Tirzah Mansion, Salmon Street, 13 flats to replace family house - Brent Planning Committee tomorrow

 

Tirzah Mansion, 26 Salmon Street now (Krisha Court far left)

 Proposed flats

Tomorrow's Brent Council Planning Committee will consider a significant application for conversion of a large family home into flats LINK. The site is at the junction of Queens Walk and Salmon Street. Across Queens Walk is Krishna Court, a block of 9 flats that also replaced a family house. Thirteen flats are proposed for the Tirzah Mansion site.

The value of redevelopment into 13 flats is shown by the current valuation of the existing house.

Source

There are 27 individual objections to the plans based mainly on the size of the building and not fitting into the suburban landscape of Queens Walk. Objectors include St Nicholas Prep school on Salmon Street.

Queens Walk

 

However, the officers' report suggests its fits in well with the existing frontages along that side of Salmon Street.

No affordable housing is provided but as the viability assessment suggests a surplus, a contribution to affordable housing elsewhere is required subject to a late viability review.

Some changes have been made to the original plans with no habitable room windows overlooking 43 Queens Walk and moving the car park closer to Queens Walk.

Objectors point to the case of Krishna Court which was pitched to Planning Committee as increasing Brent's housing while in fact it has been operating as a short stay luxury apartments hotel LINK. Officers say this could not happen as a hotel would require specific planning permission. However, they have failed to take action over Krisha Court. See LINK

This passage in the officers' report is particularly significant (and not only for the fact that they got the name of Salom Street wrong!). See the last sentence:

As noted above, the application site is not located within a priority location for additional housing. In this regard, Policy BH4 requires greater weight to be placed upon the existing character of the area when determining the density of development appropriate. The area surrounding the property mainly comprises of traditional two storey detached and semi-detached properties with mid to large sized garden areas. A number of these properties benefit from loft conversions, with visible extensions to the roof such as dormer windows. Krishna Court to the opposite street corner on Queens Walk comprises three storeys, whilst Cherrylands Close to the north also comprises a taller development, with accommodation in the heightened roofspace (second floor level). The site is also located approximately 80m from the Salmon Lane Intensification Corridor to the south, whereby Policy BD2 identifies that up to 5 storeys could be acceptable. The policy accepts that the character of these streets will change and that heights of proposals do not necessarily have to reflect existing adjacent properties. The anticipation is that over time, if the policy is successful, those buildings are also likely to be replaced with more intense development.

 

The officer's conclude:

The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, and, having regard to all material planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions and obligations secured through a Section 106 Agreement. The proposal would result in the provision of 13 new homes, including 4 family sized homes, and would meet an identified need in the borough. The scheme would comply with affordable housing policy despite the absence of affordable housing on site as the relatively low surplus identified means that an off-site contribution would be appropriate.

The proposed development is slightly larger than the surrounding buildings both in terms of height and massing. As discussed, the Officer view is that the design responds well to its the context and is well composed. No harm is considered to result to the setting of the St. Andrew's Conservation Area. However, if one did conclude that a degree of harm resulted, the Officer's view is that the level of harm this would be "less than substantial" and significantly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme,

 

 

CONSULTATION LUNCHTIME TODAY ONLINE: Plans for a 4 storey block of 13 flats on the corner of Queens Walk and Salmon Street - consultation this evening and tomorrow lunchtime

 A large house at 26 Salmon Street, Kingsbury NW9, built within the last 10 years, is set to be replaced by a four storey block of  13 flats.

Wembley Matters warned that the approval of Krishna Court, a block of flats that replaced a family  house on the opposite corner of Queens Walk, could lead to similar applications. Krishna Court, claimed to have been an addition to Brent housing stock, is in fact an AirB&B and despite being notificed as far as I know Brent Council has taken no enforcement action on it. Krishna Court is 8 flats. The application for 26 Salmon Street (image below) is for 13 flats.

 

 

Developers are consulting with the public this evening and tomorrow about their plans. See LINK

Monday October 2nd 7pm BOOK A PLACE

Tuesday October 3rd 1pm BOOK A PLACE

 From the website: 

We are proud to bring forward this development of much need high quality homes, having undertaken a significant design process for this new building.  We are looking forward to meeting our neighbours, hearing your comments, and considering them before submitting an application in the autumn.

