Planning applications for housing blocks on both College of North West London Brent sites approved in exchange for new college building on Olympic Way

Tower blocks replacing CNWL Wembley Park building

Medium rise and high rise blocks on CNWL Dudden Hill site

Despite having doubts regarding the amount of affordable housing, lack of amenity space and fears of flooding (Wembley Park) and shared ownership and shading nearby 2 storey homes (Dudden Hill) members of Brent Planning Committee unanimously voted for the redevelopment of the College of North West London (CNWL) sites at Wembley Park and Dudden Hill. 

They were told that plans for a new college building in a prime site off Olympic Way could not go ahead without approval of both applications because the developments held fund the college building.  Promises of viability reviews at various stages of the process of development looked promising for increasing the number of affordable homes at first (just 69 social rent homes out of 1,000 at Dudden Hill) but later looked very unlikely when they were told the costs for the college new build could rise.

No one asked if a less expensive option than prime site Olympic Way had been considered for the college. Brent Council arranged a loan for United Colleges (merged CNWL and City of Westminster College) to enable the redevelopment project  at Wembley Park to go ahead.

A review of intermediate tenures other than shared ownership, generally considered not affordable, was agreed along with a £149,500 contribution to bus service enhancement at Wembley Park.  Again at Wembley Park, the developer will pay £100,000 towards improvement of nearby open spaces as little amenity space is offered on a constrained site.  There will be road layout changes and crossing enhancements and possibly a CPZ at Dudden Hill and Denzil Road.

The Planning Committee waas chaired by Cllr Saqib Butt in the absence of Cllr Matt Kelcher while his brother Cllr Muhammed Butt (Deputy Leader and lead member for housing, regneration, planning and growth)  looked on from the public gallery.

New CNWL campus on the corner of Olympic Way and Fulton Road

 The twin developments will add many homes to Brent Council's target and there will be a new state of the art FE college, but there will be nagging doubts, not least in some councillor's minds, about whether a better deal could have been possible in terms of homes affordable for the many on Brent's housing list.

 

Cllr Kelcher's casting vote gives approval to 318 room aparthotel in central Wembley. Cllr Dixon abstains.

 The approved 6, 8 and 10 storey aparthotel replacing the two storey Euro Hotel

 

 The 7 building student accommodation named Wembley Edge was approved at Planning Committee last night. There was opposition from owners of neighbouring sites that were concerned that the application would limit their own development options but only Cllr Dixon voted against.

As it turned out it was the application to build an up to 10 storey hotel on the otherwise two storey family home side of Elm Road in central Wembley where the decision was really on the edge!

 

The 20 minute video below features the end of decision making where there is a tied vote (Cllr Johnson was absent) and prompted by the planning officer Chair of the Committee,  Cllr Kelcher votes for the proposal. 

 

Cllrs Saqib Butt, Begum and Akram voted against and Cllr Kelcher, Chappell and Patel for. Cllr Dixon abstained. 

 

 

 

 

Cllr Akram intervened after the vote to ask whether the vote could be retaken to give Cllr Dixon a chance to vote against the application. If you listen carefully to the video Cllr Dixon, asked for reasons for her abstention, says (16.50):

I think it is against because I'm not confident that we are following our, some of our, policies around the tall zone and I think it is out of character.

The reasons she gave were very similar to those given by councillors who voted against.

Cllr Kelcher told Cllr Akram that they'd had the chance to vote and it stood. Cllr Dixon did not contribute further. Cllr Akram said the reasons for rejection were quite clear, it was overbearing and not in character with the area. He added, 'It's quite upsetting that it's been put forward and approved, but that's the decision that has been made.'

During the discussion and questioning of planning officers there were concerns that it was a tall building but not in a tall building zone and that this approval would set a precedent for more tall buildings on Elm Road, especially as the developer had been buying up the 2 storey houses. Much of the support for the application came from local businesses on the High Road. Planning officers said that it contributed to the growth of Wembley as a metropolitan area.

Cllr Saqib Butt said:

This is an aparthotel. It is not giving our residents any sort of benefit whatsover, apart from blocking the light, outside of a tall building zone in a completely residential area.

Ironically on the other side of theChiltern railway is Princes Court that used to be designated a site of distinguished suburban development. I don't know if that is still the case.

