Guest
blog by Philip Grant, in a personal capacity.
If you have read my guest blogs on Brent Council’s
planning application 20/0345, you may have missed two recent comments. I will
set these out below, for ease of reference, as well as drawing attention to
some interesting flaws in the “public benefits” of the proposals (supposed to
justify demolition), that have emerged from recent “consultee comments” I have
now seen.
1.The Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, with 2 Morland
Gardens beyond, from the top of Hillside.
FOR INFORMATION:
I have now received a copy of the consultee
comments by Brent's Principal Heritage Officer, on the Heritage Impact
Assessment and other evidence submitted since his original comments in April
2020.
I can imagine that he was under pressure from
those at the Council promoting this application to confirm the HIA assessment
that 1 Morland Gardens is a heritage asset of "low significance".
He has resisted reducing the building's score
from 8 out of 12 (although from his reference's to the architect, H.E. Kendall
Jnr., I suspect he would have liked to increase the architecture score to 3 out
of 3, but has also resisted doing that). Despite keeping the same score, he has
changed his original significance description from "high" to
"medium".
Here are the Principal Heritage Officer's
comments of 29 July 2020 on significance:
'1 Morland Gardens is a Locally Listed Building
[a non-designated heritage asset] but not in a conservation area nor a
statutory listed building. The local list description confirms and sets out its
significance. It has a significance score of 8 out of 12. This actually places
the building at ‘medium’ significance rather than of high significance as I
stated in my initial advice.
National Planning Guidance, Historic environment,
paragraph 8 states that an ‘Analysis of relevant information can generate a
clear understanding of the affected asset, the heritage interests represented
in it, and their relative importance.’ I have therefore considered the Heritage
Impact Assessment (HIA) report by Lichfields submitted by the applicants and
comments made by other consultees such as the Victorian Society and those with
a special interest. I have thus taken into account the available evidence and
necessary expertise [National Planning Policy Framework para.190].
The HIA asserts that ‘according to Brent’s local
listing criteria the following score is more appropriate to the building: 6/12,
due to the authenticity of the building being affected by its 20th century
alteration and extension and the lack of its surviving historic context.’ It
has been given ‘low significance’. I have looked closely at the reasoning and I
do not share the view on the determination that was made.
I am persuaded by Anthony Geraghty MA PhD,
Professor of the History of Architecture at the University of York. He rates
Henry Edward Kendall Jr. as ‘an architect of considerable importance whose
nineteenth century villa characterises work by an architect of genuine and lasting
significance.’ This is supported by the Victorian Society who make the point
that the Stonebridge Park Estate was a development by a Victorian ‘architect of
note’ and a ‘good
surviving example of a key aspect of Kendall's
small, domestic works’.
It is clear to me that 1 Morland Gardens should
be considered a local heritage asset of special interest. There are only 2 of
this belvedere towered design left in Brent. There are many examples of
Italianate origin seen in the Borough (throughout the South Kilburn
Conservation Area, for example) but these are by speculative builders and not
by a significant architect like Kendall.
With this in mind, I am firmly of the view that
the building is of ‘medium’ significance with a score of 8 out of 12 as none of
the evidence provided introduces anything much new.'
2.Elevation drawing from the plans submitted in February
2020.
FOR INFORMATION:
This morning I
received (from "The Office of the Leader") a letter from Amar Dave
(Strategic Director, Regeneration and Environment), in reply to my open email
of 19 July, on behalf of Brent Council as applicant in this case (20/0345). He
replied to all the points I had raised, and I will summarise his long letter
below.
He said that the
architectural and historic significance of the Victorian villa had been
understood at an early stage of the planning process, saying: 'The assessment
was reviewed by planners following submission and we were informed that it was
a very thorough assessment of the condition of the historic building.' - My
response to this would be that if their assessment had demonstrated a proper
understanding of the building's significance, they would not have been asked to
provide one, several months after their original application was submitted!
He did not agree my
assertion that 65 homes, a new education centre and affordable workspace was an
overdevelopment of this small site, saying: 'Further, the results of our option
appraisal and public consultation within the locality showed significant need
for these facilities in Stonebridge.'
In response to my
assertion that the "low significance" assessment was false, he said:
'This report provided an independent assessment of the significance of the
locally listed building.' He also said: 'The validity of the HIA has been
confirmed by the Planning Officers.' - My response would be that, despite what
the Planning officers might have said, the Council's Principal Heritage Officer
has rejected the HIA's claim that the significance score should be reduced from
8 out of 12 to only 6 out of 12.
In response to my
question of whether the Officers and councillors proposing this scheme 'really
intend to use the HIA, seeking to deceive Brent’s planning committee into
approving a planning application which they should really reject?’ Mr Dave has
said: 'The HIA is part of the suite of planning documents to be assessed by
officers, and considered by the Planning Committee. This will include in the
report the assessment of the Council’s own Principal Heritage Officer. The
Committee will be able to come to their own judgement on the significance of
the building, and will balance this against all other aspects of the scheme.'
He has also said: 'We
do not accept your assertion that a decision as either landowner, or as a
planning authority, to agree this scheme would put "every other heritage
asset in Brent at risk of demolition".'
The Council does not
intend to withdraw its planning application.
3.Revised ground floor plan for 1 Morland Gardens, submitted
June 2020.
I wrote in my Brent Relents! blog recently that the Council had agreed to
change its practice of not making “consultee comments” on planning applications
publicly available on its website. Those comments can be really valuable in
identifying weaknesses in applications that affect you, and it’s not only the
Heritage Officer’s comments that are of interest on this application.
