Last night's Brent Planning Committee decisions: Brook Avenue, Harlesden Adult Gaming Centre and Queens Park garage demolitions all approved.

 The developer's agent was challenged at Brent Planning Committee over the Brook Avenue development. He was asked what would happen if some of the owners of the current two storey houses did not agree to sell to the developer. He replied that the developer was in control of the vast majority of the site and just one or two house owners are holding out. He was confident that the developer would achieve full control.

Planning officers elaborated that a last resort would be Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO by Brent Council but that would depend on establishig that a proper process was followed by the developer.

Cllr Daniel Kennelly spoke strongly in favour of the application, particularly the shared living proposal but had reservations about a cycle path to nowhere and likely problems with park despite it being a no cars development.

The Planning Committee approved the application.

 

Cllr Kelcher, Chair of Planning Committee, recluded himself from consideration of the Park Parade, Harlesden, Adult Gaming Centre application. He said his position against it was well-known and had existed before he became Chair. 

Cllr Jumbo Chan (Harlesden and Kensal Green) spoke against the application. It would be an 'engine of great harm. Over concentration of gambling facilities preying on vulnerable people of Harlesden with homelessness centre nearby.'

The possibility of a developer appeal to the Planning Inspectorate if the application was refused loomed large over the discussion. An appeal could be costly for the council it was argued.

Cllr Saqib, Vice Chair, summed up at the end with the comment, 'after all we believe in the free market'.

The Planning Committee approved the application.

The application for the replacement of garages at the rear of 88-98 Wrentham Avenue in Queens Park by two houses was approved despite a strong speech against by a local resident who challenged claims about the use of the garages. They were used for a variety of purposes including as an art studio.

 

 

UPDATED WITH COMMENTS: Brook Avenue residents object as plans for a large scale co-living complex & flats that would demolish their homes goes to Brent Planning Committee

 

Brent Planning Committee will make a decision on this application this Wednesday October 16th. It is Item 4 on the Agenda. LINK

 

Some of the residents of suburban housing in Brook Avenue, adjacent to the Metropolitan line at Wembley Park, have objected to a planning application going to Brent Planning Committee next week. This would see their property demolished and built on. They say no terms or conditions have been agreed with the developer. One resident told the planners:

The developer has not got any agreement on purchasing my home, and I have no intention of moving, but the plans show my house being demolished and built over.

Brent planners responded:

This is a civil matter. Any person/entity can apply for planning permission on land not in their ownership but must first serve notice on the land owner that planning permission has been applied for. Notice (Certificate B) was served on all affected property owners on [Editor's note - this sentence breaks off at this point and new paragraph follows]

 

Should planning permission be granted, the permission cannot be implemented unless the developer has acquired all of the individual plots that form the application site.

The appplication involves demolition of 22 mainly 3 bedroom family houses with gardens backing on to Wealdstone Brook.

Most of the objections on the planning portal come from the blocks of flats opposite the proposed development regarding loss of light, over-development and traffic. The development is proposed to be car free.

 The proposal is for two  linked blocks of purpose built shared living accommodation, 6 and 15 storeys,and two linked blocks of residential flats between 4 and 9 storeys. 

 

As you can see from the above this actually amounts to at least 7 blocks. They will face across the road to recently built blocks on ex-railway land and just up the road to the blocks currently being built close to the Wembley Park station steps.

Purpose built shared living accommodation LINK is a comparatively new concept and a kind of cross between student accommodation and a care home. Longer term than students and no care provision. It is marketed as suitable for single people who want their own space but with access to other facilities such as large communal kitchens, gym and outside areas. These plans also include a cafe that would be open to non-residents as well The development would supply 517 units.

These plans will give you an idea of what is envisaged for shared living:

 The Planning Officers' Report notes:

LSPBSL (Large Scale Purpose-built Shared Living) generally provides accommodation for single-person households who cannot, or choose not to, live in self-contained homes or HMOs. This accommodation type may be used on a transitional basis until residents find suitable longer-term housing. Whilst LSPBSL provides an additional housing option for some people, due to the unique offer of this accommodation type it does not meet minimum housing standards and is therefore not considered to meet the ongoing needs of households in London. It is therefore not recognised as an affordable housing product because it does not provide accommodation suitable for households in need of genuinely affordable housing, including families.

 

It should however be noted that as a recognised housing choice, they are counted towards housing supply on a ratio of 1.8:1 basis as per London Plan Policy H1.