This proposal, for much-needed homes, is for a four-storey building with 13 new homes including:

Two studio flats

Three 1-bed flats

Four 2-bedroom flats

Four 3-bedroom flats

Community Amenity Area and Play Space

We are including a secluded courtyard and community amenity area and play space at the rear of the site.

At the ground floor, large amenity areas for all residents are provided fronting onto Salmon Street and adjacent to 43 Queens Walk.

Parking

Parking will be provided at the side of the property on the Queens Walk elevation. We are including 7 car parking spaces and 23 cycle spaces.

When residents commented that this post was the first they had heard of the proposal I rang the PR company and they say they wrote to neighbours on Salmon Street, Queens Walk, Deanscroft Avenue, Tudor Close, Bruno Place and part of Kingsmere Park.

On the other side of Salmon Street at Number 39. It says it is a family home...

 

 

UPDATE: Call for Planning Enforcement investigation into controversial 44 Queens Walk residential units marketed as Queens Luxury Apartments on hotel websites

UPDATE

Following the publication of the article below Philip Grant has written to the Brent Planning Enforcement Team  calling for an investigation into the matter and enforcement if appropriate. In a comment on the article Philip writes:

The 44 Queen's Walk planning application, 19/2163, was given consent on 19 February 2020, on the basis of the planning application documents and plans as submitted. These were for 7 residential apartments.

The consent letter included the following condition:

'4. The residential units hereby approved shall at no time be converted from C3 residential to a C4 small HMO, notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2 Part 3 Class L of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) without express planning permission having first been granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that an adequate standard of accommodation is maintained in all of the residential units and in view of the restricted space within the site to accommodate additional bin or cycle storage.'

It is clear from this that the planning approval was for the apartments to be residential units within planning Class C3. This is defined as:

'C3 – Houses, Flats, Apartments:

Class C3 is use as a dwelling house (whether or not as a sole or main residence)
* by a single person or by people living together as a family, or
* by not more than 6 residents living together as a single household
(including a household where care is provided for residents).'

I think that the key words here are 'use as a dwelling house'. It might be argued that someone renting a two-bedroom apartment at 44 Queen's Walk for £205 a night is using it as a temporary dwelling house. 

However, I think that this sort of use, especially as it is advertised on hotel websites, would fall within planning Class C1:

'C1 – Hotels and Hostels:

Class C1 is use as a hotel, boarding or guest house or as a hostel where, in each case, no significant element of care is provided.'

I have referred this apparent breach of the planning consent to Brent Council's Planning Enforcement Team.

Krishna Court - Salmon Street view (actual address 44 Queens Walk, NW9)

Wembley Matters covered the planning application of a family house at 44 Queens Walk, Kingsbury that involved the demolition of the house and the construction of a block of flats. Planning officers claimed that the loss of family housing was compensated for by the construction of a number of flats on the corner site. There was much local opposition to what many called a blot on the surburban landscape. LINK

The flats were put on the market via Ellis & Co. with prices: 1 bed £365k, 2 bed £515k-£520k and 3 bed £575k. It now appears that there was a single buyer for all the flats that are not housing for coupled or families but are marketed on hotel websites as Queens Luxury Apartments LINK with the price for a 2 bedroomed apartment around £205 a night.

 

Advertising Extract:

 

Managed by D Property Investing Ltd

Company review score: 9.5Based on 24 reviews from 1 property

1 managed property

---

Property information

Queens Luxury Apartments are positioned on a lavish street a stone throw away from Wembley Park and its stadium, along with its other popular attractions. All apartments benefit from an outside space with high end garden furniture. Each apartment comes with modern high end fixtures, fittings and appliances, not to mention its unique designer furniture. Our apartments are perfect for business or pleasure and also benefit from gated parking. There's something for everyone whether your looking for ground floor with spacious gardens, or penthouse style with great views.

 

The property manager stresses that hen parties etc are not catered for.

 

The question arises as to whether planning officers and planning committee members were duped into approving an application that in no way counts towards provision of housing for the borough or that contributes to Brent Council's housing targets. 

You can see how much potential housing was lost by looking at Queens Luxury Apartments property list for Krishna Court: 

 

The three bed-roomed apartment was cited in the planning discussion as much needed replacement family housing.

