Network Homes claim 100% affordable housing for its Wembley Job Centre development

 

Job Centre Plus site  in St Johns Road, Wembley Central

Network Home's CGI of proposal

Network Homes issued a press release yesterday on its planned development of the Job Centre Plus site in St Johns Road, off the High Road, Wembley Central:

We're really pleased to have put in a planning application for 79 new homes in Wembley High Road.

Located on the site of a former office block, the development will be 100% affordable with 49 homes for social rent, 39 for shared ownership and the remaining eight for London Living Rent, a scheme which offers Londoners the chance to save for a deposit to buy shares in their home.

The development would form part of the Wembley Housing Zone which is part of the Mayor of London’s plan help unlock new development opportunities and accelerate the delivery of affordable housing in Brent.

Brent Council will consider the application in spring 2022 and if granted residents could be moving in from summer 2024.

Readers will not need reminding of current concerns over the viability of  shared ownership.  The CGIs only show the lower floors of the tallest block but a tall building on what amounts to a side road (the main building is not actually on Wembley High Road as the PR claims but along St Johns Road and the corner of Elm Road)  will be a concern. It is likely that the proximity  of the  'Twin Towers, the Uncle building, on Park Lane, will be cited as a precedent.

 A pre-application presentation was made to Brent Planning Committee in 2017 LINK and the housing breakdown then included private housing.

Private Market Housing (68% of total):
9x studio
12x 1 bed
19x 2 bed
10x 3 bed

Affordable Housing (32% of total):
8x 1 bed (5x Affordable Rent and 3x Shared Ownership)
8x 2 bed (5x Affordable Rent and 3x Shared Ownership)
8x 3 bed (6x Affordable Rent and 2x Shared Ownership)

Overall Tenure Split on Affordable Housing = 67:33 (Affordable Rent: Shared
Ownership)

 So the proposed mix will be seen as an improvement.

The planning officers' report of the time said:

In seeking to justify the height, the applicant points to local precedents including King Edward Court (03/3727) which forms a similar bookend at the opposite end of Elm Road. The difference with this site is that it fronts a principal movement corridor in the area and the application site does not. It is recognised that the corner location of the site does help support a taller building but it is considered that the height as proposed is too high. The development is not considered to not reflect lower order role of St John’s Road and existing 2 storey housing in the immediate locality. It also noted that there has been no character and context analysis performed in line with the GLA’s SPD and London Plan Policy.

Now of course the Uncle building is part of the landscape.

 

The 2017 pre-application map (note the proposal then was to preserve the Boots frontage on the High Road)

Northwick Park development juggernaut at Planning Committee Monday afternoon

 

Masterplan for the site

Current View

The massive scheme for the Northwick Park partnership scheme comes back to Brent Planning Committee on Monday. for outline permission.  The partners are Brent Council, University of Westminster, NW London NHS and Network Housing:

 20/0700 | Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved apart from the means of access) for demolition of existing buildings on site and provision of up to 1,600 homes and up to 51,749 sqm (GIA) of new land use floorspace within a series of buildings, with the maximum quantum as follows: -(Use Class C3) Residential: up to 1,600 homes; -up to 50,150m2 floor space (GIA) of new student facilities including Student Accommodation, Teaching facilities, Sports facilities, and ancillary retail and commercial (Use Class A1, A2, A3) -up to 412sqm floorspace (GIA) of a replacement nursery (Use Class D1) -up to 1187sqm (GIA) of flexible new retail space (Use Class A1, A2, A3) Together with energy centre, hard and soft landscaping, open space and associated highways improvements and infrastructure works This application is subject to an Environmental Statement | Land adjacent to Northwick Park Hospital, Nightingale Avenue, London, HA1 

 Readers will be familiar with the university buildings on the right as you leave Northwick Park station with a Costa cafe at the entrance and the wildflower meadow on the right as you walk down the alley to the hospital.  The university gave up maintaining the meadow on the basis that it was 'too expensive' to maintain a few years ago - from the illustration above it appears it will be built on.

