The proposed building - it will not stand alone, look carefully to the right and you will see the grey shape of another planned development
This is a better view of the densification
A reminder of the Argenta House the block replaces
A revised plan for Argenta House, opposite Stonebridge Park Station, comes to Brent Planning Committee next week. Readers may remember the floods that resuted from the blocking of the Wembley Brook that runs through the site when groundworks took place. The pilings remain but there was pause.
The new application replaces a 26 storey 141 housing unit block with a part 27 storey, part 30 storey block 180 housing units plus commercial space.
The new application qualifies for fast-tracking as it claims to be 100% affordable. 88 social rent and 92 shared ownership. The latter's qualification as affordable is debated with the Brent Poverty Commission suggesting that it is not affordable for the people of Brent in need of housing.
The site's position between Wembley Brook and the River Brent was an issue previously when fears of flooding as a result of climate change induced severe heavy rains were raised. But the mitigations included in the application have been deemed acceptable.
The site outlined in red. The River Brent continues culverted alongside the North Circular
From the Flood Risk Assessment
The overall aim of a Flood Response Plan will be to ensure that the development will not place an additional burden on the emergency services. It is envisaged that the facilities management company for the development will be required to train and ensure that Flood Wardens are available when the buildings are occupied. Flood Wardens will be responsible for implementing the requirements of the Flood Response Plans.
The objective of the Flood Response Plan would be to assist people to leave the building before the onset of flooding but if timings did not allow, safe refuge can be found in the residential homes (starting at an elevation of 41.375 mAOD, over 15m above the design flood level). The operation is summarised below:
• On receipt of a Flood Warning all occupants are warned of the risk of flooding.
• On receipt of a Flood Warning all vulnerable occupants are identified and their needs assessed.
• Vulnerable occupants are assisted to leave the building first, within two hours, followed by all other occupants.
• A register of occupants in the building is compiled following the receipt of a Severe Flood Warning.
• At the onset of flooding all members of the community are asked to remain in the building.
• No return to the building will be permitted unless it is safe to do so.
Hmm.
The Wembley Brook will be re-routed but the information is confusing. Some illustrations show the brook beside the building and others beneath.
Another confusing aspect is the 'Play Nest':
Julie Hughes, Brent's Primcipal Tree Officer makes some pithy comments in her report:
I would like to see some new tree planting as part of the proposals to ensure that equivalent tree cover is provided to the trees and vegetation that has been removed to accommodate the development.
Proposed landscaping shows some indicative tree planting in the Landscape Proposal General Arrangement Plan, seems to show indicatively around 20 trees to be planted. This does not really seem to be much for such a large building and I would expect to see more details as to species etc... I would expect to see plans which show more of a strategic approach to soft landscaping.
In the DAS the ‘Play Nest’ appears to be very green in its approach, however I am not sure exactly what is intended here. Details need to be provided to demonstrate that it would work, noting that much of the planting (including the nest and brook terraces) would be predominantly in shade. It is also not clear which of these areas has public access. It looks like ‘The Nest’ does, but not the terraces? This needs to be very carefully considered as will potentially impact quite significantly on the visual amenity of the whole scheme.
The tree strategy at 5.16 of the DAS (22) appears to be poorly thought out. We need to be sure that the trees proposed will thrive at the site. I am not sure that Beech will thrive and I am not sure that multi-stemmed Beech or Hornbeam are readily available. Given the rather sparse numbers of proposed trees, I would rather see large-canopied trees planted wherever they can be accommodated, supplemented by other trees which will establish well in the urban environment.
Two illustrations to show Argenta House in the context of the overall Wembley Point Master Plan, reemembering of course that a tall development is due on the other side of the North Circular on the Uniys site and further into the future possible tall buildings on Conduit Way LINK :
37 comments:
Exactly how many of our Council Officers, Councillors and MPs would actually choose live in these nightmare high rise towers right next to the North Circular?
I do not expect any of them would really choose to live in these tower blocks.
https://glaplanningapps.commonplace.is/planningapps/25-1355
Fun fact: Following this labour administration, parts of Brent would have been irreversibly changed. I’ll let you decide whether it is for the good or not so good.
I’m in disbelief at this application. Can the public attend the committee meeting?
Cllr Kelcher loves them and thinks everyone but him should live in one
The developers know the buildings and the surrounding area will flood, but they don't care because they will make a fortune out of other's misfortune.
We have a housing emergency shouts Cllr Kelcher, how true that is! Because of him and people like Cllr Tatler, most of Brent's new builds are truly awful with short lifespans and therefore high future maintenance costs/charges. No one involved with this application cares about flooding, only profits for developers and perhaps their friends in the Labour YIMBY caucus.
Yes. The meeting is on Wednedsay 12th 6pm in the Conference Hall at Brent Civic Centre. You can also watch online: https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=115
As it is claimed that the proposed homes will all be "affordable", the developer must be planning to sell them off to a registered provider of social housing. Brent Council?
