article to reflect this change.

 

I can confirm that the online version of the exhibition and the exhibition at Brent Start on 28 and 30 November 2024, will include outline proposals for Morland Gardens and other Hillside Corridor sites as well as those for Bridge Park. There will be a questionnaire available online (from Wednesday) and at the exhibitions with a specific section for the sites within the Hillside Corridor, including Morland Gardens, for residents to provide their responses to.

Still time to respond to Brent Council's proposed service cuts and fees increases

 Brent Council is running a consultation on its Draft Budget that includes some increases in charges as well as service cutbacks. Council Tax is to be increased by 4.99% and Council Tax Support for the vulnerable reduced.

The Council's website explains:

Councils across London are facing a series of unprecedented financial challenges, caused by a perfect storm of continued high inflation, rapidly increasing demand for services and reduced government funding since 2010. 

Across all budgets and service areas, London Councils estimates that boroughs will overspend on their original budget plans by over £600m in 2024/25. 

Brent is not immune to these pressures, with an expensive adult social care bill getting more so every year because of an ageing population as well as soaring levels of homelessness, with around 150 new families presenting as homeless most weeks. 

On top of £222m of cuts made since 2010, a further £16 million must be saved in 2025-26 to balance the books.  

The council has pulled together budget proposals which aim to protect the services residents rely on most as far as possible and protect the organisation’s longstanding healthy financial position. It is now asking for local people’s views on these proposals. 

Proposals in the draft budget include: 

• Increase charge for bulky waste collection from £40 to £55 
• Increase garden waste annual subscription from £65 to £69 
• A 4.99% increase in council tax, with 2% ring-fenced for adult social care 
• Changes to our Council Tax Support Scheme: https://www.brent.gov.uk/news-in-brent/2024/october/council-tax-support-scheme-consultation-gets-the-green-light

View draft budget proposals: Issue - items at meetings - Draft Budget 2025/26

 

BUDGET CONSULTATION ONLINE SESSIONS
THE WEBSITE SAYS CONSULTATION WILL RUN UNTIL DECEMBER 15TH BUT AS YOU CAN SEE THE WILLESDEN EVENT IS IN JANUARY!

Harlesden Connects Online November 26^th 6pm to 7pm

Kingsbury and Kenton Connects Online December 2^nd 6pm-7pm

Kilburn Connects Online December 12^th 6pm-7pm

Willesden Connects Online January 9^th 6pm-7pm

The Wembley Connects took place last week attended by 5 people.

Apart from the charges above there are other charges in the proposal including charging the elderly monthly  for Telecare services (they vary widely across councils) and increases for mortuary and bereavement services.  A £1m cut is based on wider use of reablement services to keep people from reliance on long-term care services and additional respite capacity for individuals with learning disabilities and reduce reliance on residential respite placements.

Care leavers aso suffer  with proposals to halve the number of weekends offered at Gordon Brown Centre for courses to support their independence and a reduction in spend on the SafeBase that supports the health and wellbeing of care leavers in higher education. Given the concerns about the vulnerability of care leavers this seems short-sighted.

 Apart from the Environment Services fee rise above there is a proposal for a £5 delivery charge for new or replacement binsand a proposal to cease the subscription to the online Recylopedia  resource which recieves 12,000 clicks a month.

A staffing and structural review of Public Realm posts results in the deletion of 3-4 posts which apparently will lead to 'local solutions for local problems.'  I hope Scrutiny Committee will explore what that means.

It is proposed to use an agency for occupational health service:

It is anticipated that a saving £100,000 could be delivered through the outsourcing of the OH contract.  By switching to an external provider, we would only pay the costs for our actual usage. We also pay high agency rates as OH specialists are hard to recruit and there is a national skills shortag. There is a downside in the Risk Assessment:Reduced service and longer waiting times to be seen by an OH professional as the service won’t be inhouse and bespoke. This will be mitigated as far as possible through close monitoring of performance. 

The deletion of 5 posts in Finance and Resorces is mitigated by 'automation'.

Check the list in Appendix below for the proposals  and if you want more details note the reference number and go to Appendix B. Click bottom right corner for full page.

 

 Appendix B - detailed proposals with risk assessments.

