Only 3 days left to comment on new boxing club building in King Edward VII Park, Wembley

 

Comments on th new building (above)  to replace the pavilion in King Edward VII Park in Wembley closes on December 31st 2023 although comments received after that date may be considered providing a decision had not already been made.

The planning application comes after a previous application that had proposed refurbishment of the current building (below) . This is now considered not viable due to the poor state of the building:

It should be noted that the Site has an extant planning permission (ref. 22/2526) to refurbish and extend the current pavilion.

However, further investigation has since been undertaken which has uncovered that the building is not structurally capable of facilitating the approved development. Likewise, further feasibility work has been undertaken which established that a far better facility can be provided by instead progressing with a redevelopment option.

The proposed new building is a much bigger footprint than the current building 643square metres compared to 285 square metres and so takes up more of the park. The removal of four trees is proposed.

The application comes from  the Stonebridge Boxing Club previously housed in a building in Wembley High Road  and being redeveloped by Regal. The Club seems to have 'most favoured status' as Regal also ear-marked a 3 storey building at the controversial Wembley Point development for them. Details below:

The Club in a Facebook entry about its temporary premises  that thanks Muhammed Butt, Brent Council leader, seems to expect a move to the park - or perhaps it is going to have two locations?

The Planning and Design Statement states:

Stonebridge Boxing Club was established as a charity in July 2010 and has in excess of 650 members. It is currently located in Fairgate House on Wembley High Road, which has planning permission for redevelopment, and therefore there is a need for a new facility.

 

Accordingly, the proposal is to demolish the existing dilapidated building located in King Edward 7th Park and replace it with a modern, high quality boxing club, which includes gym and sporting facilities, physio, ancillary office space, toilet and change facilities, and a café.

 

It should be noted that the Site has an extant planning permission (ref. 22/2526) to refurbish and extend the current pavilion.

 

However, further investigation has since been undertaken which has uncovered that the building is not structurally capable of facilitating the approved development. Likewise, further feasibility work has been undertaken which established that a far better facility can be provided by instead progressing with a redevelopment option. This is explained in greater detail within this submission.

 

Through considered design development and consultation with London Borough of Brent  the proposals result in the following key public benefits, many of which are either in-line with or in excess of those resulting from the extant permission:

 

• Providing a new, modern boxing facility which will serve the local community;

• Demolishing an unused building and replacing it with a useable recreational facility at the heart of the community that will animate King Edward 7th park and improve safety within it;

• A replacement building of a much higher architectural quality, which enhances the setting of the locally listed park within which it is located, according with Paragraph 197 of the NPPF;

• Landscape improvements and habitat improvements;

• A car free development with cycle parking spaces provided in excess of policy requirements, supporting aspirations for providing sustainable transport solutions in the area;

• A building that provides improved energy efficiency and sustainability to the existing pavilion; and

• Both the construction and operational stages of the development will provide additional employment and investment in the local area.

The architectural quality of the new building has been questioned by local residents who have seen the illustration above and suggest it looks like a temporary metal marque. Is it appropriate for an Edwardian heritage asset:

King Edward VII Park is a locally listed park (a non-designated heritage asset). It was formerly part of Read's Farm and was purchased from Edward Spencer Churchill by Wembley UDC in 1913 and laid out as a public park in memory of the late king and also in compensation for the loss of Wembley Park as public open space. The park was opened on 4 July 1914, reputedly by Queen Alexandra. The park had a lodge, a rustic bandstand and picturesque refreshment pavilion; a children's gymnasium with swings, a giant slide and see-saws, a shallow pond and a drinking fountain. There were facilities for tennis and bowling, and the lower part was laid out for cricket and hockey, separated by a belt of elms. There were gravelled walks and seating, formal planting and numerous beds with shrubs and trees.

At present there is only one comment on the Brent Planning Portal. It refers to practical problems of having a building in the middle of the park with associated access problems that emerged when the previous application was considered LINK:

I am writing to express my objection to this proposal. Not only are we losing valuable green space, but the chosen boxing location appears inadequate and unsuitable.

