BE AWARE: Brent Local Plan Review coming up - this will affect your community, your area and perhaps even your home

 

Image from the 2019-2041 Brent Local Plan

Admittedly a consultation about the Brent Local Plan isn't likely to cause a huge amount of excitement but lack of engagement with an upcoming Review that will be discussed at next Tuesday's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee could cost residents dear.

The 2019-2041 Plan, spearheaded by Cllr Shama Tatler, shaped planning decisions based on support for tall buildings, densification, intensification corridors and the designation of eight Growth Areas. This is transforming our borough. 

The proposal is for a Full Review covering all areas of the Plan rather than a few areas as some other councils are undertaking. LINK  Bold emphasis is mine.

The current Plan is immense and contains proposals for sites across the borough but current conditions and changes in planning laws mean a review is necessary:

     The principal rationale for review is to embrace the need to plan longer term to meet the needs of a growing population to at least 2046 and possibly beyond. The largest priority is to ensure housing delivery can be sustained at high levels in the future. This requires identifying sites well in advance of when they are needed. Due to the complicated nature of future opportunities (the need to parcel up sites that currently include individual homes) this could well be longer than was needed in the past. Large single ownership sites such as Grand Union in Alperton are getting rarer. Sites are more likely to be like 1-22 Brook Avenue allocated in 2011, having publicly been identified 3 years earlier in the draft plan; this only had a comprehensive planning application submitted in 2023 (15 years after first being identified) and it is understood that full site ownership has still not yet been achieved by the applicant. 

Brook Avenue is the road next to Wembley Park station where the developer pressured owners of the suburban houses to sell up to enable a developer to build tower blocks. If they failed to agree the Council would consider compulsory purchase to enable the development to go ahead – it was in the Local Plan. It appears one at east owner is holding out.

 

The paper going to the Committee implies predicts there may be more such proposals:

 

To date much of the population of Brent has accepted the ambitious levels of development that the last Local Plan promoted. The next Local Plan may wellhave to deal with accommodating more development amongst suburban housing, most of which will be in good condition and privately owner occupied.

As well as potentially affecting more people’s homes, it could more likely to result in more areas having more substantial changes in character compared to currently. This may well increase the amount of objection and challenge to the plan from Brent residents or community groups. This could again slow down the plan’s delivery, requiring further levels of engagement and revision to plancontent or policy direction.

 

You have been warned. Look up your area/address on the current Local Plan and you may well be surprised/shocked by what you find. LINK

 

Another reason for review is that the Council has been unable to meet its targets due to the current economic and labour supply situation, and new safety regulations:

 

Brent’s delivery [of housing] prior to 23/24 was excellent. In the 3 financial years to 22/23 Brent delivered the equivalent of 8136 net additional dwellings Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) official figures. This represented 131% of its target against the Housing Delivery Test (HDT). Delivery in 23/24 was however very weak at 656 net dwellings. This is not yet reflected in the latest MHCLG HDT figures but represents only 28% of the 2,325 annual minimum target. Completions for 24/25 have not been finalised but are likely to be well below the target. Lack of planning permissions are not what is holding back delivery. The latest GLA datahub information indicates that as of 31st March 2024, 16,985 dwellings had permission but had not been completed. It is other factors including viability, construction capacity, the contraction of the private sales market, investor caution and building safety regulator sign-off (for buildings 6 or more storeys) that are having the biggest slowdown impact.

  

We know that a higher proportion of private housing is likely on South Kilburn due to these factors and that there is a slowdown in the already limited building of new council homes – the only truly affordable option for most Brent residents. Remember that the definition of ‘affordable’ is often 80% of the market rate and these targets are not being met:

 

In respect of other Local Plan housing objectives, the amount/ percentage of affordable housing, when compared to overall housing delivery, is below the 35% London Plan fast track route target and significantly below the 50% strategic Local Plan target. In 23/24 19.7% of the homes that were completed in the borough were affordable, and 26.7% of the homes that were approved that year were affordable. For 23/24 homes delivered which were subject to an affordable housing S106 obligation, the percentage delivered was 44%.