Wembley Stadium's 9 extra non-sporting events application to be heard on September 11th. Brent Chief Planner recommends 'GRANT CONSENT'

 From Brent Council

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (as amended) THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

Re: Wembley National Stadium, Olympic Way, Wembley, HA9 0WS

I refer to the planning application for the above site which proposes:-

Variation of conditions 1 (Event Cap) and 2 (Temporary Traffic Management) of Variation of Conditions reference 20/4197 dated 21 June, 2021, for Proposed variation of Condition 1 (event cap) of planning permission reference 18/4307 (varied permission for the construction of the stadium, dated 07/03/2019), to allow up to 9 additional major non-sporting events per event calendar year.

The current application includes the submission of an Environmental Statement.

The application will be formally considered at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 11 September, 2024 starting at 6pm.

This meeting of the Committee has been arranged to take place in the Conference Hall, at the Civic Centre.

Those who wish to observe proceedings may either do so in person or via the live webstream which we will make available on the Council’s website:

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/democracy-in-brent/local-democracy/live-streaming/
 

It is possible to speak at the Committee Meeting, which can be undertaken online (or via the telephone) or in person at the meeting, subject to the restrictions set out in the Council's Standing Order. These provide for one objector and/or one supporter of the application to speak. The Chair has the discretion to increase this to two people from each side. In doing this, the Chair will give priority to occupiers nearest to the application site or representing a group of people.

To address the committee you must notify Executive and Member Services by 5 pm on the working day before the committee meeting. Please email committee@brent.gov.uk or telephone the Executive and Member Services Officer, Mrs Dev Bhanji, on 07786 681276 during office hours. Please indicate if you intend to speak at physical meeting or online.

The Chief Planner's recommendation for this application is to Grant Consent subject to Legal agreement

Yours sincerely

Sean Newton
Neighbourhoods & Regeneration

Extra Event Days petition to be presented to Brent Cabinet on September 9th

 

Summer 2025

 

The Liberal Democrat petition on additional Wembley Event Days will be presented to the next Brent Council Cabinet on Monday September 9th. This means that the petition will be heard before Wembley Stadium's planning application for extra events goes to Planning Committee.

The aim is to persuade the Council that this matter is so important  that they should hold consultation meetings with local residents and businesses so that they are fully aware of the impact of events now and the potential disruption of extra days. This was done when Tottenham Hotspur applied to use the stadium. A Planning Committee with limited time for residents to speak is not sufficient.

If residents wish make their own representations about the impact extra event days would have on them personally they could write to Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, at: cllr.muhammed.butt@brent.gov.uk

 THE PETITION (Now closed):

We the undersigned petition the council to Consult and to Listen to concerns of local residents and businesses about the impact of increasing the number of "Large" Events at Wembley Stadium

Plans for the new Wembley Stadium were approved in 1999 with a limit of 37 Large Events per year. A few years later Brent Council allowed an increase to 46 Large Events per year. The Stadium owners have now applied for planning permission to increase this by another 8 to 54 Large Events per year.

 

Large Events at the Stadium have a major impact on the lives of local people and business - especially when as many as three events are held on 3 successive days.

 

We call on Brent Council (jointly with representatives of the FA) to carry out an extensive public consultation with Brent residents and local businesses on the social and economic impacts of Wembley Stadium Large scale events before the Planning Application is considered by the Brent Council's Planning Committee.

 

We believe that local people and businesses have the right to be properly consulted and informed about these possible changes and for their views to be assessed and documented before any decision is made.

The petition will also be referred to the relevant Director and Lead Members as well as the appropriate Scrutiny Committee.

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.

Petition launched calling for Brent Council and Wembley Stadium to consult with Brent public BEFORE 'Large Event' increase goes to Planning Committee

Brent Liberal Democrats have launched an e-petition calling for local people to have a voice in Wembley National Stadium Limited's  bid to run more large events at the stadium:

We the undersigned petition the council to Consult and to Listen to concerns of local residents and businesses about the impact of increasing the number of "Large" Events at Wembley Stadium

Plans for the new Wembley Stadium were approved in 1999 with a limit of 37 Large Events per year. A few years later Brent Council allowed an increase to 46 Large Events per year. The Stadium owners have now applied for planning permission to increase this by another 8 to 54 Large Events per year.

