UPDATED: Another application to replace a detached surburban house with a block of flats approved

 

From Draycott Avenue

From the back garden of the property

 

UPDATE Neighbouring householder and opposite householder spoke against the development.  A condition was added that raised number of trees to be planted to replace those taken away should be 22. Argued that this would help screen the building. Only one Planning Committee member voted against and that was Cllr Kennelly. His reasons were that there was insufficient family housing in the development (and that was what Brent needed) and the the ceilings were too low and below planning guidelines.

 

A planning application to demolish a detached 2 storey 5- bedroomed family house in Draycott Avenue, Kenton will be decided by Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday evening.

The application has some similarities to the controversial Queen's Walk planning application where a block of flats has replaced a detached house. This application proposes 9 residential units:

3 2 bedroomed units at market rent

2 2 bedroomed units for market sale

4 1 bedroomed units for market sale

The cost of the build is estimated at £2million

All commentss on the application are objections from near neighbours. When the Queen's Walk application was approved some objectors felt this would make way for more such applications as developers could buy up such properies and erect blocks of flats turning a handsome profit.

This comment on the planning portal is similar to several others:

We have recently received the notice of 1 Draycott Avenue's proposal to demolish the existing dwelling house and erect a part four-storey apartment block providing 9X self-contained flats with associated car parks.


We unequivocally object to this planning for the reasons outlined below.

Impact of the proposal on our personal property:

1. The development would greatly impact our privacy, especially as it has a roof terrace. The occupants of these proposed flats will have direct visual access to the surrounding gardens, which violates their privacy and introduces concerns about safety. The majority of the surrounding residents are elderly and they use their private gardens as a "safe" place for relaxing and enjoying quiet time. All of the residents have agreed this would be an invasion of their privacy, with the flats overlooking their gardens. Not only will this have a severe impact on mental health but it will now limit the time spent in their own private spaces because of this proposed plan.


2. The proposed designs also indicate a number of side windows which look directly onto our property. Whilst the windows are "opaque" according to the designs, when opened, the occupants will have direct visual access into our property without any obstructions. This issue is further exacerbated due to our plans to extend over our existing garage, which we have put an application for. Therefore the development will be severely invading our privacy.


3. The proposed four storey development is not only much taller than any of the existing residential properties in the area but it is completely out of character of the existing dwellings. Due to the completely different design of the proposal, not only does this reduce the views from the current properties, it is overbearing and reduces the outlook of our own property This would therefore make the property taller than our property and impact our views. Also, the design of the property is completely out of character of ours and the surrounding properties outlook. This development would be extremely detrimental and reduce the outlook of our property and is completely overbearing.


4 The designs shows there is cycle parking adjacent to our fence. This would also cause disturbances on our quiet enjoyment of our garden.


Many of the above points directly contravene Article 8 of our Human Rights Act 1998, clearly impacting aspects of our private, family and home life. This act (protocol 1, article 1) clearly states that we have the right to enjoy our property peacefully. The lack of privacy and increased noise from extra residents both prevent this from happening.



With regards to concerns affecting the general area:



5 This is a purely residential street with single families living there. This proposal would change the character of this part of the street significantly and greatly impact those living around it.



6 The area has already had previous issues with noise and disturbances. In fact, the owners of 1 Draycott Avenue themselves have reported the noise and disturbances to the local police and council in the past. The more intensive use of the site would no doubt increase the noise and disturbance purely from the multiple increased number of residents.



7. The property itself backs onto a conservation area. Building a large set of flats will be of great detriment to the existing wildlife that is present and also be completely out of character of the existing conservation area.



8. The property design indicates that there is cladding on the outside. We are all well aware of the disaster that occurred in Grenfell. Due to this tragic incident, the cladding and fire safety measures are currently being reviewed and there is much uncertainty about what is deemed safe. This building would therefore be a fire hazard to those within the property and those around. Especially the fact that the property backs on to a conservation area, this could be a disastrous problem. - I'm not sure this is a good point - they will put the new fire safe cladding



9. The design indicates that there are only 7 parking spots for the property (6 for the tenants and 1 visitor parking), despite 9 flats being developed. The area already has noise and parking issues. The lack of parking for each of the flats would mean the residents of the development would need to find street parking in the surrounding area, as well as any parking for their guests. This would greatly increase the noise and parking issues many of the local residents are already facing.



10. There are balconies shown at the front of the property designs. This would also impact the privacy of the opposing houses, as the occupants of the development would be able to sit and view into the opposing houses at leisure, therefore impinging on Article 8 of their Human Rights. The balconies are also clearly spoiling the outlook and character of the entire street and are totally inappropriate.



