'Blooming marvellous' gifts for Wembley Central & Alperton residents

 

Sorting the plants

From WCRA 

Wembley Central and Alperton Residents’ Association’s  'Blossom' initiative began during the first Covid19 lockdown in April 2020 when they were able to gift bedding plants to isolating residents in Wembley Central and Alperton.    

 

More than 6,800 plants were distributed, the idea supported by local residents, the Alperton Community Group and a number of local businesses in Wembley. 

  

In 2021 WCARA have hugely increased their efforts, securing more donations from even more local businesses, organisations and residents, they ordered over 12,000 plants which WCARA members and volunteers sorted, packed into bags and delivered to homes in Wembley Central and Alperton.

The aim of 'Blossom' is purely to bring a smile and happiness to residents in the local area, especially as the past year been so hard for many in the Wembley Central and Alperton communities.      WCARA hope this gift of plants will bring solace and help neighbours as life gets back to normal - whether you have a tiny balcony, small garden or even a larger plot it's great to green up your environment and encourage nature, as we all know gardens have been so important for our health in recent times.

WCARA would like to thank all their supporters and sponsors who have helped to make 'Blossom' possible so far - it's great to see such support for our local community.

 

Edwards Yard – a name that’s part of Alperton’s heritage: let's retain it

Guest post by Philip Grant

 

One of the large schemes approved at Brent’s Planning Committee meeting in February 2021 was for a mixed-use redevelopment of the Abbey Manufacturing Estate and Edwards Yard, at Mount Pleasant in Alperton. I’ve since found out how Edwards Yard got its name. This is the story behind it, and the reason why that name should be retained in the new development.

 

1.   Aerial impression of the Abbey Estate development. (From application 20/3156 drawings, with notes added)

 

My quest began when I was seeking information about another Alperton business, Cousland & Browne, to help answer a local history query I’d received. They had been timber merchants, beside the canal. One of the answers I received was from Diane, whose father used to deliver timber for them. She remembered, along with her mother, going in the lorry with him all the way to Saundersfoot in Wales, on one of those trips in the late 1950s.

 

2.   Cousland & Browne advert. (From Curley’s Directory of Wembley. 1956)

 

The Paddington branch of the Grand Junction (now Grand Union) Canal opened in 1801. It cut its way through the village of Alperton, and helped bring lots of trade and small canal side industries to this mainly rural part of Middlesex. Bricks, gravel and hay were sent into London, while rubbish and other waste products were brought out to be processed. The boiling of food waste to feed the pigs at three farms, and the manufacture of oil and manure from fish refuse meant that Alperton had a smelly reputation in late Victorian times! 

 

3.   A busy canal wharf at Alperton, 1923. (From Geoffrey Hewlett’s “Wembley”)

 

Diane’s grandfather, John William Edwards, was born in Wembley in 1869. By the early 1900s he was employed as the farm bailiff at Clyde Vale Farm. He lived in Alperton Cottage, at the eastern end of Honeypot Lane (later renamed Mount Pleasant), where the rear entrance to Lyon Park School is now. He and his wife had a number of children, including Diane’s father, David, who was born in the cottage in 1909.

 

By the early 1920s, John Edwards was trading as a haulage contractor. His sons Albert, Henry and David joined him in what became the family business of J. Edwards & Sons. At first it was horse-drawn carts, and as well as general haulage the jobs they took on included delivering materials to Wembley Park, for construction of the Empire Stadium and some of the British Empire Exhibition buildings.

4.  J. Edwards & Sons horse and cart, 1920s.

 

In 1923, the sports equipment manufacturers, Charles Webber & Co, had purchased a 5-acre site in Honeypot Lane, formerly the Alperton Park brickfields. The following year they sold a plot of land to John Edwards, as he needed a larger base for his business. The rest of the Webber’s land became the Abbey Trading Estate.

 

Edwards built a house, with stables for 11 horses in a yard behind it, in 1925. “Meadow View”, soon to be addressed as 122 Mount Pleasant, was beside a row of workers’ cottages built by Alperton’s Victorian entrepreneur, Henry Haynes. In 1931, John Edwards bought more land behind the cottages, creating the site which has been known as Edwards Yard ever since. 

