Secretary of State refers Wembley Park Station car park tower block development to Planning Inspectorate

The Communities Secretary, Robert Jenrick MP, has called-in the controversial Wembley Park station car park development which means he will make the decision on whether it goes ahead rather than Brent Council whose Planning Committee approved the development.

The application will be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at a public inquiry, with recommendations then going to the Minister to decide the outcome.

In a letter to Bob Blackman MP, the Planning Inspectorate said:

The Inspector instructed by the Secretary of State is T Gilbert-Wooldridge MRTPI IHBC and the inquiry will open at 10.00am on 28 September 2021. We have currently scheduled 6 sitting days (provisionally 28 Sept – 1 Oct and 4-5 October).

The Planning Casework Unit cannot forward any correspondence that was submitted to them before this case was called in. Therefore, if there are any matters which you wish to put before the Inspector, you can write to me at this address or email (leanne.palmer@planninginspectorate.gov.uk) quoting reference APP/T5150/ V/21/3275339.

You can also use the Internet to submit documents, to see information and to check the progress of cases through GOV.UK. The address of the search page is https:// acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/

Please submit any representations by 8 July.

The date by when the application will be decided will be published at the time the report is submitted to the Secretary of State.

At the Planning Committee only Cllr Michael Maurice voted against the application and Cllr Kansagra, leader of the Conservative Group said that the Council had been bribed by the developer with flats. (FULL REPORT)

Philip Grant, a regular contributor to this blog, presented a forensic analysis to the Committe based on the Council's own existing Tall Buildings policy which limited developments on the site to 10 storeys. It breached policy that had been made as a result of public consultation.  He concluded:

Committee members, please don’t allow yourselves to be fooled into accepting an application which doesn’t comply with the policies adopted by Brent Council, after consultation with its residents.

This application is a flagrant breach of those policies, and you can, and should, refuse it on those grounds. 

Philip's presentation followed a Guest Post he had written for Wembley Matters the day before the Planning Committee setting out his case in detail.  LINK

Regardless of party politics the Inquiry represents a second chance to stop over-development of the site as well as possibly putting a stop to officer's increasing propensity to make excuses for developers' failure to adhere to the Council's own planning policies and guidelines.

Philip Grant adds this comment:

AMENITY SPACE -

Although my main objection to this planning application was over its breach of Brent's tall buildings policies, there were a number of other failures to comply with planning policies.

When I had a look at the webpage for this application (20/0967) today, I found that although Planning Committee approved it last November, Brent has not yet issued a consent letter, so the application is still "undecided" (although with no mention that the Planning Inspectorate is now involved).

The other interesting thing I noticed was that an extra document had appeared in February 2021, described as a "Post Committee Delegated Report". It's main subject was 'Amenity Space Provision'.

It appears that Brent's Amenity Space policy DMP19 had been the subject of a Judicial Review, and this had found that Brent's planning officers had not been interpreting their own policy correctly! 'The JR judgement has clarified that all 3bed or larger units should be assessed against the 50sqm 
standard.' 

When planning officers had assessed the amenity space required for the 451 homes in the five tower blocks proposed at the Brook Avenue site, they had used 20 square metres as the standard requirement for the larger flats.

This meant that the cumulative private amenity space shortfall for the development was actually 7,498.9sqm, rather than the 6,178.9sqm reported to the Planning Committee meeting. 

[To give an idea of what these figures mean, the standard professional football pitch has an area of 7,140 square metres - so the residents together would be "robbed" of more than a football pitch in size of private amenity space, if the proposals are approved.]

Did the new information make any difference? This is what the planning officers' delegated report concluded:

'it is considered that the scheme would still be acceptable in planning terms, notwithstanding the shortfall against Policy DMP19 as the external amenity space provision remains to be of sufficient size and type to satisfy the proposed residents’ needs. The amount and type of external amenity space proposed was clearly expressed to members, and it is considered that members would not have come to a different view on the proposal had the greater shortfall been reported.'  

 

 

Brent councillor reveals enduring Tory prejudice

It used to be that Conservative politicians looked down their noses at council house tenants. The fact that in the 21st century that prejudice hasn't gone away has been revealed by Brent Tory councillor Michael Maurice.  In an email  seen by Wembley Matters he outlines reasons for his opposition to the redevelopment of the Preston Library site. They include a claim that  a four storey building will be out of keeping with the suburban neighbourhood and that the additional population will impact on parking (Maurice is a parking obsessive).

It appears however that what really gets his goat is that the flats will be 100% affordable and some or all may be social housing. He assumes that such tenants will automatically be trouble:

We also fear that the new flats may lead to an increase in anti social behaviour and whilst many of you do not live near the library, some of us do and this could seriously affect  us.