Transport and access: The original plans included a loading bay, for
deliveries and refuse collection, as a lay-by on Hillside, but both TfL and the
Council’s Transportation Unit said this was unacceptable, because of the danger
it would cause to pedestrians. The loading bay has now been moved to the end of
Morland Gardens (a cul-de-sac), taking a bite out of the “Arrival Garden” at
the entrance to the new adult education college. More of that garden’s paved
area has been lost because the GLA objected to the lack of visitor cycle
parking.
The loading bay will be the only place where
deliveries can be made to the entire proposed development, and is reached along
a minor side road with parking spaces on both sides. The latest comments from
the Transportation Unit still have concerns about access and servicing of the
building. ‘This servicing area will be convenient for the relocated refuse
store and the college, but less so for the lower ground floor workspace’. The
answer suggested is that: ‘… to ensure the loading area does not become
congested, a Delivery and Servicing Management Plan is sought as a condition of
any approval.’
That suggested plan (‘to be approved before the
building is occupied’) just covers the college and the affordable workspace on
the lower floors. What about deliveries to the 65 homes on the upper floors?
Given experience during the Covid-19 lockdown, and the growing switch to online
shopping, the people living in those homes are likely to need many deliveries
as well. It is 50 metres from the loading bay to the entrance door for the tall
block of flats, and over 100 metres to the entrance of the homes further down
Hillside. Each trip by a delivery driver will take a long time, so where will
the other delivery vans or lorries park while waiting for their turn? And can
you imagine the nightmare when 65 families are moving into their new homes?
One of the factors causing more deliveries will be
that the new homes will be “car free” – no parking spaces (except for disabled)
and no permits allowed for street parking. In reality, many residents will have
cars (the planning estimate is around 58, based on data for the number and mix
of units). What is the answer to this problem? A familiar one to those who have
seen previous planning cases – a Section 106 agreement for ‘a financial
contribution of £32,500 towards the introduction of a year-round Controlled
Parking Zone in the vicinity of the site’!
4.A view of the site - taken from a Google maps 3D satellite
image.
Environmental: If
you compare the “Google” view with the new ground floor plan above, you will
see that the proposed new building comes much closer to Brentfield Road and
Hillside than the existing building. The 1994 Harlesden City Challenge garden
(which Brent’s application describes as neglected – well, whose fault is
that!), and the wide pavement area behind it will be built over, with a much
smaller “Arrival Garden” in front of the college entrance instead. In spite of
this, the Council’s proposals are claimed to provide ‘improved public realm’.
The latest Stage 1 comments from the GLA point out
that the new plans only deliver an “Urban Greening Factor” of 0.2, which falls
well short of the target of 0.4, saying: ‘The applicant should therefore seek
to improve the quantity and quality of urban greening across the site.’ They
also point to the continuing lack of an ecological statement, outlining the
impact of the development on different species, and measures to provide a
biodiversity gain, in line with London and National planning policies.
Air quality also has a “red flag” against it in the
GLA’s comments. 1 Morland Gardens is in an Air Quality Management Area, next to
one of the poorest air quality sites in Brent, at the junction of Hillside and Brentfield
Road. The ’baseline local air quality’ is poor. The development needs to
deliver an Air Quality Neutral assessment for both building and transport
emissions, and the GLA are not satisfied that it does. It is already clear from
the application’s own assessment that the Nitrogen Dioxide levels would be too
high to allow windows to be opened on the ground floor (college) and the next
two floors (of homes) above!
Although the plans will provide a one metre wider pavement
along Hillside, instead of a low wall then open space, the pavement will be
flanked by the building itself (see elevation drawing above). Fumes from the
passing traffic will be trapped, and instead of the curving wall and wide
pavement turning into Morland Gardens, pedestrians (including students arriving
on the No. 18 bus to the Hillside Hub stop) will need to walk up to within 5
metres of the busy junction.
Water: Thames
Water have pointed out that the revised plans submitted do nothing to answer
objections to the proposals which they made in March. ‘Thames Water has
identified an inability of the existing SURFACE WATER infrastructure to
accommodate the needs of this development proposal.’ In other words, the
increased rainwater run-off would be too much for the local drains, and if no
action is taken to address this, a heavy storm (more likely with Climate
Change) could cause water to flood down Hillside! They want a condition added
that no properties should be occupied until ‘all surface water network upgrades
required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been
completed.’ The developer (the Council) would have to pay for those upgrades.
The second objection from March that had still not
been dealt with by 6 July was: ‘The proposed development is located within 5m
of a strategic water main. Thames Water do NOT permit the building over or
construction within 5m, of strategic water mains.’ By taking so much of the
site (and adjoining public realm) for the new building, the Council have caused
this problem. If they don’t make its “footprint” smaller, the main drinking
water supply pipe for this area will have to be moved further out under the
highway, at the Council’s expense, before any construction on the site can
begin. Imagine the traffic chaos on Hillside / Brentfield Road that will cause!
Despite these weaknesses, and more, in the Council’s plans for 1 Morland
Gardens, you can be sure that Planning Officers will recommend it for approval,
probably at the “virtual” Planning Committee meeting on 12 August. Willesden
Local History Society hope to participate, with my support, to oppose the application.
Philip Grant
Editor's Note:
The Planning Committee on August 12th starts at 6pm (following a pre-meeting at 5pm) and after the preliminaries of declarations of interest and approaches, 1 Morland Gardens is the first item. The proceedings can be viewed live via a link to the Webcast on the Agenda here: http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=115&MId=6107
'Former Victorian building at Craven Park - see Binali's comment below.'
