Controversial Queen's Walk development one year on after Brent Council granted planning permission

 

There was a pause due to Covid19 but now the new development of flats on  the corner of Queens Walk and Salmon Street is taking shape. The flats replace a detached suburban house that was in the style of other houses in the road. LINK

Responding to criticism of the plans Brent Planning Officers said:

The building does not have a 1930s appearance but does respond appropriately to the neighbouring developments in terms of scale. The corner plot presents an opportunity for a building of a differing architectural style and slightly greater prominence to sit comfortably without detracting from the character along either of the streets it adjoins. 

 

 

 

Let's build a 24* storey housing block on a flood plain close to Brent's most polluted road...

The proposed 28 storey block with nearby terraced houses and Wembley Point for comparison (revisd image of 24 storeys awaited)

Argenta House on Argenta Way, opposite Stonebridge Park Station where the new block will be built. 
Wembley Point in the background.

© Copyright Jaggery  Creative Commons Licence

Following on from Wembley Central's 'Twin Towers', the tower blocks around Wembley Stadium and those approved in Alperton, a 24 (*the developer's PR agency informs me that 4 storeys have been knocked off the original proposed 28 storeys) storey tower block proposal is going to Brent Planning Committee at its next meeting on Wednesday September 21st.

What is particularly worrying about this proposal is that the 28 storeys (which replace a two storey building) will be built on a flood plain where both Wembley Brook and the River Brent flow and next to the heavily polluted North Circular Road.

Not an ideal site for housing one would think but it is close to Wembley Point which is being converted to accommodation and across the road from he long empty Unisys building which is part of the larger Brent Council supported development which includes Bridge Park complex. Housing and a hotel are planned there as well as a smaller sports centre. Currently Stonebridge residents are in dispute over the plans.

As always Brent planning officers  find reasons to support the plans despite the obvious drawbacks. This is a breakdown of the flats planned for the block. The definition of 'affordable' used is'no more than 80%  of open market rents' (ie unaffordable for the most needy Brent residents):

The wording of a petition and a submission against the development is not available on the Brent Planning Portal. 

Officers argue that the'maximun reasonable amount [of affordable and intermediate housing] has been provided on a near policy compliant tenure split.' It will be subject to further viability assessments as the development proceeds.

While recognising the flood risk and the worsening situation as a result of climate change, and taking into ac count that the first three storeys of the development will not include residential accommodation, the officers state:

At face value on the basis of evidence provided by the applicants it appears, notwithstanding that some of the site is within functional floodplain, from a technical perspective there is the ability to create betterment over the current situation through new development. This is in relation to flood risk onsite and elsewhere (though reducing footprint/obstructions within the channel), improving the aesthetic, recreational and environmental/ bio-diversity performance of the river channel/ environs and also the appearance/ perception of this gateway site whilst meeting the very real issue of meeting housing needs.

 I would hope committee members investigate that statement a little more.

The section on pollution from traffic is even more opaque with officers concentrating on how the new development would add to traffic pollution rather than on existing levels of pollution, but go on to say:

Related to the above, air quality at the lowest levels of the building (levels 6 and below), especially on the eastern elevation closer to the North Circular, would not meet the air quality objections for Nitrogen Oxide, although particulate matter objectives would be met at all levels. This shows that the emissions from the North Circular have a major effect on air quality at the site, albeit that the impact is predicated greatest at the lower elevations and the effect decreases with height. 

However officers assure Planning Committee members that:

Officers have questioned the effectiveness of NOx filtration systems in these flats, since the flats will have opening windows and doors onto balconies. Opening of such doors and windows would result in untreated air entering the internal habitable rooms (depending on air pressure differences). The applicant's air quality consultant has carried out further testing to clarify that the efficiencies of the NOx filters are such that the NO2 levels in the internal air will be 80-90% lower than the incident air, meaning that the affected flats' windows would need to be open for at least 88-89% of the time for internal parts of the flats to exceed the annual mean Air Quality Objective levels that are considered safe. Similarly, it has been confirmed that the use of the balconies on these levels by occupants, even for extended periods, will not result in occupants' air exposure exceeding the annual mean air quality objectives for NO2. As such, it would be necessary for an occupant to live on the balcony (including at night) for such objectives to be exceeded.

