Ealing Road blocks replacing bank and public house approved by Brent Planning Committee

 

Brent Planning Committee approved the plans for  245-249 and 253 Ealing Road at Wednesday's meeting. Two members voted against approval. There were representations  against the development from nearby residents and from ward councillor Anton Georgiou. The sound quality of the Coucil recording was very poor so Cllr Geogiou has let me have a copy of his representation:

I am here, once again, to be a voice for the residents in Alperton who are fed up with the intense development in this particular part of the ward. An area that has already had to endure years of construction works, that are still ongoing causing misery to the lives of local people. If any of you have visited recently – you will understand why.

 

As a ward Councillor, I often come to these meetings to voice opposition to the wrong type of development and am often attacked by the Chair and others for not understanding the pressures we face as a local authority with regards to our housing needs – these attacks are totally unwarranted.

 

It is important to recognise that the bulk of the development that has occurred to date has not and will not address the genuine and growing housing need in our community. It has though compounded existing issues in my ward whether that is a lack of infrastructure to deal with the increasing population, or the problems that present for existing residents and even our newer residents who are living in some of the new blocks that have been thrown up.

 

Firstly, I think that it is important to read the letter from my resident Alexandra, who is unable to be here today, which outlines her and her neighbours, objections to this development. The issues she highlights are all genuine planning considerations, loss of light, privacy and overlooking issues, the cumulative effect that ongoing development has had and will have on this area. I do believe that before you make a decision tonight you should read her letter and listen to the comments Mathew, another resident at 243 Ealing Road will make, who will also be speaking in opposition.

 

If I could get into the final details of this application, I think it’s important to recognise that whilst some affordable housing is provided, not all of it is the genuinely affordable provision we need. I continue to take issue with the Council’s view that shared ownership is an affordable housing tenure. It is not. 

 

Shared Ownership is a scam, and you only have to speak to the 1000’s of residents in Brent who have been trapped by the false pretence that Shared Ownership is affordable to see this. In the application it is proposed that there will be 10 Shared Ownership units. In my view that is enough of a reason to reject this version of the application entirely. 

 

Whilst I recognise the scheme proposes a 35% affordable housing offer, as an authority we should be pushing for much more from developers if we are serious about addressing our growing housing need. We do not need 56 more private units at market value, who are they for, who can afford them? It is time this Committee stopped saturating the local housing market with what we do not need.

 

Moving to existing issues in some of the new blocks in Alperton, I would like to ask this Committee if they follow up on the developments that have already been approved. If you had you would realise that most new residents are having to already contend with difficulties in new buildings, such as broken lifts, anti-social behaviour in communal spaces, lack of access to communal areas due to safety issues, significant construction issues, including with cladding, the list goes on.

 

My point is that this Committee is approving new developments without recognising that most of these developments from the offset have major, inherent issues with them. You are effectively allowing residents to move into the ward and into Brent who are then forced to cope with a myriad of problems in their new homes from day one. 

 

Is the Council holding the developers, housing associations and construction/ building companies to account – when they make commitments to us at this stage of the process? I am personally having to intervene when issues present in new blocks and it seems unbelievable, frankly a dereliction of the Council’s duty towards residents, that new developments keep being approved despite there being such flaws in new builds. Enough is enough.

 

I would finally like to turn to the financial contributions offered alongside this development.

 

The papers indicate a £45,00 towards a CPZ close to the site, I would like the Committee to tell me if they know where the existing CPZ is, and whether the mentioned extension will simply be imposed on residents. Before accepting more money for CPZ’s I would suggest the Council gets its act together in progressing schemes – they take too long to implement and in the meantime parking havoc ensues on local roads.

 

£7,000 for off street tree planting is welcome but are the Council committing maintenance and upkeep, rather than letting new trees die?

 

£10,000 for improvements to open spaces within the borough but not solely for the ward so again money generated in Alperton being spent elsewhere. This is not fair.

 

Another £150,000 for step free access at Alperton tube. Welcomed. But will it actually happen. TfL are good at sending out press releases on this, but how long will it take? Issues at the station are present now, local people cannot wait any longer.