1. How can people be expected to attend in a location that lacks proper lighting?
2. What measures are in place for parking management?
3. The loss of trees is concerning, especially considering the ongoing reduction of trees in the park. It seems counterintuitive to propose further tree removal.

I fail to understand the rationale behind allowing the establishment of a facility in a location unfit for use and seemingly inappropriate. The current choice appears to be a misguided decision, leading to a loss of space. Additionally, it raises questions about safety, given the inadequate lighting, and the potential risk to people-especially considering they have another location pending approval. Building a large gym in the middle of the park, which is not safe at night, puts more people at risk. Have we forgotten about the previous murder in the park.

Full details on the Brent website HERE

 

 

 

Student accommodation wins narrowly over local housing need at Brent Planning Committee

 The representations made by Cllr Ihtesham Afzal, (Wembley Hilll ward), set the context for consideration of the Wembley High Road  planning application for two student blocks, together housing 639 students,  at Wednesday's Planning Committee. Another student block at Fairgate House, adjacent to the site, of 349 beds, 35% affordable,  has already been consented. The blocks  of 20 and 22 storeys are wedged between Wembley High Road and the Chiltern railway line.

Cllr Afzal questioned why student accommodation when there was a crying need for housing  for the thousands of people on Brent's housing list.  I have embedded the video of the discussion that resulted above as it rehearses many of the arguments on both sides of the debate and important for future applications.

A particularly controversial aspect of the proposal was that unlike Fairgate House, the scheme proposed no affordable student housing at all, based on a viability assessment. 

The developer, Regal London, claimed exceptional reasons for the lack of affordable accommodation and offered £3.95m for affordable housing elsewhere as well as  £70k towards local parks.

Some councillors were perplexed by the developer's claim that there are 5 higher education institutions in the borough with a total of 4,695 students that needed accommodation and 37 higher education institutions within a convenient 45 minute journey with a total of 176,100 students. Why was Brent expected to take more than its fair share of students?

The Committee chair, Cllr Matt Kelcher, suggested that students may want purpose-built accommodation in their first year but later, having made friends, they wanted to move together into shared private rental.  The developer argued the opposite - that building such accommodation would mean that students would move in from privately rented accommodation freeing it up for families.

There was also concern about ther loss of light to neighbouring new developments as well as to the flats above the shops on Wembley High Road. and the loss of trees on what was once (and still is on the other side of the railway) a green corridor along the embankment.

Councillors were told that replacement trees (planting and maintenance) cost an average of £2,500 per tree. 58 trees woudl be lost and 41 new trees planted. The latter were of superior quality councillors were told.

Curiously, some of the councillors who had asked the most incisive questions voted for the scheme, including the Chair, Matt Kelcher, and the Vice Chair, Saqib Butt (the Council leader's brother) LINK. I leave it to readers to watch the video and see if the questions they had raised had been adequately answered.

Four councillors voted in favour of the scheme and three against. 

Those voting against an application are required to give their reasons:

Cllr Chappell - no affordable student application provided and did not agree that there were exceptional reasons for this.

Cllr Dixon - the site allocation as student accommodation was problematic, disagreed that there were exceptional circumstances to justify lack of affordable accommodation. The £3.95m to be provided towards provision of affordable housing elsewhere was not sufficient - should be renegotiated. Doesn't meet some of Brent's standards.

Cllr Maurice - site would be better off as flats as Brent has such a shortage of housing and the site could be better utilised: 'I am not happy with the whole thing'.

 

 

The proposal now has to be considered at Stage 2 by the London Mayor. No comments so far. LINK

If you care about Wembley Central get along to this exhibition on Saturday and make your views known

 

Fairgate House today

 

 

The building that will replace it

 

EXHIBITION SATURDAY APRIL 9th 10AM-1PM

 

 4TH FLOOR, UJIMA HOUSE

388 HIGH ROAD, HA9 6AR

 

A handful of locals attended the first exhibition of the proposals for the redevelopment of Fairgate House and Pitman House in High Road, Wembley . In the unlikely surroundings of Stonebridge Boxing Club (punchbags may come in  handy) in Ujima House, a few easels displayed panels outlining the proposals that are still at an early stage.