 

 

The ecological impact of the whole scheme has been raised by Sudbury Court Residents Association. Officers respond in a Supplementary Report:

 

Ecological impact: loss of 387 trees with no details for replacement tree planting. Officer response: It is not always possible to avoid the loss of some trees in bringing new developments forward, however Brent's policies allow for these to be compensated for by replacement tree planting of an appropriate scale and nature. The loss of 130 trees on the Hospital ring road has been accepted in the extant consent to construct the new spine road (reference 20/0677) whilst the loss of 44 trees has been accepted in Planning Committee's resolution to grant permission for the detailed application (reference20/0701), however this is subject to the planting of 208 replacement trees secured by condition, resulting in a net uplift in the number of trees. The remaining 213 trees that would be lost as a result of the later phases of the outline development would also be replaced. Further details of tree planting would be submitted and approved as part of the landscaping scheme required under Condition 33, which requires at least 387replacement trees to be planted across the outline site. The impact on trees is discussed in paragraphs 184to 193 of the main report.

 

Ecological impact: removal of trees during bird nesting season and period of bat movement out of hibernation Officer response: The applicant's Ecology Report recommends a number of precautionary measures to avoid or minimise impacts on protected species and other wildlife in the construction period. These include bat inspections prior to felling of any mature trees, measures to be taken if bats or other protected species are observed, vegetation and building removal to take place outside the bird nesting season or in the presence of an ecologist, and protection of active bird nests. These measures would be secured through a Construction Environmental Management Plan required under Condition 28, and the developer would also be subject to the requirements of protected species legislation. See paragraph 206.

 

 Ecological impact: loss of bird and bat populations and other ecological benefits of trees (shelter, food and breeding opportunities for wildlife, clean air) due to loss of trees. Officer response: Although birds were observed on or close to the site, the site overall is very low in suitability for protected and rare bird species or other protected and priority species. No evidence of bat activity or bat roosts was found, and very low numbers of foraging and commuting bats were observed and detected in the area. The tree line along the boundary with Northwick Park would be retained and reinforced by new tree planting, however it is acknowledged that construction work and the removal of some trees near the boundary could result in a temporary loss of and disturbance to habitats, and a financial contribution to ecological enhancements in Northwick Park would be secured as compensation. The proposal would create new habitats of potential ecological value, including rain gardens, and further ecological appraisals would be required post-completion. Ecological impacts are discussed in paragraph 198 to 208 of the main report.

 

Ecological impact: Tree saplings will not compensate for loss of mature tree stock or well established wildlife foraging lines. Officer response: The proposals for replacement tree planting are expected to include a mixture of semi-mature and younger trees.

 Further measures requested to reduce increase in pollution and congestion. Officer response: Traffic generation is covered in paragraphs 296 to 303 and 323 of the main report. Travel Plans would be required, to encourage and reinforce sustainable travel choices by occupiers of the development (see paragraphs 322 and 323). These measures are considered sufficient to minimise additional traffic caused by the development.

 

 Details of plans to reduce congestion and pollution in surrounding roads requested, including Watford Road and Sudbury Court Estate. Officer response: As set out in paragraph 303 of the main report, the proposals are expected to reduce congestion, and consequently pollution, on Watford Road. The proposal is unlikely to directly impact on Sudbury Court Estate, as there is no direct vehicular access. An Active Travel Zone Assessment was carried out by the applicants, identifying barriers to sustainable travel choices in the wider area, and this is summarised in paragraphs 324 to 326 of the main report.

 

Further details requested of how bat survey was carried out in line with current best practice. Officer response: These details are set out in the Environmental Statement Volume 3: Appendix: Ecology, which is available on the Council's website. A bat assessment was carried out by an experienced and licensed ecologist, following English Nature Bat Mitigation Guidelines (2004) and Bat Conservation Trust Best Practice Guidelines (2016). The document sets out equipment used, inspection methods, and an assessment of the bat roosting potential of all buildings, trees and habitats on site. Some trees were identified as having moderate and above bat roosting potential, and the Social Club building as having low bat potential. Further surveys were carried out, comprising four dusk emergence / activity surveys and two dawn re-entry / activity surveys in various locations around the site with potential for roosting, foraging or commuting. No evidence of bat activity was observed, and no bat roosts were discovered. Ecological impacts are covered in paragraphs 198 to 208 of the main report.

 

Further details of replacement tree planting as soon as available. Officer response: Further details of replacement tree planting would be secured under Condition 33.

In October last year a councillor for Northwick Park ward expressed concern over ecological issues in a 'neutral' submission and concluded:

Mitigation and protection will not be an easy task here, but is achievable I'm sure. May I remind everyone that this is predominantly a rural site will many SSI areas and not a urban brownfield site, yes there are substantial concrete building, but they are home to Bats, Kestrels and now Peregrine Falcons (recently witnesses from the upper floor of the hospital block), on ground levels there are without doubt Hedgehogs, Badgers, Weasels and many more species just wondering around the secluded areas around the concrete buildings.

