The green space on the roundabout at Pellat Road, Wembley
The up to 5 storeys block to be built on the green space
Brent Planning Officers recommend that Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday approve the building of an up to 5 storeys block of flats on a small green space in Wembley. The green space may be under-used at present but has aesthetic value as well as potential for development as a pocket park.
On building on green space the officers' report says:
Development on Green Space
6. The application would result in the loss of existing green space located on Pellatt Road. The land does not have any specific planning designations, and notably it is not designated open space which would otherwise be protected against development under London Plan Policy G4.
7. Objectors have raised concerns regarding the loss of this green space. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site currently provides some limited visual amenity, the site as it exists is effectively a deep road verge, with an element of tree and shrub planting. Although 0.1 hectares in size and currently comprising of mostly open grassland, owing to its shape and location adjacent to a road it does not readily lend itself to being used as an area for sitting out or recreation. Indeed, a larger recreation ground is located directlyopposite the application site. This is due to a combination of attributes, including its irregular shape, proximity to the road, lack of equipment for play or dwelling such as benches, lack of significant landscaping features and it significant inactive permitted to its north. It is also adjacent to a much more considerable open space, the GEC sports facility, protected by policy G4. There are pitches which are available for hire in this location, as well as outdoor gym facilities which are readily available at no extra charge for all residents’.
8. Policy DMP1 seeks to retain existing green infrastructure including open space, high amenity trees and landscape features, and providing appropriate additional or enhancements where possible. Where the loss of open space is proposed, this would be required to be balanced against the benefits of the proposal.
9. While the loss of the green space is acknowledged, the scheme would deliver 13 homes including a policy compliant level of family sized homes (3 family sized homes) for which there is an identified need in Brent. This is considered, on balance, to outweigh the harm. Furthermore, the proposal would enhance the biodiversity of the application site as discussed in further detail below. On balance, the loss of this green space is outweighed by the benefits of the scheme as a whole, including the delivery of three family sized homes for which there is an identified need in the borough.
One of the 12 objectors wrote on Brent Planning Portal:
My address has been listed in the alleged letter which is dated 08 August 2024; however, it has not been delivered and after liaising with some neighbours, it appears they have also not received it. Many residents and the locals affected by this proposal are still currently unaware that the planning application for this particular site has been submitted; therefore, I strongly suggest that you postpone any decisions until a time where all locals have been notified and had a fair opportunity to share their comments and opinions.
Pellatt Road is used as an entry/exit point for the cul-de-sac residential area and all properties located on Chamberlayne Avenue, Edison Drive, Crown Green Mews and Walton Gardens would be affected by the works and the building that's being proposed. In order for a fair assessment of the planning application where residents and locals are able to raise their concerns fairly, it would be advisable for the council to notify all residents of these four roads by delivering letters to all properties located here before reaching a decision as I can assure you that many of us are completely against this.
As Pellatt Road is used by vehicles of all four roads to enter/exit the area, it is essential to keep the road clear from all obstructions caused by the works and the green spaces creates a welcoming atmosphere that feels open and airy. It is also used by the GEC Industrial Estate frequently and during events taking place at the sports ground. Parking is already very limited and with the creation of the building, it will cause access issues by the increase of parked vehicles along Pellatt Road whilst raising some health and safety concerns. The nearby parking spaced specified by the developer seems unrealistic and exaggerated. The big building will be made on a junction of a small roundabout and will create a blind spot for motorists exiting Walton Gardens as their view will be obstructed.
We are against the idea of this building on the grounds of over-development of a small cul-de-sac residential area which is already highly populated. For the space and the surrounding area, the building is not suitable as it's simply too large, wrong colour/materials, it will create dark shadows specially to residents of Walton Gardens due to the positioning of the sun and increase the amount of noise for an area which is fairly quiet, make the whole place around the building feel claustrophobic for existing residents, invade privacy of nearby residents and will just look out of character as its too big for the space and where the land is located. It may even potentially effect the value of a number of properties throughout the area.
All other residential properties here have been made from brick of a particular colour so it all blends in along with these green open spaces leading to the sports ground. The material/colour of the five-storey building will not blend in with the nearby buildings and would not be pleasing to look at. It will create dark shadows around the building, especially to residents of Walton Gardens and where their garages are located.
