UPDATE WITH GLA LINK: 885 units in towers up to 29 storey high in Alperton approved by Brent Council Planning Committee. Randall Avenue application pulled.

 

The crowded Atlip access road car park yesterday - 885 homes to come on the site

The application to build  885 housing units on the Atlip Centre site, Alperton, was approved yesterday as expected, despite opposition. The development will consist of 2, 8,10, 20, 23 and 29 storey buildings on a relatively small site. Planning officers recommended approval.

Unusually a long-time Alperton resident spoke in support describing the run-down nature of the site and the opportunities provided by a creative zone as well as the need for housing. Newly elected Liberal Democrat councillor Charlie Clinton spoke against with concerns about over-crowding of the area due to the density of the proposal and concern that assumptions about a car-free development were not realistic given the size of the project in terms of housing and commercial units.

There was a long discussion on the Committee with issues around failure to meet affordable housing targets and the affect of loss of daylight to neighbouring properties (deemed tolerable by planning officers as weighed against the benefits of the scheme), and of course parking - quite a issue on Ealing Road at the best of times.

There was concern about the loss of the Clay Oven Banqueting Hall with the developer claiming that there was no interest in continuing the facility from present and potential businesses. They conceded that there was a possibility of someone applying to run a similar business from one of the commercial units or facilities at the proposed community centre.

The loss of the current gym on the site was also a concern and there was discussion about using revenue from the development for the provision of an outdoor gym. 

Assurances were sought that the co-living units would not be used as student accommodation. Comparisons were made with HMOs but the developer insisted that they were an alternative to one bedroomed flats for young people and had additional shared facilities compared with HMOs. They would be professionally run.

Eventually the application was approved unanimously by the Committee.

UPDATE: The application now goes to the GLA for Stage 2 consideration and residents can make a comment on their website. Register for updates and to make a comment here HERE.

At the beginning of the meeting the controversial Randall Avenue, Dollis Hill, application was withdrawn from the agenda on officers' recommendation as discrepancies in the drawings for the development had been found. I understand that legal issues were also raised. The decision was made against the background of changes in  planning staff dealing with the application.

 

Battle over Gaudiya Mission expansion in Willesden Green as neighbourhood consultation closes

Comments on the application regarding the Gaudiya Mission in suburban Cranhurst Road, Willesden Green, increased from 16 to 26 over the weekend as today's Neighbourhood Consultation Expiry Date neared.

A planning application for a basement, rear extension and single storey outbuilding in the garden, was refused by Brent Council and an Appeal against the refusal dismissed. Now the Mission has come back claiming to have addressed the issues cited by the Planning Inspectorate (see Design and Access Statement below).

 In practice comments are accepted up to the day before the Planning Committee hearing (if an application goes to the Committee and is not delegated to officers) so there is a possibility of submissions after today's date.

Comment HERE

A resident has kindly provided Wembley Matters with a version of their comment on the application:

Since the mid-1980s we have suffered from regular noise pollution and disruption as a result of the activities of the Gaudiya Mission. This was particularly problematic while the centre had consent to act as a Hindu information centre and prayer hall and consent was withdrawn on 2nd February 2004 appeal decision T/APP/T5150/AV01/1073609.   

 

The extensive works proposed in the resubmitted planning application indicate a vast increase in volume of visitors to number 27 Cranhurst Road is planned, but this is a residential area with little space between properties (a 1.8m gap between foundations), small front gardens without driveways,  and no room for crowds to congregate on narrow pavements.   There could be well over 500-700 people  attending services on a regular basis.  

 

In October 2024 the Gaudiya Mission trustees purchased 25 Cranhurst Road for £1.7m.  This forms the other side of the semi-detached property at No. 27.    It has 6 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms and includes a loft and rear extension.  It is not clear why the applicants require additional accommodation space at number 27 or why they need to extend number 27 and overdevelop when they now own such a substantial estate on Cranhurst Road.  Whilst number 25. does not have permission to be used as a prayer hall/place of worship, there is nothing to stop the applicant using number 25 to accommodate visitors whether they be temporary or long term.   

