Both applications were approved at yesterday's Brent Planning Committee. Only Cllr Fleur Donelly-Jackson voted against the Cricklewood Broadway/Hassop Road application on grounds that it did not mean the LA's own policy guidance. The Wembley Hill Road St George Hotel/Allied Irish Bank application was approved unanimously. There were no resident speakers against the Cricklewood Broadway application and councillors were told that Barnet Council and Cricklewood Terrace Residents' Assoication had made no submission.
There was a speaker on behalf of Mostyn Avenue residents on the Wembley Hill Road application who said there was no established demand for yet more hotel space, was concerned about disruption during building works and parking issues. She corrected the developer's agent claim that the Allied Irish Bank building had been empty for years. It has been occupied by a church that has done good work during the pandemic.
A further application, not covered previously on this blog, was for an Adult Gaming Centre on High Road Willesden. Planning officers had advocated restricted hours rather than the 24/7 opening requested by the applicant, who could see no justification for the restriction.
The Planning Committee approved the application with 8am-10pm opening Sunday to Thursday and 8am to Midnight Friday and Saturday.
Recently it has often seemed that planning officers speak directly on behalf of developers at Brent Planning Committee, rather than giving a balanced view in the light of an application's short-comings and the submissions of local residents.
Wednesday's application by Wembley National Stadium Ltd to increase the number of full capacity non-sporting events, an attendance of up to 90,000 rather than 51,000, is no exception.
The proposal:
Planning officers state:
Many objectors consider that the number of events
currently held at the stadium already has an unacceptable level of impact on
local residents. However, it should be borne in mind that this
application does not affect the number of events that take place at the
Stadium, just the capacity of the crowd. Unlimited events at up to 51,000 can
take place within the terms of the existing planning consent. Additional
mitigation measures would be secured. Some of these measures would relate to
all major events and some would relate to the additional non-sporting events.
These mitigation measures are considered
to be sufficient to warrant the additional 9 full capacity events proposed.
They later remark:
WNSL do not currently intent to hold concerts on more than four consecutive nights.
Note the 'currently'.
Live music events contributed substantially to WNSL's income in the past and went into deficit when music events were scaled back from the 2015-16 and this is clearly an attempt to to retrieve the position. LINK
There were 37 representations made on the planning portal, including one from Barn Hill Residents Assocation. All but 2 were opposed to the application, one was in favour and 2 neutral.
Local residents were concerned about the impact of the increase on the quality of their daily lives, already impacted by crowds at the stadium in normal, non-Covid times.
This is the planning officers' conclusion to their report:
The objections received indicate that there is a
level of impact currently experienced by local residents as a result of events
at the stadium, with concerns predominantly focussed on anti-social behaviour,
transport issues, air quality and noise. Some impacts are to be expected, given
the size of the stadium and its siting in a location surrounded by residential
properties and businesses, within a dense urban area.
The original cap on events was imposed to manage
the impacts until such time as specific transport improvements had been made.
Whilst most of these have taken place, not all of them have been realised.
Circumstances have changed since the original planning permission in 2002,
which suggest that the final piece of transport infrastructure (the Stadium
Access Corridor) will not be provided in its originally envisaged form, but
other changes to the road network have now taken place or are currently
underway. Therefore, the Council considers that the cap remains relevant.
Clearly, to increase the number of higher capacity
events to accommodate up to 9 additional major non-sporting events per event
calendar year would imply an increase in the impact. However, a wide range of
mitigation measures are proposed to help mitigate these impacts. There are
ongoing efforts to reduce the number of vehicles on an event day. A number of
mitigation measures are proposed to continue this work, including additional
parking enforcement capacity and an updated Event Day Spectator Travel Plan to
promote sustainable travel patterns. WNSL and public transport operators work
closely to promote sustainable transport solutions and maximise the efficiency
of the network. This in turn contributes to reducing noise and air quality
issues.