Responding to whether there is a need for co-living accommodation an assessment was made:

The Assessment confirms that 27% of a total of 118,602 households in Brent are 1-person households, or a total of 31,985 people. There are 17,000 HMOs in Brent, which compete with 3-bedroom family housing, therefore at least 51,000 residents are living in HMOs and most likely the estimate is higher. Co-living would not only meet the needs of a significant population of single renters, but also potentially free up family housing currently in use as HMO.

 

Brent has 38% of residents aged between 20 and 44, and Wembley 39%, which are both above the UK population average of 32%. Nationally, 66.9% of market renters are in this age range. In Brent, 32% of people live in the private rented sector, compared to 18% nationally. The proportion is 34% in Wembley area in isolation. Brent therefore has above national average proportions of people in the ideal age range and who are renting.

The residential accommodation would consist of 26 one bedroom, 48 two bedroom and 26 three bedroom flats.

 

The question of tenure affordability is addressed by officers:

The total net internal floorspace (NIA) of the development is 19,549sqm, comprising of 12,665sqm for the co-living element and 6,884sqm for the C3 dwellings. The proportion of C3 floorspace therefore equates to 35.2% of the total provision thereby satisfying the minimum threshold of 35%. Moreover, the tenure mix proposed is a policy compliant 70% low-cost social rent and 30% intermediate rent. The proposal, with regard to affordable housing, satisfies the requirements of the London Plan and the Local Plan, subject to an early stage review mechanism.

For co-living the report states:

Having regard to the population profile of Brent and to the local housing market in terms of affordability, average incomes, household sizes/tenure, it is considered that co-living would be affordable based on the average salary in Brent of £43,215 (ONS/2022), the depth of the market is estimated between 20,697 and 28,741 people in Brent who could both have a requirement and be able to afford a co-living unit. This represents between 8% and 11% of the adult population aged 20 or over in the borough.

 

A Whole Life Carbon Assessment has been submitted:

A Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessment has been submitted outlining the measures that would be considered or employed to reduce the carbon emissions arising from the development. Measures such as, but not limited to

 

Reducing the volume of concrete used and employing the use of recycled concrete; 

 

The sourcing of materials as near to the site as possible;

The use of products that have low embodied carbon  

 

The use of brick for the façade, a material that requires minimal maintenance over its lifetime;

 

 The use of materials that can be separated from each other to allow for more effective recycling at the end of life  

 

The above measures are welcomed and would be reviewed further by the GLA as part of the Stage 2 referral. Appropriately worded conditions would be imposed following GLA input at Stage 2.

'Would be considered or employed' and 'measures such as' are rather vague so the conditions set by the Planning Committee will be important.

 

 Satellite View

As can be seen from the above view there is green space, back gardens and mature trees alongside the Wealdstone Brook. Across the brook is a designated green corridor.There are concerns that biodiversity will be lost. The developer submits a plan for the outside areas that is essential to meet amenity space guidelines:

 

The extent of treet removal is demonstrated in this chart from  the Arbicultural Assessment.

There is the usual promise of replacement tree planting. The GLA 1st Stage assessment argues:

The proposed development seeks to secure a net biodiversity net gain (BNG) of 1.73%, which falls below the 10% outlined in London Plan Policy G6. The existing site has a high biodiversity score. Although the design approach seeks to maximise BNG, given the low figure, there should be consideration of further on-site opportunities and the Council could secure payment to overcome the shortfall to enhance the adjacent Brook.

 But Brent Council Planning Officers respond:

It should be noted that the application was submitted prior to a 10% BNG coming into force, therefore the scheme only needs to demonstrate a net gain, which it does.

 A further issue is potential flooding from surface, fluvial and articial (Brent Reservoir) Most of the buildings will be lifted above potential flood levels and there are proposals for mitigation. The officers' report concludes:

From the Flood Risk Assessment we can establish that there are no sequentially better sites for the development proposal than the current site. In addition, subject to conditions such as securing the Flood Warning & Evacuation Plan, finished floor levels, engagement with Emergency Planning Officers, along with other measures, the proposal should provide sufficient safeguards to ensure the safety of occupiers.

The proposed drainage strategy, again subject to conditions, is considered acceptable and should sufficiently attenuate water and reduce the risk of flooding.

 

APPLICATION DOCUMENTS

 As Paul Lorber points out in comments this development was foreshadowed in the Adopted Local Plan. It puts the site capacity at 450 units, whereas the above totals 617 units.

If you have been disconcerted by this application it is worth looking at the detailed Local Plan for potential developments across the borough. You may find your home or business there. The Local Plan extends to 2041.

 https://legacy.brent.gov.uk/media/16420376/brent-local-plan-2019-2041.pdf

This is what the Local Plan indicates for the Brook Avenue site:

 

Controversial tall towers on Wembley Park Station car park approved by minister

 

The five towers proposed to be built between Brook Avenue and the Metropolitan railway line, previously the station car park, have been approved. Philip Grant wrote about the planning issues involved HERE.