 

Given the number of families on the Council list, and the Council’s policy to persuade them to move into private accommodation outside of the borough, the policy for more family-sized homes has also failed:

 

The Local Plan has a target of 1 in every new 4 (25%) homes requiring permission being 3 or more bedrooms. In 23/24 delivery was below this at 12.2%. Delivery of this target is impacted by small scale schemes that might be for three of less dwellings, thus not required to provide a three-bed home; on larger schemes, there is often a trade-off reflecting the viability considerations. 3+ bedroom schemes do not attain the same values (per square metre) as properties with 1 or 2 bedrooms, thus requiring the 25% affects development viability and can reduce the number of affordable homes that can be delivered. 

 

If there are to be more smaller developments in future these also have their drawbacks:

 

For minor developments, the range of policies that apply are fewer, in part reflective of the Government’s position that to support the small builders’ sector there should be lower costs/ simpler processes. In addition, many of the homes in this sector in Brent are delivered via conversions of existing homes (e.g. conversions of houses to flats). These factors can bring compromises that might not be applicable in larger schemes, e.g. no lifts, inability to provide outdoor amenity space for upper floor dwellings, encouragement to attain higher energy efficiency/ renewables, rather than requirement, etc.

Although officers try to reassure, there are also issues when builders try to reduce costs:

 

The Council ensures that the quality of the affordable homes is consistent with that delivered for private homes. Applicants know that the Council will not accept obvious lower standards or development that is not tenure blind particularly in terms of outward appearance and location. There however, may be subtle differences, (e.g. communal facilities such as size of lobbies, corridor finishes, incorporation of soft furnishings, gym facilities) as registered providers seek to reduce on-going service charges to occupants.

 

Officers outline other areas of the Local Plan where it is likely that changes will be needed;

In respect of the topic area policies sections changes are likely to be required to reflect recent and proposed trends, e.g. during and post Covid the move towards on-line trading will mean some retail uses are diminishing, meaning town centres are at greater risk of contraction, whilst hospitality uses are also struggling, with existing numbers of pubs proving difficult to maintain as viable. The Council will need to review its viability tests/ periods of vacancy that are acceptable to ensure its not unnecessarily maintaining property vacancies. Review of the borough’s green spaces indicates an inconsistency in categorisation and levels of protection provided for those not identified. These will need a detailed review and amended policy. The affordable workspace policy will need review to apply it to a lower size threshold of development. It was subject to change during the last examination by the Inspectors as it received objections, which the Council was not allowed to address properly due to submission of additional viability being inadmissible. The amount and concentration of student housing has also become a more pronounced concern for councillors and the Plan will consider how to best address this, balancing up London’s strategic student housing needs against Brent’s housing priorities including very high affordable housing needs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can the 'You Decide' process for Council grants be made fairer?

 November's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, which was also attended for two items by the Chair of Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny, was notable for the contribution of residents to the item on Brent Council's Grants Programme. Key points were made questioning the fairness of the 'You Decide' meetings that allocate grants including the packing of meetings by some groups and the disadvantage of not being used to public speaking.

The Committee also considered the Borough Plan with questions asked abou the lack of much mention of the council's climate emergency structure.

The Committee made a range of recommendations.

The Minutes of the meeting are now available so I have embedded them below for your perusal and as an example of effective scrutiny.

Guest Post: Why the Newland Court garages planning application should be withdrawn.

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Policy DMP1, from Brent’s Local Plan.

 

“Wembley Matters” has been following the progress of Brent’s New Council Homes “infill” planning application, 22/3124. Most recently, Martin shared an email sent by Newland Court resident, Marc Etukudo, to the Council’s Head of Planning.Marc’s uncovering of the Barn Hill Conservation Area boundary change (adopted by Brent’s Executive – now Cabinet – in June 2013), which puts the site of the proposed new houses within the Conservation Area, made me review my own earlier objection comments. Last Friday I submitted my updated objections. 

