Suggestions for flood mitigation measures in South Kilburn in the face of over-development

 An attempt at an Underground style map of London's 'lost rivers' and sewers (Heritage Magazine)

A follow-up post to  David Walton’s 'After the July floods urgent action needed on the depleted flood defences of South Kilburn as densification continues'. Proposed here are some sustainable environmental actions for Brent Master Developer to apply to its large South Kilburn site.

Brent as the South Kilburn Master Developer relentlessly prepares building designs, complete with planning permissions,  gift wrapped for hard to trace private enclosure, for freehold buyers/ builders on publicly owned existing South Kilburn flood defences.  All this amidst existing publicly owned social housing. Surely it constitutes major government intervention in the markets. the direct opposite of what government claims it stands for?

 

What makes off-shored private equity so worthy of being made this special case?

 

On the South Kilburn floodplain, government has designated a very large site/ growth area/ tall building zone; with 'site allocations’, Brent designed with planning permissions already in place ready for sale to private developers. The key for South Kilburn residents’ human rights, safety and future wellbeing must be that the River Westbourne and its tributaries existence should no longer be ignored by government.  Decision makers are frantically trading proposed new building site allocations with planning permissions in this flood plain zone. A third of England's flood defences are in private hands, but what about the two thirds which are in public hands and under government guardianship?

 

The deliberate denial of obvious flood risk, when comprehensive natural flood defences were designed and were protectively already in place (the estate’s original housing in designed flood protection park land), is an apocalyptic 'cancel- for- market' strategic device not used before in London. And not unlike using inflammable materials to cheaply build new homes or attempting to allow a deadly virus with no vaccine or cure to rip through society for herd immunity, this human exploitation scandal also deserves an emergency re-think, if all buildings in this water world area of London both old and new are not to be, by this environment cancel sleight of hand rendered  'sick buildings' by year 2041.

 

All South Kilburn natural flood defences which have survived this brutal public flood defence's land transfer to the market must in 2021 be strongly protected, highly valued and CIL upgraded as recreation and natural water store public spaces. While flood defences already been destroyed and replaced by new 'sick building private enclosures',  CIL funded replacements nearby must be installed in a new spirit of  real world UK climate emergency action. And why not restore residents on a partnership board for South Kilburn's very large site to steer and oversee the 35+ new 'sites' towards 2041?  The age of highly lucrative ignoring of environmental concerns and residents’ total exclusion to enable  'smooth process', clearly needs to end given the emergency situation which has become all too apparent to everyone living here. You walk past new blocks and smell the damp!

 

A basic principle for the large South Kilburn site, given its extensive flooding history and ever rising floodplain water table, should be that water is retained safely on site and that roads are no longer designed to function as sewage canals bringing ever more water down from Camden and St John's Wood and then exporting that excess on to parts of Maida Vale from South Kilburn land.

 

Living roof gardens, water butts and genuine estate wide active growing initiatives should be urgent policy for all developments (old and new) - the principle being to control water before it overloads London's crumbling Victorian drainage system from this mega density 36,000 new town called South Kilburn ‘Colony’. In Costa Rica a pioneering Earthshot winning project pays local citizens to restore natural ecosystems and has led to incredible levels of environmental protection and awareness. Why is this considered impossible in South Kilburn’s very large site development?

 

 The River Westbourne flows above Sloane Square station

 

1. This 'very large site' of clearances/ new builds ongoing since 2005 is mainly car-free housing given that two underground stations and a rail station are located in this zone. Instead of increasing adopted roads (sewage flood canals) in grids (the current hardscape in Brent’s rigid plan)- perhaps generous scale green, plant growing, active travel routes is the progressive and climate response and the  best way to develop movement and to link this with protecting and improving the plan that currently neglects surviving South Kilburn flood defence parkland?

 

All Brent highways land in South Kilburn tall building zone's 45 hectares can be re-purposed as flood defence active travel, plant growing ,widened green corridors.

