The Planning Committee this week discussed two Wembley issues which local people have expressed concern about:
Agenda
item 7,
for 4 blocks of flats (3 x 8-storey and 1 x 5-storey with total of 109 flats)
and one pair of 3-storey semi-detached family houses on the former station car
park at Brook Avenue, Wembley, was brought forward. It was explained that
during the site visit on 9 March it had been pointed out that several people
who had commented on the application within the time limit had not been
notified of the visit or committee date.
Investigations had shown that those
not notified included two Ward Councillors and the Chairperson of the Barn Hill
Residents Association. The committee’s Legal Advisor had recommended that, in
these circumstances, consideration of the application should be deferred to the
next meeting of Planning Committee. The proposal to defer was put to the
committee, and accepted unanimously.
The Chairman, Cllr. Ketan Sheth, told the
members of the public present, including around half-a-dozen local residents
who had come for this application (two of whom had been given speaking “slots”
at the meeting as objectors) that the item 7 application would not now be heard
at the meeting. He thanked those who had come for that item for attending, and
said that he hoped they would come again to the meeting when it would be
considered.
 |
| Plan with part retention of Palace of Industry walls |
Agenda
item 4,
for 1,350 temporary car parking spaces on the former Palace of Arts and Palace
of Industry site at Engineers Way, Wembley, was the first application actually
considered. Planning Officer Neil McLennan gave some further information on
points from the Supplementary Report handed out at the start of the meeting,
and said that the recommendation was now to give consent for temporary car
parking for five years, rather than three, but with a reduction from 1,350 to a
maximum of 510 spaces after three years, unless otherwise agreed by the
Council. This would save the applicant from having to make a further
application at the end of three years.
Philip Grant, a member of Wembley History
Society, was invited to speak by the Chairman. He handed over some
illustrations for the committee, and told them that since the application was
made at the end of 2012 he had been trying to persuade the applicant, Quintain
Estates, to retain at least some of the external walls of the Palace of
Industry building until at least the end of 2014.
That year would see the 90th
anniversary of the British Empire Exhibition, an event which would be of far
more than local interest. The Palace of Industry was the last remaining
building from the Exhibition, and it was important that visitors for
celebration events in 2014 should be able to see the scale and architectural
style of one of the original 1924 buildings, and the innovative construction
method used for the Exhibition, which was also known as the World’s First City
of Concrete.
Mr Grant said that he had been told by Quintain
that none of the walls could be left free-standing for reasons of safety. He
said that he had asked several times since 18 January for sight of any report
showing this to be the case. He had made clear that he would withdraw his
objection to the demolition of the walls if he could be satisfied on this
point, but had been given no evidence to back up Quintain’s claim. He said that
he had recently written to Quintain’s Chief Executive with proposals for just a
small section of the walls to be retained, rather than all of the northern and
eastern external walls, and referred members to the illustrations he had given
them which showed details, and that his proposals would not interfere with the
planned parking spaces.
He asked the committee, if it could not make keeping
part of the walls a condition of granting consent, to make a strong request to
Quintain to retain the small section of the external walls now suggested.
Anne Clements, Quintain’s Senior Planning
Manager, addressed the committee next. She said that temporary car parking on
the site was essential to her company’s Wembley City regeneration project,
which had been approved by Brent in 2000. The extra parking was needed to meet
its commitments to Wembley Stadium, and had to be available before they
demolished an existing multi-storey car park as part of the next phase of the
project. The latest phase, the London Designer Outlet, would be ready later in
2013, and was already over 50% pre-let, with Marks & Spencer as the lead
tenant. This would provide 1,500 new jobs, and steps were being taken to try to
ensure that most of these went to local people. The Wembley City regeneration
was of major economic importance to Brent, and the Council should continue to
give it their full support.
Ms Clements said that Quintain were mindful of
the site’s British Empire Exhibition heritage. Several mosaics had been
carefully removed when they demolished the last section of the Palace of Arts
some years ago, and the lion’s head corbels from the building currently under
demolition would be preserved, with some given to Brent. She said that they
needed to clear the whole site for car parking, and that, for safety reasons,
they were not prepared to accept the risk of leaving any of the walls standing.
When asked by one of the members whether there was any survey or report which
showed that it would be unsafe to leave the walls standing, Ms Clements said
that Quintain’s demolition contractor had said that the concrete was
deteriorating and that the whole building should be knocked down.
Several members of Planning Committee then gave
their views. Cllr. Ann John said that she must start by saying that, although
she had no personal interest in the application, she had known and had many
discussions with Ms Clements and other members of the Quintain team about the
Wembley City regeneration during her years as Leader of the Council. She
stressed the importance of the scheme, and said that she fully supported the
application. While she did not blame Mr Grant for trying to keep a part of
Wembley’s history, it was a similar situation to when some people wanted to
retain the twin towers of the old Wembley Stadium. That would have cost £30-40
million, and would have meant that Brent did not have the new Wembley Stadium.
Cllr. Mark Cummins said that what Mr Grant was
now suggesting looked very reasonable, and he hoped that Quintain would try to
accommodate his suggestion to retain a small section of the Palace of Industry
walls. The British Empire Exhibition was an important part of Wembley’s
history, and it should be possible to allow part of its last surviving building
to remain standing for the anniversary in 2014. Cllr. Mary Daly, Vice-Chair of
the committee, supported this view, and asked Ms Clements to take the feelings
of members, on retaining the small section of the walls now proposed, back to
her company. Cllr. Sami Hashmi said that he agreed with the comments of Cllrs.
Cummins and Daly.
Making final comments from the Planning
Officers, Stephen Weeks said that there was no legal bar to Quintain demolishing
the Palace of Industry building, and no condition over keeping part of the
walls could be imposed as part of this planning consent. Neil McLennan
clarified the wording of the amended conditions to the consent which the
Officers recommended. The committee voted unanimously to grant consent, as
amended.
The amended recommendations to the conditions on which consent would be
granted for temporary car parking spaces on the Palace of Industry / Palace of
Arts site, which were approved by Planning Committee were:
Condition 1: Period for which consent given: 5 years (rather than 3 years in original recommendation);Condition 7: Maximum number of parking spaces: 1,350 spaces for the first three years from first use, and 510 spaces for the following two years unless otherwise agreed by the Council (rather than 1,350 spaces in the original recommendation).