 

5.   John with one of his horses at Edwards Yard, 1930s.

 

The extra land was used to build garages for the firm’s growing number of lorries. The family home, where John Edwards lived for the rest of his life, was also where the business was run from. A sign on the front of the house read:

 

Meadow View
J Edwards & Sons
Motor & Horse Transport Contractors
Phone Wembley 1922

6.   John Edwards with one of his sons, sitting on the running board of a lorry, 1930s.

 

The rapid expansion of suburban estate building in Wembley and surrounding areas, from the mid-1920s onwards, meant that J Edwards & Sons were rarely short of work. John Edwards finally retired from the business in 1943, gifting it and the yard to his three sons. After the end of the war their lorries were busy, both with general haulage work and clearing of bomb-damaged sites.

 

Henry Edwards retired from the partnership in 1954. As not all of the yard was still needed, some of the garage buildings were rented to other small businesses. David was left running the business by himself once Albert retired in 1963. He kept on transporting goods and clearing rubbish from local factories, with several lorries and a couple of employed drivers, until he retired in 1967 and the haulage business ceased. After that, all of Edwards Yard was let out to small businesses, many of which operated from there for decades.

 

7.   An artist’s view of the Abbey Estate development, with the potential new Edwards Yard on the left.
(From planning application 20/3156 drawings)

 

The yard stayed in the ownership of the Edwards family until it was finally sold to Zedhomes Limited in 2019. Now Diane has asked the developer to retain the Edwards name as part of the new development. A block of four houses is planned to be built on the site of the old yard. Edwards Yard would be an ideal name for these, to remember a place that has been a part of Alperton’s heritage for nearly 100 years!

Philip Grant (with thanks to Diane for the information and Edwards family photos).

The onward march of the high rises to continue as 12 are considered at Brent Planning Committee tomorrow

 

The Alperton bus garage develpment next to Alperton station (21, 25, and 28 storeys)

 

 

 The Alperton blocks from Bridgewater Road and the station

 

 The dotted white outline shows the block from the canal

The proposed blocks on the Access Storage site on First Way, Wembley Park

The block heights are up to 24 storeys

The blocks in the stadium context

Two planning applications are coming back to Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday  at 4pm (VIEW HERE) that together comprise 12 tower blocks with the tallest at 28 storeys at Alperton bus station and the tallest at First Way Wembley 25 storeys. For comparison the tallest of the Wembley 'Twin Towers' on the corner of Park Lane and Wembley High Road is 26 storeys.

26 storeys

 Both schemes are recommended for approval by Brent Planning officers. The proposed housing on the Alperton Bus Garage  site is distributed as follows:

The controversy continues over shared ownership and the amount is likely to feature in tomorrow's discussion as well as shortfall in amenity space.  After extensive discussion of the issues Planning Officer conclude:

Following the above discussion, officers consider that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions.

Whilst the provision of external amenity space falls short of Brent's policy standard, this is considered to be adequately compensated for by the overall quality of the amenity space provided and by the site’s close proximity to One Tree Hill Recreation Ground, to which a financial contribution would be secured.

Whilst the GLA consider the proposal would cause harm to the setting of Alperton Station, such harm is less than substantial, and the benefits of the scheme clearly outweigh the harm. The proposal is considered to respond well to the proposed Growth Area site allocation including the aimof developing an enterprise hub and co-locating new industrial floorspace with residential development in this highly accessible location in the centre of Alperton

The Access Storage First Way, Wembley development has the following residential pattern:

The total affordable at 10% is very low and Discount Market Rent is 80% of market rent so not affordable to most Brent residents. There are also issue of loss of daylight to neighbouring properties and lack of amenity space. Failure to meet

Planning officers conclude:

Following the above discussion, officers consider that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

 

 The development would provide a suitable and attractive built addition to the Wembley Park growth area in line with local policy allocation objectives, creating a mixed-use development with 600 BTR homes and replacement office and self-storage floorspace. At between 12 and 24 storeys, the proposed heights are appropriate in this location, and the transition to scale and massing away from the Stadium is considered to respect the aims of the WAAP and Local Plan policies. Furthermore, there would be non detrimental impact to key strategic views to Wembley Stadium arch.