Large Events at the Stadium have a major impact on the lives of local people and business - especially when as many as three events are held on 3 successive days.

We call on Brent Council (jointly with representatives of the FA) to carry out an extensive public consultation with Brent residents and local businesses on the social and economic impacts of Wembley Stadium Large scale events before the Planning Application is considered by the Brent Council's Planning Committee.

We believe that local people and businesses have the right to be properly consulted and informed about these possible changes and for their views to be assessed and documented before any decision is made.

Started by: Paul Lorber (Brent Liberal Democrats)

This ePetition runs from 11/07/2024 to 22/08/2024.

SIGN HERE

Nothing in the London Road development for Brent people says Cllr Saqib Butt - then votes for it

 

Slide shown at Planning Committee showing the site of the 8 shops on London Road in the foreground and Wembley Central flats behind them.

The two new blocks

Wednesday's Planning Committee was a curious affair with at one time, despite the developer and officers explaining several times why the two proposed mid-rise blocks (6 and 7-storey) on London Road should not be higher (overbearing, over-shadowing, reduced daylight and sunlight,) Cllr Liz Dixon  insisting that they should be higher.  Her idea was that if they were higher the developer would be able to provide some affordable housing (there is none in the development) - an argument she has used before without quoting evidence in terms of financial viability.

The case of Cllr Saqib Butt, vice chair of the Planning Commitete and brother of Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council was interesting. He had obviously read the documentation thoroughly and as you can see from the footage below found much wrong with the planning application:

 

 He finishes by saying:

There is nothing here for our Brent residents that is a positive I can find, apart from market rents which our residents will not be able to afford.

As on other occasions his contribution contains a careful assessment that would lead you to think he would vote against a proposal. However, as has also happened before, he voted in SUPPORT of the application.

It may be a good idea for those supporting an application to have to give their reasons. At present the default rule is that this only has to be done by those abstaining or voting against.

There was an interesting intervention by Cllr Ajmal Akram who had also done his homework. He asked who was the true land-owner behind the development. The papers said Freshwater but his search of the Land Registry found that it was Daejan Investments (/Holdings) a company that there were concerns about.

He was told that this was not an issue for the Planning Committee and anyway the ultimate developer may be another company.  The Freshwater family own Daejan Investments. There has been controversy because they have no women on their board as this would offend their Orthdox Jewish Charedi values. LINK

The company also launched a very expensive battle with mansion block leaseholders as the freeholder that went to the Supreme Court. Daejan won.  LINK

Maybe that made Cllr Butt pause for thought.

The Committee voted 4-3 in favour of the application. Councillors Akram, Dixon and Maurice all voted against on the ground of non-compliance with various planning guidelines including the loss of commercial space on London Road.

Cllr Rita Begum, as far as I could see took no part in the proceedings. I understand that she has thrown her hat in the ring to become Deputy Leader of the Labour Group at the upcoming AGM,  a post currently held by Milli Patel. Apparently in her pitch for the job she emphasised effective communication with stakeholders including Labour Party branches.  As a Kilburn councillor she is not known for regular attendance at the Kilburn branch.

There will be a later viability review when the site has been developed and tru costs are known but as it stand there is not affordable housing on the site and no contribution towards affordable housing elsewhere in the borough.

 

Student accommodation wins narrowly over local housing need at Brent Planning Committee

 The representations made by Cllr Ihtesham Afzal, (Wembley Hilll ward), set the context for consideration of the Wembley High Road  planning application for two student blocks, together housing 639 students,  at Wednesday's Planning Committee. Another student block at Fairgate House, adjacent to the site, of 349 beds, 35% affordable,  has already been consented. The blocks  of 20 and 22 storeys are wedged between Wembley High Road and the Chiltern railway line.

Cllr Afzal questioned why student accommodation when there was a crying need for housing  for the thousands of people on Brent's housing list.  I have embedded the video of the discussion that resulted above as it rehearses many of the arguments on both sides of the debate and important for future applications.

A particularly controversial aspect of the proposal was that unlike Fairgate House, the scheme proposed no affordable student housing at all, based on a viability assessment. 