 

As well as this being good for Brent taxpayer's long-term, just look at the 'sick buildings' scandals throughout South Kilburn, where for example it now costs more to repair buildings new built on a flood defence than it originally cost to first build them! A ‘flood risk always reduced from now on ‘approach as proposed here would be good for Carlton vale, good for Maida vale, good for Bayswater and good for Knightsbridge, where the River Westbourne and its tributaries flow.

 

2. Building on every South Kilburn space should be seriously questioned.

Where will extra water gathering on this floodplain go if not into people's homes (old and new) given the water always present near the surface? South Kilburn Land simply never dries-out!

 

Government should no longer environmentally cancel the River Westbourne and its tributaries as policy. COP 26 and Brent Councils own long declared 'Climate Emergency' need to become real (not zoned) for South Kilburn peoples’ lives and this estate of 'sites' all too obvious flood risk environment recognised. Note my neighbours’ living at ground level are flooded out and living in temporary accommodation along with many other local flood families. Dehumidifiers are still drying these flats out and it is November!

3. Opportunities to upgrade rather than total destroy South Kilburn's entire surviving rivers flood defence system also include:

a. Making more space for water. Higgins, a developer at Chippenham Gardens village, South Kilburn where the River Westbourne and the Malvern join is building 56 flats on top of this flood risk basin to Brent Master Developers’ design. Local people have managed to protect the historic flood defence local (reduced in size) park also located here (this based on veteran trees being preserved). However, Brent remains rigidly opposed to improving the flood defence 'pond' potential of this green space by expanding its size, scale, space, volume and depth, by re-purposing three adjacent parking bays and then squaring this off as replacement for flood defence land lost to the new Higgins development.

Plenty of children live in flats above and in basements below, the 50 plus Victorian shops of Chippenham Gardens local centre without gardens or balconies. As it currently stands this green space flood defence will be considerably reduced in size by Brent’s over-building ( so no play equipment space anymore) and will also be design ineffective in its core purpose of protecting lives and homes in this densely populated key local centre (where 11 routes and 3+ rivers meet) from sewage flood major risk liability. Given July floods such disregard of this very specific flood defence improvement 2021 opportunity seems reckless and ill advised.

 

b. Give Local Green Space Designation to South Kilburn Public Open Space, Brent Kilburn’s only remaining park scale natural flood defence. This large park forms an excellent rain garden, pooling surface flood waters for a week then gradually absorbing them. Vital to public health and safety of this very large site and clearly should no longer be Brent 'banked' as surplus brownfield flood defence land for sale with Brent building designs/ planning permissions.

This 100+ veteran tree woodland space must be strong protected with a Local Green Space Designation policy by Brent being climate actioned  for 2021. (The grass cutting tractor could also leave 2 metre of space wild around all 100+ trees to better support the local ecosystem and increase flood waters soak-up speeds yet further).

c. The removal of the large roundabout park of 40 trees flood defence on Kilburn Park Road in 2008 which also used to retain, pond and absorb flood waters has as a result become sewage flooded with highly problematic sick buildings instead.

Westminster has a retirement home that has become a ‘development site' with green space opposite this Brent major flood defence loss. Tanked/sealed underground car parks (once pumped of rising flood plain ground water), mean that Westminster developers can send its entire future excessive water problem on and into Brent homes, particularly into a brand new high density housing scheme which Brent has recently purchased! This Westminster 'site' could work well as a new underground flood water storage defence instead. Veteran trees on this site also need protecting.

Beyond this, Westminster is also re-developing its Carlton Vale Estate NW6 high quality social housing- to become towers instead? This re-development will also have a catastrophic effect on Brent's floodplain downstream. especially if the River Westbourne and tributaries remain ignored by all key decision makers as is the case in 2021.

Brent should challenge Westminster on these all too obvious sewage flood liabilities being adversely across borough boundary grown. The National Planning Policy Framework (section 14. clauses 152 to 169) form an excellent starting point.  While in a similar way Westminster should challenge Brent about the sewage flooding of Maida Vale Shirland Road directly downstream of South Kilburn’s large site with many rivers.  

d. If South Kilburn wasn't a developer colony where "development will look after itself" other solutions could be sought. In Slovakia I know a town adjacent to an historic flood risk river where the local council helps fund ground water pumps in all gardens to systematically lower the town's water table. It also encourages flood plain allotments on its land. Pumped ground water is used for gardens, allotments and for domestic toilets allowing substantial savings on water bills for locals as expensive tap water is not being needlessly wasted.

e. De-paving and permeable pavers should be required throughout South Kilburn very large site, with replacement of existing poor design new hard landscapes as a remedial measure. similar to the replacement of inflammable cladding and inflammable insulation retrofit that is already happening.

