The 'unused and forgotten piece of land'. Note how many others there are nearby.
A team of bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young architects parachuted into Brent Planning Committee earlier this week. They were brimming with enthusiasm for their plans for an 'unused and forgotten piece of land' on Pellat Road/Preston Road. Their role was to buy up small plots and design houses as part of the pursuit of 'densification' and had worked closely with Brent Council. They were proposing a three bedroom house in response to Brent's neeed for family homes.
'Stunning'
One of the architects claimed that anyone approaching the new build would exclaim, 'Wow, that's stunning!'
When a councillor said that it was a box, not in keeping with the area, in a prominent position. he was answered with a flood of architect speech: 'It comes down to personal taste, good design has factors in common, materiality. It is contemporary design done really well. We can't please everyone but we appreciate your views. This will be an award winning home.'
A Brent Planning Officer waded in: 'Modern design can sit comfortably alongside the traditional landscape. In this context the dwelling will not appear as an extension of125 Preston Road, if you look at the scale, massing, the building line, the materials altogether... There are shallow gaps to the front and side of house that breaks the massing and provides gaps between 125. Through the use of different materials, textures as well, that reinforce the dwelling as an individual dwelling rather than terracing.'
A senior Planning Officer continued, 'I would say it has a different vernacular than you would see in a individual 1930s housing. There is some variety in nearby streets. It is a contemporary design solution, high quality, and we don't consider it causes harm to the character and appearance of the wider street scene. It doesn't match the existing character or the existing architectural design, but it is not considered to cause harm.'
Poor Councillor Akram's eyes kept getting drawn back to the screen where an image of the house was displayed as the peroration continued - the gaps between the words and the image clearly troubled him. He didn't say this, but I am sure that in his mind he was saying, 'But it's still a bloody ugly box!'
Perhaps sensing the department's recommendation that the Committee should approve the application was in trouble, even more senior Planning Officer David Glover galloped in to emphasise that to meet targets Brent had to build 2,300 houses a year and needed a variety of traditional homes, student accommodation, co-living and high-rise. Some would have to be in suburban locations if Brent were to provide enough homes:
You can't fit in a home that looks exactly the same as what is already there, you need an element of change. Sometimes that might mean more height in the building, you've seen that in well situated sustainable sites. Other times you get smaller elements of land and you have to decide what do you do with that land to put a home in there. The proportions may not fit in with what was available in the 1920s and 30s, or even 1950s, 60s or 70s. But it's the land we've got in the borough and it's land we need to make more use of if we're going to ensure we've got enough homes. It is more complicated than just replicating what's there.
Optimising the use of the site is providing something which is beneficial to Brent. In ths case it is a new home and in this instance we are doing that.
The owner of 125 Preston Road had addressed the Committee at the beginning of the item and said that the development would alter the character of Pellat Road, was out of step with the area's Metroland character and would reduce his light and outlook, as a gateway to Wembley it was poor quality in-fill.
His view prevailed. In the final vote Cllr Saqib Butt voted for the proposal (despite his concern that the number of trees stated in conditions would leave no space for the family in the garden) and Cllr Mahmoud abstained. The other councillors voted against on the grounds that the design was not in character with the surrounding area.
This is perhaps just the first round in the battle to protect Metroland as eyes focus on all those characteristic grass verges.
5 comments:
Thanks for posting this. It’s a major issue.
What a ridiculous proposal. Good on the Councillors that rejected this. The architects should be named and shamed.
It was about time that the councillors on the Planning Committee have stood up for the residents of Brent. One wonders if it has anything to do with the forthcoming council election in May 2026. Both Akram and Butt's tenures as councillors could soon come to and end if the polls are correct. Then there's Begum, she's been deselected, so she can now do what is right for her residents. This council's administration is now on a bumpy ride to oblivion, just like the Labour Party nationally.
Due to Towerblock's influence and interference with the selection process of Labour Party council candidates, she has made the likelihood of Labour still controlling Brent from the next election extremely unlikely. It's interesting that she has stood down as a candidate, but then she must be aware that she probably wouldn't get re-elected anyway, especially as the Labour Party name is beginning to stink.
Thank you for this report, Martin.
At last! Planning Committee members standing up for local character, and against the recommendations of Planning Officers who are willing to justify failures to follow Brent's adopted planning policies with claims of "good design" which they say will not "cause harm" (even if everyone apart from they and the applicants can see that the proposals would cause great harm to the character of the location!).
This is a battle which is likely to resurface again soon, over a proposed modern office block, in place of a heritage building, in a Victorian character street in Kensal Green. I hope to be writing about that case again soon.
Typical Cllr Butt no respect for the history of the Borough. No respect for residents views. Soon he goes the better.
Post a Comment