 

I will ask Martin to include the illustrated pdf version of these at the end of this post – which includes screenshots from Brent’s massive Local Plan document of the policies which the Newland Court garages scheme would breach. Please have a look at these, if you think they could be useful for future objections you may wish to make on applications affecting you!

 

It was now clear to me that the Newland Court planning application should be refused, so I have sent the following open email to the Cabinet Member and Council Officer(s) behind it, calling on them to withdraw the application. I have asked Martin to share it’s text with you, so that it is available for anyone to read (and to write in support of, or comment on).

 

Dear Councillor Knight, Ms. Baines and Ms Sweeney,

 

This is an open email

 

As you are, respectively, Brent's Lead Member for Housing, Head of Affordable Housing and Head of Estates Regeneration, I think you should see my latest (and illustrated) comments document, which sets out further objections to Brent's Newland Court garages planning application, 22/3124.

 

It explains, in section 1, why the site on which you propose to build seven new Council homes is actually inside the Barn Hill Conservation Area. This was the result of a minor change in the boundary, adopted by Brent's Executive (now Cabinet) in June 2013. 

 

It lists the reasons why your application fails to comply with a number of Brent's Local Plan policies, including those on Heritage, Trees, Ecological Impact and Parking.

 

In case you don't feel that you have time to read the whole of the attached document, here are some highlights from its conclusion:

 

'There is already a long list of Brent Local Plan policies which application 22/3124 fails to comply with: BP1 Central, BGI1, BGI2, BHC1 and BT2. To that list can also be added the main development management policy in the Local Plan, DMP1. This policy states that ‘development will be accepted provided it is ….’ It then sets out nine tests, and this application fails at least five of them: a), b), d), e) and h). It cannot be claimed that there is ‘a minor conflict with policy’. The application is so far in conflict with Brent’s adopted Local Plan policies that it must be refused.'

 

'Although this “infill” scheme may have looked possible “on paper”, it is not practical or sustainable when the reality of its proposed site is taken into account. That, on top of its many failures to comply with Brent’s adopted planning policies, must mean that the application should be refused.'

 

It is not just me, or residents of Newland Court and neighbours in Grendon Gardens, who believe that your application should be refused - several Brent Council experts have also said so in their consultee comments on it.

 

I am bringing this to your attention because I think it is time you accepted that the Newland Court garages scheme was a mistake. Your planning application should be withdrawn, and no further money, or Planning / Housing Officer time, should be wasted on it.

 

I hope to hear that you have taken, or will now take, that sensible decision. Best wishes,

Philip Grant

 
(a Brent resident with an interest in housing matters)

 

 

Six week window opens for any applications for a Judicial Review of the adoption of Brent's Local Plan

 The recent Full Brent Council Meeting formally adopted the new Local Plan which provides a framework for developments in the borough until 2041. The Local Plan contains many elements that have have been controversial including the projected population increase and amount of housing, density of housing, tall building policy and so-called intensification corridors which allow new build on roads that currently are low rise.

Now that the Plan has been adopted  residents' groups will find it much harder to challenge specific developments at the Planning Committee stage and committee members will find their hands tied to a large extent.

The grounds for a Judicial Review are narrowly defined:

This extract from the Adopted Local Plan sums up some of the issues that concern residents.

This is the announcement on the Brent Council website. To assess the overall policies click on 'Adopted Local Plan (basic version):

The Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 was adopted by Full Council on 24 February 2022.  

This replaced the Brent Core Strategy 2010, Brent Site Allocations Plan 2011, Wembley Area Action Plan 2015 and Development Management Policies Plan 2016 which have been formally revoked.  

We will however retain these documents on the website until the 6-week period for applications for judicial review of the adoption decision has passed, or if such requests have been made, they are resolved.   

In advance of a final ‘glossy’ version of the plan being available, we have produced a basic version of the Local Plan incorporating all modifications.  This will be subject to further minor modifications. These will address things such as page numbering, the insertion of figures and infographics identified in the text similar to those in the submitted plan, as well as appropriate photographs.

• Adopted Local Plan (basic version)
• Local Plan Adoption Statement
• Local Plan Integrated Impact Assessment Adoption Report.

