Shams Court residents in revolt as yet another development on their doorstep removes their right to light

 

Shams Court, Fulton Road

A four storey block of flats, Shams Court is tucked away between Olympic Way, North End Road and Fulton Road. Gradually it has been encircled by high rise buildings and now more are on their way.

Yesterday comments closed for the existing 6 storey building facing Olympic Way (3 Olympic Way below) to be replaced by a 6 storey hotel extension, an 8 storey building and 22 storey and 25 storey towers.

3 Olympic Way (today)

Proposed

This is the description of the plans on the Brent Council Planning Portal:

21/2130 | Demolition of existing building at 3 Olympic Way and erection of 3 buildings of basement, ground and 8, 22 and 25 storeys (excluding rooftop plant) to provide 178 residential units (Use Class C3), new hotel accommodation comprising 260 rooms (Use Class C1) and a retail food store (Use Class E). 6-storey extension to existing hotel at 5 Olympic Way to provide 95 additional hotel rooms (Use Class C1) and amenities, extension of ground floor to create new colonnade and public realm improvements to Olympic Way. Other works associated with development include new access from North End Road, disabled car parking, cycle parking, private and communal amenity spaces, public realm works and other associated works | Olympic House, 3 and Novotel, 5 Olympic Way, Wembley, HA9 

Only 22 comments are recorded on the portal and as usual Brent Council hasn't published the Consultee comments for the public to see.  All 22 comments from Shams Court, Danes Court and MacLaren Court object to the development. A resident from Shams Court claims that they only found out about the proposals by accident and were thus able to inform the other 8 flats, despite the developer admitting that Shams Court is the building most affected by the plans.

This is typical of the comments:

This planning application will have a serious, detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the homeowners of the 9 flats at Shams Court, a 4 storey block.


Shams Court flats were sold in 2014 and were a part of the development holding Pinnacle Tower flats, the Novotel Hotel and other affordable housing flats. Since then we've had non-stop construction works and high rise buildings built around us, namely the Scape Wembley (29 storeys) and Felda House (17 storeys) which tower over Shams Court (to the East of Shams Court).


The development of these towers next to Pinnacle Tower (18 Storey tower to the South of Shams Court) and the Novotel (19 storeys to the West of Shams Court) left us with very little natural light and a claustrophobic environment to live in. We are overlooked in our flats and on our roof garden, leaving us with little privacy. Noise levels, anti-social behaviour, disturbance and nuisance from overcrowding of a small area with thousands of people greatly depreciated our quality of life since we first bought our new homes at Shams Court.


To grant the application of a 25 storey block immediately at the back of Shams Court (to the South) would be shameful. We are already overcrowded and overlooked. We would be left with no natural light from every single direction and be subjected to enduring increased noise pollution, disturbance, loss of privacy and anti-social behaviour.


It is without doubt that the new norm for the majority of working professionals would be to spend most, if not all, of their time working from home, without access to offices. These proposal will be detrimental to our health and well-being as Shams Court will be the place we reside for the vast majority of our days.


I must also stress that Shams Court was sold as a means of affordable housing (shared ownership). To have yet another massive building towering over us will severely lower the value of our homes, trapping the residents of Shams Court in negative equity, within homes they cannot sell due to the poor quality environment that's been created by non-stop construction of high rise structures around us.


We put faith in Brent Council to understand the detrimental effect this proposal will have on the residents of Shams Court. We hope you will protect us from these deleterious proposals. The idea of a small 4-storey block being immediately towered over by high rise buildings on every side (in very close proximity) is ludicrous. Yet this is what is being proposed.


I would urge you to visit Shams Court, or view a satellite map of the existing towers surrounding us to see the detrimental impact that this proposal would have on Shams Court residents.


When the original development was built in 2014, it's assumed the developers were granted the permission to build our development, under a section 106 agreement. The grant of which would have relied heavily on the provision of affordable housing. They are now intending to subject the same residents of their affordable housing to awful living conditions, ruining our prospects and well-being by building yet another tower on top of us. This is nothing short of cruel and deceitful behaviour.


