619 bed student towers in Wembley Park approved. Prospect House double towers in Stonebridge Park approved

 Student towers from Empire Court, North End Road

Consented towers are the blue images

Despite opposition from nearby residents who said they had not been consulted and would lose light and suffer ASB from students, the planning application for 619 bed student accomodation in Watking Road, Wembley Park, was passed by Brent Planning Committee last night. The committee were told there was demand for such accommodation from London colleges as well as the Football Business University in Wembley.  They were also told the provision would relieve pressure on other accommodation including HMOs  and would deliver the equivalent ot 247 units towards Brent's Housing target. Officers argued that students would support the local night-time and cultural economy.

 

A double tower on the site of Prospect House on the North Circular Road was also approved. The site is on a flood plain and framed by the River Brent and the Grand Union Canal, as well as the polluted North Circular Road.

The site has some dubious history worth reading in this article by Alison Hopkins. LINK

UPDATE: APPROVED BY BRENT PLANNING COMMITTEE! Next to highly polluted road, on a flood plain, no nearby amenities - what's not to like about the Prospect House development?

 

 UPDATE: BRENT PLANNING COMMITTEE APPROVED THE APPLICATION

 

Councillors on Brent Planning Committee had no questions for Alperton Councillor Anton Georgiou after he gave this presentation on the Prospect House development at tonight's Brent Planning Committee.

I wonder why?

I am here to speak against the application for the development of Prospect House on the border of Alperton ward and on the edges of the North Circular.

 

I will start by re-iterating the palpable local anger at never-ending development in our area. Alperton has experienced more than its fair share of large development in recent years. Schemes that have been completed and those currently at building stage are already causing countless issues for local residents. Whether to do with limited investment in needed infrastructure, traffic congestion, pressures on parking provision.

 

This is not the first time I have said this at Planning Committee, but decisions being taken by this Council are driving people, many who have lived here for most, if not all of their lives, to move away from Brent.

 

I therefore plead with members of the Committee to keep this in mind when making the decision about the application in front of you today.

 

The possible approval of yet another large, unsightly tower block, in this instance 23-storeys high, would continue what seems to be Brent’s principal objective of trying to achieve its housing targets outlined the borough plan. Fitting as many units in as possible, without acknowledging their impact on the wider community.

 

Housing targets are important, particularly targets for the right type of housing.

 

We all recognise that London is experiencing a shortage of genuinely affordable homes for local people and importantly a distinct lack of Council homes for Council tenants. However, are the units being proposed at Prospect House and indeed others already approved in Alperton actually meeting that need? I and many others would argue no.

 

I would like to refer the Committee to the report paper which breaks down the tenure types in the proposed development.

 

Once again, we see a distinct lack of genuinely affordable units and a reliance on Shared Ownership units to beef up the supposed affordable units in the development.

 

A significant percentage of the supposed affordable units are made up of Shared Ownership units. I’m confused at this, as I had thought the Council had previously been quite clear that Shared Ownership is not an affordable housing model, and not something that should be lumped under the umbrella term ‘affordable’.

 

I would refer the Committee to comments made by Senior Council Officers and Councillors on this matter at a Scrutiny meeting in November 2022 and elsewhere.

 

By approving yet another development that incorporates Shared Ownership into the ‘affordable offer’ you will be legitimising this controversial housing model once again and in doing so trap potential shared owners into a housing scheme that will cause years of financial and mental misery.

 

Seeking to develop another large tower block on the edge of one of the busiest, polluted roads in Brent, is alarming and should alarm members of the Committee too.

 

The area around the North Circular is notorious for bad air quality.

 

This issue has become more and more prominent in recent months, given incoming changes to ULEZ. There is universal acceptance that air quality in London is poor. People in London die as a consequence of bad air quality. Therefore, why would this Committee seek to approve the development of dwellings in an unsuitable, polluted area like this?

 

What will the quality of life be for those who might consider living at the Prospect House development. What will the long-term impact on their health be?

 

A lack of required amenities in the vicinity of the proposed development is also a concern and something the current owners of Prospect House have highlighted as a reason for limited appeal from potential tenants. Quite frankly, it is in the middle of nowhere and access to shops and other amenities is very limited.