 

It has been noted that Gaudiya Mission wishes to run courses at these properties, the first was run in August/September 2024 and a large number of visitors were attending number 27 over the course of several weeks.  Catering and washing facilities were provided at number 27 and this caused a great deal of noise and disruption to neighbouring properties.  It is planned to have more of these courses and that is one of the expected uses of this facility which is not to be used as a residence at all, but as a bed and breakfast and training centre, college of sorts.   The local sewers, utilities and other facilities do not have capacity for this expansion in population and usage of these two properties.  This is a residential area which is being turned into an institutional development hub without the civic infrastructure necessary to support such overdevelopment.  

 

The proposed works indicate a minimum of a fourfold increase in the size of existing dining facilities, with a basement catering kitchen, dining room of approx 1,300 square metres and a vastly extended existing prayer hall (labelled "Community room" in the plans). The kitchen is currently being used to cater for a congregation sometimes numbering well over 100 people between a number of services which take place most weekends.    Expanding the kitchen and dining area would lead to an increase in activity, noise, cooking emissions (catering for a larger groups of people) and other environmental nuisance not suitable for a residential property with such close proximity to neighbours.

 

Services are noisy and include drums, cymbals and a horn as well as chanting. If the prayer hall is extended this will result in a larger number of people attending services and noise will increase accordingly. The extension will adversely affect the peaceful enjoyment of our property as given its proximity to neighbours, number 27 is not suitable for this level of activity.   No amount of soundproofing will help contain the noise of so many people, who cannot be controlled, frequently open doors, windows and loudly congregate in the garden during visits.

 

The road is residential and has parking restrictions Mon- Sat. These restrictions do not apply on Sundays when the most popular services take place and some services last all day until 10pm. Increasing the activities of the prayer hall will lead to increased parking congestion on the road from visitors to the Gaudiya Mission on Sundays which will adversely affect residents, particularly those who have mobility issues and need to park close to their property (this affects one of us in particular).  It is not true that visitors arrive by public transport.  There is a constant flow of traffic and cars with Sunday visitors to number 27, blocking up the road and creating congestion and parking issues for neighbouring properties. 

 

There is nothing in the plans to indicate how the existing mains sewage system will support the proposed increase in number of washing facilities and volume of visitors.  The property's sewers have been badly blocked on a number of occasions in recent years.  

 

According to the conclusions and recommendations of the biodiversity report, 61.84% of habitat units will be lost.  This is an incredible loss of natural environment in a residential area of established gardens.  There is a comment to say that the client has accepted this will need to be offset but that is not possible on these premises. The front of the property once had a thriving garden but was concreted over by Gaudiya Mission on acquisition of the property in the 1980s.  The Mission removed as much vegetation as possible from the rear garden.  The applicants have also acquired number 25 in October 2024 and have also been removing the established vegetation from the garden of number 25 since gaining possession.    There is no commitment to biodiversity at either property.  But in the confines of the planning application, there is no scope to offset biodiversity at 27 Cranhurst Road as so much of the garden habitat is planned to be destroyed by this development.

 

The residential parts of this property should have HMO status along with appropriate health and safety features.  There are unrelated people living in the property.  For example, the property was also hosting a family for some time.   It has been acting as a hostel of sorts for some members of the congregation.  The additional bedrooms indicate an expansion of this service.  This is turning a residential property into an informal hotel without any regard for rules, regulations and planning / safety requirements for these types of buildings.  

 

There is no information on the occupancy load factor in the plans.    Given the nature of the use of this building and the number of members of the public regularly attending services, why has this been left out of the planning details?

 

There was no Disabled access evacuation assessment in the plans. Given the nature of the use of this building and the large numbers of members of the public regularly attending services, why has this been left out of the planning details?

 

Security of neighbouring properties due to a vast increase in numbers of attendees has not been addressed in the planning applications.     

 

There will be pollution and ground damage caused by the proposed excavation work.   It is not clear from drawings where exactly the outbuilding will be sited or how large it will be 

 

The proposed construction work at the property can be classified as unprecedented specifically on Cranhurst Road and would involve the following.

