The densification of the Wembley High Road area will continue if a proposal for the development of the site of the Elm Hotel (also known as Euro Hotel) and the nearby disused church at 10 St Johns Road goes ahead. The developer, Wembley Ltd is proposing that a 315 room 'Aparthotel' (A form of hotel having self-catering apartments instead of bedrooms or suites) replaces the 57 room Elm Hotel. The development will be a further intrusion into suburban housing.
The purple pin marks the site with the disused church above and to the left
The Exhibition on the site at the junction of St Johns Road (off Wembley High Road ) and Elm Road. It will take place on Tuesday January 31st 3pm-8pm.
Wembley Ltd say:
The team’s vision is to transform the existing
hotel into a much needed 315 guestroom Aparthotel helping to fulfil the
significant demand in the area for high quality hotel and hospitality
facilities as well as providing new jobs and additional uses for the site. The
plans incorporate the adjacent site at 10 St John’s Rd (containing a disused
church) and will also provide new active ground floor non-residential space.
The intended design fully respects the location close to the high road but
within a residential area. It has been carefully considered against key views
to ensure the building makes a positive contribution to the townscape. The
building will meet high sustainability standards, will minimise car use and
maximise walking and cycling for residents and visitors
Plans for the residential led redevelopment of the current light industrial/commercial site between 54-68 Dudden Hill Lane NW10 1DG and 370 Willesden High Road NW10 2EA will go on public exhibition at Mencap 379-381 High Road, Willesden, NW10 2JR on Tuesday January 17th 4pm - 8pm and Thursday 19th January 4pm to 8pm.
The development website will not go live until after the exhibitions. Purple pin below marks 54-68 Dudden Hill Lane and red pin 370 High Road.
At a time when London is flooding regularly, the Mayor has only delivered one hundredth of his annual target to improve drainage.
Over 100,000 square metres of London that should have improved drainage using SuDs (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) has not been delivered since 2019. The Mayor has also confirmed he is unable to properly track progress under questioning from Zack Polanski AM today.
SuDs are designed to reduce risks around flooding which are increased during winter months and the Mayor is on course to miss this target for the third year in a row.[1]
When Zack has asked for more data on SuDs, he has been told the GLA does not hold detailed data on installation by year. Figures given often say more is happening but are unspecific on how much or where this is taking place.[1]
Green London Assembly member Zack Polanski says:
You can’t track progress if you don’t know what’s being done. The climate is getting more volatile than ever, and London risks another season of flooding.
I would urge the Mayor to not only meet his target but also make up the shortfall. The grey concrete that covers too much of London can gather rainfall into devastating floods which particularly threaten those living in basements.
We must break up that concrete and replace it with green spaces that absorb water, letting it drain away over time instead of flooding our homes. The Mayor has missed this target for too long – he must commit to taking SuDs seriously, prioritising tracking and encouraging boroughs, businesses and landowners to do more.
The Mayor has a target for TfL to drain 50,000 square metres a year of highway catchment into SuDs. In 2021/22 TfL only installed SuDs that drained 500 square metres.[1]
Reservoir Cottage om Birchen Grove, next to to the Wembley Sailing Club and the Welsh Harp itself, has been hidden from view for many years by trees and vegetation.
In fact on the way to my Birchen Grove allotment I have in the past found delivery people wandering around searching for the entrance.
That changes in July ths year when the cottage was sold by auction. The first bid was £425,000 but that quickly rose to £50K and £60k finally being sold for £644,000.
The cottage itself from pictures on the auction site LINK is not in very good condition but the site is quite large as this image shows - the border is in red.
The clue may be in this statement on the auction site:
This property / site may be suitable for
redevelopment subject to obtaining the necessary consents. Prospective
purchasers should rely on their own enquiries with Brent Council: 0208 937
5210 or https://www.brent.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning
Work has already started on clearing the trees and vegetation. Compare the picture above with this view taken today:
Brent Council told me on Friday that removal of vegetation did not require planning permission but it appears that trees are involved. The Council also said that no planning application had been received for the site.