 

There would be some limited level of harm to the daylight and sunlight enjoyed at adjoining properties, however this is considered minimal given the high-density urban context. The provision of a significant quantum of replacement employment floorspace and a high number of new homes, with significantly more of those homes being secured as affordable units than the Council would deem viable is a significant planning benefit that carries significant weight.

 

Whilst the scheme does fall short on external amenity space standards set out in Policy DMP19, the overall quality of accommodation is considered to be good and must be considered against the wider benefits of the scheme including affordable housing, significantly improved public realm and the ability to widen South Way to incorporate two-way working. As such, the conflict with adopted and emerging policy is limited and would be outweighed by the wider benefits of the mixed-use re-development, including there-provision of a high-quality employment floorspace, and an adequate level of affordable housing.

 

Following the above discussion, and weighing up all aspects of the proposal, officers consider that the proposal should be approved subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement.

 

 The Alperton developers will pay £13,450,282 in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and  developers of First Way, Wembley £16,217,198

 

Another Alperton development approved despite huge misgivings over height, amount of truly affordable housing and impact on neighbouring residents

 

 Existing store

The site

New development heights cross-section with Burns Road

Some familiar themes emerged at this week's Planning Committee discussion about the planning application for the Currys-PC World site in Alperton Lane off Ealing Road.  The site is away from the main high rises at the Grand Union Canal development and, as can be seen from the section drawing above, will dwarf the two storey terraced houses of Burns Road and Cromwell Road.

 

Apart from the out of local character nature of the development and the impact on the 'right to light' of residents, parking (or lack of it),  the amount of truly affordable housing, the height of the building exceeding local guidance, the affordability of the rent in the promised community space  and the pressure on local infrastructure were all major concerns.

 

On the parking issue a resident described how even without the development, parking spaces were so rare that she filled up her hot water bottle and sat in her car for hours until she could move into a vacated space.  On the 'right to light' she said she had served an obstruction notice  on Brent Council.

 

A Cromwell Road resident told the Committee that pandemic restrictions had made it hard to organise opposition through public meetings and collecting signatures on petitions.  She had never imagined that the area would change so much and in such a dramatic and negative way. They had been told that there would be no tall buildings in the area according to the 2011 Alperton Masterplan. Now Edwardian terraces will be sandwiched between tall buildings.

 

Residents pointed out that commercial premises incorporated into other developments with the promises of new shops etc, remained unlet and the rent of community spaces too high for local community organisations. 

Max Plotnek, the developer's agent promised low or even zero rents for the community space. He said that there had been 4 pre-planning meetings with council planning officers and the developer had responded to concerns with the highest point of the building away from residential streets. Two extra storeys had to be added to the building, over and above the 5 storeys in the local plan, because without it the development would be economically unviable. This has been confirmed by the independent consultants for the developer and the council and in fact the offer was above the maximum reasonable amount.  He said that the tricky aspect was that the profit generated by the development had to match the exisiting value of the site.  This was 'pretty high' because existing use was a large retail unit and it took quite a lot of development to overcome the deficit.

 

Responding to Cllr Matt Kelcher, Chair of Planning Committee, who had said he would feel better if the accommodation was genuinely affordable, Plotnek said, 'I appreciate people saying its not affordable but that's not this developer causing the problem. The housing marker in London is in the situation it's in. So this will be a range of unit types, studios and one bedroomed flats, that will be at the affordable end of the school. A huge CIL [£3.5m] contribution will go to the council to deliver wider benefits across the borough in whatever way the council wishes to spend it and the developer will contribute £75,000 towards a Controlled Paking Zone (CPZ) consultation.