Regular readers will not be surprised at the report's conclusion:

Officers consider that the scheme meets planning policy objectives and is in general conformitywith local, regional and national policy. The proposal would make a positive contribution to the area,whilst having an acceptable impact on and relationship with the existing surrounding development.Officers recommend the application for approval subject to the conditions and obligations set out in this report

The full report has much more detail including comments from the owners of Wembley Point regarding a possible bridge between the two buildings which will now occupty the site and potential improvements to Stonebridge Park Station. Available HERE

Residents can apply to the chair of the Planning Committee for leave to make representations at the meeting before a decision is made. Contact the Governance Officer
Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk; 020 8937 1354

Tile murals – Wembley Park’s heritage in the balance

Guest post by Philip Grant

If you have been following the story of the Bobby Moore Bridge planning applications LINK , you may have seen this comment which I added last week:

‘There has been an interesting, and potentially useful (to objectors), development over the advertising consent application.

I said in my blog above that the only person who had been consulted about the application was a Council Officer in the Transportation Unit. That was true at the time, but because of the nature of the objections raised, the Council’s Principal Heritage Conservation Officer has also been consulted.

His comments are not available to view on the Planning website, but I have obtained a copy of them. He has said that he is pleased that the “twin towers” mural and plaque ‘are being recognised as part of Brent's Heritage'.

He has set out several items which Quintain need to submit before their application can be properly considered, including that ‘there should be a heritage/significance statement about the tiles.’

I have come across such heritage/significance statements before, particularly over the developer’s (and Brent’s) attempts to demolish the original Victorian library building at Willesden Green in 2012, as part of the redevelopment of the former Library Centre.

I fully expect the heritage “expert”, who Quintain will hire to produce this statement for them, to play down the “significance” (or importance) of the tile murals.’

From 2013 until 2018, both Quintain and Brent Council appeared to be playing a game of “Don’t mention the Murals!”  The public call to both of them by Wembley History Society in April 2018 LINK , to put the tile murals back on permanent public display, put an end to that game. 

Now Brent’s planners have finally realised that the murals are a heritage issue, which has to be considered in making decisions on planning applications affecting them. How they will deal with that issue remains to be seen, but they are holding he future of Wembley Park’s heritage in the balance.

Quintain’s planning agent has submitted a “Statement of Significance” on the tile murals, which was published on the planning web pages for applications 19/1387 and 19/1474 on 5 June. I submitted an “Alternative Heritage / Significance Statement” on 9 June, which will probably not be published by Brent. Copies of both should be available to view below.

Although the Quintain “Statement” runs to three pages, its assessment of the “significance” of the murals is so short that I can quote it in full here:

‘Bobby Moore Bridge is neither a statutorily nor locally listed structure, nor is the tiled mural and it is not located within a Conservation Area.  The tiled mural is a bespoke piece of public art installed as part of the highway works to pedestrianise Olympic Way, to enliven what would have been blank structural wall and whilst also referencing the history of Olympic Way, Wembley Stadium and Wembley Arena.’

Such heritage statements are supposed to include photographs of the “asset” being considered, and its site context. The “Statement” by Quintain’s agent says that ‘a photographic record of the mural was undertaken on 18 March 2019’, but does not include any of those photographs. I suspect that they may be “dangling a carrot”, hoping to tempt Brent into approving their applications, but with a condition that they make the photographs publicly available.

My “Alternative Statement” includes all of the photographs I have of the murals. Even if you think it is too long to be bothered reading, please have a look at the photos and accompanying descriptions at 3.11, 3.13 and 4.4 to 4.15. These will give you an insight into the tile murals, and the Wembley Park history that they portray.