 

As is access to open green space, which I still believe is very important to enhance the quality of life for those who may choose to live there. A diagram in the plans show some distance would need to be travelled for a potential resident to get to the nearest green space. It is highlighted in the diagram that a child would need to be accompanied by a parent or carer to get to the nearest open space, in this case Heather Park. Will it now be the norm that young people will only have access to local green spaces in exceptional circumstances?

 

For any potential residents with a disability or mobility issues, where would the Committee suggest they do a food shop or pick up prescription medication?

 

Prospect House is also located within Flood Zone 3a and sits between the Grand Union Canal and close to the River Brent. Whilst the Flood Risk Assessment is considered to be acceptable, I continue to have concerns about the potential for flooding, particularly in light of recent major flooding very close to the site in Tokyngton Avenue. In recent weeks this has been flooded three times.

 

There is always a risk of flooding when buildings of this size and scale are built so close to a watercourse, coupled with it being in an area known to be vulnerable to flooding.

 

The fallout from flooding has a major impact on all residents in the area, I can only imagine the huge inconveniences we will have to put up with if indeed flooding occurs at this site in future. Are you confident that enough has been done to mitigate this potential risk?

 

I ask that the Committee reject this application based on all the points raised and in view of the unsuitability of this site for another large housing block.

 

I also request that the Committee take the time to visit Alperton in the near future to understand the concerns residents and I have long raised with you.

 

It is time that this Council pauses and takes stock of the negative impact developments like this one will have and have had in our area. If you do not, you will continue to drive lifelong residents out of their borough.

 

I think I know why...

 

Another flood zone development in Stonebridge at Planning Committee tomorrow

 

Prospect House as was

The new development on the Prospect House site next to Shurgaard

Readers may remember controversy over the appalling conditions at Prospect House, manahed by Shepherd's Bush Housing Association LINK and its rather dubious history LINK. The planning application to be decided tomorrow at Brent Planning Committee replaces it with  23 storey storey building with residential accommodation from the third floor up.

The building lies between the Grand Union Canal that crosses the North Circular by aqueduct nearhy and the River Brent. It is in a flood zone and a short distance from Tokyngton Avenue and the Agenta House site opposite Stonebridge Park station. Tokyngton Avenue has been flooded three times in the last few weeks.

 

The site is described by planning officers:

The site is immediately adjacent to the River Brent and near to the Grand Union Canal. The site falls within flood zone 3a. Protection of and access to the River Brent is a keyelement of the scheme as is the flood mitigation measures needed to ensure flood resilience.

 

This includes reducing the footprint of the built structures, raising floor levels, locating the more sensitive uses i.e. the residential element, at 3rd floor level and above, and the creation of a Flood Warning & Evacuation Plan. A SuDS strategy is proposed to retain and re-use as much rainfall prior to discharge into the public sewer.

It is worth looking at some of the comments on the Planning Portal. It is unclear whether the Metropolitan Police objection has been  satisfactorily answered.

Environment Agency

 

Following an initial objection in relation to an inadequate flood risk assessment; its proximity to a watercourse; and a detrimental impact on nature conservation, the objections have been removed following the submission of additional information. Conditions are proposed to secure details of ecological enhancements for flood risk; and a landscape and ecological management plan.

 

Inland Waterways Association

 

Objections are raised for the following reasons:

· The sheer height and bulk of the proposed development would have a harmful visual impact on the adjacent canal as well as frequently causing wind problems for boats and non-boating visitors on the towpath.

· To mitigate, the Council should seek contributions for the provision of community moorings, visitor moorings and/or residential moorings, and the provision of an electrical supply and a water point for servicing the moorings.

 

Local Lead Flood Authority

 

No objections are raised because the Flood Risk Assessment is considered acceptable. A condition is requested for details of: an overall drainage plan to include SudS attenuation such as blue roofs; and an access / egress diagram

 

Metropolitan Police

 

The Secure By Design Officer does not support the application for the following reasons:

· The walk from the tube station to the site using the footpath next to the A406. During the day there would be some activity but at night it would be poorly used and observed leading to a risk of robbery and other violent crimes from occurring.

· The plans to make the site more permeable and attractive to acquisitive forms of crime such as burglary.

· On the actual main building there is no active frontage on the first two floors (overnight), light industrial is proposed but this would close after a certain time and possibly weekends also leaving no legitimate activity.

