'No working fire alarms' at 21 storey Wembley Park tower block that caught fire at the weekend

 There was a fire in a 21 storey block in Wembley Park at the weekend, not far from Wembbley Stadium. It is very concerning that the block had no working fire alarms.

 

 London Fire Bridge Press Release

 Five fire engines and around 35 firefighters were called to a fire at a block of flats on Fulton Road in Wembley.

A small part of a first floor flat in a 21 storey building was destroyed by fire.

 

Fire investigators found the property didn't have working smoke alarms and the fire was most likely caused by the unsafe disposal of smoking materials. 

 

A London Fire Brigade spokesperson said:

 

This incident shows just how vital it is to have working smoke alarms.  It's also a timely reminder for smokers to ensure your cigarette is completely out when you’ve finished smoking it. If you don’t, you risk causing a fire which could not only destroy your home, but also cost you your life.

 

 

Smoking safety top tips

• It's safer to smoke outside, but make sure cigarettes are put right out and disposed of properly.
• Never smoke in bed, and avoid smoking on arm chairs and sofas – especially if you think you might fall asleep.
• Take extra care when you’re tired, taking prescription drugs or if you’ve been drinking alcohol.
• Use proper ashtrays, which can’t tip over and stub cigarettes out properly.

 

The Brigade was called at 1805 and the fire was under control by 2034. Fire crews from Wembley, Park Royal and Stanmore fire stations were in attendance.

 

A spokesperson for Quintain Ltd  said:

I can confirm this was not a Quintain building, nor is it managed by Quintain Living.

This fire came after one in South Kilburn on Friday  which again had no working fire alarms:

Four fire engines and around 25 firefighters were called to a fire at a maisonette on Stafford Road in Kilburn.

The whole of the fourth floor of a split level maisonette was destroyed by fire. 

Fire investigators found the property didn't have working smoke alarms and the fire was most likely caused by the unsafe disposal of smoking materials. 

A London Fire Brigade spokesperson said

This incident shows just how vital it is to have working smoke alarms.  

It's also a timely reminder for smokers to ensure your cigarette is completely out when you’ve finished smoking it.

If you don’t, you risk causing a fire which could not only destroy your home, but also cost you your life.

Smoking safety top tips

• It's safer to smoke outside, but make sure cigarettes are put right out and disposed of properly.
• Never smoke in bed, and avoid smoking on arm chairs and sofas – especially if you think you might fall asleep.
• Take extra care when you’re tired, taking prescription drugs or if you’ve been drinking alcohol.
• Use proper ashtrays, which can’t tip over and stub cigarettes out properly.

The Brigade was called at 2118 and the incident was over by 2246. Fire crews from Paddington, North Kensington, West Hampstead and Kentish Town fire stations were in attendance.

UPDATE Brent Council's 'Vanity' road - it's enough to make you crack up

 UPDATE: A Brent Council source has said that the stripping below is for the installation of Hostile Vehicle Mitigation measures and not due to the state of the road. There is no word on whether the reinstated surface will be block paving or tarmac.

When Brent Council's £100m Civic Centre was built it was decided that a building of such distinction required an equally distinctive road surface so £852,000 was spent on block paving. Given that it was a route for heavy construction lorries it soon deteriorated although Brent Council also blamed severe weather.

Further money has been spent on ongoing repairs but observers have now seen that a section of Engineers Way outside the Civic Centre  has been stripped:

 

Engineers Way yesterday

 Former Brent Liberal Democrat leader Paul Lorber, has written to the Council to ask if the road is going to replaced  by asphalt as in other parts of the borough and why similar remedial action cannot be taken at Station Approach in Sudbury.

It looked yesterday from the stack of blocks visible on the site as if the block paving is going to be replaced. I think we need to know the additional costs involved.

