The crowded Atlip access road car park yesterday - 885 homes to come on the site
The application to build 885 housing units on the Atlip Centre site, Alperton, was approved yesterday as expected, despite opposition. The development will consist of 2, 8,10, 20, 23 and 29 storey buildings on a relatively small site. Planning officers recommended approval.
Unusually a long-time Alperton resident spoke in support describing the run-down nature of the site and the opportunities provided by a creative zone as well as the need for housing. Newly elected Liberal Democrat councillor Charlie Clinton spoke against with concerns about over-crowding of the area due to the density of the proposal and concern that assumptions about a car-free development were not realistic given the size of the project in terms of housing and commercial units.
There was a long discussion on the Committee with issues around failure to meet affordable housing targets and the affect of loss of daylight to neighbouring properties (deemed tolerable by planning officers as weighed against the benefits of the scheme), and of course parking - quite a issue on Ealing Road at the best of times.
There was concern about the loss of the Clay Oven Banqueting Hall with the developer claiming that there was no interest in continuing the facility from present and potential businesses. They conceded that there was a possibility of someone applying to run a similar business from one of the commercial units or facilities at the proposed community centre.
The loss of the current gym on the site was also a concern and there was discussion about using revenue from the development for the provision of an outdoor gym.
Assurances were sought that the co-living units would not be used as student accommodation. Comparisons were made with HMOs but the developer insisted that they were an alternative to one bedroomed flats for young people and had additional shared facilities compared with HMOs. They would be professionally run.
Eventually the application was approved unanimously by the Committee.
UPDATE: The application now goes to the GLA for Stage 2 consideration and residents can make a comment on their website. Register for updates and to make a comment here HERE.
At the beginning of the meeting the controversial Randall Avenue, Dollis Hill, application was withdrawn from the agenda on officers' recommendation as discrepancies in the drawings for the development had been found. I understand that legal issues were also raised. The decision was made against the background of changes in planning staff dealing with the application.
35 comments:
This is another massive overdevelopment of a site in Alperton.
Once again concerns of local residents were ignored with overlooking, loss of sunlight, loss of car parking, affordable quantity not meeting targets etc brushed aside as not material consideration.
There was reference to a Community Centre and business units - with NO car parking. The 885 units will have NO parking for visitors or deliveries. The so called 'car free' developments are fiction as we all know. But the out of touch Planning Committee are conned to approve these type of unrealistic developments with no regard for the long term impact on existing residents and the local area.
The picture published by Martin tells the true story and the likely future impact. There is a popular and active church on the corner of Atlip Road. Yesterday there was a funeral and I took the photo - the car park has 70 spaces - it was full. The Atlip access road was full, the available smaller car parks on the other side (not shown in picture) were full. The Hearse and other cars were parked on the Ealing Road frontage taking up one lane.
Ealing Road is a busy residential and shopping areas. People come to buy in bulk and many come long distances by car. There has been demand for car parking for the Ealing Road area for years.
Although built for the Clay Oven banqueting space the car parking was available to others including disabled residents living in the existing lower rise blocks and local businesses. Once removed those displaced will be hunting spaces in the local residential areas.
The Councillors making these short sighted and irresponsible decisions will be long gone - BUT local residents of Alperton will have to put up with the traffic congestion and parking problems caused for years to come.
I requested to speak on behalf Councillor Hannah Matin (who was away) and was originally told I could BUT was then denied the right to do so by the Labour Chair of the Planning Committee.
The Planning Committee and Officers supposedly also had a site meeting a few days earlier - BUT did not inform or invite the Alperton Councillors or residents. Hardly surprising then that they make decisions in total ignorance of the reality on ground.
The Brent Planning Committee serves developers very well BUT it serves the people of Brent appallingly.
I bet they didn't discuss the water supply shortage to Alperton and Wembley Park, apparently there is a prediction of over 5,000 homes having low water pressure and 3,000 having no water at times!! Add another 885 and it gets even worse. Did no one mention it at the meeting? Affinity Water are very aware of it and are currently digging up the A404 for 4 months. Next it will be Sudbury's turn along the Harrow Road. Presumably they have told the planners who took it into account and told the committee? It's all readily available information from Affinity Water.
No, Thames Water was brought up though. Councillor raised the issue about capacity which was an issue with a much smaller application on the same site previously according to Thames Water. He asked why Thames now thought there were no issues with this application. Response was a bit vague to do with capacity improvements that had been made. Best to check recording of meeting when it is up on the Brent Council website.
Thames Water are the suppliers of the sewage and surface water drainage infrastructure, Affinity are the suppliers of water to the area. Did they actually have a conversation / consultation with Affinity?