Within the documentation provided on this portal, I can say that there are false claims of consultation between the developers and residents. There's a mention of ongoing communication with residents Dec 2020, Jan 2021 and Feb 2021. This has simply not happened and these proposals have only recently come to our attention.


The Daylight Assessment document also fails to include Shams Court on various parts of the document, for example the '2 hours of sunlight before and after' impact assessment. I believe the developers are purposefully misleading Brent Council on the impact that these structures will have on Shams Court.


For the sake our physical and mental health I sincerely hope that these plans are refused.

Another residents says:

I am a key worker who was born, lived and worked in Brent and that's why I was able to buy within our block. We really enjoy living here and generally feel that the development in the area is for the good. However, when plans will (admitted by the developer) have a detrimental effect on our living standards (and therefore our health), it is unfair that we and our baby twins (and our lovely neighbours) are either being forced to live in a terrible environment (during building but more importantly, after) or being forced out from our homes.


The developer is the same company that owns the Novotel and the Pinnacle Tower. They, in fact, built our flats as part of the then planning agreement to have part of the requirements to have a certain proportion of the development available for keyworkers - but they themselves are now pushing us out by making living conditions uninhabitable, or proposing and writing plans that will have that effect.

 

Given what happened last Sunday at Euro202 it is important that planning officers consider the impact of another high density development of Olympic (Wembley) Way on security and crowd control.

The plans have wider repercussions regarding the protections that are supposed to be in place for protected views of Wembley Stadium and what has been described as the claustrophobic, canyon like, approach to the stadium along Olympic Way.

The 'protected' cumulative view from Barn Hill. The 3 Olympic Way towers are in green outline and those in the pipeline in pink - including plans for the Wembley Stadium Retail Park and Fountain Studios site.

 The view along Olympic Way with the green and pink outlines of the proposal and those that have preliminary agreement.

 

 Danes Court in North End Road (now opened up to through traffic) the proposed development will be on the right.

The Wembley Park Story - Part 5

The fourth part of Philip Grant's series on the history of Wembley Park

Thank you for joining me again, on our journey through Wembley Park’s history. Part 4 is here, if you missed it. We are moving into times within the life of many of you, so please feel free to add your own memories to (or correct, if necessary!) anything that I write from now on.

1. Wembley Park, seen from above the station, late summer 1948. (Britain from Above image EAW018314)

After the Olympic Games, in the summer of 1948, Wembley Park returned to “business as usual”. The Palace of Industry was a warehouse for His (then Her) Majesty’s Stationery Office, storing stocks of its publications, from Acts of Parliament to the Highway Code, and millions of envelopes and paperclips for the Civil Service. A wide variety of businesses used other surviving buildings in the former (British Empire) Exhibition grounds.

2. Two adverts from the early 1950's for businesses at Wembley Park. (Brent Archives – local directories)

The Empire Pool’s swimming bath was never used again after the Olympics, and the arena became a year-round sports and entertainment venue. The Wembley Lions ice hockey team played there throughout the 1950s, but ice pantomimes also began here in 1950. Other regular annual fixtures from that year were the All-England Badminton Championships and the Harlem Globetrotters basketball matches. Six-day cycle races, and amateur and professional boxing, also featured in the programme, together with the Horse of the Year Show from 1959.

3. Harlem Globetrotters basketball and six-day cycling action at the Empire Pool, 1950s. (From old books)

In 1955, a second television channel was launched in Britain, funded by showing adverts. The ITV franchise for weekdays in the London area was awarded to Associated-Rediffusion, who bought the former film studios in Wembley Park Drive to use for making programmes. They soon had more ambitious plans, and built the largest TV studio in Europe, next door to their existing premises. Wembley Park’s Studio 5 opened in June 1960 with “An Arabian Night”, a spectacular 3-hour show which was broadcast live across the whole ITV network.

4. A cutting from the "Wembley Observer", about plans for the new studio. (From the late Richard Graham)

More building work was going on nearby, with several new office blocks appearing on either side of Olympic Way, close to Wembley Park Station. Apart from that, however, much of the former British Empire Exhibition site remained in drab industrial and commercial use, with firms such as Johnson Matthey & Co (metals) and Fisher Foils among them. Even the former Neverstop Railway station in North End Road was used, as a car repair workshop.