Meanwhile with Engineers Way closed while work continues on the controversial , Fulton Road is the main access road to the stadium area. Residents of the new build have been complaining about the traffic jams caused by huge trucks accessing building sites with considerable difficulty and the damage caused when they have to mount the pavements.

 

At the other end of Olympic Way work is continuing on the linking of North End Road to Bridge Road with considerable incovenience to pedestrians. An initial justification given for the link was that  buses could use North End Road as a detour on event days and maintain a better bus service to residents. The 206 to the Paddocks was curtailed on event days. It now appears that there may have to be a weight limit on the new link which might affect these plans.

 

Boxpark advertising – public safety or profit?

Guest post by Philip Grant

As I am “staying at home”, and not out and about to notice what is going on, I usually have a quick look at the “Legal and Public Notices” in the online edition of the “Brent & Kilburn Times” each week. One entry in the planning notices last week caught my eye; an application (ref. 21/0379) for ‘Removal of condition 13’ from a planning application (ref. 17/4877) which was approved in February 2018.

 

Google aerial view, showing the site location, from a planning application document.

 

The location turned out to be the Boxpark building, at the junction of Olympic Way and Fulton Road. But what was the planning condition they wanted removed?

 

‘Condition 13: Moving images shall not be displayed on the Fulton Road façade and the northern section of the Olympic Way façade of the building (within the area marked as ‘Zone A’ on drawing no. A00_MIC_01 P2007903) at times when Fulton Road is open to vehicular traffic, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.’

 

The applicant, Open Outdoor Media Ltd, wants that condition removed, so that it can display ‘full-motion advertisements’ on the large LED screen mounted on the north-east corner of the Boxpark building all of the time. At the moment, the screen which they installed there in 2019 can only be used to display static advertisements, apart from 90 minutes before and after major Wembley Stadium events, when Fulton Road is closed to vehicular traffic. 

 

The LED advertising screen (‘I AM JD’) at the corner of the building, from an application document.

 

Why was that condition there in the first place? The answer is clear from the Report to the February 2018 Planning Committee meeting:

 

‘Highway safety: The Council’s Transportation Officers have expressed concern about the highway safety implications of displaying moving images readily visible to drivers using adjacent roads. In response to their concerns, a condition is recommended to ensure that moving images are not displayed on the Fulton Road façade and the northern section of the Olympic Way façade of the building at times when Fulton Road is open to vehicular traffic.’

 

So what is different now? Planning agents on behalf of the applicant have submitted a glossy report by the Manchester-based S-C-P Transport consultancy (‘Driven by the desire to help clients achieve their goals’). This looks at the highway safety aspects of the latest application, both at the Fulton Road crossing, and with case studies of other sites (mainly in the North and Midlands) where full-motion advertising screens have been installed near roads.

 

Their thorough review includes research, such as this:

 

‘In order to identify critical locations on the network with a poor accident record, the personal injury accident data has been obtained from the online resource CrashMap for the most recent 5-year period, ending December 2019.’

 

They found that, during that five-year period, only ‘one accident took place at the Fulton Road / Olympic Way crossing, which resulted in “serious” severity injuries.’ Their conclusion was:

 

‘Whilst all accidents are regrettable, the evidence … suggests that the area in the vicinity of the site does not have any recurring highway safety problems that could be affected by the development proposals.’

 

Their report does admit that the LED screen was only installed at the end of June 2019, and then was not displaying any moving adverts while vehicles were using Fulton Road during the six months to December 2019. However, as the serious accident on the crossing took place during the previous 4½ years, they claim it demonstrates that the LED screen advertisements ‘have not led to any material increase in accidents.’

 

The view along Fulton Road towards the Olympic way crossing, with the bright LED advertising screen (‘JD WE’RE BACK’) on the corner of the Boxpark building, from the S-C-P report.