4. Given there will be five times the number of homes by 2041 on floodplain unilateral forced as South Kilburn - should the only new 'community infrastructure' in South Kilburn be tall building zone housing and a 'go elsewhere' zonal policy for all else even flood defences?

How can local estate people living a multiple excluded/ deprived estate zoned existence be expected as individuals to own this deliberate and knowing major government escalation of estate flood risk rooted in an unreasonable planned choice to cancel environmental underground rivers as environmental realities, for the brutal short term and soon to be permanent crisis economic gains? Why should City of Westminster residents own this growing cross borough boundary disaster either?

Add South Kilburn zone concentrated inflammable cladding, inflammable insulation, inflammable structure, build quality crisis and incremental withdrawal of health/ services-all points instead to a humane rethink of what "South Kilburn people getting what they deserve" should actually mean? The UN has in October 2021 declared the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment a human right and is to appoint an expert to monitor human rights in this context of climate emergency.

Is a 6,000 social housing estate set in flood defence parkland in year 2000 set to become a 36,000 new town towered on 45 public owned hectares by year 2041, with no flood defences retained? Or can this part of London do better regarding protecting human rights and reducing exploitations growing forwards?

Instead of the current land war on estate residents, a war on excessive flood plain water needs to be declared. A new urban construction model of flood management, strengthening ecological infrastructure and drainage systems is clearly essential in very large site South Kilburn zone given the catastrophic liabilities and consequences of creating a giant cross borough boundary sick buildings area (the present reckless direction of travel/ let the market decide process).

Cities like Tokyo and Singapore are planned and designed to handle one-in-100-year storms. Why is London captured in such pre-Enlightenment wilful regression regarding its own new building of very large site towns such as South Kilburn Colony towards 2041? Regents Park is an impressive part of the flood defences for Central London, while Kilburn Park (South Kilburn) flood defence for Central London has been totally cancelled for profit. Who is liable in 2021 and who will pay for what happens in the future and the damages caused?  

 

David Walton

 

FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn)

 

 

After the July floods urgent action needed on the depleted flood defences of South Kilburn as densification continues - Guest Post

 Cambridge Gardens, Kilburn July 2021 (Kilburn Times)

The Westbourne 1790

 

 The culverted Westbourne

Sign in the former Bird In Hand Pub, West End Lane
 

Guest blog by David Walton of FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn. The views expressed are those of the author.

 

The raw sewage river flooding 'major incident' of July 2021 in  South Kilburn and North Westminster, has meant that scores of residents are still housed in temporary accommodation, claims are being made and homes are being dried-out and repaired. Why did this happened? Who pays now and for future major floods?

Householders should beware that new experiments, regressions, crisis and disruptions  are being knowingly allowed in specific new city zonings. In starting to examine this 'major incident' covering Environment Agency policies, unsound growth area, tall buildings, very large site zonings, local flood authority responsibilities, planning law and emergency planning,  a complex picture of government and political indifference  emerges with baked-in environment/ climate denial in regard to the South Kilburn Estate version of 'build back better' where five times the number of homes it had in the year 2000 are being towered, forced and packed onto the River Westbourne's flood plain by year 2041.

The key strategic decision change seems to have been around 20 years ago when the Environment Agency chose, as does the Greater London Authority and Brent Council, that developers could totally deny the existence of the River Westbourne and its tributaries running underneath South Kilburn. Note that South Kilburn's river delta shape is still apparent today and also how early nineteenth century maps of South Kilburn show these rivers set in dairy farm fields, rivers which though in culverts for over 100 years now are natural and still very much here, live and ever present however much denied by government, agencies and politicians.

