Northwick Park's development into a small town begins

 

 The development with Proyers Path at foot of image

 

The plan with  Proyers Path on the right and hospital on the left

 

The development taking shape beyond the Proyers Path hedgerow and tree belt in the park. A seasonal ditch/stream runs along the tree line.

 

The first phase of the Northwick Park development is taking shape and greeting visitors to Northwick Park Hospital using the Northwick Park Metropolitan Line station.

The development by Countryside Homes and Sovereign Network Group  housing association lies between Proyers Path in the park (line of trees at the bottom of the image) and the hospital ring road.

It is part of a much bigger one public estate project that is a collaboration between the Sovereign Network, Brent Council, NHS and Westminster University that will see the area transformed into a small town.

This post provides a photographic update for local residents on what is being marketed as Northwick Parkside.

Site entrance

There is not a lot of information on the Countryside website:

COMING SPRING 2025!

Northwick Parkside is a brand new development coming to Northwick Park!

A Joint Venture with Countryside Homes & SNG , consisting of 654 new homes and commercial facilities. This is the first stage of a major regeneration project for Brent Council.

The development will deliver a collection of 1,2 & 3 bedroom apartments and 3 bedroom houses & maisonettes.

To be kept up to date or to register your interest please email northwickparkside@countrysidehomes.com

 Construction News LINK reported at the end of October 2024:

Countryside Partnerships, a division of Vistry Group, in collaboration with Sovereign Network Group (SNG), has launched the first phase of a major regeneration project in Northwick Park, Brent.

This initial phase, part of a broader scheme, will bring 654 new homes to the area, with over half of them designated as affordable housing.

Named Northwick Parkside, the development marks the start of an extensive Northwick Park regeneration initiative, which will ultimately include 1,600 homes alongside a variety of community facilities aimed at enhancing local services and amenities.

The first phase will provide 323 affordable homes, funded in part by the Mayor of London through the Greater London Authority's (GLA) Affordable Homes Programme. These homes will be available across a range of tenures, including Social Rent, London Affordable Rent, London Living Rent, Intermediate Rent for key workers, and Shared Ownership, ensuring a broad spectrum of affordable options for Brent residents. The remaining homes in this phase will be available for private sale or rent, with revenue reinvested to support further affordable housing initiatives.

Prospective buyers can register interest in the private sale and Shared Ownership properties, which are expected to launch in Spring 2025, with construction completion anticipated between 2026 and 2028.

 There appears to be a discrepancy, in terms of the number of affordable homes, between the above and the Officers' Report at the December 2020 Planning Committee:

Affordable housing and housing mix:  The proposal would provide 245 new affordable homes (comprising 70 units for London Affordable Rent, 38 intermediate rent units, 26 units at London Living Rent and 111 shared ownership units). This represents 39% affordable housing by habitable room, and the London Affordable Rent units in particular would be weighted towards family-sized homes.

The applicant's Financial Viability Appraisal 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.

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 London Affordable Homes, 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.

Whilst the overall proportion of family-sized homes do not comply with Brent's adopted or emerging policies in this respect, officers acknowledge that these requirements would further undermine the viability of the scheme and compromise its deliverability in this particular instance.

 

Brent Council explains tree work in Northwick Park

 

 Two sections of the line of trees that have been worked on

 

Following publicity about the felled oak tree on Barn Hill, a Wembley Matters reader drew my attention to the cutting back of trees in Northwick Park along the border with the Bakerloo line. They were a good distance from any houses that might have been threatened by roots. The trees provided screening and reduction of noise from the tube trains.

Brent Council promised to investigate and today offered an explanation:

Brent Council Parks service had commissioned a tree survey to identify trees that may have risks, particularly if near to the railway line, paths and desire lines. A contractor has been commissioned to conduct the tree works. 

 

Following a site visit on 27^th August 2024, we can confirm that the trees in the photographs are included in the ‘Urgent’ list for works. Many of these trees are White Willows that had wounds, cavities, or other damage at height. White Willow also tends to have relatively brittle wood.

 

However, the good news is that most of these trees are being pollarded at around 2 metres in height. In some cases the trees are being coppiced, which is practically the same treatment, but at a lower height. The live wood below the cut is retained, as are the roots. These trees should re-grow and the new shoots should be visible by the spring of next year.