Committee member Cllr Kennelly said that below guidance provision of amenity space, the two additional storeys, shortfall in the amount of affordable housing - particularly affordable rent, all added up to quite a large contradiction of the Local Plan.  He struggled to see how the development was policy compliant with such a huge shortfall. 

Mr Plotnek said that provision of more amenity space would move the development further away from viability and 5 storeys would reduce the amount of affordable housing.  He claimed that the amenity space specified in Brent's Local Plan was higher than the London Plan and the former was still at a draft stage, so too much emphasis should not be put on it. He said that the London Affordable Rent (10% of the entire development) was close to social rent rather than the 80% of market rent commonly called affordable. 

At the beginning of the meeting, Anton Georgiou, Lib Dem Alperton councillor, made a presentation that you will find below. The Labour councillors for Alperton did not make a presentation.

The planning application was approved by 5 votes to 3. The three against were Cllr Johnson (citing the low amountt of affordable housing, over-shadowing and lack of light to neighbouring properties), Cllr Kennnelly ( height, level of affordable housing despite the explanations) Cllr Maurice (non-compliant in many ways, height 30% policy, effect on Burns Road and Cromwell Road, above guidance; local residents had been ignored, it should never have come to the committee).

Cllr Anton Georgiou's Presentation

I am here to object in the strongest terms to the planned development on what is currently the Curry’s site on the Ealing Road. I do so, as I have done before, on behalf of countless residents in my ward who are simply sick and tired of what can only be described as the overdevelopment of Alperton.

This development continues the worrying trend in my ward, which has seen non-stop building of massive tower blocks, whilst established residents continue to struggle with a lack of GP and health services, limited leisure facilities, and in light of the last year, which has highlighted how important this is, a distinct lack of access to open green space. All the while this authority continues to hoard tens of millions, at last count close to £120 million in community infrastructure levy, collected in large part from developers building in Alperton, of which more will be collected from this application, if you, make the mistake of approving it. Where is all this money going? And why is this authority sitting on millions which could be spent improving the area as it is intended? 

I attended the public consultation regarding this application at the Fox and Goose Pub, where it was abundantly clear that vocal opposition to these plans exist. Since that consultation I have had many comments from residents in Alperton, especially in the residential roads close to the site, Burns Road, Cromwell Road, Riverside Gardens, who are alarmed that this is even under consideration. 

Firstly, approval would mean the loss of a much loved asset to the Alperton community, a large retail unit, that has until now been occupied by Curry’s. Many of the staff in store have worked there for a very long time and will face job insecurity. At a time as difficult as this, this would be tragic. 

On the affordability breakdown of this development, I am alarmed that Brent are even willing to consider moving this application forward with so few ‘affordable’ units included. Obviously the term affordable is in itself an illusion that has no basis in reality, particularly for my generation who are consistently locked out of the housing market. This application comprises of just over 20% of ‘affordable’ units, which means roughly 80% are simply unaffordable. This breakdown is below targets Brent has in place and flies in the face of this authorities undertakings to ensure that homes are provided to and for Brent residents. I am astonished that Brent can justify continuing to allow unaffordable developments to invade Alperton. What considerations will this Committee be making on this matter? If anything, this past year has highlighted how many in are community are struggling financially, more luxury, unaffordable units is certainly not what my residents need. Let’s face it these units are not for local people, they will be marketed for across London and overseas.

As I have continuously argued, the traffic and parking issues in Alperton will only get worse if Brent continue to approve developments like this one, without thinking long and hard about reconfiguring our whole road network and the parking situation in the area. I accept the need to discourage car use, particularly in parts of London that are so well connected to public transport infrastructure. With Hanger Lane and Alperton stations close-by I can see that possibilities exist for residents to benefit from public transport, however in light of the pandemic, and given the continued possibility of COVID travel restrictions, I can also see why people will wish to use cars into the future, rather than public transport. With this in mind, the fact that only 15 parking spaces exist for the 132 units at this site, simply will not work.