I am all for improvements to the site's housing and facilities, but we must protect as well ? Brent Council did declare a Climate Emergency and wildlife obviously is part of this, take our Bee Corridors for instance.

The officers' report includes many of the now  familiar  reasons why they recommend approval despite  the application not meeting some policy guidelines of which the amount of affordable housing,  as well as the number of Shared Ownership  properties are likely to be of concern to councillors

The proposal would provide 40% (by habitable room) affordable homes (including 13% for London Affordable Rent). While the overall proportion of London Affordable Rented homes is not in line with the percentage specified in DMP15, it has been demonstrated that the scheme would deliver the maximum reasonable number of Affordable homes on a policy compliant basis(70:30 ratio of London Affordable Homes to Intermediate), but with additional Affordable Homes delivered, lowering the levels of profit associated with the scheme. These would be delivered as intermediate rented homes, London Living Rent homes and shared ownership homes, and would including housing for NHS keyworkers. Appropriate nominations agreements will be secured within the Section 106 Agreement. The Financial Viability Appraisal submitted with the application has been robustly reviewed on behalf of the Council and is considered to demonstrate that the proposal delivers beyond the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing that the scheme can support. Early, mid- and late stage review mechanisms would be secured. The overall proportion of family-sized homes (16.6%) is below the levels set out in Brent's adopted and emerging policies. However, a higher proportion would further undermine the viability of the scheme and the provision of Affordable Housing, and the benefits associated with the provision of Affordable Housing are considered to outweigh the impacts associated with the lower proportion of family housing. Affordable student accommodation would be secured as part of the development of the University Campus.

The application refers to 'Northwick Village' - 1,600 is a pretty big village, and blocks are not particularly village-like. Here are some of the 'impressions' in the plans.

 

 

The Planning Committee is on Monday March 29th at 4pm. You can watch it live HERE

College of North West London's Dudden Hill Campus to be sold off for housing & everything moved to Wembley Park

The College of North West London, now part of United Colleges after its merger with Westminster College, is getting involved in another property deal after selling off its Kilburn site some time ago LINK and one of its Wembley Park buildings to the Education Funding Agency for Michaela Free School.

The latest move is to sell the Willesden campus on Dudden Hill for housing development, vacate the remaining Wembley Park building for redevelopment, and move everything to what is currently the Network Housing building on Olympic Way.

Colleges are not now part of the local authority but have Corporation status.

The present Wembley Park building, together with the shopping precinct, McDonald's and the ex-TV studio, temporarily the Troubadour Theatre, together make a prime development site close to Wembley Park station.

Brent Council is proposing that it provide United Colleges with a bridging loan facility of £50million to  facilitate the process as UC have been unable to get a loan from other sources due to the period involved.

A report to the Cabinet LINK sets out the rather complex deals involved:

In order to consider the loan transaction being proposed this report now sets out the essential features of the overall transaction. In summary: 

 

•       United Colleges would swap the former CNWL site at Wembley with Quintain for the site currently occupied by Network Homes. This latter site would in turn be redeveloped to provide the long-term, and substantially enhanced educational facilities for United Colleges, and the former CNWL site for housing, in line with the existing masterplan for Wembley Park. 


•       The current Willesden site would be developed to provide new housing, including affordable housing. This would happen in stages, so that there would be continuity of educational provision during the development. 


•       United Colleges would use the proceeds from the sale of their Willesden site to fund the development of what is currently the Network Homes site. Since this will, be before the whole of Willesden is sold, United Colleges need the bridging finance set out in this report.

•       On agreement of the terms between United Colleges and Quintain the development would commence, with the approximate expectation that the permanent facilities in Wembley Park (the current Network Homes site) would open in July 2023 and the two stages of the Willesden site would complete in July 2020 and July 2023. The former CNWL site in Wembley Park would be developed by Quintain by after it is vacated by United Colleges in July 2023. 


•       In order for United Colleges to be able to sign their contracts ‘and any other agreements with Quintain they would need to be sure that they had access to a loan facility to enable them to fulfil their construction contract (i.e. to develop the college facilities at Wembley Park). They therefore require reasonable certainty from a lender that these funds will be available. This report proposes that the Council provide such a facility 


The report admits that there are risks involved and nothing can be done before thorough due diligence is done and planning permission will be involved, although one can be for forgiven for thinking that such permission is a foregone conclusion.

