Sudbury Court Residents Association: No more deferral of the Mumbai Junction application at Planning Committee - REFUSE IT!

 

Claimed improvements to original plan

 

The Sudbury Court Residents   Association have added several further submissions to the Brent Council Portal on the Mumbai Junction (formerly John Lyon pub) site planning application.

This morning the total number of comments, mainly objections, stood at 546.

 

This is a follow up objection by the SCRA as the documents and reports have altered since the Consultation Period closed.

The SCRA believe and demand that this application is refused at the next Planning Committee Meeting and not deferred any longer because of the following reasons, but not excluding many other valid reasons previously articulated to the Planning Department:

The current building design, materials and finishes matched the Conservation Area properties across the road and can be seen from Carlton Avenue West, The Crescent, Watford Road and Pasture Road, well over twenty properties within the Conservation Area will be able to plainly see this development from their homes. For some reason that remains unexplained the Brent Heritage Officer has changed his view from it damaging the Gateway to the Conservation Area, to not doing so and not being visible from the Conservation Area which is clearly untrue. Meanwhile 266 Watford Road's red roof tiles as a replacement for the original green tiles are being enforced against as it damages the Conservation Area.

The applicant states in mitigation of the size and massing that the representations of the proposed building allow for 10 years growth of the surrounding trees. The surrounding trees are approaching 100 years in age, the majority having reached maturity and will not increase in size. The out of character building will not be hidden by trees.

The officers state that the benefit of the building somehow out ways the damage caused by is height and massing along with it being out of character. This is the view of some planning officers; however, several hundred residents disagree with them along with the SCRA who represent circa 3,000 homes. Officers should reread the Local Plan 6.5.22

Although not a Planning Issue as such there is a large telecom installation in front of the site. Recently trees in front of the site were substantially pollarded, the reason used to gain Council approval was that the trees were affecting the Emergency Telecom signals from the installation. The proposed building is substantially higher and the top two storeys appear to be clad in metal which would almost certainly interrupt the Emergency telecom signals.

Page 11 para 5 of the officers committee report attempts to justify the extreme massing and height because it is near a roundabout, but totally ignores the surroundings of mainly two store buildings, many now known to be within the Conservation Area (evidence can be provide on the ground and from Streetview and Google Earth. The Design Council's workshop with the Developer and Brent Council stated the building was far too large for the site and would not meet carbon targets, nor transport emission targets. Interestingly almost all the objections to the proposal consider the proposal to be too tall and bulky.

The Officers state: The building is of good design quality, relating well to its context and would enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Unfortunately the are at complete odds with local residents on this point as the building is totally out of character and belongs with buildings of a similar bland design tenet and not in the midst of Metroland.

Officers state that there will be no loss of amenity to surrounding properties; however, all residents surrounding the site strongly disagree and will have to provide themselves with forms of shielding to regain their privacy and amenity.

The Met Police were consulted and recommended not using on street parking because of the friction that would be created with other users of the service roads and surrounding residential streets. Basically, the officer is saying that the Design Council and Police are wrong! Additionally, it has not been proven that there is available parking other than after 2am in the morning.

Page 13 para 1 Highways state that "All servicing arrangements are acceptable and safe" This statement is completely unfounded as there are no servicing arrangements on site; all forty two flats will have to be serviced from the busy and the constantly heavily parked service road as the onsite service road is now to be a car park. Furthermore, the bin store opens out across the very narrow pavement in front of the site, itself an illegal obstacle and in addition it would open onto the designated as the unmanaged pedestrian crossing, and the proposed Zebra Crossing funded by a S106. One wonders if officers actually visited the site or fully deciphered the plans presented to them.

The EMF Report regarding the Sub-station is so porous it should be ignored as meaningless. SCRA extrapolations show the EMF levels to be outside the SAGE recommended levels even without being monitored under peak loads which are normally expected in the mornings and evenings. Variations in EMF reading already provided to Planning Comments show a 1446% variation in EMF emissions outside of peak loads.

