Wembley: How it feels to live on a multi-building site

Guest post by Wembley resident Jaine Lunn
 

A normal day in the life of one Wembley Central resident.

Thank god for a very rainy day, Wednesday 2^nd August 2017.

 At least it keeps all the dust and fumes down from the numerous developments under construction or demolition within 500 metres of my home.

 No birdsong, lack of trees I guess, just numerous HGV’s back and forth fromeight building sites.  Parking wherever they can, engines running, irrespective of pavements or pedestrians, off loading, collecting and delivering skips, and all manner of toxic waste.  Air Quality? What’s that? Brent Council concerned about doing something about it – er I doubt it, well certainly not for the next few years, maybe in 2021 when most of these developments will have been completed.

Cotterell House, Formerly unused and home to Blue Rooms Restaurant	Wembley Hill Road Currently under demolition	55 Residential, 6/8/10 storeys
Mahatma Gandi House Former Brent Council Housing Offices	Wembley Hill Road Under demolition	198 Residential 10 & 21 storeys
South West Lands (Quintain) Area around Chiltern Cutting and South Way	South Way Under construction	800+ Residential Up to 19 storeys
Brent House Former One Stop Shop for most council services	Wembley High Road Under demolition	248 Residential Various sizes no more than 13 storeys = to Elizabeth House
Jenga Court Converted office block	Wembley High Road under construction	34 Residential 6 Storeys
Lanmor House Converted office block	Wembley High Road Under construction	36 Residential 6 storeys
Ark Elvin Academy Former Coplands School	To rear of Wembley High Road Under construction
Chesterfield House Former Brent Council	Wembley High Road and Park Lane	239 Residential units 21 and 26 storeys
8 total in progress		Total 1,610 Units

Jenga Court and Lanmor House were granted planning permission under permitted development so Brent Council had no say in what was being built or size of flats etc, and could not demand amenity space, storage or reduce existing car parking provison.

In actually reading Wembley Calling and Wembley Master Plan regeneration etc etc:

How many of these developments meet the 25% stated for 3 bed+ homes desperately needed in this area?

How many have allowed 10% for disabled use?

How many meet the minimum requirements of amenity space and storage for the amount of residents that will inhabit these properties?

As many of these buildings will be “Car Free Developments” ……we all know what that old chestnut means.  Where will all these people park their cars?  Wembley is already at astronomic proportions of gridlock during peak hours on a normal day, let alone Event days. 

Buses and Trains are heaving with people on a daily basis.  TfL need to have a re-think of how they are going to deliver public transport in this area when its population is expanding at a phenomenal rate.

Whilst I accept that Wembley is one of the best locations for service by Public Transport with its numerous train stations and buses, in its present form it does not provide the kind of service that makes people want to give up their cars. Many of my neighbours who live in the CPZ and all have permits to park, need their vehicles to get to work.  Many work unsociable hours at Heathrow Airport or in companies providing 24 hour services/logistics often starting between 3.00 and 5.00 am when public transport is not available to get them to their destinations, or bring them home past midnight, only to find out they cannot park as the CPZ ends at 6.30 p.m. creating a “free for all” if you can find a space that is.

Has the time come for a People’s Forum on Planning? It surely has.

An amazingly speedy response to my  previous blog from Jaine Lunn
 

I am hoping you will publish the blog in response to final paragraph contained in your most recent post regarding how the council should operate when they own the property.

Recently Wembley Youth Centre was closed, citing that Brent Council had held a consultation on Youth Services and could no longer fund this particular centre.  As a Council owned building, Wembley Crime Prevention who were running most of the projects, quickly realised that the youth of Wembley would have nowhere to go and submitted an Expression of Interest for a Community Asset Transfer.  Whilst this was accepted and acknowledged that it met with the Borough Plan objectives, it was refused on the grounds that this land had been earmarked for a housing development (!) butthey  may consider leasing it in the short term, until the property was put up for sale/lease and planning applications and consultations were submitted. 

Contrast this will the Tokyngton Library which Labour closed in 2011.  Brent Council Officers prepared a detailed Housing Plan of up to 20 units inclusive of a Shared Community Facility for the local community.

In round one of consultations one of the highest bidders was a developer who accepted the Councils plans in full.  However, this was not to be, amazingly a second round of bidding was allowed and the former Library was sold to a party associated with Councillor Butt and his family LINK, with no housing or community centre for the local residents/public.

In King Eddies Park, only a year ago when the Bowls Club Pavilion was  was rescued from development, an Expression of Interest for Community Transfer for the Pavilion  rejected, and the interested parties were told, this is not an option and will not be listed as an asset of community value as “the council need to make money”.

This Bowling Pavillion and associated land is now up for lease at £25,000 per annum along with parking allowance and unlimited access to the Park!

