North End Road reconnection controversy returns to Wembley Park

Controversial plans to reconnect North End Road in Wembley with Bridge Road at the Bobby Moore Bridge, beside Wembley Park Station, (see plan above) remain in the revised Wembley Plan which the Brent Executive will approve for consultation  this evening.

A quiet haven at present

When the original plans for reconnection were published four years ago LINK they attracted opposition from the Wembley Community Association which wanted to keep the low traffic levels of North End Road which serves the quiet residential area of  Empire Court and Danes Court.  At present the road ends in pedestrian and cyclist ramps at Olympic Way between Arena House (soon to be a secondary free school) and 1 Olympic Way. Since 2009 the Victoria Hall student accommodation has been built on North End Road.

North End Road leading to Victoria Hall

Brent Council say that 'a new road link at North End Road is a key component of the overall strategy enabling the promotion of highway access into Wembley (and beyond) from the North Circular'.  They claim that the new connection will benefit the development area during stadium events and reduce traffic along Neasden Lane and Forty Lane 'allowing prioritisation for non-car modes. The connection may also facilitate improvements to bus services, depending on results of the bus strategy'.

Henry Lancashire in his submission to Brent Council says that the proposed link will conflict with the popular bus stop opposite Wembley Park Station and increase the danger of pedestrian access to the bus stop. He states that the current access enables cyclists to take a safe route from the Brent River Park and can only increase in popularity if the proposed cycling/pedestrian bridge across the Chiltern Line from St David's Close is built. Brent Cyclists also express a preference for the link from North End Road to Bridge Road to be for cycling only. They state 'This would be far cheaper to implement than a connection for motor vehicles, and, with work and highway adoption or land-take in the Atlas Way/Fourth Way/Fifth Way area, could provide a viable, high-quality corridor for walking and cycling via the Brent River Path all the way from Stonebridge Park to Bridge Road.

Lancashire suggest that the required land acquisition for the link will be a) costly and b) damaging and in particular that the green space associated with the river opposite Victoria Hall will be lost: 'This is a valuable wildlife corridor used by species including wrens, robins, blackbirds and pipistrelle bats'.

Brent Council respond that the bus stop will be moved 'slightly to the south' and will be accessed via the Olympic Way underpass (people  dash across the road at present and I don't really see that changing).  They say negotiations are still going on for land acquisition and they are trying to keep the costs down: 'The scheme has been revised to remove the need for land from Victoria Hall'.

In their submission to the Council Quintain Estates and Developments state:

We do not consider this connection to be justified to mitigate the impacts of development and instead it appears mainly top be based on a need to provide circulation to and from the Industrial Estate on Stadium Event Days. In any event,  it is not required to mitigate the impacts of development currently consented in the regeneration areas.

 I am currently trying to find the likely cost of the proposal which in 2009 was put at £20m.

Brent's relationship with Quintain under strain over the Wembley Plan

An Officers' Report going to the Executive on March 11th reveals some areas of strain in Brent's relationship with Quintain Estates, the major developer of the Wembley Regeneration Area.

The Council accept Quintain's claim that parts of the current Wembley Retail Park are shown as suitable for tall buildings but state that this is subject to an assessment of the impact of the buildings on views. On site W18 at the Wembley Retail Park,  Quintain  argue for higher density of development but Brent responds that "the indicative residential development capacity reflects the high proportion of family housing sought on this site (thus affecting the number of habitable rooms per unit), the domestic character (resulting in an 'urban' character rather than 'central') and the incorporation of the public space within this site."

Quintain object to the policy requirement that the development of the car park at York House (Site W9) should be relatively low rise and should include a substantial area of open space. Brent Council respond that there is still a deficit of open space in the area and the site provides scope for publicly accessible open space between buildings. 'Relatively low rise' reflects the high rise nature of York House and the need to provide good levels of sunlight in existing and new open spaces.

In line with apparent reservations on surrendering building land for open space, Quintain consider there is too much detail on the proposed park north of Engineers Way and particularly object to its East-West orientation.  Brent respond that this is fundamental to achieve an open aspect to 'what will be a densely developed area' and that the space would connect the proposed new primary school at Fulton Road,on the west side, to its catchment area in the residences to the east.