 

o        a. The excavation of a basement across the full width of the property extending from the front wall , for the full length of the existing property then the new rear extension, then some 3 m past that and then for the stairs. Allowing for hardcore and blinding it is estimated that about 500cu.m some 800 to 900 t of soil will need to be removed. Putting this in visual terms, this would involve some 70 of 80 medium size tipper lorry. The lorries will need to filled in some way. Possibly a crane or excavators would need to be used for this. With the narrowness of the road and access to the property this would be unbearable suffering to the local community living in the neighbouring properties.  

o        b. The proposals would require some 25cu.m of hardcore, that’s about 50t, about 5 tipper trucks .

o        c. There is likely to a need for about 450t of concrete to construct the basement retaining wall and the ground floor, that’s about 20 concrete lorries, plus a couple of lorry loads of reinforcement.

o        d. There will be a substantial need for temporary propping to create this basement so more trucks to bring this in and take it out.

o        e. It is clear from the plans of the ground floor the first floor and the proposed loft that all the internal load bearing walls within the building as well as the real and rear side walls at ground floor are to be removed. Again, this will require more lorry movements to bring in significant temporary works to accomplish this. Followed by the installation of appropriate permanent to support the upper floor and walls allowing the ground floor and basement to have no load bearing element internally and then the removal of all the temporary works. This will create yet more heavy vehicular movements on the narrow road.

o        f. This does not include the transportation required for the finishes and garden works.

o        g. All the transports including the delivery of plant, removal of spoil and bringing in new construction materials, will need to empty, filled, loaded or unloaded in some way. Possibly a crane or excavators would need to be used for this or significant amount of labour. Whichever way this would be noisy and disruptive to the local residents.

o        With the narrow street and access to the property limited, the amount of work proposed, the noise and can considerably increased heavy traffic movement on the street, would cause unbearable suffering to the local community living in the neighbouring properties.  

 

 The design and access statement is very short and does not advise on the frequency of events, the numbers of people attending each event, the street parking which will be required. Currently on Sunday if is difficult to find a parking space on Cranhurst Road in the area of this property due to the volume of people attending worship. These proposals appear to vastly increase the space available for attendance of the at the mission. It is not possible for the local roads sustain any increase in the number of worshipers at this property. These proposals are likely to hinder rather than help the local community.

  

Conclusion

 

 It is very important to note that the main objective of Gaudiya Mission’s planning proposal is to significantly increase the volume of visitors to 27 Cranhurst road, from the usual 100 to over 500 to 700.  It will also put great pressure on utilities, waste disposal, traffic and parking.   As well as the pollution, noise, major disruption of such radical construction works, the planned vastly expanded congregation will further disturb the peace of a residential area with no planned mitigating developments being put into place by public services to manage this increase in footfall.  This expanded usage has not been highlighted in the planning application, which is incomplete and light on detail. 

 

In addition to this the purchase of number 25 should form a part of the planning decision-making process.  The two buildings cannot be seen as separate for the purposes of this planning application.  They are owned by and will be used by the same organisation for the same purposes of attracting large crowds of visitors to the destroy the residential nature of Cranhurst road.   

 

Rather than continuing to seek to adapt 27 Cranhurst Road from a residential property to a public building closely proximate to residential properties, we would strongly encourage Gaudiya Mission to seek more suitable (non-residential) purpose-built accommodation for the expansion of its activities such as renting a local hall or function room.   

 

 

 

It's 'BINGO!' for gambling company as Willesden Green swaps a bank for a bingo hall following Planning Committee approval

 

The planning application for a Bingo Hall to replace the Willesden Green branch of Lloyds Bank was approved at last night's Planning Committee despite widespread opposition from local residents and from ward councillors.

The vote was 4 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention in line with the Planning Officers; recommendation to approve.

On Next Door  Cllr Saqlain Choudry indicated that current legislation was preventing the Planning Committee from refusing such applications:

There is an urgent need for legislative reform. The leader of council has in previous months written to the relevant Minister asking for more powers and greater clarity in legislation to prevent and block these harmful practices. It is shocking that there is no limit on how many bingo halls can open and other loopholes in the legal and planning framework that allows these practices to continue.

Nearby residents oppose 5 storey block of flats on Pellat Road, Wembley, green space

 

The green space on the roundabout at Pellat Road, Wembley

The up to 5 storeys block to be built on the green space
 

Brent Planning Officers recommend that Brent Planning Committee  on Wednesday approve the building of an up to 5 storeys block of flats on a small green space in Wembley. The green space may be under-used at present but has aesthetic value as well as potential for development as a pocket park.