Cllr Maurice is a former member of Brent Planning Committee which has approved many extremely unaffordable housing applications...

Resident launches petition to Sadiq Khan after Council agrees Wembley Stadium tower blocks planning application

I have received this from Sonia Shah. The petition can be signed HERE

Stop Brent Council from rushing through planning applications for big developments

I am a resident of Wembley, and an active member of resident-led campaign Keep Wembley Tidy. I would appreciate it if you could spare a minute to take a look at my petition, and circulate/publicise it. There is a great concern for public safety at Wembley Stadium and the surrounding area.

Brent Council approved all 5 planning applications related to the Quintain-owned lands around Wembley Stadium in just a single planning committee meeting on Wednesday evening. This is in spite of two councillors not being in attendance (under legal advice) and a third leaving before the final item was addressed. The new developments include high rise housing, more hotels and more student accommodation (with limited natural light which, according to Quintain, is irrelevant since it's temporary accommodation).

Plans for the car parks were approved last night by Brent Council, along with a scheme to bring 4,850 new homes, 350,000sq ft of new offices and shops, two new hotels, a new seven-acre public park, student accomodation and a 600-place primary school to Wembley Park as part of one of the biggest regeneration schemes in Europe.

Julie Harrington, operations director at the FA, last night told the council’s planning committee the location of the car parks off South Way “created genuine public order and safety concerns which would serve as a retrograde step for the stadium.” She said developer Quintain was ”working from a position to maximise profits” rather than to “protect fan safety”. “The holding of fans, the kettling of fans, that’s a return to the 1970s in my view. Even a short amount of time holding people, irate fans from teams that have lost, or rival fans mixing together is too much.” Ms Harrington warned that the FA “would not be able to attract major events to Wembley if fan’s can’t leave the car park.” “We cannot be complacent about the huge steps forward made in stadium safety in the past two decades. No-one should believe that its acceptable to herd fans like cattle. We must learn from past mistakes.”

The Football Association also argued that more flats by Wembley stadium would cause worrying safety issues http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/wembley-stadium-tower-block-plan-would-risk-fans-safety-a3245221.html What about the number of new residents needing to see local GPs and the effect on local hospitals? Having already closed Central Middlesex and Hammersmith A & E departments, they are now threatening to cut 500 hospital beds http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/revealed-london-nhs-chiefs-to-axe-enough-beds-to-fill-a-hospital-in-battle-to-plug-1bn-black-hole-a3244251.html

Councillor Michael Maurice, the only member of the planning committee to vote against the proposals, told the meeting: “Up to 5,000 fans kettled? We don’t want to see another Hillsborough.” (A statement here on the original petition has now been removed by Sonia Shah - see comemnts below)

Objectors are also opposed to the size and scale of seven residential and commerical tower blocks of up to 19 storeys which were also given outline approval. Critics say they could block “iconic” views of Wembley from across London.

What chance do local residents have to try and make Brent Council see sense if they won’t listen to the FA, Sport England and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport?

Brent Council have given the go ahead for another 4,500 more homes in Wembley High Road and another 4,000 by the canal in Alperton.  They are also planning to build flats where the Fountain TV studios are and St Josephs social club (close to London Designer Outlet) is closing, it sits on a nice large piece of land just suitable ..for more flats?

Add to this the impact of events at the Stadium and the Arena - capacity of 90K plus staff at the stadium and 12K plus staff at the Arena = a potential extra 105K people in the area if events are on at both venues.  

What about public transport?
What about refuse collection – does the contract Veolia have with Brent Council include dealing with waste from all these new homes? 
What about services like sewers, water supplies, gas, electric?
What about the environment as a whole?
Brent Council has experienced a torrent of internal squabbles over the last few weeks, and rushing through such proposals, that'll have a huge impact on the surrounding area, is simply irrational.

This petition will be delivered to:

• Barry Gardiner MP
• Football Association
• Mayor of London
  Sadiq Khan

Withdrawn Labour Kenton by-election leaflet contained racist slur

From Kilburn Times website

The Kilburn Times LINK is now covering the story about the row between Tories and Labour in the Kenton by-election which I alerted readers to yesterday LINK.

The leaflet purported to contain a copy of a survey filled in by Michael Maurice the Conservative candidate.

It is clear from the leaflet above that as well as the claim that the candidate himself would not be voting Conservative that the leaflet attributed racist views to the candidate including the claim that the Coalition's immigration failure was 'rapidly leading the United Kingdom towards inevitable Armageddon and ultimate destruction.'

An independent handwriting expert employed by Michael Maurice proved it was not the candidate's handwriting and he is reported to be taking up the matter with the police.

Cllr Reg Colwill, Maurice's election agent,  warned that in the event of a close result the Conservatives would call for a re-election.