Ignoring the wildlife corridor running at the rear of Sudbury Court Drive and Amery Road which joins the SINC of Harrow School and Northwick Park is unforgivable even if it is not a designated wildlife protected area.  No bat survey has been completed regarding this foraging and commuting route and therefore the law protecting bats may well be breached if the development is allowed with its current height and massing along with substantial increase in light levels. It is the Council's duty to ensure that the bat foraging/commuting route is protected. There is no doubt that bats utilise the current restaurant's kitchen warmth as an adhoc and winter roost which would not have been noticed during the internal inspection.

Sudbury Court Drive and the John Lyon roundabout had been flooding for several years after and during heavy rainfall a video is available. The manhole cover near Bengeworth Road is ejected due to the large volumes of water travelling at speed down the hill of Sudbury Court Drive and Bengeworth Road. It is becoming obvious that the surface water drain is now overloaded at peak times, possibly due to all the recent explosion of property extensions and paving of gardens to provide parking due to the very heavy on street parking demand. The proposed building would require a flood defence and a substantial SUDS to reduce the flood risk to the ground floor flats, some of which are deemed accessible.

Page 13 para 3  Of the fire statement states: "All floors are served by a central protected stair including an evacuation lift. The stair is accessed by common corridors that do not exceed 15m in length."  Unfortunately the distance from the front doors of flats 1.06, 1.07, 2.06, 2.07, 3.06 and 3.07 are in excess of 18mtrs from the protected stairwell and therefore the building does not comply with London Plan Policy D5(B5) (7), BS9991 (6), ADB 2019 (3).

London Fire Brigade Guidance Notes GN29 - should be used to plan for new premises. As the proposed development site sits behind a narrow heavily parked service road and a large telecom site it has a very limited access for Fire Brigade vehicles and therefore does not comply with the GN29 guidance notes.  Furthermore, as the frontage of the building (within its curtilage) has now been turned from an access/service road into a car park the Fire Brigade would have to access the building from the external service road which is, because of the afore mentioned problems, is an impossibility. The SCRA therefore believe that the proposed building with regards Fire Safety is unsafe and dangerous.

The Highways Officer's report state that the area is not an accident hotspot because very little is recorded on Crashmap. Everyone knows that many accidents are not shown on Crashmap and to utilise its data id just lazy. The Crashmap data does not mean that the area is not a black spot. In the real world - during the last twelve months there have been circa 12 single vehicle RTAs within the locale, with several gardens being entered, bus stops and pedestrian crossings demolished along with street trees. Utilising Streetmap we have found evidence of many accidents on the John Lyon Roundabout over the last ten years including the felling of a substantial tree, a lamp post and several road signs demolished. On at least two occasions vehicles have been overturned and left blocking the pavements. Not more than a hundred yards away a lady was killed performing at right turn at the junction with The Green. The local chemist was attempting a right turn into their driveway on Watford Road just in front of the application site and has hit in the rear and pushed across the road and hit again in the front. The son of the local garage operator was involved in a collision on the service road at the entrance to the application site, besides being a dangerous cross road the concrete of the service road offers no grip in the wet.  Without doubt this is not a safe area for motor vehicles handling as it does 30,000 VPD on the A404 a London Distributor Road and 15,000 VPD on the A4127 a Local Distributor Road, one must not forget that the service road is used as a rat run to avoid queues at the John Lyon roundabout.

The SCRA are extremely concerned that staff at local businesses have been told by the owners of Mumbai Junction that they will get Planning Permission is very concerning, especially as the Developer met with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and the Planning Committee privately while residents were not allowed to approach the Planning Committee themselves.

The SCRA are also concerned at the lack of affordable housing on site nor a contribution to affordable housing. We suggest if the building were reduced to say three stories then the margins per unit and viability would increase due to lower building costs at these lower levels, this would obviously be at the expense of the overall profit to the Developers.

 

 

 

The Planning Committee Report dated 12th July Page 9 para 2 states "The refuse storage area would be sited to the property's frontage"



We would comment as follows:

Having referred to the plans, the refuse store gates open outward across the narrow pavement (highway) at the site of the current unregulated crossing of the service road and Watford Road.