11. The increased use of Drayton Waye will be a safety hazard. This road is used by many families and young children who cross to go to school daily. There have already been multiple instances of accidents and near misses - the increased use of Drayton Waye would significantly increase this risk and put many lives at risk.



Finally and most importantly: Most of the surrounding residents have owned and lived in their homes for many decades, brought up their families, and enjoyed the quiet residential area. This new development is completely out of keeping with the existing dwellings and as outlined above completely destroys the character, privacy, and safety of the existing properties.



All of the residents have agreed this is an absolutely selfish act to monetise a plot of land that will ultimately drive out families that have been living in the area for many generations.

 Planning Officers consider the objections in their report LINK and recommend that the Committee approve the application. 

The Brent Heritage Officer considered the impact on the nearby Northwick Circle Conservation Area:

The applicant has provided a heritage statement which identifies the potential impacts on the nearby Conservation area. This identifies areas where the development would be most visible from within the Conservation Area. Heritage England have been consulted on the application and raised no objections.

The Council’s Heritage Officer has viewed the submitted Heritage Statement and the wider scheme and considers that the development is a reasonable distance away from the Conservation Area and is mostly screened by trees along nearby boundaries. It would not be highly visible from the most significant focal point of the conservation area and is of a similar scale to nearby developments. As such, the proposal would not result in harm to the nearby Northwick Circle Conservation Area.

Appeal to help save the Corrib

Outside the Corrib, 76-78 Salusbury Road, Queens Parkm NW6 6PA

From Friends of the Corrib

Now the Planning application is published, it’s a clear plan to KILL the CORRIB.

We urge you ALL to do one more thing to help Save the Corrib.

Please object to Brent Council Planning

EACH objection increases the chances of keeping the Corrib Community Rooms and Pub forever.

Tell the planners what the community rooms and pub mean to you and what you used it for especially the Function Rooms which had all the dance classes, pensioner meetings and other events and/or just give your views as why it should not be turned into luxury flats - as we should not lose community spaces.

You can just object to the principal of the destruction of community space, especially this one, protected by a 106 agreement protecting money originally spent by Brent when it started for the community. The more you tell them the more weight it will have.

How to object.

You can email the planning officer directly at:
barry.henn@brent.gov.uk

To be accepted by planning you do need to include your name and address in the email.
It does not matter if you are not local – you just need to feel it’s important

Please copy in savethecorrib2017@gmail.com so we can ensure that Brent note all the letters received.

OR (the most sure way)

Go on the Brent Website, register and then object on line.
Paste below into your search engine to register.

https://myaccount.brent.gov.uk/Web/PublicPages/IR1_Register.aspx_ga=1.122443147.1434451185.1368051210

Then paste in the site below

https://pa.brent.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=DCAPR_131699

Click on Make a Comment and add your concerns

Tell them things you could do and events that this place had and the value of the function rooms both in the past and into a promising future

Summary of the Developers plan.

To turn the community rooms on the first floor, into 6 luxury flats and make a £4M profit.
As a sop they have offered a function room in the pub, which will allow some community use for 3 evenings a week, making for a much reduced and commercially dead pub. Of course if the pub fails, more flats.

This planning application means the loss of 530m2 of community space, space that was originally brought with public money and is now protected by both an ACV order and by a Section 106 covenant. The 106 is a council owned legal restriction that prevents the owner building flats on the first floor. We urge Brent NOT to break this 106 covenant but to honour and cherish it.

To read the planning application in full, go to:

https://pa.brent.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=DCAPR_131699

The documents should read are:
1) 170116 - planning statement v756767850000.pdf
2) Statement of community involvement56767850001.pdf

NB: The Sir Richard Steele in Chalk Farm is a similar pub with function room and Camden and the Planning Inspector both turned down this conversion to flats so we say that Brent should do the same here.

http://archive.camdennewjournal.com/steeleappeal

Also ask friends etc. to sign the petition, we are aiming at 2000 signatures.

http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-the-corrib-pubs-community-rooms

Thank you for standing with us on this issue. 

Wembley Green Car Park pre-application proposals to be presented at Planning Committee

The Brent Planning Committee on October 19th (7pm at the Civic Centre) will be given a Presentation by Quintain on one of the biggest sites  in the Wembley Masterplan.  This is a pre-planning application so most of the information will only be divulged that evening. No plans are published in advance.

Given the controversy over recent developments at the stadium and elsewhere in Wembley this is an opportunity for residents to get a glimpse of what is in store. This is a large housing development with blocks of flats up to 26 storeys.

This is what is published on the Committee Agenda:

Green Car Park, First Way, Wembley

SCHEME:

The Reserved Matters for the development of Plot E03 pursuant to outline planning application reference 15/5550 (the Quintain Masterplan).

