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

 

 

 

'Flood? What flood? Never heard anything about it,' say Wembley Point developer's agents as Tokyngton Wembley Point towers approved

 

 

Sometimes there is a jaw-dropping moment at Brent Planning Committee. Often it is the sheer audacity of planning officers' justification of developer's failure to meeting the demands of planning guidance. 

Yesterday it was the confession of the Wembley Point developer's agent team that they knew nothing about the August floods at the Argenta House/Tokyngton Avenue site adjacent to the area on which they wish to build. 

 

 

 Heavy pumping equipment at the site

 

They seemed pretty nonchalant about their ignorance but this leads to a second thought. Why did Brent planning officers not inform them about the incident which led to TV and newspaper headlines, with one person having to be rescued from their van and families evacuated.  Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, had even visited the site to reassure residents and tweeted about it. LINK

 

 

Even more troubling, the matter was smoothly passed over and the Committee went on to approve the application, with even the most sceptical coucncillor, Tory Cllr Jayanti Patel (substituting for Cllr Maurice), voting for approval.

This is the modelling of the water flow in the event of a flood - it goes into the Wembley Brook which residents of Tokyngton Avenue should be alert to.

 

"In the event of a flood, floodwater from the River Brent which surfaces on the Site flows around the north and south of the existing Wembley Point building, discharging into Wembley Brook, which is within the demise of Argentina House(sic)"  [Design and Access Statement]

Cllr Dixon abstained on the basis that there was insufficient affordable housing in the scheme (24.8%) against a target of 35% if the Local Plan target of 50% could not be met. She was also concerned about the discrepancy between two independent viability ssessments that led to the reduction in affordable housing. She wanted developers to be more ambitious, even if that meant adding a few storeys to the proposals, and for officesr to be more demanding.

Despite many objections on the planning portal and 29 properties being affected by restricted access to light and overlooking, there  was no speaker against the 550 unit (only 116 'affordable') homes. This is in marked contrast to the number of public representations at the Mumbai Junction application at the last meeting.

 

 From the Design and Access Statement

 

Although Stonebridge Boxing Club was named as the occupant of the proposed community building in the Design and Access statement, the developer's agent hastily clarified on questioning that it could be another community organisation.

 

The application now goes to the GLA where you can register to be kept informed of progress. 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.

Wembley Matters had warned about potential threat from Tokyngton developments after July 4th floods

 

The current and proposed buildings for the area between the Bakerloo line and Harrow Road at Stonebridge Park station. Upper photo is Stonebridge Place and the lower the new Argenta House which replaces the two storey building opposite Stonebridge Park station (white roof on the Stonebridge Place image). Wembley Brook joins the River Brent here.

 

The floods at Tokyngton Avenue on July 4th were not publicised on other media but Wembley Matters reported LINK:

[Developments] will involve concrete aprons close to the brook area and contrasts starkly with the River Brent to the east on the other side of the River Brent where a flood plain has been retained as open space in Monks Park and St Raphaels Estate.

I am afraid Tokyngton residents may not have seen the last of the flooding.

A Brent Council spoksperson said they were not called to the incident but will be seeking to understand the causes. Meanwhile Chris Whyte of the Environment Department said,  'If there are specific and unusual causal factors, then we would be happy to look into these.'  Chris.Whyte@brent.gov.uk

 

EXTRACT FROM DRAFT LOCAL PLAN

 

Wembley Brook and River Brent are potential sources of flooding and the majority of the site is within Flood Zone 3. Part of the site is within including extensive flood zone 3b (functional floodplain). Development, other than water compatible uses, will not be acceptable within functional floodplain. Any flood modelling from applicants which seeks to justify a revision to the functional floodplain boundary will need to be agreed by the Environment Agency.

 

Questions are now being asked about the alleged rerouting of the Wembley Brook  by the developers of Argenta House and whether this had permission.

 

On April 23rd 2022 Wembley Matters asked, 'How many people know about the big (very tall) changes ahead for this corner of Tokyngton ward?'  LINK  

The early proposals for Argenta House were covered on August 14th 2019: 'Let's build a 24* storey housing block on a flood plain close to Brent's most polluted road...' LINK

 

 

How many people know about the big (very tall) changes ahead for this corner of Tokyngton ward? WEM Tower residents in revolt

 

Wembley Point redeveloped into small apartments

Let's face it, you can't really miss Wembley Point on the North Circular Road - in fact it is right in your face. For years disused and under-used it has been converted into c400 small housing units.