As I have already alluded to, there are huge pressures on local services in Alperton. I am particularly concerned about the stretched local GP and medical facilities. As this proposed development falls into the location catchment area for the Sudbury and Alperton Medical Centre, the demand issues that this practice faces will only get worse, if you approve this application. Things are already dire for the practice and the service local residents are receiving is lacking. Anecdotally I have been told that often only one GP is available and appointments often take weeks to organise. My resident, Hiren Patel, who lives close to the proposed site, has told me that getting an appointment is like ‘winning the lottery’ – this simply isn’t good enough for my residents and any who would move into the area.

This past year has shown us all that we will have to change the way that we live into the future. We will get through the pandemic, though, as many expect our living habits will have to be altered. My final argument against yet another large development in Alperton, relates to the safety of such buildings with COVID and other potential air-borne, highly transmissible viruses we might face. With limitations on ability to social distance, particularly in communal areas, like shared lifts, I am fearful about the continued building of developments like this one, particularly in relation to public health.

If you make the mistake of approving this development, as I have said before, Alperton will continue to be a place to sleep and not to live. Brent are turning my ward into a concrete jungle, and we are simply fed up of it. Enough is enough. 

 

 

£10m bill to rectify safety issues at Network Homes' Grand Union Heights in Alperton

 

Grand Union Heights

Network Homes, whose Head Office is in Wembley Park,  have written to residents of Grand Union Heights, Alperton to tell them that the cost of remedying safety issues in  the development will be £10 million.  The development was subject to a fire 'waking watch' until earlier this year when fire alarms were installed according to local sources. One guard remains.

Network Homes have requested that residents who use their flats for 'financial gain' (landlords?) should submit their own claim for government funds:

We’ve submitted the application for the remediation work at Grand Union Heights to the government’s £1bn Building Safety Fund. This does not guarantee that the government will approve the application. Even if we’re successful, the fund does not cover every cost incurred at Grand Union Heights. You need to fill out a state aid form if you ‘use your property for financial gain’. We are unable to do this on your behalf so please spend some time going over the documents to ensure you understand if you need to fill it out. We’ll let you know the outcome when we hear back from the government – we expect it will take them about a month. Whatever the outcome, we’ll hold a webinar where we’ll go through the next steps and you’ll be able to ask us any questions you may have.

Given the developments in Alperton, South Kilburn and Wembley Park we can expect similar claims to be submitted.

Action promised on BAME access to GPs as Brent's Covid19 response comes under scrutiny

Melanie Smith, Brent Director of Public Health, told last night's Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee that during the early months of the Covid19 pandemic many in Brent's BAME community felt disempowered and lacking in agency. Lessons had been learnt and Brent had realised the importance of engaging with the many different BAME communities in Brent and their community leaders. They had concentrated on Alperton and Church End which had the highest number of cases.  Messages had to be consistent and make sense to the communities concerned, for example over shielding in multi-generational households.

Confirming that access to primary healthcare was a major issue, Cllr Abdi Aden, who is of Somali background, said that many in the community who had been feeling sick had problems making appointments with their GP.  They had waited for hours in a queue at the medical centre only to give up and go home without receiving any help.

Cllr Mary Daly backed up the claim. Chair of the Committee, Cllr Ketan Sheth, interjected to say that many in the BAME community still suffered from a poor GP offer.

Dr MC Patel, chair of Brent CCG and NW London NHS lead on inequalities, offered to go with Cllr Aden to the surgery to address the issue of practices not affording access. He said unnecessary denial of access should not be tolerated.  He offered to talk to groups of 5 or so from the community to listen to their experiences and take action. 

Government guidelines recently issued should mean more face to face appointments with GPs rather than on-line arrangements which discriminated against those without internet access or lacking in English language,

Earlier in the discussion the high rate of BAME Covid deaths initially had been attributed to people not going to their GPs early enough. A speaker from Brent Healthwatch said that many residents had been hesitant about going to Northwick Park Hospital and were wary about getting infected there. Cllr Janice Long asked if late admissions to hospital was the cause of the higher death rate in Brent. She pointed out that there was only one medical centre in hard-hit Church End and asked what was being done to encourage people to go to their GP.