A further question is how much of the accommodation approved by the Planning Committee,  on the assumption that it will be sold on the market to long-term residents, is in fact being bought up by propery companies as self-catering holiday let  properties or even just simply land-banked. 

The low voting turn-out of Wembley Park ward, covering the Quintain estate, gives a clue. It was 21% of registered electors just above Stonebrdige at 22.21% and a Brent average of 30.67%/ In contrast Alperton turn-out was 43.6%.

Lastly, one more questiom, does this use as a holiday apartment complex require change of use planning permission?

 

 

Controversial Queens Walk block of flats close to completion

 

The original detached house that had been allowed to fall into disrepair

 

When plans were put forward for the demolition of a detached house, 44 Queens Walk, at the corner of Queens Walk and Salmon Street, Kingsbury, it was met with some opposition because it would be replaced by a block of flats. Residents were concerned that it was out of keeping with the fairly uniform white painted houses of Queens Walk and would open the way to similar developments ,spoiling the suburban character of the area. LINK

Brent Planning Committee agreed the demolition and the new block. The two mature oaks on the site were preserved.  The new development is now almost complete as you can see below.  I understand that an offer to paint the block white ,so as to be in keeping with the rest of Queens Walk, was rejected by planning officers, presumably on the grounds that the modern corner plot block would 'make a statement'.

 The new block, named Krishna Court, has its pedestrian entrance on Salmon Street while its car park and vehicle entrance is on Queens Walk, further separating it from that street.

Today's  pictures:

 View from Salmon Street

The suburban detached houses of Queens Walk in the background
 

The gardens of Krishna Court

UPDATE

The flats are now on the market via Ellis & Co. 1 bed £365k, 2 bed £515k-£520k and 3 bed £575k. I think there are 7 or 8 flats on  the site of what was a single family house so the economics are clear.

From ruin to restoration – What makes good planning?

Guest Post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

The ruined Wembley Park Lodge in 2017

 For the past few years, the former Wembley Park Lodge at the corner of Wembley Hill Road and Wembley Park Drive has looked a sorry sight. Badly damaged in a fire in 2013, and with its roof missing, many wondered whether this historic cottage, dating from the 1790s or early 1800s, could ever be saved.

 

Wembley Park Lodge in a postcard from c.1900. (Brent Archives online image 7742)

 

Last autumn, there was an application (20/3027) for permission to demolish the 1930s extension to this Grade II listed building. With my interest in Wembley’s history, I submitted a comment, to say that although I did not object to the remains of the more modern structure being demolished, great care should be taken to ensure that the original parts were properly preserved and safeguarded, for incorporation in any restoration of the cottage.

 

As a result of my earlier comment, I received a letter from Brent Council last week, advising of a new application (21/0703) for full planning permission at 114 Wembley Hill Road (the Lodge’s modern address). This proposes the restoration of the cottage, and the construction of a new house on the site, to help cover the cost of making good the heritage building. As the “footprint” of both homes will be relatively small, the plans include basements under a new extension to the Lodge and the new house, to provide laundry and media rooms, plus storage.

 

Elevation drawings showing the rebuilt Lodge. (From planning application drawings)

 

The proposals for the restoration of the Lodge have been closely discussed with the experts at Historic England (formerly “English Heritage”, who oversee listed buildings). While the 1930s extension had a tiled roof, these proposals include a thatched roof for the whole building. That may seem odd, but a look at the 120-year-old postcard above shows that the single-storey section of the cottage then, on the left of the picture, was also thatched.

 

Re-thatching Wembley Park Lodge in 1976. (Brent Archives online image 9547)

 

The Lodge is on a prominent corner site, in an area of mainly inter-war suburban housing. Corner sites play an important part in defining the character of an area (as I will mention later), so it was important to get the location and style of the new house right.

 

The proposed site plan for 114 Wembley Hill Road. (From planning application drawings)

 

In this case, the architects have positioned the proposed new house so that the front follows the existing building line for Wembley Park Drive, even though this means that is at an odd angle to the Lodge. But how do you design a new house that will sit close to both a restored heritage building and the much later homes next door?