5. South Way, Wembley Park, looking towards the stadium, 1960. (Brent Archives online image 4841)

6. North End Road in the 1960s, with the old Neverstop Railway Station, and Danes Court flats beyond.
(Wembley History Society Collection - Brent Archives online image 9502)

My own first memory of Wembley is arriving on a chartered train, packed with boys from East Sussex, in April 1959. Schoolboy football international matches had begun at the stadium in 1950 (women’s hockey internationals, to attract groups of schoolgirls, started the following year), and I was one of the 95,000 who had come to watch England v. West Germany. We won 2-0, but I have fonder memories of another Wembley match between the two countries, seven years later, which I saw (in black and white) on a television set at home with my family!

7. A 1963 poster and 1966 programme for famous events at Wembley Stadium. (Internet / Terry Lomas)

Wembley Stadium had been fitted with a new roof in 1963, so that all spectators would be undercover. This did not apply to events where part of the crowd was “on the pitch”, such as the memorable boxing match in June that year. Henry Cooper, who lived in Wembley, knocked down Cassius Clay (later known as Muhammed Ali), but still lost the contest. The 1960s also saw a new sport come to Wembley Park, with the opening of a 24-lane ten pin bowling alley, the Wembley Bowl and Starlight Restaurant, between the arena and Empire Way. This was converted to a Squash Centre in 1974, and later to a bingo club.

8. Wembley Conference Centre, in Empire Way near Wembley Hill Road, c.1990s. (Image from the internet)

Sir Arthur Elvin had died in 1957, and by the 1970s his Wembley Stadium company had become a subsidiary of the British industrial conglomerate, BET. They set about adding to Wembley Park’s attractions, with a new hotel, large exhibition halls and the Conference Centre. This opened in 1977, just in time to stage the Eurovision Song Contest. It hosted many other major events including, from 1979, the Benson & Hedges Masters Snooker Tournament. From the 1970s, the stadium car parks were home to the popular Wembley Stadium Sunday Market.

9. Wembley Stadium Sunday Market, c.1990s. (Image from the internet)

Popular music shows at the Empire Pool had begun in 1959, with the first single act concert by The Monkees in July 1967. Wembley hosted its first Stadium concerts in the early 1970s, and within a few years had become one of the “must play” venues for top performers on their tours. In July 1985, it staged the Live Aid charity concert, raising funds for famine relief in Africa, watched on television by an estimated 1.9 billion people around the world. The “Free Nelson Mandela” 70^th birthday concert in 1988 helped to bring about his release from prison, and Brent’s Mayor was able to welcome him to Wembley for an anti-apartheid concert in 1990.

10. The logo for Live Aid in 1985, and the 1988 birthday concert for Nelson Mandela. (From the internet)

The former Palace of Engineering was demolished in the early 1980s, to make way for more modern commercial and retail buildings. Under the planning agreement for this development, Brent Council adopted Olympic Way (a private road, built by Wembley Stadium in 1947/48) as a public highway. In 1991, when Wembley was a key part of England’s bid for UEFA’s Euro ’96 football tournament, the Council decided to pedestrianize this main route to the stadium.

As part of this scheme, a wide subway was created under Bridge Road, to give people on foot a safer journey to Olympic Way from Wembley Park Station. The walls of the subway were decorated with specially designed ceramic tile murals, celebrating sports and entertainment events from the history of the stadium and arena. Named “The Bobby Moore Bridge”, the new structure was opened in September 1993, by the widow of England’s 1966 World Cup-winning captain, who had died from cancer a few months earlier.

11. Two of the tile mural scenes in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway. (Photos by Philip Grant, 2009)

Wembley Stadium had been made all-seated (following the report on the 1989 Hillsborough tragedy), so that when Euro ’96 was staged in June 1996 it had a capacity of 76,500. England played all three of their group-stage matches there, including a 2-0 victory over Scotland. Wembley also saw the host nation’s quarter and semi-final games, and the final, won 2-1 by the reunited Germany v. the Czech Republic, after beating England on penalties in the semis.

