Development of Willesden Green police houses and police station at Planning Committee next week

 

The present police houses and police station (concealed by tree)

 

The proposal
 

A revised planning application for the ex-police houses and police station in Willesden High Road will be heard at Brent Planning Committee next week (Wednesday June 11th 6pm).

An appeal by the developer was turned down by the Planning Inspectorate on various grounds but the developer now claims that these have been addressed in the new application. In their report to the Planning Committee, Brent planning officers concur but 60 objectors to the proposal strongly disagree.

 

 

The proposal is for  demolition of the police house and some outbuildings and replacement with a 4 storey building that wraps around the police station. There would be 25 flats and a commercial space in the retained police station.  The landmark sycamore tree would stay but have its crown reduced.

The garden area has come in for criticism as it contains something called a Mound but with no specifics on size and height. 

 

Perhaps it is an aspect that the developer will happily remove to assuage the objectors - not a hill that they would want to die on!

After revision of the Viability Assessment four social homes are proposed out of the 25 planned but that provision could be replaced by a contribution of £1.1m to be used for social housing elsewhere.

Trees have a high profile at present as the council has launched its new Strategy for consultation. This application serves as an example of how trees on a development site are currently treated by Brent planning officers:

A total of 7 trees (T6 to T12) and one group of trees (G13) are proposed to be removed from the site to accommodate the development. These have all been categorised as C trees (Trees of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years, or young trees with a stem diameter below 150mm) and not of sufficient quality to present a constraint to development 

 

The submitted report notes that G13 are low quality shrub like planting located within the current front garden. Brent’s Principal Tree Officer was satisfied with their removal subject to their replacement as part of the landscaping scheme. The scheme proposes 9 new trees within the site, 7 of which are located within the communal garden and 2 within the frontage on High Road.

 

To facilitate the development works are proposed to two of the retained trees, T1 Sycamore and T3 Birch. T3 Birch would also require minor access facilitation pruning to allow erection of protective fencing and site hoarding. This is not considered to be a major issue.. It is proposed to further construct walls and patio areas within the RPA of T1 which is the Sycamore Tree located to the frontage on High Road, Willesden. It is proposed to Crown Reduce the Sycamore tree (T1).

 

The bulk and density of the new building and its impact on the character of the area are two of the main concerns of objectors. Cllr Maurice (Kenton ward) and Cllr Long (Willesden Green ward) have objected to the scheme.

One objector uses refreshingly straight forward language that contrasts with the dry language of the officers' report:

 

I Strongly object to this nonsense.

A mound? A bloody Mound?! This is Willesden, not the Peak District. What a cynical, disingenuous ruse by the developers to pretend it is for amenity and play space. They are too cheap to get rid of their demolition debris properly and respectfully and so propose to bury it. It would effectively be a slag heap - a waste tip - an invasion of privacy and amenity and an insult to intelligence. This cannot be a serious suggestion - the developers haven't even bothered with size or scale (a molehill would not require permission, so how big a mountain do they want?). Please do not allow this precedent to be set. To paraphrase the Basques, 'If you tolerate this, then your garden will be next.'

The ignominy does not stop there:

The developers are proposing to inflict on the immediate neighbours (and new residents) 5m2 balconies directly overlooking gardens and bay windows into bedrooms and living rooms (where is the privacy, also, for the balcony users and pedestrians?) There is no precedent for this in any of the surrounding streets.

Why propose siting a loading bay on a quiet residential road, when one already exists on the High Road around the corner (a far more suitable space)?

Why pretend (again!) that the view from the window of the nearest house is just of a brick wall? The Inspectorate specifically stated that, despite being told that by the developers, she went into the room and saw for herself it was not true. Why are they perpetuating that same untruth and continuing to suggest blocking the same precious light?

Why are the developers plans and documents so shoddily put together that they take an age and numerous attempts to navigate?

Brent Planning Committee. No, please. Just no.

The planning officers' report uses the familiar argument that the benefits of the scheme outweigh any negatives including the scheme not meeting natural light and amenity space guidelines and recommend that the Planning Committee approve the application:

The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, having regard to all material planning considerations, and that the application should be approved subject to conditions and a Section106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations.

 The assessment has given significant weight to the appeal decision as a material consideration, and it is considered that this scheme has overcome the previous reasons for the dismissed appeal.

