The light industry that surrounded Wembley Stadium is fast disappearing as developers buy up land and two storey premises are replaced by tower blocks.
The latest is an unpromising elongated site, presently used by Glynns Skip Hire as a waste management facility with storage containers, off Fifth Way. It has very limited access.
Architects have managed to wedge in proposals for seven student accommodation blocks along with a cafe and student facilities. The developer has called it Wembley Edge rather than Wembley Wedge!
The elongated site is explained that the site was part of the 'Never-Stop' railway at the British Empire Exhibition and included a railway station.
The
proposed buildings would range in height from 5 to 15 storeys, with building G
the furthest north representing the tallest at c.53m. Building A is 11 storeys,
building B 14 storeys, building C 11 storeys, building D 13 storeys, building E
14 storeys, building F 11 storeys and building G 15 storeys. Five storey
shoulder elements link A and B as well as D and E together. Togather they prvide 759 student units some studio and some in a cluster with shared facilities.
Brent Council has established that the waste management business could be transferred to an Alperton site. Nearer sites were discounted as they too could be targets for development.
Opposition has come from nearby light industrial businesses fearing a possible negative impact on their own development potential and has resulted in Savills who submitted a Town Planning Statement on behalf of the developer, using the Brent Planning Portal to submit a 'Neutral Statement' responding to criticism. This is very unusual and something I have not seen before:
We write to respond to the comments made by Dandi Living (dated 20 August 2024) in respect to the above planning application. Dandi Living's comments suggest that the Wembley Edge proposals are being progressed prematurely and without enough consideration of the potential impact on, and relationship with, the adjacent site at Latif House, a site which Dandi Living has a legal interest in.
The current Wembley Edge proposals are the culmination of extensive pre-application consultation with the local planning authority, GLA, local community and key stakeholders and other consultees between 2020 and submission of the planning application in March 2023.
A public consultation website, webinar and two public exhibition events were held in 2022, to which Dandi Living provided no feedback. Since submission of the planning application, further detailed discussions have been held with officers, including regarding opportunities for the wider development area with Brent's urban design officers. Again, we note that Dandi Living provided no detailed comments on the application proposals until August 2024.
Due consideration has been given to the potential for development to come forward on surrounding sites, including the Latif House site noting it's inclusion within the Growth Area, and the First Way site allocation. The proposed layout responds to the urban grain and is set back from the western boundary. The layout ensures that the primary windows serving the proposed student accommodation are over 9m from the site boundary with the Latif House site, and that direct outlook from windows to this site boundary is over 10m. Other secondary windows are high-level obscured windows so as to preserve the amenity of any future development on the Latif House site.
Any constraints created by the Wembley Edge proposals on Latif House would be typical of development in a built-up urban environment and would not hinder or prohibit the site from being developed in the future. The public realm created as part of the proposals adjacent to Latif House is for service and emergency access only, but this could potentially form part of a larger public realm once neighbouring developments come forward in a cohesive way.
Turning to Dandi Living's comments relating to daylight, it is not accepted that the Wembley Edge proposals significantly constrain the Latif House site. Any areas of reduced daylight availability to Latif House would likely be limited to a small area of the lower floors directly facing Wembley Edge (as it can be typically expected in a high density urban environment). London Plan Policy D6 requires development to 'provide sufficient daylight and sunlight to new and surrounding housing that is appropriate for its context' and the NPPF requires local planning authorities to 'take a flexible approach in applying policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight'. BRE Guidance is also clear on this matter, seeking for daylight availability to be maximised as far as possible, but noting that it is only one of many policy considerations which must be finely balanced. In this policy / guidance context, providing that any future proposals at Latif House are designed to maximise daylight within those lower rooms which front Wembley Edge, both developments could successfully co-exist from a daylight perspective.
We consider that the Wembley Edge proposals are suitably designed so as not to prejudice the future development potential of the Latif House site.
Brent Planning Officers report on the light issues and appear to agree with Savills:
Under the BRE guidance the proposed development will have an adverse impact on Arch View House, Kelaty House and the Waterside. That said, the BRE guidance represents best practice guidance, it is not mandatory, and it is a well established approach that the guidelines should be interpreted flexibly, taking into account the need to make efficient use of land to meeting housing needs and site context characteristics.
