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

Tirzah House, Kingsbury and King Edward VII Park Pavilion developments both approved at Brent Planning Committee

The planning application for demolition of the existing pavilion building in King Edward VII park and its replacement by a building with a much larger footprint comprising facilities for Stonebridge Boxing Club was approved unanimously at tonight's Brent Planning Committee. Issues such as lighting in the park are still to be resolved as the Parks Department has no budget available to install lights.

The application for a much larger replacement building for 2 storey family house,  Tirzah Mansion, at 26 Salmon Street, Kingsbury, NW9 (on the corner of Queens Walk) was approved with two votes against. Cllr Saqib Butt opposed as there was a policy shortfall and the proposed building's bulk and massing. Cllr Robert Johnson was concerned that it had no affordabel housing and the developer's contribution of £41,000 towards affordable housing elsewhere was 'miniscule'. He also felt that the plans amounted to over-development.

 

Tweets from the Planning Committee as it progressed can be found @WembleyMatters 

 

 

Proposed new development on London Road, Wembley at Planning Committee on May 8th

 

 

Planning Committee on Wednesday will consider an application to redevelop a building on London Road, close to the High Road, presently consistingof 8 one storey shops and a workshop at the rear, into a double frontage part 6 storey, part 7 storey block of mid-rise flats. LINK

For those who know the road it would be between Patidar House and the chicken shop on the corner of London Road/High Road.

London Road proposed 

Street view of the 6/7 storey double block

Aerial view showing proximity to Central Apartments

 

Residents of the Central Apartments on Wembley Central Square have been most vocal in their opposition:

 I am an owner occupier of at Central Apartment which was build as a part of regeneration programme and currently has 117 families occupying this development since 2010. I am submitting this Objection on behalf of the Wembley Central Resident Association (CARTA) which has more than 90 families as paid members. Our association is recognised by the landlord and our local representatives. I am a Chairman of this association and in that capacity on behalf of our members, I strongly object to this development for following reasons.

1. Our track record of corporation and supporting local regeneration -

We have not objected to any other developments in the close proximity of development in last 12 years and always supported Brent in its regeneration agenda. This proposed development directly impacts our quality of life and investment and hence we strongly object it.

2. Devaluation of 50 plus apartments facing windows and balconies to London Road.

As illustrated in the separate photographic evidence, this development will block the view of the windows and balconies facing London Road and significantly devalue the properties to the significant drop in appeal of these flats upto 40% from the current market price.

3. Loss of sunlight and its impact on living costs.

This development is too close to us literally in the face of the balconies and windows of 50 plus flats facing London Road , which receive its sunlight only in the morning from NE side (facing London Road) till noon. All the windows of our flats are facing this side only and there is no other way to get the sunlight. The close proximity of the proposed construction of seven storey building will create a complete wall in front of us blocking any natural sunlight at any time of the day and in fact we will come under shadow of it.

As illustrated in the photos send separately it is going to create complete darkness in 50 plus flats and directly forcing residents to use more electricity and heating to keep the flats warm and maintain sufficient visibility in the flats even during day.

3. Insufficient Ventilation -

Due to the layout of the property and building design, we have limited options to achieve natural cross ventilation and completely depend on the fresh breeze from NE. This development will completely block it and the current MEP systems in the flats are not designed to operate without any natural ventilation. As a result this will create unhygienic , unhealthy living conditions to all the residents which could lead to long term health issues.

Also its impacts on the maintenance costs of properties, It is important to note that one person produces 4 pints of moisture per day, through cooking, cleaning, bathing and breathing. Therefore 5 people will produce 84 pints of moisture per week. with inadequate ventilation moisture produced will condense to cold surfaces, and eventually turn to mould which could also lead to additional wear and tear/ maintenance costs of the property.

4.Loss of views and loss of privacy - All 50 plus flat owners have bought their flats with an extra premium for the views for Wembley Stadium Arc and overall landscape . The proposed development will completely block it and lead to becoming unattractive to occupy due to significant change in the surrounding. The new development's close proximity to our windows and balcony would result us in losing our privacy of occupation.

This is a significant risk to our investment and with this objection , we are hoping this development proposal would immediately stopped to progress any further. In the event this proposal is progressed further without any further consultation / clarity on how the affected leaseholders concerns would be addressed commercially and technically , we reserve the right to explore legal options.

Given recent controversies over the dearth of affordable housing in new developments readers will note that Brent Planning Officers accept the viability assessment for the development that no affordable housing can be provided.  A late review of viability will consider whether a contribution could be made towards affordable housing elsewhere.

A recent think tank report suggested that developments of this height were better for family homes and social cohesion than high-rise towers.

Provision includes 41 flats and a much smaller commercial area,

 

Officers examine issues regarding daylight acess in both the new block and neighbouring blocks. On the later (presumably including Central Apartments) they conclude:

 

The properties that are mainly affected currently afford outlook over the low scale existing buildings on site resulting in higher levels of daylight than what could be expected for a typical urban context. The overall benefits of the development including the delivery of new commercial floorspace and residential homes (including a policy compliant level of family sized homes) would outweigh the limited harm identified above.