 

Only a small proportion of the trees are being felled to the base.

 

Unfortunately, there are a number of other trees that also require works in Northwick Park, so this is work in progress and continuing.

 

Readers may remember a controversy years ago when residents in Harlesden came out to defend trees in the January cold that they thought were being felled without notice or reason A public meeting with councillors and council officers stressed the important of communication LINK.

The reader remarked:

Thank you for finding out and sharing Martin. I wish Brent would use the community notice boards in the park to show information like this, it would improve residents understanding of what the Council is doing a lot more.

I agree. Fairly recent works on restoration of acid grass areas on Barn Hill were accompanied by useful explanatory notices.

Wembley Park 'regeneration v gentrification' revisited 6 years on - do the warnings in this article still hold?

Wembley Matters has been following the development of the Wembley Park 'regeneration' areas for some time. In October 2017 LINK  I published the guest post below which attempted to look forward to the impact of what the author termed 'gentrification' rather than regeneration.  Some might argue that 'gentrification' doesn't fit as very few residents lived in the largely light industrial and warehouse area that were displaced, but it could apply to the wider area with many working class people unable to continue to live here.

Since then we have seen what residents claim is over-development in Alperton, further demolition and building on South Kilburn estate with shrinking green space; masterplan for the Neasden Stations area with high rises on the College of North Wesr London  Dudden Hill site and the light industrial area between Willesden High Road and Dudden Hill; and the huge re-development of the 'one public estate' (comprising Network Homes, NHS NW London, University of Westminster Brent Council) of what will almost be a new town in Northwick Park.

This is the original article with my introduction:

 

There have been many postings on this website about Quintain's Wembley Park 'regeneration' and even more comments, particularly as the development has accelerated recently eating up warehouse and industrial units and apparently squeezing tower blocks into any spare space. In this guest posting Dilan Tulsiani stands back and considers the implications for local people as well as the locality itself.
 

On the 29^th of August 2017, Quintain, a property investment and development business, announced via its website that it was ‘spending £1m a day on construction making Wembley Park one of the UK’s biggest construction sites’. According to Quintain, there will be over 8,500 jobs created, with a further 3,000 homes under construction ‘delivered at a pace not seen at any other London development site’. The construction framework consists of six contractors, the notables being: McLaren, Wates, Sisk and Carillion. Quintain have recently shifted their construction policy from ‘build to buy’ to ‘build to rent’. They aim to build over 7,000 new homes, with 5,000 labelled as ‘build to rent’, and a further 2,300 as “affordable”.

 

Quintain and Brent Council have both resisted using the term ‘gentrification’ to describe their partnership in transforming the area. Instead, you’ll see ‘regeneration’ on practically every website or poster promoting the ongoing process. This is understandable, as the critics of any form of gentrification, are quick to label the selective description by property developers as deceptive and dishonest. Technically speaking, regeneration is embedded within the process of gentrification. The Cambridge Dictionary defines regeneration: ‘to improve a place or system, especially by making it more active or successful’. Gentrification is defined as: ‘the process by which a place, especially part of a city, changes from a being poor to being a richer one, where people from a higher social class live’. Wembley Park’s ‘regeneration’ process factually falls under both definitions (for the remainder of this article I will use the term ‘gentrification’ instead of ‘regeneration’, as it is more accurate to my subject matter). Although, to prevent an ethical breakdown, new tenants would probably cling to ‘regeneration’ as an ontological justification for staying in Wembley.

 

Residents who have lived in Brent for more than a decade will remember the industrial abyss that used to exist just a short walk from the station. In this sense, the gleaming metallic towers, illusory designer outlet and newly placed pavement are well relished. However, there are a few fundamental concerns that have simply been swept aside. Firstly, the effect on the surrounding areas. There is no surprise, that most, if not all the flats in Wembley are not “affordable”. In fact, that term is usually used to provoke a narrative of relativity concerning financial status. Quintain has invested £900 million into Wembley Park, without careful consideration and evaluation from the residents of Brent, this could lead to some serious socio-economic disparities. David Fell, a research analyst at Hamptons International states that property prices in HA9 “have risen by 14% in the last year [2016], compared to a London average of 10%.” Just down the road from Wembley Park, a two-bedroom flat is valued around £335,000. A flat of the same size, less than 10 minutes’ walk away, is valued at £450,000 - £500,000. Recently, Alto has sold two-bedroom flats in Wembley Park for £800,000.