On building on green space the officers' report says:

Development on Green Space

6. The application would result in the loss of existing green space located on Pellatt Road. The land does not have any specific planning designations, and notably it is not designated open space which would otherwise be protected against development under London Plan Policy G4.

7. Objectors have raised concerns regarding the loss of this green space. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site currently provides some limited visual amenity, the site as it exists is effectively a deep road verge, with an element of tree and shrub planting. Although 0.1 hectares in size and currently comprising of mostly open grassland, owing to its shape and location adjacent to a road it does not readily lend itself to being used as an area for sitting out or recreation. Indeed, a larger recreation ground is located directlyopposite the application site. This is due to a combination of attributes, including its irregular shape, proximity to the road, lack of equipment for play or dwelling such as benches, lack of significant landscaping features and it significant inactive permitted to its north. It is also adjacent to a much more considerable open space, the GEC sports facility, protected by policy G4. There are pitches which are available for hire in this location, as well as outdoor gym facilities which are readily available at no extra charge for all residents’.

8. Policy DMP1 seeks to retain existing green infrastructure including open space, high amenity trees and landscape features, and providing appropriate additional or enhancements where possible. Where the loss of open space is proposed, this would be required to be balanced against the benefits of the proposal.

9. While the loss of the green space is acknowledged, the scheme would deliver 13 homes including a policy compliant level of family sized homes (3 family sized homes) for which there is an identified need in Brent. This is considered, on balance, to outweigh the harm. Furthermore, the proposal would enhance the biodiversity of the application site as discussed in further detail below. On balance, the loss of this green space is outweighed by the benefits of the scheme as a whole, including the delivery of three family sized homes for which there is an identified need in the borough.

 One of the 12 objectors wrote on Brent Planning Portal: 

My address has been listed in the alleged letter which is dated 08 August 2024; however, it has not been delivered and after liaising with some neighbours, it appears they have also not received it. Many residents and the locals affected by this proposal are still currently unaware that the planning application for this particular site has been submitted; therefore, I strongly suggest that you postpone any decisions until a time where all locals have been notified and had a fair opportunity to share their comments and opinions.

Pellatt Road is used as an entry/exit point for the cul-de-sac residential area and all properties located on Chamberlayne Avenue, Edison Drive, Crown Green Mews and Walton Gardens would be affected by the works and the building that's being proposed. In order for a fair assessment of the planning application where residents and locals are able to raise their concerns fairly, it would be advisable for the council to notify all residents of these four roads by delivering letters to all properties located here before reaching a decision as I can assure you that many of us are completely against this.

As Pellatt Road is used by vehicles of all four roads to enter/exit the area, it is essential to keep the road clear from all obstructions caused by the works and the green spaces creates a welcoming atmosphere that feels open and airy. It is also used by the GEC Industrial Estate frequently and during events taking place at the sports ground. Parking is already very limited and with the creation of the building, it will cause access issues by the increase of parked vehicles along Pellatt Road whilst raising some health and safety concerns. The nearby parking spaced specified by the developer seems unrealistic and exaggerated. The big building will be made on a junction of a small roundabout and will create a blind spot for motorists exiting Walton Gardens as their view will be obstructed.

We are against the idea of this building on the grounds of over-development of a small cul-de-sac residential area which is already highly populated. For the space and the surrounding area, the building is not suitable as it's simply too large, wrong colour/materials, it will create dark shadows specially to residents of Walton Gardens due to the positioning of the sun and increase the amount of noise for an area which is fairly quiet, make the whole place around the building feel claustrophobic for existing residents, invade privacy of nearby residents and will just look out of character as its too big for the space and where the land is located. It may even potentially effect the value of a number of properties throughout the area.

All other residential properties here have been made from brick of a particular colour so it all blends in along with these green open spaces leading to the sports ground. The material/colour of the five-storey building will not blend in with the nearby buildings and would not be pleasing to look at. It will create dark shadows around the building, especially to residents of Walton Gardens and where their garages are located.

It is clear that when Chamberlayne Avenue/Edison Drive properties were constructed, the previous landowner (Barratts) had purposely left small areas of the green spaces/land along Pellatt Road as it would have over-developed the area making it appear crowded. Even when Crown Green Mews was constructed, a separate road was made to take it off Pellatt Road which surely must've been done with valid reasoning. Pellatt Road also has a particular curvature and a large building along this part would just not make sense or be suitable.

