Tirzah Mansion (26 Salmon Street) planning application open for comments until January 25th

 

The present building at 26 Salmon Street on the corner of Salmon Street and Queens Walk

Initial design (above) and submitted (below)

 

Plans for the rdevelopment of the large single house on the corner of Salmon Street and Queens Walk , Tirza Mansions, 26 Salmon Street, was submitted to Brent Council in December 2023. The proposed scheme comprises of a four-storey flatted development comprising 13 dwellings: two studio flats; three 1-bed flats; four 2-bedroom flats (two 3-person and two 4-person) and four 3-bedroom flats (two 4-person and two 5-person).

As predicted when Krishna Court, on the opposite corner,  received planning permission, it is being cited as a precedent:

 Opposite the site on Queens Walk, planning permission has recently been granted (Ref. 19/2163) for the demolition of existing building and erection of a two and three storey building accommodating seven dwellings with new vehicular access and associated landscaping. [Editor’s note. It has been built although it was said to be family housing, it is in fact an AirB&B type hotel enterprise] This development is known as Krishna Court. This is also a corner plot and there is a precent established along Salmon Street for semi-detached 2.5-storey housing book ended with 3-4 storey flatted developments acting as feature corners.

A map is submitted showing similar developments along Salmon Street. (26 Salmon Street in blue)

 

 

Provision of  affordable housing is ruled out in the submitted documentation but the agent in  the October 2023 video consultation said it had not been decided and a contribution might be made for affordable housing elsewhere:

 

There is a strategic ambition across London to deliver 50% of all new homes as genuinely affordable as set out in policy H4 of the London Plan. Policy H5 of the London Plan sets the threshold approach to major development proposals. This sets out that a minimum of 35% affordable housing by habitable rooms should be delivered. A viability assessment is required where a development proposal is not able to meet the required affordable housing provision.

 

This application is submitted with a viability appraisal which concludes that it is not financially viable to provide on-site affordable housing. The report will need to independently reviewed by the Council. It should also be noted that registered providers who manage affordable housing are unlikely to purchase 4 affordable homes which is what would be required to meet the planning policy requirements.

You can see recordings of the video consultations HERE that also include a presentation by the developer's agents and architects.  

The Brent Trees Officer has made recommendations on tree planting HERE. Before the present building was redevloped a few years ago there were are large number of conifers surrounding the site but most of these were removed. 

 

The spaces around the building include 7 parking spaces

 

 The development site in suburban context

 

There are a handful of objections on the Brent planning portal LINK.  The Neighbourhood consultation ends on Thursday January 25th 2024.

This is one of the objections:

  1.  It is not in keeping with single family homes in this area - which are being reduced - see 44 Queens Walk which has been converted into flats and on the market for sale since the completion - showing the lack of interest in flats for these roads;

2. Multi-generation properties are required for the family unit and also with our aging population the elderly can be looked after by their family in a warm and safe environment - more homes here are becoming multi generational and families - having flats make these less accessible for families;

3. The size of the flats also will make it very difficult for growing families to have space to live together;

4. the size of the proposed development is not in keeping with the street and other homes. The front of the building is very far forward - it should be set back and in line with 24 Salmon Street.

5. the proposal is showing parking for 7 cars maximum which would not even allow one car per flat - this would cause further congestion onto Queens Walk;

6. there would not be enough garden space for the flats - again not in keeping with Salmon Street nor Queens Walk and not beneficial for any children living in the properties

7. the height of the proposal as well will be very imposing for the area and again not in keeping with the current use of the neighbouring properties

Many homes are being redeveloped in the Salmon Street, Queens Walk and the surrounding streets into single family dwellings. These are all occupied or under development for the families moving into them. This shows the demand for this type of property here. There are many flats around the station and the main roads - thus catering for the demand for these types of property. Kingsbury is known to be a family area. There are not many shops here. These are all by Kingsbury Road and the Wembley developments. Thus where the flats are required. The tube stations are a lengthy walk or bus ride away - thus again why it is important to keep some areas with houses and not densely populated with flats - where accessibility in the area is not so good.

 

The Neighbourhood Consultation Expiry Date is Thursday November 25th 2024. Application number 23/3833.  LINK

 

Gambling Harlesden's Future

 

5-6 Park Parade, Harlesden

 

Present premises near the Harlesden clock

 

Location

To the consternation of residents a planning application to convert a premises last used as a betting shop has returned, despite being rejected two years ago. Silvertime want to convert 5-6 Park Parade in Harlesden into two premises - a smaller betting shop AND an gaming centre.  There is existing planning permission for a betting shop but it has not been open since August 2019.

They propose to convert to two units by splitting the premises down the middle  and providing an additional door. The frontage remains the same length but the gambling provision doubles.

