Barry Gardiner MP joins ward councillors in opposing the loss of Samovar Space and Market Square to hotel development

 

England fans on Market Square ahead of the 2020 Euro Cup Final - July 11th 2021 

(Credit & Copyright Alamy)

 

Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) has joined Wembley Park ward councillors Cllr Ahamadi Moghaddam and Cllr Najib Warsame in opposing the building of a  hotel on Market Square and Samovar Space, currently in use as a public open space.

Barry Gardiner writes:

   

Planning Team

Brent Council

 

29 July 2026

 

To whom it may concern,

 

Objection to planning application 26/1351 for Plot NW04

 

I write to object to the above-referenced planning application for the erection of a hotel between two and 17 storeys tall on what is currently the Market Square/Samovar Space.

 

You may be aware that I do not normally intervene in planning matters except in exceptional circumstances, including if the planning application is a major infrastructural development. These developments have knock-on effects with wider political ramifications within the local community such as traffic generation, overcrowding of doctors’ surgeries, and inadequate number of spaces in local schools.

 

This application is one such exception. I have been alerted to it by my constituents and I agree with their concerns that these proposals would have severe detrimental impacts on Wembley Park, visitors, and most importantly, residents.

 

At the time of writing, the application has attracted 131 comments on your planning portal. Every single one of them objects. I note from these comments that residents have not been properly notified or consulted by the applicant. I am also aware of a Change.Org petition against the application which has almost 700 signatures to date.

 

Benefit of the Samovar Space

 

The Market Square/Samovar Space is one of the few free, open spaces in Wembley Park that people can spend time in. It hosts markets and community events and is one of the most attractive spaces in an area which is increasingly dominated by high-rise blocks. Samovar provides a free play area for local children, many of whom live in high rise flats that lack outdoor space. The plot is currently a much needed ‘third space’ in which people socialise and form community without having to patronize a business.

 

I understand that the proposals include plans for a new square. This does not afford the same community benefit as the existing space. It would likely suffer from wind tunnelling, and would effectively be the courtyard of commercial premises rather than a genuine public space. The space would also be completely lost with no alternative provision during multiple years of construction.

 

Supposed benefit of the development

 

There is already a plethora of hotels in the immediate vicinity. In Wembley Park we have two Premier Inns, a Holiday Inn, Best Western, Novotel, Hilton Hotel, Wembley International, St George’s Hotel, ARK Wembley, CityLiveIn, and the Ibis which is being refurbished. There are also a number of smaller establishments and further options in neighbouring wards.

 

A new hotel is of very little benefit to the residents who live here and does nothing to diversify the area. Residents actually benefit from community services such as the social and leisure space that already exists on the plot.

 

This is already an intensely developed area. Regeneration projects, commercial services, and the custom and footfall they create need to be balanced across Wembley and Brent, rather than further concentrated in Wembley Park.

 

Harms of the development

 

While the benefits of the proposals are extremely limited, this development would cause a range of active harms to the area, residents and visitors. On top of the loss of the community space, these harms include:

 

·     Years’ long construction causing noise and physical disruption as well as dust and debris;

 

·      Reduced sightlines and sunlight due to the huge scale of the proposed building;

 

·      Exacerbation of the Olympic Way wind-tunnel and echo effects;

 

·      Traffic from construction, hotel guests and ongoing servicing will exacerbate road congestion;

 

·      Trees are unlikely to survive relocation or, if retained, to survive the nearby construction;

 

·      Reduced attractiveness and vibrancy of the area.

 

Many of the consultation’s respondents have quite rightly raised critical safety concerns about the development.

 

Baroness Casey’s review into the disorder in and around Wembley Stadium during the Euro 2020 Final concludes that there was a series of ‘near misses’ in which serious injuries or fatalities were only narrowly avoided. She highlights issues with crowd control specifically on Olympic Way and Engineers Way, and notes that ‘excess crowds overloaded in confined spaces’ were ‘deemed to be one of the highest risk scenarios’ that day.

 

The existing plot provides much needed open space for event day crowds to gather and dissipate, as well as potential space for evacuation of the high volume of visitors we often welcome to Wembley Park. The proposals would remove the Wembley Splay route, which eases pedestrian congestion. Without this, event day crowds will be even further concentrated.

 

The Casey Review quotes a FA/Wembley official: ‘the outer perimeter [of Wembley Stadium] is hard to manage because of the residential blocks’. Constructing a further block so close to the Stadium and Arena can only exacerbate this concern.