The Officer Report to the Committee does not mention Affinity Water anywhere, the only mention is of Water consumption limits. This Planning Application is a prime subject for Judicial Review, however, who has the money to fund it, and anyway, it would come straight back again and be recommended by Officers with some pathetic excuse such as "in our opinion they don't need water or light" and then it will be passed by the Committee without a second thought. It makes me agree with the oft use description of our Borough on this and other blogs of B~ent, Bent, Dystopian Brent, what truisms they are.
Yes I agree.
It would be good to have a crowdfunding campaign to take this planning application to Judicial Review.
https://alperton.org/2025/02/18/petition-against-atlip-road-development/
https://alperton.org/2025/02/18/petition-against-atlip-road-development/
sham - time to move out
Surely it has to stop, do we have to move on and allow this intentional non consultation to pass with no challenge? Why does Brent have to solve the UKs Private Rent shortage for foreign investors?
Edited comment: It won’t come as a surprise if Sainsbury’s wants to redevelop their site too. That are is a very polluted spot of London, has issues with not having enough clean water, not enough services such as schools, nurseries, GPs. There is no need for such density, they are pushing hard for maximum of gain.
Sainsbury's ARE going to develop their site - we are waiting to hear about the public consultation!!!
Yes, redeveloping supermarkets to build flats above is becoming quite common. 'Tesco Towers' in Harrow is anther example and Waitrose in West Ealing. Brent's longer term plans have the whole corner of Bridge Road/Forty Avenue as potential redevelopment site with flats with ASDA at ground floor level.
Here is the reference from Brent Local Plan (Para 5.1.24) ASDA, together with the Kwik Fit/
The Torch site has potential to be
redeveloped to provide a significant
number of dwellings whilst retaining
a supermarket. This is due to its size,
excellent public transport links and
proximity to local shops and services.
Old style supermarkets are a huge waste of land and most should be redeveloped more efficiently.
These people don't care about residents health and wellbeing. All they care about is money. Shame!
Having watched the Planning Committee Webcast, I was appalled by Cllr Kelcher bullying and patronising of the second speaker. He's comments were not acceptable and do not fit the Rules in Public Office, he should be ashamed and apologise. This is not the first occasion Cllr Kelcher has bullied and patronised objectors. He should not be allowed to continue as Chair and needs training to kerb his ways.
I think we would all agree that a low rise development of Social Housing would help substantially more with Brent's housing waiting list. Loads more unaffordable properties is not the answer.
Sainsbury in Kenton is on the Brent list to redevelop into flats with the supermarket and parking below. Waitrose in South Harrow has already lost half the car park to redevelopments.
Just Space Group: https://justspace.org.uk/
Wembley Area Action Plan: https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/12978016/WAAP%20adopted%20version.pdf
https://planning.org.uk/app/129/DCAPR_170887
The people of Brent seem unaware that the previously unofficial accelptable height limit for buildings was 21 that has now been increased to 29. This change is completely baffling and unacceptable as planning committee members in the past. The real implication of this policy shift is that no four-bedroom or three-bedroom "houses" will be built on ground level, which means that family life as we know it will no longer be able to thrive.
SAC
And as for Cllr Dixon!!!!
In what year was the first height given? Could it be time and technology has moved on since to allow for higher? Is that really such a stretch to understand? If you look around the world this isn’t exactly an outlier
The original heights agreed under the consulted Alperton plan around 2006 were actually for maximum 12 storey buildings. That is why the tallest building on the Atlip site next to the Canal is 12 storeys and all the others towards Ealing Road are much smaller. This created an acceptable development with wide access towards the canal and some small green areas and some parking for residents, visitors and deliveries. It was only when Labour came in after the 2010 local elections that the madness started with massive Tower Blocks imposed on the area without any consideration of the impact on existing residents. A very small proportion of the expensive flats being built in Alperton are affordable and within reach of local people.
19 years ago then, of course things have progressed since
What has progressed??? The greed of developers to build as many hugely unaffordable flats as possible on a smaller footprint???
What definately hasn't progressed is the ability of the fire service to deal with fires in these huge high rise tower blocks.
Look at the recent fire in a low rise 4 storey block in Wembley Central, it spread so quickly with twenty fire engines and 125 firefighters in attendance - how many firefighters would have risk their lives attending a fire in a 29 storey block???
Our step nephew is still traumatised after taking part in search and rescue work after the Grenfel Tower fire - have we learnt nothing from that devastating event?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/north-london-neighbourhood-885-flats-145930948.html?
Sounds to me like a problem with the fire brigade. Why don’t you ask them instead of asking here?? The problem with Grenfell wasn’t the height let’s be real.
https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/green-light-for-885-homes-in-wembley/5135050.article
Problem with the fire brigade are you serious?
Don't think more people could have escaped from Grenfel if it hadn't been so high rise??? People were trapped on the upper floors - imagine the terror they experienced???
Yet developers keep building higher 😞
How do they manage elsewhere in the world
Post a Comment