Brent Council’s “infill” housing plans – some clues from Rokesby Place

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

In August last year I wrote about Brent’s “secret” Council Housing projects, a list of proposals ‘not yet in the public domain’ for building extra homes on existing Council housing estates. A map presented to a Cabinet meeting in July 2021 included three possible new homes for “Rokesby”, which was then in Sudbury Ward.

 

I was recently asked to have a look at planning application 22/1400, which has now been submitted for building two homes at Rokesby Place. When taking a look through the Design & Access Statement for the application, this page caught my eye:

 

Fifteen sites in Brent where FBM have been appointed ‘to develop proposals’.

 

The Statement in support of application 22/1400 was prepared in March 2022 by Fraser Brown McKenna Architects (“FBM”). As it was written on behalf of Brent Council (client), and submitted to Brent Council (Local Planning Authority), the glowing details about Brent’s New Council Homes Programme seem rather unnecessary, but the final sentence reads: ‘FBM were appointed in April 2021 to develop proposals across 15 sites within the borough.’ The map shows the locations of those fifteen sites, and if there is a blue dot close to where you live, you may wish to ask your local councillors what “infill” schemes the Council is planning near you!

 

There is no doubt that Brent needs to build more Council homes for people on its waiting list and those who are homeless. At first sight, the plans for the two new houses (below) at Rokesby Place look attractive, as they are 4-bedroom / 7-person family homes, for which there is a real shortage of affordable housing in the borough.

 

  

Architect’s drawing of the proposed new houses at Rokesby Place, from planning application.

 

The Council does need to make use of any spare land it owns which is suitable for building homes on (like the vacant Copland School site – so why are all 250 homes there NOT going to be genuinely affordable Council homes?). But it also needs to consider the existing residents of the estate it is considering adding new homes to. That is why in my “secret” Council Housing projects article last year I made the point that early consultation with residents was needed.

 

Cllr. Southwood, then Lead Member for Housing, replied to the points I’d raised, saying:

 

‘I absolutely agree that Brent Council must work with residents to shape housing development projects, not just on the housing itself but also on the improvements that are made as part of each development we deliver.  We take this responsibility seriously - with workshops, public events, newsletters and questionnaires all used to discuss and get input on our proposals.’

 

However, this is what the Rokesby Place Residents’ Association have said about the consultation they are supposed to have received, in their objection comments on the current planning application:

 

‘Apart from a generic questionnaire which had only one relevant question that was listed last, the whole questionnaire was irrelevant to the proposal. The only information sent with the questionnaire was a publicity leaflet from Cllr Southwood which did not give any detailed information. There has been no consultation with Rokesby Place residents or the neighbouring community. All the information we have found out has been from perusal of the documents on the planning portal.’  

 

Another objection comment, from a leaseholder of one of the Rokesby Place flats, was also very critical of the application’s claims over consultation:

 

Extract from the “View Comments” section for application 22/1400 on Brent’s planning website.

 

Brent certainly needs to improve its consultation with existing residents of estates where it is proposing to add “infill” housing, in order to try to reach agreement on proposals which are acceptable to them, as well as providing at least some of the additional homes which are needed. If they had done that at Rokesby Place, they might have avoided putting forward plans which have produced more than a dozen objections, some of them very detailed.

 

The proposed homes would be built on an existing car park, used by many Rokesby Place residents. One of the main concerns is the effect of the proposals on the availability of parking, with a net loss of nine parking spaces on the estate. The assumption in the application that because the new homes will be “car free” (in that no parking spaces will be provided for them), no one in either of the seven-person households will own a car or van, also seems naïve.

 

The Design & Access Statement admits that the level of "parking stress" would increase from 65% to 107%. Residents have stated that the problems caused by the loss of parking spaces would be worse than that. The consultee comments by Brent's Transportation Officer (included in the “View Documents” section) make clear that insufficient data has been supplied by the applicant to justify the Statement's claim that the loss of parking spaces would be acceptable.