Taking the Environment Agencies lead and despite all too apparent on site water facts, for Brent Local Flood Authority the River Westbourne and its tributaries simply do not exist anymore (see clause 6.55 Brent Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2007). A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment process is meant in law to be a 'live' document yet seems to have been rather abandoned at Brent Civic Centre. How 'live' these rivers become in the major incident investigation of 2021 for South Kilburn 'very large site' will be public knowledge soon.

For example, of neighbouring local authorities: Kensington and Chelsea Strategic Flood Risk Assessment highlights the River Westbourne as its second major flood risk after the River Thames and marks the entire river course and tributaries from Hampstead Heath down to the Thames at Chelsea. Camden Strategic Flood Risk Assessment map helpfully indicates historic flooding of South Kilburn and maps how the south west of Camden drains down into South Kilburn vale in Brent. The City of Westminster Strategic Flood Risk Assessment map helpfully indicates historic flooding of Chippenham Gardens, South Kilburn located north of the Westminster boundary.

Since first being built on in the mid nineteenth century South Kilburn was notorious for its flood risk to homes and this kept the area unpopular with new houses being difficult to sell and poverty  concentrated there. This memory of urban trauma inspired progressive architects and planners post World War 2 to protect and transform this flood risk and literally bad land by building a new public owned estate of housing for 6,000 people, with social and health infrastructure set in an impressive recreational parkland of public owned flood defences where flood water could stand, pool and be absorbed by woodland environments naturally- a major London success much celebrated at that time.

 

The protection/ sustainability long-term problem for this massive public investment however was that all public owned estate community new diverse specific land uses were and remain unregistered at the UK Land Registry and later 1970's phase built large panel blocks were unmortgageable as they had catastrophic build defects baked-in.

 

From year 2010 the South Kilburn Growth Area with its green parkland public flood defences total removal policies and resultant ever increased flood risk being manufactured, led to a deal being struck with Westminster. The then City of Westminster Plan highlighted the South Kilburn Growth Area policy as being a major risk to its residents. 

 

So, to protect Maida Vale/ North Westminster in 2015 a £17.5 million flood defence mitigation scheme was built by Thames Water in the form of two large underground rivers flood sewage storage reservoirs sited within North Westminster. However, July 2021, one month’s worth of rain fell in one hour and the River Westbourne and its tributaries sewage waters rose above ground on to streets and flowed into ever reduced flood protections South Kilburn and then horror on into £17.5 million extra flood protection designed North Westminster homes as well! South Kilburn is become a sinking sink and is now proof positive that rivers sewage flood risk, crisis impact and misery can't be neatly corporate zoned in by design anymore.

 

Government responsibility finally has to be taken and the River Westbourne and its tributaries need to be recognised as existing acknowledged as a real problem again for politicians, public servants, shell company freeholders and developers. Often already off-shored and hard to trace new owners of South Kilburn enclosures/ towers built on former public owned flood defences already will certainly not accept responsibility for the massive costs involved in totally predictable and accelerating future major flood incidents. After all the Environment Agency ‘disappeared’ the River Westbourne and its tributaries in South Kilburn, so that is the current 'live' get out of jail free card/loophole still in place legally for South Kilburn developers. Instead help-to-buy and affordable rent families will have to pay government backed massive repairs loans and forced to pay increased charges. The parallels here with the ongoing inflammable building materials crisis facing leaseholders and tenants since the Grenfell fire disaster are remarkable - a predatory political forward strategy of government by debt in South Kilburn tall building zone? Build back inflammable, build back no health and social wellbeing infrastructure to be retained and build back wetter!

 

Granville New Homes was built on Granville Road Public Open Space which was designed  as a major South Kilburn flood defence and Higgins are building at Chippenham Gardens in 2021, taking part of another flood fence open space.

