Argenta House tower application returns to Brent Planning Committee next week with added storeys and housing units

 

The proposed building - it will not stand alone, look carefully to the right and you will see the grey shape of another planned development

This is a better view of the densification
 

A reminder of the Argenta House the block replaces

 

A revised plan for Argenta House, opposite Stonebridge Park Station,  comes to Brent Planning Committee next week. Readers may remember the floods that resuted from the blocking of the Wembley Brook that runs through the site when groundworks took place. The pilings remain but there was pause.

The new application replaces a 26 storey 141 housing unit block with a part 27 storey, part 30 storey block  180 housing units plus commercial space.

The new application qualifies for fast-tracking  as it claims to be 100% affordable. 88 social rent and 92 shared ownership. The latter's qualification as affordable is debated with the Brent Poverty Commission suggesting that it is not affordable for the people of Brent in need of housing.

 The site's position between Wembley Brook and the River Brent was an issue previously when fears of flooding as a result of climate change induced severe heavy rains were raised. But the mitigations included in the application have been deemed acceptable.

 The site outlined in red. The River Brent continues culverted alongside the North Circular

 From the Flood Risk Assessment

The overall aim of a Flood Response Plan will be to ensure that the development will not place an additional burden on the emergency services. It is envisaged that the facilities management company for the development will be required to train and ensure that Flood Wardens are available when the buildings are occupied. Flood Wardens will be responsible for implementing the requirements of the Flood Response Plans.
 

The objective of the Flood Response Plan would be to assist people to leave the building before the onset of flooding but if timings did not allow, safe refuge can be found in the residential homes (starting at an elevation of 41.375 mAOD, over 15m above the design flood level). The operation is summarised below: 

• On receipt of a Flood Warning all occupants are warned of the risk of flooding.
• On receipt of a Flood Warning all vulnerable occupants are identified and their needs assessed.
• Vulnerable occupants are assisted to leave the building first, within two hours, followed by all other occupants.
• A register of occupants in the building is compiled following the receipt of a Severe Flood Warning.
• At the onset of flooding all members of the community are asked to remain in the building.
• No return to the building will be permitted unless it is safe to do so.

 Hmm.

The Wembley Brook will be re-routed but the information is confusing. Some illustrations show the brook beside the building and others beneath.

 

 

Another confusing aspect is the 'Play Nest':

 Julie Hughes, Brent's Primcipal Tree Officer makes some pithy comments in her report:

I would like to see some new tree planting as part of the proposals to ensure that equivalent tree cover is provided to the trees and vegetation that has been removed to accommodate the development.

Proposed landscaping shows some indicative tree planting in the Landscape Proposal General Arrangement Plan, seems to show indicatively around 20 trees to be planted. This does not really seem to be much for such a large building and I would expect to see more details as to species etc... I would expect to see plans which show more of a strategic approach to soft landscaping.

In the DAS the ‘Play Nest’ appears to be very green in its approach, however I am not sure exactly what is intended here. Details need to be provided to demonstrate that it would work, noting that much of the planting (including the nest and brook terraces) would be predominantly in shade. It is also not clear which of these areas has public access. It looks like ‘The Nest’ does, but not the terraces? This needs to be very carefully considered as will potentially impact quite significantly on the visual amenity of the whole scheme.

The tree strategy at 5.16 of the DAS (22) appears to be poorly thought out. We need to be sure that the trees proposed will thrive at the site. I am not sure that Beech will thrive and I am not sure that multi-stemmed Beech or Hornbeam are readily available. Given the rather sparse numbers of proposed trees, I would rather see large-canopied trees planted wherever they can be accommodated, supplemented by other trees which will establish well in the urban environment.

 Two illustrations to show Argenta House in the context of the overall Wembley Point Master Plan, reemembering of course that a tall development is due on the other side of the North Circular on the Uniys site and further into the future possible tall buildings on Conduit Way LINK :

 

 

Stonebridge Park tower blocks at Brent Planning tomorrow as flood issues highlighted by current events

 The proposed developments at the corner of Harrow Road/North Circular (Wembley side)

 

Videos of the weekend floods included one of partially submerged uncompleted new homes on a flood site. As readers know there was flooding at Stonebridge Park and Tokyngton Avenue earlier this year when the Wembley Brook was blocked by preparation work on the new Argenta House site. This week an application goes to Planning Committee for two more tower blocks to sit alongside Argenta 26 storeys and Wem Tower (aka Wembley Point, The Wem)  21 storeys. These will be 32 storeys and 20 storeys on a relative small site where the Wembley Brook joins the River Brent, close to the North Circular Road.

The application will be considreed by Brent Planning Committee tomorrow. Watch live from 6pm HERE,

 

 

The Flood Risk Assessment for the site includes illustrations that indicate the level of possible flooding from fluvial (rivers) and surface water.