There is an interesting comment from the owners of the current Prospect House who say thay have had problems marketing it as 'it is not located in the immediate vicinity of local amenities or the High Street (sic) lowering the appeal to potential tenants.'

Brent Council officers continue to term Shared Ownership as affordable in their description of the accommodation despite admitting recently that it is not affordable to people on the median Brent income.

A viability assessment stated that the amount of affordable housing (35% by habital room) was acceptable despite not hitting the 50% target. Shared Ownership should perhaps be subtracted from that percentage.

 The development will be situated next to the highly polluted North Circular Road and a rather poignant diagram shows the distance a parent or carer would need to walk their child to a green space.

 

 

Cllr Southwood responds on Prospect House and urges residents to make contact as soon as possible

Philip Grant has now received a reply to his email of January 28th to Cllr Southwood, Brent Council' s Lead Member for Housing and Welfare Reform, that expressed concern about Brent Council's response to the situation facing residents of Prospect House, on the North Circular Road.

Philip sent a reminder on February 16th pointing out that he had not yet received a reply:

Dear Councillor Southwood,

I wrote to you, in your role of Lead Member for Housing, on 28 January, with a copy to the Stonebridge Ward councillors in whose area Prospect House is situated. I have not heard back from you, or from any of the local Labour councillors.

A further blog article has been published about Prospect House, and the poor living conditions in this substandard accommodation, which Brent helped to fund when two floors of the building were converted from offices to flats, four to five years ago:

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2021/02/more-misery-for-prospect-house.html

 

I have added a comment to that blog, which I hope you will read, as it represents the sincere views of a long-time Brent resident:-

 

'To reinforce Alison's point about the 'deafening silence from Brent council and councillors':

On 28 January, I sent an email to the Cabinet Lead Member for Housing, Cllr. Southwood, with copy to the three Stonebridge Ward councillors, setting out a comment I had made on an earlier Prospect House blog article.

 

My email was headed "Tenants facing eviction from Prospect House", and I concluded by saying:

I hope you will take note of these views, and ensure that this matter is properly, and sympathetically, dealt with by Brent Council.'

 

I have not even received an acknowledgement, let alone a reply, from any of the recipients.

 

Brent Council appears to be ignoring the plight of the families they asked Shepherd's Bush H.A. to house in these substandard flats, as if it is nothing to do with them. 

 

I don't think that is an acceptable way to treat the borough's residents. Do you?' 

The longer that Brent Council tries to ignore the problems facing the Prospect House tenants, and their need for rehousing later this year, the worse it will look to the borough's residents.

 

I hope that you will take sympathetic action to resolve these issues. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

(Fryent Ward resident)

 

Dear Philip,

First, I’d like to reiterate my apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I was keen to understand the facts and to ensure that the council had taken appropriate action.

 

As you say, the families who moved into this previously empty office building were, at that time, homeless. The landlord leased the flats to SBHA to manage. The families who moved in did so under private rented sector offers, which ended their homelessness but with arrangements which were more secure than would have been the case in the private rented sector.

 

I have been assured that the conversion was done to a high standard. I’ve been extremely concerned to learn of the recent serious problems with the building. We’re working with SBHA now to understand the situation and how it will be remedied.

 

It’s clearly up to the landlord to decide what to do with his building and it seems he has decided not to renew the lease with SBHA, resulting in the families needing to find new homes. I appreciate that this is very stressful for them. I can’t comment on individual circumstances but I would urge any family who are concerned to contact us.

 

The families in Prospect House do not automatically have priority in terms of bidding for social housing but we’ll do all we can to help them find somewhere suitable. It’s no secret that Brent is a borough with relatively low wages and extremely high housing costs, which is incredibly challenging. There are 1,800 homeless households in Temporary Accommodation and a further 1031 in acute housing need.

 

Our total housing register is nearly 24,000. We’re working hard to improve supply – through our own ambitious building programme, working with landlords and through our own lettings company, I4B. But I appreciate that none of this makes it easier for families who are needing to move out of Prospect House.

 

Officers have written to everyone in Prospect House and if you’re in touch with any of the families, please do encourage them to contact us as soon as possible.