 

CIL contribution again welcomed, but how much will actually be spent on infrastructure in my ward, to mitigate the impact of this development. Will the Council not be tempted, as it has been to date, to just grow the overall pot and resist spending it on immediate needs?

 

These financial sweeteners are simply not reason enough to justify even more development in Alperton.

 

I will close by saying, the proposed site used to house a public house and bank. Both great amenities, that local people want and need. The worrying trend of pubs closing down and being redeveloped into unaffordable housing will continue if you approve this application. I am sure many of you have fought to save such amenities in your wards. Why doesn’t Alperton deserve the same fight?

 

This Committee is making my ward a place for people to sleep in but not live. It is a concrete jungle, with little to no community vibe. Please pause and think again before agreeing to two more tower blocks here.

Cllr Tatler on Alperton development: 'Whilst some policies are not met, many are...'

Readers will recall the uproar over Brent Council's approval of a development at 245-253 Ealing Road despite it not meeting many planning guidelines. LINK

A local resident has submitted a question about this to Cllr Shama Tatler at Monday's Council Meeting. This is her anodyne response:
 

-->

Question from Hiran Patel to Councillor Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills: 

How were the proposals for development of the old HSBC bank and pub at 245- 245 and 253 Ealing Road approved, even though in my view they appear to break a number of safety regulations?

Response:

Planning applications of this size raise a number of complex, and often competing issues; in this case, involving the redevelopment of the site to provide two buildings, 9 and 10 storeys, for 92 new flats, a pub and a community use, it raised many issues – the appearance and build of the new buildings, the amount of residential provided, the mix of units, parking arrangements, etc. Officers and Committee members balance all of the different issues, including the planning objections, and make their decision against national, regional and local policies. These issues are often finely balanced, and opinions will often differ as to the merits of a particular case. 

Sometimes, one policy objective, (e.g. securing additional housing, or maintaining a public house on the site) might be given more weight than, for example, a reduced level of parking. In this case, the planning merits of the proposal were carefully considered. Officers made some pragmatic judgments around the proposal to achieve, on this allocated site in a housing zone, some 92 new units – a quarter of which are affordable – that works on the site. The committee report makes it clear that whilst some policies are not met, many are, and taking the scheme in its entirety, members felt that the benefits outweighed any harm. 

The question does not mention what safety regulations are broken here. However, it is a long established – and correct – principle, that planning does not duplicate requirements set out in other regulations and laws; these will be assessed by other bodies at the appropriate time, whether that be under Building Regulations or Health and Safety rules

Uproar over Brent's Alperton high rise approval, despite application “failing to meet requirements in 13 different matters”

Guest post by Alperton resident Andrew Linnie

Once again questions are being raised regarding the scrutiny under which Brent Council Planning Committee examines applications in the Alperton growth area, after the approval on August 9^th of a development at 245-253 Ealing Road. 

The site is formed of two small plots separated by a private laneway, one section a disused HSBC bank and the other formerly a pub called the Plough. As was the case with Minavil House in May, I was speaking on behalf of locals in opposition to the proposal. Neighbouring residents objected for a wide variety of reasons, and the planners at Brent Council conceded that the plans for the development, which will feature 92 flats in two towers over 9 and 10 stories, failed to meet a large number of planning regulations and considerations.

 

144 neighbouring windows failed light assessments, yet were deemed acceptable anyway. Some homes, between this scheme and the impact of 255 Ealing Road, are losing almost all of their direct sunlight. It was asked at the meeting of August 9^th what the point of such assessments is, if even the worst affected windows are to be deemed “acceptable given the context”. The effect of the buildings’ imposing height is exacerbated by the fact that their positioning fails to meet standards – none of the nearby existing buildings is 20m away as recommended by the London Plan, and one building, the currently-under-construction 255 Ealing Road, is less than 10m away from the proposed towers, failing to even meet the less stringent 10m separation guideline required elsewhere.

 

Residents also raised concerns over the legality of access through private land to the new development. According to the submitted plans, the emergency exit at the rear of Block A of the building opens directly into garden beds owned and maintained by residents of the 243 Ealing Road development, though the plans incorrectly show this as being paved. The residential and commercial refuse stores on the side of the same block open facing a privately owned laneway connecting Hatton and Ealing Roads. The access to these stores along the side of the building is less than 100cm wide at its narrowest point, narrower than Brent Council’s 1100 litre bins. 