Cllr Ahmad Shahzad pointed out the structural issues affecting the BAME community including lack of opportunity and poor housing and said the death toll must not happen again - the Council had to safeguard the population. He said Public Health England and the BMA had been side-lined by the government.

Dr MC Patel said Brent CCG and NW London NHS were looking at devising an additional shielding list for Brent, that would include more people than the government list, and give them appropriate advice. The initial list did not include ethnicity as a factor and experience of the first wave means more needs to be done to include the BAME community, especially those with underlying conditions. Once offered it would be up to the individuals concerned to decide whether to be included in the vulnerable list.

Recently elected councillor, Gaynor Lloyd, said the elephant in the room was whether people would isolate as a consequence of being included in the list. She expressed doubt about a proposal to educate landlords about Covid19 and the risks stating, 'we all know about some landlords.'

 Dr MC Patel said that this was an opportunity for the local authority and health to work together. Joint work and shared commitment were necessary to make things happen and for 'Brent to do it differently.' He cited the response on care homes as being one example of success and said local hospitals had done well.  There was now a clear message to GPs to see patients face to face if that is what they wanted and the CCG were also looking at hot hubs for Covid patients.  It was a matter of 'making the best of what we've got.'

Simon Crawford of NW London Hospital Trust said that the emergency pathway at Northwick Park Hospital was now 85% of the pre-Covid level. Segregated pathways at A&E meant there were clear pathways for non-Covid patients. Presently there were 12 Covid patients in the hospital, a slight increase compared with 8 or so recently.  Patients' temperatures were taken when they first entered the hospital. Patients due for an operation were tested 3 days before the operation was due.  He emphasised, 'We are open for business. If you have an appointment, keep to it!'

He said that Northwick Park had been the busiest hospital in London at the peak and had been supported by other hospitals There had been positive coverage recently and they had been innovative in going with oxygen treatment rather than ventilating machines.  He said that Northwick Park had never run out of oxygen, contrary to reports.

The Trust has signed private sector contracts with Clementine Hospital and the London Clinic. Cancer referrals that had dropped by 50% were now coming back.

Cllr Neal Nerva, recently appointed to the Cabinet as lead member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure, said he was going to introduce a political dimension into the discussion.  Testing had become a matter of private competition and local government had been side-lined. Cllr Shahzad had been right about Public Health England being side-lined and there was also the failings of Test, Track and Trace.

Despite this, he said, the Council could not stand back, too many people were at risk in Brent.  He expressed confidence in the NHS and said people need to be seeking help for non-Covid conditions. The Alperton and Church End meetings showed the need for a wider Brent policy on social distancing and engaging with BAME communities.  Structural issues such as Housing, jobs, co-morbidities, learning for the Covid19 experience, would feed into the Council's new Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

All in all it was a useful discussion, although much more needs to be investigated and acted upon. The trio of councillors, Daly, Long and Lloyd, looked particularly effective as scrutineers.

Alperton Bridgewater Road high-rise development approved

Cllr Anton Georgiou (Lib Dem, Alperton ward) told the planning committee that the proposed high-rise development on the Saab showroom site on Bridgewater Road LINK was felt by residents to be 'unneeded, unwanted and unnecessary.'

He said that the 'mini-city' developing around Alperton station was changing the character of the area. The Bridgewater Road proposal was in an area where the majorrity of housing was two storey homes. There were developing problems of traffic levels and the application would contribute to further congestion.  He asked if the £4.4m CIL money raised by the development would actually be spent in the area.

He reported a young resident who had told him,  'Alperton is a place to sleep - not to live.'

Georgiou echoed Paul Lorber's call LINK for the suspension of high-rise development until links with Alperton's high Covid19 rates had been established, including the role of communal areas in high rise blocks in the transmission of the virus.

Cllr Trupti Sangani (Labour, Alperton) said she had seen no improvement in Alperton via CIL spending and called for step free access at Alperton station. The Transport Officer said that this single development was not enough to trigger such a demand as increased footfall following approval would be neglible. Improvements were being sought for nearby bus routes.