Infrastructure works including two-way working in
the area to the east of the stadium and the opening of a link between the
western end of North End Road and Bridge Road to provide an east-west route past
the Stadium that is capable of being kept open at all times before and after
Stadium events will improve traffic flow in the area and assist residents’
movements on event days.
The Trusted Parking Scheme aims to ensure
authorised car parks are responsibly run in a way that would limit their impact
on neighbouring residents and reduce local congestion, whilst the Private Hire
Management Scheme would reduce the number of vehicles in the area around the
stadium after events have finished.
Employment and Training benefits for Brent
residents would also be secured by the proposed scheme.
With regard to antisocial behaviour, a financial
contribution would be paid by the Stadium to Brent Council per additional major
non-sporting event. This would go towards mitigation measures as agreed between
WNSL and the Council which may cover measures to address anti-social behaviour
such as additional public toilets.
Whilst it is appreciated that local residents face
challenges on event days, the direct economic benefits for the local Brent
economy of stadium events are also recognised including spending on
accommodation, food, drink and other ancillary items within the Wembley area.
The uplift in the event cap would also create additional event day steward and
catering positions. Whilst some types of business would suffer on event days,
many would benefit from the influx of people to the area.
In summary, it is recognised that there is a level
of impact associated with major events now, and that this would increase with
an increase in the number of high-capacity major events. However, the measures
proposed would ensure that this is moderated as much as is reasonably
achievable. All are considered necessary to mitigate the increased number of
major events which this application proposes.
A further consideration is that the stadium can be
used for major events up to 51,000 now without restriction and remaining within
this limit would mean that no additional mitigation measures would be formally
secured. Measures including the training and employment opportunities would
apply more broadly to stadium events, not just the additional major
non-sporting events for which permission is sought under this application and
would therefore provide wider benefits to local people and the local economy
more generally.
The proposal is considered to accord with the
development plan, having regard to material planning considerations. While
there will inevitably be some additional impacts associated with an increase in
the number of higher capacity non-sporting events, a range of mitigation
measures are proposed, and some benefits are also anticipated. The proposal is,
on balance, recommended for approval.
View of the proposed buildings from Olympic Square ('Archer' statue and station steps on right)
The proposed blocks (Dark green, lower right) showing their suburban context
The proposed blocks from Elmside Road (junction with Kingswood Road)
The proposed blocks (outlined in green) and other planned developments (pink) as they will appear from the junction of Forty Lane and Bridge road (The Torch pub on left and Ark Academy right)
The development of 5 blocks on Brook Avenue goes to Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday November 4th. This is a development of TfL land (formerly the station car park and tube drivers' depot). Two blocks are 13 storeys high, 1 is 14 storeys, 1 is 17 storeys and the highest, nearest the station is 21 storeys (reduced from the original proposed 30 storeys).
Th development represents the further 'leaking' of the highrise buildings around the stadium across Bridge Road into a partly two storey suburban street. It is likely that eventually the whole of Brook Avenue will become high rise.
Looking along Brook Avenue towards Bridge Road and Wembley Park station with existing flats in the foreground
The blocks outlined in green as they will be seen from Eversley Avenue/Barn Rise
The tallest block, block E, will have commercial premises on the first 3 floors with retail facing on to Olympic Square,
Of the 454 housing units 73 will be London Affordable rent and 79 shared ownership ('affordable' 33.5 % of the total).
The officers' report states:
Whilst the London
Affordable Rented flats will be a self-contained element of the development,
the other affordable tenure will be intermixed with the private units of the
development and residents of all tenures within the scheme will have equal
access to the first floor landscaped podium. The development will therefore
facilitate social cohesion between the different tenures.
