Tirzah House, Kingsbury and King Edward VII Park Pavilion developments both approved at Brent Planning Committee

The planning application for demolition of the existing pavilion building in King Edward VII park and its replacement by a building with a much larger footprint comprising facilities for Stonebridge Boxing Club was approved unanimously at tonight's Brent Planning Committee. Issues such as lighting in the park are still to be resolved as the Parks Department has no budget available to install lights.

The application for a much larger replacement building for 2 storey family house,  Tirzah Mansion, at 26 Salmon Street, Kingsbury, NW9 (on the corner of Queens Walk) was approved with two votes against. Cllr Saqib Butt opposed as there was a policy shortfall and the proposed building's bulk and massing. Cllr Robert Johnson was concerned that it had no affordabel housing and the developer's contribution of £41,000 towards affordable housing elsewhere was 'miniscule'. He also felt that the plans amounted to over-development.

 

Tweets from the Planning Committee as it progressed can be found @WembleyMatters 

 

 

Stonebridge Box Club application for new building in King Edward VII Park, Wembley, at Planning Committee tomorrow

 

The replacement building on the site of the King Edward VII Park pavilion goes to Brent Planning Committee tomorrow. The application has been covered previously on Wembley Matters HERE.

There have been 23 objections and 66 supporters, the latter often from further afield as supporters of the Stonebridge Boxing Club and its activities. There is one neutral comment that supports the use but is critical of the proposed building.

The building occupies a larger footprint that the current building or the initial proposal resulting in the loss of some green space and trees.

Unusually the planning consent relates solely to its use by Stonebridge Boxing Club that also has a building earmarked at the Stonebridge Station development LINK.

Many practical issues to do with the use of the facility are left to negotiations with the Parks Department,

Planners argue that the benefits of the club facility, toilets, cafe etc outweigh the loss and will enhance the open space LINK:

 

The proposed development would replace a currently vacant, unused building with a modern, purpose-built facility. Whilst the proposed footprint of the building would be larger than the existing by 318.8sqm, it is considered that the proposal would bring animation, activity and natural surveillance to the park, contributing to its amenity value and providing community benefits including supporting the operation of Stonebridge Boxing Club which provides a number of benefits for the local community.

 

With regard to Policy G4, the proposed footprint of the building would be 576.8sqm, an increase of 318.8sqm over the existing footprint of 285sqm. The surrounding hardstanding would also be increased.

 

While the café use would serve the open space, indoor sports and fitness are not typically seen to be open space uses and the proposal is therefore seen to be the loss of protected open space. This space in question would not be suitable for use as sports pitches, as there is a significant fall in ground levels within it and it is in close proximity to a number of mature trees. The total area of open space within the park is approximately 10.5 hectares and the amount of open space lost would equate to circa 0.5% of the total park space. It is considered that the harm caused by the relatively minor increase in the loss of open space in this instance would be very limited and this harm must be weighed against the benefits of the proposal.

 

To summarise, the proposed development would result in the provision of indoor sports and fitness which is not considered to be an open space use and therefore would be seen to result in the loss of protected open space. However, it would also result in benefits, including the provision of the café and toilet and the fitness and community benefits associated with Stonebridge Boxing Club. The benefits associated with the development are considered to outweigh the limited amount of harm associated with the loss of the open space. Given that the harm is being weighed against benefits associated in part with the work that is done by Stonebridge Boxing Club, it is considered necessary to secure the consent as relating solely to use by Stonebridge Boxing Club . It should be noted that the building in itself would be acceptable had it been proposed solely for uses to support the park.

 

Those interested can attend the meeting at Brent Civic Centre tomorrow at 6pm or follow the live feed HERE

Committee members are briefed beforehand at 12 noon.

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

 

 

 

Plans for Boxing Club, Cafe and Toilets in King Eddie's Park Pavilion. Comments by Friday 9th September.

 

 

The Pavilion this week (top hidden in the surrounding trees, bottom, side view)

The long dis-used and vandalised Pavilion in King Edward VII Park, Park Lane, Wembley could be transformed into a home for Stonebridge Box Club and a community resource.

 

The Planning Statement for Planning Application 22/2526 states:

 

The proposal is to alter and extend the pavilion building and to repurpose it for use by Stonebridge Boxing Club, including gym and physio facilities and showers. A small café and external seating area would also be provided at ground floor, and office at first floor. The Building would upgrade the building by using renewable energy where possible such as Air Source Heat Pump (“ASHP”), Photovoltaic Panels (“PV Panels”).

 

Rather optimistically it is claimed that revenue from the cafe would help subsidise the maintenance and management of the building.  There would be two members of staff.

 

Opening hours would be 8am to 9pm in Summer and 8am to 7pm in Winter. 

 

 

 

There are some beautiful mature trees close to the building and new Brent Principal Trees Officer, Julie Hughes, takes a welcome tough approach in her report, proposing several protection measures after stating:

 

The site falls within a public open space owned by Brent Council. None of the trees on the site are protected by TPO however this does not mean that they are not important, merely that because the Council are considered to be a responsible landowner, that a TPO is not really justified.

The proposed extension to the pavilion building will effectively double the current extent of footprint to the SW. I would ideally like to see the extension moved to sit wholly outside of the Root Protection Area of T10; a category B Lime tree. 

 

When I visited the park earlier this week and chatted to people, I was told that the police had been called to the pavilion recently after an incident and the area was used for drinking, drug taking and other activities. There is currently just one CCTV camera in the pavilion vicinity and no lighting. People were adamant that lighting would be required if the pavilion is to stay open after dark as it is sited some 200 metres from the Park Lane entrance in the centre of the park and party concealed from the road by trees and vegetation.

 

Young people walking through the park on dark evenings after using the Boxing Club facilities might be in some danger unless adequate preventative measures taken.

 

Overall, those I spoke to were keen on the idea of a cafe and welcomed the availability of toilets. One person said that was much better than children (and others?) having to 'go behind a tree.' I was told that since the new residential developments in the High Road, Wembley, and the enclosure of Copland Fields, the park was very busy in the afternoons and this was likely to be the peak time for the cafe.

 

The present state of the building and the uses it has been put to is evident from these photographs.

The question posed was, "Will this new project discourage current ‘anti-social' behaviour or would such behaviour pose a threat to the success of the £1.6m project?"

 

Thinking about the 'broken window' theory it might help if the notice-boards at the entrance to the park were properly maintained. The information about local councillors is out of date and a poor impression is given for anyone visiting for the first time.  Only one person I spoke to knew (vaguely) that there were plans for the pavilion. Everyone else was surprised. There were no planning notices around the pavilion area and none on the notice boards.

 

 

 

The Bowling Green and its building remains locked up behind fencing and the previously immaculately kept green is now a sun scorched meadow.

 

 

I understand that Fields in Trust, who have an interest in the park going back some years, will be added to statutory consultees and members of the public can submit their views on the Brent Council Planning Portal.  Neighbourhood Consultation closes on Friday 9th September 2022. LINK