 

The case studies (as you might expect) show that putting full-motion advertising screens near busy roads does not tend to increase the number of serious accidents or injuries. But although the amount of vehicle traffic along Fulton Road is not as great as a city centre road in Manchester, Liverpool or Nottingham, the number of pedestrians walking up and down Olympic Way, and crossing Fulton Road, is very large. It is also likely to increase even further as more and more Wembley Park developments are completed.

 

It would only take one driver of a bus or heavy lorry coming along Fulton Road, or one pedestrian walking up Olympic Way from the station, to be distracted by a moving advert on that screen at the wrong moment, for a serious accident to occur. In my opinion, even one such accident would be one too many. 

 

As advertising is involved, the screens also had to obtain advertisement consent, and the approval of that application (ref: 18/1796) contained an identical condition to “Condition 13” in the Boxpark planning approval. The agent’s covering letter with the latest application acknowledges the reasons given in the Planning Report for that:

 

‘Concerns were previously raised with regard to distraction of drivers from moving images along the Fulton Road frontage and the northern end of the Olympic Way frontage, with road safety studies undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory highlighting the significantly greater impairment to driving performance presented by moving images, as compared to static displays.’

 

Despite this, the letter goes on:

 

‘The applicant is however of the view that the provision of full motion images on the LED screens would be entirely acceptable in terms of public safety and highway safety and that Condition 13 of 17/4877 should be removed and an amended application for advertisement consent be issued.’

 

That view is unsurprising, because the application would not have been made unless Open Outdoor Media Ltd thought there was a chance that they might get that condition removed. And if it is removed, they will, of course, be able to generate more profits by selling full motion advertisements, rather than just static ones.

 

Surely, this latest application will be rejected, on the same public safety grounds that saw the condition imposed in the first place, won’t it? Having looked at Brent’s planning website, I do have some concerns, including that the expected decision level is “Delegated Team Manager”, rather than the borough’s Planning Committee which decided the original application.

 

A greater concern is the amount of consultation on application 21/0379. The list of those consulted on the application only contains two addresses. The first is Brent Civic Centre (the Council’s Transportation Unit has been asked to comment). The second is 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ. Puzzled? That is the registered office address of Quintain Ltd (joint owners, through BPQW Ltd, of Wembley’s Boxpark business).

 

On the original application, consultee comments on public safety matters had been submitted by the Metropolitan Police and by Brent’s Public Safety Manager. Why were they not consulted this time? And what about consulting Wembley Stadium, the residents’ associations for blocks of flats whose leaseholders use the crossing on a daily basis, or the owners of student accommodation buildings in the area? It’s almost as if Brent’s planners wish to avoid there being any objections to this application – but that can’t be right, can it?

 

In my opinion, the risk of death or serious injury at this location is too great for this application to be approved, so I have submitted an objection. If you agree with me, you can make your objection on the Council’s planning website for application 21/0379.

Philip Grant.

 

UPDATE: Wembley coal mine shaft and tunnels to be investigated before Euro House redevelopment goes ahead

Euro House, Fulton Road

Ok, that's a bit if a tease but the Planning Officers' report for the redevelopment of Euro-Parts', Euro House, Fulton Road site includes the following comment:

The history of the site has largely been as agricultural land until the area became managed parkland forming part of the wider Wembley Park during the late 19th/early 20th Century. In the 1920s, the site formed part of the area for the British Empire Exhibition, and this section of the site was occupied by a life size construction of a coal mine, including a stretch of below ground tunnels, a brick lined access shaft and an air shaft, as well as above ground structures. Although the above ground and immediate sub-surface structures were removed when the site was re-developed for the current industrial use, the report concludes that there is evidence some of the shafts and tunnel structures could still exist. For this reason, the report concludes that further work to identify and record these elements should be undertaken and need GLAAS input if required.

 

 

Images courtesy of Philip Grant/Wembley History Society

The rest of the report is rather more mundane in comparison as approval is suggested for a scheme of one 21 storey block of flats, surrounded by 12 storey 'mansion' blocks and incorporating some light industry space to provide employment - a rather late recognition of the impact of the many sites that are being sold for housing.