 

A similar problem was highlighted in 2014 during gentrification processes in South Kilburn, where a member of the Residents’ Association claimed: “Those who have been living in the area are essentially being driven out. This all amounts to a social cleansing of South Kilburn.” Moreover, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations emphasised that the residents who have lived in South Kilburn for generations could no longer afford to live in their homes. These are not trivial or isolated matters. They’re simply the effects of gentrification. Wealth concentrated in one single area in this manner, will have drastic consequences. The surrounding populations will be allowed to use facilities, shops and walk the newly paved streets, but there is a cap on their indulgence of this ideology. Consider what the residents of Chalkhill think when their homes are (literally and metaphorically) overshadowed by the new apartment towers. When they, like so many other communities, have a lack of funding within their own neighbourhoods, along with other serious social issues. To name one, in Brent and Hounslow 34 high-rise buildings failed fire cladding tests issued after the horrendous disaster at Grenfell Tower. In contrast, I think it would be perfectly safe to assume that the newly built apartments in Wembley Park have some of the best fire safety systems available.

 

 Attached to this disparity of wealth is the subsequent problem of crime. There is no doubt that the new properties will have a well-maintained police presence, due to the proximity of the stadium, along with security guards for each building. Due to the disparity, crimes in the surrounding areas may increase. Let’s take some of surrounding areas as examples (take these as approximate averages): From January - August 2017, Alperton has had the average total crime rate of 118/month, Dollis Hill’s average total crime rate was 137/month, and Tokyngton stands at an average of 188/month. Tokyngton is the closest of the three areas to Wembley Park, and in recent years it has had a subsequent increase in total crimes committed. If the investment in selective industries and areas remains or increases in the next decade, there should be no surprise at the increase in crime. This correlation was well represented in gentrification processes in New York, especially Harlem. As living standards get higher, the price of property increases, more people will forcibly turn to crime – both petty and serious. The socio-cultural divide will only widen.

 

One last fundamental issue is an assessment by The FA (for those like myself who are not sport literate: The Football Association). In May 2016, The FA complained that Brent Council was considering those who visit the stadium “an afterthought”. The recent constructions sites, which appear directly outside the stadium, could present potential hazards to fans, according to the FA. In fact, these new apartments would present the highest, and thus the most expensive flats, with their own personalised view of the games below them. Wembley is already set to be overcrowded, yet with ongoing construction, and busy venues/rush hour, there should be an effective policy by the council to counter this.

 

Ultimately, I see no realistic counter-movement to what seems to be an unchecked gentrification process at Wembley. In the next decade, Wembley, just as many other towns in Greater London, will be injected with huge sums of money, none of which will aid ingrained social issues, but will make these issues less noticeable for those living in the newly ‘regenerated’ areas. In the meanwhile, surrounding populations will attempt to readjust and comfort themselves from their high price of living with the luxurious shopping outlets built on the borders between their areas and the ‘newly regenerated Wembley Park’.

 

UPDATED: Decision making shambles on Mumbai Junction planning application leads to deferral

 

 

 

 

UPDATE

 This is the official one sentence Minute of the Deferral Decision:

On the basis that a majority of Members on the Committee had indicated they were minded to refuse the application, it was agreed to defer a final decision to a future Committee meeting in order to  enable a further report to be provided addressing the indicative reasons outlined as the basis for refusal, relating to affordable housing and viability, the height and design of the scheme  in relation the surrounding area and whether the development of the site had been optimised  in order to maximise the potential planning benefits.

After more than two hours of discussion, possibly a record, at the end of Brent's Planning Committee's consideration of the Mumbai Junction application, only Chair Matt Kelcher and Vice Chair Saqib Butt (Council Leader Muhammed Butt's brother) voted to approve the planning application. The other six councillors voted to reject the application.