And finally,  what happened to the last remaining public use Green Open Space in Wembley Central, now part of the new development of Ark Elvin Academy.  This was public land that in 1998 was transferred to the Governing Body of Copland Community High School, a grant maintained school of which the infamous Sir Alan Davies KBE was head.  No public consultation, no exchange of money for land that is worth millions and certainly in double figures.  Which now belongs to Ark Elvin Academy whom I assume also haven’t paid any money for it.  LINK

At the same time despite Brent Council receiving objections to the removal of the Public Right of Way, Footpath 87, people in the the wards of Wembley Central and Tokynton are prevented from entering or crossing the land, which they have had use of for over 50 years.  The objection has been sent to the Secretary of State for the Environment and is yet to be decided.  Keir the Constructor of the new school has chosen to ignore the rules and traffic order and quite happily sealed off the Public Right of Way, and installed a temporary footpath which is higgledy piggeldy over the field, a muggers’ paradise if ever I saw one and very unsafe.  On calling the Council regarding this I got the response “Oh well I’m afraid there is nothing I can do, but it won’t look good for them with the Secretary of State”!
 

So yes Martin, we do need a peoples’ panel to stop them running rough shod over us with regard to the planning committee decisions.  It is obvious they read little or even try to understand what is being conveyed in the committee reports,  evident when listening to the questions they ask and observing who votes for what.

Is Brent Council in breach of Trust Agreement over King Edward VII Park Welsh School proposal?

 

Collins Lodge

Guest blogger Jaine Lunn raises a vital issue that puts a big qustion mark over the London Welsh School's bid to open a school in King Edward VII Park, Wembley.
 

Collins Lodge in King Edward VII Park has a plaque that reads "Queen Elizabeth II Award Jubilee year 2012 by Fields in Trust LINK for Sport and Recreational use in perpetuity.”

Having contacted this organisation they responded I quote:-

"Brent Council entered into a deed of dedication with Fields in Trust in 2012.  The deed is registered at the Land Registry and states that King Edward VII Park is held as a “public playing field and recreation ground, inclusive of a bowling club and sports pavilion” in perpetuity.   I have attached our guidance document on how we protect recreational land which may be of interest.

If the landowner of a protected site wants to make a change that is outside of the permitted use then they will need to formally seek the consent of Fields in Trust.  We have a process in place for that and I attach that information for your reference.   This guidance outlines what our responsibilities are with regards to assessing such matters.   All decision are taken by our Trustees.

Fields in Trust do not get involved in the local management of sites as this very much stays in local hands.  So any changes to a site which fit within the agreed user clause do not require our consent.   There is some flexibility built into the deed of dedication, for example our Trustees may at their discretion consent to the disposal of land provided that betterment for local communities in terms of outdoor sport, recreation and/or play can be demonstrated. 

I can confirm that Brent Council did submit a formal request to Fields in Trust with regards to granting a lease on the disused bowls pavilion area to the London Welsh Language primary school on a 15 year term, and in addition to erect a single storey classroom block and convert the paved hard landscape area to an all weather playground.   We were advised that the bowling green and Pavilion are unused and the area fenced off, furthermore there was no bowls interest. 

I can confirm that the Council’s request was rejected by our Trustees in January 2015 because the site is protected for recreational purposes and the proposed new use would be outside the objects of the Deed of Dedication.  In order for the matter to even be reconsidered by our Trustees the Council would need to offer up for protection a replacement site of at least the size of the land being lost or provide a payment which is to be made available for investment in the facilities within the remainder of the site.  To date we have not received a revised application, which I believe would only be forthcoming should planning consent be granted."

As we have all seen on the site visit It is not a fair and equitable swap as it neither matches the size of the land proposed to be built on neither is it comparable to be used for sports. In the additional documents that have been submitted in the interim period the idea that residents should be able to sit on this land and be able to access a view comparable to the view from Primrose Hill over Central London is laughable and whoever cited this as acceptable "should have gone to SpecSavers" about covers it, or suggests they are taking some form of  medication to enhance their  very vivid imagination.  

Knowing all of the above, what really baffles me and to which I seek answers to the following questions.

1)  Who originally suggested/proposed the idea to the London Welsh School that this was a suitable location for their school?  

(After all they had investigated 98 other locations, 65 of which was outside of the London Borough of Brent.)

2.  Why did the Brent Planners not reject this immediately knowing that the land was protected?

3.  Having ignored the fact, made an application, which had they thoroughly read and understood the deeds of  dedication they had signed would have realised that it would be rejected?

4.  Why are they still supporting this application to grant permission, knowing that they must make another application to Fields in Trust for approval when the suggested land swap is also unlikely to be approved by the trust.

5.  How are they justifiying a complete and utter waste of time, money and resources of all concerned?

I would appreciate any answers to the above, from anyone!

To Brent Planners I say stop this nonsense and reject now.

This land is public owned Land and should remain so for the people of Wembley to enjoy as was originally decided when bought by the local Council back in 1913 to compensate for loss of Parkland at Wembley Park.  

MF A further question would be to ask why Brent Council have not informed the public about this agreement as part of the documentaion on the planning application. It is clearly a 'material consideration' for the Planning Committeee to take into account.