It appears that  Quintain's approach can be summarised as: build tall, build densely, and with limited open space.  Presumably this would extract more profit from their land acquisition. They go further in this statement which seems to threaten section 106 planning gains:

WEM36 and WEM38 set out requirements that major new development provides new open space and food growing facilities. Such exceptional provision, which also includes the provision of play space in WEM40 and wildlife enhancements inWEM41, will have an impact on viability and thus will have an impact on Section 106 obligations, after CIL.

Brent Council deal firmly with Quintain's objection to the provision of large food stores (over 2,000 sq m) being directed to Wembley High Road. The Council argue that this is essential to benefit the whole area and in order not to let the regeneration of the stadium area lead to a decline in the High Road. The argument is that new shops on the High Road between the junction with  Park Lane and Wembley Triangle will establish continuity between the older area and the new development.

Quintain certainly seem to be on a loser with their objection to policy limiting the proportion of frontage in the town centre that can be occupied by hot food take-aways. The Council's robust response is that there is widespread support for such a policy, including from the GLA, and 'there can be adverse impacts on the health of the population from fast foods.'

There is much more in the Wembley Area Action Plan so I will return to other aspects later. You can access the documents by following this LINK to Item 8 of the Executive Agenda.

If you want to comment on the plan and some of the issues above, Consultation will start from 25th March 2013 and last for 6 weeks. It will be agreed by Full Council in June and planning inspectorate examination hearings will be held in October 2013 with adoption the following February.

Waste and the Wembley Plan - some reservations

As residents of Ealing and Brent in the area around Willesden Junction station fight a planning application for a 'waste to energy' incinerator on the Freightliners Depot site, readers may be interested in Brent Campaign Against Climate Change's submission on the Wembley Plan. This includes references to waste processing. Wembley was of course the site of the 'Wembley Stink' during the Olympics when the stench from rotting organic waste at the Seneca Materials Recycling Facility became a national issue.

Since this response was submitted the Brent Executive have agreed plans for the purchase of a site for a new waste management depot in Brent as part of the four-borough contracts for waste management, recycling, street sweeping and parks maintenance. £6m has been allocated and one wonders if the site will be in the Wembley Plan area.

Brent Campaign Against Climate Change – submission on Wembley Plan

We have limited our comments to the most relevant aspects of the Plan. Omission of comment on other areas neither indicates agreement, nor disagreement, with those proposals.

VISION OBJECTIVES (p13)

• To preserve open spaces for recreation and biodiversity and create new and enhanced open spaces to address deficiencies where possible, but particularly to meet the needs of additional population commensurate with current levels of provision. AGREED
• To increase the amount of public open space (at least 2.4ha within Wembley) and the amount of land with enhanced ecological value. AGREED
• To enhance green and blue infrastructure by tree planting, returning rivers to their more natural courses and mitigating the pollution effects of development. AGREED
• To achieve sustainable development, mitigate & adapt to climate change. AGREED
• To reduce energy demand from current building regulation standards and achieve exemplar low carbon schemes and combined heat and power plants. RESERVATIONS SEE BELOW
• To create a well-connected and accessible location where sustainable modes of travel are prioritised and modal share of car trips to Wembley is reduced from 37% towards 25%. AGREED AS A START BUT NEED TIMELINES FOR MORE AMBITIOUS TARGET
• To promote access by public transport, bicycle or on foot and reduce car parking standards because of Wembley’s relative accessibility AGREED

Wembley Area Action Plan - Preferred Options 13

Business Industry and Waste

1. We are in favour of strict controls on waste management and processing sites in the entire area, rather than the limited area proposed. We would also favour relocation where that is possible. The events over the summer regarding the Seneca MRF and the ‘Wembley stink’ should serve as a warning for the future.  The Neasden/Wembley area already suffers from severe air pollution problems with school pupils particularly at risk because of the impact of air pollution on their smaller lungs. Chalkhill Primary, St Margaret Clitherow Primary, Northview Primary, Oakington Manor Primary and the proposed new Wembley Stadium Primary in Fulton Road are all in the vicinity. Older people also suffer disproportionately from respiratory problems.