Rejecting an application against the advice of planning officers is highly unusual and usually results in warnings of costly appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and the likelihood of losing the case if the reasons for rejection are not sustainable in planning terms.

This is what happened last night when the members of the committee who had voted against had difficulty in articulating their reasons for rejection. In one case their reasons were also in conflict, with most members against the bulk of the design while Cllr Liz Dixon wanted the building to be bigger, claiming that increased height could enable affordable housing to be included in the development.  It wasn't a conservation area so why not build higher? Tower Block Tatler watch out - you have a rival!

Councillors'  concerns over the lack of affordable housing in the development were answered by officers in terms of two viability reports that, despite different figures, claimed that the development would not be financially viable if affordable housing was in the mix. As it was the developer would only return a profit of 13% against an industry standard of 17.5%

Interventions by the Head of Planning and a senior planning officer stated that the reasons given for rejection would not be sufficient to win an appeal and could incur costs on the council, were accompanied by a suggestion that instead of rejecting the application, the committee should defer it. This was taken up with relief by a shaken Cllr Kelcher who sought to persuade his committee members that this would be the best approach: officers would return with a new report that would address some of their concerns at a subsequent meeting.

One by one the councillors who had voted against the application agreed to deferral, although it was hard to see what could be changed in order to satisfy the critics who were concerned about the impact of the develoment on the wellbeing of local residents (including traffic), the design being out of character with the local suburban area, the height (2 different views) and environmental concerns - as well as the lack of affordable housing.

There were several public speakers the first of whom was ex Labour and Conservative councillor Wilhelmina Mitchell-Murray who asked, 'Is Brent Council there for the residents or for the developer?'

Cllr Bajwa (Northwick Park) opposed the development citing environmental issues, access to parks, parking and traffic. There was nothing in the application for local people.

Cllr Collymore (Northwick Park) who was only supposed to answer questions from fellow councillors became very angry and seemed to suggest that the commitee were letting down the Labour Group (I can't be sure so please check the video above that begins with her intevention). She said that the way Cllr Kelcher was behaving meant that the decision would not go in favour of her residents who paid Council Tax.

Cllr Kennelly in his submission emphasised the importance of the hospitality industry and the continuation of a hospitality venture on the Mumbai Junction/John Lyon site. He said that the application offered nothing in terms of afforable housing which should be a council priority.

Cllr Lorber (Sudbury) said that the committee should have had a site meeting with residents. The developer had paid £2,000 for a pre-application meeting with committee members but residents were unable to speak to them on site. He spoke of 'devious moves'.  Cllr Kelcher reacted angrily saying that that the pre-application meeting was part of the normal process and said that the way Lorber had raised it was 'Trumpian'. He gave an assurance that the decision on the application would be madse in accordance with guidance.

The applicant, the owner of the Mumbai Junction, said it was a family run business that for various reasons including ageing and illness in the family, they had dcided to discontinue. Despite looking busy they had never had the current level of difficulty in running the business until now. He rejected Cllr Maurice's suggestion that he was using covid as an excuse.

Twitter was busy during the meeting with one person tweeting that information given on traffic accidents by officer was wrong: '12 single RTAs in the last 12 months. Road rage every day at the exit of the roundabout' and 'at least 3 vehicles in the last few years went straight on the roundabout (literally) and a lady died in an RTA 50 yards away. Officers do your job properly, speak to residents.'

Cllr Collymore's references to the Labour Group perhaps reveals misunderstanding. The Planning Committee is supposed to be non-political in its quasi-judicial role and members are not whipped. The Labour Group should play no part.

Or perhaps it is not a misunderstanding and just revealing.

Planning consigns Brent & Harrow Cyclists to the sweet bye and bye over Northwick Park development

 

 

Following my report on the Northwick Park Planning Application hearing I was curious to know more about the submission of Brent and Harrow Cyclists. Cllr Saqib Butt, admitting that he hadn't seen the submission, asked planning officers about it. Without his intervention it is unlikely that it would have been discussed at all. You can hear the response in the above clip. If you read the submission you can see how the officer's summary does not do it justice.