It is clear that when Chamberlayne Avenue/Edison Drive properties were constructed, the previous landowner (Barratts) had purposely left small areas of the green spaces/land along Pellatt Road as it would have over-developed the area making it appear crowded. Even when Crown Green Mews was constructed, a separate road was made to take it off Pellatt Road which surely must've been done with valid reasoning. Pellatt Road also has a particular curvature and a large building along this part would just not make sense or be suitable.
Green spaces and open land around the borough have been reducing at great speed and while I appreciate the need for new residential buildings, but this cannot be implemented in all small green areas available and some must be conserved.
Furthermore; there are four large trees and shrubs which have been growing since the creation of Chamberlayne Avenue/Edison Drive when access to Walton Gardens was merged with Pellatt Road. At the time when residents of Walton Gardens agreed to create a new vehicle entry point off the roundabout to Pellatt Road, there were no plans for obstructing the junction of either sides of the green spaces or an agreement would not have been made. Prior to this there was a brick wall running throughout the length of Walton Gardens to separate Pellatt Road with trees/bushes going across and it should be kept that way. The four large trees should not be affected during the build and personally these types of green spaces should be encouraged with the addition to more trees and plants/shrubs for the benefit of the area, along with your residents of the borough.
Overall; the development of this building will cause unnecessary pollution and disturb many residents during the long development phase which more than likely will get delayed. This again is not reasonable in a cul-de-sac residential area at a time where many people are still working from home/studying and it will create an unpleasant atmosphere.
I would suggest that numerous site visits are carried out by knowledgeable council officers on a number of different days and times so they can make a fair assessment of the land in question and see the times when it gets busy whist taking into consideration the way the other buildings nearby look, the size/colour of them, the way locals will be impacted for a long duration of time and even after its built, it will not be great to look at for where it will be located.
In simple words, the creation of this building has no special benefits or advantages for the local residents and are really no plus points.
I understand the land was recently purchased by the owners as a way of generating their profits as the larger the building, the more properties it will have for sale and more service/lease charges will be earned but this cannot apply to all green spaces unless there is a demand by the residents who already reside around this particular area. We have failed to see any demand or any interest for this type of development which is not aimed for the improvement of the location or the benefit of the community.
I do hope that the council considers the opinions of their residents that will be affected daily by this large building looking out of character, however, if a building is what's going to take over this priceless land, then I strongly suggest that the plans are re-evaluate with the view of making it smaller to make it suitable for the space and the people who will be residing around it. The building should not be larger than two or three storeys and be made from a similar brick used on the surrounding buildings and of the same colour, the four large trees should be unharmed and a part of the area should still stay as open space for all to enjoy rather than focusing on balconies/terrace gardens and maximising revenue which is of no use to existing residents.
22 comments:
Watch out people if you have a grass verge or a roundabout near you, cos brent are coming for it.
Brent Council is not here for residents, so why are they here at all?
I don’t understand how other neighbouring councils like Ealing & Harrow have control over their development, whereas Brent appears to approve everything with no consideration for locals. It’s appears to be getting a bit out of control. We can add this to the list of things Brent is doing wrong:
X - overdevelopment, no consultations with locals
X - not cleaning streets, litter everywhere with fly tips occurring left, right and centre
X - poor quality pavements, literally crumbling and the high streets are being severely neglected, and infrastructure is severely lacking
The Alperton by election is going to be really a one to watch out for. If labour get in then you have to give it to them I guess, but Alperton is bearing the brunt of overdevelopment so hopefully residents vote with thought.
I am a committed Labour Party member. Brent Labour is synonymous with Brent Development "Mafia". Each Labour Councillor I know has little in Socialism but has big on ego. If there is scope for an enquiry to be instigated by a Local Givernment watchdog, on the conductbby Brent Council under Labour, how can such an enquiry be triggered?
Re Anon 21:12 Some Labour Councillors we know have:
no Socialism,
no empathy, and
massive egos,
but mostly, no idea.
They only care about their perceived position in their own social and ethnic group, they most definitely do not care about Brent residents.
As a truely committed Labour Party member and not a fair weather friend, i want to say this is exactly the kind of development Brent needs. We have a housing crisis and this will provide much-needed homes for local families while bringing in more council tax to fund vital services. The green space might look nice, but it is barely used and not a proper park, so it makes sense to build on it. The council is making the right call here. We need to back progress and put people before empty patches of grass.