 

Planning compliance

 

I understand that outline permission for this development was granted in 2011 under decision 10/3032. Since then, the Market Square and Samovar Space has become a well- established community facility, and Wembley Park has seen the proliferation of similar high-rise blocks. The Planning Committee must consider the site’s current use and setting rather than rely on 15 year-old proposals and assessments.

 

 

I understand that in 2018, Brent Council contributed £12.1 million to improve the site on the condition that the developer would not pursue the full outline parameters. However, I understand that this proposal of a 17 storey building does reach the full parameters. The planning committee must consider whether the approving this application would default on this agreement involving public funds.

 

The outline permission was granted ahead of various new policies such as the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the Brent Local Plan 2019 – 2041 and the London Plan 2021. Application 26/1351 must be assessed against current requirements. Particular attention should be paid to the following:

 

The National Policy Planning Framework 2012

 

Section 8: Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities

 

102. Planning policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence requirements by:

 

a. anticipating and addressing possible malicious threats and other hazards (whether natural or man-made), especially in locations where large numbers of people are expected to congregate…

 

103. Access to a network of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for the health and well-being of communities,

104. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields and formal play spaces, should not be built on unless:

 

a. an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or

 

b. the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or

 

c. the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

 

105. Planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails.

 

Brent Local Plan 2019 – 2041

 

Policy DMP1: Development Management General Policy

 

Development will be acceptable provided it is:

 

a. of a location, use, concentration, siting, layout, scale, type, density, materials, detailing and design that provides high levels of internal and external amenity and complements the locality;

b. satisfactory in terms of means of access for all, parking, manoeuvring, servicing and does not have an adverse impact on the movement network;

i. resulting in no loss of, and where possible enhancing, community facilities or other land/buildings for which there is an identified need.

 

Policy BD1: Leading the Way in Good Urban Design

 

6.1.12 The policy seeks to create buildings and places of high quality that will be appreciated by future generations. High quality design is both visually interesting and attractive and should enhance local character. Good design is not just about what things look like, it is also about how places function and how individual buildings and the spaces around them contribute to the public realm and community well-being... Good design makes places that put people first, promote health and are welcoming, feel safe, are enjoyable and easy to use for everyone.

 

London Plan 2021

 

Policy G4 Open space

 

B. Development proposals should:

1. Not result in the loss of protected open space

 

Policy S4: Play and informal recreation

 

B. Development proposals should:

1. Increase opportunities for play and informal recreation and enable children and young people to be independently mobile

5. Not result in the net loss of play provision, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no ongoing or future demand.

 

Policy S5 Sports and recreation facilities

 

C. Existing sports and recreational land (including playing fields) and facilities for sports and recreation should be retained unless:

1. An assessment has been undertaken which clearly shows the sports and recreational land or facilities to be surplus to requirements…

2. The loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or

3. The development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

 

Concluding remarks

 

It is my view that this application offers very little benefit to residents and in fact risks damaging the community, whereas the existing use of the plot as the Market Square/Samovar Space has visible and proven benefits.

Permission should not be granted without wider consultation of residents. I  support my constituents’ calls for the application to be heard at the Planning Committee with public speaking rights for local residents, and for a public explanation of how the developer has met the conditions to benefit from £12.1 million of public funds in submitting this application.

 

Nor should permission be granted prior to the publication of independent reviews on matters including wind, daylight, trees and construction impact as well as assessments from the Metropolitan Police, Wembley Stadium/the FA, the Safety Advisory Group, and any other relevant authorities.

 

I would be grateful if you could please register my objection and ultimately reject this application.

 

Yours faithfully,

Barry Gardiner

Member of Parliament for Brent West

 

To make your own comment follow this LINK Ref 26/1351 

Brent Planning Committee unanimously approve Argenta House development opposite Stonebridge Park Station

 

Brent Planning Committee has unanimously approved the part 27 storey/part 30 storey replacement for the 2 storey Argenta House on ex-railway land opposite Stonebridge Park station.

It will form  part of an urban 'island' of tall buildings next to the North Circular road and opposite the proposed development of Unisys and Bridge Park. The development, in the elbow of Wembley Brook and the River Brent, includes a 32 storey building just behind Argenta House.

See LINK 

LETTER: Not enough Climate and Bio-diversity Action in Brent? Join us.