Having declared a climate emergency I thought Brent Council would be proactive in searching for ways of reducing motor traffic and finding ways of making streets more friendly for pedestrians and cyclists in this massive development.  Instead, apart from the offer from the Highways Officer towards the end of the discussion the proposals (apparently unseen by the Committee) were pretty well consigned to the sweet bye and bye*.

I have now seen the detailed proposals made by the cycling campaigners and it is clear that a lot of research and thought had gone into their submission. Here is one of the illustrations:

 

 

Brent and Harrow Cyclists introduced  their submission:

This is the joint response from Brent Cycling Campaign and Harrow Cyclists, two local groups of London Cycling Campaign, to the committee report for case number 20/0700, development of ‘Land adjacent to Northwick Park Avenue, London, HA1’ . We represent over 300 supporters and attempt to represent the interests of all who cycle or would like to cycle in NW London. We have some concerns about the planned development and have suggested some potential improvements, which we would be grateful if the council could consider.

I am not convinced that their proposals have been properly considered.

You can read the full submission on Brent Cyclists website HERE

 * I prefer the Joe Hill version of the Sweet Bye and Bye

Key questions asked over Network Homes suitability as a development partner in Northwick Park scheme

 

Network Homes, with its head office located in Wembley, is one of the partners in the massive development at Northwick Park as well as an adviser to Brent Council on the building of council houses in the borough LINK.  Network's other partners at Northwick Park are Brent Council,London NW University Healthcare NHS Trust and the University of Westminster. It comes under the auspices of the government's One Public Estate policy which aims to maximise the return on public property.

Network Homes have been embroiled in the cladding scandal and warned in January 2020 that it would need to pass on most of the £200,000,000 that needed to  spent on remediation of its estate would have to be passed on to leaseholders. With its properties requiring so much work doubts have been raised over the quality of its housing.

 Although the Planning Committee has a quasi-statutory role and is supposed to be non-political Brent Council is a developer itself in this case.

Cllr Daniel Kennelly, a member of the Planning Committee, took up concerns over  Network Homes  at last night's meeting.

He wanted reassurances of the long-term viability of the project with Network Homes as a partner given its financial difficulties  and wanted to be assured that they properties they built would be safe. He noted that Network was facing long-term difficulties regarding its cladding responsibilities 'down the road' - what they had done had been 'criminal'. 

Officers responded that they did not look at the financial viability of the developer itself but of the financial viability of its project - did it give sufficient return to the developer on the basis of what they would build and the income it would derive. Network would have to adhere to fire regulations and the plans were for brick build with no cladding. The fire strategy would be considered under reserved matters and rigorously checked.

Kennelly continued to press on the impact of the overall scheme if one partner collapsed financially:  would other partners be liable to its costs? A lead officer responded that different entities in the partnership would be responsible for their own section of the development and would not be responsible for the other parts. He pointed to the  financial collapse of a building company which, after it crashed, its development had been bought by another company and completed.

The councillor sought assurances that although there was an undertaking that there would be no ground rent on the scheme would there be other costs on top of the rent. An officer replied that planning did not control service charges. Cllr Johnson was concerned that the existing NHS residents on the Network Homes estate that was to be demolished would get first refusal on new 'intermediate' (MF not genuinely affordable) properties. He was concerned that they would not be able to afford them. Officers replied, rather obviously, that this would depend on their salary. Network Homes had been engaging with them about their options. NHS staff would not be eligible for London Affordable Rent properties as these were allocated to people on the Council's housing list.

Cllr Kennelly also asked about the large number of trees that would be removed in the development and asked how long it would take for the present level of carbon capture  by existing trees to be reached by the new planning. An officer commented that this issue was not captured by planning guidance at the moment while another said it would depend on the rate of growth of the different tree species planted and what was done with the felled trees - if they were burned and released carbon this would add to the carbon capture requirement. Replacement trees would not  all be saplings and there woduld be a substantial increase in the overall number of trees.

Representations by Brent and Harrow Cyclists over  safe routes around and  through the development were largely dismissed as referring to the new through road that had already been approved. Officers said there was not enough space on the road for segregated cycling and that a single crossing at the junction with Watford Road would make life easier for cyclists and pedestrians, but as there was heavy traffic flow on Watford Road, maintaining the flow was the priority. John Fletcher (Highways) said they would take the representations into consideration as the scheme got underway and offered to meet with the cyclists to walk through the site.