Green spaces and open land around the borough have been reducing at great speed and while I appreciate the need for new residential buildings, but this cannot be implemented in all small green areas available and some must be conserved.

Furthermore; there are four large trees and shrubs which have been growing since the creation of Chamberlayne Avenue/Edison Drive when access to Walton Gardens was merged with Pellatt Road. At the time when residents of Walton Gardens agreed to create a new vehicle entry point off the roundabout to Pellatt Road, there were no plans for obstructing the junction of either sides of the green spaces or an agreement would not have been made. Prior to this there was a brick wall running throughout the length of Walton Gardens to separate Pellatt Road with trees/bushes going across and it should be kept that way. The four large trees should not be affected during the build and personally these types of green spaces should be encouraged with the addition to more trees and plants/shrubs for the benefit of the area, along with your residents of the borough.

Overall; the development of this building will cause unnecessary pollution and disturb many residents during the long development phase which more than likely will get delayed. This again is not reasonable in a cul-de-sac residential area at a time where many people are still working from home/studying and it will create an unpleasant atmosphere.

I would suggest that numerous site visits are carried out by knowledgeable council officers on a number of different days and times so they can make a fair assessment of the land in question and see the times when it gets busy whist taking into consideration the way the other buildings nearby look, the size/colour of them, the way locals will be impacted for a long duration of time and even after its built, it will not be great to look at for where it will be located.

In simple words, the creation of this building has no special benefits or advantages for the local residents and are really no plus points.

I understand the land was recently purchased by the owners as a way of generating their profits as the larger the building, the more properties it will have for sale and more service/lease charges will be earned but this cannot apply to all green spaces unless there is a demand by the residents who already reside around this particular area. We have failed to see any demand or any interest for this type of development which is not aimed for the improvement of the location or the benefit of the community.

I do hope that the council considers the opinions of their residents that will be affected daily by this large building looking out of character, however, if a building is what's going to take over this priceless land, then I strongly suggest that the plans are re-evaluate with the view of making it smaller to make it suitable for the space and the people who will be residing around it. The building should not be larger than two or three storeys and be made from a similar brick used on the surrounding buildings and of the same colour, the four large trees should be unharmed and a part of the area should still stay as open space for all to enjoy rather than focusing on balconies/terrace gardens and maximising revenue which is of no use to existing residents.

 

UPDATED WITH COMMENTS: Brook Avenue residents object as plans for a large scale co-living complex & flats that would demolish their homes goes to Brent Planning Committee

 

Brent Planning Committee will make a decision on this application this Wednesday October 16th. It is Item 4 on the Agenda. LINK

 

Some of the residents of suburban housing in Brook Avenue, adjacent to the Metropolitan line at Wembley Park, have objected to a planning application going to Brent Planning Committee next week. This would see their property demolished and built on. They say no terms or conditions have been agreed with the developer. One resident told the planners:

The developer has not got any agreement on purchasing my home, and I have no intention of moving, but the plans show my house being demolished and built over.

Brent planners responded:

This is a civil matter. Any person/entity can apply for planning permission on land not in their ownership but must first serve notice on the land owner that planning permission has been applied for. Notice (Certificate B) was served on all affected property owners on [Editor's note - this sentence breaks off at this point and new paragraph follows]

 

Should planning permission be granted, the permission cannot be implemented unless the developer has acquired all of the individual plots that form the application site.

The appplication involves demolition of 22 mainly 3 bedroom family houses with gardens backing on to Wealdstone Brook.

Most of the objections on the planning portal come from the blocks of flats opposite the proposed development regarding loss of light, over-development and traffic. The development is proposed to be car free.

 The proposal is for two  linked blocks of purpose built shared living accommodation, 6 and 15 storeys,and two linked blocks of residential flats between 4 and 9 storeys. 

 

As you can see from the above this actually amounts to at least 7 blocks. They will face across the road to recently built blocks on ex-railway land and just up the road to the blocks currently being built close to the Wembley Park station steps.

Purpose built shared living accommodation LINK is a comparatively new concept and a kind of cross between student accommodation and a care home. Longer term than students and no care provision. It is marketed as suitable for single people who want their own space but with access to other facilities such as large communal kitchens, gym and outside areas. These plans also include a cafe that would be open to non-residents as well The development would supply 517 units.