The agent’s “Statement”, of course, puts a positive “spin” on Quintain’s plans – instead of none of the tile mural scenes being visible (because they have been covered up with adverts since 2013), the current proposals will put one scene back on view! Or in their words:

‘Through this sensitive design approach, the tiled mural is not only exhibited but its role as part of the history, character and appearance of Olympic Way is recognised for future generations.’

My response to that is:

‘Viewing this as a way to mitigate the substantial harm caused by covering up the rest of this heritage asset, it is like taking away the only copy of a valuable book, and giving back just a single chapter, which only discloses a small part of Wembley Park’s rich history.’  

The people of Brent own that “book”, and I hope that Brent’s planners will ensure that it is returned to us. They have been given good reasons why they should refuse Quintain’s two Bobby Moore Bridge applications.

 

Please read the two documents below, if the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals are of interest to you. 

The documents may also be of interest if you are involved in opposing another planning matter yourself, to get an insight into the ways that developers’ agents present (or misrepresent?) the facts, and ways that this can be challenged.

Philip Grant

Click bottom right corner to enlarge

-->

Traffic at the proposed site for Ark Somerville Primary School 9am this morning

Brent Planning Committee will make a decision on granting planning permission for a 630 pupil primary school on the car park of York House on Empire Way, Wembley.

Wembley Matters checked out the traffic conditions around the proposed site this morning.

Reasons to vote aganst Ark Elvin Planning Application

These are Chetan Patel's notes for his speech at Brent Planning Committee tonight.
 

I kindly ask the Planning Committee to vote against the ARK’s submitted planning due to the below listed reasons:

1)    Proposed ‘Yellow Lines’ on Jesmond Avenue Without Consultations

Materials changes in Construction Methodology Access Statement, which did not feature the proposed of ‘Yellow Line’ controlled parking on Jesmond Avenue. Kiers have failed to consultant the residents of Jesmond Avenue on this key issue, which I believe is a ‘Material Change’, which displaces and affects approximate 80% the local residents parking.

2)    Lack of Staff Car Parking Spaces

The development only accommodates 47nr spaces and is derived from an survey of 100/111 staff which finds there are 24 cars parked at the existing school. I know as a matter of fact there are more than 24 cars parked at the school at present. The survey result conflicts with the actual number of cars parked. The Transport Assessment report should have physically counted the cars parked on the school for an accurate representation of the facts, rather than relying on an incomplete staff survey. I would also question if the cleaning, catering and maintenance staff were included in the survey?

Our fear is that the parking allocation will not meet the real world demand created by the development as suggested above.

There is a risk staff will park in the neighbouring residential streets causing further social problems.

In my opinion parts of Transport Assessment report as aforementioned are fundamentally flawed, and a new accurate report needs to be undertaken.

3)    Inaccurate Design Access Statement

The Design Access Statement doesn’t recognise local community pubic right of way by long usage (or “easement by prescription”).

Many hundreds and if not thousands of individuals in our community have been continually using Copland Park for the aforementioned reasons in excess 20 years. This use has occurred without protest from the property owners. As a result, there is a legal presumption that there is a right of way based on public use of Section 21 of the Highways Action 1980 Act.  This gives the local community pubic right of way by long usage (or “easement by prescription”).

We believed the existing playing fields were public land until we saw sight of the misinformed planning application submitted by ARK.

4)    Construction Methodology Statement

A)     Kier’s have stated ‘A Public Consultation has been held to present and answer any queries local residents and key stakeholders may have regarding the development’. We note Kier have failed to provide reasonable notice period for the Public Consultation. Kier notice of public hearing was posted at our address on the 2^nd July and the meeting was held on the 15^th July 2015.  I know many of the affected community could not re-schedule their commitments with only 14 days notice. Thankfully I managed to attend the consultation, and was surprised when Kier did not present their Construction Methodology Plans. In fact, Kier didn’t present any documentation related to their ‘Construction Methodology’ nor did they have their Construction Methodology documents to hand to distribute at the meeting. You couldn’t have even noticed Kier where at the Public Consultation. The meeting was more of a design exhibition lead by the Architect. Kier’s merely discussed their plans when asked about the construction methodology. Without any Construction Methodology drawings and distribution of any documentations, it was almost impossible to grasp the proposed site access and logistics. In summary, I would describe Kier’s ‘Public Consultation’ as a poor and a  misinformed event. I strongly recommend Kier should be forced to re-hold the event and provide a reasonable period of a minimum 30 days notice period prior to re-holding this meeting.