According to the council the risks are outweighed by the benefits of building 1,500 new homes at Dudden Hill (the report actually says Willesden Green but we can't expect local geography to be planners' strong point) with a further 250 at Wembley Park, the enhancement to the Wembley Park area through a state of the art further education establishment improving the mix of development, an improvement in the actual education offer to local young people and the provision of employment opportunities.

One factor not mentioned in the report is that this further centralises facilities on Wembley Park with Kilburn and Willesden losing out in terms of neighbourhood further education facilities.  The suggestion of a former Brent Council Chief Executive that the London Borough of Brent should be renamed the London Borough of Wembley appears to be coming close to reality - although I personally favour the London Borough of Quintain!

A pertinent question from an ex-CNWL lecturer: 'Is the college's primary role now that of a property developer?'

Northwick Park regeneration - key public questions for Monday's Brent Cabinet

I am pleased to see that Gaynor Lyoyd is pressing home her demand for more information on the One Public Estate Plan for Northwick Park.  A year ago I called for more public information LINK

Gaynor's questions following up her earlier post on Wembley Matters LINK

The combination of a Cabinet meeting on August 13th, a meeting held in peak holiday season and one at a time (4pm) inconvenient for people who work, would normally mean a lack of scrutiny so all credit to Gaynor Lloyd for her detailed questions. It should mean that the meeting lasts longer than its normal 45 minutes.

These are the questions:

 

Item 8  “Approval to enter into grant agreements for 2 Housing Infrastructure bids relating to ...Northwick Park Regeneration “ in Cabinet meeting Agenda 13 August 2018.

1  Northwick Park is a much loved local facility - a park, playing fields and sports pitches, a golf course and a Grade 1 Nature conservation site an area much used by locals for open air leisure over many years. As Brent’s policies CP17 & 18 make clear, Brent is deficient in all types of open space and - at any rate in a Sports England survey in 2005-6 - had one of the lowest levels of sports participation in England. Unsurprisingly, policy CP17 para 5.15 states that the council will protect  all open space from inappropriate development.

No plan is attached to the Report showing the extent of the (proposed) area for “Northwick Park Regeneration”. So it is not possible to see if this is restricted to the Northwick park Hospital Site allocation15.

There is  local concern about the possibility of our Park and its margins being designated a “regeneration zone”, allowing for higher density/high rise blocks - even though no-one can recall this potential allocation as having been mentioned in any general Local Plan consultation meetings.  

Question 1: could a plan of the boundaries of the Northwick Park Regeneration area the subject of the grant application be published? 
 

2  According to details on the HM Government website, to qualify for a grant being considered under this Housing Infrastructure  Marginal Viability Fund, evidence has to be given of: 

a) “demonstrable market failure “ (given as per the Technical guidance in https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-infrastructure-); and

b) “local support “  ( as per examples in the same paper -“extensive local consultation” );  and 

c) “alignment with the Local Plan” (ditto) ; and

d) “ imminent” provision of homes 

I have been trying through a FOI /EIA request to get details of the evidence or details of how the first three of these were demonstrated with the grant application. The Cabinet may like to note that the Information Commissioner is now dealing with my request  for that evidence or those details, after the Council failed to comply with a direction of the Commissioner to give me a response. 

So far, only a Sudbury Court Residents Association AGM in April 2017 - at which the presence of officers was requested by the Association - is cited but the Council officers appear to have made no notes of that presentation, and is apparently asking if the Association made any. 

Question 2: if these criteria are required to be satisfied for a grant application under the MVF - is the Cabinet satisfied that there is evidence/ details of the demonstration of demonstrable market failure, local support, alignment with the Local Plan and imminent provision of homes, and if so, could that evidence please be published generally and supplied to me and save the Information Commissioner’s Office time and effort?

3  The grant  application seems to be on the basis that the site is landlocked, although neither the University of Westminster nor the Hospital site is landlocked. The £9.9million grant is for infrastructure, including an access road.

By the same troubled FOIA/EIA request process, I have tried to ascertain where this access road might be. As above, my request is now with the Information Commissioner, having patiently waited since December 2017.

Question 3: please publish a simple indication of the rough alternative routes for the access road to the Northwick Park Regeneration area proposed as options in the viability studies (as these must be known for the MVF grant application) including confirming  if a route/routes  across any part of the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) at Northwick Park is/are  under consideration.
 