12. Fans heading up Olympic Way for the England v. Scotland match, June 1996. (Image from internet)

Even before Euro ’96, Wembley Stadium was showing its age, and with its cast reinforced concrete structure, it was difficult to make major improvements. In 1995, the Sports Council announced that it would hold a competition to decide where a new National Football Stadium should be built. The prize would be £120 million, of National Lottery funding, towards the cost of building the new venue.

As well as other English cities, a number of boroughs in London wanted the new stadium sited in their area. Luckily, they were persuaded that Wembley had the best chance of success for the capital, and the final competition shortlist was between bids from Birmingham, Manchester and London. In the end, it was the world-famous name of Wembley, and the heritage of “the Venue of Legends”, built up since 1923, which won the day!

Next weekend, in the final part of this series, we will reach the 21^st century, and see how the new stadium, and other developments, changed the face of Wembley Park. I hope you will join me then.

Please feel free to add your memories, questions or comments in the box below.

Philip Grant.

Brent Council Planning Committee to decide on a 23 storey tower near Empire and Danes Court, Wembley

The development and others planned (grey shading) from North End Road

Before

After

Cumalative massing

Brent Planning Committee on December 12th will consider an application to build a block of varying heights, maximum 23 storeys, on a site in Watkin Road currently occupied by single storey car repair buildings. It is just outside the Quintain Masterplan site but illustrates the way tower blocks are spreading across the area.

At 23 storeys it is lower than the 29 storey Apex House student accommodation tower which will be its near neighbour. There is a 34 story block planned at Quintain Plot NE06.

The new building continues the enroachment on


As has become custome and practice the report by Brent planners glosses over aspects where the application fails to meet or comes close to not meeting local and London guidance:

1. Provision of new homes and affordable workspace: Your officers give great weight to the viable delivery of private and affordable housing and new affordable commercial floor space, in line with the adopted Development Plan.
   
2. The impact of a building of this height and design in this location: The proposal replaces a poor quality commercial plot with a large modern high density development in keeping with the surrounding and approved built form. The development utilises good architecture with quality detailing and materials in order to maximise the site’s potential whilst respecting surrounding development. The development will not obstruct views of the Wembley Stadium arch from any protected viewpoints. A “tall building” is proposed within an area designated as “Inappropriate for tall buildings”. However, the height, layout, design and massing has been carefully considered and has been evaluated by the Design Council Design Review Panel, the GLA and by Brent Officers who all have concluded that the proposed building is appropriate for this context.
   
3. Quality of the resulting residential accommodation: The residential accommodation proposed is of sufficiently high quality. The mix of units is in accordance with the standards within the London Plan and reasonably well aligned with the Wembley Area Action Plan mix, and the flats would generally have good outlook and light. The amenity space is below our standard, but is still substantial and is high for a tall building.

4. Affordable housing: The maximum reasonable amount has been provided
   on a near policy compliant tenure split. This includes 35% affordable housing provision with a tenure split of 60:40 between affordable rented and intermediate flats when measured in terms of habitable rooms. 48% of the affordable rented accommodation are 3 bedroom flats when measured in terms of habitable rooms. The viability has been tested and it has been demonstrated that this is the maximum reasonable amount that can be provided on site. The requirements of affordable housing obligations are considered to have been met and a late stage viability review will be secured by S106.
   
5. Neighbouring amenity: There would be a loss of light to some windows of surrounding buildings, which is a function of a development on this scale. Many of the windows affected would serve student accommodation and/or do not yet exist as an established residential standard. The impact is considered to be acceptable given the urban context of the site. The overall impact of the development is considered acceptable, particularly in view of the wider regenerative benefits.
   
6. Highways and transportation: The alterations to the public highway as required in the S106 would be acceptable, considering the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. The highway works will include (i) providing a new loading bay on North End Road and (ii) extending a 20mph zone alongside the building. To encourage sustainable travel patterns, the scheme will be 'car-free' with the exception of blue badge parking spaces. A financial contribution of £110,000 towards extending CPZ's into the area is proposed with the removal of rights for residents within the development to apply for parking permits. A for bus service enhancements in the area, as required by TfL, will also be secured.
   