The interactive Local Plan Policies Map that accompanies the Local Plan 2019-2041 is not yet ready to view.  PDFs of the submitted Policies Map are available to view on the links below.

The policies map that accompanies the revoked Local Plan has been retained on the website as an aid in the meantime, as a number of the policy designation boundaries remain the same.

• Revoked Local Plan policies map
• Draft Local Plan policy map (all layers)
• Draft Local Plan policy map (development areas)
• Draft Local Plan policy map (environmental protection, heritage, employment, and article 4)
• Draft Local Plan policy map (open space, flood zones and shopping)
• Schedule of policies map modifications

If you need further help in identifying the policy designations related to a particular site, please contact us by emailing planningstrategy@brent.gov.uk setting out the address, or a redline map boundary of the site.

STRA call on residents to ask their ward councillors to reject the Local Plan at tomorrow's Full Council meeting

 

Sudbury Town Residents Association have launched a petition and are crowdfunding legal action over Brent Council's Local Plan, and are asking residents to lobby their ward councillors to vote against at tomorrow's Full Council meeting which will also adopt the budget for 2022-23.

This is their appeal:

Ask Your Ward Councillors to VOTE NO to the Draft Local Plan on Friday 24 February 2022

SAY NO TO MORE Development in Brent

Brent Council planning officers have created the Draft Local Plan.  Once this plan is adopted by Brent Council, planning officers can grant permission to build within and around our green spaces, force the sale of homes and turn our wonderful neighbourhood into rows of high rises.

We are all aware of the housing shortage in England, and like every borough, Brent was given a target to build new homes to help the Government minimise the shortage. 

To meet housing shortage in England, Brent’s target was 23,250 new homes from 2019 to 2029and it has already met this target via developments approved in Northwick Park Hospital, Wembley Park  Wembley Central, Beresford Avenue, Alperton House, MinavilHouse, Alperton Bus Garage and Bridgewater Road.  However, as per their own Draft Local Plan, Brent Council plans to continue  unnecessarily granting permission to build more new homes. An interesting observation is that there is insufficient planning to develop or add to vital infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, GP clinics and adult social services. 

Everyone living in Brent has a say on the Local Plan and it’s the Council’s duty to consult its residents, but most residents are not even aware of its existence!

We are challenging Brent Council’s plans on a number of issues that will affect all Brent residents:

• Tall Buildings
• Intensification Corridors
• HMOs
• Compulsory Purchase
• Demolition of rows of houses
• Residential dwellings in rear gardens
• Replacement of pavilions and other buildings within green spaces with residential dwellings
• Building on brownfield sites within green spaces

Our group of community minded volunteers are trying to spread the word and let people know. We are local residents volunteering our precious time and expertise to try and protect our area from unnecessary development.  We are non-political and independent.  We are just trying to take care of our area and borough.

If you are also unhappy about the excessive development in Brent and would like to help, please:

• Donate to support our legal challenge via our Go Fund Me page

GoFundMe, https://gofund.me/bbd06d51 

• sign the petition HERE
• ask your Ward Councillors to VOTE NO at the Full Council Meeting Friday 24 February 2022

Observations on South Kilburn in the light of the Brent Local Plan

 Guest post by David Walton of FLASK

The new proposed Brent Local Plan to year 2041 is set to be put for adoption to Full Council on 24^th February 2022.

 

Government Planning Inspectors in January 2022 put forward their final report and modifications to Brent Council. Here are some South Kilburn (soon to be Tall Building Zone (?) local observations…….

 

South Kilburn Growth Area, South East Place (one of 7 large often internally un-related and un-relatable Brent Plan 'places') is excluded from being part of Kilburn Neighbourhood Forum Plan for Kilburn Town (Kilburn electoral ward), but is where Kilburn Town (Kilburn electoral ward) will tower and excluded mega population grow - a bit like Wembley non City, a bizarre, colonial and fractured approach to Brent’s major change.