It is ironical that this has been announced on the day Full Council is set to approve the new Local Plan that will pave the way for many similar developments.

Construction News writes:

Transport for London (TfL) and Barratt Homes have been given the green light for a 454-home development near Wembley Park.

The minister of state for rough sleeping and housing Eddie Hughes MP made the decision to green light the project on behalf of communities secretary Michael Gove.

Planning permission for the scheme was initially granted by the London Borough of Brent in November 2020. However, the scheme was called in by former communities secretary Robert Jenrick in May last year.

Up to five new residential buildings will include replacement train crew accommodation, retail space, parking facilities and other communal areas. Up to 152 of the new homes will be classed as affordable housing.

The project faced a delay after concerns were raised that the scheme could impact heritage and listed buildings in the neighbourhood, especially the Barn Hill Conservation Area and the Lawn Court Conservation Area. Other listed spaces included Wembley Arena.

The minister accepted a report from the Planning Inspector, submitted in November, that the benefits of the scheme were enough to outbalance “the less than substantial harm” to the conservation areas.

Some of the benefits identified were the regeneration of brownfield land, increased affordable housing, delivery of a car-free development, and economic as well as environmental improvements to the local area.

The project spans 0.7 hectares, with Wembley Park Station and Olympic Square to the east, and railway lines that serve Wembley Park Station and the Chiltern Railway to its north. The project has an estimated value of £123.2m.

ALERT: Submissions to Wembley Park Station/Brook Avenue Planning Inquiry have to be in by Thursday July 8th - Read Philip Grant's submission

 

Submissions to the Planning Inquiry on the Wembley Park Station/Brook Avenue have a deadline of Thursday July 8th.

The referral to the Planning Inspectorate was made by Robert Jenrick MP, the Communites Secretary, after concern that the Planning Committee's approval decision was unsound as it was alleged to be in breach of Brent Council's own policies. LINK

Local historian Philip Grant has made a detailed submission that you can find below. Click bottom right for a full page view.

The closing date for comments, ahead of the Public Inquiry, is Thursday 8 July. Anyone who wishes to, but has not yet done so, can submit their comments to: leanne.palmer@planninginspectorate.gov.uk , quoting the reference: APP/T5150/ V/21/3275339. 

'Flagrant breach of Brent planning policy' Wembley Park Station application passed by Brent Planning Committee

 

The Wembley Park Station car park application is the 5 dark green blocks at the bottom right of the image. Planning Officers claimed that they were part of the overall Wembley Park high-rise area rather than the suburban area in which their own image shows they are clearly situated. The railway line, Bridge Road and Empire Way form a physical enclosure and boundary of the high rise area around the stadium.

Brent Planning Committee tonight approved the planning application for the Wembley Park Station car park which will see the construction of 5 tower blocks on Brook Avenue.

Philip Grant made a powerful presention on the Brook Avenue - Wembley Park station planning application this evening demonstrating how it breached Brent Council's own planning policies.  Nevertheless the Planning Committee went ahead and approved the application with only one vote, that of Cllr Maurice, against.

This is what Philip said:

Paragraphs 44 to 52 of the Officers Report give a confused view of Brent’s planning policy on tall buildings for this site. I will explain those policies clearly, using the objectors’ document supplied to you.

The current policy, on page 1, is WEM 5, in the Wembley Area Action Plan, adopted by the Council in 2015. This says that ‘Tall buildings will be acceptable in a limited number of locations within the AAP area.’

At page 2, you can see the locations on the Tall Buildings Strategy map. The station car park is in the red area – ‘Sites inappropriate for Tall Buildings’.

There was a specific site called “Wembley Park Station Car Park” in that Action Plan. This was the site where Matthews Close was built, with blocks between 5 and 8 storeys high - a scale identified as suitable for this mainly residential area.

The Brent Design Guide, SPD1, adopted in November 2018, is another policy covering this application. Under Principle 3.1 it states: ‘Tall buildings will only be encouraged in areas identified as appropriate for tall buildings.’

The Officers Report says that you should be guided by Brent’s emerging Local Plan. The 2015 Wembley AAP policies still take precedence within that Plan, subject to any locally specific details.

The Station Car Park is a specific site, BCSA7, in that Local Plan. If you look at the copy provided on page 4, you’ll see that this application’s southern site has an indicative capacity for 300 homes, and that: ‘Up to ten storeys will be considered acceptable to the western side of the site, stepping up slightly directly adjacent to the station.’