4  Since naturally not all Cabinet members may be familiar with the precious asset to Brent that Northwick Park is - or its protective planning designations -  although I am sure they will have been properly briefed before this meeting , I am keen to know that they are aware, and that any public who may attend is aware of the position under planning.

Question 4:   does  item 8 take account of the extent of MOL and Open Space at Northwick Park, and of the other open space planning protection designations (including especially the SINC Grade 1 designation of Northwick Park and the Ducker Pool B103) - and the legal effect of  all those designations? Could the  officer please bring a copy of the Brent GIS plan showing this  with the full MOL/Open Space designations for the site (as I only have a screen shot of the same which is small scale)?

You may also be interested in the Ducker Pool SINC review of 2014 LINK

-->

UPDATED-PLANS APPROVED Brent Planners blagging for blocks in Wembley Park

Olympic Way today

UPDATE THE SCHEME WAS APPROVED BY BRENT PLANNING COMMITTEE LINK

I have suggested here before that Brent planners seem rather too accommodating to developers and the report for the Olympic Office Centre development application by Network Housing (Planning Committee July 4th LINK) has a number of examples of the developer getting the 'benefit of the doubt.'

The application is by a housing provider but contains only 30% affordable housing by household - the report claims 35% affordable but this is based on rooms occupied rather than the housing unit.  A slight difference perhaps, but significant.

A part 21 storey,  part 15 storey development will replace the present 8 storey building on the site bordered by Fulton Road, Rutherford Way and Olympic Way.

The new development

The existing 8 storey building is on the left. It will be replaced by a 21/15 storey building wedged up against the Unite Student building on the right

The report reveals a difference of opinion between Brent Labour Council and the Labour GLA in whether more affordable housing should be expected from what was once seen as a social housing provider. Out of the 253 units 34 will be a London Affordable Rents level (the use of this definition is welcome) and 43 shared ownership where the rent should not exceed 40% of net household income.

The rest will be private and presumably at market rents. The officer's reject the GLA's argument (Para 54 onwards of report LINK ).

A new  strategy is to cite the 'high density', 'densely built', 'highly urban' nature of the area - all consequences of what I consider poor planning decisions in the past but now used to justify more of the same. 

The cumulative impact of proposed schemes from Wembley Park station

Here are just some of the quotes from the officers (my emphasis):

Whilst the bedroom windows on this side of the development would see a lesser standard of privacy than other windows in the development, the windows on to which they face serve student flats occupied by transient populations not warranting the same level of protection as permanent residences. Furthermore, it is conceded that the general scale of development in this highly urban part of Wembley would inevitably necessitate some tighter relationships between buildings in places and given that this is the only relationship between another building and the proposed development which falls short of standards, the relationship is considered to be acceptable.

Overall, the impact of the proposal on surrounding daylight and sunlight levels for existing and emerging buildings is considered acceptable. There are instances where reductions would be felt (and they would be noticeable in some cases). However, the overall number of discrepancies is considered to be relatively minor considering the scale of the development. Your officers are of the view that given the benefits associated with the development of this site (the provision of a number of new homes in the borough) and the dense urban nature of the subject site and surrounding sites, the benefit of the proposed development was considered to outweigh the harm associated with the loss of daylight and sunlight. It is not considered that the matter would warrant a reason for refusal 


The LPA (ie the Local Planning Authority - the officers) agree (with the developer) that the availability of nearby open space and emerging social infrastructure will be numerous and that such provisions would justify a shortfall in total provision of play space. The lack of full onsite adherence to playspace is to be expected with the high density of the scheme proposed. 


The current offer of 35% affordable housing per habitable room falls below the 50% Local Plan target. However, it is a strong offer and Network Homes have improved the affordable rented provision as requested while maintaining the total original provision despite it being agreed by all parties that the scheme results in a financial deficit. Officers and BNP Paribas view this revised offer as the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing the scheme can deliver, in line with planning policy, subject to securing an appropriate post-implementation financial review mechanism in the s106 agreement. 
 

Considering the benefits of the scheme, it is considered that the small reduction in the visibility of the eastern part of the arch is an acceptable consequence of this development and it is noted that the western part of the arch is already obscured to broadly the same extent, helping to bring symmetry to the view of the Stadium along the Olympic Way corridor. 
 (We've already messed up the view on one side so let's make it symmetrical.)

-->

-->