7. Trees, landscaping and public realm: Some low quality trees are proposed to be removed but they are not considered worthy of retention. The proposal is likely to substantially improve on the existing situation with a new public realm and associated tree planting proposed alongside a wider landscaping strategy. This will be assured through conditions.
   
8. Environmental impact, sustainability and energy: The measures outlined by the applicant achieve the required improvement on carbon savings within London Plan policy. Conditions will require further consideration of carbon savings prior to implementation.
   
9. Flooding and Drainage: Part of the site sits within a flood zone. A flood mitigation strategy and drainage strategy will be secured by condition to mitigate the risks associated with this. The development will also substantially improve the drainage capacity of the site through attenuation measures.
   

I would be interested to hear what the residents of Empire and Danes Court think of the proposal.

Hurry to tell the FA about how Spurs at Wembley has impacted on you

From Danes and Empire Court Residents' Association

We have been asked by the FA to provide feedback to a study they are conducting on the impact of Wembley Stadium, and of Spurs on the local area, London and the Nation. Specifically, they would like input on the questions below, so please provide your feedback AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (i.e. before Friday) as we will be meeting at this point.

What are the positive and negative impacts of Wembley on local residents and local businesses, and your views on the impacts of Wembley stadium with a focus on Tottenham Hotspur, and whether there have been any positive or negative developments as a result of the increased occupation?

What has been done since the start of the season to address any negative issues and how that has worked out?

What future initiatives you would like to see in place for the benefits of local stakeholders?

Answer the Questions HERE before Friday 13^th April.

Incidentally this is a comment on the Stadium made in 1986 by a nine year old as part of the Domes Day project (see side panel):

Sometimes I hate Wembley Stadium  because when there is an event like a match on there are nearly always hooligans hanging about.   I live near the Stadium and nearly  every Saturday there’s a match on and lots of people hang about the “Harrow   Tavern”, which is a public house in  front of our house.  I hope that Wembley Stadium buy  security cameras to catch all the hooligans.   The time when I like Wembley is when   there are no hooligans and the match is a friendly game. Concerts like the Live Aid one are held there as well. Next to Wembley Stadium, in the car park, there is a market which is held every Sunday. H.P.( Aged 9yrs)

-->

New Wembley Park development comes with built in flood risk

Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday 14th will consider a planning application for the vacated Amex site in North End Road, Wembley. LINK

The officer's report has the familiar mantra for the Quintain area which considers that the height of the building, though not meeting planning guidelines, can be approved because of its good design and the height of other buildings such as Victoria House, in the near vicinity; and the proportion of affordable housing at 22.6% not meeting the 50% target is approved as a result of the financial viability assessment carried out by advisers.

The buildings front on to North End Road and follow the loop of the Wealdstone Brook at the back. The aim is to partially naturalise the Wealdstone Brook which is currently in a concrete culvert although lined by mature trees.  Naturalisation was a long term aim of the Wembley Plan to improve the environment but it is unclear from the application whether there will be public access.  I am awaiting  response from the Planning Officer to my query.

The development is next to Danes Court and Empire Court which are four storeys high and set in gardens. The Courts will now have tall buildings at each end of North End Road. In the original Wembley Plan there was a proposal to re-build the North End Road junction with Bridge Road where the Michaela Free School now stands. I have asked Planning about the current status of this plan.

One of the difficulties of the site is that it is surrounded on what could be seen as three sides by the Wealdstone Brook and this is a flood risk area. See the line of the brook below:

In a period of extreme weather caused by climate change there is obviously a need to build mitigation into the development. The Planning Report sets out the risk and actions taken to mitigate the risk. I publish it below for the record. In the event of  extreme flooding the site has the potential to become a temporary island.

The Wealdstone Brook is a 2m wide culverted watercourse, the base level of which is some 2.5m 
below adjacent ground level. The canalised brook is a tributary of River Brent and passes through the area within the engineered structure, and only becomes ‘naturalised’ where it emerges further south.

112.    The application site lies within Flood Zone 3a, defined by the NPPF as having a high probability of flooding. Development classified as ‘more vulnerable’ is only appropriate in these areas following application of the Flood Risk Sequential Test and where the Exception Test has been applied in full and has been passed. The revised FRA submitted has now used updated and revised climate change allowances to assess flood risk on site using the modelling already carried out and approved in support of application at Wembley Point for the Wealdstone Brook. The Environment Agency (EA) accept the design flood level detailed in the submitted FRA.