Those are the planning policies on which you should decide this matter.

Committee members, please don’t allow yourselves to be fooled into accepting an application which doesn’t comply with the policies adopted by Brent Council, after consultation with its residents.

This application is a flagrant breach of those policies, and you can, and should, refuse it on those grounds.

 Cllr Kennelly, councillor for the relevant ward, Preston, and soon to be on the Planning Committee himself, made a neutral presentation. He thought that the development wasn't in keeping with the local area, it fell outside the designated tall buildings area, the tallest was nearly three times as tall as the existing tallest building in  the road, and that the attempt to make up deficiencies in amenity space meant provision of balconies facing each other that would impact on privacy.  He welcomes the provision of affordable housing but said that shared ownership would not have been his choice. Answering a question from the Committee he said that a CPZ might alleviate parking issues but would be a long-term cost to local residents, even if initially funded by the developer.

Cllr Liz Dixon, a member of the Commitee said that Philip Grant's presentation had been well articulated but asked what he thought the damage would be to the area. He replsed that the height of the blocks would overshadow neighbouring properties and cut out the light of new homes that were only built a few years ago. It was over-development and breached policy that was the result of public consultation.

Cllr Kansagra said it was wrong that the Council spent so much time on the Wembley Area Action Plan only to ignore it. He said that the developer had bribed Brent Council with flats.  He went on to complain more broadly that Brent Council had £126m of CIL and Section 106 money unspent in its coffers. Covid had taught us that space is important - the development was too dense with little amenity space.

 

Responding, an officer claim that the 'emerging local plan' anticipates that this is a site for tall buildings and that tall buildings should be built around transport hubs, which Wembley Park station on train and bus routes, demonstrably was. Furthermore, both sides of Brook Avenue, beyond its current surburban character, was designated as a site for tall buildings as was part of nearby Forty Avenue thatit leads to. (Forty Avenue is far bottom right - outside the image)

Planning Officer David Glover took me aback when he remarked, 'We are not saying that that 21 storeys is slightly above 10 storeys.' He went on to argue that there would be a loss of viability and thus of affordable homes, if the propsed blocks were lower in height.

Another Planning Officer made my jaw drop when responding to the issue of Covid in high density developments, he said Covid would be gone by the summer and we don't have to worry about it.

There was a very long discussion led by Cllr Maurice on the amount of car parking available in the road that he claimed was already over-parked and would be hit by many of the up to 900 additional residents in a supposedly car-free development seeking a parking space. In addition the 80 or so people who used the station car park would be looking for parking space in the nearby streets.  There will some disabled parking in the development and spaces for transport personnel who drive in  before the trains start running and drive home after the last trains.  There was debate over the extent to which a CPZ would just displace competition for parking to streets further afield. Residents on Twitter testified to how in normal times the station car park was full by 8am, contrary to planners claim that it was underused.

The Planning Committee is not supposed to be political but the only dissent when it came to the vote was the single Conservative councillor, Cllr Maurice. Aside from parking his objection was based on the density of the development in what he considered a suburban area and clear breaches of specific and current Brent policies.  He was used to breaches of guidelines but policy was a different matter.

The Brook Avenue Five Towers at Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday

 

 

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.  

COMMITTEE AGENDA

 

Brook Avenue, Wembley Park: The latest street to fall victim to high rise buildings

Guest post by a Brook Avenue resident

Proposals for the redevelopment of Wembley Park Station car park to build five new buildings between 13 and 21 storeys in height (456 residential units) have been submitted to the council. This is just the latest site highlighted for high rise, excessive density buildings that are slowly changing the face of Wembley as we know it. As a resident of Brook Avenue and having read the various local, London and national plans, I believe that the proposed development contravenes many of the policies set out in the plans and would have a serious adverse impact on the area. The site will be overdeveloped, compromising the quality of the development, character of the street and supporting infrastructure capabilities. If you are a resident of Brook avenue or the surrounding area, or even if you have been left feeling disenfranchised about the emergence of such buildings in Wembley, please read on. Details on how to get involved will be at the bottom of this post.

The 5 blocks will be 13, 13, 14,17 and 21 storeys in height, on a parcel of land that is far too small at 0.67 hectares. 

The site itself has been highlighted in numerous council plans as being “inappropriate” for tall buildings, as per the London plans guidance to grade sites on their “appropriateness” for tall buildings. Based on the council's own policies, the site is clearly not suitable for such buildings and should not be given approval. Given the significant detrimental impact tall buildings can have on local character, it is important that they emerge as part of a planned exercise in placemaking, rather than in an ad hoc, speculative way.