The developer, Regal London, claimed exceptional reasons for the lack of affordable accommodation and offered £3.95m for affordable housing elsewhere as well as  £70k towards local parks.

Some councillors were perplexed by the developer's claim that there are 5 higher education institutions in the borough with a total of 4,695 students that needed accommodation and 37 higher education institutions within a convenient 45 minute journey with a total of 176,100 students. Why was Brent expected to take more than its fair share of students?

The Committee chair, Cllr Matt Kelcher, suggested that students may want purpose-built accommodation in their first year but later, having made friends, they wanted to move together into shared private rental.  The developer argued the opposite - that building such accommodation would mean that students would move in from privately rented accommodation freeing it up for families.

There was also concern about ther loss of light to neighbouring new developments as well as to the flats above the shops on Wembley High Road. and the loss of trees on what was once (and still is on the other side of the railway) a green corridor along the embankment.

Councillors were told that replacement trees (planting and maintenance) cost an average of £2,500 per tree. 58 trees woudl be lost and 41 new trees planted. The latter were of superior quality councillors were told.

Curiously, some of the councillors who had asked the most incisive questions voted for the scheme, including the Chair, Matt Kelcher, and the Vice Chair, Saqib Butt (the Council leader's brother) LINK. I leave it to readers to watch the video and see if the questions they had raised had been adequately answered.

Four councillors voted in favour of the scheme and three against. 

Those voting against an application are required to give their reasons:

Cllr Chappell - no affordable student application provided and did not agree that there were exceptional reasons for this.

Cllr Dixon - the site allocation as student accommodation was problematic, disagreed that there were exceptional circumstances to justify lack of affordable accommodation. The £3.95m to be provided towards provision of affordable housing elsewhere was not sufficient - should be renegotiated. Doesn't meet some of Brent's standards.

Cllr Maurice - site would be better off as flats as Brent has such a shortage of housing and the site could be better utilised: 'I am not happy with the whole thing'.

 

 

The proposal now has to be considered at Stage 2 by the London Mayor. No comments so far. LINK

The inexorable march of tall towers down Wembley High Road to continue at Planning Committee tonight

 

The view from down Wembley High Road - emerging developments are the thin blue lines in he distance including the former Copland School site

 

Brent planners are recommending that the Planning Committee tonight approve two new towers on Wembley High Road wedged between the Chiltern railway line and the existing buildings at 390-408 High Road (also due to be redeveloped).

 

The two towers are 20 and 22 storeys high (up from a previous application of 13 and 17 storeys in May 2023) and will provide 639  student beds.  None will be available but Brent planners suggest settling for £3.98 million in lieu (c£6,2050 per bed) :

No affordable student accommodation is proposed. Instead, the applicant is proposing a £3.958 million cash payment in lieu towards the borough’s affordable housing programme. Absence of affordable student accommodation is contrary to London Plan Policy H15. However, a payment in lieu would enable the scheme to contribute towards addressing the need for low cost rent affordable housing, for which there is a great need at a local and strategic level. Further clarification and discussion is required to confirm how the payment would be spent to ensure net additional affordable housing as well as the expected delivery timescales. GLA officers are scrutinising the applicant’s Financial Viability Assessment  to ensure that the cash payment represents the maximum viable financial contribution that the scheme can support.

 The applicant claims to have consulted widely but the consultation resulted in only 6 written comments:

A newsletter was sent to c.2, 400 residents and businesses, inviting them to two organised public exhibition events (held nearby at Patidar House on 5th and 8th July). The events were also publicised in theBrent and Kilburn Times, to ensure maximum visibility and a dedicated on-line community hub was launched at wembleygreenway.co.uk, to enable interested parties to view the proposals and leave feedback online. Freepost and project email addresses have also been publicised to facilitate options for further feedback. Six written responses were received from residents and local businesses, with a summary of their comments contained within the Statement of Community Involvement. (SCI)

 

The Brent Planning Portal does a little better with 8 objections, including this one:

I strongly object to proposed 2 storey block of Student Housing on Wembley High Road.


The proposed development will bring no additional benefit to local residents. There is already an extreme lack of affordable housing and this proposed development will do nothing to alleviate the problem. Instead this will exacerbate it, as well as put a significant strain on already over stretched local services, traffic and primary health care, council services as well the water & sewage network.