 

The illustrations of the scheme are rather sparse but are very much along the lines of the existing developments. One novel aspect is an objection from Quintain to the proposal on the grounds that it will deprive residents in its NE4 neighbouring site of light and they request a reduction in height. Officers basically tell them that the nature of the redevelopment of the area means they have to put up with it.

It is hard to reconcile the above image with the plans for the area around the buildings that are claimed to include some allotment plots for residents and a walkway alongside the Wealdstone Brook:

On housing the devil is in the detail. There are 493 units of which only 98 are affordable.  Of these 80 are at London Affordable Rent and 18 shared ownership.

The application will be decided at Planning Committeee tonight at 6pm. Officers' Report HERE

 

Watch Webcast here:    https://brent.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/531655

 

 

 

Very low public consultation response to another high rise development in shadow of Wembley Stadium

The proposed blocks on Fulton Road/Watkin Road

The major application at next Wednesday's Brent Planning Committee is this:

1,2,3 & 9 Watkin Road, Wembley, HA9 0NL

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 1x part-20, part-17 storey building and 1x 14 storey building together containing 174 residential units; commercial floor space (B1a and B1c use class) on ground, first and second floors; car and cycle parking, refuse storage, amenity space and associated landscaping.

The existing buildings are low rise industrial and further development here is expected.

Out of the 174 residential units:

i.               15 units for affordable rent (at London Affordable Rent levels, in accordance with the Mayor of London's Affordable Housing Programme 2016-2021 Funding Guidance (dated November 2016) and subject to an appropriate Affordable Rent nominations agreement with the Council, securing 100% nomination rights on first lets and 75%nomination rights on subsequent lets for the Council)

ii.             35 units for Shared Ownership,(as defined under section 70(6) of the Housing & Regeneration Act 2008, subject to London Plan policy affordability stipulations that total housing costs should not exceed 40% of net annual household income, disposed on a freehold / minimum 125 year leasehold to a Registered Provider, and subject to an appropriate Shared Ownership nominations agreement with the Council, that secures reasonable local priority to the units).

The Planning Officers' Report states:

The viability has been tested and it has been demonstrated that this is the maximum reasonable amount  [of affordable housing] that can be provided on site.

The remaining 124 units will  be private.

On loss of light to surrounding building (check out the density in the illustration above) officers state:

There would be a loss of light to some windows of surrounding buildings, which is a function of a development on this scale. 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.

The impact on the supposedly 'protected view' of the Stadium Arch from Chalkhill Park is also considered acceptable by officers:

Whilst the development would slightly reduce the extent of the Wembley Stadium arch that would be visible from Chalkhill Park and incur some level of harm to the daylight and sunlight enjoyed at neighbouring properties, a balance has to be struck between different planning objectives, and the benefits of the proposal are considered to significant outweigh its harm. The height, layout, design and massing has been carefully considered and has been evaluated by the GLA and by Brent Officers who all have concluded that the proposed building is appropriate for this context.

From Chalkhill Park today

 

With the new buildings

Consultation responses were very low with two sets of letters sent to 1,078 neighbouring properties resulting in  5 objections and one neutral comment.

A Newsletter to 5,229 local residents and businesses to a two day exhibition about the project produced just 11 attendees and only 3 feedback forms.  Cllr Muhammed Butt and Cllr Shama Tatler had their own private view. This is the report included in the main officers' report:

A public exhibition was held over two days at Wembley International Hotel on Tuesday 26th November 2019from 10am to 3pm and on Wednesday 27th November 2019 from 3pm to 8pm.Over the two days 11 individuals attended the exhibition, including the Leader of the Danes & Empire Courts Residents’ Association.Three feedback forms have been returned with largely positive feedback. 

The proposed height was noted to have been deemed appropriate in the local context and there was strongsupport for the delivery of 35% affordable housing. However, some attendees voiced concern about anothertall building in an area which already has a large number. 