It was sold to the Canda Israel Group for £43 in 2018 on behalf of off-shore clients of Bravo Investment Homes. Crucially the sale included overage, a payment to be made to the original land owner in the event that a valuable planning permission is granted. The payment will usually be a percentage of the difference between the market value of the land with the benefit of planning permission and without it.

Canada Israel, controlled by Barak Rosen and Assaf Tuchmeir (their private company, not to be confused with public company Israel Canada) has done its first deal in the UK. The company has purchased an office tower in the north-west London suburb of Wembley which it intends to convert to a residential tower at a total investment of £100 million. Canada Israel is paying £45 million for the property, and plans to build under an existing permit ("Permitted Development Rights") 440 small apartments (averaging 40 square meters) for an additional £55 million. Canada Israel plans to sell the apartments - studio and two-room apartments, for which there is high demand - for an average of about £300,000, and expects total sales proceeds of £130-150 million.

The existing office tower, with 20,000 square meters of built space, was bought as part of a 2.5 acre site for which Canada Israel plans to obtain residential planning rights to build 30,000 square meters. The property is adjacent to the Stonebridge Park Underground station, about twenty minutes journey time from central London, and is within walking distance of Wembley Stadium. LINK

Crucially the sale included overage, a payment to be made to the original land owner in the event that an additional  valuable planning permission is granted. for the site. The payment will usually be a percentage of the difference between the market value of the land with the benefit of planning permission and without it.

That additional planning permission is now being sought from Brent Council and would result in this transformation of the site: 

Impression of 'Stonebridge Place'

You will note that Wembley Point itself would be over-shadowed by an even taller block (32 storeys). The River Brent flows in front of it (now largely covered by a concrete platform) and the greenery to the left of the picture is the Wembley Brook which joins the River Brent somewhere beneath the concrete. The surburban housing and shops on the Harrow Road near the junction with the North Circular would also be over-shadowed.

Europe Real Estate LINK reported in March:

Canada Israel and Avanton have submitted a planning application to the London Borough of Brent for the regeneration of the 2.5-acre (1.26 hectare) Wembley Point site on Harrow Road to create a residential-led development known as Stonebridge Place with a GDV value of up to €297.6m (£250m) providing 515 new homes of mixed tenure, 1,200ft² of commercial space, new boxing gym with public café, landscaped gardens, pedestrian boulevards and new water features.

The Stonebridge Place proposals will deliver significant public realm improvements including a civic square, green pedestrian boulevard, children’s play spaces and resident’s gardens at ground and podium levels. The proposed new homes will be an addition to the already completed WEM Tower London, with its 439 new homes and fantastic amenities. Of the 515 new homes, 341 will be for market sale, with 35% allocated for affordable housing comprised of 57 shared ownership and 117 affordable rent homes.

Located to the south of Wembley Park and National Stadium, adjacent to Stonebridge Park Station (Bakerloo Underground Line), the new Stonebridge Place project will provide three striking new buildings. The first building is a 32 storey focal triangular tower with glass and green terracotta façade providing 266 one, two and three-bedroom market sale apartments over a new double-height residential lobby, complete with flexible commercial space.

The second stepped building, rising from 10 to 20 storeys, will have a glass and beige brick façade with balconies providing 249 mixed-tenure homes and flexible commercial space, with a large podium garden at the first-floor level. The partners will be building Stonebridge Boxing Club, an important local sports-led charity, a new facility. This will be located in the third new building on site which will be three storeys high providing a new boxing gym and public café with glass and bronzed-black terracotta façade.

The project’s significant public realm improvements include a new civic square, for food markets, a new Wembley outdoor Film Festival and Art & Antiques Market. Running through the site will be Stonebridge Place, a new green pedestrianised route linking the various buildings and landscaped areas.

Gil Selzer, Managing Director of Canada Israel UK said: “This proposed residential-led development at Wembley Point is a major urban regeneration project that will create a new destination for South Wembley. Stonebridge Place marks the next step in Canada Israel’s international expansion plans and building a strong real estate presence in the London property market.”

Omer Weinberger, CEO of Avanton commented: “Avanton are delighted to be partnering with international property company Canada Israel on this major urban regeneration scheme in Wembley which will provide market sale, BTR (Build to Rent) and social housing provision.”

Current residents of Wembley Point  (now marketed as WEM Tower) are not happy - in fact they feel misled and cheated by Canada Israel:

These are extracts from a typical comment on the Brent Planning website:

I am a new resident/tenant in the WEM Tower building and I am one of the many first ever tenants to reside in the WEM Tower building.
 