The buildings
proposed would serve as both a place-marker for the station but also
effectively transition away from the denser core of Wembley Park across Bridge
Road whilst also respecting the key viewing corridor of the stadium within
which it sits. The height of this apex point of the development is acknowledged
as significant and that it is taller than envisioned within the draft site
allocation in general design terms. Nonetheless, officers give weight to the
benefits of the scheme (including 40% affordable housing provision) and other
policy requirements such as the Mayor’s housing SPG seeking densification of
car free development around public transport hubs and consider that the
proposed height of the building strikes a good balance between the competing
requirements.
A significant reduction in height from 30 storeys at this
scheme’s initial pre-app stage is also acknowledged and has resulted in a
building which establishes a reasonable maximum height which balances the
townscape and visual impact considerations with the benefits of the housing
delivery. The applicant's submitted Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment
identifies a number of local views away from Brook Avenue from where the
development would be visible and demonstrates how these views would change. The
development will result in a substantial change to the backdrop visible from
some nearby roads (such as Elmside Road and Beechcroft Gardens), but this change
would very much be reflective of the status of the site as within a growth area
and a housing zone.
There are the usual comments in the officers' that may be challenged by some members of the Planning Committee. As well as the above they include:
The development is a'suitable and attractively built addition to theWembley park growth area.
Amenity space is below standard but of good quality through podium gardens.
On-site child play space is only 'marginally' below policy objectives and shortfall will be offset by developer contributing £31,000 to the imporvment of existing parks
Viability has been robustly tested and has demonstrated that the proposal offers more than the maximum reasonable amount [of affordable housing] that can be provided on site.
Loss of light to some windows of surrounding properties is 'not unusual for developments of this scale.'
The developers will contribute £260,00 towards enhancing bus capacity in the area.
There are 15 objections recorded on Brent Planning Portal including this one:
I
am objecting to this application because it is a massive overdevelopment of a
small and narrow site.
The Wembley Park area has sites allocated within it, under
the Wembley Area Action Plan, as being appropriate to tall buildings.
At the same time, the WAAP identifies sites INAPPROPRIATE for
tall buildings, and this site in Brook Avenue is one of them. On those grounds
alone (and there are others) this application should be refused.
The applicants argue that as the site is only just across the
road from a site where tall buildings are considered appropriate, there would
be no harm in allowing their five proposed blocks of between 13 and 21 storeys
high. That is a false argument!
If this application is allowed, what is to stop another
applicant coming along and saying, 'Well, my site is just across the road from
one where tall buildings are allowed, so I should be allowed to build a tall
block too!'. To accept this application would set a dangerous precedent, which
other developers could exploit, and that must not be allowed to happen.
Brent's core policy CP17 is aimed at protecting and enhancing
the suburban character of Brent. This application would do the opposite of
that, by encroaching into the suburban character of Brook Avenue and its nearby
streets, and the view from the Barn Hill Conservation Area.
Only five years ago, Brent adopted the Wembley Area Action
Plan, and with it, a line on the map which showed "this far and no
further" for tall buildings. That line must be held, and this application
must be rejected, so as not to undermine it.
The full list of appointments to Brent Council committees has now been published ahead of Monday's Council AGM and can be viewed HERE
It confirms the unofficial list published by Wembley Matters earlier. The Lib Dems remain unrepresented on any committee. The nominations will be rubber-stamped at the meeting.
I tweeted proceedings of Monday's Planning Committee in real time and reproduce the three main items below to give you a flavour of the proceedings. The latest tweets appear first for each application.
The meeting started late, presumably this was the reason. Cllr Deneslow will be replaced at Monday's Council AGM by Cllr Kelcher.
CLAREMONT HIGH SCHOOL 3G PITCH
(Last tweet bove should be Claremont not Kingsbury. Kingsbury High School withdrew a similar application after opposition from residents)
After a lengthy discussion Brent Planning Committee again rejected the TfL application for a development of 'pocket homes' on the car park at Sudbury Town Station. Despite a £600k offer by the developer towards the build costs of 6 three bedroomed homes outside the area, the committee stuck to their original objection on grounds of lack of family homes for the site itself, the loss of the car park and its impact on acessiblity for people with protected characteristics; and the applications lack of compliance with Local and London plans. Three members of the public and two councillors made very persuasive presentations opposing the application.