These plans will give you an idea of what is envisaged for shared living:

 The Planning Officers' Report notes:

LSPBSL (Large Scale Purpose-built Shared Living) generally provides accommodation for single-person households who cannot, or choose not to, live in self-contained homes or HMOs. This accommodation type may be used on a transitional basis until residents find suitable longer-term housing. Whilst LSPBSL provides an additional housing option for some people, due to the unique offer of this accommodation type it does not meet minimum housing standards and is therefore not considered to meet the ongoing needs of households in London. It is therefore not recognised as an affordable housing product because it does not provide accommodation suitable for households in need of genuinely affordable housing, including families.

 

It should however be noted that as a recognised housing choice, they are counted towards housing supply on a ratio of 1.8:1 basis as per London Plan Policy H1.

Responding to whether there is a need for co-living accommodation an assessment was made:

The Assessment confirms that 27% of a total of 118,602 households in Brent are 1-person households, or a total of 31,985 people. There are 17,000 HMOs in Brent, which compete with 3-bedroom family housing, therefore at least 51,000 residents are living in HMOs and most likely the estimate is higher. Co-living would not only meet the needs of a significant population of single renters, but also potentially free up family housing currently in use as HMO.

 

Brent has 38% of residents aged between 20 and 44, and Wembley 39%, which are both above the UK population average of 32%. Nationally, 66.9% of market renters are in this age range. In Brent, 32% of people live in the private rented sector, compared to 18% nationally. The proportion is 34% in Wembley area in isolation. Brent therefore has above national average proportions of people in the ideal age range and who are renting.

The residential accommodation would consist of 26 one bedroom, 48 two bedroom and 26 three bedroom flats.

 

The question of tenure affordability is addressed by officers:

The total net internal floorspace (NIA) of the development is 19,549sqm, comprising of 12,665sqm for the co-living element and 6,884sqm for the C3 dwellings. The proportion of C3 floorspace therefore equates to 35.2% of the total provision thereby satisfying the minimum threshold of 35%. Moreover, the tenure mix proposed is a policy compliant 70% low-cost social rent and 30% intermediate rent. The proposal, with regard to affordable housing, satisfies the requirements of the London Plan and the Local Plan, subject to an early stage review mechanism.

For co-living the report states:

Having regard to the population profile of Brent and to the local housing market in terms of affordability, average incomes, household sizes/tenure, it is considered that co-living would be affordable based on the average salary in Brent of £43,215 (ONS/2022), the depth of the market is estimated between 20,697 and 28,741 people in Brent who could both have a requirement and be able to afford a co-living unit. This represents between 8% and 11% of the adult population aged 20 or over in the borough.

 

A Whole Life Carbon Assessment has been submitted:

A Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessment has been submitted outlining the measures that would be considered or employed to reduce the carbon emissions arising from the development. Measures such as, but not limited to

 

Reducing the volume of concrete used and employing the use of recycled concrete; 

 

The sourcing of materials as near to the site as possible;

The use of products that have low embodied carbon  

 

The use of brick for the façade, a material that requires minimal maintenance over its lifetime;

 

 The use of materials that can be separated from each other to allow for more effective recycling at the end of life  

 

The above measures are welcomed and would be reviewed further by the GLA as part of the Stage 2 referral. Appropriately worded conditions would be imposed following GLA input at Stage 2.

'Would be considered or employed' and 'measures such as' are rather vague so the conditions set by the Planning Committee will be important.

 

 Satellite View

As can be seen from the above view there is green space, back gardens and mature trees alongside the Wealdstone Brook. Across the brook is a designated green corridor.There are concerns that biodiversity will be lost. The developer submits a plan for the outside areas that is essential to meet amenity space guidelines:

 

The extent of treet removal is demonstrated in this chart from  the Arbicultural Assessment.

There is the usual promise of replacement tree planting. The GLA 1st Stage assessment argues:

The proposed development seeks to secure a net biodiversity net gain (BNG) of 1.73%, which falls below the 10% outlined in London Plan Policy G6. The existing site has a high biodiversity score. Although the design approach seeks to maximise BNG, given the low figure, there should be consideration of further on-site opportunities and the Council could secure payment to overcome the shortfall to enhance the adjacent Brook.