 

Dear Editor,

ACE Brent is a coalition of 13 groups who want to see more climate action in Brent. We started working together in November 2023. Can your readers support us or be involved?

 

So far we have :

 

- Agreed a set of our own priorities for climate action in Brent (on Transport/active travel, Insulation and retrofitting, Divestment, Planning and Regeneration, Renewable energy, Food/Plant based consumption, Trees/green space). We have an overarching priority of mechanisms for public participation in and scrutiny of climate action (most neighbouring councils have these). We have received responses to our priorities, and accept the arguments about lack of funds, but believe more ambition, creativity and transparency is needed when other councils are doing better. https://councilclimatescorecards.uk/#jump=london-borough-of-brent

 

We are currently working on actions we want to see in the party manifesto's for the May 2026 Council Elections:

 

- Increased discussion about climate action across the council; through delegations to Full Council and the Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, and by writing to all councillors with comments on key climate reports. One result is the current work of a Kerbside Management Task Group which is looking at actions for more climate and people friendly streets.

 

- Pushed for Monitoring the effectiveness of local climate measures, and benchmarking with relation to other London councils; resulting in a new monitoring dashboard (not yet publicised or available for public scrutiny)

 

- Influenced (maybe) the appointment of new climate roles : Cabinet member for Climate Action and Community Power (Cllr Jake Rubin), and Climate Champion (Cllr Mary Mitchell)

 

- Met regularly with Cllr Jake Rubin and Oliver Myers, Head of Environment Strategy and Climate Action. We have pushed for mechanisms for public participation, more frequent climate reporting to the Scrutiny Committee, and better information on the council website. 

 

We were able to input to the Tree Strategy before it was written, and have had discussions about planning, active travel, food issues, use of NCIL and Strategic CIL etc.

 

The meetings are useful but not a substitute for full public participation. We now have agreement that the council will publicise future meetings with ACE Brent.

 

The next meeting is on Planning and the Climate, Nov 3rd, online at 7pm, and will be attended by the senior council members and officers.

 

We are aware that many Brent groups with environmental concerns are not yet aware of ACE Brent. We welcome all groups to get involved who want Brent Council to be doing more on the climate and bio-diversity. You do not need to agree with all of our suggestions so far. You can see work in progress at the moment here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-G0zJmmH8th96TrUf5dCQiSDwnqlyfRfBxEsAfHYFCk/edit?tab=t.0

 

Join in for news, to take part in working groups and participate in meetings with council. 

 

You are welcome to :

 

1) Join us as a member group. The bigger our coalition the stronger our voice will be (see our current members below)

 

2) Join our mailing list as a group or individual. You will be updated on our activities, meetings - approx 6-weekly - meetings with the council and other key news (mailings max weekly, except when urgent matters)

 

3) Sign up for quarterly updates only

 

 

We look forward to hearing from you. And please let Elaine know Ace@brentfoe.com if you want the Microsoft Teams link for Nov 3rd at 7pm.

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Elaine Sheppard

on behalf of Action for the Climate Emergency Brent

 

Planning Officers recommend approval of Reserved Matters in Randall Avenue application to build on back garden

 The development site

 From above

 A controversial planning application will be heard at Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday which received some vociferous opposition at the Outline stage. The application is on reserved matters for the plan to build on the garden at the rear of 7 Randall Avenue in Dollis Hill:

The application relations to the grassed area to the rear of No.7 Randall Avenue. The application site slopes to the south, and currently forms part of the garden to No.7 Randall Avenue. The application site has a shared driveway with the adjacent dwelling to the north, No.9 Randall Avenue.

Ten individuals have submitted objections some of which are multiple. Not mentioned in the officers' report is a Change petition 'Brent Council must reject all plans to approve a private car park and HMO on Randall Avenue, NW2' LINK.

 

 

Front view of development

Extract from  an Objector's comment:

 

I am writing to formally object to the planning application submitted by Mr. Teixeira for the development of the 1.5 storey building right behind my house, based on outline permission 22/0175. This objection is rooted in significant concerns that must be addressed and the risk are too high associated for this planned building.

The proposed development poses a serious risk of land movement and potential landslides due to its location on a higher part of the hill, directly above our home at 98 Dollis Hill Avenue. Any disturbance to the hillside could result in structural damage to our property and neighbouring homes. We already face issues with soil instability, and new construction on the muddy, water-saturated ground significantly increases the risk of landslides. The loss of soil cohesion and added weight from construction could exacerbate this, leading to dangerous consequences for the entire area. Who will take responsibility for the damage if this occurs-the council or the developer?