Cllr Denselow abstained. Cllrs Hylton and Chappel voted for the application and the four other committee members against.
The Ujima House discussion was a real mish mash. The owner of Lanmore House and Jaine Lunn occupant of a neighbouring house on Ecclestone Place, were represented and it emerged that a 'letter before claim' against the Council, who are the developer, had been issued. The committee were told by the Council legal officer that the Council had complied with all regulations and that appeared to be the end of that.
Inaccuracies in the officers' report were highlighted concerning the height of the building and the number of windows in adjoining buildings affected, and the committee were told that the architect had failed to get back to the Council about a query, but all this was deftly passed over. The issue of a weight restriction of 15 tons on the entrance to Ecclestone Place was brushed aside with an assurance that if necessary lorries could access the site from Wembley High Road (traffic jams!)
The committee were told that this was just an outline application and detailed issues could be dealt with at a later date.
The application was approved.
The Executive Headteacher of the Wembley Multi-Academy Trust after initial zoom problems gave a confident presentation on its plans for a new school on Neasden Lane, currently called North Brent School, although it is on the south side of the North Circular.
However, after she had left the meeting some confusion arose over the catchment area of the school as it emerged that pupils would be travelling to the site from North Wembley as the school is currently housed on the Wembley High School site. The new site would open at the end of 2021 so the children on the current site would have to travel down. One officer muttered something about issue of the school catchment should have come up earlier and councillors seemed unsure if the new school when fully open would serve the local area or continue to be populated by pupils from the North Wembley area. Clearly it would be better in terms of Green School Travel Plans if the catchment was local and the area does lack its own non-denominational school.
The new school will be 6 forms of entry so will generate a lot of trips and transport was the main issue discussed. An earlier plan to have 4 coaches travel down to the school from North Wembley had been opposed by TfL and was reduced to one, so pupils will have to travel by public transport either on the tube, by bus or by cycle. The 297 route would be beefed up in consultation with TfL and the 245 was also mentioned but that only goes as far as Neasden shopping centre before turning off towards Staples Corner. One councillor raised concerns about children from different schools milling around at the Neasden interchange where there were already problems.
It appears that on one side of the borough we will have children travelling north from Harlesden and Stonebridge to Ark Elvin and on the other children travelling south from North Wembley to Neasden Lane!
The one decision made (apart from approving the application) was to call for 172 cycle parking places to be provided in the initial phase of the building. No one queried whether cycling to the school would be safe.
While most Brent Council committee meetings have been cancelled or postponed, as well as the Council's AGM which was due to be held this week, the Planning Committee continues via the internet.
Nex Wednesday's meeting considers a number of heavy-weight planning applications, worth millions, including two that were deferred at the May 6th meeting.
The application for Ujima House, on Wembley High Road, was deferred after a late objection was received from the landowner of neighbouring Lanmor House. His email objecting is not available on the Planning Portal (it is just noted) and of course as usual the 'Consultee' comments are linked but not actually published.
The email's contents can only be gleaned from the Planning Officers' summary LINK:
Additional
objection
Objections have
been received on behalf of the owner of the adjoining site at Lanmor House (370
to 386 High Road) and part owner of 26-29 Ecclestone Place.
A summary of the
concerns are set out below:
1. Consultation
The objector
considers that there was a lack of consultation with the adjoining land owner
during both pre-application and application stages.
With regards to
consultation requirements for the planning application itself, the Council did
post site notices outside the application site and the application was
advertised in the local press. In addition, consultation letters were sent to
all nearby occupiers. This included the commercial space and all flats within
Lanmor House, and 26 to 29 Ecclestone Place.
The Council
therefore exceeded its statutory duty for consulting on the planning application.
