Key questions remain unanswered about the Health & Wellbeing Hub in Gladstone Park

 

The proposed building

The proposed Health and Wellbeing Hub  in Gladstone Park has aroused some strong feelings on either side with debate on Wembley Matters and Next Door. In particular read the comments as well as the Letters:    LETTER: We have not been told the whole story about the Gladstone Park Health Hub and  LETTER: Gladstone Park Medical Centre - Is there a Phase 2? What is it?

Cllr Mary Mitchell, Green councillor for Willesden Green ward where the Hub is planned to be situated, has been carefully considering the issues involved.

Cllr Mitchell writes:  

As Brent Council prepares to consider plans for a new Health and Wellbeing Hub in Gladstone Park, I have written to the Leader of the Council, Cabinet Members and the Chair of the Planning Committee to set out a number of concerns that I believe should be addressed before the application is determined.

To be clear, I support the expansion of local GP services and recognise the need for improved healthcare provision across Brent. However, I am not yet convinced that building on Metropolitan Open Land is the only way to achieve this.

My letter calls for greater transparency over how the site was chosen, fuller assessment of alternative locations, clearer evidence of the project’s environmental and community impacts, and a more informed public consultation before decisions are taken on the use of protected public land and nearly £3 million of public funding.

I hope the letter contributes constructively to the debate and helps ensure that residents have access to the information they need as this important planning application progresses.

Full text below:

 

To Cllr Muhammed Butt, the Leader of the Council, Cllr Saqib Butt, the Chair of Brent Planning Committee, Cllr Matt Kelcher, Lead Member for Planning and Regeneration, and Cllr Liz Dixon, Lead Member for Community Safety and Public Health.

 

As we imminently expect the submission of the full planning application for the proposed Willesden Health and Wellbeing Hub in Gladstone Park, I wanted to set out my concerns, building on those I raised in my emails of 26 March and 28 April to the former Cabinet Member for Regeneration.

I fully recognise the need to expand GP provision in Cricklewood, Willesden Green and across Brent and support these efforts. However, there are a number of significant concerns that this plan raises, which I hope can be addressed through the provision of additional information to support the planning process, and made public to residents to ensure adequate transparency and scrutiny.

 

I believe that the Planning Committee should seek the following information before determining the application.

 

1. Confidence in the assessment of alternative sites

 

The proposed site is the former Gladstone Youth and Community Centre at 162 Anson Road, adjacent to the children’s playground. Although buildings currently exist on the site, it is designated Metropolitan Open Land.

 

Metropolitan Open Land benefits from the highest level of planning protection in London with Policy G3 of the London Plan affording MOL the same level of protection as Green Belt. Any proposal seeking to override that designation on the basis of “very special circumstances” must therefore be supported by compelling evidence and subject to exceptional scrutiny. Although every planning application must be determined on its own merits, approval of development on MOL in this instance would inevitably be cited in future proposals affecting similarly protected land.

 

At a time of increasing biodiversity loss, urban heat stress and surface water flood risk, it is essential that this designation is only overridden where the justification is clear and robust. It is therefore essential that the evidence underpinning site selection is robust, up to date and available for public scrutiny.

 

The Committee should require publication of a more recent NHS Estates options appraisal demonstrating why this site is the only viable location. The most recent feasibility work referenced dates from 2023 and, importantly, Brent Council confirmed on 14 May by email that it “does not hold the full NHS/applicant site-wide assessment or options appraisal.” It is difficult to conclude that the “very special circumstances” test has been met if the underlying evidence is unavailable.

 

The Council should also demonstrate that it has independently assessed alternative locations rather than relying solely on the NHS Estates process. If it is prepared to provide public land to facilitate the relocation of Willesden Green Surgery, it should be able to evidence that no other suitable site exists to serve residents in the Church End, Neasden Stations and Staples Corner growth areas.

 

In particular, I would welcome an explanation of why this flagship Integrated Care Centre cannot be accommodated within one of Brent’s designated regeneration areas. 

 

For example, Site Allocation BSSA2 within the Church End Growth Area Masterplan already identifies provision for a 1,855m² health facility. Likewise, the Council should explain why existing assets, such as the former Neasden Library within the Neasden Growth Area, have not been considered appropriate alternatives.

 

The Committee should also clarify why a single flagship practice serving upwards of 20,000 patients is considered preferable to a distributed “hub and spokes” model using smaller premises, potentially including Council-owned buildings such as 395 Chapter Road, a designated health centre that currently stands empty. Such an approach could reduce travel distances for patients while aligning with the Government’s “Health on the High Street” agenda.