113.    The NPPF requires the Exception Test to be applied in the circumstances shown in Table 3 of the ‘Planning Practice Guidance: Flood Risk and Coastal Change’. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF makes clear that all elements of the test must be passed for development to be permitted. Part 2 of the test requires the applicant to demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible will reduce flood risk overall.

114.    The flood modelling prepared by the applicant shows that North End Road would be inundated in both the 1 in 100 35% climate change event and the 1 in 100 70% climate change event, which appears to be the only access/egress route. This means that safe refuge within the development is required for future occupants as safe access and egress cannot be achieved.

115.    The finished floor levels of the development have been raised above the 1 in 100 chance in any year, including an allowance for climate change flood extent. This means that floodwater is unlikely to enter the property during a 1 in 100 chance in any year plus climate change flood extent.

116.    The applicant has overcome the EA’s previous objection by submitting an acceptable emergency flood plan framework to the local planning authority that deals with matters of evacuation and refuge to demonstrate that people will not be exposed to flood hazards.

117.    The full detailed flood plan for the site will be secured by condition prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved.

118.    To summarise, the applicant has demonstrated that the site has satisfactorily addressed the EA’s previous objection, demonstrating that people will not be exposed to flood hazards and therefore the application is acceptable in flood risk terms.

North End Road is currently a 'dead end' street and the planning officers, despite the new development being designated 'car free' as it is so close the Wembley Park station and bus routes, take into account potential parking problems:

The applicant therefore proposes to designate the development as ‘car-free’ and the good access to public transport and other services would support this. There is however some concern that this development, with parking provision for just 8% of units, would generate an excessive volume of parked cars in the adjoining streets that cannot be regulated at the present time and that the proposal could potentially result in parking conditions detrimental to the free and safe flow of traffic in the area.

In order to avoid this in the event that the development is approved, it is essential that the right of future residents and businesses to on-street parking permits (both for the existing Stadium event day CPZ and for any future year-round CPZ that is introduced in the area in future) be withdrawn through a Section 106 Agreement.

A significant contribution (£100,000) via a S106 Agreement should also be provided towards subsidising the cost of on-street parking permits for existing residents in the area, so that if a CPZ is introduced to control overspill parking from this development, they are not unduly inconvenienced by it. This figure has been calculated using the Council's standard rationale for CPZ contributions.

There is another broader issue about the development around the stadium which is the gradual removal of small businesses as they are replaced by housing, hotels and student accommodation. This impacts on longer term employment opportunities in the area.

After the 26 storey 'Twin Towers' a 28 storey block planned for Wembley

Readers with long memories will recall that the views of the new 'iconic' Wembley Stadium were to be protected but the Stadium is fast being hidden in a cluster of tall buildings.

This latest application going to Planning Committee on May 9th  is at the corner of Fulton Road and Albion Way, replacing Apex House and Albion House.

As with the 'Twin Towers' planners suggest that 'good design' makes up for the height the new Apex House, at 28 storeys two storeys higher than the tallest of the Twin Towers.

The new argument for this building and the replacement for Mahatma Gandhi House is that they fit in with the cluster of tall buildings around the stadium'

Apex House will be more private student accommodation with 558 rooms sleeping 580 students.

The lack of daylight is excused on the basis that their stay will be only temporary and 'consequently the impact of the proposal on the occupants of the building is considered to be acceptable.

This illustration of the development looking along Olympic Way tucks the new building  away behind the current 'cluster'.

The planners say LINK

The subject site is located within an area where tall buildings have been developed, and the proposal would add to the cluster effect of these tall buildings. Notwithstanding this, the site is relatively small and the proposed building height is taller than the surrounding context. The massing of the building, with a tower element and two plinths is supported as it ensures the building relates well to the surrounding context. The two plinths relate directly to the adjacent development and help to create an urban block. The materials have been chosen to reflect and compliment those on the surrounding buildings whilst the mass is concentrated at the corner of Fulton Road and Albion Way, terminating key views along Fulton Road. 