 The proposal would deliver 25 new homes towards Brent’s housing targets, of which 28% would be family sized which would contribute to an identified need in the borough.

 Whilst the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the Willesden Green Conservation Area, such harm is significantly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. Furthermore, the retention of part of the non-designated heritage asset, along with the delivery of an appropriate commercial town centre use (which has the potential to be employment generating) in a sustainable location is considered to outweigh the absence of securing an employment use as outlined in the site allocation and the and the limited conflict with policy would be outweighed by the planning benefits.

LINK TO AGENDA ITEM 

 

 

 

 

 

'Matters of balance' reveal conflicts and contradictions in Brent planning policy

 

Video of Gerry Ansell's summing up re the proposal and councillor's reasons for voting against

The Planning Committee of October 14th was notable as the first the be chaired by Cllr Matt Kelcher following the Labour and Council AGM, for its length and for the way in which the themes that emerged during the discussion of the application to redevelop the site of the Willesden Green PoliceSstation revealed some of the conflictions and contradictions in Brent Council's planning policies and guidance.

This is the Council's recording of the decision:

Although the lack of affordability housing in the development took up a great deal of time in the discussion, and was cited as a reason for rejection by some councillors, they were 'cautioned' by Gerry Ansell, Head of Planning and Development Services, that when it came to professional advice on viability there was no viability in this scheme. Independent professional advice was that if the scheme was to be financially viable for the developer all 28 units had to be sold at market rates and no affordable housing could be provided. Planning Officer David Glover said that the concerns over affordable housing could be recorded in the Minutes of the meeting but not in the reasons for refusal.

Ansell said that there were particular factors in this development that reduced viability.  It was in a sensitive location with a building of quality with associated costs for its retention and restoration that reduced land values.

He said that affordable housing was a core Council policy but issues are 'a matter of balance.' He assured councillors that officers pushed developers hard on affordability.

Cllr Arshad Mamhood was particuarly vexed working out that the market value was about £10m and the developer was only required to contribute £143,000 to off-site affordable housing elsewhere. Councillors were told that this could be used for the equivalent of 1-1/2 units elsewhere in the borough.

Cllr Mahmood asked that councillors be able to look more closely at the detail of Viability Assessments so that they could scrutinise them. He was told that they were available on the Council website before applications came to Committee.

 

 The retained police station with the new development behind

The recently liberated (from Cabinet) Cllr Tom Miller, representing his ward, spoke against the development.  He told the Committee:

I feel that with only this proposal on the table, what the Committee are being asked is, 'Would you rather have a development that is out of character with, not just the local area, but a conservation area?' and show we are not serious about preserving that or, 'Would you rather have a proposal that shows we are not serious about having  enough affordable homes?'

It's asking the Local Authority to pick which of our policies we should ditch and that for me has 'REJECT' written all over it. It is throwing down a challenge to the Committte, 'Which of these is not important.'

I'd rather not have a conservation area at all then have a conservation area that allows developers to drive right through it.

Both he and fellow Willesden Green councillor, Cllr Donnelly-Jackson said that they had not been approached bu the developers and consulted.

A positive aspect of the discussion was the planners assertion that they had been keen to ensure the retention of the police station and recognised its historial merit depite it not being a listed building. Cllr Dixon spoke about the important historical character of this section of the High Road.

Other issues that came up were carless developments that just meant residents would spill over into nearby streets to park, the development overlooking neighbour's gardens and in one particular case reducing the light  entering a neighbour's property to almost zero. The sheer bulk of the property in contrast to the local side streets  and the High Road and the lack of proper consultation were major issues - along with the 146 objections to the scheme.

The Committee voted to reject the proposal with Cllr Liz Dixon and Cllr Saqib Butt abstaining.

 

 

 

 

"We can't continue to deliver these services"-Brent police chief on closure of Willesden Green Police Station

The Brent and Kilburn Times LINK is reporting that Brent's police chief is considering closing Willesden Green Police Station.  At a meeting at Brent Town Hall last night Chief Superintendent Matthew Gardner, in what appeared to be a political comment, said:

There are currently three officers behind the front counter at Willesden police station which I am looking at closing.

Do I have officers behind a desk and not doing anything?

As soon as you start taking away libraries and closing up police counters people get angry but we can’t continue to deliver these services.

We need them to listen and to understand. It is going to be difficult.