Planners recommended in a supplementary report that access should be added into the refuse stores from the private laneway bisecting the site, ignoring the fact that it is privately owned and maintained by residents of the development next door. This was just one of many design flaws in the plan, including a wheelchair accessible unit included on the ninth floor of a building with just one lift, and the fact that, although obscured windows are planned for the rear of block A to avoid encroaching on privacy in neighbouring Braunston House, there are still balconies looking directly into nearby homes.

The mix of housing was another concern which failed tests. Just 16% of units are family sized, well short of the 25% requirement, and the affordable housing provision fails to meet expectations by some distance, at 26%. The density of surrounding schemes is 260 housing units/hectare, the maximum recommended in the London Plan. The scheme approved this week is 800 units/hectare. Planners said this is mitigated by the community space provided, a community space which less than a quarter of respondents in the public consultation said they wanted, and which is only 166sqm.

The current non-residential space provided on the site is 832sqm, so this “mitigation” actually represents a loss of over 80% plus added demand, while Alperton still has under half the open space of an average London ward. Saying that the density is similar to nearby developments ignores the fact that those developments included a significant provision of open space and retail units, which are still unused due to a lack of access.

 

This, like other developments nearby, is described as ‘car-free’ and provides 10 disabled spaces for accessible units, but no parking for the other 82 homes. The impact of this is estimated to be 66 additional cars parking in neighbouring streets, leading to an extension of the Controlled Parking Zone. There is a large provision for cycle parking, however the roads nearby are all marked red in the lowest category for cycle safety by TFL, and the only segregated cycle lane in the ward of Alperton, along the canal, is unlit and dangerous at night. 

While the buildings are close to Alperton Station, TFL say Alperton ward has one of the lowest average PTAL (Public Transport Access) scores in all of Brent. Hundreds of new homes have been approved in the area without any plan for improved services, notably the 251 units in the controversial 26 storey Minavil House tower, approved in May despite widespread opposition and a limit of 17 storeys in the area’s Masterplan. According to an independent transport assessor the figures presented at the council for the transport impact of Minavil House nearby were out by a factor of 8. Once again, there was much debate at planning committee level regarding the quality of transport services in the area, particularly with regard to the accessibility of Alperton Station and the lack of night services. The state of medical services in the area, already severely stretched, was also raised.

 

The Plough Pub, which has been closed for over a year, was open until developers purchased the site. Cllr Mary Daly pursued the planning officers on the issue of the pub’s upkeep, and the fact that it was not advertised for lease for the statutory 24 months after closure. The building has been allowed to decay since its closure, according to residents. 

Cllr Michael Maurice at one point of the meeting counted off 13 matters in which the proposal failed to meet guidelines and requirements.

The developers of the scheme failed to take into consideration the views put forward in the initial consultation. The design is seen by many as inappropriate for the site and lacks context, to the point that the area will become a patchwork of clashing styles. There are five unrelated styles of high rise architecture already approved or constructed, this adding yet another. The developer made no effort to gather views from residents until the week in the run up to the planning meeting, at which point it was much too late to make a difference. 42 addresses objected to the scheme, none responded in favour. Many also raised concerns as to the safety of residents during the construction phase, as the buildings occupy the entire site and will necessitate external building space, impacting on the ability of emergency services to access neighbouring homes.

 "Are our councillors and planners here to enforce the laws and guidelines for local people, 

or to make excuses and exceptions for private developers?”

When speaking at the meeting on behalf of objecting residents, I concluded by asking our representatives what their duty in the process is, in the their opinion: “This scheme fails light, massing, density, air, noise, access and other tests, yet is recommended for approval. Are our councillors and planners here to enforce the laws and guidelines for local people, or to make excuses and exceptions for private developers?”

The Planning Committee was split three votes to three, with Cllr Daly abstaining despite raising many concerns. At that point the chair, Cllr Agha, cast a deciding vote in favour of the development proceeding, and in doing so gave me an answer to my question. One wonders at this point just how many guidelines and regulations a developer would have to ignore for Brent Council Planning Committee to refuse them permission.