 

Aerial view of Rokesby Place, with sites A&B marked, from the planning application.

 

In order to restrict the level of “parking stress” to what the application claims is an “acceptable” 107%, the existing car park at A on the photo above, where the two houses would be built, would be replaced by a new five-space car park at B. As you can see, it would be built on what is currently an open green. That has led the Residents’ Association to point out, in its objection comments, that this would go against Brent’s policy over the amount of external amenity space needed to satisfy (existing) residents’ needs:

 

‘By taking away the only green space which is relatively level, quiet, private and safe will leave no usable place sit out and enjoy the good weather. Residents have always used this area to have picnics, barbecues and ladies get togethers. During the lockdowns this space was a lifesaver for all residents who used this area.’

 

The loss of parking spaces and the loss of green open spaces and trees (the loss of three mature trees, and severe cutting back of others, is another point raised by objectors) are likely to be key issues in many of the proposed Brent Council “infill” schemes. It will be very interesting to see how these matters are dealt with in the Report by Planning Officers on the Rokesby Place application. 

 

And what will the response of Planning Committee be, if it comes before them for a decision (as it will have to, in view of the number of objections, unless the Council withdraws its application in the face of strong opposition)? 

 

I understand that one of the objectors is a Labour councillor for Wembley Central Ward (in which Rokesby Place now sits, following the boundary changes ahead of the 5 May local elections). Will other Labour councillors have the courage to stand up for their residents, in the face of Brent’s New Council Homes “infill” proposals? And if so, will it make any difference?

 

Philip Grant

 

BREAKING: DECISION DEFERRED: Friends of Woodcock Park voice flooding and ecological concerns over in-fill proposal on site of Lidding Road garages - Planning Committee 6pm tonight

BREAKING:  After a discussion which focused on  the  foul water surface water flooding danger - of the Lidding Road site and immense concern that Thames Water had not addressed the long-standing issue, the Planning Committee decided tonight to defer a decision on the planning application.

Committee members wanted assurances that the sewage pipes, descibed as 'broken, damaged and collapsing' by John Poole making representations on behalf of residents, would be repaired, replaced and upgraded, otherwise the new development would exacerbate the problem.

Thames Water had said that the system had capacity for the new development but councillors were sceptical and did not appear to be reassured by the statement. 

Some members also wanted a construction vehicle management plan give the nature of the local road,

 

 

The development site from planning report (outlined in red)

 

Satellite view

Wembley Matters has been been covering concerns over fluvial (river) flooding and surface water flooding in the borough in the wake of climate change. Local residents are usually better informed about the history of such events than planning officers, but this local knowledge is often dismissed and plans go ahead.

Tonight's Planning Committee will be discussing a Brent Council in-fill development at Lidding Road, Kenton,  which residents say will exacerbate flooding problems from the Wealdstone Brook and current sewage draining problems. Trees and some green space will also be lost according to objectors.

This is what Friends of Woodcock Park had to say:

 The site is totally unsuitable. It is in Flood risk 3 area. Flooding in this area is a problem as is water run off.

On the opposite side of the Brook the grounds of the Kenton Synagogue are constantly flooded by rainwater run off. This development will only increase the problem of rainwater run off.


Sewer pipes are shown running directly under the proposed development. Plot 5 has been designed with a manhole underneath it. This is contrary to Thames Water's policy of building over sewers. Thames sewers are constantly being blocked and require access to clear the problem.

Only yesterday  (September 28^th) work was being carried out to clear a blockage in this sewer which runs from Woodgrange Close across the Park to Brookfield Crescent. These are old sewers which are prone to collapse, which has happened several times within the park itself and at the end of Lidding Road. The ground at Lidding Road is now sinking because of these problems.

The Wealdstone Brook is blighted by sewage, due largely to the infrastructure of dual manholes. We are in constant discussions with Thames Water, but this has been an ongoing problem for decades and will not be completely eradicated until the sewage system is rebuilt. This area is also plagued by rats which run along the Wealdstone Brook and there is often a foul smell of sewage. Who would want to live near an open sewer, liable to flood, where you are unable to open your windows.