Wembley Area Action Plan

Areas inappropriate for tall buildings are highlighted in red

Historically, Brent is characterised by low to mid rise buildings, with any tall buildings being directed towards town centres. A 21 storey building on a road with mainly two and multi storey buildings would be completely out of keeping with the context and character of the area. The proposed developments will pose both a literal, and metaphorical encroachment on residential suburbia and as the London Plan, Chapter 7.21 states: “The building form and layout should have regard to the density and character of the surrounding development”. I'm sure over the years many of you have noticed a surge in tall buildings in Wembley, often in areas where they do not fit in with the suburban surrounding character. Whilst it is understandable that the push for taller buildings stems from a need for more housing, high density does not always have to mean high rise development. Perhaps efforts should be made for developments that both contribute to the required density and are also in keeping with the character of the area.

 A rendering of what the tallest block will look like as you enter Brook Avenue from Olympic Square

 Rendering of what the buildings would look like from verified view - Barn Rise junction with Eversley Avenue and ...

 ... Kingswood Road at junction with Elmside Road

The increase in density due to the developments would amount to serious ‘cramming’ on what is a quiet, residential, low density road. The buildings adjacent (Matthew's Close) were given an indicative capacity of 100 units in the Wembley Area Action Plan- so how can a site that is on the same street and is in fact 0.2 hectares smaller, be allowed to be built at the indicative capacity of more than quadruple that? The development would also intensify pressure on already burdened infrastructure such as schools and GP’s. The 456 units, which would house more than double that in people, would result in an increased demand for school places within the Borough, without providing any contribution to building new school classrooms. It would mean an increased pressure for the use of existing open space, without contributions to enhance that open space. The development only provides an average of 12.8sqm of private and communal amenity space per unit- this equates to only 64% of the local plan requirements, which would lead to greater pressure on the surrounding open spaces in the area (like what is currently going on with King Edwards Park). Where is the commitment from the council to create open, green spaces to accommodate the growing population of Wembley?

The proposal also makes no provisions for the loss of a car park which accommodates 200 visitors daily.  Brook Avenue is the most heavily parked road in Brent and the loss of the car park, as well as the addition of 456 new homes, will have a serious adverse impact on the street as well as the surrounding areas. Parking will spill onto Brook avenue (a street which already has issues with street parking) as well as the surrounding Barn Hill area. Without mitigation measures, the high levels of population growth anticipated due to the development will place serious pressure on the existing road network, particularly on event days.

The development will not make a significant contribution to Brent's housing needs as it favours one bed and studio flats as opposed to family homes. Brent’s predominant needs are more for larger sized (3 bed or more) family dwellings. Of the 456 dwellings that are proposed to be built, only 10% will be 3 bedroom, as opposed to the 25% that is required by the council. This is a clear lack of consideration for families which should be encouraged to stay and contribute to the establishment of a long term mixed and sustainable community in Wembley. The council's own policy states:

“It is not the intention of the council to build a large transitional location for single people and childless couples who may be forced to move on because there is no choice of family homes available”

The Development would also lead to breaches of the BRE Guidelines (Building Research Establishment) in terms of daylight and sunlight received by the neighbouring properties. It is understandable that existing levels of light cannot be maintained, but this should not be to such a degree that they breach BRE guidelines. The council should ensure that the quality of housing output is not compromised by the need to make the most efficient use of land.

The proposed development will pose both a literal, and metaphorical encroachment on residential suburbia. It seems that this development, like many others emerging all around Wembley, puts quantity over quality. Under the guise of “making the most efficient use of land”, other equally important criteria have been ignored, such as quality, capacity of the street, parking, impact on amenities etc. It should not go remiss to mention that should the council expect it’s policies to be taken seriously, it should lead by example, and not repeatedly contravene it’s own plans through granting permission for development where it would otherwise be unsuitable. If a building that violates so many local and national policies is granted planning permission, what will this mean for the future of Wembley?

Through the strive for the ‘regeneration’ of Wembley, the council has seemingly overlooked the thoughts and opinions of the people who make it what it is: its residents. I urge you all to get involved to help make our voices heard. I will leave you all with a quote from the Emerging Local Plan, Paragraph 4.51:

Meeting indicative capacities should not be used to justify overriding other policies where it would result in creating poor developments.

Get involved:

If you are a resident of Brook avenue or the surrounding area, you can object to this development either by writing your comments on the council website (the application reference number is 20/0967) or emailing your objection to Toby.huntingford@brent.gov.uk .

Resident of Brook Avenue