Additionally, the underground parking proposed on conserved land poses serious environmental and noise concerns. Not only would it disrupt the green space and natural extension of Gladstone Park into our gardens, but it would also increase noise pollution and vibrations from vehicle engines, causing a loss of tranquillity in our outdoor spaces. There is a strong possibility of structural damage to nearby properties over time due to these vibrations, especially considering the already unstable soil in the area.

Further, the introduction of more cars and the associated air pollution from exhaust emissions will have detrimental effects on the air quality in our gardens and could harm the local flora and fauna, not to mention the long-term health risks for residents. The character of this quiet, modest area will be forever altered by a luxury development overlooking our gardens and the tenants looking into our houses, bringing increased noise, traffic, and a social divide that could push long-term residents out of the neighbourhood.

Finally, issues of overshadowing, loss of privacy, and increased traffic congestion must be thoroughly examined. The scale and design of the development are out of character with the local architecture, and the shared driveway arrangement raises legal concerns. This is an area built for tranquillity and a naturally grown community that enjoys nature and privacy, and the proposed development threatens that balance.

I strongly urge the Planning Committee to reconsider this application in light of the risks posed to neighbouring properties, the environment, and the community. The potential impact on our safety, quality of life, and local infrastructure is too great to ignore.

 
Thank you for your consideration

Residents' experience of Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) is raised in the petition and some objections. Planning officers respond:

The development as granted by the outline planning permission seeks to erect a new, self-contained dwellinghouse to the rear of No.7 Randall Ave. Functionally, the proposed dwellinghouse forms a separate planning unit to the premises at No.7 Randall Ave. There is no evidence to suggest that a new home would result in increased anti-social behaviour.

 

The use of 7 Randall Avenue had previously been investigated by the Planning Enforcement Team and found to be lawfully operating as a small HMO with a licence. This had been happening prior to the Article 4 direction, which prevents the change of use to small HMO's within Brent without planning permission.

 

Any change of use into a 'large' HMO of a sui generis nature beyond the threshold of Use Class C4 would express necessitate planning permission anyways. (sic)

 

There is sufficient control in place that would prevent the proposed dwellinghouse to be converted into an HMO without express planning permission.

 

The Planning Officrs' recommend the Planning Committee approve the application LINK. 

 

Tower Block Tatler's successor on Brent Cabinet named. Teo takes over.

 

Cllr Teo Benea

 

Cllr Muhammed Butt has appointed Cllr Teo Benea who represents Sudbury ward, alomng with Lib Dem leader Paul Lorber, to the Cabinet as lead member for Regeneration. Planning and Property. This is a slight variation on Shama Tatler's portfolio that has been held by Cllr Butt for some months. Presumably 'Property' refers to Brent Council property which is currently under review to achieve maximum market rates.

In a message to fellow Labour councillors, Cllr Benea wrote:

I just wanted to let you know that I am delighted to have been appointed Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Property and I am looking forward to working with colleagues, officers and residents to support regeneration and planning projects that benefit all residents across the borough

Brent Labour's website gives details of her background including working at a consultancy on planning and regeneration:

Teo has lived in Brent for several years, she has long been the champion for closer relations with our European neighbours. As a first-generation migrant herself, she is also particularly passionate about supporting under-represented groups to vote – including EU and Commonwealth Citizens. She currently works in a public-affairs consultancy in the planning and regeneration sector. When the war started in Ukraine, Teo coordinated the collection of donations and organised the logistics for these to be delivered at the border between Romania and Ukraine in partnership with other Romanian organisations and partners. Teo and the then Sudbury councillors managed the donations that came in at St Andrew’s Church in Sudbury over 4 days. Donations were collected from all locations across London and 5 trucks of goods were loaded and sent to Ukraine.

Teo has a strong track record in campaigning and working hard for local residents and has a background as an Organiser for the Labour Party and also previously worked for a Labour MP in Westminster. In council Teo advocates for Sudbury to get its fair share of investment – including more new roads and pavements, cleaner streets and improved green spaces in Barham Park, Vale Farm and elsewhere. Another priority is to ensure that the Eastern European communities have a voice on the council, building community cohesion among the diverse communities that live in Brent.