 

The proposed elevations drawing, as seen from across Wembley Park Drive.
(From planning application drawings, with notes added in blue)

 

The Lodge, which was by the gate to the drive leading up to the Wembley Park mansion, was built in the “cottage orné” style, which was popular in the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries, giving a picturesque rustic feel to the gate-keepers cottages on country estates. This one may well have been designed by Humphry Repton, as part of his landscaping for Wembley Park in 1793. 

 

For the new house, the architects have borrowed features from “orné” cottages built at Blaise Hamlet in 1810. These were a collaboration between Humphry Repton and the architect John Nash, and show marked similarities in their chimneys and other characteristics to the lodge at Wembley Park. The Blaise Hamlet cottages (now a National Trust property on the outskirts of Bristol) were built of the local Cotswold stone, but the proposed new house has a tiled roof and white rendered walls, to match with the neighbouring houses in Wembley Park Drive.

 

I would not claim that the proposals for 114 Wembley Hill Road are perfect (I do have some doubts, especially over excavating for basements so close to existing buildings). However, I think that overall they offer a good solution to a tricky planning problem, and one which would see an important local historic building restored, and back in use. If you would like to look more closely at the plans, make your own judgement and submit any comments (by 27 May), you can do so here.

 

I said above that corner sites are important in shaping the character of an area, and I will give two more examples of this from recent planning applications. Last August, Brent’s Planning Committee voted, by a 5-2 majority, to approve Brent Council’s own application to demolish the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens. This beautiful building would make way for a new adult education building, with up to nine floors of flats above it. The decision went against Brent’s heritage assets planning policies, and ignored objections from many residents, and from the Victorian Society and an expert on historic architecture.

 

“Altamira”, the Victorian villa at the corner of Hillside and Brentfield Road.

 

Updated college facilities and new affordable homes are an attractive proposition. But to demolish a beautiful and still useful building, part of the original Stonebridge Park from the 1870s, and replace it with a modern block, will ruin the character of the area. That is especially so as the plans also involve building out over the existing community garden on the corner.

 

Another application approved last year, again despite strong opposition from local residents, was for a three-storey block of flats at the corner of Queens Walk and Salmon Street. Objectors pointed to Brent’s planning policy that developments should respect the suburban character of areas such as this, and said that the proposed building, on a prominent site, would be out of character, a ‘blot on suburbia’ and ‘an eyesore’.

 

In their report to Planning Committee, recommending approval for the scheme, planning officers argued that it would not be an eyesore. They said: ‘The corner plot presents an opportunity for a building of a differing architectural style and slightly greater prominence to sit comfortably without detracting from the character along either of the streets it adjoins.’ The plans were approved, and the new building is now taking shape. Readers can judge from these photos whether or not it detracts from the character of the streets it adjoins.

 

A view along Salmon Street towards the new development and Queens Walk.

 

Close up of the new 44 Queens Walk development. (Both photos by Martin Francis, April 2021)

 

I asked in my title ‘What makes good planning? You are all entitled to your own views, and are welcome to share them as comments below. I would compare planning in Brent to a “spaghetti western”, and suggest that my three examples above show the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Philip Grant.

Controversial Queen's Walk development one year on after Brent Council granted planning permission

 

There was a pause due to Covid19 but now the new development of flats on  the corner of Queens Walk and Salmon Street is taking shape. The flats replace a detached suburban house that was in the style of other houses in the road. LINK

Responding to criticism of the plans Brent Planning Officers said:

The building does not have a 1930s appearance but does respond appropriately to the neighbouring developments in terms of scale. The corner plot presents an opportunity for a building of a differing architectural style and slightly greater prominence to sit comfortably without detracting from the character along either of the streets it adjoins. 

 

 

 

Twin oaks of Salmon Street are safe

 

 The oak trees today

Yesterday  morning a Brent Fightback Facebook member saw work going on at the twin oak trees at the corner of Salmon Street and Queens Walk and fearing that the mature trees were about to be removed, raised the alarm.

Number 44 Queens Walk is the site of the controversial demolition of a detached suburban house to make way for a block of flats.

Brent tree protectors swung into action and soon ascertained that the trees were protected.  Gary Rimmer, Brent Trees Officer, told Wembley Matters that the trees were being 'reduced' by a reputable firm of arboculturalists.  He said that the new development was being built back from the road to leave room for the tree roots.