 

2. Transparency about the scale and type of the proposed development, and the decision-making process that has led to this partnership between the Council and the Willesden Green Surgery

The Committee should receive full transparency regarding the process through which this site was selected and the basis upon which a 150-year peppercorn lease is proposed, enabling a private enterprise to profit from public land.

 

Given the value of both the public land being given to the GP practice with no yearly rental costs, and the proposed £2.97 million Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy allocation, residents are entitled to understand on what basis this offer was made, and whether this financial subsidy was also offered to other GP practices to enable their growth.

 

The patient catchment should also be clarified. Residents should note that the consultation catchment was amended only two days before the close of the initial consultation period, on 30 March, to include a 1.5-mile catchment area. This inevitably affects how residents interpret the scale and impact of the proposal.

 

Wider detail of how this site has been assessed and fits into the wider healthcare picture for Brent would increase transparency and help to provide confidence in this plan. Is this Hub designed to be a Neighbourhood Health Centre (with a minimum patient roll of 30,000 patients)? Guidance from NHS England on Neighbourhood Health Centres (NHCs) in April 2026^[1] states that where new build centres are proposed, locations including town and local centres and high streets should normally be preferred.

Where a new NHC is proposed away from an existing community focal point, a local authority assessment may be provided. There are requirements for Integrated Care Boards to propose a pipeline of NHCs and how they are organised across the footprint to deliver effective clinical strategies. If these activities have taken place, they have not been made public.

 

Furthermore the ongoing financial management and governance of the NHC should be made available, so as to assess the Council’s role in financially supporting it. It is noted that there is no reference to the establishment of an NHC in any public papers from the Brent Health & Wellbeing Board, Brent Primary Care Executive Group, or the North West London Integrated Care Partnership board meetings as would reasonably be expected.

 

3. A full assessment of impact

 

Before determining the application, the Committee should require a comprehensive Travel Plan demonstrating how patients from Church End, Staples Corner and the wider catchment will access the site. This should assess public transport, walking routes, parking demand and traffic impacts. 

For some patients, particularly those with mobility issues, attending appointments may require multiple bus journeys despite the proposal being intended to improve access to healthcare.

 

The application should also include a robust assessment of footfall on the park and the local area and knock-on impacts such as littering. The proposal represents a significant change in the use of the site, from recreation and community use to a healthcare facility operating seven days a week, employing between 50 and 100 staff and potentially attracting up to 1,000 visitors each day.

 

Although the building is intended to achieve a high BREEAM standard, this should not substitute for assessing the wider environmental impacts of the development itself. Construction impacts, biodiversity, urban heat, carbon emissions and surface water flood risk all require careful consideration, particularly as the site is identified as being at high risk of surface water flooding.

 

4. An updated and comprehensive view of community benefit

 

The proposal also involves the permanent loss of an existing community site on open public land. While the current buildings are no longer fit for purpose, this reflects decades of underinvestment rather than an absence of community need. The former community centre, with estimated repair costs of around £410,000, could potentially have been refurbished or repurposed to meet any of the very real community needs residents in Willesden Green and Cricklewood have, including youth services and recreation. This proposal should therefore be considered in the wider context of Brent’s continuing loss of community assets, including libraries and community centres.

The Committee should seek updated proposals for the café and first-floor community space, reflecting the feedback received during consultation. Although Cabinet has already approved £2.97 million of Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy funding, the planning process should still consider whether the community facilities genuinely reflect identified local need.

 

Residents are entitled to understand why this represents the best use of almost £3 million of developer contributions when alternative investments across Willesden Green and Cricklewood, including youth provision, crime prevention initiatives and the refurbishment of existing community facilities, could potentially deliver greater community benefit at significantly lower cost.

 

5. A new consultation process

 

Finally, I hope the Planning Committee will ensure that residents are able to comment on the application with all the relevant evidence before them. Without the Travel Plan, assessments of footfall and environmental impact, and with the patient catchment only expanded towards the end of the original consultation period, it is difficult to conclude that residents participating in the first stage of engagement were fully informed.

 

If Brent Council continues to support this scheme, including through the allocation of £2.97 million of Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy funding and the proposed grant of public land through a long-term peppercorn lease, I would encourage those who have championed the project including the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Planning to engage directly with residents during the planning process. To date, much of the public advocacy has fallen to the Willesden Green Medical Practice. Those responsible for the Council’s decisions concerning public land and public funding must be prepared to explain and defend those decisions openly.

 

I remain fully supportive of expanding healthcare provision for Brent residents. However, I am not yet persuaded that the Council has demonstrated why this development must take place on Metropolitan Open Land, why alternative sites have been discounted, or why this proposal represents the best use of both scarce public land within the boundaries of a much used and much loved local park and £2.97 million of Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy funding.