A further important point to note is that given the open and low scale nature of the existing site, it provides higher levels of light to surrounding receptors than would be expected in this urban location and higher density redevelopment of the site, which the site allocation policy supports, would naturally result in some adverse impacts to neighbouring receptors.
The identified impact to the properties should therefore be balanced against the benefits of the scheme overall, and Members should therefore consider whether those benefits do outweigh the harm.
As in previous planning applications Brent Planners insist (along with the GLA) that there is a demand for student accommodation and that it will contribution to Brent's housing targets:
Whilst the site allocation policy does not refer specifically to PBSA [Purpose Built Student Accommodation], this type of housing is acknowledged to relieve some of the demand for conventional housing, and this provision would contribute towards Brent's housing supply (at a ratio of 2.5 bedrooms to one conventional housing unit), at the same time contributing towards London Plan housing targets. The proposed provision of 759 student bedrooms would therefore equate to 306 new homes in Brent (on the basis of 2.5: 1 ratio), which would positively contribute towards the boroughs wider housing targets, and to achieving the indicative dwellings capacity of 1, 312 dwellings within the whole of site allocation BCSA9. To date within the wider site allocation planning permission has either been implemented, or granted (but not implemented) for 600 C3 dwellings on the Access Storage site on First Way (ref; 18/4767) and 678 student bedrooms (equivalent to 271 new homes on the basis of the 2.5 : 1 ratio) at the former Cannon Trading Estate site (ref; 17/3799). Combined, each of these schemes if consented and subsequently implemented, including the proposed development would deliver the equivalent of 1, 177 new dwellings across the site allocation, contributing positively towards the indicative site capacity for number of dwellings.
Brent Planning Officers, councillors (including Muhammed Butt, Council Leader) have been involved in meetings with the developers:
A submission to the Planning Committee by local historian Philip Grant provides a heritage footnote:
The site, as indicated in the Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment, owes its origin to the transport infrastructure put in place for the BEE in 1924.
It was the site of the Exhibition Station, on the loop line specially installed by the London & North Eastern Railway to bring special trains for exhibition visitors into the heart of the BEE site. Running alongside the loop line on the site was the Never-Stop Railway, with its own station. This was a unique form of rail transport, operated by a continuous screw system, installed at the BEE and bringing visitors to and from a station near the north entrance, close to Wembley Park Metropolitan Railway station, to the south of the BEE site near Adams Bridge.
The private "access road", the possible use of which for construction traffic has led to a number of objections, was the BEE's Chittagong Road, running between the Indian and Burma Pavilions. This lead to the King's Gate Bridge, commonly called "Old London Bridge" during the exhibition, which spanned both the L&NER and Never-Stop Railway lines, which carried visitors to the eastern end of the Exhibition Grounds.
If The Edge site is to be developed, its heritage needs to be remembered as part of that development, particularly both railway parts of the BEE heritage and "Old London Bridge", which was at the southern end of that site.
I would request that a condition along these lines be included in any consent given to this application:
'The developer shall liaise with Brent Museum and Archives and Wembley History Society, to prepare and pay for an illustrated local history panel commemorating the British Empire Exhibition history of the development site, including the Exhibition Station, Never-Stop Railway and King's Gate Bridge. This local history panel shall be suitably installed in an open space area within the site, where it can easily be viewed by members of the general public, prior to the occupation of the new buildings on the site.'
Here is a silent film from British Pathe of the Never-Stop Railway:
The Planning Committee considering this application is on Wednesday 13th November 6pm at the Conference Hall, Brent Civic Centre or view on-line HERE
29 comments:
The Planners at B~ent Council can accept "BRE Guidance is also clear on this matter, seeking for daylight availability to be maximised as far as possible" etc, however, this could still be prosecuted under Right to Light Legislation. It wouldn't be the first in recent years. I suspect that the developer, if prosecuted for Right of Light, could always sue B~ent Council.
'The proposed provision of 759 student bedrooms would therefore equate to 306 new homes in Brent (on the basis of 2.5: 1 ratio), which would positively contribute towards the boroughs wider housing targets.'
This quote from the Planning Officers Report has an all too familiar ring!
Although this is yet another application to build student accommodation in Wembley, which would be counted towards Brent's housing targets, it does not provide a single "real" home for the many existing Brent residents in need of a decent and genuinely affordable home.