 

It is of note that these modifications that all site allocation insert plans for South Kilburn have been removed by inspectors from this new Brent Local Plan. I suppose that is one solution to resident questions, but this future engagement is unhelpful as South Kilburn has so many 'site allocations' (knowns and unknowns) pending which must now rely (unlike for other Brent places) entirely on words. Some title headings for new sites have had modifications removed- why not keep a plan saying that current state school land uses or public open space land uses are become new 'site allocation' opportunities instead?

 

It is also worth noting that many South Kilburn large 'sites' don’t even make this modified plan, for example the Cullen House/ station car park ( long land banked), new Peel Square with its 16 storey Countryside tower yet to be built,  Carlton Granville Community and Education Centres, Brent housing plan 'other ideas site' and more….. What are the infrastructure planning requirements for this plan sites denied- none? Should flood alleviation infrastructure and social infrastructure not be stated in Policy BSEGA1 South Kilburn Growth Area? There is certainly a lot less social and health infrastructure required than the 2010 SKGA plan and that was a lot less required than the 2004 Neighbourhood Plan offer (2016 Brent cancelled).

 

The reality is that South Kilburn's population is being increased 6 fold from 6,000 in year 2000 to 36,000 by 2041 (sites hidden/ 'moveable feast' ambiguities added). Modification here is clearly all about the scale of the South Kilburn Mega Growth being kept carefully under the radar of Brent wider social and public health/ recreation strategic infrastructure investment for massive population growth..

 

Of the South Kilburn site allocations which Planning Inspectors modifications:

 

BSESA1 Austin House and public park demolition. South Kilburn Air Management Area (SKAMA) / 'a car free development should be the starting point.' Infrastructure planning requirements- 'Thames Water has indicated that upgrades to the wastewater system are likely to be required.'

 

'Are likely to be required' is the key get out clause here, as Brent despite social rent housing clearing since 2005 has yet to produce a detailed Flood Risk Assessment for any of its many South Kilburn Masterplan(s) for massed help-to buy/ affordable housing on a flood plateau. As regards future floods baked-in by the corporate risk appetite for removal of all existing public owned natural flood defences with new builds no longer being built at raised level either, South Kilburn people will have to ' learn to live with it?' and with the costs involved.

 

What is also interesting is that there are so few site social infrastructure planning requirements for new South Kilburn Growth Area, which is surprising given enormous population growth. This makes the new Brent Local Plan an inequalities/ non citizen zones Brent 'Slum Dog Billionaires' policies document towards 2041 as regards South Kilburn. Very much parallel development and as if Grenfell, Windrush and pandemic simply never happened and the planning reform bill had not been cancelled as being ill advised in 2021 either.

 

The modifications continue…….

 

BSESA2 Blake Court and public park demolition; SKAMA/ a car free development…. Despite being adjacent to Austin House public park flood defence, no infrastructure planning requirements at all?

 

BSESA3 Carlton House and Carlton Hall demolition. SKAMA / a car free development….Despite a community hall and public green space attached being demolished- Infrastructure planning requirements - zero according to Inspectors?

 

BSESA4 Carlton Vale Infant School demolition. SKAKMA/ not car free as next to the Westminster boundary? Inspectors state that vehicle access between Malvern Road and Carlton Vale is 'proposed' to be closed, which is a bizarre planning statement given that vehicles have been closed from Malvern Road to Carlton Vale since the 1960's, this at that time to prevent regular traffic accidents near the schools and central park. Malvern Road is a Brent long established traffic calmed one way street so what is there to propose? Is the intent to open Malvern Road to two way traffic? SKAMA what SKAMA?

 

A land swap with Wordsworth and Maesfield House demolitions is proposed for this school’s new site when it becomes mono-housing. This school is currently central public park side located.

 

BSESA5 Craik Court demolition. SKAMA/ car free development. Public green open space with veteran trees and community hall demolished. Infrastructure planning requirements-non?

 

BSESA6 Crone Court and Zangwill House demolitions. SKAMA/ car free. Public open space loss, yet the only Infrastucture planning requirement – water supply and waste water infrastructure upgrades possibly.

 

BSESA7 Dickens House and public park demolition. SKAMA/car free. Infrastructure planning requirements water supply and waste water upgrades hopefully.