The owners and management of the premises did not and still do not disclose to potential new tenants/residents in the WEM Tower building about the proposed planning works that have been applied for permission to the Brent council during the viewings or at any point in time throughout the process of signing a contract or rental tenancy agreement with them!

This information is purposefully kept discreet and un-disclosed to all of new tenants/residents in the WEM Tower building! This is a very intentional act and behaviour of the management company and the owners and landlords of the flats in the WEM Tower building.

The entire grounds surrounding the outdoor premises of the WEM Tower building being the car park area will be subject to construction/maintenance/building work on the premises surrounding the WEM Tower building in which our flats are located/situated where we have been locked into 6-18 months rental tenancy agreement contacts!

If the planning for this project is authorised for a go ahead .. it will be extremely hazardous and injurious to our health and safety as residents residing in the WEM Tower building because we will all be surrounded by the on going construction all around the WEM Tower building premises! This is clearly unhealthy for us residents!

It is completely unfair for the management/landlords to expect us to live on a construction site! Either they decide to terminate our rental tenancy agreements of permission is granted to them for this project! Because the management/owners/landlords of the flats in WEM Tower building have not and did not disclose this information about the further construction on the premises, it was information that was kept discreet, un-disclosed concealed and withheld from us new tenants/residents currently residing within the flats in the WEM Tower building!

Please Brent Council, I am writing this appeal/objection on behalf of all several other current new residents/tenants in this building who are unhappy and dissatisfied for this project to go ahead or be given permission to go ahead!

We would like to suggest that if permission is given for this project than construction can only begin if all of us residents are evacuated from this WEM Tower building and released from our long term rental tenancy agreements! As our health and safety is at risk of construction is deemed to occur in the foreseeable future and if permission is given for this project.

Please Brent Council take this objection and appeal in serious consideration from all of us current new tenants/residents.

There are three pages of comments, mainly from WEM Tower residents and just one supporting the planning application:

I do not object to the proposal to continue to develop the Wembley Point site. The developer's plans to fully develop the land have been clear since they purchased the land. I trust that my rights as a tenant will not be infringed upon. To date, I have received prompt and helpful replies to all my emails to the Property Managers at Home-Made (who are responsible for WEM Tower), and I have no reason to believe at this time that Home-Made and/or Canada-Israel will act in a manner which is inappropriate to tenants. If the nature of this relationship changes, I have the right to complain to Home-Made and Canada-Israel as appropriate and/or report any unlawful or unethical practices to the Property Ombudsman or other relevant regulatory body. However, I have no reason at this time to expect to complain either to Home-Made and/or Canada-Israel, nor to the Property Ombudsman or relevant regulatory body.


My understanding of the proposal is such that I believe that no significant alteration will be made to the fabric of the building in which I live, that building being WEM Tower. My understanding is that the only building works which will happen at WEM Tower itself are those which are necessary for maintenance purposes (e.g. such works as would be expected by a landlord so as to fulfil their duties to tenant(s)). Therefore, I do not believe that the development of the disused car park will affect my safety or compromise my right to quiet enjoyment of the property I rent. Construction work is subject to time restrictions so as to avoid excessive discomfort to those nearby, and acoustic insulation boards can be used to minimise noise during the works. I reserve the right to complain to Home-Made (the Property Manager) and/or Canada-Israel (the Landlord) if my quiet enjoyment of the property or any other contractual or legal right is compromised for whatever reason and I am further empowered to complain to the Property Ombudsman or other relevant regulatory body if my initial complaint is handled inappropriately.


As far as I am aware, tenants have not been advised that the carpark which is currently present at the site is available for long-term use. Neither the WEM Tower website nor the WEM Tower resident app advertise parking. Indeed, the resident app stipulates that cars cannot park on the site other than for checking-in purposes and for deliveries. In my experience, both the Developer and Property Manager have been fair and flexible regarding the use of the car park, as I was allowed to park for free whilst I sold my car. Cars are inappropriate for London; I have replaced my car with a small electric moped, and I also own a bicycle, and it is my understanding that these greener modes of transportation are unaffected by the absence of car parking. I firmly believe that the Wembley Point development should be car-free, with the exemption of blue badge holders. I am a car enthusiast, but I am sentient to the negative environmental impact of car use in London and beyond and the issue of congestion, which cannot be resolved through the acquisition of an electric car (as cars are larger vehicles). It is my opinion that residents at this development should be encouraged to use (preferably electric) mopeds/motorcycles, as well as bicycles, when they are not using public transport. This would further reduce the potentially negative impact of increased population to other residents in the area and would encourage residents to make environmentally-conscious decisions. Those who need cars should hire them occasionally, and I understand that Zipcar will soon be available direct from this development. This meets my needs perfectly, and likely the needs of most or all other residents. There are a small number of cars currently parked at the development, but I have only seen one of these move and that was only on one single occasion. I am not omniscient, but my perspective is that current residents do not desperately need access to personal cars.