The cottage is a locally listed building. This designation has not saved other Brent buildings. In fact, Symal House redevelopment is coming up at Planning Committee next week. Despite being noteworthy for its 20th century construction method officers are recommending acceptance of the planning application that will see it demolished.
The entry in Brent's Local List recognises Reservoir Cottage's historical importance:
The 'dam keeper' would monitor water levels and operate the sluice gates on the dam as needed.
Any development has the potential to impact on this currently quite green space which is opposite the Birchen Grove allotments and the entrance road to the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre and the Garden Centre, and the side road to the Welsh Harp Open Space car park.
A planning application to demolish six garages in Minterne Road, Kenton, and replace with a 4 bedroom house will be heard at Planning Committee tonight. A supplementary report has been published today reporting a further submission by a local resident. The report is published below
A local resident has objected to the proposal re-iterating their concerns that the plan is not feasible and will destroy the neighbourhood and severely impact their privacy as the proposal would overlook their garden and side of their house.
They requested that the Planning Committee make a site visit to further understand the impacts. The objector has also specified that they would take legal action against council if the proposal is approved.
The concerns raised about (sic) in terms of impact on the character of the neighbourhood, privacy and overlooking to neighbouring properties have been discussed within the committee report.
Members of the Planning Committee do make themselves familiar with the site and the surrounding context prior to considering the application at the committee meeting. A formal Planning Committee site visit was not considered necessary in this instance as it is possible to understand the proposal, the site and its context from the information available to members.
Recommendation: Remains to Grant Consent subject to conditions as set out within the draft decision notice.
The belt of Grendon Gardens trees that border Newland Court clearly visible in this satellite view
Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
TREES:
I have not yet had chance to look at the planning application documents, but there is some information I can share with potential objectors to the Newland Court development, based on personal knowledge from having to advise a relative who used to live in the Barn Hill Conservation Area.
The boundary of the Conservation Area runs along the back fence/wall at Newland Court, with all of the back gardens, AND all the trees in them, of Grendon Gardens within the Conservation Area.
Para. 6.5, "Natural Environment", of Brent's Barn Hill Conservation Area Character Appraisal includes the following statement:
'Barn Hill has a very green character defined by the relatively densely planted trees to garden boundaries and along the roads of the estate. Species such as Cherry, Purple Plumb, Hawthorn, Oak and Ash proliferate. These trees help to provide a natural framing for views in and out of the area and between buildings. These trees are an essential part of the character of the area and the mix of deciduous and coniferous trees is part of the now prevailing character.'
The Barn Hill Conservation Area design guide, at para. 5.3, "Trees", in the "Gardens" section, says:
'All trees in the Barn Hill Conservation Area that have a diameter greater than 75mm [that's about 3 inches], measured at a height of 1.5m [about 5 feet], are protected. You will need permission to carry out even the most minor of work to a tree. It is always best to contact Planning & Development for advice on the best way to protect the trees in your garden.'
If you are a Grendon Gardens resident who has trees at the bottom of your garden, backing onto Newland Court and Brent's proposed development site, you might want to contact Brent Council's Tree Protection Officer (I wouldn't personally recommend contacting Planning!), and seek her advice on how the trees in your garden should be protected.
Ask for her advice in writing, and quote it as part of your objection to Brent's planning application, if you wish to object to it.
Cllr Promise Knight sets out the Council's case for in-fill
View of the estate currently
In-fill highlighted
Residents of the Clement Close estate in Brondesbury Park have set up this petition opposing the Council's development proposals put forward as as part of their estate in-fill programme.
The consultation is due to close tomorrow, July 13th, 2022.
Re: New
Council Homes Programme – Clement Close, Brondesbury Park (NW6 7AL)
Dear Cllr Promise
Knight,
On Friday 24 June 2022, leaflets were distributed across Clement Close and
neighbouring properties to inform residents of the proposed redevelopment of
Clement Close.