As the amount of flooding and extreme weather events is accelerating faster than expected it is possible that at some point in the future all these buildings will be surrounded by water for a time.  The buidlings will be designed to be 'floodable' and plans will have to be put in place for evacuation of residents and workers (my highlighting):

 

Flood warning/evacuation plan

 

207. The EA have advised that ideally, applicants should demonstrate a new development

has a safe, dry access/egress route during a 1% annual probability flood event, including an

allowance for climate change, or else a route with a 'very low' hazard rating in accordance with FD2320: Flood Risk Assessment Guidance for New Development. In situations where it's not possible to ensure dry access/egress routes, consideration may be given if it can be demonstrated that proposed 'wet' routes still remain safe for site users.

 

208. The development at Wembley Point does not have a means of dry access/egress during the design flood event. The applicant has submitted a Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan (Pell Frischmann, Ref. 102139-PF-ZZ-ZZ-RP-D-0003, dated 24/04/2023). This highlights that as noted in the SFRA Level 2, under the 1% (1 in 100) AEP plus 35% climate the whole site is submerged. The latest modelling shows that during a 1% AEP flood event plus climate change the depth of flooding across the site is circa 600 mm and the expected velocity is circa 0.98 m/s. The deep, fast flowing water means the post development flood hazard rating for the site is shown to be predominantly "Danger to Most". This means that safe access/egress route cannot be guaranteed during a flood event.

 

209. The Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan has set out that when it is possible to evacuate the site, the evacuation procedure would be signalised via an alarm system for the shared and public areas, and the Flood Warnings Direct service for those in individual properties. The preferred evacuation procedure all residents, workers and visitors would be to leave the site and seek refuge outside on higher ground. The evacuation route would be to exit the site via the north-western access on Point Place and then head north-eastly towards Harrow Road. Higher ground to the north can then be accessed via Harrow Road.

 

210. If the site cannot be fully evacuated or in the case of sudden inundation associated with catastrophic failure of the Brent Reservoir, refuge should be provided on site, The site comprises of multi-story floor levels, where the upper floor levels of the building will count as primary areas of refuge. Following this, they should then wait for the flood waters to recede or until emergency services direct otherwise. The development deploys a water entry strategy, allowing water to enter the majority of the ground floor of the proposed buildings, therefore safe refuge must be sought on the upper floors.

 

211. The proposed evacuation route from the ground floor, through internal stairwells, to the first floor.  Following the instruction to evacuate, there are various locations of refuge that all residents, workers and pedestrians could use in the event of a flood. The site comprises of multi-story floor levels, where the upper floor levels of the building will count as primary areas of refuge, these can be accessed through the internal stairwell. If people are seeking refuge in the upper floors, they should wait for the flood waters to recede or until emergency services direct otherwise.

It does make you wonder about the wisdom of building here at all despite assurances that measures will be put in place. Perhaps the development should be renamed 'Stonebridge-on-Brent'.

Aside from all this the developer has returned with a lower amount of 'affordable' housing than in the initial application. The percentage now with the previous application in brackets:

Of the 515 units:

Private 77.5% (65.8%)

London Shared Ownership 8.3%  (11.1%)

London Affordable Rent 14.2% (23.1%)

Officers support the developer's viability assessment provided for the change.

There are many objections to the scheme on the Brent Planning Portal. many of them coming from occupants of the Wem Tower who claim that they have no prior warning of the massive development that will take place on their doorstep - although it has to be noted that there is one occupant who has submitted a long statement in support of the scheme.

Other objections come from the nearby two storey housing that will by overshadowed to the north of the development in Derek Avenue and Tokyngton Avenue.   

The application includes landscaping and minor play provision on the site opening up the site to the public.

The report considers concerns that the new development will spoil the views of the Brent Railway Stonebridge Viaduct:

The [Heritage] assessment notes that the development will be visible in the background when viewing [The Brent Railway Viaduct], but also noting that the existing Wembley Point building is also within that view. The heritage assessment sets out that while there would be some visual intrusion into the extended setting of the viaduct, that this is considered to cause a low, minor level of harm which would be "less than substantial" to the setting and significance of this heritage asset. Officers agree that the degree of change and harm would be limited, and consider that this would be "less than substantial". It is considered that this harm is significantly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme which include the provision of homes (including Affordable Homes), new publicly accessible space and routes and significant improvements to the local streetscape and environment

One interesting aspect of the proposal is the provision of a 3 storey building to be occupied by Stonebridge Boxing Club, who have popped up in several planning applications.

 

 

 

The application is deficient in several respects as planning officers acknowledge in making their recommendation to councillors that it should nonetheless be approved. The familiar mantra that the 'benefits outweigh the harm' is used again:

The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan when read as a whole. There are some divergences from policy (such as the amount of external amenity and play space), and some impacts that go beyond guidance levels (such as the light received by some properties) and the proposal will result in "less than substantial" harm to one designated heritage asset. However, the benefits of the scheme are considered to significantly outweigh the harm. It is recommended that the planning committee resolve to grant permission subject to the stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London, the completion of a legal agreement as set out above and subject to the conditions listed.