 

I hope these issues will be addressed before the application is determined, and I look forward to continuing to engage constructively throughout the planning process to ensure that Brent delivers both the healthcare facilities and the public spaces that our growing communities need.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Councillor Mary Mitchell

 

Ward Councillor for Willesden Green

Hazel Road development, opposed by local residents, a local heritage historian and Queens Park ward councillors passed with just one Green councillor against

Front elevation showing the new building and nearby houses

 I watched the council's livestream of the Planning Committee earlier this week but the sound was so poor i could not hear the two presentations at the begining of the meeting. They just happened to be presentations against the controversial replacement proposals for the Victorian community centre in Hazel Road.

 

I tried the recording of the meeting but that was just as bad so I have asked the two speakers for copies of their presentation to publish. The public have a right to know what they said.

 

 Unofficial impression of the current building and the new

 Phil O’Shea’s spoke to the  Planning Committee on behalf of Kensal Green's Residents Association.

  

Good evening. I’m Phil O’Shea, speaking for Kensal Green Residents Association. I live on Hazel Road. 

 

There are clear reasons why this application has attracted 151[1] objections.

 

Even the committee report acknowledges that this proposal falls short of required standards. That alone means this is not the right development for this site. Hazel Road is in a two-storey Victorian neighbourhood. 

 

Brent’s Historic Environment Strategy is clear. Once much-loved heritage buildings like Harriet Tubman House are demolished, their value to the community is lost forever. 

 

The proposed glass and aluminium block is wholly out of keeping with a brick Victorian neighbourhood. At four storeys, it would be over-dominant and harmful to local character. 

 

The committee report misrepresents Brent Local Plan Policies which support contemporary design - where it respects and complements historic character and require development - to conserve and enhance heritage assets’.[2] This proposal fails those tests.

 

The demolition of our Community Centre - which supports playgroups, exercise classes, warm-space provision, counselling, arts, church groups, community christmas lunches - means more than a halving – a loss of over 53% - of dedicated community space – and once the new hallway and toilet are deducted – we’re left with a space 10 by 11 metres.[3] The suggestion that these groups can instead hire a training room, IT suite, or roof terrace from Making the Leap - is simply not viable.

 

The report tries to suggest that the scheme will improve local safety, yet the proposed Hazel Road frontage includes a covered porch and alcoves that are likely to attract anti-social behaviour after dark. 

 

Residents opposite the proposed block would suffer up to a 36.5% loss of daylight, including in homes occupied by some vulnerable people. The daylight consultant did not visit number 31a. Users of the proposed roof terrace would be able to look straight down through their skylight and onto their bed.

  

A large part of Hazel Road Open space will be lost during construction and  - Making the Leap - propose to “reclaim” an area of the parkland adjacent to the children’s play area. 

 

Network Rail objected to this proposal in January last year because the Bakerloo and Lioness lines run approximately five metres beneath the proposed development. That objection was withdrawn last month - without any publicly available explanation - and it is unclear what assurances or technical information were provided by the applicant. 

 

Taken together, the proposal causes clear harm to heritage, amenity, safety and community provision. For these reasons —residents believe this application should not be approved.

 

---

[1] 163 in total, 151 objections, 10 in favour, 2 neutral

[2] Local Plan Polices BD1, DMP1 & BP6 South East – and see KGRA 100226, how the Committee Report misrepresents DMP1 & BD1

[3] From 247 square metres to 115msq. The new community centre will have a hallway of 13msq, toilet & store of 15.5msq leaving 105.6msq

 

 

Application 25/0041 – Philip Grant’s heritage presentation to Planning Committee:

I only have time to outline the heritage objections. Please ask me for details at the end.

Part e) of policy BHC1 is key to deciding this application. It says: “proposals affecting heritage assets should … seek to avoid harm in the first instance. Substantial harm or loss should be exceptional, especially where the asset is of high significance.

Any proposed … loss of a heritage asset … should require clear and convincing justification, and can be outweighed by material planning considerations in the form of public benefits, but only if these are sufficiently powerful.’

This proposal would demolish a heritage asset, which my detailed February 2025 Alternative Heritage Statement showed has high significance. It also explained why the applicant’s main public benefit claim was no benefit at all!

I’d shown the proposals failed the part e) test, but the Case Officer wanted the application approved. He asked the agent to send a revised heritage statement, and when that wasn’t good enough, he spelt out what it needed to say. Consultation on this second revised version was invited on 10 June, but the document wasn’t published until 9 July!