It appeared from the developer's response that Alperton School had not been directly consulted about the development which will partially over-shadow the school's site.

There was a discussion regarding how each development on its own would not have an impact but it was the cumulative impact of all the high-rise blocks that was important.  Officers referred to the Alperton Growth Area Policy but it was unclear whether the need for station and train frequency improvements would only happen late in the day, when the new housing was already occupied.

The  Growth Area plans included public spacse, canal improvments new play areas, a new nursery, community spaces and road and junction improvements.

Cllr Sangani referred to problems of anti-social behaviour along the canal side in Alperton and said officers should be raising these issues when they spoke to developers. She was told that things would improve when there was natural surveilliance from the blocks overlooking the can and when the link between all the developments in a wide canal side path had been completed.

The Canals and Rivers Trust could apply to the Council for CIL money to make improvements.

So far the Alperton developments had gained over £14m CIL money for Brent Council, 15% (about £2m) was allocated for Neighbourhood CIL. Chair of Planning Committee, Cllr James Denselow, said that this raised the wider issue of whether CIL money should be spent in the area from which it was raised, or across the borough. This was not a decision for the Planning Commitee nut for the Executive.

The main selling points put forward by the developer was what they claimed was 100% affordable housing and the creation of 120-150 new jobs in the industrial component od the scheme. They stressed their close working relationship with the Council developed through their other schemes in the area.

Councillors were told that their decisions had to be on the merits of the application and they could not make the deision on wider issues and pre-existing local conditions.  Cllr  Denselow, told members of the committee that it was 'tricky' as to an extent they had to take their ward councillor hat off when making decisions.

Officers warned that if they made decisions beyond strictly planning issues they could open the Council to appeals and financial penalties.

Cllr Michael Maurice voted against the application on grounds of his opposition to high rise and was reminde by Cllr Denselow about the danger of pre-determining applications. Maurice was also concerned about the transport implications, Cllr Sangani abstained.

Call for Brent Council to review policy on high-density high-rise developments in view of Brent's high Covid19 death rate

Paul Lorber of Brent Liberal Democrats has written to Brent Council CEO regarding the new development that is planned for the Bridgewater Road site near Alperton station. LINK

The application is due to be heard at  Planning Committee tonight and Alperton Cllr Anton Georgiou will be speaking against it.

The meeting is being livestreamed 6pm tonight VIEW HERE

Paul Lorber writes:

Has Brent Council undertaken a study why the Alperton area has one of the highest death rates during the current Covid 19 emergency?

Overcrowding, lack of open spaces, overdevelopment, congested roads, low incomes, poor diet etc etc may be some of the reasons.

Brent Council cannot be responsible or be able to control all of these.

Brent Council should however stop and study evidence and listen to advice to stop making the situation worse and to mitigate the impact of future outbreaks - which may be just a few weeks away.

The first step Brent Council should do is to revise its Planning Policies and stop any more massive tower blocks with no amenity open space until such time as the Council has answers to some of the questions.

There is a 26 storey block being built in Ealing Road opposite the bus garage. A massive block is coming on the opposite side by the Canal. There is talk of another massive development on the side of the Bus Garage - this on top of everything that has been built already.

Tonight the Planning Committee is considering a development including a 19 storey block at the back of the Alperton Garage around the corner in Bridgewater Road. This is another over development with no car parking with as much being squeezed in as possible to help the developer and  boost the Council's CIL and new homes bonus pot. I think the death toll in Alperton should now be a factor which should influence the Council thinking as to whether these types of highrise monsters are a good or safe option for the future.

At times like these there is a need for decisive leadership. I think you should now recommend to the Council that the policy of massive highrise and excessive densities of new build needs to be reviewed in view of the Covid 19 crises and the excessive number of deaths in parts of Brent. 

I trust that you will take action before it is too late.

I am copying the chair and vice chair of Planning as I think they should consider deferring the Alperton Planning application before them this evening.