 

BSESA8 Hereford House and Exeter Court, play areas demolitions. SKAMA/ car free. 'Development must be consistent with the recommendations of Brent Local Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2' Infratructure planning requirement. Granville Road Public Open Space (see BSESA11) is to be re-located here at this BSESA8 site. Not very helpful that this requirement Inspectors term 'open space' as that will mean fully private enclosed green space thereby rendered useless to the wider community.

 

BSESA9. The Inspector doesn't dare to even write Kilburn Park Foundation School demolition anymore. The 'site' created by this will be of ambiguous status as for example SKAMA/ car free development is stated. Then Inspectors later say that the demolition site created will be a park, so a new car free park?

 

This school land use being built on re-locates to Wordsworth and Maesfield sites but also onto the South Kilburn Public Open Space, Brent Kilburns only park sized park, demolishing its bio-diverse veteran tree woodland area no less!

 

BSESA10 Neville House, public open space and Winterleys demolition. SKAMA/car free. Infrastructure planning requirements- water supply and waste water upgrades possible.

 

BSESA11 Again, Inspectors dared not name the site which (upgraded and invested in in 2010) is the remains of the once grand scale Granville Road Public Open Space and flood defence. Less 'public open' too this in recent years as Brent Master Developer has been land bank locking it up on and off. SKAMA/car free. Infrastructure planning requirements- waste water upgrades only. So a no public open space replacement is planning required in a flatted  (no gardens) area of public open space deficiency?

 

BSESA12 Wordsworth., Maesfield and part of South Kilburn Public Open Space. SKAMA/ car free. Infrastructure planning requirements- new school(s) to replace the two school sites being demolished for housing. Water supply and drainage upgrades? There is no planning legal requirement stated by Inspectors to replace the large chunk of South Kilburn Public Open Space veteran tree woodland area that both school(s) sold for housing will be re-built on?

 

BSESA13 Again Inspectors unhelpfully decided to abandon naming John Ratcliffe House demolition. SKAMA. Infrastructure planning requirements- waste water upgrades only. 

 

BSESA14 William Dunbar and William Saville House, community hall demolition. SKAMA/ car free housing. Infrastructure planning requirements- water supply and waste upgrades only.

 

BSESA15 Not site named again, the UK Albanian Muslim Community and Cultural Centre. SKAMA/ car free housing. Infrastructure planning requirements- water and waste water supply upgrades only.

 

BSESA16 Oxford Kilburn Club demolition. SKAMA/ car free housing.

Infrastructure planning requirements- Replace club either on or off site (elsewhere)? Water supply and waste water upgrade.

After Brent's take, the OK Club took the lion's share of New Deal for Communities government funds (their first project being to employ a professional fundraiser). It will be interesting to finally see if this by community investment of scarce public funds made any sense now when the OK Club now monumentally 'cashes in?'     

 

 

To add, please look at Article 4 (1) Directions published by Brent in July 2021 which includes an SK Inset Map with at least some of this site allocations red-line box's colonialist horrors illustrated. Horrors (not mapped in the Planning Inspectors modified Brent Local Plan of Jan 2022), with Brent South Kilburn mono-colonial-overdevelopment zones new plan to build on current land uses such as South Public Open Space woodland, Granville Road Public Open Space, Kilburn Park Foundation School, Carlton Vale Infants School and Dickens Austen Public Open Space. This all comes into effect 1st August 2022.

 

The term Growth Area from 2010 BLP should not be retained in this new Brent Local Plan 2022 regarding South Kilburn given the new planning bills 2021 suspension. While underground car parks everywhere as separate 'business' opportunities and the doubling highways by Brent in SK zone should also be made public.

 

Most of the requirements from the 2010 SKGA plan were not landlord actioned and  in the new plan become cancelled requirements. 2022 SKGA South Kilburn plan infrastructure requirements is for flats as literally the only infrastructure and at densities as yet unseen in the UK! Vague Policy BSEGA1 South Kilburn Growth Area is simply not written into later 'site allocations' infrastructure planning requirements or is ambiguously stated, the same for the BSEGA1 new sites not mentioned at all- no infrastructure planning requirements for them no doubt either?