Obviously this is totally unacceptable positioning and function and the use of the gates would block the Highway - The fundamental public right upon a highway is to pass and re-pass, and the obstruction of a highway can also be a criminal offence as well as a tort. Highway authorities are under a statutory duty to prevent, so far as possible, the stopping up or obstruction of highways in their areas.

 

 

 This is an additional objection by the SCRA having reviewed the revised documents published after the end of the Formal Consultation by the applicant and the planning officer.



The Planning Committee Report dated 12th July and the Daylight Sunlight Consulting letter.



9. Page 11 para 6 This statement about good levels of outlook and light are at complete odds with the letter from Daylight Sunlight Consulting Ltd that states that not all the properties have sufficient light. The Design Council stated that the health and wellbeing of residents will be harmed by the long corridors without any natural light or ventilation. Additionally, nearly half the flats are only single aspect and at least three of the flats will have very little natural light to the living area windows as the windows are positioned in corners on the northwest side of the building and have very poor outlooks over the car park and garage next door.

 

It is with great disappointment that we have to yet again point out that the EMF report applies to the current substation and not the new/replacement one mentioned in the previous officer report.

Additionally no mention has been made about the emergency telecom signals from in front of the site which required the pollarding of trees which were half the hight of the proposed  building.

We residents within the SCRA despair at the lack of meaningful consultation over our valid concerns and the council's total intransigence regarding this application. Several residents have put their properties up for sale this month already as the believe this is a done deal.

 

 

The current EMF Report describes the current substation and current usage and emissions from the Sub Station. Unfortunately, as detailed in the Officer Report to Committee it transpires that the substation will need upgrading due to the application property and no doubt for the adjoining site which according to the report will be subject of a future planning application.

It is therefore true to say that the current EMF report will not apply to the proposed building and therefore we must be sure that the future substation does not put residents at a high risk of developing leukaemia from the emissions of the new substation for which there is NO report.

The current substation apparently has negligible risk, presumably an enlargement of the substation could well increase the  risk to low or medium. We therefore recommend that this application is not determined until a new report is produced which includes a substantial increase in power usage. To ignore this request could potentially and knowingly put people’s lives and well-being at risk well into the future.

 

UPDATE: Mumbai Junction/John Lyon pub planning application return greeted with dismay by local residents. Developer's pre-app meetings with lead councillors, officers and planning committee.

The Sudbury Court Residents' Association have reacted quickly to the return of a planning application for the Mumbai Junction(John Lyons) site.  Although the applicant claim they have listened to Muhammed Butt, councillors and officers at a pre-planning meeting. Little seems to have actually changed.

 This extract indicates a Pre-app meeting with the Planning Committee!

 

Residents at consultation gave the plans an almost unanimous thumbs down and an anonymous comment  that seems to have been accidentally published on the Statement of Community Involvement is revealing:

 

The Sudbury Court Residents Association are informing residents about the proposal via a leaflet:

 Comment on the Planning Application HERE,

      

Sudbury Court residents fight to stop development of the former John Lyon pub

The building at present

 

Sudbury Court Residents Association are circulating residents urging opposition to the proposed development at the Mumbai Junction  restaurant formerly the John Lyons pub. Their leaflet is reproduced below. Readers will be interested to learn that the developer is Fruition who are responsible for the development and actions surrounding the City Mission Church site in Harlesden. LINK

The Mumbai Junction restaurant - formerly the  John Lyon pub  is threated with demolition so 43 flats can be built.

 

How to object to Planning Application 21/3679

The best way to object to this planning application is via the Brent website (link shown below) or you can write to Planning Dept via email to planning.comments@brent.gov.uk you could also write to Planning Department at the Civic Centre by snail mail. 

 LINK TO COMMENT ON BRENT COUNCIL WEBSITE

 

Alternatively you can search the Brent website using the above reference 21/3679 or using the ‘Simple’ search option for 231 Watford Road. More details will be available on the SCRA website. Click on the View / Make Comments tab, you will need to register and log in to make comments, this is found at the bottom of the web page. You can then move to making your comments about this application for 231 Watford Road.  

 

 Comments must be submitted by 12th November at the latest. If enough people say that the proposal is unsuitable for the area then we stand a good chance of stopping this, by enough, I'd hope for 1,000.

