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.

North End Road reconnection controversy returns to Wembley Park

Controversial plans to reconnect North End Road in Wembley with Bridge Road at the Bobby Moore Bridge, beside Wembley Park Station, (see plan above) remain in the revised Wembley Plan which the Brent Executive will approve for consultation  this evening.

A quiet haven at present

When the original plans for reconnection were published four years ago LINK they attracted opposition from the Wembley Community Association which wanted to keep the low traffic levels of North End Road which serves the quiet residential area of  Empire Court and Danes Court.  At present the road ends in pedestrian and cyclist ramps at Olympic Way between Arena House (soon to be a secondary free school) and 1 Olympic Way. Since 2009 the Victoria Hall student accommodation has been built on North End Road.

North End Road leading to Victoria Hall

Brent Council say that 'a new road link at North End Road is a key component of the overall strategy enabling the promotion of highway access into Wembley (and beyond) from the North Circular'.  They claim that the new connection will benefit the development area during stadium events and reduce traffic along Neasden Lane and Forty Lane 'allowing prioritisation for non-car modes. The connection may also facilitate improvements to bus services, depending on results of the bus strategy'.

Henry Lancashire in his submission to Brent Council says that the proposed link will conflict with the popular bus stop opposite Wembley Park Station and increase the danger of pedestrian access to the bus stop. He states that the current access enables cyclists to take a safe route from the Brent River Park and can only increase in popularity if the proposed cycling/pedestrian bridge across the Chiltern Line from St David's Close is built. Brent Cyclists also express a preference for the link from North End Road to Bridge Road to be for cycling only. They state 'This would be far cheaper to implement than a connection for motor vehicles, and, with work and highway adoption or land-take in the Atlas Way/Fourth Way/Fifth Way area, could provide a viable, high-quality corridor for walking and cycling via the Brent River Path all the way from Stonebridge Park to Bridge Road.

Lancashire suggest that the required land acquisition for the link will be a) costly and b) damaging and in particular that the green space associated with the river opposite Victoria Hall will be lost: 'This is a valuable wildlife corridor used by species including wrens, robins, blackbirds and pipistrelle bats'.

Brent Council respond that the bus stop will be moved 'slightly to the south' and will be accessed via the Olympic Way underpass (people  dash across the road at present and I don't really see that changing).  They say negotiations are still going on for land acquisition and they are trying to keep the costs down: 'The scheme has been revised to remove the need for land from Victoria Hall'.

In their submission to the Council Quintain Estates and Developments state:

We do not consider this connection to be justified to mitigate the impacts of development and instead it appears mainly top be based on a need to provide circulation to and from the Industrial Estate on Stadium Event Days. In any event,  it is not required to mitigate the impacts of development currently consented in the regeneration areas.

 I am currently trying to find the likely cost of the proposal which in 2009 was put at £20m.