 

 Overall Planning Officers recommend that the Planning Committee approve the application:

 

The proposal would include the redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use building of up to 7 storeys high, with a commercial Class E unit and 41 residential units. It would optimise the capacity of the site within a highly sustainable location within the Borough and make a contribution towards housing supply within the Borough, including the delivery of family sized homes. Whilst the scheme does not achieve 0.4 urban greening factor score, following the above discussion, officers consider that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions.

Newland Court resident: 'The site is not a good or viable long term option for houses. We ask that the Councillors deny the application.'

This is a letter written to Brent Council by a resident of Newland Court, Wembley Park. The Council's planning application will be heard at Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday. 

Dear Brent Councillors and Committee members, 

 

I am a resident at Newland court and wish to express my dismay and concern at the Newland Court infill proposals.

 

By the Council’s own admission the residents have raised 45 objections affecting:

1. Impact of the development on the trees within the Barn Hill Conservation Area (a designated Heritage site)
2. Accuracy of the submission
3. Design and massing
4. Wildlife and ecology
5. Flood risk
6. Parking reduction 
7. Highway and antisocial behaviour
8. Safety concerns
9. Noise concerns 
10. Mental health impact 
11. Equalities concern

 

In their response, the Council have themselves acknowledged that the proposals will cause HARM, yet they have:

1. Provided yourselves with false/inaccurate/misleading/unsubstantiated information to provide assurances in favour of the development (examples of such false/inaccurate/misleading information is provided below)
2. Disregarded the reports of Council’s own officers (eg. Transport officer, Heritage officer, Tree officers etc) highlighting the flaws with the proposal and recommending for the proposal not to be accepted. (examples also provided below).
3. Brushed aside all objections by such broad-brush statements as " The potential harm is outweighed by the overall planning benefits of the scheme". Despite acknowledging the HARM, they brush them to one side, without providing any basis, or analysis on which their 'conclusion' is reached. Were potential benefit and harm criteria determined against which an unbiased analysis could be undertaken? Was there any verifiable, transparent and jointly agreed assessment carried out? No. Just broad brush statements to give you, our Councillors, false assurance to get your "yes" vote. 

 

Please don't let yourselves be hoodwinked or used through these tactics. Act fairly and with discernment. Your decision will impact the lives of many and will lead to a problem development that will be long remembered for its flawed decision-making. What is the legacy you want to leave behind? How do you want to be remembered for what you did?  

 

Examples of inaccurate/false/misleading/unsubstantiated statements provided by the Council include: 

 

 1. The Council states that “the majority of residents that expressed support for the proposed development” - This statement is incorrect and without any basis

We have asked the Council to provide the list of flats/residents who support the proposals and they have failed to provide this. The majority of residents and those living on Grendon Gardens OPPOSE this development and this is evidenced by the 45 letters of objections which the residents have raised. You need to challenge these statements made by the Council to provide you with false assurance.

 

2. The Council’s Ecological Report says that “the site does not lie within an Ecological site” but that despite this they carried out an Ecological survey. 

Yet the Council uses a chart survey dated 2007, which is outdated and ignores Philip Grant’s 2023 follow up Ecological Report which identified species of protected Bats  in the trees by the garages (protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and regulations Act 1984).  

 

3. The Council’s Arboricultural Report has mis-categorised a number of trees, provided incorrect and unsubstantiated claims about previous pruning of these trees and contradict Julie Hughes, Brent Councils’ own Tree Officers report and Grendon Gardens Arboricultural tree report.

 

4. The Council’s Submission on parking originally falsely stated that we had NO parking and their proposals increase our parking by 12! (See the image taken from their application below for yourselves)

 

Although the parking spaces were increased to 28, this provides an example of the level of false information that has been presented. We have 41 car parking spaces (which is not enough as it is) and the Council under its current plans plan to only provide 28.  

 

The Council’s Submission says that no new public roads are being created within the site and no new public right of way is being given. Yet this is exactly what is happening. Our Private Road is being turned into a Public Road with public access.

 

 

 

5) Open spaces: Council’s application states that there is no loss or change of use of any open spaces. Yet they are planning to build a play area in the one open space we have inside Newland Court.

 

 

Brent Council's application is regrettably riddled with such false claims and the proposals are built on this false foundation. 

 

Examples of the Council disregarding the recommendations of its own officers  include:

1. Brent's own Heritage Officer has concerns about the uncharacteristically narrow modern dwelling at the end of the row of traditional properties and the harm it will do to the conservation area. 
2. Brent’s own Transport Officer had recommended refusal of the proposal on the grounds that the development would:

• be contrary to Local Plan Policy BT2
• the imposition of parking restrictions for the existing residents would not be reasonable, as their properties do not form part of the planning application. 
• add to on-street parking demand in an area that is unable to safely accommodate a significant amount of parking
• be detrimental to on-street parking conditions 

3. Brent’s own Tree Officer has serious concerns about impact on the trees (which fall within the Barn Hill Conservation area) if this proposal goes ahead.

