Once again questions are being raised regarding the scrutiny
under which Brent Council Planning Committee examines applications in the Alperton
growth area, after the approval on August 9th of a development at
245-253 Ealing Road.
The site is formed of two small plots separated by a private
laneway, one section a disused HSBC bank and the other formerly a pub called
the Plough. As was the case with Minavil House in May, I was speaking on behalf
of locals in opposition to the proposal. Neighbouring residents objected for a
wide variety of reasons, and the planners at Brent Council conceded that the
plans for the development, which will feature 92 flats in two towers over 9 and
10 stories, failed to meet a large number of planning regulations and considerations.
144 neighbouring windows failed light assessments, yet were
deemed acceptable anyway. Some homes, between this scheme and the impact
of 255 Ealing Road, are losing almost all of their direct sunlight. It
was asked at the meeting of August 9th what the point of such
assessments is, if even the worst affected windows are to be deemed “acceptable
given the context”. The effect of the buildings’ imposing height is exacerbated
by the fact that their positioning fails to meet standards – none of the nearby
existing buildings is 20m away as recommended by the London Plan, and one
building, the currently-under-construction 255 Ealing Road, is less than 10m
away from the proposed towers, failing to even meet the less stringent 10m
separation guideline required elsewhere.
Residents also raised concerns over the legality of access
through private land to the new development. According to the submitted plans,
the emergency exit at the rear of Block A of the building opens directly into
garden beds owned and maintained by residents of the 243 Ealing Road
development, though the plans incorrectly show this as being paved. The
residential and commercial refuse stores on the side of the same block open
facing a privately owned laneway connecting Hatton and Ealing Roads. The access
to these stores along the side of the building is less than 100cm wide at its
narrowest point, narrower than Brent Council’s 1100 litre bins.
Planners
recommended in a supplementary report that access should be added into the
refuse stores from the private laneway bisecting the site, ignoring the fact
that it is privately owned and maintained by residents of the development next
door. This was just one of many design flaws in the plan, including a wheelchair
accessible unit included on the ninth floor of a building with just one lift,
and the fact that, although obscured windows are planned for the rear of block
A to avoid encroaching on privacy in neighbouring Braunston House, there are
still balconies looking directly into nearby homes.
The mix of housing was another concern which failed tests.
Just 16% of units are family sized, well short of the 25% requirement, and the
affordable housing provision fails to meet expectations by some distance, at
26%. The density of surrounding schemes is 260 housing units/hectare, the
maximum recommended in the London Plan. The scheme approved this week is 800
units/hectare. Planners said this is mitigated by the community space provided,
a community space which less than a quarter of respondents in the public consultation
said they wanted, and which is only 166sqm.
The current non-residential space
provided on the site is 832sqm, so this “mitigation” actually represents a loss
of over 80% plus added demand, while Alperton still has under half the open
space of an average London ward. Saying that the density is similar to nearby
developments ignores the fact that those developments included a significant
provision of open space and retail units, which are still unused due to a lack
of access.
This, like other developments nearby, is described as ‘car-free’
and provides 10 disabled spaces for accessible units, but no parking for the
other 82 homes. The impact of this is estimated to be 66 additional cars
parking in neighbouring streets, leading to an extension of the Controlled
Parking Zone. There is a large provision for cycle parking, however the roads
nearby are all marked red in the lowest category for cycle safety by TFL, and
the only segregated cycle lane in the ward of Alperton, along the canal, is
unlit and dangerous at night.
While the buildings are close to Alperton Station, TFL say
Alperton ward has one of the lowest average PTAL (Public Transport Access) scores
in all of Brent. Hundreds of new homes have been approved in the area without
any plan for improved services, notably the 251 units in the controversial 26
storey Minavil House tower, approved in May despite widespread opposition and a
limit of 17 storeys in the area’s Masterplan. According to an independent
transport assessor the figures presented at the council for the transport
impact of Minavil House nearby were out by a factor of 8. Once again,
there was much debate at planning committee level regarding the quality of
transport services in the area, particularly with regard to the accessibility
of Alperton Station and the lack of night services. The state of medical
services in the area, already severely stretched, was also raised.
The Plough Pub, which has been closed for over a year, was
open until developers purchased the site. Cllr Mary Daly pursued the planning
officers on the issue of the pub’s upkeep, and the fact that it was not
advertised for lease for the statutory 24 months after closure. The building has
been allowed to decay since its closure, according to residents.
Cllr Michael Maurice at one point of the meeting counted off
13 matters in which the proposal failed to meet guidelines and requirements.
The developers of the scheme failed to take into
consideration the views put forward in the initial consultation. The design is
seen by many as inappropriate for the site and lacks context, to the point that
the area will become a patchwork of clashing styles. There are five unrelated
styles of high rise architecture already approved or constructed, this adding
yet another. The developer made no effort to gather views from residents until the
week in the run up to the planning meeting, at which point it was much too late
to make a difference. 42 addresses objected to the scheme, none responded in
favour. Many also raised concerns as to the safety of residents during the
construction phase, as the buildings occupy the entire site and will
necessitate external building space, impacting on the ability of emergency
services to access neighbouring homes.
"Are our
councillors and planners here to enforce the laws and guidelines for local
people,
or to make excuses and exceptions for private developers?”
When speaking at the meeting on behalf of objecting
residents, I concluded by asking our representatives what their duty in the
process is, in the their opinion: “This scheme fails light, massing, density,
air, noise, access and other tests, yet is recommended for approval. Are our
councillors and planners here to enforce the laws and guidelines for local
people, or to make excuses and exceptions for private developers?”
The Planning Committee was split three votes to three, with Cllr Daly
abstaining despite raising many concerns. At that point the chair, Cllr Agha,
cast a deciding vote in favour of the development proceeding, and in doing so
gave me an answer to my question. One wonders at this point just how many
guidelines and regulations a developer would have to ignore for Brent Council
Planning Committee to refuse them permission.