Although, rather surprisingly, there was no mention of policy on gambling premises in the Brent Poverty Commission report, residents in their comments are aware of the connection between gambling and poverty.  Here are some of their comments extracted from the Brent Council Planning Portal on this application (Reference 22/1619).

These gaming centres only suck dry the spare cash of those on the lowest rung of society. We can do better than catering to this.

 

Harlesden is an area with one of the highest levels of household debt, poverty and crime. Situation is increasingly deteriorating following COVID-19 crisis and raising cost of living. Harlesden High Street has already high crime statistics. Currently it is not a place to be wandering around after the sunset. Putting more gambling spots on the map is not going to help it.

It is beyond disappointing that Silvertime are able to re-apply when we were all obviously against such a thing two years ago. The planning was refused then. Nothing has changed.

There are two other Silvertime venues within, at most, 500m of 5-6 Park Parade. To have another would contribute nothing to the area other than to dilute it further into an area without direction or care for the community.

This space could be used to create a much more meaningful addition to the neighbourhood. We need to support our youngsters and our elderly and to provide services that are nourishing and creative rather than designed to take money from your pocket.

 

I have lived in Harlesden for over 15 years and while other neighbourhoods have improved our local retail has changed little. Having a large gambling arcade in this prominent spot on the high street sets an incredibly bad example for the students at the three schools that are situated nearby. There is already a silver time arcade next to the Jubilee clock so there is enough supply in the area. What we do need are shops that promote healthier lifestyles not worse ones. I'd like to see the council encourage more creative businesses to help rejuvenate our community. I am also concerned about the opening hours with gamblers hitting the street late at night and encouraging anti social behaviour. I have three teenage children and this will make the streets more dangerous for them as they make their way home.

 

We have too many betting shops and amusement centres already - we know that they lead to addiction and to debt and to poverty. We know that the Debt Addiction is primarily run by the gambling industry and we know that the profits they make far outweigh the misery caused. In America there are no gambling ads on television - and guns are freely available. I think that suggests that even the American state, a bastion of liberalism, realises the damaged caused. Can you justify keeping this as a gambling premises? Clearly there's even more profit to be made from changing the premises to this - do you want to see more debt in Harlesden? It's not a rich area and can't afford it.

Research published in the Geography of Gambling Premises in Britain  LINK   summarises its findings:

While the relationship with deprivation is strong across all types of
gambling premises, it is less pronounced for betting shops (and to some extent, casinos) than other types. Family entertainment centres, adult gaming centres and bingo venues are especially likely to be located within the most deprived decile of areas.

 

In 2015, the Royal Society for Public Health introduced its ‘Health on the High Street’ campaign, which argued that high streets have an important role to play in promoting the health of residents (RSPH, 2015). It argued that certain businesses such as fast-food outlets and betting shops can
enable and support poor health behaviours. Its research showed that over half of the UK population (54%) believe that betting shops discourage healthy choices and over half (52%) believe they have a negative impact on mental wellbeing. The RSPH also developed an index for rating the health of high streets and found that unhealthy businesses cluster in areas of higher deprivation and lower life expectancy. It argued that reshaping these high streets to be more “health promoting” is an important part of “redressing this imbalance”. It recommended that Local Authorities be given greater planning powers to prevent clustering of betting shops as well as limiting each type of business on a high street to 5% to avoid oversaturation (RSPH, 2018). The same point was made by the Portas review in 2011, which noted that too many of one type of retailer “tips the balance of the location and inevitably puts off potential retailers and investors” (Portas, 2011)

 

Some councils have included specific gambling strategies within their local plans. For example, Newham Council received Planning Inspectorate approval for a cumulative impact approach (Newham Council, 2015). It can restrict the number of betting shops and fast-food outlets being located within typical walking distance of one another (400m radius) and aims for 67% of the leisure use in town centres being ‘quality leisure’ (excluding betting shops and takeaways). It did this by providing a strong evidence base and looking at the impact that clustering of these types of businesses has on its vulnerable residents and viability of town centres.

 

Silvertime's agent in his Planning, Design and Access Statement LINK argues that the frontage is below the  Council's 3% of frontage in the defined shopping area at 2.92% and claims that the premises will be an improvement to the area with a tradtional shop frontage with displays.Objections over disturbance late at night are addressed by closing the premises at 22.00 hrs. 

There is likely to be an argument whether the frontage issue is a red herring given that the amount of gambling space is doubled. 

Harrow based Silvertime has two main directors and at the last count had 65 employees. In 2020 it had an operating profit of £2.1m on a reduced turnover (due to closures during the pandemic) of £8.7m. LINK

Harlesden Neighbourhood Forum meets on June 9th mainly to discuss the Picture Palace  issue.

Comments can be made on the Silvertime Planning Application (22/1619)  HERE