B)     Kier have failed to adequately demonstrate how they intend to manage construction personnel parking. Their reports indicate an approximate area of 45m x 20m. How many construction personal cars will this space accommodate? Is this allocated space enough? What happens if construction personal start parking on residential roads? Is parking on the residential road permitted by Kier or by Brent Council? 

C)     Brent should stipulate as an ‘Planning Condition’ Kier need to accommodate all necessary parking facilities within their site boundary, and restrict any of Kier’s staff from using any valuable residential parking spaces.

D)    Jesmond Avenue is a quiet residential cul-de-sac area which already has insufficient road car parking capacity. I would also like to record, residents on Clifton Avenue are already parking on Jesmond Avenue, who then use the various alleyways between the roads to return back to Clifton Road. I fear construction traffic personal parking on the community roads would further complicate and disrupt the community relations in the area.

E)     Kier’s Construction Methodology states ‘all deliveries will be directed to arrive at site by travelling along the North Circular Road, then along the Harrow Road (A404) then into Jesmond Avenue. We have reviewed the different site access options with LB Brent Highways Dept and Jesmond Avenue is the preferred option because it provides the safest and shortest route between the A404 and the site’.

We would highlight to Kier their conclusion that Jesmond Avenue is the shortest route from the A404 and proposed site is incorrect.  (See Appendix B attached Map). 

Option 1: 90m using Cecil Avenue.

Option 2: 278m using Jesmond Venue

Option 3: 424m using London Road via Cecil Avenue.

I would also question how Kier have concluded Jesmond Avenue is the safest route. I believe the below listed risks affecting Jesmond Aveue has not been addressed by Kier.

·     •                Jesmond Avenue is a strictly cul-de-sac residential area where up to 8-10 children regularly play on the road after school hours, especially between Stanley Road and the end of Jesmond Avenue. When driving my car down Jesmond Avenue on a number occasions I have been forced to apply my breaks in an emergency to avoid an accident with the kids playing on the road. I fear heavy goods vehicles will not be able stop in time in such emergency situations. How have Kier managed this risk?

·     Cars are parked on both sides of Jesmond Avenue, thus reducing the road traffic to only one narrow lane, whilst still accommodating two way traffic. In my opinion using Jesmond Avenue to access construction traffic particularly heavy goods vehicles is dangerous and an accident waiting to happen.

·     With respect to the safest route, when using Jesmond Avenue construction traffic passes 79nr residential properties, where if Cecil Avenue was adopted construction traffic passes only 3nr residential properties, and makes Cecil the safest route.

·     With respect to safest route, Jesmond Avenue has cars are parked on both sides of the road, thus reducing the width of the road to a single narrow lane. However, Cecil Avenue has cars parked on only side, and the other side is protected by double yellow lines preventing cars parking on one side. Therefore, Cecil Avenue a has greater clear width to accommodate heavy duty construction traffic than Jesmond Avenue.

Under the CDM Regulations, I believe Kier have failed to competently demonstrate Jesmond Avenue is the safest Construction Access Road for the development. 

5)    Safeguarding Risk

I’m horrified and deeply concerned Kier have not elected to perform Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks on all construction personal. The proposed works is surrounded by vulnerable children and young adults from Copland School High School, Elsely and St Josephs Primary School’s. Kier have a duty of care to ensure all personal working near and in the vicinity are screened to ensure illegible personal are not permitted to work on the construction works. This is even more prevalent as the construction industry is very fragmented using large numbers of self employed personal, appointed by specialist Sub-Contractors. It’s likely, Kier would only appoint Sub-Contractors and thus would not have a direct relationship with the operatives.   In my opinion, if Kier’s do not perform these high sensitive checks, they are not fit to undertake the construction works. CRB checks is standard practise on school works used by other top Main Contractors in the industry.