 

Best wishes,

Cllr Southwood

 

This is Cllr Southwood's email address: 

 cllr.eleanor.southwood@brent.gov.uk

 

UPDATED WITH HOUSING GROUP RESPONSE: More misery for Prospect House residents as ceiling collapses and foul water contaminates communal corridor

 

Pictures by permission from Thaiarna

 UPDATED WITH HOUSING GROUP RESPONSE

Twitter message to Wembley Matters and Brent Council following publication of this story:

We're in contact with landlord about repairs - in meantime we’ve carried out ‘make safe’ and cleaning. The ceiling taken down by fire brigade will be decorated once new plaster is dry. We’ve today been contacting our residents individually; they can also call 020 8996 4200

 

Residents of Prospect House had a miserable weekend as they coped with a ceiling leaking contaminated water on to a communal corridor and had to send desperate messages to Shepherds Bush Housing Group to send in an urgent repair team. 

The Fire Brigade fortunately got to the block just before the ceiling collapsed. Carpets were soaked with debris and foul  water.

The neglect of the block by the landlord, the housing group and Brent Council has made headlines with the residents facing eviction and little assurance of rehousing. LINK

A resident of the block told Wembley Matters:

They have used a wooden makeshift plank to hold up the ceiling I’m not sure how safe this is or when a proper ceiling will be installed. 

We had to end up calling the London Fire Brigade to assess the ceiling and they where luckily in the building when the ceiling collapsed to ensure no one was hurt. We all have kids in this building the ceiling could have fallen on anyone and even worse a child ! 

They brought round someone to clean with a rug doctor but the water marks and stains still remain and there is a pungent smell of toilet waste that reeks in the building. We also have water marks and peeling wall plastering along where the ceiling has fallen. 

This is unhygienic and unsafe living standards and I’m sure no one from Sheperd’s Bush Housing Group or Brent council would want to live here themselves. 

Brent are also not helping to rehouse individuals as we are approaching being evicted from our homes . This is the sad reality of living in social-housing on a low income we are treated like dirt.

Another residents said on Twitter:

The floor looks worse than it was before. This is what we are paying for service charge absolute joke ! And the toilet waste smell along the corridor I have to put something to cover underneath my door to avoid the smell entering into my house.

Shepherds Bush Housing Group responded to events on Twitter:

We're sorry for inconvenience when soil stack failed. We were there as soon as possible Friday night to do initial ‘make safe’ repair. Cleaners did initial deep clean Sat am, then specialist chemical clean Sat pm. We will be there today to assess action and will update residents.

Prospect House was converted to housing from office accommodation less than five years ago.

 

 

Brent Council and Shepherds Bush Housing Group shamed by neglect of Prospect House residents who are face eviction - action needed now!

 

Prospect House

The front entrance

Guest post by Selina, a resident of Prospect House about the issue that has galvanised social media in the past few days. See Kilburn Times coverage HERE.  The families are faced with eviction with no apparent help from Brent Council or Shepherds Bush Housing Group. See former councillor Alison Hopkins' post on the scandolous background to this issue HERE.

 

Selina writes:

The squalor office conversion flat BrenCouncil  dumped 17 families into meant, from the day myself and my son moved, in it has been one nightmare after another living here. 

The area is infested with rats, half the time and even up until now we have no hot water or heating.  We are constantly having to chase up Shepherd’s Bush Housing Group who are working for the private landlord of the property. 

Sometimes we have no running water from any of the taps for more than one day at a time. We shouldn’t have to face this in the U.K.

The property is located on the busy North Circular Road we are constantly faced with noise pollution and air pollution. 

The entrance gate is constantly broken so anyone from the streets walks into our car park and sometimes are flats' communal area. The other day a tenant was faced with a group of youths loitering around our flat communal stairway.  We should be able to feel safe. 

We are all being faced with eviction and  quite frankly I am happy to say good riddance to this building but my main concern and stress is where are all 17 families being rehoused?  Brent Council seems to be offering tenants little help and no options. Private letting landlords do not want DSS tenants or ask for high income guarantors which tenants cannot provide. so what are we left with little option and no response from Brent . 

Our eviction notice is up on May 23rd 2021 where are all 17 families going by that date, which will be fast approaching?

Some of the story on Twitter:

 

 

Flagship project? On the curious case of Prospect House, NW10 7GH - guest article by Alison Hopkins

 

 Prospect House

Yesterday former Brent Liberal Democrat councillor, Alison Hopkins, published a thread of intruiging tweets on the goings on around Prospect House in Brent - a conversion from offices to accommodation.