Much relief all round but is is good to know that locals have their eyes open, especially as Salmon Street has some lovely specimen trees.

South Kilburn and Queens Walk planning applications approved by Brent Planning Committee

Despite articulate and reasoned objections and often hazy responses from planning officers, both the Queens Walk planning application and the huge South Kilburn scheme were passed at Brent Planning Committee tonight.

The South Kilburn decision was unanimous while only Cllr Maurice opposed the Queens Walk scheme on the grounds that the proposed building was too bulky.

Interestingly Alice Lester, Operational Director for Regeneration, (supposed to be non-political) weighed into a discussion of the decision of the Planning Committee, which is of course supposed to be free of political interference:

'Blot on suburbia' planning application comes up at tomorrow's Brent Planning Committee

Proposed building

Existing house to be demolished in the distance (from Queens Walk)

Existing house to be demolished (behind the hoardings) from Salmon Street

I wrote about plans for the demolition of an existing house in Queens Walk, Kingsbury, in October last year ands questioned whether it matched the surrounding suburban housing. Queens Walk consists of 1930a terraced and semti-detached houses of a fairly uniform design, nearly all painted in a consistent white and black mock Tudor style on the relevant side of the road.

The house to be demolished is the 'lead house' into Queens Walk, which has been empty for some time and has not been in great condition for a long while. However, neighbours are not all all happy with its replacement, which they see as a blot on the landscape. There will at least one speaker against the proposal at tomorrow's Planning Committee.

Plans have been to appeal once and planning officers are recommending acceptance of the modified plans. The officers' report is not currently available on the Planning Committee agenda page (see story below) so I have posted it for readers here:



Responding to criticism that the propsoed building is an 'eyesore'. planning officers respond:

The building does not have a 1930s appearance but does respond appropriately to the neighbouring developments in terms of scale. The corner plot presents an opportunity for a building of a differing architectural style and slightly greater prominence to sit comfortably without detracting from the character along either of the streets it adjoins.

Kingsbury's surburbia under threat?

44 Queens Walk on the corner of Salmon Street and Queens Walk (view from Queens Walk)

The view from Salmon Street

Neighbours of a proposed development on a site at the junction of Salmon Street and Queens Walk in Kingsbury are expressing consternation at plans for the development of what was a single family house into a block of 8 flats.

Queens Walk has been seen as one of the most handsome suburban streets in the area with a number of different individual style houses that nonetheless blend into a  pleasing whole. Like many such streets there have been unsympathetic refurbishments and extensions which Brent Council has allowed and of course front gardens given over to car parks.

However, for many the latest application is seen as a step too far and possible opening the possibility, by establishment of precedent, to more such applications.  Number 44 Queens Walk has been empty for some time and has clearly deteriorated and was purchased at a fairly knock-down (sorry!) price for demolition and redevelopment.  The conversion from family house to 8 flats (2 three bedroomed, five 2 bedroomed and one 1 bedroom) to be sold at market prices will yield a considerable profit - tempting to other developers.

I see little reason to disagree with what one of the objectors had to say about the application: 

Queens Walk is typical of the leafy suburban character of many parts of Brent. The properties in Queens Walk are all two-storey detached or semi-detached houses, set well back from the road and of individual yet complimentary appearance. The proposed four storey development at number 44 would be significantly taller than any other property in the road and the design makes no attempt to blend in with the architectural style of Queens Walk. 

One of the reasons that previous applications have been denied is that the design, layout and appearance are out of character. The developer has come back with a design that is even taller than the previous submission and makes even less attempt to reflect the suburban architecture of the area. How can this be acceptable? 

The Brent Local Plan that is being consulted on at the moment promotes a vision of "respecting the predominantly suburban low rise character of the area" The current Core strategy states even more strongly that one of the aims is "to protect and enhance the suburban character of Brent and to protect it from inappropriate development." 

Queens Walk has a distinctive suburban character. The building is totally out of character with the rest of Queens Walk and is in fact an ugly building. Whatever is put on this plot will be there for a considerable length of time. Surely, we should be improving the environment with buildings that enhance the surrounding area, not buildings that will spoil it?