 

 

As you can see the proposed building towers over its neighbours, there are no architectural similarities with the surrounding buildings, and the neighbours' homes will be substantially overlooked. The massing of the proposed development is overbearing and monolithic with little to relate it to the Conservation Area.

 

The John Lyon name has historic value, John Lyon founded Harrow School 500 years ago, and his legacy still funds local charitable works such as Sudbury Neighbourhood Centre. In the last two decades the John Lyon has changed and adapted to the local population, it is without doubt a place where everyone can go, it therefore contributes to our community cohesion and understanding of each other. The loss of this community asset and meeting place within walking distance of over 3,000 plus homes, a large licensed property, would deal a devastating blow to the local community and would force the residents to drive to other destinations much further afield thus reducing Active travel in the area.

 

So, how should you phrase your objection to make the biggest impact? There are many different planning policies at play here, but the main points to make are:

·       The proposal is monolithic in design and without doubt overbearing, it swamps all the surrounding properties, even the four storey shops.

·       The loss of one of our last large well frequented Public Houses / Restaurant

·       The loss of a valuable Community Asset that enhances community cohesion.

·       The proposed building site is within an Area of Distinctive Residential Character (ADRC) and will have a detrimental effect.

·       This 1950's Public House sits in a line of similar style properties from the 1950s, its removal would certainly damage this consistent architectural heritage.

·       Its proximity to the Sudbury Court Conservation Area (SCCA) with have a detrimental effect on it.

·       The design of the proposed building, simplistic in the extreme, its height and massing are unacceptable and overbearing, there are recent builds on our local main roads that better reflect their surroundings such as the flats on East Lane opposite Pasture Road, the flats between Court Parade and Wakeling Lane, the St Georges flats on the junction of Sudbury Court Drive and Sudbury Hill and finally the flats on Watford Road either side of Stilecroft Gardens, the one to the south being a perfect match to its surroundings and ignores the petrol station architectural style/leads. All these recent properties are very sympathetic to their surroundings, being only up to four storeys high, all have pitched roofs, dormers where appropriate and to gain the fourth floor, and a smattering or Tudorbethan where appropriate. None of these developments over the last 20 years have deviated from this complementary design style which respects the surrounding area.

·       Brent's Planning Policies imply they will protect Public Houses, we expect them to apply here.

·       There will be a loss of housing and employment for several staff members adding to Brent's homeless list.

·       Sudbury Court Drive flooded at this location several times this year, it is becoming more frequent.

·       There is limited on street parking available for the almost certain transfer parking being produced by this proposal, the locale is already parked at 100% plus, this addition will almost certainly have permanent damaging effect on the local businesses.

·       The access to the site is severely restricted by the narrowness of the Service Road and the current on street parking load. A 7.5 Tonne weight limit is being imposed on the Service Road due to damage being inflicted on parked vehicles, grass verges and street trees. The site access during construction will be into a very restricted access to the Service Road just a few yards from a very busy roundabout. The alternate access from Watford Road would be extremely dangerous and is an accident black spot with at least one death attributed to.

·       Brent's Planning Policies document quite clearly that the area in question was designed for motor vehicles and that the Public Transport is poor, because of this the adoption of active travel will be an extreme challenge. The current cycle-ways are few and generally not fit for purpose.

·       The three street trees (Ash) will be in jeopardy from the building works and deliveries thereafter.

·       Those living on Amery, SCD and Watford Road - if you have seen Bats at the bottom of your garden, you must say so. They are a protected species and may well be living in the John Lyon due to its seclusion and warmth.

·       In summary the proposal is far too large, it does not respect its proximity to the CA or it being within an ADRC, it overlooks and is overbearing in nature to its neighbouring properties. The current 1950s building with pitched roof and period facade fits admirably within its surroundings. The proposal would be a eyesore within its surroundings.

·       No Affordable Housing, below standard number of family homes.