Never mind your heritage - get excited by the shops!

Guest blog by local historian Philip Grant

It seems that we are likely to see the last remaining relic of the British Empire Exhibition, the Palace of Industry building in Olympic Way and Fulton Road, demolished within the next couple of weeks.

Quintain Estates advised me on 14 February that they intend to go ahead with the demolition before their planning application for 1350 temporary car parking spaces on the site goes before Brent's Planning Committee on 13 March. They can do this, as Brent gave them permission as part of the overall scheme for Wembley City some years ago. 

I had asked them to allow the east and north external walls to remain standing until the main redevelopment of the site for a shopping centre goes ahead in several years time. This would not stop them from having all of the car parking spaces they require to fulfil their commitments to Wembley Stadium, and would allow visitors coming to Wembley Park for the 90th anniversary of the British Empire Exhibition in 2014 to see the scale and style of the last of these iconic buildings. They claim it would be unsafe to do this, but have ignored my request (four weeks ago) to have sight of their evidence.

It was intended to ask for the retention of the walls to be made a condition of granting planning permission for the temporary car park. It appears that Quintain Estates have decided not to take that risk, so that the demolition will already be a "fait accompli" when the Planning meeting takes place. As a concession to the proposed BEE 90th anniversary exhibition, which it is hoped will be held in the new Civic Centre in the summer of 2014, Quintain have said that they will give Brent the lion's head corbels from the building.

When I suggested to the Quintain representative yesterday that it might be better to co-operate with local people and Brent Museum and Archives on this matter before sending in the demolition team, I was told they 'hope that the excitement about a new cinema for Wembley, with shops and restaurants accessible for all plus 1500 new jobs will outweigh any "bad publicity".'

Keep Willesden Green campaigners speak truth to power

Willesden residents in  the Keep Willesden Green campaign were able to question the developers and make comments on the plans for the new Willesden Green Cultural Centre today. The councillors who constitute the planning committee were on a site visit prior to the Committee's consideration of the planning application on Wednesday.

The residents were extremely well-informed and officers will be taking away some of the questions and evidence to consider before the  Planning Committee.

On Monday the Public Inquiry into the Town Square application will open at Willesden Green Library and is expected to continue meeting after the Planning Committee has made its decision - a fact that itself is puzzling as.  if successful, he Town Square application would stop the library development as currently planned.

More detail and videos of today's events can be found on the Keep Willesden Green blog HERE

Only a few days left to have your say on future of Brent Town Hall

Brent Council is consulting on a Supplementary Planning Document for the future use of the Brent Town Hall once the new Civic Centre is open.  The consultation closes on Monday January 16th. CONSULTATION LINK

The Town Hall is a Grade 2 listed building.

The Council state:

In 2013, Brent Council is moving to a new state of the art New Civic Centre which means that our grade II listed Town Hall on Forty Lane, will be retired from civic duties.  The Town Hall has been at the centre of local governance in Brent since 1940; but is now unable to provide the facilities that our residents and clients expect of an efficient up to date public service.  However, the Council is very keen to ensure that the Town Hall has a dignified, productive and useful new life and to ensure this happens has produced a development guide for prospective new owners of the building.

A draft Development and Planning Brief for Brent Town Hall has been produced to help with the marketing and sales campaign and will help guide the expectations and aspirations of potential buyers. It gives helpful planning and listed building advice on appropriate new uses, alteration of the existing building and the potential for extensions and new development within the site.

It is intended that the Brief will be adopted as a “Supplementary Planning Document”, which will help confirm it as a standard by which future applications for alterations and additions to the building and the site will be judged.  Before the guide is adopted, the Council is keen to hear your opinions on its contents and has set up this consultation exercise to ensure that all views are considered and reported to the Councils’ Executive at the adoption meeting in March.  The consultation will close at 12:00noon on the 16th January 2012.