 

The positive news October 2021 is that half of South Kilburn’s public owned green flood defences still exist and function (hence not all of South Kilburn was flooded), even though in parallel they are also Brent 'site allocations' in the unsound as proposed Brent Local Plan towards 2041 (where flood defences are all to be denied and total destroyed). Strong legal protection of the remaining flood defence system for South Kilburn is still possible, while flood defences already market destroyed can and should be urgently restored to raise flood protection back to where it was back in year 2000 as the humane bare minimum. What is the massive Community Infrastructure Levy already raised inside South Kilburn from private developers for if not also to reduce rather than grow multiple deprivations for people living in this zoned experiment in mega population density?

More shocking pictures of the state of the Higgins built Granville New Homes

 

UPDATED SCANDAL: South Kilburn blocks so badly built for Brent Council that remediation exceeds the original purchase cost

A report going to Brent Council's Wellbeing and Scrutiny Committee next week LINK reveals that blocks built in 2009 on the South Kilburn Estate by Higgins suffer from water penetration and cladding, fire safety and window issues. The blocks are known together as Granville New Homes.

The problems are so bad that demolition was one of the options considered. Brent Housing Partnership purchased the properties for £17.1m and the estimated cost of remediation works is £18.5m.

The report summarises the issues:

First Wave Housing (FWH)  is one of the Council’s wholly owned housing companies. It is a registered provider with 326 properties. Of FWH’s 326 properties, 110 are located at Granville New Homes. These 110 properties comprise of 84 social rented properties, 25 intermediate rented properties, and one leaseholder. 

 

Granville New Homes is a residential development that completed in 2009. It was developed by the Council and Higgins. The Council’s Arms Length Management Organisation, Brent Housing Partnership (BHP), purchased the properties at a cost of £17.1m. This figure met the Council’s development costs and was funded via a loan from the Council. BHP also received 45 one bedroom market rented properties in order to cross subsidise the acquisition, as on its own, the purchase of Granville New Homes would not have been viable for BHP. Since 2009, the properties have been managed as part of BHP/now FWH’s portfolio. 

 

FWH commissioned a report from Ridge Consultants to investigate water penetration, cladding, fire safety and window issues at FWH’s Granville, Princess, and Canterbury blocks (otherwise known as Granville New Homes). Ridge have recommended that works be carried out at the blocks to remediate these issues. It is estimated that the cost of works will be £18.5m.

A report going to Cabinet on October 11th after Scrutiny has considered the issue set out the options that were rejected: 

The Ridge Report that was commissioned by the Council outlined the main problems:

The Ridge report stated that the issues identified are not easily repairable in a way which will offer a guaranteed and satisfactory solution. On this basis, the only available option is to replace the facades, roof coverings and balcony waterproofing systems. These works include:

· Removing and replacing all cladding (both cementitious and brick effect panel) with non-combustible A1 or A2 fire rated materials;
· Stripping external façades and removing all external doors and windows;
· Providing new external doors and windows within a new panelised cladding system;
· Replacing insulation; and
· Stripping roofs and providing new roof coverings. 3.9 Including consultancy services, the waking-watch, the fire alarm system and contingency allowances, the estimated total cost of remediation works is circa £18.5m (including VAT). This figure includes £2m of contingency costs. If the remediation is carried out as outlined, the estimated completion date is September 2023. At present these costs are not affordable for FWH. It should be noted that the £18.5m is an estimated value from Ridge; until works are tendered and completed the actual cost will not be known.

The Cabinet Report suggests the following complex  option to resolve the issue:

5.1 The recommended option is for FWH to dispose of the blocks to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and for the HRA to carry out remediation works as recommended in the Ridge report. There are nuances to this option in regards to how the transaction would be structured. These are detailed in section 6.

However, broadly, under this option:

 

· The transfer occurs at zero value as the blocks’ asset valuation of £12.5m is offset by the £15.4m of works required to the asset (the figure excludes VAT as this is reclaimable by the Council). The HRA as part of the Council will come
within the scope of public law principles. Therefore, it cannot act unlawfully or irrationally. Therefore, the HRA cannot pay a sum for the blocks.
· The HRA carries out the remediation works.
· The 84 social rented tenants would become secure Council tenants.
· The 25 intermediate rented tenants would be transferred to i4B under the recommended option; the HRA will recharge i4B for its proportion of the works.
· FWH’s loan for the blocks would be refinanced to a more affordable rate.
· As the transfer will formally be valued at zero value by the valuer no capital gains or SDLT costs are anticipated. As the transaction is a commercial transaction to support the ability of FWH to trade as a going concern, any tax
implications to the transfer are incidental and would be in accordance with General Anti avoidance Rules operated by HMRC. Tax advice from the Council’s tax advisors have confirmed this position.