 

This and other information will be loaded to the SCRA website www.the-scra.co.uk

Northwick Park development juggernaut at Planning Committee Monday afternoon

 

Masterplan for the site

Current View

The massive scheme for the Northwick Park partnership scheme comes back to Brent Planning Committee on Monday. for outline permission.  The partners are Brent Council, University of Westminster, NW London NHS and Network Housing:

 20/0700 | Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved apart from the means of access) for demolition of existing buildings on site and provision of up to 1,600 homes and up to 51,749 sqm (GIA) of new land use floorspace within a series of buildings, with the maximum quantum as follows: -(Use Class C3) Residential: up to 1,600 homes; -up to 50,150m2 floor space (GIA) of new student facilities including Student Accommodation, Teaching facilities, Sports facilities, and ancillary retail and commercial (Use Class A1, A2, A3) -up to 412sqm floorspace (GIA) of a replacement nursery (Use Class D1) -up to 1187sqm (GIA) of flexible new retail space (Use Class A1, A2, A3) Together with energy centre, hard and soft landscaping, open space and associated highways improvements and infrastructure works This application is subject to an Environmental Statement | Land adjacent to Northwick Park Hospital, Nightingale Avenue, London, HA1 

 Readers will be familiar with the university buildings on the right as you leave Northwick Park station with a Costa cafe at the entrance and the wildflower meadow on the right as you walk down the alley to the hospital.  The university gave up maintaining the meadow on the basis that it was 'too expensive' to maintain a few years ago - from the illustration above it appears it will be built on.

 

 

The ecological impact of the whole scheme has been raised by Sudbury Court Residents Association. Officers respond in a Supplementary Report:

 

Ecological impact: loss of 387 trees with no details for replacement tree planting. Officer response: It is not always possible to avoid the loss of some trees in bringing new developments forward, however Brent's policies allow for these to be compensated for by replacement tree planting of an appropriate scale and nature. The loss of 130 trees on the Hospital ring road has been accepted in the extant consent to construct the new spine road (reference 20/0677) whilst the loss of 44 trees has been accepted in Planning Committee's resolution to grant permission for the detailed application (reference20/0701), however this is subject to the planting of 208 replacement trees secured by condition, resulting in a net uplift in the number of trees. The remaining 213 trees that would be lost as a result of the later phases of the outline development would also be replaced. Further details of tree planting would be submitted and approved as part of the landscaping scheme required under Condition 33, which requires at least 387replacement trees to be planted across the outline site. The impact on trees is discussed in paragraphs 184to 193 of the main report.

 

Ecological impact: removal of trees during bird nesting season and period of bat movement out of hibernation Officer response: The applicant's Ecology Report recommends a number of precautionary measures to avoid or minimise impacts on protected species and other wildlife in the construction period. These include bat inspections prior to felling of any mature trees, measures to be taken if bats or other protected species are observed, vegetation and building removal to take place outside the bird nesting season or in the presence of an ecologist, and protection of active bird nests. These measures would be secured through a Construction Environmental Management Plan required under Condition 28, and the developer would also be subject to the requirements of protected species legislation. See paragraph 206.

 

 Ecological impact: loss of bird and bat populations and other ecological benefits of trees (shelter, food and breeding opportunities for wildlife, clean air) due to loss of trees. Officer response: Although birds were observed on or close to the site, the site overall is very low in suitability for protected and rare bird species or other protected and priority species. No evidence of bat activity or bat roosts was found, and very low numbers of foraging and commuting bats were observed and detected in the area. The tree line along the boundary with Northwick Park would be retained and reinforced by new tree planting, however it is acknowledged that construction work and the removal of some trees near the boundary could result in a temporary loss of and disturbance to habitats, and a financial contribution to ecological enhancements in Northwick Park would be secured as compensation. The proposal would create new habitats of potential ecological value, including rain gardens, and further ecological appraisals would be required post-completion. Ecological impacts are discussed in paragraph 198 to 208 of the main report.

 

Ecological impact: Tree saplings will not compensate for loss of mature tree stock or well established wildlife foraging lines. Officer response: The proposals for replacement tree planting are expected to include a mixture of semi-mature and younger trees.