Although we
understand the need for more affordable housing and agree with Brent’s Council
aspiration to make the most of its under-used land and property assets, we
argue that Clement Close is NOT under-used, nor is it suitable for the outlined
development, and we strongly
oppose this proposal.
After careful
review of your proposal, we the residents of Clement Close have put together
the following summary of our concerns. The proposed development would result
in:
1.Substantial loss of privacy for many residents
of Clement Close and neighbouring properties: The windows of the new
buildings would be overlooking the windows and/or gardens of existing
properties.
2.Substantial overshadowing of adjoining
buildings:
The importance of natural light on physical and mental health has been
well-established. Cramming 22 new family homes in “gaps” would have a severe
impact on the wellbeing of all Clement Close residents.
3.Loss of trees: Clement Close boasts many
beautiful mature trees, which would need to be removed if the proposal goes
ahead. The role of trees in a city cannot be underestimated. Not only do they
absorb excess CO2 and slow down the rate of global warming, but they release
oxygen, reduce wind speeds, cool the air, prevent flooding and boost wildlife.
Removing these trees from the estate while increasing human occupancy by 25%
would go against Brent Climate & Ecological Emergency Strategy and Brent Corporate Environmental Policy Statement, which
specifically state Brent’s commitment to “enhancing the ecological value of
land for which the Council is responsible”, and “integrating environmental and
sustainability considerations into all decision making considered to have
significant environmental implications”.
4.Adequacy of parking/loading/turning and
concerns around access for emergency vehicles: With the proposal to
narrow the road to a single lane to make space for a row of new houses on the
eastern side of Clement Close, parking, turning and road access would be
severely impacted. Access to the far end of the site by wide vehicles, such as
emergency vehicles or refuse collection trucks would be seriously compromised.
The Cabinet for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security is probably aware
that #1 Clement Close is a recently redeveloped, council-owned facility for
adults with special needs, and that ambulances have been called to the site
regularly. In addition, refuse collection trucks are already struggling with
access.
5.Increased road traffic: The increased vehicle
traffic resulting from 25% more occupancy of Clement Close would result in
increased congestion, noise, air pollution, directly contradicting Brent Healthy Neighbourhood scheme. It would also pose a
threat to the numerous children, elderly and disabled currently living in
Clement Close.
6.Substantial impact on visual amenity resulting
from the layout and density of building: the addition of new buildings, combined
with the loss of green spaces, would turn Clement Close into a concrete jungle.
The overcrowding would also result in higher levels of noises and disturbances,
which would be detrimental to the wellbeing of all residents – current and new.
This would again go against Brent’s commitment to “improving the quality of
life”, as highlighted in Brent Corporate Environmental Policy Statement.
7.Loss of existing services: the current plans appear
to threaten existing amenities relied upon by many residents including: ground-floor
storage cupboards for upper-floor flats, bicycle storage (some of which has
only just been installed), recycling facilities. There is no clear plan for
where these existing services would be rebuilt/moved to on the current plans.
Most importantly for our youngest residents the plans seem to involve building
over the existing climbing frame/slide and a bench which form a central part of
community life for Clement Close children.
We also condemn
the way Brent Council delivered this information to Clement Close residents:
The leaflets were unenveloped and not
specifically addressed to the residents who will be severely impacted by
the proposal. They were delivered by hand, through the letterbox, like
advertising leaflets and flyers.
The leaflet looks innocuous enough to
be ignored. The front page gives a high-level description of Brent’s
programme and makes no mention of Clement Close.
The summary of proposed development,
starting with “Landscape improvement for all residents”, is deceptive.
The leaflet does not clearly describe
where the newbuilds will be located. It only makes mention of one bungalow
to be demolished (#54 Clement Close). The only way of understanding the
proposal is by carefully examining a map with no caption.
The residents of #54 Clement
Close were unaware of the proposal to have their home demolished and heard
about it from their neighbours. It is completely unacceptable for the
family whose lives would be turned upside-down by eviction and demolition
of their family home to have not been properly consulted and reassured of
their security.