Recently Brent Council has adopted a policy of opposition to such conversions as the resulting accommodation is often of poor quality and low space standards.

Alison has kindly given me permission to publish her the thread as a guest post on Wembley Matters.

It reminds me of a children's book I used to use in class: 'Why are there more questions than answers, Grandad?'

On the curious case of Prospect House, NW10 7GH. How flagship Brent Council/Shepherds Bush Housing Association housing project seems to end with evictions and very strange finances.

 

It starts with a story about nurse being evicted from social housing in Prospect House. Brent Council refuses to comment. ALL tenants to be kicked out by 23 May 2021. She's scared of temporary housing. I get that. But why the mass evictions by Brent? So, I dig. I like digging.

 

Find this, back in 2016. Shepherds Bush Housing Association & Brent Council proudly proclaim Prospect House converted to social housing paid for with lotsa cash from the Councils Empty Property Grants LINK   Leader and Mayor are there. It's FAB they say.

 

Link to publicity puff LINK

 

Apparently, office block owner Ashok Kumar Vohra contacted Brent. (This is all public domain stuff, btw.) He runs Sonal Trading who seem to refurbish ink cartridges. (!).  LINK. Seems to dabble in property development on the side.

 

Anyhow, perhaps this is all spiffy. But perhaps not: yes, this is Socialist Worker, talking about HEY, Prospect House!  LINK

All seems not well, despite the vast amount presumably spent on converting the offices to housing.

Now, we then look back at Sonal Trading & find it is a teeny company making not a lot of money, but yet had significant ownership by a Dubai based washing machine sales company from at least 2012. I do love Companies House.

 

In June 2020, the washing machine sales company seem to relinquish their holding and a new chap takes over 75 percent. Jagan Nath, who also seems to be Dubai based.This may all be irrelevant, but it's damn interesting if you've a mind like mine.

 

So, what happens next. By 2020, of course, the owners have had substantial rents. Let's say, oh, four years at £300 a week for 17 flats. Over a million? That empty property grant is, by the way, supposed to mean commitment of FIVE years social renting. Remember, December 2016.

 

The plot thickens. Still with me? Five years from Dec 2016 would be December 2021, yet the tenants are being evicted in MAY 2021. Hm. My suspicious evil mind kicks in again. Might there be a planning application.....?

 

Well, whoopie doo. Guess what happens in FEBRUARY 2017. Yup, three months after the presumed start of that FIVE YEAR commitment! This: 

Flats 1-17 INC and 18 Prospect House North

 

A planning application to add 4 storeys & redevelop Prospect House into 28 flats! It gets approved Oct 2018, DESPITE multiple breaches of policy. Yup, you guessed it: minimal affordable and minimal family accommodation. This is Brent, isn't it. Bear with me, I'm still going.

 

The officers report at para 15 makes cursory mention of the tenant decant costs, the cost of breaking five year lease & "repaying grants". That's the excuse used to justify not sticking with policy on affordable & family units.

 

There's also a throwaway about SBHA using units for "homeless" people. Yet, the existing tenants are being evicted, so will be homeless. Hm. The CIL amount is pretty low: £750K .

 

Oh and that CIL amount is BEFORE any reliefs for affordable units. The planning application was made by a company called Planning Co-operative in Ealing. Run by the former Brent head of New Investment & Policy & Projects.

 

Anyhow. The original conversion from offices to flats would now probably not get consent. I do know of other applications for the empty property grant related to offices which got bounced, too. Oddly, I can't find the original planning application.

 

So. We've tenants evicted from what seems to have become an unpleasant block rather fast. By a housing association. I can't find decant plans either.

 

We've a tiny company who had significant grants from Brent to convert offices to housing & lots of rental income. How much was the grant? Has it been paid back?

 

Why is Brent being so coy about commenting on Prospect House? How much due diligence was done? Why was there a redevelopment planning application almost as soon as the place was occupied? When did the pre application discussions happen?

 

Found the address, the place changed name & postcode. NW10 7SH. A chequered history: tried to convert to a college, then hotel. But the original successful application from offices to housing isn't there, so no financial details like CIL.

 

Now, there may be good reasons and explanations for evictions. I'd love to hear them. Transparency=good governance. The more I dig this, more convoluted it gets. I've my opinions on how planning is now manipulated.