Some stakeholders noted that they wanted as many 3 bedroom units as possible and one stakeholderquestioned whether the levels of demand for 1 and 2 bedroom units as opposed to 3 bedroom units willcontinue into the future. 

The public realm and landscaping was strongly supported by stakeholders and an aspiration for thedevelopers to work with Barratt London to coordinate the public realm across the adjoining development siteat 10-11 Watkin Road was voiced. It was largely agreed that the existing site is underutilised at present. The potential to link the site with the brook side in the future was welcomed.Stakeholders supported the re-provision of commercial space and expressed interest in the types of occupierthe space is targeted at. 

The Leader of Danes and Empire Courts RA emphasised the need for affordable housing in the area and suggested that parking spaces are provided to diffuse pressure on parking spaces nearby. The Leader of Danes and Empire Courts RA also welcomed the new landscaping and improved public realm proposals. A concern was raised that the redevelopment of the industrial space was unnecessary and that the nature ofthe commercial space would change the industrial character of Watkin Road. One attendee also felt that an uplift in commercial workspace would be unlikely to be beneficial to the local economy and would be unlikelyto create more jobs. 

One attendee was concerned that the development would lead to increased traffic congestion locally despite the car free nature of the development. 

A newsletter informing residents of the proposals and inviting them to the exhibition was sent to 5,229 local residents and businesses.A preview of the public exhibition was held with the Leader of the Council and the Lead Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning to brief them on the proposals between 9am and 10am on Tuesday 26th November 2019.

Warning notices installed at Fulton Road/Olympic Way crossing after accident fears

Olympic Way southbound

Fulton Road westbound

Fulton Road westbound

Additional warning signs for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians have been installed on the Fulton Road, Olympic Way junction which was scene of a serious cycling accident last week.

Tony Kennedy, Head of Brent Highways and Infrastructure, had said that they had commissioned a consultants report on the junction to improve accessibility for all road users which should eb with the council by late July.

I suggested to Cllr Margaret McLennan that, meanwhile, before the summer peak, short-term measures needed to be taken so it was good to see the new notices today.

Anne Clements, Planning director, Quintain, told Cllr McLennan, 'We are committed to improving the junctions around our estate and we will be pleased to work with your officers, particularly reviewing Olympic Way / Fulton Road.'


 Brent Cyclcists have a letter in today's Kilburn Times calling for action.

Action promised on Fulton Road/Olympic Way accident spot

I am pleased to say several Brent councillors have responded to the email and video link I sent this morning LINK.

Cllr Southwood, Cabinet member for Environment wrote:

Thank you for your email. I too have concerns about safety here, from personal experience and brought into sharp focus by the accident last week.

Some improvements have been made. A 20mph speed limit was introduced last August and earlier this year the speed table was reconstructed, additional warning signs and road markings, tactile paving and anti-skid road surfacing was installed.

Given the development planned for the area, he number of cyclists and pedestrians using this crossing is likely to increase. I absolutely agree with the need for us to actively consider how to make it safer and more accessible. In April we commissioned a study to identify options and this is due to be completed in July.

The recommendations will come to Cllrs for comment but in the meantime I'm very happy to talk with you and others who have suggestions. We will of course be speaking with Brent Cyclists following last weeks accident to get their input into the recommendations.

Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of the Council said:

I can assure you that this junction is being looked at and we have had a lot of work done recently, and there is always room for improvement.

I have already been in touch with the highways and transport lead and the cabinet member along with the chief exec, about seeing what else can be done to help improve things for everyone.

Cllr Margaret McLennan, deputy leader of the Council responded:

This falls under Ellie Southwood and Environment, however, I have asked officers and Quintain to respond as we too are aware of the issues surrounding this crossing and will be looking to make it more secure and accessible. You can of course understand we have to do this in liaison with the Stadium and local law enforcement. 