To site properties so close to the Wealdstone Brook is contrary to NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE GUIDANCE, Chapter 11, making effective use of the land, sets out how the planning system should promote use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Councillors would be failing in their duty to provide safe and healthy living conditions.


The land at the end of Lidding Road is a greenfield site. maintained by Brent Parks department, at the entrance to Woodcock Park. The loss of green space in Brent, which is already short of green spaces, should not be permitted.


The properties are situated too close to the SINC site, also known as the Wealdstone Brook Wildlife corridor.

Bats: A significant amount of foraging activity was recorded around the dense scrub and scattered trees in the southern portion of the site, and some commuting over this area. In accordance with best practice guidance relating to lighting and biodiversity (Miles et al, 2018; Gunnell et al, 2012), It is essential that any new lighting should be carefully designed to minimise potential disturbance and fragmentation impacts on sensitive receptors, such as bat species. Examples of good practice include:

- Avoiding the installation of new lighting in proximity to key ecological features, such as hedgerows and woodland edges.


The parking spaces allocated next to the Wealdstone Brook will create light disturbance from the headlights of the cars. In addition what guarantees are there that residents of these properties don't add their own external security lighting.


Security is a big issue in this area. Anti-social behaviour continues to be problem in and around Woodcock Park, we have drug dealing and have even had a stabbing in the Park. The footpath between Lidding Road and Shaftesbury Avenue across the Wealdstone Brook needs to have clear sight lines. The area should be kept open, with space either side of the footpath. The development should not go right up to the footpath.

 

Visualisation next to Wealdstone Brook

The officers report LINK  argues that the disbenefits are outweighed  by the benefit of supplying 8 housing units, 5 of which are family sized at London Affordable Rent and that the plans will actually improve drainage and mitigate the risk of flooding. Some failures to meet amenity space guidelines are said to be made up for by the proximity of Woodcock Park.

On the sewer over-load issue  the report airily hands over responsibility to Thames Water:

Concerns have been raised that the development would be impacted by on increase these issues. The local sewers are owned and maintained by Thames Water and as such Thames Water is responsible for the maintenance of this system.

 This is a common feature in many planning applications. 

 

LIVESTREAM 6pm HERE

Cllr Krupa Sheth promises a response from Brent Planning regarding the GLA investigation into housing typologies, focussing on housing density and the development of tall buildings for residential use in London

 

Planned and in progress tall buildings in Alperton with number of storeys (Alperton station and school bottom right)

 The Committee does not believe that tall buildings are the answer to London’s housing needs and should not be encouraged outside of a few designated and carefully managed areas.

 Letter to councillors from Chair of the  GLA Planning nd Regeneration Committee

 

Cllr Anton Georgiou (Alperton), frustrated by the failure of Cllr Shama Tatler to deliver a response to his question at Full Council in September on the Council's response to the  GLA Planning and Regeneration Committee's report on tall buildings, instead addressed his question to Cllr Krupa Sheth (lead member on environment) at Monday's Full Council.

Citing the Council's declaration of a climate emergency and claiming that studies showed that the Council's 'obsession' with tall buildings was detrimental to the environment he asked:

What steps will be taken to acknowledge and act on the warning  outlined in the report into tall buildings that we all received from the GLA Planning and Regeneration Committee? Does this Council plan to continue ignoring local residents' views, and will the adminstration commit to undertake a full environmental assessment by an independent party of each planning application for a tall building before steam-rolling through approval?

Responding, Cllr Krupa Sheth claimed that more than a thousand resident signing up to the Brent Environmental Network showed they were doing a 'great job' in listening to residents. She went on regarding the main question:

'I will ensure someone from Planning Department will respond back to you.'