I believe the development of this land will have a positive impact on the area. Firstly, the property I rent at present is very well-presented; it is nicely equipped and thoughtfully designed. I have lived in both social and private rental properties my entire life, and my flat at WEM Tower is definitively the nicest, most well-equipped property I have ever occupied. The property is furnished to a higher standard than I have come to expect from a private landlord, and certainly to higher standard than any property I have ever rented or viewed, not only in London but nationwide. It is a shame that the approach taken by this developer is not used more widely, particularly by Local Authorities which ought to work more effectively to tackle the nationwide housing crisis, and should build genuinely comfortable homes for all. I grew up on a council estate, and I only wish that it had been half as nice as WEM Tower, as our standard of living would have been so much higher than it was. If WEM Tower is anything to go by, I firmly believe that the developer should be encouraged to improve run-down, disused, or poorly-developed land in Brent and beyond. They are succeeding here at Wembley Point, and I am in favour of good quality housing for all. Perhaps Brent Council could buy a few properties from the developer when they are completed?

The Wembley Towers development proposal will create jobs in the construction and hospitality sectors, both of which were hit hard by the pandemic. The staff working at WEM Tower, from the cleaners to the concierge, baristas to security guards, are fantastic. It is great to see jobs being created in Brent, and staff seem likely to be able to move onto other roles in their sector should they wish, as they are all excellent at what they do. The development, when complete, will also improve the lives of residents in the Wembley Towers; residents will be able to use both Brent River Park and the landscaped gardens at Wembley Towers, plus the health and well-being facilities which are intended.

I do not believe that the development of the carpark will infringe on my contractual and legal rights as a tenant of WEM Tower, and I understand what actions are necessary on my part should any of my rights be infringed upon for whatever reason. I plan to remain a long-term tenant of the development subject to my needs and I am enthused by the prospect of increased choice to properties on the development, and may indeed wish to migrate to another tower should it better suit my needs. I believe, based on the fairness and transparency exhibited to date, that the Landlord would consider a rent cap (that is, no increase to rent beyond the existing contractual period for the duration of another contract) should this prove appropriate and/or relevant to tenants who live onsite during the building works.

It is nice to see developers creating jobs without building on Green Belt land.

As I talk to people in Wembley it is remarkable how many do not know about planned developments - until work starts... I wonder if the WEM Tower and Monks Park residents know about the other pending tower in their corner of Tokyngton ward.

 Argenta House (opposite Stonebridge Park Station next to current bus stop)

This is a 24 storey tower that will replace the 2 storey Argenta House. The Wembley Brook runs close to the current building. The plans were approved by a much substituted Planning Committee back in October 2019. It was reduced from 28 storeys to 24. LINK

You can see Wembley Point behind the current building in this photograph but will need to imagine the 32 storey and the stepped 20 storey  buildings either side of WEM Tower as well as the impact of the 24 storey Argenta House on the light of all three. The artist's impression of a stand-alone Argenta House is more than a little misleading.

 

Argenta House on Argenta Way, opposite Stonebridge Park Station where the new block will be built. Wembley Point in the background.

© Copyright Jaggery  Creative Commons Licence

This is not all of course. On the opposite side of the road we have the Unisys buildings which along with the Bridge Park Centre and some smaller sites is the site of a controversial major development by Brent Council with General Mediterranean Holding. Details have been held up by protected legal action as the community tried to secure its ownership of Bridge Park (use this blog's search facility for details).

 

The Unisys buildings

The  intial plans were for 800 residential units of a site said to be worth c£500m and GMH said one of the Unisys blocks could be refurbished as a hotel. In the light of the Stonebridge Place development and Brent's policy in favour of tall buildings and 'intensification corridors' this is likely to be revised by the developer.

Indeed a note on the Local Plan Tall Buildings Policy  (June 2021) goes further and includes Conduit Way on the opposite side of the road to the Unisys site LINK:

For Stonebridge Park an additional area adjacent to the site allocation BSSA7 Bridge Park and Unisys Building has been identified. This incorporates the Conduit Way estate. This extension is justified on the basis that the existing estate is of low density, lower quality homes which has the potential to be intensified to a higher density reflective of its higher public transport accessibility. This is particularly so along and in the areas adjacent to the Brentfield frontage. This will complement the taller buildings proposed on the Unisys and Bridge Park site and reinforce the gateway role from the North Circular of those entering the borough from further afield.