 

'He's got the whole of Brent in his hands' - Muhammed Butt grabs more power

 

It  had been suggested that Cllr Muhammed Butt has taken on Cllr Shama Tatler's portfolio only temporarily until a new Cabinet member was appointed. However, in an updated Full Council Agenda yesterday it appears that this is permanent arrangement.

Cllr Butt has granted himself direct power over Regeneration, Planning and Growth in addition to Housing which he took over when Cllr Promise Knight went on maternity leave.

Given the number of controversial developments and planning decisions in Brent this might be seen as too much power and influence for one person. Cllr Butt hs been pro-active in early meetings with developers before applications get to Planning Committee but now has a formal role. What price the independence of Brent Planning Commitee?

Other changes were notified on the Agenda following the resignation from Committee positions of ex-Deputy Mayor Cllr Diana Collymore:

 

Full Council – 18 November 2024
 

Agenda Item 5 – Appointments to Committees & Outside Bodies
Standing Order 30(g) states that, if necessary, Full Council is required to agree appointments to committees and outside bodies. In addition to the changes listed Council is being asked to confirm the appointment of an Independent Person.

Such appointments are set out below:

Cabinet Membership
 

Council is asked to note that effective from 8 November 2024 the Leader of the Council has incorporated the role of Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Growth within his remit following Councillor Shama Tatler having stood down from her role as a Cabinet Member.
 

Committee Appointments:

1. Audit & Standards Advisory Committee and Audit & Standards Committee – Councillor Lesley Smith to replace Councillor Teo Benea as a full member.
 

2. Community & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee – Councillor Teo Benea to replace Councillor Diana Collymore as a full member
 

3. Corporate Parenting Committee – Councillor Lesley Smith to replace Councillor Diana Collymore as a full member.
 

4. Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee - Councillor Teo Benea to replace Councillor Diana Collymore as a substitute
member

Willesden Green: From Bank to Bingo Hall. Planning application submitted for ex-Lloyds Bank

 

Lloyds Bank, 1 Walm Lane, NW2

Following closure both Lloyds Bank and Nat West branches in Willesden Green are on the development market. Barclays opposite the Lloyd's building is due to close shortly leaving the area without a bank.

The Lloyds building is the first to come to Brent Planning with a proposal to turn into a Bingo Hall from Luton based Star Commercial Property Limited. LINK.

Apart from changes in the internal layout  and an additional window replacing the cashpoints there is little change.

 

Plans were lodged yesterday and the deadline for responses is November 25th 2024. LINK to website or email planning.comments@brent.gov.uk The Reference number is 24/2877

The application envisages 8 fulltime equivalent employees with the operating hours 8am to 12.30am  Monday to Friday, 9am to 1am Saturday and 9am to 12.30am Sunday.

Brent Council calls on the Government to give councils the power to crack down on proliferation of gambling premises

 

The present tense is perhaps over-claiming, Brent Council would like the power to crack down on gamblng harms.

 

Following the recent granting of a plannning application for an Adult Gaming Centre in Park Parade, Harlesden, by Brent Planning Committee, Cllr Muhammed Butt has written to the Government calling for a change in the law.

Writing as Brent Council Leader, rather than Brent Labour,  he cites the unanimous motion, supported by all parties on the Council, about the gambling harms in the Brent borough:

This is a growing issues for our communities due to the increase in the clustering of gambling premises within Brent generally, and Harlesden in particular. All councillors in Brent are united in our desire to reform the Gambling Act 2005, to ensure it is fit for purpose  in protecting our most vulnerable residents.

He claims that despite the shared opposition local authorities have found themselves powerless to intervene due to the statutory 'Aim to Permit' policy that severely limits the power to intervene:

The policy has left local authorities and communities grappling with outdated and inadequate legislation that fails to protect vulnerable residents from the harms associated with gambling.

The letter to Lisa Nandy, Secretary of State, calls for the Government to support the following reforms:

1. Reform the 'Aims to Permit' Policy: Grant local authorities the power to reject premise license applications that threaten the community's welfare and safety. 

2. Categorisation of Gambling Premises: Ensure that the incoming NPPF stipulates that Bingo Halls and Adult Gaming Centres be placed in the same planning category as bookmakers, so they cannot bypass the 3% cap by splitting premises.