Proposed construction of 1 to 26 storey building to provide 743 flats (397

 private rent and 346 discount market rent), 490 square metres of communtiy

or employment floorspace Use Class D1 / B1), 91 coach parking spaces for Wembley Stadium events, energy centre for outline consent area and associated external amenity space, cycle storage, hard and soft landscaping and accesses to the highway

PART 1 DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATIONS

Introduction

1.     This part of the agenda is for the committee to receive presentations on proposed developments, particularly when they are at the pre-application stage. 


2.     Although the reports are set out in a particular order on the agenda, the Chair may reorder the agenda on the night. Therefore, if you wish to be present for a particular application, you need to be at the meeting from the beginning. 


3.     The following information and advice only applies to reports in this part of the agenda. 


Advice to Members

4.     These proposed developments are being reported to committee to enable Members of the committee to view them at an early stage and to comment upon them. They do not constitute applications for planning permission at this stage (unless otherwise stated in the individual report) and any comments made are provisional and subject to full consideration of any subsequent application and the comments received as a result of consultation, publicity and notification. 


5.     Members of the committee will need to pay careful attention to the probity rules around predisposition, predetermination and bias (set out in the Council’s Constitution). Failure to do so may mean that the Councillor will not be able to participate in the meeting when any subsequent application is considered. 


Further information

6.  Members are informed that any relevant material received since the publication of this part of the agenda, concerning items on it, will be reported to the Committee in the Supplementary Report.

Public speaking

7.  The Council’s Constitution only provides for public speaking rights for those applications being reported to Committee in the “Applications for Decision” part of the agenda. Therefore reports on this part of the agenda do not attract public speaking rights.

Mahatma Gandhi House converted to flats?

Prior approval is being sought by IDM (Invest Develop Manage) East London  to convert Mahatma Gandhi House, formerly Brent Council's housing office, to flats. LINK
 

The proposal is for 83 apartments in a mix of unit sizes. The apartments will be all internal alterations to the existing building with no external alteration. 

The accommodation proposed is:

Ground floor 6 apartments

1st floor to 7^th floor  11 apartments each

Total 83 apartments with 33 off street parking spaces

There were rumours some time ago that the building had been ear-marked for the Gateway Free School but was turned down. 

South Kilburn regeneration amounts to social cleansing, claim residents and tenants

Developer's perspective & that of residents at odds

A head of steam is building up o the South Kilburn Estate about what residents and tenants see as the 'social cleansing' involved  in the Estate's regeneration.

The motion below was passed at a recent meeting of the Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants' and Residents' Association.

We’ve had enough!

Motion to the AGM of Alpha, Gorefield & Canterbury TRA

This meeting notes that regeneration was sold to residents of South Kilburn on the basis that it would provide improved housing and living conditions for all existing residents.

In fact: 

* There are fewer dwellings at social rent than there were before regeneration;

* Some of the new flats are smaller than those they replaced;

* The new flats have been let at higher rents than was the case. 

Rather:

* Flats are being sold and rented at prices which existing South Kilburn tenants have no chance of affording;

* Luxury flats are being advertised on the Far Eastern market, clearly as an investment, rather than social housing;

* Locked gardens are being created, even though they replace what was common green space. 

This all amounts to a “social cleansing” of South Kilburn, with many residents forced to move to other areas. 