 

5.2 The following assumptions have also been made:
· It is assumed the housing management function will be managed within existing staffing resources. There will be a reallocation of resource time and cost from FWH to the HRA to reflect the work associated with the transferred units.
· Rent inflation at 1.5% in line with CPI+1 and cost inflation at 2% per annum in line with Bank of England target rates.
· The cost assumptions in this report do not include estimates for decarbonisation works, as this is a known budget limitation across the sector.
· Further major works at £2,000 per property assumed from year 8 of the HRA Business Plan. 

 

5.3 This option balances the cost between FWH, i4B, the Council’s General Fund and the HRA. It also offers the minimum disruption to residents in the blocks by offering the most rapid solution to addressing the remediation works required.

Furthermore, it is acknowledged that this is a reasonable way to achieve appropriate levels of different types of housing tenure in the borough.

 

Higgins and Brent Council celebrating the start of the current Stonebridge scheme in December 2020 (first published on Brent Council & Higgins' websites)

 

The elephant in the room is of course Brent Council's partner in the development Higgins and what their responsibility is regarding these very expensive defects. Higgins, who appear to go under various names - Higgins Partnership, Higgins Homes, Higgins Group, seem to be a favoured partner of the Council with a £22m contract for 73 council homes in Stonebridge signed last August and another South Kilburn development at Chippenham Gardens.

 

I am sure councillors on the Scrutiny Committee will be keen to find out more about the partnership and its future.

 

UPDATE - Comment from Wembley Matters contributor Philip Grant

 

 First Wave Housing Ltd is the same company as Brent Housing Partnership Ltd - there was simply a change of name in 2017. It's details on the Companies House Beta website (Company No. 04533752) make for interesting reading.

The Chairman of the company appears to be Martin Smith (other details unknown), and other directors are Akintoye Durowoju (who appears to be a Chartered Surveyor and Brent Council employee), two senior Brent Officers, Phil Porter and Gail Tolley (although there is conflicting evidence about whether one or both have resigned or are still in post), and Councillor Saqib Butt (appointed in November 2020, after the previous councillor directors George Crane - to September 2020 - and James Denselow - Sept. to November 2020 - had both resigned).

The most recent accounts submitted are for the year to 31 March 2020. These include a £1.1m increase in the value of its properties, based on valuations by Jones Lang LaSalle. It will be interesting to see what their valuation is at 31 March 2021!

The balance sheet shows net assets of around £26.7m, but this includes a revaluation reserve of £15.5m. The cash flow (profit or loss) for the year showed a deficit of £264k.

There were loans of £36.8m from Brent Council, and the accounts were prepared on a going concern basis, as 'The Council has confirmed, in writing, of its intention for FWH to remain as a going concern for at least twelve months from the date of approval of the annual report and financial statements.' The financial statements were approved on 29 September 2020!

With the loss of rental income when a third of its properties are passed to Brent Council (and i4B), and the value of its Granville New Homes properties written down to NIL, but still with interest to pay on the loan from the Council to purchase those homes in 2009, there must be some doubt over whether First Wave Housing Ltd can continue as a going concern.

 

 First Wave Housing Ltd outstanding £17.8m loan on Granville New Homes from the Companies House Charges Register

In South Kilburn we're used to Council neglect

 

 

Guest post by Pete Firmin

 

Living in an area which Brent Council and HS2 have decided to turn into a building site for decades, we are used to the concerns of residents being ignored, to the point where hardly anyone can be bothered to complain about building work taking place outside "permitted" hours, contractors vehicles being parked on the pavement for hours and parking spaces suddenly being taken over by portakabins, because nothing ever happens.