A new England-led 'sovereign take back control' South Kilburn for project Global Britain, of high tax take (tax as tribute for simply being allowed to live in the UK third class)- no social, health, shared services towered zones (a social rent estates level and up/ tower, level and up/tower, again and again as of such poor flood area build quality). A zone where no one is or ever can live a full UK citizen's life, rights, health and wellbeing supports and chances- this all by government Global Britain design.

A mega density non place for non citizens is 2041 guaranteed by these Inspectors modifications and residents concerns were not listened to and not respected. This South Kilburn zoned corporate colony for feeding Global Britain Slum Dog Billionaires risk appetite dines on and on- the South Kilburn 'moveable feast'.

 

David Walton

FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn)

Planning Inspector 'unable to recommend Kilburn Square's allocation as a tall building zone'

 

Kilburn High Road is top right

 

 The campaign against tall buildings in Kilburn Square by local activists LINK seems to have borne fruit.

The Planning Inspector's Report on the Brent Local Plan states:

The Council also put forward a new tall building zone to be allocated at Kilburn Square which would include the existing tower and land adjacent around Kilburn Square. We have noted the Council’s evidence in relation to this new zone, primarily focusing on the height of the existing tower on the estate well as the sites PTAL rating at 6a. We have also considered the detailed representations made during the main modification’s consultation in relation to this new tall buildings zone, particularly regarding the proposed size of the zone and its location adjacent to the Brondesbury Road Conservation Area. We are mindful of the fact that in light of the London Plan policy, the Council are no longer afforded the degree of flexibility previously envisaged in terms of the application of Policy BD2. Nevertheless, the creation of a new tall buildings zone at Kilburn Square would be contrary to the evidence base presented to this local plan examination, namely the Tall Buildings Strategy. It is not a location identified or considered as part of this evidence and accordingly we are unable to recommend its allocation as a tall buildings zone.

 

Highly significant modifications to Brent's draft local plan include higher density housing in town centres & 'intensification corridors.' Comment by Thursday 19th August 5pm.

 

Philip Grant left this comment on an earlier blog post, I thought it deserved a page of its own as it opens the way to more high rise high density developments in the borough.

Proposed "modifications" to Brent's draft Local Plan are currently open for comments (but only until 5pm this Thursday, 19 August!).

In the section of the Local Plan headed "How Will Good Growth In Brent be Delivered?", on pages 28-29, at para.2 "Making the best use of land", the modifications includes the following additional point:

'd) Identifying appropriate areas for tall buildings and change that add quality to and complement Brent’s character and sense of place.'

 

 Revised Intensification Corridors

At sub-para. b), they have also added "Intensification Corridors" (that's main roads in Brent, like Harrow Road and Forty Lane, which include "suburban" sections) to "town centres", as places for higher density housing. This would now read, if the proposed modification is accepted:

'b) Supporting higher density development in Brent’s town centres, Intensification Corridors and in areas with good accessibility to public transport.'

The new areas for tall buildings, and widening of the areas in the borough for higher density developments, are so that Brent can implement another proposed modification.

Instead of the Local Plan's current housing target for an average of 2040 new homes a year up to 2041, the proposed modification at para."6. Delivering the homes to meet Brent’s needs" reads:

'a) Housing delivery will be maximised, with sufficient planning permissions to support delivery of more homes than the minimum London Plan housing target of 23,250 between 2019/20-2028/29. A minimum 46,018 dwellings will be delivered for the whole plan period of 2019/20-2040/41 ....'

All of these points are part of "main modification" MM3 in the revised draft Local Plan out for consultation. If you wish to make any representations on this, or any other points BY THURSDAY \9th AUGUST at 5pm, details are on the Brent Council website at:
https://www.brent.gov.uk/services-for-residents/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/shaping-brent-s-future-together/

CLICK HERE FOR A DIRECT LINK TO THE REPRESENTATION FORM THAT YOU NEED TO COMPLETE