3. Planning Applications: Allows councils to consider local household debt levels when evaluating planning applications for high street casinos and prevent the proliferation of gambling dens in close proximity to school[s], in the same way councils can limit junk food establishments in those areas.

4. Statutory Levy for Gambling Harm Prevention: Introduce a statutory levy on gambling operators for research, education and treatment, initially set at 1% of gross revenue, to be administered by an independent public body.

5. Ban on Gambling Advertising: Prohibit gambling advertising, promotion and sponsorship to prevent exposure, especially to children and young people.

6. Stop Progress on Proposals to Liberalise Adult Gaming Centres: Following the Gambling Survey for Great Britain which underlines the need for a review of spin speed and excess staking levels on harmful B3 machines.

Tonight's Brent Council motion on housing fails to commit to council housing

 Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves today announced the reinstatement of mandatory housing targets on local authorities and changes in planning laws in favour of development, including a review of  land designated as green belt as well as  use brownfield and grey belt sites.

She indicated that local communities will only have a limited say (my emphasis):

It will still be in the first instance up to local communities and local authorities to decide where housing is built, but we will bring back those mandatory housing targets..it will be up to local communities where housing is built but it has to be built.

Clearly in areas like Brent, where available land is at a premium, there is likely to be pressure on some of our green spaces. Readers will remember plans to build on the Garden Centre land at the Welsh Harp at Birchen Grove, and the glass house land in Cool Oak Lane. The plans were defeated by a local campaign.

There was no mention in accounts of Reeves' statement that I have read, about the building of council homes. Similarly, a motion put by Brent Planning Committee member Cllr Liz Dixon to tonight's Council Meeting, written before the result of the General Election was known, but reflecting the Labour Manifesto, mentions 'affordable housing' without defining it, and does not mention council housing.

This reflects Cllr Shama Tatler's emphasis on building a range of home types, many of which would not be affordable for local people. Whether taking on the Building New Council Homes remit from Cllr Promise Knight, who is on maternity leave, will change her stance remains to be seen. Certainly her belief in the market: that more homes of any type will increase supply and lower prices, is challenged by some of her fellow councillors, who point to the distortions in the market caused by land banking and foreign investors' acquisition of new homes.

Tonight's meeting will also note the answers to questions to the Cabinet which includes Cllr Butt's advice to to evicted Brent tenants to move out of Brent to areas where rent is lower.

This is Cllr Dixon's Motion:

Declaration of a Housing Emergency

 

This Council notes:

 

* London is the epicentre of the country’s housing crisis, with a quarter of Londoners living in poverty after paying for their homes.

* In one of the wealthiest cities in the world, more than one child in every classroom is homeless and living in temporary accommodation, while rough sleeping is up 50% over this decade.

* Councils in London are spending £90m per month on temporary accommodation for homeless people - up almost 40% on last year.

*The dream of homeownership is out of reach for young people. The government have failed to act despite the housing crisis acting as one of the country’s biggest barriers to growth.

*The government has spent billions of pounds on housing benefit every year, which goes into the pockets of private landlords without creating any new assets.

*Without intervention, the number of new affordable homes built will fall sharply in  coming years thanks to high interest rates and runaway construction cost inflation.

 

This Council further notes:

 

*The Housing Needs Service in Brent has seen a 12% increase in homelessness approaches in 2023/-24 (7,300) compared to 2022/-23 (6,529). The total number of homeless families living in B&B and Annexe accommodation has risen to 485.

*Many Councils are being forced to book rooms in commercial hotels to meet statutory duties. In Brent this has driven a £13.4m overspend. These issues are not unique to Brent and have impacted the whole of the country – but especially London.

* There are 5,688 households in A-C banding on the waiting list. At Band C, the average waiting time for a 2-bed home is 8 years, with a 4-bed home rising to 24 years.

*GLA grant funding per unit of affordable housing is approx. £195k, with typical build costs per average unit in the region of £450k. Brent Council has planning permission ready or has submitted applications for 423 more affordable units, but many face a significant funding gap, and will not be viable without an increase in available subsidy.

 

This Council welcomes:

 

Pledges made during the current election campaign:

 

*To update the National Policy Planning Framework, including restoring mandatory housing targets.

*To get Britain building again, creating jobs across England with 1.5 million new homes over the next parliament.

*To work with local authorities to reform Local Plans and strengthen the planning presumption in favour of sustainable development, supported by additional planning officers.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

(1) Work with other local authorities in London that have declared a housing emergency to calling on the incoming government to unlock the funding needed to deliver the affordable homes Brent desperately needs.