The buildings are close to the existing Danes Court flats which are situated in gardens close to the railway line.  They are beginning to be dwarfed by Quintain's redevelopment of the Wembley Stadium area.

Just down the High Road from the Twin Towers, close to Wembley Stadium station, plans have been submitted for Mahatma Gandhi House, the former Brent Council housing offices.

The building that will replace Mahatma Gandhi House

By comparison to Apex House, this  is a dinky 21 storeys high and has received objections similar to those for the Twin Towers.  A mixture of requested planning changes and viability assessments has chased the affordable housing element in the development down to 20.2% LINK

The applicant has now offered to provide 20.2% affordable housing (25 affordable rented and 15 shared ownership units) on a 63:37 tenure split on the site (accounting for 40 units) and this is the final proposal presented to Planning Committee. BPS have confirmed the revised FVA and sensitivity analysis supports this proposal. Officers recommend that this represents the maximum amount of affordable housing the scheme can reasonably and viable deliver, at a broadly policy compliant affordable housing tenure ratio, and I (sic) therefore supported subject to an appropriate s106 financial review mechanism to be triggered post implementation of the scheme, such that a contribution towards offsite affordable housing provision is made should market conditions and viability improve 


Objections are similar to those raised in the case of the 'Twin Towers':

             The proposed development will be very high indeed and will be visible from Dennis Avenue, proving that the proposed development is very tall, and not in keep with the other buildings in the area (21-storeys is too tall for the area but 11-storeys is acceptable and in keep with local surroundings) 


             There are already a number of new recent developments, and new proposed ones which are planning in 'dwarfing' the current area and making it congested and claustrophobic. 


             Privacy from bathroom window will be highly compromised as this will be in the line of view to the proposed development. 


             Infrastructure around the area cannot cope - roads are already very busy and roads are suffering with large potholes. 


             Proposed 202 residential units is far too much, coupled with new proposed developments in the area will have a massive affect on the already busting point of the local hospitals, schools and emergency services. 


             Query whether our rainwater and sewage systems cope with such large proposed developments 


             The area is already over developed and more pending with other developments such are SW Lands, Brent House, Cottrell House etc. Where will the residents park - Mostyn, Dennis and Linden Avenues are already full, and feel that a knock-on effect will leave the proposed development residents parking in the above roads. 


             Traffic - there is already a major traffic issue in the area, and Wembley Stadium and the surrounding area are now encouraging the public to bring cars into the area. Previously when the Stadium was being built, we as residents were told that there is only going to be limited parking available for Stadium and SSE Area visitors as we want them to come by public transport. This has gone out of the window. 


Public buses are already clogging up the roads, and with more residents, there will be a need for more public transport leading to a complete standstill of traffic. Buses are also terminating at Wembley Hill road (at the end of Linden Avenue). For cars trying to come out of Linden Avenue and take either a left or right turn at the junction is asking for a death wish as you cannot see past the terminated buses and cars are coming very fast. This should not be a termination point for buses

There were comments in favour:

The plans will be good for the area 


             It will look nice 


             Better than what is currently there 


             Closer to shops 


             Creating jobs for young people 


             Better opportunities for young people 


             Add something interesting in this up and coming area 


             Good location - near stadium and the station 


              Brings revenue into the Borough 


Tokyngton and Wembley Central ward councillors have submitted no comments and neither has Wembley Hill Residents Association.

The Planning Committee will be a busy one as it is also considering the school extension and housing that led to the demolition of the Stonebridge Adventure Playground. LINK

Meanwhile residents of Roe Green Village are continuing to battle Powerleague Lucuzade's development on the Kingsbury High School.  They are at a loss to know why Wembley National Stadium, some distance from Roe Green, are statutory consultees for the planning application. Are the days of the temporary Powerleague pitches between the Stadium and Brent Civic Centre numbered?

A Planning Committee was cancelled last week, perhaps as a result of the disarray in the planning department following the loss of key staff LINK but there will be an additional Planning Committee a two days after this one on May 11th  (no agenda available yet). This could signal an attempt to get things through before the Labour Group's May AGM when committeee personnel and Lead Member may change.