The Heritage Officer’s November comments included a serious error, saying 28 Hazel Road ‘was not considered to have reached the necessary threshold for local listing.' If true, its significance score could be no more than five, and that was the score he gave it.

I drew this error to his attention, but the Committee Report still used the false claim. Now the Supplementary Report tries to “spin” its correction, but all the non-designated heritage assets identified in 2016 would have scored at least six. I believe the true score is nine.

The Report uses the agent’s claimed public benefits, but doesn’t mention my counter views. The proposal cuts community space in half, to just 115sqm, but the agent claims we should treat it as 450sqm. That includes training rooms which might occasionally be hired out. The proposed Access Plan condition would only cover use of one small community room.

The heritage asset IS of high significance, and the public benefits are NOT ‘sufficiently powerful’ to justify its demolition. The application should be refused.

Philip Grant’s thoughts about the Planning Committee consideration on Hazel Road:

I realise that I could be accused of bias, because I was at the meeting as an objector, but I have tried to make my thoughts about it objective.

 

One feature of how the case was handled by Planning Officers is that they did not show any images, apart from the site plan, when introducing the application at the meeting, and there were none apart from the site plan in the agenda pack which members had. Committee members had apparently had a site visit, so would have seen the existing street and building, but they had not seen any drawings of the proposed building.

 

The Development Management Area Manager (South Team), who introduced the application, spoke mainly about what a good modern design the proposed building was. He clearly had no feeling for heritage buildings, or the Victorian character of the Hazel Road area!

 

Phil O’Shea of Kensal Green Residents’ Association spoke about the application and its effect on the Hazel Road neighbourhood, pointing out where it went against several Brent planning policies. I presented the heritage case explaining why the application failed the Local Plan heritage policy tests, so should be refused, then answered several questions from committee members fully and honestly.

 

Two Queen’s Park Ward councillors, Lesley Smith and Neil Nerva, then spoke against the application, reinforcing the views of local residents that the proposed building was not suitable for the scale and character of the area.

 

The Chief Executive of Making the Leap then spoke in favour of the application, emphasising the valuable work his charity does in training young people, mainly from BAME backgrounds. He wanted them to be able to learn in a modern building, like the ones they aspired to work at in Central London, rather than in one that is now not up to standard. His planning agent and architect help answer questions from committee members.

 

Committee members then put questions to Council Officers. Among these, Brent’s new Heritage Officer maintained his view that the former Victorian mission hall had only low to medium significance, and in his opinion would not have qualified for Local Listing.

 

The Development Management Manager for the whole of Brent, who led the Planning Officers' response to members questions, did her best to justify the application. She claim that the four-storey building would not look out of place, as there were other buildings of a similar height nearby on Harrow Road (the two Queens Park councillors sitting beside me were shaking their heads in disbelief, as Harrow Road is separated from Hazel Road by an open space and bank, and is at least five metres lower down the slope).

 

She also gave a long (and unnecessary) explanation of the different types of heritage building for planning purposes, suggesting that even though 28 Hazel Road was treated as a non-designated heritage asset, it did not mean it deserved as much protection for planning purposes as Statutory Listed buildings (I had never claimed that it did, only that it needed to be properly considered in line with Brent’s policy BHC1).

 

Towards the end of Officer questioning, Cllr. Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam asked Officers to show some images of the existing street and the proposed building. Because of delays in finding those pictures, the Chair said that they would carry on with questions, and the images were only shown, for a few seconds each, while members were dealing with other matters. The image below was the only one, shown briefly, of the proposed building. This was on the bigscreen, opposite Cllr. Robert Johnson, and he was the only member who I saw looking at it.

 

The front elevation of the proposed building and nearby homes in Hazel Road.

 

When it came to a vote on whether members agreed with the Officers recommendation to approve the application, Cllr. Johnson abstained, on the grounds that he was concerned about the scale of the proposed building. You can see why! That may be why Officers didn't want members to see it.

 

In summing up the Officer’s comments, the Development Management Manager said that what members needed to decide was whether the application did more good than harm (and I’m sure she was not just referring to the heritage policy question). She did not mention the different policies which objectors had pointed to as reasons why the application should be refused, despite planning decisions supposedly being based on planning policy!

 

The ”more good than harm” argument has been used before by Brent Planning Officers to sway committee members’ decisions, when objectors have shown that the application which Officers wish to see approved goes against Brent’s adopted planning policies. One which immediately comes to mind is the 776/778 Harrow Road (the Barham Park former park-keepers homes) case in 2023. After that I challenged Brent’s then Head of Planning to show what planning policy contained the ”more good than harm” principle, and did not get a straight answer.

