Residents prepare to fight Heron House development on Wembley Hill Road

When high-rise redevelopment began around Wembley Station it was clear that it would impinge on the bordering  suburban residential areas and particularly the main thoroughfares of Empire Way, Wembley Hill Road and Bridge Road.

Local resident Zerine Tata is drawing residents' attention to a proposed development at the Heron House site at 109-115 Wembley Hill Road:

"The Wembley Residents Pressure Group Against The Large Redevelopment of Heron House"  are preparing to fight this and we really need your support to sign our petition, which will be emailed to you in due course.


zerinetata@hotmail.com

I will  send you the petition to sign, after the developers  apply for planning permission. This will be at the end of this month. (Their usual ploy to do it in high holiday season!)  We  will then only have 21 days to object, so we need to be prepared.

Zerine

THE HIGH RISE DEVELOPEMENT OF HERON HOUSE, WEMBLEY HILL ROAD, WEMBLEY

Those of us who live in Wembley can expect 11,000 high rise dwellings in the regeneration of the Stadium and High Road Areas. As this regeneration was planned many decades ago, it is a "done deal" and their progress will continue and we can only hope that it will be of benefit to all the residents of Brent.

But, there are still the  smaller high rise developments, which are intrusive and are creeping into residential streets, completely destroying our way of life.  One of those is the proposed redevelopment  of Heron House on Wembley Hill Road,  into expensive high rise flats and commercial businesses.

Wembley Hill Road and all the street off it are totally residential and the existing Heron House was built in the '60s and is not as intrusive, overbearing or dense as the new development will be. The new development is much larger and certainly not in keeping with the character of the streets on and off Wembley Hill Road, which consists of houses, bungalows, small blocks of flats and gardens.

As the Stadium and High Road regeneration  has already planned 11,000 dwellings,  any more high rises in the very near vicinity would have an negative impact on the area with loss of light, privacy and the existing outlook.

It is very unlikely that there will be enough parking space for all the vehicles from the flats and the commercial businesses.   This will be putting even more pressure on the streets around  Wembley Hill Road, where there is already a huge demand for parking spaces and it is almost impossible to find one.

If this large high development is allowed, it will also set a dangerous precedent and before long more developers will want to do the same. This will completely destroy our residential areas,  which we are all trying to hold onto, despite the looming high rises of the Stadium and High Road areas.

These same developers have already expressed an interest in purchasing St Joseph's,  the land opposite Heron house, with a view to building yet another high rise block! We cannot just sit back and do nothing. The more signatures we can get on our petition, the better our chances of stopping these high rise buildings, which are so out of character for Wembley Hill Road and the streets off it.

Due to the height and proximity of this development, it will also devalue our properties, most of which were built in the 1930's and were part of conservation areas before the law changed.

There are many brown-field sites in Brent, where this part/commercial development can be situated and these should be used before encroaching onto our streets and furthermore, what provision has been made for the infrastructure needed?

I am trying not to be too pessimistic, but  these smaller high rise dense developments,  which are causing great concern amongst residents, could happen anywhere and before you know it the whole of Brent could  become a concrete jungle!  I wish I could say with certainty that this will not happen, but the speed with which  these smaller high rises are going up, I am truly fearful.

I love where I live and have lived in the same area for almost 60 years. I know things have to change and progress, but do we have to lose our precious existing residential areas for even more high rises? Surely Brent Council should be aiming for both?

We of course appreciate that more houses are needed, so we propose and would be happy to support lower level affordable family accommodation perhaps some with small private gardens, as this is just the sort of dwelling which is in very short supply

Another high-rise development for Wembley but where is the truly affordable housing?

From the planning document

Shortly after my article about the high rise 20 storey development behind the Brent Civic Centre LINK Quintain have put in their planning application (14/4931) for the South West Lands. This is the area along the Chiltern line going south from Wembley Stadium station which is crossed by White Horse Bridge (below) Full documentation for the Planning Application can be found HERE

New developments in white

This fills in the space currently occupied by shrubbery. The application leaves some options which will probably be decided by Quintain on grounds of viability (or better known as profit) in negotiation with Brent Council.