The Queensbury: A myth buster

Guest blog from the Save The Queensbury Campaign

In this piece we look at some of the serious, outlandish and plainly bizarre myths that have sprung up since Fairview Homes bought the land and The Queensbury pub.
Myth
Fairview Homes own the land and the building and can demolish / build what they want.
Reality
Planning permission is required to change from “drinking establishment” to “residential” use, which is a matter for Brent Council’s planning committee and not Fairview’s decision.
Myth
The building cannot be demolished because it’s in a conservation area.
Reality
Permission is required but that does not mean it cannot be demolished.
Myth
The pub has a short lease and will close soon.
Reality
The pub has a 10 year lease, with 4 still to run. The pub has gone on record to clear this up here.
Myth
A pub on this site is not viable.
Reality
Fairview Homes were asked to substantiate these claims but have not. Actually the pub is thriving, as would be expected from any pub in such a prime location. The pub owners have gone on record to refute this myth here.
Myth
The building is old and will fall down soon.
Reality
The building is consistent with others in the conservation area and will stand for years if maintained properly. It is also used other than as a pub (an office is let to another tenant).
Myth
Fairview carried out a comprehensive consultation with the community and residents are supportive of their plans.
Reality
Fairview’s own Planning Statement claims community support. But Fairview (by their own admission) did not consult those who use the pub, either via Busy Rascals activity or pub goers. They did write to some local residents but in those letters, did not mention that The Queensbury would be demolished as part of their scheme. In fact they didn’t mention the pub at all. Fairview have so far refused to release the contents of the 22 comments received during their “consultation”.
Myth
The pub has debts and are looking to quit their lease with Fairview Homes to clear them.
Reality
The holding company of The Queensbury (London Gastropubs Ltd) has a historic debt listed at Companies House. To say they are looking for a way out via a deal with Fairview Homes is a big leap. The pub owners have gone on record to refute this here. (A holding company’s level of debt is not an indication of profit and loss).
Myth
The lease between the landowner (Fairview Homes) and the pub (The Queensbury) are not planning matters.
Reality
Details of the lease are their business and are not our concern. But retention of a pub on this site, be it the Queensbury or another pub, is most definitely a planning matter.
Myth
The Busy Rascals toddler group has been offered a new venue by Fairview Homes.
Reality
No alternative space has been offered to Busy Rascals and they are very happy where they are.
Myth
Brent needs more houses – 56 in this scheme would help.
Reality
Brent needs Affordable, Social and large houses for families on their waiting list. Only 4 of the 56 meet these criteria (and could easily be built at the side and rear of the existing building).
Myth
If the pub closes, the deli will close too.
Reality
The sustainability of the deli would be seriously threatened because 1) they share management costs and 2) produce from the Deli is sold in the pub during Busy Rascals activities six mornings a week.
Myth
Fairview are asking for a 10 storey building knowing that they’ll end up with 4 or 5 storeys instead.
Reality
Whether it’s 4, 5 or 10 the pub will still go!
Myth
Foxtons/Cameron Stiff have signed a deal to sell the flats, once built.
Reality
Without permission to change use, there are no flats to agree to sell!
Myth
A replacement pub is not possible in a new development.
Reality
Not true. There are plenty of pubs with residential above. Developers tend not to like pubs at the foot of their apartments because it limits their potential for profit.
Myth
If considered an Asset of Community Value the pub cannot be demolished.
Reality
The reality is that the legislation does not mean ACV status overrides everything else. Planning processes have to be followed but national guidance suggests that ACV status should be a consideration. We are expecting a decision on the building being an ACV in June 2013.
Myth
Save The Queensbury is run / funded / driven by the pub.
Reality
Pretty insulting and wholly untrue. The campaign has spent less than £150 to date, on a website and leaflets and has been funded by community donations. Planning advice, legal advice, petitioning and political lobbying has been carried out for free by members of the community. The pub owners and managers do not attend our meetings nor have any input into them. The only support from the pub has been a petition on the bar and use of a table to hold our meetings (those attending even pay for their own drinks!)

(Another) Open Letter to Fairview Homes: When is enough enough?

Guest Blog from Save The Queensbury Group. The Queensbury Pub in Willesden Green has been bought by developers who plan to demolish it and build flats.

 Dear Fairview Homes: when is enough enough?
 
When 3000 people petition against your plans, is that enough for you to think you may have underestimated local feeling?

When the Leader of Brent council waxes lyrical about the services The Queensbury offers is that enough to realise you didn’t appreciate what you bought a year ago – i.e. not just a pub?

When the area’s biggest resident association surveys its members, meets to hear your changes in response to criticism, but still objects formally to Brent council - isn’t that enough to realise you do not have any community support?

When The Wanted, DJ Sara Cox, the local MP, the local GLA member, local Councillors and the former Mayor of London all oppose your plans do you not think you may struggle to get these accepted?

When 450 thoughtful, eloquent objections are lodged on Brent’s planning site isn’t that enough to appreciate The Queensbury is a valued amenity?

When other pubs in London and England have been saved by recent changes to legislation didn’t your experts suggest The Queensbury would not be so straightforward?

When you decided not to consult pub users or Busy Rascals on your plans last summer did you really not know they existed? Or were you reluctant to hear their views?

When you fuel rumours about the viability of a pub on the site, but when challenged (and the pub clarifies it is thriving) you cannot offer any information to substantiate your claims, isn’t that enough to appreciate the community is not stupid?

When you claim community support for your scheme (based on 22 comments at your consultation) but when challenged you hide behind “Data Protection Legislation” as a reason to not publish these comments, isn’t that just a bit weird?

When you lodge a plan with Brent Council but stall a decision for 6 months because you know it will be refused, isn’t that enough to go back to the drawing board and devise a scheme that keeps the pub but perhaps makes you less profit?

When you attempt to pacify the locals by offering a broom cupboard as a replacement community space did you really think this would be accepted as a substitute for the potential loss of The Queensbury? And did you seriously think that your lack of profit would be accepted by locals as a reason to demolish the pub?

When is enough negative media coverage, which continually damages your company’s reputation, enough to work with the community rather than against it?

Fairview Homes: tell us, when is enough enough?


http://savethequeensbury.info