It is likely that the Planning Department it its reply will cite the independence of the Planning Committee from the political process. The chair at each meeting reminds the Committee that it is a non-political quasi-judicial committee bound by the national policy framework, the London Plan, Brent's Core Strategy, the emerging Local Plan, development management policies and other planning guidance. They are also reminded that there is a national housing shortage and targets have been set for the borough.

 Occasionally they are reminded that if they go against officers' recommendations on a particular application, developers may make a legal challenge at great cost to the Council.  In addition we know that at least one Labour councillor who has exercised independence on the planning committee has been removed subsequently. LINK

There is more on probity in planning decisons from the Local Government Association HERE

All this means that the Committee operates within narrow official and unofficial limits and it is the above-mentioned policies that need to be considered when challenging officers'  recommendations, particularly when they recommend approval even when the application does not comply with guidance on issues such as amount of amenity space, access to daylight, density etc. In the final analysis it may be that the policy needs to be changed - particularly in the Local Plan that, after consultation, is on the brink of final approval.

Another approach would be Scrutiny Committee considering the issue of tall buildings in the context of the Report and inviting the Chair of the GLA Committee to attend, give evidence and answer questions. 

 This is the GLA Planning and Regeneration Chair's letter sent to all councillors and referenced by Cllr Georgiou. Click bottom right for full page version.

 

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

 

From Draycott Avenue

From the back garden of the property

 

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

 

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

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

3 2 bedroomed units at market rent

2 2 bedroomed units for market sale

4 1 bedroomed units for market sale

The cost of the build is estimated at £2million

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

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

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


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

Impact of the proposal on our personal property:

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


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


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


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


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



With regards to concerns affecting the general area:



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

Alperton residents' trenchant views on the Alperton Bus Garage planning application fail to stop approval of the development

Brent Planning Committe this afternoon passed the planning application that will see three towers, 21 storeys, 25 storeys and 28 storeys, built on the Alperton Bus Depot site. (Ealing Road/Bridgewater Road) Planning offices said that the Alperton Masterplan policy of a limit of 14 storeys had been superseded by the Emerging Local Plan policy on tall buildings.

A planning officer said that the character of the area would change as a result of the cluster of tall buildings but that as this particular site was not next door to low buildings the usual step down of height did not apply.

None the less Cllr Maurice voted against the application on grounds of over-development, height and its destruction of the area's once pleasant suburban character.

Cllr Anton Georgiou (LD Alperton) having opposed several applications with similar speeches on ground of height, unaffordability and lack of infrastructure, took a different approach this time. Taking a leaf out of the technique used by Jeremy Corbyn, when opposition leader,  Georgio quoted the views of ordinary residents.  He said he was certain that none of the Committe had actually been to, or spoke to anyone in Alperton so he would bring their voices to them. He read out their statements:

Kit and Mai of Crabtree Avenue say:

“Our local community feels abandoned and unloved with the constant addiction of this Council to approving massive tower blocks, whilst no tangible investments are made in infrastructure and facilities.”

Bob from Vicars Bridge Close says:

“Having lived in Alperton for nearly a quarter of a century now, I have seen it change massively, and not for the better. The emphasis seems to have been on changing the nature and the character of the area forever and not at the behest of the people who live and work here. Enough is enough.”

Mel from Bridgewater Road says:

“This is/ was a residential area. More developments are also planned in this small area which adds nothings to the community and residential streets that surround it. Just more congestion, more people, more high rise monstrous ugly buildings with no infrastructure to cope built in – enough!”

Hiren and Anita from the Abbey Estate say:

“The scale of this development is ridiculous. The Alperton master plan claimed that no new development would be over 17 storeys. Why should this development be any different? The height of these towers will block sunlight for existing residents nearby, as well as overlooking Alperton Community School - a safeguarding issue.”

Donnamarie from Lyon Park Avenue says:

“Loss of the skyline - we already can’t see it, and when I look out of my windows, whether the front or the back all I can see are tall cranes and high rise flats that have already been built, yet more eyesores.”