The time frame of under 3 weeks until
the closing of the consultation phase is inadequate for the magnitude of
the changes proposed.
The feedback form provided with the
leaflet is not specific to Clement Close.
The QR code and URL provided on the
leaflet link to Brent’s Community Engagement Hub, and not to the
consultation page. It is not straightforward to find the consultation page
from the hub.
The questionnaire is inappropriately
structured and includes leading questions such as “do you agree with …?”,
which could influence respondents’ views and comments on the proposal.
Such bias goes against the standards of ethical conduct and reporting of survey
research.
There is no confirmation email or
acknowledgement that the completed consultation form was received by Brent
after submission.
We, the residents of Clement
Close and neighbouring properties, are hereby firmly opposing the current
development proposal.
Fruition have returned with new revised proposals for the site of the Mumbai Junction at 231 Watford Road. The developer's application was refused by Brent Planning Committee in December last year. LINK
To be replaced?
Fruition claim to have worked with Brent planning officers on the revised plans and are mounting an exhibition at St Cuthbert's Church, 214 Carlton Avenue West, HA0 3QY on Tuesday July 12th 4pm - 7pm.
They claim they have reduced size and massing of the block of flats, improved cycling provision and improved the frontage.
CAUTION: Fruition say there is further information on the website www.231watfordroad.co.uk but both Firefox and Chrome browsers issued warnings that the site was unsafe when I clicked on it.
Wembley Matters likes to keep you informed about what is going on locally and this event at Box Park on Olympic Way may intrigue you. However with BOGOF (Buy One Get One Free) tickets at £474 including VAT you may not be rushing for the special offer. It would be interesting to know if Brent Cabinet housing and regeneration leads will be attending as some of the questions in 'Key Themes' are well worth addressing in terms of development in the borough.
From the event website LINK. (original punctuation etc)
The third annual Festival of Place is back on 6
July at Boxpark Wembley in Wembley Park, London, a stone’s throw from the
legendary stadium in Europe’s largest build-to-rent development.
Bringing together our community to discern and
imagine a positive social, equitable and environmental future for places.
Featuring fresh thinking and challenging conversations with a riot of
talks and workshops that inspire and connect our creative community of
placemakers seeking to renew our cities, designing and developing human
networks and habitats.
Special offer! Add one ticket in your basket, and
your second ticket is free! After checkout please assign both names to your
tickets (you can reassign anytime before the event)
Update your thinking. Learn. Get inspired.
Break down silos and come
together with professionals to tackle the major issues facing urban
development in an environment where it is safe to ask questions.
Gain frank insight from experts, including
authors, scientists, cultural leaders, developers, investors, scientists,
designers, community workers and city leaders.
Ideal for the whole placemaking team, from
developer to designer, investor to local government.
Participate and meet new collaborators seeking to
address the biggest challenges facing makers of place, through online
masterclasses and workshops, where you will roll your sleeves up around the
table.
Key themes for 2022
how can the design of places support public health
and reduce inequalities?
what are the key ingredients that developers and
designers can get right in order to reduce health and social inequalities
through their place interventions? we tackle the issue from several angles,
inviting economists, researchers and public health professionals to share their
insights on meaningful infrastructure and place interventions
myth-busting and greenwash: secrets and lies in ESG
investment
what are the emerging issues with the growth in investment targeting social and
environmental impact? what does good look like, and what are the challenges and
opportunities as capital is nudging place and regeneration?
regeneration without leaving folks behind
how to ensure inclusive and good growth in rapidly changing places, from
manchester to birmingham? what would a truly levelled-up country look
like?
feminist urbanism: exploring an equal city
how can the design of places promote gender equality and what research and
activism is taking place to create more equal places
putting empathy and care at the heart of places
what if we centred empathy and caring? how would our places be designed and
developed if they were focussed on nuturing empathy?
radical land reform and renewable design
how are the systems around land ownership and land value limiting our ability
to tackle the pressing challenges of our time? what can we do about it and what
are the alternatives?