Some of the blocks are 19 storeys high, just one storey below the blocks planned behind the Civic Centre and three or so higher than the Orbis Hotel next to the White Horse Bridge.

Someone recently asked why, having demolished the tower blocks of Chalkhill and Stonebridge, the Council were now supporting the building of them in Wembley?

This is an artist's impression of the impact on the skyline:

Summary of Planning Application

A hybrid planning application, for the redevelopment of the site to provide seven mixed use buildings up to 19 storeys in height accommodating: outline planning permission for up to a total of 75,000sqm to 85,000sqm mixed floor space including up to 67,000sqm of C3 residential accommodation (approximately 725 units); 8,000sqm to 14,000sqm for additional C3 residential accommodation,

C1 hotel and/or sui generis student accommodation (an additional approximate 125 residential units; or 200-250 bed hotel; or approximate 500 student units; or approximate 35 residential units and 200 bed hotel); 1,500sqm to 3,000sqm for Classes B1/A1/A2/A3/A4/D1/D2; together with associated open space and landscaping; car parking, cycle storage, pedestrian, cycle and vehicle access; associated highway works; improvements to rear access to Neeld Parade; and associated infrastructure full planning permission for a basement beneath Plots SW03 - SW05 to accommodate 284 car parking spaces and 19 motor cycle spaces; Building 3A within Plot SW03 to accommodate 183 residential units and 368 cycle spaces at ground floor; and associated infrastructure, landscaping and open space

In the consultation last year, which got a low number of response, out of the 37 general comments the largest number on a single topic was nine (from Consultation summary):

Nine comments express ed the view that affordable housing/family housing should form part of the development and be delivered quickly.

Nine comments related to specific suggestions for provision of infrastructure/amenities as part of the development. These suggestions included schools, GPs and provision for youth, the elderly and disabled people.

So are the consultees going to get what they requested?  The application gives two scenarios for the amount and type of housing:

In Scenario 1 the proportion of social rented housing is 2.2% and in Scenario 2 5%. This is against Brent's 50% target for affordable accommodation. As usual the definition of affordable is unclear but for the developer seems to include the Intermediate category and is hedged by caveats..

-->

At present, the proportion of the affordable units is not known as this will be subject to negotiations, planning priorities and viability. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, a range of affordable housing provision has been considered to ensure the impacts at both ends of the spectrum are identified and,where necessary, mitigated. The range assessed is between 10% (Scenario 1) and 25% (Scenario 2) by unit. In the event that affordable housing provision falls outside these bounds, a review will be undertaken to identify any new impacts or significant changes to the impacts identified as part of this assessment.

Given the amount of housing Quintain's assessment of the number of children in the development seems low. The number of 3 bedroomed properties, a priority for many Brent families is low. Perhaps the developers are assuming most of the residents with be Dinkies (Double Income No Kids).

From this prediction they suggest there is already enough secondary school places if Gateway and  Gladstone Free Schools open (a gamble?)  and the development will have a 'negligible effect'  locally. However there they may be the need for some Community Infrastructure Levy contribution to primary school places as the development is deemed to have a 'minor adverse effect'. With GP's lists at capacity locally it also suggests a CiL contribution to health provision may be necessary.

It is worth reminding ourselves what was promised in terms of social provision for local people at the beginning of the Quintain development, aside from affordable housing:

Anticipated infrastructure is expected to include (inter alia):

· 2 x 2 forms of entry primary school; a new combined primary (2FE) and secondary school (6FE) on the Wembley Park site;

· Extensions to existing local schools; nursery places;

· At least 2.4ha of new public open space comprising of a new park (1.2ha min) and 3 pocket parks/squares (0.4ha each);

·Improvements to the quality and accessibility of existing open spaces;

·A new community swimming pool; indoor and outdoor sports facilities;

·Play areas; new health facilities with space for 14 GPs and 11 new dentists;

and  new multi-use community facilities.

I recommend that among the hundreds of documents you read the Socio-Economic Chapter of the application which covers some of these issues. LINK

Among the positives about the development are the provision of green space and play space for children although we will need to see details about public accessibility and quality. Some of the buildings will have green roofs.

However once again we have to ask, where is the benefit for the ordinary people of Wembley/Brent and what will the Council do to increase the proportion of truly affordable housing for local people?