Re Anon 18:01
Another YIMBY who thinks new buildings are for the benefit of Brent residents. Is it to be at Social Rent? No, then it is of no benefit to Brent residents, will the council tax help, very unlikely and it will be at such a low level, it will probably be a loss overall. Obviously this Labour party supporter has been listening to the Leader and Towerblock Tatler too long. Perhaps this supporter is Towerblock Teo, working hard for her employers. Finally, and taking the Planner's view, how can concreting green space possibly be a biodiversity gain? The London Borough of B~ent. Brent has a housing crisis, so we have to build for the entire UK and other countries.
There is a nice grassed area right in the middle of Wembley. On present trends it is big enough to build at least 5 x 30+ storey blocks with around 1000 new flats. So why does not Labour show how progressive they really are and build on the grass inside Wembley Stadium?
What nonsense, Labour gave Wembley away to quintain to build apartments, how much do the cost? Unaffordable for normal working Britons. The housing crises is an excuse to make more flats for the rich. This green agenda they swear by is also a gacade
What a Facade of a green agenda that they state they will promise by 2030. They have been planning to build on our green spaces whilst promising to adhere to a green agenda. it speaks volumes that this is all of facade and that money speaks louder than the climate agenda currently happening
No green space is safe...
"Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has said there are "no excuses" to not build the 1.5 million new homes Labour promised in its election manifesto.
The government has said it will meet the house-building target in England by 2029, before the next general election."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d528g755qo
How many investor owned homes are standing empty???
How many homes are being rented out as b&bs rather than being rented out to families long term???
How many 3/4 bedroom council houses currently have just one tenant rather than housing families???
What incentive is there for older homeowners in larger houses to downsize when there is a huge shortage of bungalows and also leasehold retirement flats are very expensive with high annual service charges which also makes them difficult to sell on???
Committed Labour Friend
It is very easy to build on any patch abusing the overwhelming majority and puppet-string control of selected Planning Committee Members. Much more exciting , though harder work, to secure development partnerships respecting local residents most, if not all, of whom are keen to help address the homeless crisis.
The arrogance of "...we as Councillors have duties and know best..." is insensitive, counter productive and in the long term lead to urban flash points "a la Chalkhill now demolished".
Would you evict people from their family 3/4 bed home if they’re the only one left living there
Single home owners are regularly expected to 'downsize' so could single council tenants not be asked to move to a smaller Council property provided it was in a suitable location?
There is such a scheme in Brent. However, in a case I know the rent of the new property offered was higher than the older and bigger property vacated.
I have long felt a sense of discomfort regarding how Brent Council manages essential issues like housing, litter, and the inadequate upkeep of pavements. These problems can genuinely endanger individuals who often have no choice but to walk on the road, putting them at risk of being struck by vehicles. It’s disheartening to see this situation, which casts a negative light on the Labour-led council and the Government, who seem to be tightening their control over public funds.
What can be done about this? Continuing to vote for Labour, as has been the trend since the Conservatives lost power in the mid-1990s, doesn’t seem to be the answer. While I don’t dwell on that past loss—since their governance was not much better in my view—the reality is that conditions in Brent have been steadily declining. Unfortunately, the outlook for the near future appears far from hopeful or encouraging.
This is such stupid idea. The Labour Leadership is always claiming that they are spending millions on creating new small open spaces and pocket parks in new develo0pments - presumably in recognition that open spaces are good for an area and the people who live there. If this is the case - what is the logic behind a Labour Policy to allow building on small pockets of grassed areas in other residential areas and deprive long established residents of something that is being provided at great expense elsewhere? There is a very BIG price to pay for all the over-development being imposed on Brent. We have already lost large number of front and back gardens and the attack is now on against almost every small piece of green space accessible to local people. There is a desperate need for new Leadership and new thinking in Brent before it is too late.
Well that's something that Brent Council could surely easily address when they are desperate for family homes?
Brent council couldn't address an envelope
How can Brent Council ask for higher rent on a smaller Council property???
I had reasonably high hopes for the Labour Leadership's commitment to investing taxpayer money in new developments like the Chalkhill Estate, which was supposed to meet the basic needs of the residents. Unfortunately, those hopes have been shattered for reasons I won't delve into at this moment. What I can say is that the funds raised and spent to improve the living conditions for residents have fallen short of expectations.
Indeed,
I would be genuinely astonished if anyone living in that estate were to express satisfaction with the outcome.
Unfortunately, the argument made by both the developers and some members of the planning committee was that this green space wasn't needed due to Preston Park and GEC Sports Ground in the nearby vicinity.
Post a Comment