Developers are taking advantage of the willingness of Brent's planners, and its leading Cabinet and Planning Committee members, to put numbers before the needs of the people of the borough.
So yet more accomodation for students who will be using all of our local services but neither they nor the building owners will pay any council tax!!! Surely this is unacceptable when all we ever hear from Brent Council is that they have no money and they need to increase our council tax - so us hard working local residents end up paying more for even more stretched services?
We don't even have any major universities or colleges in Brent so why do we need so much student accommodation here?
Brent Planning team and Planning Committee have little regard for transgressions of BRE daylight guidance - as was shown in the Officers' report, and the Committee's very cursory discussion, in relation to the proposal for Block E (especially) and Block C in the Kilburn Square expansion proposal.
For Block E, which would have been DISALLOWED by the BRE DAYLIGHT guidance, the supposed expert for the Applicant (Brent) spent three minutes talking nonsense about SUNLIGHT blockage (an evaluation which was not conducted). The Development Manager did point that out - but no-one from the Committee chose to follow up the grossly unprofessional behaviour
If I were a student away from home I wouldn't find it a particularly nice location to live and study - the site is an awful long way from Wembley Park Station. We already hear about lots of ASB around the existing tower blocks near Wembley Stadium. Do any buses run past the site? Will there be parking on site for parents to drop off students belongings at the start and end of courses? And TFL and road traffic in that area will surely be be horrendous on match days.
TfL were concerned. The 92, 206, 440 buses run nearby and there are plans to restore Fourth and Fifth Way to 2-way working. A new bus stop is also suggested plus pedestrian crossing.
https://glaplanningapps.commonplace.is/planningapps/23-1426
HISTORICAL NOTE:
Like the British Pathe newsreel that I included screenshots from in my articles on the BEE's Pageant of Empire, the newsreel film of the Never-Stop Railway above is wrongly labelled as being from 1925.
In fact, it was probably filmed in August 1924, and I know for sure that it was not 1925 because some of the people seen in the opening sequences were salesmen and dancers from the nearby Burma Pavilion (specially brought in for the filming to add some British Empire Exhibition context). I have other photographs of the same people from a 1924 album, and the Burmese did not return to Wembley when the exhibition reopened for a second season in 1925.
But please do have a look at the newsreel video. It does show what a remarkable piece of engineering design the Never-Stop Railway was.
The carriages were propelled by a continuous revolving screw, with the screw thread spaced so that the carriages moved quickly between stations, but slowed down to walking pace as they passed through the stations, so that passengers could comfortably walk onto and off of the moving carriages.
It genuinely was "Never-Stop", as at either end of the line, which ran from near Wembley Park Station in the north to near Adams Bridge in the south, there was a special mechanism which turned the carriages round from one screw thread onto the other, for the return journey.
You will understand why I want to see that piece of local history recorded as part of the story of the site, IF the planning application is approved.
This from the National Railway Museum blog is a video of what it says is the Southend-on-Sea prototype of the Never-Stop railway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPxpRs_iuIU
Website desciption here: https://blog.railwaymuseum.org.uk/the-never-stop-railway/
And when the buses don't turn up because of stadium events? Certainly wouldn't rely on them late night in this foreboding place.
Only the 206 goes to Wembley Park station and it's always packed or not running coz of events at the stadium - do we really want potentially vulnerable students relying on these erratic and already overcrowded bus services?
Re 206 bus. Brnet Council also cites this as the service for homeless people to travel from the Civic Centre to the new homelessness centre in Harlesden Road. https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2024/10/families-homelessness-service-to-be.html
De-populating conservation area zones are so far ahead as the focus of government hyper welfare state zoned resilience planning and investments. "A common future based on equity"?
Major public capital investments in new public transport movement infrastructure bridges/ foot tunnels (they are London happening), seem to be built for de-populating conservation areas of car- ownership. This proves how car-free housing tenanted tall building population mega growths zoned have zero voice and no as working peoples needs either to move around London directly and with ease.
The concept of traffic (all modes) congestion being needlessly grown never enters the decision-makers Conservation Areas First bubble think mentality.