Cllrs Shafique Choudhary, Ruth Moher, Carol Shaw and Helen Carr have also responded.

Councillors urged to act on Wembley Stadium Fulton Road accident danger

I have sent a link to this video to Brent Councilllors with the following message: Dear Councillor, You are probably aware that there was an accident in which a cyclist was seriously hurt last week at the Fulton Road/Olympic Way crossing. Concerns have already been voiced about this crossing, not least by some councillors, and because of its proximity to Brent Civic Centre and the stadium’s national profile, has the potential to reflect badly on the borough if there is an accident. Yesterday I took a short video about 4pm in the afternoon which I think shows the dangers. At this time there is a mix of tourists, shoppers going to the LDO and children and young people going to Wembley Library all crossing Fulton Road. Currently there are roadworks and the usual 2 lane traffic is down to alternate one lane controlled by lights. This may in fact be safer although drivers were confused by having to obey lights and signs indicating they should give way. I would urge you to ensure that action is taken by Brent Council/Wembley Stadium/TfL to make this crossing safe.

Brent's relationship with Quintain under strain over the Wembley Plan

An Officers' Report going to the Executive on March 11th reveals some areas of strain in Brent's relationship with Quintain Estates, the major developer of the Wembley Regeneration Area.

The Council accept Quintain's claim that parts of the current Wembley Retail Park are shown as suitable for tall buildings but state that this is subject to an assessment of the impact of the buildings on views. On site W18 at the Wembley Retail Park,  Quintain  argue for higher density of development but Brent responds that "the indicative residential development capacity reflects the high proportion of family housing sought on this site (thus affecting the number of habitable rooms per unit), the domestic character (resulting in an 'urban' character rather than 'central') and the incorporation of the public space within this site."

Quintain object to the policy requirement that the development of the car park at York House (Site W9) should be relatively low rise and should include a substantial area of open space. Brent Council respond that there is still a deficit of open space in the area and the site provides scope for publicly accessible open space between buildings. 'Relatively low rise' reflects the high rise nature of York House and the need to provide good levels of sunlight in existing and new open spaces.

In line with apparent reservations on surrendering building land for open space, Quintain consider there is too much detail on the proposed park north of Engineers Way and particularly object to its East-West orientation.  Brent respond that this is fundamental to achieve an open aspect to 'what will be a densely developed area' and that the space would connect the proposed new primary school at Fulton Road,on the west side, to its catchment area in the residences to the east.

It appears that  Quintain's approach can be summarised as: build tall, build densely, and with limited open space.  Presumably this would extract more profit from their land acquisition. They go further in this statement which seems to threaten section 106 planning gains:

WEM36 and WEM38 set out requirements that major new development provides new open space and food growing facilities. Such exceptional provision, which also includes the provision of play space in WEM40 and wildlife enhancements inWEM41, will have an impact on viability and thus will have an impact on Section 106 obligations, after CIL.

Brent Council deal firmly with Quintain's objection to the provision of large food stores (over 2,000 sq m) being directed to Wembley High Road. The Council argue that this is essential to benefit the whole area and in order not to let the regeneration of the stadium area lead to a decline in the High Road. The argument is that new shops on the High Road between the junction with  Park Lane and Wembley Triangle will establish continuity between the older area and the new development.

Quintain certainly seem to be on a loser with their objection to policy limiting the proportion of frontage in the town centre that can be occupied by hot food take-aways. The Council's robust response is that there is widespread support for such a policy, including from the GLA, and 'there can be adverse impacts on the health of the population from fast foods.'

There is much more in the Wembley Area Action Plan so I will return to other aspects later. You can access the documents by following this LINK to Item 8 of the Executive Agenda.

If you want to comment on the plan and some of the issues above, Consultation will start from 25th March 2013 and last for 6 weeks. It will be agreed by Full Council in June and planning inspectorate examination hearings will be held in October 2013 with adoption the following February.