The Site is not a good or viable long term option for houses. We ask that the Councillors deny the application. 

 

 

 

Harlesden Gambling Centre refused, Mumbai Junction approved, and Kilburn Square abandoned at last night's Planning Committee

 

 Speakers against the Mumbai Junction planning application

 

Last night's Planning Committee was a funny old meeting. The Chair had to send for a bucket because water was leaking through the roof of the Civic Centre (c£100m) and evetually the meeting was abandoned when the water got into the audio system and made participants sound like fish.  Cllr Maurice raised a concern about noise coming from the floor below - it turned out not to be a riot but Navratri celebrations.  Eventually the meeting had to be abandoned because of the water seepage and the Kilburn Square application hearing was not completed.

Matt Kelcher vacated the chair for the first item because he had, prior to becoming chair spoken out against the application, (not because his Cabinet member wife Mili Patel was one of the main speakers against the Adult Gaming Centre in Harlesden).

A strong squad of ward councillors opposed the application and quoted police evidence on the damaging impact of yet another gambling joint in Harlesden. Acting Chair Cllr Saqib Butt (whose brother is leader of the council) did his best to sway the committee but four members voted against and only Butt and two others for the application. A senior officer intervened to suggest deferment but that was a gamble too far and the refusal decision stood.

The long-running Mumbai Junction application was another matter.  This had been first refused and then deferred at the August Planning Committee (after an officer intervention) so that defensible reasons for rejection could be compiled. These were included in the officers' report but despite representations by three ex-councillors (Mitchell-Murry, Lloyd and Perrin) and one current councillor (Lorber) the Committee, rather unconvincingly, over-turned their previous decision.  I couldn't possibly comment on post-meeting suggestions that they had been got at.

In answer to a question in comments, the final vote on Mumbai Junction was 5 for, 1 against (Cllr Maurice) and 1 abstention (Cllr Mahmood).

Mumbai Junction site: a record of floods and accidents that Brent Council doesn't appear to know about

 

 Recorded 9th August 2021

 The applicant denied all knowledge of flooding at 231 Watford Road and last week's Planning Committee when the Mumbai Junction plannin application was approved. The above video has been sent to planning officers as they need to be awate of the real situation.

A resident writes:

There are usually 3 or 4 event like this per year when the drainage manhole on Sudbury Court Drive near the junction with Bengeworth Road blows out due to a lack of capacity in the surface water drainage systems locally. The water runs down hill to the roundabout and across the road towards 23 Watford Road. Thames Water are often contacted via the council to resolve.

Officers also appeared to minimise the number of traffic accidents on roads in the area. Twitter tells a different story.

 

 

 

Petition launched calling on Brent Council to protect our parks and green spaces from development

 

After the very unpopular decision of Brent Planning Committee to allow the building of 4 bulky houses in Barham Park, residents have been concerned that a precedent has been set which could threaten our other parks and public spaces. This is particularly the case where there are existing buildings in the park or green space that could be declared redundant or poorly maintained and the site redeveloped.

We learnt how important green spaces are during the pandemic and open access is important. Access has already been lost to the Copland Fields and green space is likely to be lost in South Kilburn. The St Raphael's green space may be eaten into in future redevelopment.   At the same time Brent's tower block building boom means that the population has increased and the new residents have no gardens, just access to a balcony or a small shared space consisting mainly of concrete. An exception will be the new Union Park near the stadium.

Barham Park is supposedly protected by covenant, a fact that the Planning Committee discounted as not a planning consideration, but unfortunately even that is not the case with other parks.

In Brent only King Edward VII Park, Wembley; Roe Green Walled Garden in Kingsbury and Mapesbury Dell in Cricklewood are protected by Fields in Trust. Their mission is to protect parks and green  spaces.  Owners can apply to Fields in Trust whether private, community or local authority for a potection agreement. Brent Council is of course the owner of our parks and public spaces apart from Queens Park which is owned by the Corporation of London.

 

Brent Council as the landowner would have to apply for a protection agreement and that will need pressure from residents to persuade them that such action is vital.

Meanwhile a petition has been launched in the wake of the Barham Park decision calling on Brent Council to uphold its Strategic Plan commitment to protecting parks and open spaces.

The petition is on Brent Council's website HERE

 

Save Brent Parks from house building & development

 

We the undersigned petition the council to uphold its long standing Strategic Policy of protecting Brent Parks and Open Spaces at all cost.

 

We are concerned that Brent Council's Planning Committee has ignored Strategic Core Policy of protecting Parks and Open Spaces and also the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan, which designated Barham Park as a Local Green Space and developed a specific Planning Policy BP1 which stated that any housing building or redevelopment in Barham Park should be refused. That decision has effectively undermined Neighbourhood Planning, ignored the views of local people and put at risk other Parks and Open Spaces across Brent.