Brent 's planning policies say that at least 70 percent of the affordable housing offer in large developments must be for genuinely affordable rents, but here they are proposing more than half as Shared Ownership, which as we have previously shown on "Wembley Matters" is not affordable for local people, is not "ownership, and is a scam that does not benefit most of the people who are tempted to enter into such "secure tenancies".
I like the play nest, the lucky kids will have such fun watching the turds floating past.
Towerblocks are environmentally friendly and solve a housing problem.
Opaque planning of the Great West tenanted car-free towers city of which this is one tiny fragment/ bite. If the Great West City plan was made transparent to the public, then the welfare state/ social/ green/ movement infrastructure would all need to be visualised by our Labour Lords for these hundreds of towers.
I asked a developer regarding future flooding damages, they said it will all be covered by service charges. So yes for the Feudal Lords its a great money spinner and all good regarding climate denial in this tenanted City.
What utter ........
Only very desperate people would choose to live in these rabbit hutches in the sky, sit on balconies breathing in all the carbon monoxide from one of the most polluted roads in the country that is the North Circular.
Good point, Anonymous (10 November at 10:42).
That may be the reason why the developer is now applying to have their proposals as 100 percent supposedly affordable housing.
If the scheme goes ahead, and is built, the developer will not have the bother of trying to sell 'these rabbit hutches' to individual private buyers. They will have an agreement on place, before they spend any more money on the scheme, to sell the finished building to a "registered provider of social housing".
As Housing Associations generally don't have the money to take on projects like this at the moment, the most likely candidate is Brent Council! They would hope to get some of the cost from a Mayor of London "Affordable Homes" scheme, but would have to borrow the rest. But at least it would allow them to claim that they were providing 180 new affordable homes, perhaps even before next May's local elections (although the actual homes would not be available until years in the future)!
If the Council did purchase this development, they would offer 'these rabbit hutches ' to people on its waiting list (either accept a flat here, or you are off the list, or at least to the back of it again) at London Affordable Rent level, or to homeless families at Local Housing Allowance rent level.
Both of these "affordable rents" do not restrict the amount of service charges which can be added on top of them, so if there were extra costs down the line, from shoddy building work or repairing flood damage, those would fall on the Council tenants (or "Shared Ownership" leaseholders, who would have to pay 100 percent of their share, even though they only owned 25 percent).
Will planning consent be given, and will the future play out as I've predicted? Time will tell!
Mass inward migration to serve the low wage economy and young local families with no other home choice.
Why not a new Stonebridge station here, enclosed and designed to the Mega City scale that is required?
Wrong place/ wrong people/ wrong borough.....
The 'play nest' will not be maintained in such a permanent development zone.
Lots of countries have tower blocks, why are you being precious?
Anon 10:20
It’s not rocket science so i’ll explain simply. When lots of people live in one building, it reduces the amount of land we use and helps protect green spaces. It’s also much more efficient to heat and power one tall building than dozens of separate houses. People in tower blocks tend to rely more on public transport, walking, or cycling because everything is closer together, which cuts carbon emissions. And with good insulation, shared walls, and modern building standards, high-rise living can use far less energy per person. So while they sometimes get a bad reputation, tower blocks can be one of the greener ways for cities to grow.
Living next to a tube : railway station is desireable
Second image up. Stonebridge towers will be heading off to join with Wembley Park Towers. Expect a lack of street care in the condemned/ brownfield low rise suburbs visualised between and the incremental removal of existing welfare state neighbourhood services. Its car-free tenants to be, so the worse the better no neighbourhood becomes the opaque political plan.
Welcome to the Great West Tenanted Towers City!
Progressive would be if the Greens started now in 2025 to talk with clear policy proposals about what life quality will be in these car-free tenanted towers zones of mass immigration and young first home families starting out. How will the Feudal Tower Lords be moderated and forced to care about lives in what are Britain's most densely populated zones?
There are political alternatives to blanket un care, growth of inequalities and climate denial harshly zoned?
Anon 10 November 2025 at 13:54 Have you ever lived in a Tower Block. Have you got the evidence to support the rest of your surmations?
In response to Philip Grants comment, I wholeheartedly agree, non of these so called new developments are "Affordable" that's why when I took one, even though I am in full time employment being paid in excess of the minimum wage by a few pounds, I am still in receipt of Universal credit to help with my housing/rent payments, I have one child and do not require childcare. How is it "Affordable" to still rely on the local authority to assist with housing costs.
The towers zones difference when compared to other leading developed nations is that the UK state is clearly not going for social integration highest quality new tower neighbourhoods with life support amenities to scale and a fully transparent final plan model.
Towering zones especially in Brent are about othering and not integrating, in effect basic/bare life for Britain's precarious 'guest' workers and first home families to be tower lorded over. That's the sad regressive politics of towering to date.