Given some of the less than convincing  answers by officers (I have never heard so many 'sort ofs' in such an important meeting), it is surprising that the application was unanimously approved.

 

 

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

Brent to underwrite Northwick Park Spine/Access road with £10m Strategic CIL money

 

The Partnership Development site

 The new spine/access road (Download PDF HERE)

Brent Cabinet is expected to approve a £10m Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy underwriting of the new spine/access road to be built on the Northwick Park One Public Estate development. The money is required upfront for the road building but should, if conditions are met, be repaid from the Housing Infrastructure Fund.

The development is a partnership between Network Housing, University of Westminster, London North West Health Authority and Brent Council. The Brent Council Highways Team will be responsible for the project.

The project as a whole is expected to raise  £19m CIL from developers.

It should be noted that the future of Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy are currently under review by the government.

OFFICERS REPORT

UPDATE: First phase of Northwick Park development at planning tonight - it may be another marathon

 

Overall view of the context of the site that will be developed (outlined in red)

The site now (slightly right of centre)

Masterplan view of the whole site as it will be - this application in foreground left

UPDATE: APPLICATION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY

 

The first major section of the Northwick Park development comes up at tonight's Planning Committee. If the last meeting was a marathon tonight's may necessitate committee members and officers bringing in their sleeping bags!

The overall Northwick Park master plan is a development shared between partners Brent Council, University of Westminsters, Northwick Park Hospital (NHS) and Network Housing as part of the One Public Estate government sponsored initiative.

This particular site will be familiar with visitors to the hospital who approach from Northwick Park station. They will know the chimney of the energy unit, low buildings, the hospital social club, nursery and some housing on the left side of the ring road as you approach along the footpath.

All will be swept away eventually and replaced with tower blocks ranging from 5-6 storeys to 12-13 storeys, a new nursery building and some small shops. The social club appears unlikely to survive unless space is found on the hospital site and in any case the hospital is said to want to discourage the consumption of alcohol - pity the poor hospital works after an intensive shift!

The Planning Committee will be told that there were just 10 objectors to the scheme and the officers' report dismisses each of them in turn. See LINK.

 

The proposal:

Full planning permission for demolition of existing buildings and structures on the site, all site preparation works for a residential led mixed-use developmentcomprising 654 new homes, associated car and cycle spaces, a replacement nursery, retail space, associated highways improvements, open space, hard andsoft landscaping and public realm works.

 With Cllr Maurice on the committee you can bet parking will take up a lot of  the time and here it is not just a matter of parking for the new residents but also parking for hospital workers themselves. The tenure of the housing will also be an issue with another Brent development with a significant amount of shared ownership despite recent publicity over drawbacks to such schemes:

Out of the 654 units, 409 will be private -

Affordable housing: Provision of 245 affordable units comprising: 

a. 70 units for affordable rent at London Affordable Rent levels and 26 units for affordable rentat London Living Rent levels, in accordance with the Mayor of London's Affordable HousingProgramme 2016-2021 Funding Guidance (dated November 2016) or the necessaryguidance as it is updated and subject to an appropriate Affordable Rent nominationsagreement with the Council, securing 100% nomination rights on first lets and 75%nomination rights on subsequent lets for the Council.

b. 38 units for affordable rent at rent levels not exceeding 80% of current market rents, andsubject to an appropriate Affordable Rent nominations agreement with the NHS Trust and the Council, securing 100% nomination rights on first lets and 75% nomination rights onsubsequent lets for the NHS Trust and cascaded rights for the Council. 

c. 111 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 anappropriate Shared Ownership nominations agreement with the Council that secure sreasonable local priority to the units). The condition in brackets has been removed in a supplementary report. 

Concerns over the environmental impact of the scheme, impingement on Metropolitan Open Space, housing tenure, the proportion of amenity space, over-shadowing, the impact on views (especially from Harrow-on-the-Hill) are all, as usual, judged on balance to be tolerable given the 'benefits of the scheme.'

Officers judged that capacity in local primary and secondary schools is sufficient to cater for the increased population.

The webcast of the meeting starts at 6pm tonight: https://brent.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/531655