The latest show of how little Brent Council cares is shown by its attitude to flood damage. I previously wrote LINK about the difficulty of getting advice from Brent Council when flooding was happening. Water came back out of the drains with such force that it forced bricks out of the roadway. When Brent Council eventually looked at it late that evening they decided to do nothing. However, the next day they did send a Wates team to work on the area. They laid some of the bricks back, put some cement and sand over them and put plastic barriers around the affected areas. 

 

 

Problem? No-one has been back since. Over 3 weeks have passed, the barriers have fallen, the sand has been spread around, but no further work has been done. The piles of bricks in these photos are bricks which still need to be replaced in the roadway.

Councillors have been alerted, Brent Council has been chased, nothing. But then its only South Kilburn.

Pete Firmin, chair, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury TRA

Millennium Business Centre application deferred. South Kilburn vent approved.

 Brent Planning Committee last night deferred a decision on a planning application for a new warehouse building at the rear of the Millennium Business Centre site in Humber Road NW2.

Alison Hopkins representing local people described the Centre as 'bad neighbours' and shared a number of examples of their detrimental impact on the area and fears that the new facility would worsen the situation. 

A speaker from Henfield who presently run a warehouse on the site opposed the application and described the state of the premises and the problems of parking and the blocking of fire exits if the plans went ahead. He thought it might be better to demolish the lot and rebuild or re-develop.

The agent for Millennium Business Centre said that they recognised that the 'type of tenant'  they'd had was 'not conducive' to the area and that they had 'got rid of them.' He accused Henfield of wanting to purchase the site themselves.

Challenged on the traffic survey Brent Highways said that it had been conducted before the introduction of LTNs and to some incredulou social media comments suggested that overall traffic on Humber Road would be reduced.

It was revealed that the applicant had not submitted a compliant D012 Fire Report and that this was still required.  Cllr Dixon was not reassured that traffic issues that had led to previous applications being rejected had been addressed and was concerned that vehicles would get stuck in the narrow road. The Highways officer remarked that the road was 'not ideal' for an industrial site but 'It is what it is.'

His words did not appear to persuade councillors who rejected the application with only two for the application. Initially they were ready to reject it outright but were persuaded by their chair, Cllr Kelcher, and intervention by officers , who cautioned againt going against officers; recommendation, to defer the decision to allow the applicants to come back with further information. Cllr Dixon was initially not happy to defer rather than reject.

Councillors cited traffic generation, highway safety, HGV problems, parking problems, inmpact on the wider local road network and lack of information as reasons to defer. In  addition there was the lack of a compliant Fire Report.  

The chair suggested a site visit and the Highways officer said he would request a Travel Plan from the applicant.

The HS2 South Kilburn vent application was dealt with quickly as there was little the Committee could do about it. A suggested that the block should have green growing walls was not possible because the vent had a slatted exterior. HS2 made much of the triangle of green space they were providing between the site and St Mary's Primary School and the 'learning opportunities' it would offer pupils. They would offer road safety and skills training to the school to ensure safety during construction. A Schedule 17 lorry route would be in place during construction and traffic, once the vent was in operation, would be minimal.

HS2 vent next to South Kilburn primary school at Planning Committee tomorrow but its powers are limited

 

The development site outlined in red, school grounds in green and Canterbury House and Carlton House

A battle started about 6 years ago when Brent Council asked HS2 to site a proposed vent site for the high speed rail running underground at this point at a site next to a primary school in South Kilburn rather than one adjacent to Queens Park station.

In a  message to constituents, March 23^rd 2016,  Tulip Siddiq MP said:

Today in Parliament, I voted against the High Speed Rail 2 (HS2) Bill that will devastate areas of Camden and Brent.

I have campaigned against HS2 for the past seven years as I believe it is an ill-thought out scheme that will lead to bedlam on our roads, disruption to the education of school children and a compromised local environment. (my emphasis)

Further, these plans will cost taxpayers billions of pounds. I believe this money could instead be spent on projects that will actually bring real improvements to living standards across the country.

Having spoken against this Bill at the Select Committee, and again in today’s debate, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank residents who engaged with the lengthy and costly petition process. Though the Bill received support from across Parliament, it is your voice that will force HS2 to fulfil its assurances to compensate and mitigate the worst of the impacts.