Wembley High Road is in the 91st percentile for High Air pollution with the WHO limited exceeded on PM 2.5, PM 10 and NO2 (source: https://addresspollution.org/results/66e0177a-b70b-4179-8e76-8b78463618e2). This proposed development will only increase the levels with no mitigations in place to reduce the traffic, air, dust and noise pollution for local residents whilst these works are due to take place.


This development does not address:


1. Affordable and secure housing for residents of Brent.


2. Traffic management and impact to clean air. Action to reduce air, dust and noise pollution. When construction is taking place there are no mitigations in place to actively reduce the affect on air pollution.


3. Mitigations to overstretched local services such as schools, GPs, Dentists, Youth services and sports clubs, Council services etc.


4. Ensuring that disruption is kept to a minimum. Maintaining footpaths, roads, bus stops so that local residents can go about their daily business safely and without it being impeded by works.

Building works in such a tight spot, off a very busy road,  are likely to be a nightmare and over a considerable amount of time as building commences on that site and the buildings fronting the street. The developer intends that most deliveries to the students units from a High Road bay rather than to the building itself.

 

There is a gesture towards greening in the provision of a Green Way from the Uncle Building to the site:

 

How long will the trees to the right of the site survive?

Planning officers are keen to prove the necessity of student accommodation to meet growing needs and their report is full of detailed statistics.  LINK. Together with the other site there will be 988 student bedrooms in this small area.

Concerns over tall buildings and densification are dismissed as this is a designated tall building zone (Local Plan) in an urban environment. Reduction in daylight is to be expected in such circumstances and sufficient separation between the buildings is claimed.

Planning officers conclude (my highlinghting):

The proposed development would make efficient use of the land in a sustainable location, in line with the NPPF, and is an appropriate form of development within Wembley Town Centre and Wembley Growth Area, consistent with the aims of the site allocation policy. This is identified as an appropriate location in the Borough where tall buildings can be located, and the proposed scale, massing and appearance of the buildings would relate well to the existing and emerging context. As the report acknowledges, owing to the constrained nature of the site and dense urban pattern of development in the locality, both existing and emerging, there is expected to be some adverse impacts on daylight and sunlight conditions to some existing residential properties, as well as others coming forward in the immediate vicinity. 

 

As the report acknowledges these adverse effects would be noticeable in some cases, but commensurate with development of this form within the high density urban environment that is both existing and emerging in the locality, and such impacts which are to be expected, as well as other planning harm identified (i.e. net loss of trees) must be balanced against the overall planning benefits of the proposal. Whilst the proposal is not in accordance with London Plan policy H15, due to the absence of affordable student accommodation on site, the payment in lieu that will be secured (£3.958m) which is agreed as the maximum viable, and which is to be utilised for the delivery of additional C3 affordable homes in the Borough, for which there is the greatest need at a local and strategic level, offers greater public benefit to the Borough.

 

Overall, and on balance, the impacts identified that are to be associated with the proposed development would it is considered be clearly outweighed by the overall planning benefits that would follow, including the provision of student accommodation to meet identified demand and this contributing positively towards the housing targets within the Borough, wider economic benefits, provision of the new east to west pedestrian route (as per the site allocation policy), new public realm, urban greening measures, sustainable drainage, sustainable transport contributions and biodiversity net gain (including off-site contribution)

 

KILBURN SQUARE: Decision time (Chapter One) is finally here this Wednesday!

 

A guest post from the Chair of Kilburn Village Residents’ Association

 

WM reported three weeks ago  (https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2023/10/kilburn-square-campaigners-we-are.html  on the reaction of our local community to the (thankfully aborted) attempt to deal with this large and controversial scheme late in the evening, when the Committee clock was already into Overtime.  

 

This time, KS is the first Application on the Agenda (https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=115&MId=7565&Ver=4  ). A 6pm start is a bit early for many of our supporters to be there… but we’re pleased the Committee members will be fresh, and able to concentrate on the merits – and drawbacks – of the model in the Application as filed.

