Bridgewater development approved by Brent Planning Committee despite areas of non-compliance

Brent Planning Committee approved the revised schemes despite several areas of non-compliance with Brent Council's own guidance - the usual reasoning being the balance of benefits over disbenefits.

Only Cllr Michael Maurice voted against the application based on the shortfall of affordable housing and 3 bedroomed flats and the general design.

The issue of air quality on this busy road was not addressed  by the Committee or developer.

As Alperton ward councillor, Anton Georgiou, made a 5 minute contribution:

I always get a sense of déjà vu when addressing the Planning Committee. Every time I come here to oppose yet more dense development in my ward of Alperton, I do so on behalf of residents who are hugely frustrated and have simply had enough.

 

Affordability

 

I am not here to deny that young people like me, who were born in our borough, and have lived here our whole lives need places to live.

 

I am also not here to deny the fact that we continue to have a vast housing waiting list in Brent, which includes on it some of our most vulnerable residents.

 

That being said, I once again want to highlight that of the 173 units proposed in this development, only a fraction can be deemed realistically affordable, despite what the report states, with the vast majority being totally out of reach in terms of affordability for local people, let alone our most in need residents over the long term.

 

54 units are proposed at a London Affordable Rent level and the other 119 are shared ownership.

 

Shared ownership, as I am sure the Committee will agree, has huge pitfalls. Before approving more shared ownership schemes in Brent, we need further evidence that shared ownership is a genuinely affordable housing model. There are indicators that the most economically vulnerable are at most risk with shared ownership. It is one thing to deem units affordable at this stage, but as many already have unfortunately found out, there is no long-term guarantee of affordability. Particularly with no defined cap on rising rents on the percentage the shared-owner doesn’t ‘own’, coupled with the misery of ever increasing service charges and extra hidden costs like building repairs, the cost of lease extension, fees attached to stair-casing.

 

Don’t take my word for it, I highly recommend Committee members take a look at reports from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which go into detail about why Councils should be highly sceptical of shared ownership. In my opinion, we should be arguing against this broken housing model altogether.

 

This development also does not meet Brent’s 25% target for family sized units, as stated in the report – something that we really, really need in our borough. We do not need even more 1 to 2--bedroom boxes in the sky. Why do we have targets if we allow developers the room to always miss them?

 

Infrastructure

 

The proposed development is in an area that is experiencing intense development. The impact that this is already having on existing residents cannot be overstated. I have spoken to many families who have or are thinking about leaving Alperton because of nonstop development.

 

Planning decisions being by this Council are literally driving people out of our borough.

 

Despite the excessive amount of CIL, of which this development would contribute more to the pot, existing residents see very little done in terms of improvements to infrastructure in Alperton. In fact, we are seeing worsening standards in the area.

 

The meagre £50,000 ring fenced through section 106 contributions for One Tree Hill, will not touch the surface of ASB and other issues there. I speak from experience having seen how an NCIL bid worth over £100,000 to transform Alperton Sports Ground down the road, which had to be approved by Cabinet, did not even come close to addressing the concerns or desires of residents.

 

The recent loss of Alperton Bus Garage, a major, historic transport infrastructure site, just metres from the proposed development, has had a knock-on effect on local bus services. The concern that this would happen was brushed aside when the decision on that development was made.

 

I also note references to proximity to Alperton station and the Piccadilly Line in this report. In theory yes, it is a great asset that should be adequately serving local need. It does not. The infrequency of Piccadilly Line trains on the Alperton branch, when compared to the Heathrow one continues to be a major problem that results in huge backlogs at rush hour times. Despite recognition by all developers in the area that Alperton station is becoming a major travel hub that will be used by more local people the contribution towards step-free access by the developer is nowhere near enough to realise this aspiration.

                                                                           

Many of us have long highlighted the dire and dangerous state of local pavements. Metres from the proposed site on Bridgewater Road over 30% of paving slabs are regarded by Council Officers to be in need of repair and yet there is never enough resource to do essential remedial works. I find the response to a resident comment on this matter in the report particularly interesting, as it states “Community Infrastructure Levy funding could contribute towards works of this type”, which in my view and from my understanding of CIL would set a precedent.

 

Fundamentally, Alperton residents do not understand why more and more developments are being granted approval by this Committee whilst the state of local infrastructure is so bad.

 

Parking

 

A major issue we as Councillors have to contend with is the demand for parking provision in our wards. I can only reiterate how bad the situation is in Alperton, even more so in immediate areas surrounding new development.

 

There does not seem to be an overarching plan by the local authority to deal with inevitable increases in the number of vehicles on our roads. Existing residents are already contending with pressures on local parking provision as it stands – this development will make it worse. I do not believe the £80,000 contribution by the developer towards the implementation of a Controlled Parking Zone is a fix. The imposition of a CPZ without resident consent is wrong.

 

If we want to move away from reliance on car use, which I agree with, why is the Council not investing heavily in active travel infrastructure measures, like cycle lanes, alongside the approval of even more development in Alperton. It is short-sighted not to.

 

Conclusion

 

I appeal to every member of the Committee to really consider what this authority achieves by imposing yet more tower blocks in Alperton.

 

The focus of this Council should at this stage be to take stock, establish whether existing development has contributed to making our area better and gain a better awareness of the dangers of promoting shared ownership.

 

I strongly urge you to reject this application.  

 

Dear Brent Council – Council Housing and Common Sense

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

An entry from Brent Council’s latest Forward Plan

 

Dear Brent Council,

 

I think that you’ve become too complicated in the way you seek to provide the new Council homes that many local people need. 