My first priority as the MP for Hampstead and Kilburn is to protect residents in Camden and Brent. Therefore, I am proud to have voted against High Speed Rail 2 today in Parliament.

The scheme have now been granted permission by parliament, but I will keep fighting for mitigation for constituents.

Of course HS2 has gone ahead costing billions of pounds more than first suggested but for South Kilburn residents the question is still whether on South Kilburn the proposed vent will 'lead to bedlam on our roads, disruption to the education of school children and a compromised local environment.'

Unfortunately as officers note the legislation gives HS2 enormous powers and limits that of the Planning Committee:

The above mentioned approvals have been carefully defined to provide an appropriate level of local planning control over the works while not unduly delaying or adding cost to the project. As such the legislation states that planning authorities should not through the exercise of the Schedule seek to revisit matters settled through the parliamentary process, seek to extend or alter the scope of the project, modify or replicate controls already in place, either specific to HS2 Phase One such as the EnvironmentalMinimum Requirements, or existing legislation such as the Control of Pollution Act or the regulatory requirements that apply to railways.

 

For residents the immediate issue will be noise from the site and associated vehicle movements with extensive ground works required. These issues are not the subject of the report:

Mitigation includes a small strip of grass to be made available to St Mary's Primary School, walls and fencing around the perimeter of the site and  the widening of the cross-over with Canterbury Road from 3 metres to 6 metres.

There is only one objection recorded on the Brent Council Planning Portal froma resident of Canterbury House:

The current design is radically different from the original proposal. There are more buildings and the design height is much greater; the original proposal included the extraction fans installed underground but the revised plans are far more intrusive on residents neighbouring the development. The current proposed height of the headhouse building will have a major impact on natural light and views available to the properties at the rear of Canterbury House. Residents of Canterbury House bought their properties with knowledge of the original plans but there are deep concerns that the revised plans could significantly deter potential future buyers. If the first plan to construct the vents at Queens Park was withdrawn due to resident objections, why has the design at Canterbury Works revised in such a way that the impact on nearby residents will be significant and possibly more so than what was proposed at Queens Park. 

Planning officers say:

The committee report states at paragraph 16 that there would be no breach of the 30 degree rule when considered in relation to Canterbury Terrace. However, there would be a slight breach of the 30-degree rule from two of the ground floor units due to the greater height of the ventilation stacks which sit adjacent these homes. However, given the separation distance (approximately 18 m) and the fact that a daylight/sunlight report has been submitted to demonstrate that there would be no harmful loss of light, the breach is considered acceptable in this instance. It is also important to note that the Design and Access Statement confirms that the vertical ventilation stacks have been reduced in size to the minimum required in both plan dimensions and height. Therefore when having regard to the fact that the LPA are required to given consideration to whether the works 'ought to or could reasonably' be modified to protect local amenity, given the information provided the arrangement is considered acceptable.

A supplementary report responds to a late comment:

Since the publication of the agenda one further comment has been received in relation to the application. This comment raises concerns about a lack of mitigation or compensation for protecting or safeguarding South Kilburn's residents' quality of life. It also makes reference to the new tree planting HS2 are doing in the Chilterns and the lack of any similar mitigation for Brent. The potential impacts on surrounding properties is discussed within the committee report.

Firstly, it is important to note that HS2 works in South Kilburn and the Chilterns are very different. It is also important to note that the character of the areas differ greatly with South Kilburn being a far more urban environment. As this is not a planning application, the Local Planning Authority are unable to seek obligations to secure funding for tree planting in the area.

However, whilst the committee report focuses on the works for approval, the submission does include a number of 'For information' drawings to show future intentions of the site. As stated in the committee report a follow up application for 'Bringing into use' is required to be submitted, whereby HS2 are required to demonstrate that the impact of the development has been mitigated as far as possible. This is expected to include a detailed landscaping and tree planting scheme on site and the provision of a 'pocket park' to provide educational opportunities to neighbouring St Mary's PrimarySchool. However, it important to note that these works are not for approval under this application.