Certainly wouldn't want my kids living at this location while studying - isolated in the middle of dodgy looking industrial units - nightmare area for traffic and parking ' would cab drivers collect and pick you up from this unwelcoming area especially late a night???
Where are all these students coming from?, the ones I speak to tell me that Student Accommodation in Wembley Park is very nice, but also very expensive, we can't afford it. We living in illegal HMO's sharing rooms and paying half the cost per month.
Bent Council got it all wrong, why not build proper houses and flats for all in temporary in Brent. No income from these places.
Rental bikes, cycle routes and cycle parking are needed for car-free towered in populations being growth zoned, but require more rather than less space between towers. While car-free housing to market developers means free to build upwards on even more space between buildings no care. It is become common 2024 to encounter rental bike pile ups where walking on vehicle road becomes the only option, bad growth planning.
I shall be objecting strongly to this on a number of grounds, including the very tight site access and therefore no reasonable way to carry out the development without major problems and also that BRENT can control the Bubble Experience near the site where daily illegal parking pirates operate
No one is going to cycle around here on a dark winter evening when it's pouring with rain!!!
Where are the limits of top down imposed growth zoned? Easy to see why locals are not engaged in co-design.
Brent Riverside Park is just east, but that is a future build on site. Cycle routes are good and being grown in Inner London, while Wembley car-free housing New City or South Kilburn car-free housing New Town decision-makers not a clue (no funds, no space, un care zoned)- as its about packing-in and then packing in more and more units, back to application 23/1426.
Students are people too. It’s either they live in purpose built blocks or they take real housing stock. Students contribute to the local economy, some of our Councillors have been students. What do you contribute?
Brent never has been a popular place for student accomodation so why is it needed now???
Would you really want your kids living in these tower blocks in the middle of a shabby run down industrial area???
Wherever they are studying they'd have a long journey to get there as we have no universities or major colleges in Brent and they'll be at the mercy of our poor local bus services, which regularly get badly delayed, cancelled or diverted especially on event days!!!
Let's hope the 'counvillors who were students' will recognise this as a very poor location to house young and potentially vulnerable students.
And BTW we have all been students 😡
When will these tenanted towers massive population growth zones be consulted and human engaged with with the same equity and safeguarding care as London's de-populating conservation areas are?
A bit-by-bit scheme like this one needs to be to Wembley Park residents justified along with how it fits into the final New Tenant City Plan.
Require all new social, health, green and transport infrastructure capital investments to be in population growth zones, rather than continue 'business as usual' policy investing heavily in de-population conservation areas where the YIMBY and anti-nanny state population (in times of record levels of taxation) lives.
A new reverse austerity policy, for this Glynn's Skip Hire projects surroundings opaque 'final plan'. Change the de-population zones get resources signal and invest instead in where human need is being massively growth zoned.
Come on B~ent, prioritise the Social Housing that is needed and will stop you going bankrupt as a borough through your lack of stock and unmanageable homeless numbers.
Why are you instead prioritising Student Accommodation that can never become housing in the real world due to unit size and BRE failures, or conversely High Rent. Why are you defending your ludicrous decisions by claiming you are obtaining Affordable Rental properties, the best of which are 60 or 80 percent of market rates? Which are obviously unaffordable to most Brent residents.
Bad decision after bad decision, here comes bankruptcy to Brent Council.
What a condescending comment "some of our Councillors have been students. What do you contribute?" from 'Anonymous11 November 2024 at 18:45' as if our councillors are any better than the rest of us???
We are all hard working residents who pay our council tax which pays the allowances of these councillors who are supposed to work to get the best deal for us local residents.
And surely students deserve better than this awful development in the middle of a run down trading estate????
South Kilburn Estate re-development started with a safeguarding resident board/ neighbourhood final plan 2004 (council unilaterally binned in 2016) yet has ended up as a market decides brownfield land zone, while Wembley Park started and continues as an industrial estate market decides brownfield land zone with expand into Metroland suburbs intentions. When will taxpayers living these high density new towns be given an equitable say and be allowed a conservation area style right to community?
On bankruptcy risk escalation into 2025, its difficult to see how Brent will not integrate or across borough boundary co-operate with its more social and economic successful neighbour boroughs south. Its always North Korea-South Korea. WHY, because bankruptcy is being baked-in? Back to desperate planning applications like 23/1426.
Post a Comment