 

Take, for example, your decision (at last November’s Cabinet meeting) to buy a block of flats at the former Alperton Bus Garage site. The developer, Telford Homes, was given planning permission to build three tower blocks there, on condition that one of them, block C - containing 155 of the 461 flats proposed in their application, would be as “affordable housing”. 

 

South-west elevation drawing from the planning application documents (block B outlined at the back)

 

Normally, when a private developer agrees a large-scale affordable housing offer, they do so in partnership with a housing association which will provide those homes. But here, it is Brent Council who have stepped in to acquire them. And the Council is not buying them direct from Telford Homes. It is proposed that they will be acquired from an Asset Special Purpose Vehicle (“ASPV”). Who or what is an ASPV?

 

That would be explained in the report that Cabinet members made their decision on, wouldn’t it? If it was, the explanation was in one of the (now all too common) exempt appendices. Looking at the minutes of the meeting, all the Lead Member for Resources, Cllr. McLennan, said about the ASPV was simply a repeat of the Officer’s report :

 

Opening section of the November 2021 Cabinet Report

 

The report to the meeting was not from the Director of Housing, but the Director of Finance. No questions were asked about why the Council was not buying the flats direct from the developer, who the beneficial owner of the intermediary ASVP was, and why it would not be a straight 999-year lease. Cabinet members seemed more intent on congratulating the Council, its finance team (and themselves?) for the proposal they were about to “rubber stamp”:

 

‘In expressing their support for the proposal, Cabinet highlighted the opportunity the scheme provided to further increase the supply of affordable social housing within the borough based on a leasing model which was felt to represent good value for money.  Officers were thanked for their efforts in securing the necessary terms ….’

 

But how ‘good value’ was this ‘leasing model’? The Council would be taking an initial 50-year lease on 155 homes in a 26-storey tower block (55 x 1-bed, 49 x 2-bed, 46 x 3-bed [5 person] and 5 x 4-bed [6 person] flats). The report from the Director of Finance said:

 

‘Officers have been in discussion with the ASPV regarding the possibility of purchasing these homes. An offer has been on a purchase price of circa £48M via private treaty on a 50 year leasing arrangement, which means an average of £280K for each home.’

 

The report then goes on to say:

 

‘The target average development cost under the New Council Homes Programme (NCHP) is £280K per home. As such, the leasing model represents good value for money.’

 

It appears from this that the cost per home for the leasehold flats at the Alperton Bus Garage site would be no better than the development cost for freehold homes on one of Brent Council’s own housing projects, over which the Council would have much better control. 

 

And the £280k per home figure is dependent on the deal to buy leasehold flats from an ASVP (which only has an option to acquire them from the developer) qualifying for a £4.3m grant from the GLA, and that the Council would qualify for 100% Stamp Duty Land Tax relief on its leasehold purchase, which is not certain:

 

‘These assumptions will need to be fully tested along with the Council’s tax advisors and HMRC. Failure to secure the SDLT exemption noted above would increase the cost of the scheme by circa £1.9M.’

 

Why is Brent Council getting into such a complex and potentially risky deal? If it has £48m available to spend on new Council homes, why not spend it on building those homes on a vacant site it already owns, and for which it has had full planning consent since February 2021?

 

Diagrammatic view of Brent’s Cecil Avenue housing scheme. (From an April 2021 Council document)

 

I am referring to the Cecil Avenue site, part of Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone, which I have been writing about since August 2021. As can be seen from the image above, this development is not a tower block (maximum height 9-storeys), it will have an internal garden square and includes family-sized maisonettes with their own private gardens. Surely that would provide better new Council homes for Brent people in housing need?

 

At the moment, following a Cabinet decision six months ago, it is proposed that 152 of the 250 homes to be built at Cecil Avenue (including 20 family-sized homes) would be for a developer partner to sell at a profit. In an article last month, I asked why Senior Council Officers and a small number of Cabinet members (with the rest not questioning it) were appearing to favour developers over Brent residents in need of a decent Council home? We are all still waiting for an answer!

 

I’ve set out the question and the evidence behind it. Now here is my advice. Avoid the ASPV! Ditch the developer! Get on and use the money you were willing to spend on 155 homes in a leasehold tower block in Alperton, and instead build all 250 of the homes at Cecil Avenue (including the 152 you planned to “give away” to a developer) as affordable rented Council homes. You know that is good, plain common sense.

 

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.

 

P.S. My consultancy fee for this sound advice is the same as usual - £zero!

Brent Planning Committee proceedings told in Tweets

 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)

BRIDGEWATER ROAD, ALPERTON

 

WATKIN ROAD, WEMBLEY PARK

Alperton high rise city's onward march up Bridgewater Road

The emerging high rise city

The former Saab showroom, 2A Bridgewater Road, part of the development site

The site marked with red pin - note the 2 storey suburban housing to the right of image

Wednesday's Planning Committee will be asked to following officers' recommendation and approve a 4-19 storey development to replace the low rise former Saab showroom at 2A Bridgewater Road, Alperton.

The application continues the expansion of high rise in the area as can be seen from the top image take from the application.  The blocks are set back near the Piccadilly underground line, which offers say mitigate their height, with an industrial unit on the street frontage. 

The housing comprises 124 units:

Affordable Housing – comprising 47 affordable rent units at London Affordable Rent levels and 77 shared ownership units in line with the household income cap and eligibility criteria for intermediate products set out in the London Plan and draft London Plan

It has less family housing than guidance suggests but officers say that is offset by its '100% affordability.'

Apart from some disabled parking it will be a car free but officers suggest the case for a local CPZ will be strengthened by the development.

Regarding the development's closeness to traditional 2 storey surburban housing, the report states:

The proposal would respond well to the constraints and opportunities of development in this area of transition between the dense urban fabric around Alperton Station and the more traditional housing to the northwest.