 

They will not be short of material to prompt questions:

 

·         They have the Officers’ original 61-page October 10 report, and a Supplementary report from the day before the October 18 meeting

·         But we found both of those to be less than balanced and objective

·         So we’ve provided them all with two detailed Response documents giving the very different perspective of the local community – on and off the estate

·         Both of those responses have now been posted as formal Objections on the Planning Portal (ref 22/3669)

 

The second one was linked in the last WM piece; but Martin has kindly embedded our more substantial initial response here: 

 

 

 Read it at your leisure – but here’s the message in a nutshell:

 

• We’d support a scheme just replacing two daytime-use buildings (such as Blocks A and B in the version now proposed), in line with the Local Plan Site Allocation and the April 2020 Cabinet report approving a development partnership with Network Homes
• But encroaching on the actual estate, removing valued green space and mature trees while adding more households (60% more vs 2019) to share the reduced communal space (like Blocks C and E) … is a Bridge Too Far

 

And here’s the Exec Summary

1.       This scheme is still too big, there are significant other policy breaches, and not all claims for flexibility are justified

2.       After a totally ineffective pre-engagement programme, the applicant is seeking to impose this version of the scheme despite the local community’s overwhelming call for a smaller, fairer model 

3.       The public interest benefit is tempered by affordability issues and the proposed tenure mix is unlikely to be deliverable

4.       Conclusion: we do not believe this scheme represents a fair balance, and urge the committee to decline approval

 

Two particular topics we feel are unacceptably dismissed by the Officers are the pre-engagement process and the Sandwood overshadowing by too-close-for comfort Block E 

 

The Officers dismissively say pre-engagement is not a statutory requirement, that there’s “a difference of opinion” about the effectiveness of what was done, and the Committee must determine the Application purely “on its merits”. If that were true, what was the point of mounting a superficially thorough pre-engagement effort? 

 

·         Brent regularly acknowledges the importance of consultation beyond legal requirements, and “taking the community with us”

·         We’ve often quoted senior Brent figures saying they “will not force homes on anyone” and want “a scheme that can work for everyone”

·         Brent has a detailed 2017 policy document spelling out the required process (NOT followed in the second stage consultation here)

·         The London Mayor specifically reminded the Applicant’s project team in 2021 he requires a process that is “…responsive and meaningful” – which we have demonstrated this was not

·         The project team told residents in 2021 that the engagement process was “one of three pillars” of the project evaluation

·         A senior Brent Officer was (with no irony) one of the judges for Best Community Engagement in the industry-wide “Pineapple” Awards

 

Overshadowing by Block E should be an Open and Shut case. 

 

The consultant’s report clearly says if BRE 209 guidance is strictly followed, it could be no more than 1-2 storeys.  The Officers’ report acknowledges that – and then tries to accept a series of the Applicant’s excuses for building it (five storeys) anyway

 

·         Irrelevant hypotheses about modelling the result without the Sandwood balconies, or if E were a mirror image of Sandwood’s East face (12 flats affected) – PURE SOPHISTRY!

·         Claims that living conditions in the rest of the Sandwood flats will still be fine (WRONG – residents already need lights switched on in the daytime)

·         Claims that the amount of acknowledged overshadowing across the whole scheme is modest – and acceptable given the “public interest” delivered; how is that fair to Sandwood residents?

·         Unsubstantiated statements that the guidance is largely intended for rural locations

 

The consultant’s report in the Application also talks of “site constraints” as a possible basis for lenience; but Block E is totally standalone – and removing it would not have any bearing on the rest of the scheme

 

To our minds, the Case against Block E is a sufficient valid Planning Objection to require that the Application be declined

 

Chapter Two

 

And then, if Permission is granted on Wednesday, there will have at some stage to be a Chapter Two – once a viable funding model is found and a modified tenure mix, with perhaps 30% of units for outright market sale, will need to be re-submitted to the Committee…   

 

If only the Applicant had had the moral courage to make that adjustment NOW – while the scheme is getting the fullest possible scrutiny!

 

Keith Anderson

Say after me, 'The benefits of the scheme outweigh the harm/impact/conflict with policy'. Brent Council infill proposals come to Brent Planning on Wednesday

 

It promises to be quite a marathon meeting at the next Brent Council Planning Committee. on Wednesday Three of the proposals are from Brent Council itself and propose infill plans on existing council estates that have been opposed by current tenants and leaseholders.