 

There have been pre-application meetings between the developer Regal  and Brent planners but the PR agency insisted that there was still much to play for.

They encountered a sceptical audience who had seen their area transformed by concrete blocks with little benefit to long-term residents. Residents were particularly concerned that early promise of community facilities at the 'Twin Towers' on the Chesterfield House site, now marketed as 'Uncle' did not come to fruition and the Bowling Club pavilion in King Eddie's park is not available to the community. 'How can you build a community when there is nowhere for the community to meet?'

 

 

 

The agency said that this was a need that they could convery to Regal but there were doubts over the potential for shared student-community. The company that took managment of the building of the building may not be sympathetic even if the developer was. 

Roof terrace

 

Other developers' promises of accessible outdoor space had come to nothing with the spaces provided scrappy, litter strewn and inaccessible to the public.  Would the roof garden survive into the final stages of planning?

 

Clearly the current Fairgate House has little or no architectural merit but will it's replacement really make most of the opportunity offered by its demolition?

 

 Distribution of student accommodation

 

Residents also questioned the building's function as student accommodation asking what the area offered to students compared with the Quintain development in Wembley Park.  The agency was unable to provide evidence  there and then of the demand for such accommodation in Wembley Central but said that the developer must have done some research to establish the viability of the proposal.  There was scepticism over the ease of student travel into central London given the poor quality of service and frequency of the ageing Bakerloo line compared with the Jubilee.

 

The  context of the development is important as it is part of an 'intensification corridor 'and close to the the 'tall building zones' designated in Brent's new Local Plan. There is a continuous ribbon of new development starting at the massive Quintain, Wembley Park,  site reaching down to Wembley Stadium station and along High Road to the Twin Towers with additional buildings  further along around Wembley Central station. Then Ealing Road leads to the very dense high rise developments in Alperton.

Any opposition gains are likely to be limited to tweaks in plans rather than outright rejection.

The large bulky yellow building in the above image is to be built on the former Copland school site and will face the proposed Fairgate House development. Together the two sides of the High Road will present a sort of concrete canyon with less distance between the two sides of the road than you find on a European boulevard.

I pointed out at the exhibition the 3 storey buildings that line the High Road on the left side of the picture and wondered how  long they would survive. As you can see the blue high rises being built next to the Chiltern railway line tower over the low rise on that side of the road.

This image would make more sense if you could also see the heights of the buildings on the  west side of the High Road.

 

What was obvious from our vantage on the 4th Floor of Ujima House was the loss of vegetation on the  High Road side of the Chiltern Line compared with the suburban side. The High Road side has lost much of what was a 'green corridor' and more is likely to go with the developments in the pipeline despite promises of a 'linear park'.

 

 Between the railway and High Road

The view across to the other side of the railway line, trees and shrubs still intact on the bank

 

Opposite Ujima and Fairgate House is the huge ex-Copland School site where the yellow building in the above 'Emerging Context' illustration will be built - a prime example of densification along with the nearby Brent House development.

The ex-Copland School site

 

On leaving the area I was struck by two of the children's paintings that adorn the green hoarding around the Copland site.

 

They rather neatly sum up the different views of Wembley's future.

 

 

Exhibition on proposed development of 390-406 High Road Wembley Thursday 7th April and Saturday 9th April

The transformation of Wembley High Road on the east side is due to continue with this development by Regal London.  Details will be available at the exhibition but it appears to add to the tall buildings on either side of this main route from Wembley Triangle up to the 'Twin Towers' at the junction with Park Lane.

 

Residents will be concerned about the over-shadowing of current low-rise properties as well as the overall densification of the area