2. We propose the creation of a Green Enterprise zone in the area with a concerted effort by Brent Council, in conjunction with the College of North West London, to bring green training, apprenticeship and jobs into the area. At present aside from the building jobs associated with regeneration there is an over dependence on the creation of jobs in retail and leisure. Green jobs would make a significant contribution to the upskilling of the Brent labour force.

Response to Climate Change

1. We welcome the inclusion of a response to Climate Change in the report and note this statement from the Wembley Plan:

10.6 Climate change will have a significant impact on the economic, social and environmental well being of Wembley. Hotter summers will have a bigger impact in Wembley because of the predominance of concrete and buildings. Heat waves will mean more people are likely to suffer from illnesses and could also lead to damage to roads, railways and buildings. Heavy thunderstorms and intense winter downpours will become more common, and will lead to flash flooding where the drainage system cannot cope with the increased rainfall. It is therefore crucial that future development in Wembley addresses these impacts and limits its contribution to climate change by minimising carbon emissions.

10.7 Specific issues for Wembley include the legacy of industrial use in the area which led to a lack of green and ‘cool’ spaces. Much of Wembley is deficient in open space and there are few mature trees. Land adjacent to the Wealdstone Brook is most at risk of flooding, although much of Wembley is also prone to surface water flooding. In addition, the majority of the sewer network in the Wembley area is undersized.

2.       We welcome the recognition of the importance of this issue and that fact that it is being addressed in detail by the Council. We welcome the proposals on naturalising of the Wealdstone Brook, flood plain storage, tree planting, green roofs and creation of new parks are all welcomed as  responses to this situation.

Climate Change Mitigation

1.       Under this heading the Council make a number of proposals for Decentralised  (CHP) Combined Heat and Power facilities and for Energy from Waste over which we have reservations.

2.       The  reservations below regarding CHP are pertinent: and should inform the Council’s plans: (From  www.arthurshumway.smith.com)

 "Combined Heat and Power" (CHP) or "cogeneration" systems for producing both heat and electric power are generally mature and really can reduce emissions of CO2 compared to other fossil-fuel technologies. But there are two problems with typical discussion of CHP:

(1) Fossil-fuel-based CHP cannot be a long-term solution on climate or energy because they still burn fossil fuels, and therefore still emit a lot of CO2. Reducing that by 20% or even 50% is not enough; we need to take steps that over the next 30-40 years will bring fossil CO2 emissions close to 0.

(2) Efficiency claims for CHP systems are frequently greatly overstated. Heat is lower-quality energy than electricity, and only at high temperatures does it become close to comparable. Efficiency claims for CHP systems that use high-temperature heat are not so far off, but CHP systems that make use of low-temperature waste heat have much lower thermodynamic efficiencies than usually claimed.

The inflated efficiency claims often lead to assertions that CHP is the "largest" or one of the largest potential solutions. But the number of applications that require high-temperature heat where CHP efficiency really is quite high are limited. And the modest efficiency gains with low-temperature waste heat use, which could be much more widely applied, don't lead to very much improvement in overall energy use. The combining of heat and power production in CHP systems can reduce our fossil CO2 emissions by a few percent, but much more than that is needed in coming decades.

3. The Wembley  Plan (WEM 33) supports Energy from Waste and again we have reservations.

3.i The first issue is that the emphasis should be on the reduction of waste at source in manufacturing,  then re-use and recycling. There is a danger that in using residual waste as fuel in order to reduce landfill, the incentive to reduce waste is removed. Furthermore, dependence on waste as fuel to generate heat and power, can lead to the need to import fuel in order to keep the processes going. The NABU Study (2010) in Germany illustrates this:

The study shows that in 2010, somewhat less domestic waste will be produced in Germany than at present.. This is due to a decline in the population and a slight increase in recycling. Overcapacities with incinerators are already occurring. This applies to combustible material used in energy from waste plants as well as conventional incineration   

At this point in time, 2 million   more tonnes  of waste are imported into Germany than exported. This is equivalent to a goods train 1000 km in length. Germany is therefore a net importer of waste

We would not want Brent to become an importer of waste in order to fuel our EfW plants.