 

(2) Write to the Secretary of State to recommend the following steps:

 

*The suspension of the right-to-buy discount.

*A new Housing Revenue Account funding settlement to increase the supply of housing, improve standards and support retrofitting.

*Financial support to immediately purchase more homes from private landlords.

*To review the Local Housing Allowance available for Temporary Accommodation.

 

Cllr Liz Dixon

Dollis Hill Ward

It is important to note the reference to viability as the remaining elements of the South Kilburn regeneration looks increasingly in doubt and the St Raphaels plans have been much reduced.

Leasehold reform, Shared Ownership issues, a rent cap, builders' responsiblity to fund fire safety work, including cladding remediation are issues still to be addressed in the ear;y days of this government.

WILLESDEN GREEN: Controversial Cranhurst Road mixed place of worship/accommodation development Planning Appeal deadline July 8th

 

27 Cranhurst Road, NW2

 

The purple pin marks the property in its suburban context

 

Following refusal of planning permission for extensive alterations to an Edwardian house in Cranhurst Road, Willesden Green the applicant has launched an Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

The application by the Gaudiya Mission  (a Hindu monastic organisation) was for excavation of a basement, the doubling of the number of bedrooms from 4 to 8 and new structures in the garden area.  The house currently has planning permissions for mix as a place of worship and accommmodation.The proposal would have increased the worship area to accommodate more people.

The decision to refuse was made by delegated Brent Planning Officers, not the Brent Planning Comittee.

This is the timetable for the  Appeal:

See LINK

 

'Interested party' comments have to be sent in by Monday July 8th.

This is the proposal as submitted to Brent Council:

Proposed creation of basement, single-storey side to rear extension, rear dormer extension with 2x front rooflights and outbuilding to the rear garden to the premises.

 

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

 

1 The accommodation proposed across the first floor and loft floor levels does not align with the space standards as outlined under policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and consequently would not provide an adequate standard of accommodation and internal amenity for future residents. As a result, the proposal is therefore contrary to policy DMP1 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-41) and policy D6 of the London Plan (2021).

 

2 The proposed single storey rear and side extension and basement by reason of their design, height and bulk would appear overly prominent, incongruous with and detrimental to the character and appearance of the existing property and surrounding area. As such, the proposal is contrary to planning policies DMP1, BD1, & BD3 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-41), Supplementary Planning Document 2: Residential Extensions and Alterations (2018) and Basement Supplementary Planning Document (2017).

 

3 The proposed rear element at basement and ground floor level, by reason of excessive height and proximity to the boundaries of adjoining properties would have an unacceptable impact to the  neighbouring amenity of the adjoining occupiers. Moreover, the proposal by not offering sufficient natural daylight to the basement and ground floor areas of the premises is deemed to offer poor levels of internal amenity for future occupiers, contrary to policies DMP1, BD1 & BD3 of the Brent Local Plan (2019-2041), the guidance contained within Supplementary Planning Document SPD1 Brent Design Guide (2018) and Basement Supplementary Planning Document (2017).

 

4 The proposal by reason of the insufficient provision of information regarding soft landscaping and planting fails to demonstrate how that the scheme will achieve a satisfactory urban greening factor on the site and provide sustainable urban drainage. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy policies BD1, BGI1 & BSUI4 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-2041) and policies G5 and G6 of the London Plan (2021).

 

5 By reason of the lack of a Fire Statement, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal will provide a suitable fire safety and safe means of escape strategy for all building users, contrary to Policy D12A of the London Plan (2021).

 

6 By virtue of the lack of details regarding bicycle parking and a statement regarding visitor numbers and opening hours, the proposal does not adequately consider the requirements of Local Plan policy BT2 (2019-41).

 

7 No relevant arboricultural studies were submitted in support of the proposal. As such, it is considered that the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that there will not be a harmful impact on trees adjoining the applicant site. Accordingly, the proposal is therefore deemed to be contrary to Policy G7 of the London Plan (2021) and BGI2 of the Brent Local Plan (2019-2041). DocFDN Ref: 23/2411

 

8 By reason of the lack of submission of a suitable Drainage Strategy, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal will achieve greenfield run-off rates for surface water, contrary to Policy BSUI4 of the Local Plan (2019-41)

 

The Officers' Report gives more information on the views of local residents: