Queens Parade back on the agenda but may be deferred again

The Queen's Parade development in Willesden Green returns to the Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday having been deferred on March 14th.  However, the developer has not given full details of their proposed reduction in the height of the building and this may mean further deferral.

The Planning Officers' report LINK seeks to ride two horses in continuing to advocate approval, despite the lack of information, but also providing reasons why the application could be refused - rather confusing.:

Extracts:

When considering the suggested changes, while the precise level of decrease in the height of the building has not been set out by the applicant, the changes may be sufficient to overcome the Members’ concerns. However, the amendments would need to be worked up by the applicant and the daylight analysis re-cast for the revised scheme. As such, it is not possible to present these suggested revised proposals to this planning committee meeting. Is it (sic) therefore recommended that the application is deferred to a subsequent planning committee meeting to allow the receipt of the revised proposals and supporting information and the re-consultation of neighbouring residents.

However, should members wish to determine the application at this planning committee, Officers continue to recommend that planning permission is granted. Although there are areas where the proposed development would not entirely comply with guidance, when considered on balance the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the negative aspects of the application. 
Members can however choose what weight they consider should be given to the material planning considerations within the proposal and therefore could come to a different conclusion on these matters if they do not agree with the recommendation. The matters that members have expressed concern about have been discussed in this report.  

The report concludes

   As discussed above, officers continue to recommend that planning permission is granted for the development as currently proposed. However, given that members have specified that they are minded to refuse planning consent, the applicant have requested the ability to amend the proposal as set out above (reductions in height to address outlook and daylight concerns and the provision of additional communal student facilities) and to provide further detail regarding the arrangements for student drop-off and pick up, within a student management plan. 
It is therefore recommended that the application is deferred to a subsequent planning committee meeting to allow the amendments and information to be submitted and for further consultation to be undertaken in relation to those amendments. 
However, if members consider that the application should be refused in its current form the following reasons for refusal are suggested based on the issues raised by members at the previous meeting.

.         

1.     The proposed development, by reason of its size and siting, would have an unduly detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining building, Electric House, by way of an unduly detrimental loss of light to and outlook from the windows of three residential units within that building. This is contrary to policy DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan Development Management Policies 2016 and Supplementary Planning Guidance 17; 


2.     The proposed development, by reason of failure to incorporate communal facilities appropriate to the use, would represent the provision of a poor standard of accommodation for future occupants, contrary to policy DMP20 of the Brent Local Plan Development Management Policies 2016. 


3.     The proposal, by reason of the failure to demonstrate adequate arrangements for the servicing of the building during student move-in and move-out periods, and having regard to the busy nature of the adjoining highway, is likely to result in conditions prejudicial to the free and safe flow of traffic on the surrounding highway network. This is contrary to Policies DMP1 and DMP12 of the Brent Local Plan Development Management Policies 2016. 


Queens Parade planning application deferred

Brent Planning Committee has deferred a decision on the application LINK to build part 6,7,8 storey development on the site of the current one storey parade of shops on Queens Parade, Willesden Green.

The submission was for 117 units of student accommodation and 5 retail units.

The Committee's decision was as follows:

Minded to refuse and deferred to next meeting for a report to deal with the following;

(i)         Principle of the development,

(ii)        Servicing arrangements,

(iii)       Traffic impact and overspill

(iv)       Impact on neighbouring properties in terms of outlook, daylight and sunlight

The decision makes no mention of the possibility of fraud in comments on the application that were published on the blog the day before the Planning Committee met. LINK

Possible fraud over Queens Parade consultation responses checked out by Brent Council

Mapping consultation respondents

Guest blog by Scott Bartle, Secretary of Brent Green Party

As detailed in Wembley Matters last week  LINK the proposal to demolish Queens Parade is due for a decision to be heard on Wednesday March 14^th. The developers seek to replace the 12 units that have been used as business incubators with a staggered 8 story building comprising of 117 student accommodation units and just 5 commercial units. The Queens Parade (with the support of Mean While CIC) has offering opportunities to more than 25 start-up businesses, 6 charities and voluntary organisations creating job opportunities and apprenticeships for 67 people and enabling 47 people to test their products and ideas from a visible space. It has hosted 242 public events, including hosting Green Party meetings. 

Residents in Electric house are understandably concerned about the environmental impact a development of this size will have upon natural light to their properties. One resident reports a projected drop in light from 12.17 to 0.91 citing a Right to Light protected under common law, adverse possession and the Prescription Act 1832. Although The Right to Light has an arbitrary 20 year time limit placed on its acquirement and Electric House is a new build, this does not meant that those elected to represent residents and make planning decisions should not respect it anyway. What might also be of concern to residents is the loss of so many commercial units on our high street, by more than half and the opportunities for small business that would have been presented. Particularly given Brent has a third of people living in poverty, almost a third of people earning less than the London living wage and above average rates of unemployment (link). 

The officers’ report recommended approval based upon ’50 letters in support of the development’, which is a rarity for a development to muster. In fact, the ‘letters of support’ on the online system consists of the same copy/pasted statement attributed to neighbours within Yates Court, 228 Willesden Lane, NW2 5SJ and another copy/pasted statement attributed to multiple house numbers within Walm lane, each ending with a statement beginning ‘as a local businessman in Willesden Lane’. The odds are of course pretty slim that each person who has registered support from addresses in Walm lane is actually a ‘local businessman’. 

I requested Amar Dave (Head of Brent Regeneration) to investigate as I’m aware there are many people who have been convicted of various fraud offences for writing fictitious letters to a council in support of planning applications. Amar stated that they take allegations of fraud seriously so asked Alice Lester (Head of Planning) to investigate. Amar reported that Alice created a map of where the letters originated (see image above) and checked the names of some of the supporters from residential properties and they were listed as the addresses given. They said it's not possible to discount a ‘campaign’, but one consisting of ‘local businessman’ in support of less commercial space and student accommodation seems a bit strange to me. 

Thoughts from readers?

 Officers' Report
Application on Planning Portal

Queens Parade planning application to be heard on March 14th

Queen's Parade now

Proposed new student accommodation building

New building in townscape

A planning application that will transform the Walm Lane, Willesden Lane and High Road junction in Willesden Green comes up for decision by Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday March 14th.

Planning Officers recommend granting of planning permission for 1-12 Queens Parade, Walm Lane, for demolition of the existing one storey shopping parade and its replacement by a part 6, 7 and 8 storey building housing 117 student accommodation units with 5 retail units on the ground floor and a basement retail warehouse space.

The shops are currently let on a 'meanwhile' basis pending redevelopment.

The officers' report LINK states:

-->

The key planning issues for Members to consider are set out below. Members will need to balance all of the planning issues and the objectives of relevant planning policies when making a decision on the application:

Principle of use: There is no objection in principle to the redevelopment of the site to provide student accommodation and five retail units. The site is considered to accord with Council policy in relation to the provision of student accommodation due to its location within a town centre and good transport links. The submission demonstrates a need for the student accommodation in line with Brent and London Plan policy. The retail units would contribute to the viability and vitality of the Willesden Town Centre. The principle of development is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Representations received: Objections were received from 20 local residents and one Councillor raising concerns regarding the loss of the retail units; harm to the high street; suitability of student accommodation at the site; parking/servicing, overdevelopment; impact on conservation the area and impact on neighbouring amenity. In addition to this 50 letters of support were received from local residents who stated that the existing buildings do not make best use of the site; the proposal will boost the local economy; the new units will improve the town centre; and the height is considered to be suitable.

Demolition of existing building: There is no objection in principle to the demolition of the existing retail units. While they are in a Conservation Area, the existing buildings do not share the distinctive characteristics which define the Willesden Green Conservation Area. The Site Specific Allocation encourages redevelopment of the site with a more intensive and better use of land. The loss of these buildings is considered to accord with policy provided the replacement building is of an acceptable design.

Character and Appearance: The proposal is considered to have a high quality design that has regard to the character of its surroundings including the conservation area and to not inappropriately challenge or dominate surrounding development.

Impact on Neighbouring Amenity: The development has been assessed against loss of light and sense of enclosure on all neighbouring properties. It has been found that the relationship between the proposed development and all surrounding properties is considered to be acceptable, according with relevant Brent standards and BRE guidance.

Parking & Servicing: It is considered that the use of a ‘permit free’ agreement secured by condition would mitigate against parking concerns in the area. It is considered that the proposed servicing arrangements would be suitable for the site and would not materially harm the surrounding area.

Now in Willesden Green: The onward march of high rise and student accommodation

Replace this...

with this:

Brent Council has designated various areas of the borough, particularly Wembley, as suitable for high rise development but it is apparent that there is seepage into other areas. Often one high rise once approved and built enables more as a precedent is set.

In Willesden Green the Queensbury project was subject to a community campaign based both on the saving of a pub as a community resource and the unsuitability of the planned new building in a conservation area. However Electric House at the junction of Walm Lane, Willesden Lane and the High Road was approved.

Now Electric House will have a part 8 storey, part 7 storey neighbour to replace the current 'meanwhile  space' shops of Queens Parade.

The applicant argues that the Council wish to see residential use of the site, the type of residential is not specified so that student accommodation complies.

There are around 2,500 student residences built or planned in the Wembley Stadium area but one, if only for 120 units, in Willesden Green sets a new precedent.

The planning application also includes 5 commercial units and a basement warehouse area.

It is early days for public comments but several objections are along the lines of this one from a resident in the neighbouring Electric House:

I wish to raise the following objections regarding application reference 17/0322:

1) Brent's Core Strategy CP2 states "The borough will aim to achieve the London Plan target that 50% of new homes should be affordable. At least 25% of new homes should be family sized (3 bedrooms or more)." The 120 high quality student units does not meet the definition of 'affordable housing' according to gov.uk; "social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market."

2) A planning application in 2013 for 34 residential units was refused on the basis that the density of the units would exceed the London Plan and Brent Council recommendations. The 120 studio units would far exceed the density of the rejected 2013 application

3) The 7 and 8-storey proposed buildings would have scale and design that harms the character and appearance of the Willesden Green Conservation Area

4) The existing buildings according to the 2013 committee report '...are considered to make a contribution towards the character and appearance of the Conservation Area'. The demolition of these buildings will be a severe detriment to the Willesden Green Conservation Area.

5) The current amount of retail space is 590sqm, the planning application provides for 324sqm of retail space - a loss of 266sqm which would be an unacceptable threat to the high street.

6) In the absence of a legal agreement to control parking, the absence of an on-site servicing bay and a delivery and servicing plan to control servicing the proposed development will generate a demand for on-street parking and servicing that cannot be accommodated within the surrounding area and on Willesden Lane and Walm Lane, as such the development would give rise to highway conditions that would be prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety

7) The 2013 refused application suggested lack of road access to the retail units as a reason to refuse. If the proposed commercial units would be served by an access route surrounding Electric House, as a resident I object to service vehicles passing my window and causing a disturbance

8) Electric House has unresolved pest problems as evidenced by the rat traps laid out by Network Living near in the bin area. The addition of 120 students next door with will likely exacerbate the problem and create problems for the surrounding area

9) Brent have so far been unable to collect the refuse and recycling safely and on time from Electric House with only 25 units. There have been incidents of the doors being left open, and the recycling going weeks without collection. The additional 120 units will provide unwanted strain on these services.

Former Labour councillor James Powney writing about the proposal on his blog LINK says:

I think that [the development] is frankly too big.  Brent has a policy of concentrating tall buildings in its five growth areas for a reason - to protect the lower density developments in the rest of the Borough.  There is a creeping pressure on Willesden to accept bigger and bigger blocks.  Electric House was one of those, which I can accept because of its position at the head of a street.  Similarly with the Erin Court development from a much earlier time, but The Queensbury redevelopment was rightly refused as much too big. 

The provision of more student housing is also questionable in an area that already suffers from an extremely transient population.  In the past, Brent planning committee refused student accommodation at the former Spotted Dog development citing this as a reason.  The logic behind this has not changed.

So far there is only one supporting statement:

Overall I now support this revised plan as the proposed buildings will still enable the view of the Electric House clock.

I think that Westminster University would be good to approach as they have a site in Baker Street only 10 minutes away by Tube.

I would like to see that the buildings are clad in real red brick and not synthetic to match with the Conservation Area, and also would like see that the landscaping also extends to the building by providing a green roof or wall and bird boxes (swifts perhaps) in the design.

I like the idea of flexible shop space as we do lack larger shop accommodation for chains. But would like to see that the shop frontage conform to the design guide produced by Cllr Tom Miller for Willesden Green.

As for the existing tenants of the retail spaces, I would encourage the developers to find them alternative accommodation in some of the spaces that are empty along the High Road to make up for the disruption to their businesses and the fact that they are unlikely to be able to afford the higher rents that no doubt will happen.

Perhaps one of the retail spaces could be a technical hub (with cafe?)? This would be suitable for students to use and also would enable the local population to use the facilities as we have many who work from home and would welcome such an initiative. And enable them to have a meeting place with clients.

LINK to application 17/0322

Queens Parade Celebration April 23rd