 But Brent Council Planning Officers respond:

It should be noted that the application was submitted prior to a 10% BNG coming into force, therefore the scheme only needs to demonstrate a net gain, which it does.

 A further issue is potential flooding from surface, fluvial and articial (Brent Reservoir) Most of the buildings will be lifted above potential flood levels and there are proposals for mitigation. The officers' report concludes:

From the Flood Risk Assessment we can establish that there are no sequentially better sites for the development proposal than the current site. In addition, subject to conditions such as securing the Flood Warning & Evacuation Plan, finished floor levels, engagement with Emergency Planning Officers, along with other measures, the proposal should provide sufficient safeguards to ensure the safety of occupiers.

The proposed drainage strategy, again subject to conditions, is considered acceptable and should sufficiently attenuate water and reduce the risk of flooding.

 

APPLICATION DOCUMENTS

 As Paul Lorber points out in comments this development was foreshadowed in the Adopted Local Plan. It puts the site capacity at 450 units, whereas the above totals 617 units.

If you have been disconcerted by this application it is worth looking at the detailed Local Plan for potential developments across the borough. You may find your home or business there. The Local Plan extends to 2041.

 https://legacy.brent.gov.uk/media/16420376/brent-local-plan-2019-2041.pdf

This is what the Local Plan indicates for the Brook Avenue site:

 

Brent Council turn down request for public consultation meetings on Wembley Stadium's application to hold up to 54 'Large Events' a year with crowd theshold increased from 51,000 to 60,000. Decision expected in August

 

 

Cllr Anton Georgiou has tabled a question to Brent Council over Wembley Stadium's controversial application to increase the number of events and the crowd threshold at the stadium. The council reject a request to hold public consultation meetings on the proposal and suggest the application will go to Planning Committee in August when many residents will be away.

The question and response:

Question from Councillor Georgiou to Councillor Tatler (Cabinet Member for Regeneration Planning & Growth):

 

Large scale events at Wembley Stadium, especially when held on three successive days, have a major impact on the ability of thousands of Brent residents to go about their everyday activities.

 

In 1999, planning permission was granted allowing the Stadium to hold 37 'Large' events, which has subsequently been increased to 46 'Large' events. Now the stadium wants this increased again to 54.

 

Can the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Growth advise:

 

1. Will Brent Council hold consultation meetings to hear first hand the impact the ever increasing number of Large-scale events have on the lives of local people?

 

2. Has Brent Council carried out a detailed impact assessment of how Large Event days affect the lives of local people?

 

3. Will due regard in the planning officers assessment be given to social impacts on lives of local people and not simply financial benefits for the Stadium?

 

4. What direct compensation or benefits can local people expect if the changes proposed were to be approved?

 

Response:

 

The Stadium has applied to vary a condition on their planning consent to allow them to hold up to 8 additional stadium events each year. They are also applying to increase the threshold above which the event cap applies from 51,000 to 60,000 people and to change the distinction between sporting and non-sporting events.

 

Events at the stadium been an important feature of Brent life for over 100 years bringing both benefits and impacts to our residents and businesses. There were no restrictions on the number of events at the previous stadium but an “event cap” was introduced for the new stadium. As you are aware, this started at 37 events and is now at 46 events following previous applications to increase the cap.

 

The Stadium have submitted supporting information with their application which examines the implications and potential impacts of the proposal, and this is available on our website.

 

We are currently consulting on this application, with letters sent to over 50,000 properties in the Wembley Event Day Zone and site notices put up around the stadium. Over 100 comments have already been received and these will all be considered.

 

We are not intending to hold a public meeting prior to the Planning Committee meeting for the application and it’s important that comments on the planning application are provided in writing.

 

Impacts to local residents and businesses are being carefully considered. We do not consider profits for individual organisations such as the stadium, but we do take the wider benefits that a proposal may bring to the local economy into account.

 

We secure measures and obligations that are required to mitigate impacts of a proposal but are not able to secure compensation for local businesses or residents. We must also look at the difference between what can happen now and what could happen if the application is approved.

 

We encourage residents and local businesses to let us know what they think about the Stadium’s proposal. We are still out to consultation, and it is likely that the application will be considered by the Planning Committee in August