Frances from the Abbey Estate says:

“I am against any more tower blocks. They block out the light and there is no parking people who will be living in the blocks will be parking in the Abbey Estate as they are at the moment from the last two Tower blocks that went up! We have lost our front gardens because the majority of us could no longer park outside our front doors!”

Ingrid from Bridgewater Road says:

“We need to call a halt to the ever increasing number of tower blocks in what is principally a low rise residential area. They do absolutely nothing for the area in terms of infrastructure, aesthetics and wellbeing. They serve only those who want to make money. Alperton has been blighted enough with the current construction - dark and oppressive. Just for once, try thinking about those of us who live here on a permanent basis.”

Sammy from Heather Park Drive says:

“It looks like Hong Kong / New York not Alperton! The essence of Alperton is gone.

As a result, my family who live on Bridgewater Road are so fed up that they’re moving out of Wembley soon. Not everyone can do that.”

Mrs Jani from Stanley Close says:

“I have lived in Alperton for the last 35 years and the way it has developed in recent years is creating lots of problems with overcrowding and traffic congestion. The multi-storey complexes are not what we need here.”

Ravi from Longley Avenue says:

“I have been a resident in Longley Avenue since 1983, day by day our living conditions are becoming worse. We cannot get GP appointments, parking issues, since Covid, we need more health supporting services (Alperton Station lift).”

Chirag, Chair of the Wembley Central and Alperton Residents’ Association says:

“Representing residents of Alperton and neighbouring residents on Bridgewater Road, Carlyon Road, Ealing Road, Burnside Crescent and Clifford Road, the proposed development is over-bearing, out-of-scale and out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing developments in the vicinity.

The development does not take into account the burden it will place on existing neighbouring properties and the infrastructure required to accommodate such a large scale development. The development would also adversely affect highway safety, and the convenience of existing road users as there are no plans to mitigate the increased number of cars owned by residents of this new development. WCARA objects to this development.”

Gabi from 243 Ealing Road says:

“Many of us who moved here to 243 six years ago have done our research and were aware the area was up for development. But we are in shock and disbelief about the density and the overall lack of long term structure/ planning of how are all these people supposed to coexist together without healthcare/education/travel provision. In the meantime from our complex many people are desperate to leave due to extortionate service charges that no one can really afford...”

Lucie Gutfreund, End our Cladding Scandal campaigner and Brent resident says:

“As the buildings safety crisis unfolds across the UK and with the Government still not ensuring that new build homes are built safely or guaranteeing residents’ physical financial protection from defects, I would strongly oppose the new high-rise development in Alperton. I would also particularly also like to raise concerns about Telford Homes; the developer is known to refuse to take responsibility for their existing unsafe homes or to even respond to MPs, having been named and shamed in the House of Commons on 27th April.”

 

Cllr Kennelly asked if Telford Homes was a fit and proper developer for Brent in the light of this but the agent addressing the Committee said she did not know about the Hansard mention and that they had no outstanding cladding issues.

Planning consigns Brent & Harrow Cyclists to the sweet bye and bye over Northwick Park development

 

 

Following my report on the Northwick Park Planning Application hearing I was curious to know more about the submission of Brent and Harrow Cyclists. Cllr Saqib Butt, admitting that he hadn't seen the submission, asked planning officers about it. Without his intervention it is unlikely that it would have been discussed at all. You can hear the response in the above clip. If you read the submission you can see how the officer's summary does not do it justice.

Having declared a climate emergency I thought Brent Council would be proactive in searching for ways of reducing motor traffic and finding ways of making streets more friendly for pedestrians and cyclists in this massive development.  Instead, apart from the offer from the Highways Officer towards the end of the discussion the proposals (apparently unseen by the Committee) were pretty well consigned to the sweet bye and bye*.