Further details
of the comments received (including an objection received from 27 Ecclestone
Place) are discussed within the “consultation” section below.
The NPPF
paragraph 40 states that local planning authorities should encourage applicants
to engage with the local community before submitting their applications, and
Brent's adopted Statement of Community Involvement reinforces this by setting
out recommended pre-application engagement for planning applications. For an
application of this scale, discussions with neighbours and public meetings and
exhibitions are recommended. However pre-application engagement is not a
statutory requirement. In this case, local residents were invited to attend two
public exhibitions and give feedback on the proposals, although non-resident
property owners were not explicitly invited.
2. Accuracy of
reporting
The objector
considers that there was a lack of consideration of the proposal upon Lanmor
House, taking into account the recent planning history and works carried out to
Lanmor House. They also raised concern about the scale of surrounding buildings
not being accurately reported and inaccurate reference to the building line
being in line with adjoining sites where in fact it projects forward, and the
resulting impact of the forward projection upon neighbouring amenity.
The above matters
are discussed within the "remarks" section below.
3. Building scale
and mass of envelope parameters
The objector has
expressed concern about the footprint and resulting depth of the building and
the impact on neighbouring occupiers, specifying that there would be an overdevelopment
of the site.
4. Separation
distances, privacy and outlook
The objector is
concerned about the potential for overlooking and a loss of privacy and outlook
to Lanmor House and 26 to 29 Ecclestone Place.
Once again, this
is expanded upon within the "remarks" section below.
5. Daylight and
Sunlight
The objector
considers that there are inaccuracies within the daylight and sunlight report
in terms of the reporting of the windows within Lanmor House and no
consideration of the impact upon the communal roof top garden in Lanmor House.
This is expanded
upon within the "remarks" section below.
6. Right of Light
The objector has
highlighted that whilst outside of the remit of planning, the Council should be
aware of its legal position regarding rights of light. As highlighted by the
objector, this is outside the remit of planning.
7. Highway
matters
Matters have been
raised with regards to construction traffic, servicing and delivery traffic,
and access to the proposed building.
This has been
discussed within the remarks section below.
8. Streetscene
The objector
considers that the assessment of the impact on the streetscape does not
consider the curve in this part of the High Road and the potential for a
“canyoning” effect along this part of the High Road with the nine storey
building on the opposite side. Concerns are raised with the impact on the micro-climate
wind tunnelling effect. They also believe that the Design and Access Statement
misrepresents the building when viewed from the east as it is only shown as
nine storeys.
These matters are
discussed within the "remarks" section below.
The officers find reasons to reject the objection (see report linked above) and recommend approval of outline planning permission but it appears likely that the owner of Lanmor House will take things further.
The second deferred item is the development at Sudbury Town Station. This was initially rejected outright by the Planning Committee but officers' quickly proposed that it be deferred so that they could talk with the developer, Transport for London and this was, controversially, accepted by Committee members. LINK
These discussions have resulted in an offer by the developer to contribute £600,000 to 'enable the provision of six 3 bedroomed houses' off-site. Committee members may wish to explore the mathematics involved.
The developer has also offered one additional blue badge parking space and confirmed that the offer of contributing to the cost of a CPZ would be available for 10 years.
The officers report LINK gives a blurb for the Committee to adopt if they are minded to still refuse the application.
After members of the Planning Committee opposed the approval of the Sudbury Town Station car park planning application by 4 votes to 3, officers moved quickly to rescue the situation by recommending deferrral so that if could be refered back to officers and the applicant for further review and future resubmission.
When Cllr Maurice expressed concern that this would mean a 'cover up' Cllr Denselow, in his best avuncular manner (despite his youth) said of course not, 'it will be coming back to us.'
Reasons councillors gave for opposing the application included its departure from several policies, the need for family homes rather than one bedroomed houses, loss of access to the step-free station for disabled people due to the loss of the car park, placing disabled parking spaces in already heavily used local streets, and one councillor who said he who didn't believe the planning officers report.