The officers' recommendations now follow the established pattern of recognising various problems with the applications but end up narrowing them down to a judgement that benefits outweigh the pronlems, even when those are loss of green space, trees, light or a conflict with policy.

Clement Close, Willesden. 68 objections and petition against of 267 signatures, Demolition of one bungalow to be replaced with 21 residential units of 2 terraces and 3 flatted blocks,

 

“Whilst the proposal results in some impacts such as the loss of trees and open space across the site, officers consider that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to accord broadly with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions. The proposal would deliver 21 homes that would contribute the Council's housing targets, and the limited conflict with policy would be outweighed by the planning benefits. The benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh any less than substantial harm to  the trees within the gardens of neighbouring properties.”

 

Kilburn Square, Kilburn. 117 letters of objection alongside several letter of objection from Kilburn Village Residents Association. Infill of 139 units in four blocks of 5-8 storeys.

 

“These public benefits are significant and would far outweigh any harm that has been identified and the application is considered to be in compliance with the Development Plan when read as a whole. It is therefore considered that the application should be approved subject to the conditions”

 

 

Newland Court, Wembley Park. 45 objections. Demolition of all garages replaced by five new homes.

 

“Whilst the proposal does not meet the 0.4 target for the Urban Greening Factor as set out within policy BH4 and is likely to result in the trees along the northern boundary within the conservation area to require more frequent re-crowning as a result of the development, the scheme would deliver significant benefits including the provision of five affordable family sized homes. Officers consider that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to accord broadly with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, and that the application should be approved subject to conditions. The proposal would deliver five family sized homes that would help to meet the Council's housing needs, and the limited conflict with policy would be outweighed by the planning benefits. The benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the impacts associated with the potential higher frequency of work to the trees within the gardens of Barn Hill Conservation Area and the less than substantial harm to the conservation area that may occur.”

 

I will be publishing more from the objectors over the next tw days.

'Flood? What flood? Never heard anything about it,' say Wembley Point developer's agents as Tokyngton Wembley Point towers approved

 

 

Sometimes there is a jaw-dropping moment at Brent Planning Committee. Often it is the sheer audacity of planning officers' justification of developer's failure to meeting the demands of planning guidance. 

Yesterday it was the confession of the Wembley Point developer's agent team that they knew nothing about the August floods at the Argenta House/Tokyngton Avenue site adjacent to the area on which they wish to build. 

 

 

 Heavy pumping equipment at the site

 

They seemed pretty nonchalant about their ignorance but this leads to a second thought. Why did Brent planning officers not inform them about the incident which led to TV and newspaper headlines, with one person having to be rescued from their van and families evacuated.  Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, had even visited the site to reassure residents and tweeted about it. LINK

 

 

Even more troubling, the matter was smoothly passed over and the Committee went on to approve the application, with even the most sceptical coucncillor, Tory Cllr Jayanti Patel (substituting for Cllr Maurice), voting for approval.

This is the modelling of the water flow in the event of a flood - it goes into the Wembley Brook which residents of Tokyngton Avenue should be alert to.

 

"In the event of a flood, floodwater from the River Brent which surfaces on the Site flows around the north and south of the existing Wembley Point building, discharging into Wembley Brook, which is within the demise of Argentina House(sic)"  [Design and Access Statement]

Cllr Dixon abstained on the basis that there was insufficient affordable housing in the scheme (24.8%) against a target of 35% if the Local Plan target of 50% could not be met. She was also concerned about the discrepancy between two independent viability ssessments that led to the reduction in affordable housing. She wanted developers to be more ambitious, even if that meant adding a few storeys to the proposals, and for officesr to be more demanding.

Despite many objections on the planning portal and 29 properties being affected by restricted access to light and overlooking, there  was no speaker against the 550 unit (only 116 'affordable') homes. This is in marked contrast to the number of public representations at the Mumbai Junction application at the last meeting.

 

 From the Design and Access Statement

 

Although Stonebridge Boxing Club was named as the occupant of the proposed community building in the Design and Access statement, the developer's agent hastily clarified on questioning that it could be another community organisation.

 

The application now goes to the GLA where you can register to be kept informed of progress. LINK