 

 

Let's build a 24* storey housing block on a flood plain close to Brent's most polluted road...

The proposed 28 storey block with nearby terraced houses and Wembley Point for comparison (revisd image of 24 storeys awaited)

Argenta House on Argenta Way, opposite Stonebridge Park Station where the new block will be built. 
Wembley Point in the background.

© Copyright Jaggery  Creative Commons Licence

Following on from Wembley Central's 'Twin Towers', the tower blocks around Wembley Stadium and those approved in Alperton, a 24 (*the developer's PR agency informs me that 4 storeys have been knocked off the original proposed 28 storeys) storey tower block proposal is going to Brent Planning Committee at its next meeting on Wednesday September 21st.

What is particularly worrying about this proposal is that the 28 storeys (which replace a two storey building) will be built on a flood plain where both Wembley Brook and the River Brent flow and next to the heavily polluted North Circular Road.

Not an ideal site for housing one would think but it is close to Wembley Point which is being converted to accommodation and across the road from he long empty Unisys building which is part of the larger Brent Council supported development which includes Bridge Park complex. Housing and a hotel are planned there as well as a smaller sports centre. Currently Stonebridge residents are in dispute over the plans.

As always Brent planning officers  find reasons to support the plans despite the obvious drawbacks. This is a breakdown of the flats planned for the block. The definition of 'affordable' used is'no more than 80%  of open market rents' (ie unaffordable for the most needy Brent residents):

The wording of a petition and a submission against the development is not available on the Brent Planning Portal. 

Officers argue that the'maximun reasonable amount [of affordable and intermediate housing] has been provided on a near policy compliant tenure split.' It will be subject to further viability assessments as the development proceeds.

While recognising the flood risk and the worsening situation as a result of climate change, and taking into ac count that the first three storeys of the development will not include residential accommodation, the officers state:

At face value on the basis of evidence provided by the applicants it appears, notwithstanding that some of the site is within functional floodplain, from a technical perspective there is the ability to create betterment over the current situation through new development. This is in relation to flood risk onsite and elsewhere (though reducing footprint/obstructions within the channel), improving the aesthetic, recreational and environmental/ bio-diversity performance of the river channel/ environs and also the appearance/ perception of this gateway site whilst meeting the very real issue of meeting housing needs.

 I would hope committee members investigate that statement a little more.

The section on pollution from traffic is even more opaque with officers concentrating on how the new development would add to traffic pollution rather than on existing levels of pollution, but go on to say:

Related to the above, air quality at the lowest levels of the building (levels 6 and below), especially on the eastern elevation closer to the North Circular, would not meet the air quality objections for Nitrogen Oxide, although particulate matter objectives would be met at all levels. This shows that the emissions from the North Circular have a major effect on air quality at the site, albeit that the impact is predicated greatest at the lower elevations and the effect decreases with height. 

However officers assure Planning Committee members that:

Officers have questioned the effectiveness of NOx filtration systems in these flats, since the flats will have opening windows and doors onto balconies. Opening of such doors and windows would result in untreated air entering the internal habitable rooms (depending on air pressure differences). The applicant's air quality consultant has carried out further testing to clarify that the efficiencies of the NOx filters are such that the NO2 levels in the internal air will be 80-90% lower than the incident air, meaning that the affected flats' windows would need to be open for at least 88-89% of the time for internal parts of the flats to exceed the annual mean Air Quality Objective levels that are considered safe. Similarly, it has been confirmed that the use of the balconies on these levels by occupants, even for extended periods, will not result in occupants' air exposure exceeding the annual mean air quality objectives for NO2. As such, it would be necessary for an occupant to live on the balcony (including at night) for such objectives to be exceeded.

Regular readers will not be surprised at the report's conclusion:

Officers consider that the scheme meets planning policy objectives and is in general conformitywith local, regional and national policy. The proposal would make a positive contribution to the area,whilst having an acceptable impact on and relationship with the existing surrounding development.Officers recommend the application for approval subject to the conditions and obligations set out in this report

The full report has much more detail including comments from the owners of Wembley Point regarding a possible bridge between the two buildings which will now occupty the site and potential improvements to Stonebridge Park Station. Available HERE

Residents can apply to the chair of the Planning Committee for leave to make representations at the meeting before a decision is made. Contact the Governance Officer
Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk; 020 8937 1354