Neighbourhood denial
Honestly, the tower of diversity is exactly the kind of future Britain should be leaning into. High density, car free, mixed community living is not a threat. It is one of the first real chances we have to build neighbourhoods around people rather than around traffic and speculation.
Density is not the problem. Unregulated inequality is the problem.
Car free does not mean joyless. It means safer streets for children, cleaner air for everyone, quieter nights, more space for gardens and meeting places and daily life that is actually lived with others. These are living breathing communities saving the environment by going upwards and not across
To Anonymous10 November 2025 at 13:54 - what about all the pollution caused by the construction of these tower blocks...
"The construction of tower blocks causes significant pollution across various categories, including air, water, noise, and soil pollution, both during the building phase and throughout the building's operational lifespan. The primary impacts stem from heavy machinery, material production (especially concrete and steel), and site activities.
Types of Pollution Caused by Tower Block Construction:
Air Pollution Air pollution is a major concern, with construction responsible for a significant percentage of particulate matter (PM) emissions in urban areas (over 30% of large particle pollution in London).
Particulate Matter (Dust): Demolition, land clearing, and general site activities generate large amounts of dust from cement, concrete, silica, and wood. These fine particles (PM10 and PM2.5) can penetrate deep into the lungs and cause respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
Gaseous Emissions: Diesel engines powering heavy machinery (excavators, cranes, dumpers) release greenhouse gases and pollutants such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and hydrocarbons.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
Paints, glues, adhesives, and solvents used on site emit noxious vapours and VOCs, which affect air quality and human health.
Embodied Carbon: The production of materials, especially cement (a key ingredient in concrete) is a massive source of global \(\text{CO}_{2}\) emissions (around 8% globally).
High-rise buildings require more structure to support their height, significantly increasing their embodied carbon footprint.
Water Pollution:
Construction activities can severely contaminate local water bodies.
Sediment Runoff: Land clearing and excavation expose bare soil, which can be washed into drains, rivers, and lakes by rain, causing silt pollution. This can harm aquatic life, destroy habitats, and disrupt ecosystems.
Chemical and Fuel Spills: Improper handling and storage of diesel, oil, paint, solvents, and other hazardous chemicals can lead to accidental spills that contaminate surface water and groundwater, posing health risks if ingested.
Noise and Vibration Pollution:
The operation of heavy machinery, drilling, excavation, and general site traffic generates high levels of noise and vibration.
Impact: This pollution disrupts the daily lives of nearby residents, causing stress, sleep disturbances, and high blood pressure. It can also scare away local wildlife and disrupt their natural behaviors.
Soil and Land Pollution:
Construction projects can degrade soil quality and contaminate land.
Contamination: Chemical spills and improper waste disposal (e.g., concrete, metals, plastics) can introduce contaminants into the ground.
Erosion and Compaction: Excavation and the use of heavy machinery compact the soil and lead to erosion, which degrades the land's structure and ability to retain water.
Waste Generation: Construction produces significant amounts of waste, much of which goes to landfills if not properly managed and recycled.
Post-Construction Effects
Tower blocks also have lasting environmental impacts after construction.
Altered Aerodynamics: High-rise buildings change local wind patterns, which can create "dead zones" of stagnant air where pollutants concentrate at pedestrian level or increase wind speeds at the base.
Urban Heat Islands: The materials and design of tall, dense buildings contribute to the urban heat island effect, accumulating heat and affecting local temperature conditions.
"The latest estimates show that construction is responsible for about 18% of the large particle pollution in the UK and this share is growing. In London it is more than 30%."
The Guardian https://share.google/Lr8cisRZdhlMUp74h
The construction industry is one of the biggest in the UK, generating around 62% of the country’s total waste each year. This includes waste from construction, demolition, and excavation, which often involves heavy, bulky materials
Construction Waste Statistics & Facts (UPDATED 2025) https://share.google/LLMXilHv84Rx50z4l
Add to that the fly-tipping innovate to generate ever more brownfield meanwhiles/sites in Brent
Car free "means safer streets for children, cleaner air for everyone, quieter nights, more space for gardens and meeting places and daily life" - right next to hugely busy North Circular Road, how exactly does that work?
Just Space Group: https://justspace.org.uk/
There is now a community action group called Just Space that are campaigning to restrict the growth of so many high rise developments which has been cropping up across Greater London in recent years as follows here: https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=e08e7387df440137dfa4d38c28ef22cddfe01c29893d0781a305bd7830e2a4f5JmltdHM9MTc2Mjk5MjAwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=1c6032d4-626e-6715-29e5-2721638e6661&psq=Just+Space+Manifesto&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9qdXN0c3BhY2Uub3JnLnVrL3dwLWNvbnRlbnQvdXBsb2Fkcy8yMDI0LzA0L2p1c3Qtc3BhY2UtMjAyNC1tYW5pZmVzdG8tZmluYWwucGRm
asthma city
Post a Comment