 

As the time was around 7.30pm, with two more applications still to be dealt with on the agenda, the Chair, Cllr. Matt Kelcher, called for a decision on the application, indicating that he thought the application had definite benefits. He, and Vice Chair Cllr. Saqib Butt, voted to accept the Officers’ recommendation to approve the application, along with three other Labour councillors (Akram, Begum and Chappell) and one Conservative (Cllr. Jayanti Patel). Green Party member, Cllr. Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam, who had been the most active questioner, voted against, and Labour’s Cllr. Robert Johnson abstained.

Brent Council seek pause in Wembley student accommodation building as proportion of students in population predicted to reach 26.8% within next 3 years

 

 

A drastic slow down in conventional home building in Brent  and a boom in purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) has led to fears of an unbalanced community, particularly in the Wembley Growth Zone.

In 2023-25 planning permission was granted for 8,000 conventional homes in Brent but there were only 656 net additionas to housing stock. Delays were blamed on shortages of labour and materials and updated safety requirements. 

Meanwhile the PBSA figures (bedrooms) were:

Completed 6,257

Under construction 1,617

Permitted/approved 1,559

Awaiting decision  2,010

 In discussion but declared acceptable by planning officers 918

 

The Wembley Growth Area 

Most of these are in the Wembley Growth area LINK:

As identified however, the spatial distribution of PBSA provision has been focussed on Wembley Growth Area where to date 6058 bedspaces have been constructed. Currently 21.8% of the Growth Area’s population is students either in PBSA or in all student households renting homes.

 

A further 1617 PBSA bedspaces are under construction and planning committee has been minded to approve 759 more bedspaces, subject to an appropriate S106 obligation. Some sites are subject to current applications and others are also in relatively advanced pre-application discussions where the principle of PBSA has been identified as acceptable. If all delivered, a further 3500 student bedspaces could be supplied in the next 3 years, resulting in 9558 bedspaces in total. It is anticipated that 1871 additional dwellings will be completed in the area in the next 3 years. Students would in three years comprise 26.8% of the overall population.

 More than a quarter of the total population would be students and this is not considered appropriate in terms of a balanced community. A planning statement is proposed that would pause  PBSA building. The officers' report suggests this would enable building of conventional housing to catch up and the student proportion of the total population would return to an acceptable 20%.

As this is an interpretation of policy in relation to clarifying the position in terms of PBSA over-concentration/ supporting balanced and mixed communities, rather than writing new policies, it is suggested that the Council issues a policy position statement. Although not officially recognised in planning statutes as a Local Development Document or perhaps having the weight of a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), if consulted upon and following the same processes as a SPD, once adopted by the Council it can be regarded as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications with some weight.

 

This will provide clarity to prospective developers or investors in PBSA, particularly in Wembley Growth Area that, other than schemes already subject to approval or with clear advice from the Council through the pre-application process that the principle of PBSA is currently acceptable, the Council is unlikely to support their scheme in the short term.

 Given developers' enthusiasm for profit-making student accommodation and the limited legal status of the 'planning statement' we may well see appeals in the future if applications are refused. Backbenchers have expressed disquiet at the amount of student accommodation being approved versus the lack of truly affordable housing. Whether building of normal homes will actually accelerate is currently unclear but as an interm measures is proposed PBSA developers rather than providing a proportion of afford student accommodation would instead make a contribution to the building of affordable homes elsewhere in the borough.

 

'Stark' 826 student accommodation that will 'tower above Cricklewood Broadway' approved by Brent Planning Committee

 

Brent Planning Committee has approved the replacement of the Matalan site on Cricklewood Broadway by two blocks of student accommodation, together comprising 826 beds. The blocks range in height from 3 to 9 storeys

 Previously the developer had permission for a lower height development of 238 residential flats but submitted the new application blaming the change of direction on regulatory changes including new fire safety requirements,

A resident submitted a deputation supporting the application citing the run down nature of the current site and its impact on the area.

In his deputation, Ben Tansley for Northwest Two Residents Association, described th proposed development as too large, bleak, imposing and stark, 'towering above Cricklewood Broadway'.  It was disproportionate in relation to the two storey houses on Temple Road.

Tansley said that the Association supported development of the site but not at this scale.  They would prefer a height of 5 storeys but would perhaps settle for seven.  He argued that the proposal did not comply with the Local Plan.

 There were the usual arguments that purpose built student accommodation would attract students currently renting houses, freeing them up for families if the application was approved. It would help meet London's overall target for student accommodation. The development would provide the equivalent of 300 homes that would count towards Brent Council's housing target.

The application was approved by 5 votes to 3 with Cllr Saqib Butt, Akram and Dixon voting against.

 

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.