3.ii  Secondly, the Plan states ‘There are a number of new and emerging technologies that are able to produce energy from waste without direct combustion’ . Our reservation on this is that in some technologies the initial stages do not involve combustion but further stages involve, for example, gases being burned off..  We cannot pretend to be expert on these issues but urge that complete transparency, independent expert advice (rather than assurances from the companies involved) and public debate must take place before any such technologies are employed.

3.ii In investigating the detrimental impact on human health the Council must take into account the concerns that exist over nanoparticles  produced in the incineration process and the emerging science discipline of nanopathology that studies the impact of such particles on the human body.

Food Growing

1.       We welcome the proposal to include food growing areas in new development (WEM 38) and the use of temporary vacant spaces. However we do not agree to the claim that restricted space means that such spaces cannot be provided in any new schools in the area. Raised beds do not take up much space and there are many imaginative solutions involving containers, window boxes, growing walls etc that could be incorporated into new build. In addition the growing spaces in existing schools in the area show what can be done. Provision of demonstration food growing areas in newly created parks would be useful as well as support for finding food growing spaces alongside the Chiltern/Metropolitan and Jubilee  railway lines.

2.       Food growing in schools raises awareness of the children about the impact of climate change and encourages healthy eating and a long term interest in gardening. It links with the curriculum and awards such as Healthy School and Eco School. The Council should be vigorously supporting it and making every effort to find food growing space for children.

3.    The Metropolitan Housing Trust is already working on these issues on the Chalkhill Estate with residents and are seeking additional growing spaces on the estate Involvement of other housing providers should be sought.

Seneca chief apologises for Wembley stink

Part of the Seneca mural on its NeasdenMRF

John Carey Junior apologised at the Wembley Connects event this week for the stench that hung over the Wembley and Neasden area for more than a week over the summer, coinciding with the Olympic Games events at the Stadium and Arena.

Seneca,  which has an MRF (Materials Recycling Facility) in Hannah Close, was contrite. The company  has prided itself on its environmental credentials with parent company Careys part-funding the Welsh Harp Environmental Study Centre.

They admitted to management problems as well as technical ones and admitted that the incident led to 5,000 extra tonnes of waste going to landfill. The smell worsened when the pile of waste was disturbed to be shipped out to landfill by a fleet of lorries.

 They blamed the initial problem on the accumulation of organic waste from black bag collections in municipalities other than Brent, where there were not separate composting collections or where there were no facilities for these in flats. The manager responsible had been 'let go', and organic waste was now being turned around within a 24 hour period, rather than festering on site. Odour repressants had been fitted and the odour extracted from within the building.

In response to questions Seneca confirmed that they were seeking a rail connection to transport waste materials (the site is next to the Chiltern Line) and that plans for a biomass plant were planned to go ahead but had been delayed when Seneca's partner went into liquidation.

The Environment Agency in a  briefing dated October 12th and distributed at the meeting said:

We are currently considering our enforcement options. This is  a live investigation and because of legal sensitivities, we are not able to discuss how the investigation is progressing. We will of course keep in touch with people who contact us and ask to be kept informed when we can say more. 

We have received a number of late reports of odour during recent weeks. We would ask that the local community immediately contact us on our 24 hour incident hotline telephone number 0800 80 70 60, if they smell odour which they believe is coming from Unit 2, Hannah Close.

In my contribution I reminded residents that there are a number of waste plants in the area and that Seneca was just across the railway lines from St Margaret Clitherow Primary School and Chalkhill Primary School. The proposed Wembley Stadium Primary would not be far away in Fulton Road. Brent Council had discussed the issue of the accumulation of such ' dirty neighbour' waste firms in the area in its Wembley Plan consultation. The consultation on the plan's preferred options closes on Monday October 8th. Residents who are concerned should go to Brent Council's consultation portal HERE to submit their views.

The consultation closes at 17.00 on Monday.