I have now seen the detailed proposals made by the cycling campaigners and it is clear that a lot of research and thought had gone into their submission. Here is one of the illustrations:

 

 

Brent and Harrow Cyclists introduced  their submission:

This is the joint response from Brent Cycling Campaign and Harrow Cyclists, two local groups of London Cycling Campaign, to the committee report for case number 20/0700, development of ‘Land adjacent to Northwick Park Avenue, London, HA1’ . We represent over 300 supporters and attempt to represent the interests of all who cycle or would like to cycle in NW London. We have some concerns about the planned development and have suggested some potential improvements, which we would be grateful if the council could consider.

I am not convinced that their proposals have been properly considered.

You can read the full submission on Brent Cyclists website HERE

 * I prefer the Joe Hill version of the Sweet Bye and Bye

Another Alperton development approved despite huge misgivings over height, amount of truly affordable housing and impact on neighbouring residents

 

 Existing store

The site

New development heights cross-section with Burns Road

Some familiar themes emerged at this week's Planning Committee discussion about the planning application for the Currys-PC World site in Alperton Lane off Ealing Road.  The site is away from the main high rises at the Grand Union Canal development and, as can be seen from the section drawing above, will dwarf the two storey terraced houses of Burns Road and Cromwell Road.

 

Apart from the out of local character nature of the development and the impact on the 'right to light' of residents, parking (or lack of it),  the amount of truly affordable housing, the height of the building exceeding local guidance, the affordability of the rent in the promised community space  and the pressure on local infrastructure were all major concerns.

 

On the parking issue a resident described how even without the development, parking spaces were so rare that she filled up her hot water bottle and sat in her car for hours until she could move into a vacated space.  On the 'right to light' she said she had served an obstruction notice  on Brent Council.

 

A Cromwell Road resident told the Committee that pandemic restrictions had made it hard to organise opposition through public meetings and collecting signatures on petitions.  She had never imagined that the area would change so much and in such a dramatic and negative way. They had been told that there would be no tall buildings in the area according to the 2011 Alperton Masterplan. Now Edwardian terraces will be sandwiched between tall buildings.

 

Residents pointed out that commercial premises incorporated into other developments with the promises of new shops etc, remained unlet and the rent of community spaces too high for local community organisations. 

Max Plotnek, the developer's agent promised low or even zero rents for the community space. He said that there had been 4 pre-planning meetings with council planning officers and the developer had responded to concerns with the highest point of the building away from residential streets. Two extra storeys had to be added to the building, over and above the 5 storeys in the local plan, because without it the development would be economically unviable. This has been confirmed by the independent consultants for the developer and the council and in fact the offer was above the maximum reasonable amount.  He said that the tricky aspect was that the profit generated by the development had to match the exisiting value of the site.  This was 'pretty high' because existing use was a large retail unit and it took quite a lot of development to overcome the deficit.

 

Responding to Cllr Matt Kelcher, Chair of Planning Committee, who had said he would feel better if the accommodation was genuinely affordable, Plotnek said, 'I appreciate people saying its not affordable but that's not this developer causing the problem. The housing marker in London is in the situation it's in. So this will be a range of unit types, studios and one bedroomed flats, that will be at the affordable end of the school. A huge CIL [£3.5m] contribution will go to the council to deliver wider benefits across the borough in whatever way the council wishes to spend it and the developer will contribute £75,000 towards a Controlled Paking Zone (CPZ) consultation.

Committee member Cllr Kennelly said that below guidance provision of amenity space, the two additional storeys, shortfall in the amount of affordable housing - particularly affordable rent, all added up to quite a large contradiction of the Local Plan.  He struggled to see how the development was policy compliant with such a huge shortfall. 

Mr Plotnek said that provision of more amenity space would move the development further away from viability and 5 storeys would reduce the amount of affordable housing.  He claimed that the amenity space specified in Brent's Local Plan was higher than the London Plan and the former was still at a draft stage, so too much emphasis should not be put on it. He said that the London Affordable Rent (10% of the entire development) was close to social rent rather than the 80% of market rent commonly called affordable. 