 Further measures requested to reduce increase in pollution and congestion. Officer response: Traffic generation is covered in paragraphs 296 to 303 and 323 of the main report. Travel Plans would be required, to encourage and reinforce sustainable travel choices by occupiers of the development (see paragraphs 322 and 323). These measures are considered sufficient to minimise additional traffic caused by the development.

 

 Details of plans to reduce congestion and pollution in surrounding roads requested, including Watford Road and Sudbury Court Estate. Officer response: As set out in paragraph 303 of the main report, the proposals are expected to reduce congestion, and consequently pollution, on Watford Road. The proposal is unlikely to directly impact on Sudbury Court Estate, as there is no direct vehicular access. An Active Travel Zone Assessment was carried out by the applicants, identifying barriers to sustainable travel choices in the wider area, and this is summarised in paragraphs 324 to 326 of the main report.

 

Further details requested of how bat survey was carried out in line with current best practice. Officer response: These details are set out in the Environmental Statement Volume 3: Appendix: Ecology, which is available on the Council's website. A bat assessment was carried out by an experienced and licensed ecologist, following English Nature Bat Mitigation Guidelines (2004) and Bat Conservation Trust Best Practice Guidelines (2016). The document sets out equipment used, inspection methods, and an assessment of the bat roosting potential of all buildings, trees and habitats on site. Some trees were identified as having moderate and above bat roosting potential, and the Social Club building as having low bat potential. Further surveys were carried out, comprising four dusk emergence / activity surveys and two dawn re-entry / activity surveys in various locations around the site with potential for roosting, foraging or commuting. No evidence of bat activity was observed, and no bat roosts were discovered. Ecological impacts are covered in paragraphs 198 to 208 of the main report.

 

Further details of replacement tree planting as soon as available. Officer response: Further details of replacement tree planting would be secured under Condition 33.

In October last year a councillor for Northwick Park ward expressed concern over ecological issues in a 'neutral' submission and concluded:

Mitigation and protection will not be an easy task here, but is achievable I'm sure. May I remind everyone that this is predominantly a rural site will many SSI areas and not a urban brownfield site, yes there are substantial concrete building, but they are home to Bats, Kestrels and now Peregrine Falcons (recently witnesses from the upper floor of the hospital block), on ground levels there are without doubt Hedgehogs, Badgers, Weasels and many more species just wondering around the secluded areas around the concrete buildings.

I am all for improvements to the site's housing and facilities, but we must protect as well ? Brent Council did declare a Climate Emergency and wildlife obviously is part of this, take our Bee Corridors for instance.

The officers' report includes many of the now  familiar  reasons why they recommend approval despite  the application not meeting some policy guidelines of which the amount of affordable housing,  as well as the number of Shared Ownership  properties are likely to be of concern to councillors

The proposal would provide 40% (by habitable room) affordable homes (including 13% for London Affordable Rent). While the overall proportion of London Affordable Rented homes is not in line with the percentage specified in DMP15, it has been demonstrated that the scheme would deliver the maximum reasonable number of Affordable homes on a policy compliant basis(70:30 ratio of London Affordable Homes to Intermediate), but with additional Affordable Homes delivered, lowering the levels of profit associated with the scheme. These would be delivered as intermediate rented homes, London Living Rent homes and shared ownership homes, and would including housing for NHS keyworkers. Appropriate nominations agreements will be secured within the Section 106 Agreement. The Financial Viability Appraisal submitted with the application has been robustly reviewed on behalf of the Council and is considered to demonstrate that the proposal delivers beyond the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing that the scheme can support. Early, mid- and late stage review mechanisms would be secured. The overall proportion of family-sized homes (16.6%) is below the levels set out in Brent's adopted and emerging policies. However, a higher proportion would further undermine the viability of the scheme and the provision of Affordable Housing, and the benefits associated with the provision of Affordable Housing are considered to outweigh the impacts associated with the lower proportion of family housing. Affordable student accommodation would be secured as part of the development of the University Campus.

The application refers to 'Northwick Village' - 1,600 is a pretty big village, and blocks are not particularly village-like. Here are some of the 'impressions' in the plans.

 

 

The Planning Committee is on Monday March 29th at 4pm. You can watch it live HERE