Sudbury Planners (part of Sudbury Town residents Association) were very active on Twitter throughout the discussion:
Brent Council has put on record its reasons for rejecting deferral of the Sudbury Town Station planning application on lack of democracy grounds which presumably will also apply to other applications. LINK
The Meeting begins at 6pm tonight and the Livestream can be viewed HERE
…objections
are raised concerning the 'virtual' nature of the committee meeting, and a
perceived lack of transparency and public participation as a result of this.
The Sudbury Town Residents Association have commented that certain statutory
requirements have not been met and have asked that this item is deferred.
However, they do not advise which statutory requirements they consider to not
have been met. Officers consider that all statutory requirements have been met.
The Government has legislated to enable Council meetings to take place
virtually and has made it clear it wants Councils to continue to hold public
meetings and make decisions to enable it to continue to carry out its
functions. The Planning Committee will operate in the usual way but via Zoom
rather than in the Civic Centre. People will continue to be able to register a
request to address the Planning Committee and may speak on-line, using the Zoom
app or using a telephone. The Committee will be live streamed as usual so
anyone who might have come to the Civic Centre to watch, but not participate in
the meeting, will still be able to observe proceedings. The planning committee
meeting will continue to be transparent and public participation has not been
reduced. The Council also has not extended “delegated powers” (i.e. the range
of decisions determined by officers rather than committee) during the lock-down
as some Councils have done.
The absence
of a Planning Committee site visit or a site meeting with residents has also
been raised by objectors. The objectors have raised concern that the planning
committee may not be able to fully understand a number of matters, such as the
availability of disabled parking, levels of on-street parking, the relationship
with adjoining sites (and associated impacts) and the relationship with the
depot. Planning Committee site meetings are not held for committee items,
either with residents or the applicant / agent.
A planning
application will have been already evaluated and the site inspected by planning
staff and it is not necessary for a formal Planning Committee site visit to be
made. There is no legal requirement for this to happen. Site visits may be held
for a limited number of committee items when it is considered helpful to visit
the site to understand the proposal and the site context. Committee members may
visit a site in their own time should they consider it necessary to understand
the site and its context. It is considered that members can evaluate the
proposal using the application submission documents, site photos, committee
report and other resources that area available (such as Google Earth and Google
Streetview). The objectors state that such visits (or meetings) are important
to enable the public to put their point of view forward. However Committee site
visits are for observations only and not for conversations with members of the
public or applicants – the place for this is at committee. There is a
reasonable expectation the Planning Committee members are able to make a well
informed decision from the information available to them.
There are a number of controversial planning applications due to be heard at the next Brent Planning Committee on Tuesday July 16th (6pm Brent Civic Centre). Details are here in case any individuals or groups want to make representations at the Committee. Contact: Joe Kwateng, Governance Officer
Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 1354
As expected Brent Planning Committee last night approved plans for the replacement of the Wembley Stadium pedway by steps LINK and the application for flats to be built at the Windmill Hotel on Cricklewood Broadway LINK. One councillor was not happy about the latter being referred to as a 'Trojan Horse' by an objector. The promised replacement pub lacks viability because it has no kitchen to prepare food.
The application for flats on the site of the MOT garage, St Pauls Avenue, NW2 was deferred because of concern over light, amount of affordable housing and access.
Full Kilburn Times report here: LINK There is no convincing evidence of how this wil benefit the daily lives of local residents although Community Infrastructure Levy is supposed to do just that.
Quintain's 'Masterplan' czar could only quote ending 'visual severance' from the Brent Civic Centre!
"If Wembley Park was only about going to and from the stadium
then the pedway has done the job for the last 44 years. But Wembley Park, the whole ethos of the
master plan and the council’s ambition is about wider every day life and at the
moment it does create a visual severance from the Civic Centre to the park.”
PDF 58 KB