 

 

 

Even the lowest income families will pay some Council Tax next year Brent Council proposes. Consultation in progress ending on December 15th.

 

Brent Council is consulting on making changes in the Council Tax Support scheme. As you can see from above their drop-in sessions have attracted very few people. There is still time to take part in the consultation online that ends on December 15th 2024. Residents' Brent Council Tax bill is expected to increase by a further 5% in 2025-26.

The council is seeking savings of £2m on the scheme by revising the proportion of Council Tax  paid by working families in need of support.  The lowest income group would now receive a reduction of 65% rather than the 100%  reduction (ie pay no Council Tax)  at present:

I have embedded the full consultation document below. To take part in the consultation follow this LINK.

 

Does London Mayor's new guidance on purpose built student accommodation address recent concerns in Brent?

 Marketing  video for purpose built student accommodation in Wembley Park

 

There has recently been discussion about the amount of purpose built student accommodation in Brent, with some disquiet even in the Brent Planning Committee. (See LINK) Rather than reflecting an anti-student prejudice it is often about the loss of sites that could otherwise be used for family housing and questions about balancing local communities.

Brent planners have insisted that the need for student accommodation both in Brent and London as whole has been established and contributes to housing targets,

The London Mayor has recently published London Plans guidance for London local planning authorities which reviews some of the issues. The full document can be found HERE and key extracts follow (my highlighting):

 

The Purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) London Plan Guidance (LPG) provides advice on how to apply London Plan Policy H15 to best meet London’s needs. This guidance applies to a specialist form of housing designed and managed for students. This typically comprises a mixture of flats for 6-8 students with shared living spaces, and larger studio flats, plus additional communal social spaces and other facilities.

As well as providing students with a place to live, PBSA can play an important role in alleviating pressures on the wider private rental sector. Indirectly its provision also helps underpin London’s higher education sector as a global player, and the wider knowledge economy of the city.

The LPG sets out detailed advice on siting, designing and developing such housing, including balancing it with other housing types. It aims to ensure that these developments are designed and managed to be of good quality, safe and inclusive and integrated into their neighbourhood. The guidance is aimed at those designing PBSA schemes and decision-makers assessing them as part of the planning application process.

 

London’s universities are disproportionately concentrated in a few areas, including within the CAZ (Central Activity Zone) . PBSA (Purpose Built Student Accommodation) has clustered in similar areas, particularly in inner London. This has diversified the student accommodation offer from the traditional, university-built PBSA, and private rented homes. Several boroughs where this is the case have sought to limit further growth in such (purpose built) student accommodation, as well as in some cases, HMOs Homes of Multiple Occupation). This reflects their concerns about housing mix in their neighbourhoods and the potential ‘crowding out’ of conventional housing, given other types of housing need amongst their population. However, in turn, other boroughs (including within outer London, some distance from where London’s universities are concentrated) have since seen a particularly high influx of PBSA schemes, giving rise to similar concerns.

 

PBSA in relation to neighbourhood housing mix can be considered in two ways:

 

• In support of PBSA proposals that help disperse from traditional concentrations to alternative, suitable locations – perhaps adding an element of student housing to existing residential stock that is primarily conventional housing. This may be particularly relevant where there is a shortage of family homes, which students are currently occupying as HMOs or which they could be in future, in light of PBSA shortages.

 

• As a more negative consideration, where there are long-standing or more recent concentrations of PBSA, or similar, non-self-contained accommodation, relative to conventional housing. This may be spatial (in particular neighbourhoods) or as a proportion of housing delivery, where PBSA may be considered to be ‘crowding out’ conventional housing schemes. Such dominance may be particularly acute under certain market conditions; and where development sites are limited (which would ordinarily be equally attractive for conventional residential use).

 

PBSA should form part of a wider positive strategy in delivering mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods in most Local Plans. It should be acknowledged that what is considered an appropriate balance of PBSA and conventional housing will differ across London, and within boroughs. Local Plans should identify if and where spatial concentration of PBSA, or proliferation of PBSA delivery compared to conventional housing delivery, is impacting the ability to ensure mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods. They should also identify more positive opportunities for PBSA to help contribute to local and strategic objectives.

This could be used to develop spatial policies; or to indicate the significance of neighbourhood or pipeline housing mix in decision-making.