At the beginning of the meeting, Anton Georgiou, Lib Dem Alperton councillor, made a presentation that you will find below. The Labour councillors for Alperton did not make a presentation.

The planning application was approved by 5 votes to 3. The three against were Cllr Johnson (citing the low amountt of affordable housing, over-shadowing and lack of light to neighbouring properties), Cllr Kennnelly ( height, level of affordable housing despite the explanations) Cllr Maurice (non-compliant in many ways, height 30% policy, effect on Burns Road and Cromwell Road, above guidance; local residents had been ignored, it should never have come to the committee).

Cllr Anton Georgiou's Presentation

I am here to object in the strongest terms to the planned development on what is currently the Curry’s site on the Ealing Road. I do so, as I have done before, on behalf of countless residents in my ward who are simply sick and tired of what can only be described as the overdevelopment of Alperton.

This development continues the worrying trend in my ward, which has seen non-stop building of massive tower blocks, whilst established residents continue to struggle with a lack of GP and health services, limited leisure facilities, and in light of the last year, which has highlighted how important this is, a distinct lack of access to open green space. All the while this authority continues to hoard tens of millions, at last count close to £120 million in community infrastructure levy, collected in large part from developers building in Alperton, of which more will be collected from this application, if you, make the mistake of approving it. Where is all this money going? And why is this authority sitting on millions which could be spent improving the area as it is intended? 

I attended the public consultation regarding this application at the Fox and Goose Pub, where it was abundantly clear that vocal opposition to these plans exist. Since that consultation I have had many comments from residents in Alperton, especially in the residential roads close to the site, Burns Road, Cromwell Road, Riverside Gardens, who are alarmed that this is even under consideration. 

Firstly, approval would mean the loss of a much loved asset to the Alperton community, a large retail unit, that has until now been occupied by Curry’s. Many of the staff in store have worked there for a very long time and will face job insecurity. At a time as difficult as this, this would be tragic. 

On the affordability breakdown of this development, I am alarmed that Brent are even willing to consider moving this application forward with so few ‘affordable’ units included. Obviously the term affordable is in itself an illusion that has no basis in reality, particularly for my generation who are consistently locked out of the housing market. This application comprises of just over 20% of ‘affordable’ units, which means roughly 80% are simply unaffordable. This breakdown is below targets Brent has in place and flies in the face of this authorities undertakings to ensure that homes are provided to and for Brent residents. I am astonished that Brent can justify continuing to allow unaffordable developments to invade Alperton. What considerations will this Committee be making on this matter? If anything, this past year has highlighted how many in are community are struggling financially, more luxury, unaffordable units is certainly not what my residents need. Let’s face it these units are not for local people, they will be marketed for across London and overseas.

As I have continuously argued, the traffic and parking issues in Alperton will only get worse if Brent continue to approve developments like this one, without thinking long and hard about reconfiguring our whole road network and the parking situation in the area. I accept the need to discourage car use, particularly in parts of London that are so well connected to public transport infrastructure. With Hanger Lane and Alperton stations close-by I can see that possibilities exist for residents to benefit from public transport, however in light of the pandemic, and given the continued possibility of COVID travel restrictions, I can also see why people will wish to use cars into the future, rather than public transport. With this in mind, the fact that only 15 parking spaces exist for the 132 units at this site, simply will not work.

As I have already alluded to, there are huge pressures on local services in Alperton. I am particularly concerned about the stretched local GP and medical facilities. As this proposed development falls into the location catchment area for the Sudbury and Alperton Medical Centre, the demand issues that this practice faces will only get worse, if you approve this application. Things are already dire for the practice and the service local residents are receiving is lacking. Anecdotally I have been told that often only one GP is available and appointments often take weeks to organise. My resident, Hiren Patel, who lives close to the proposed site, has told me that getting an appointment is like ‘winning the lottery’ – this simply isn’t good enough for my residents and any who would move into the area.

This past year has shown us all that we will have to change the way that we live into the future. We will get through the pandemic, though, as many expect our living habits will have to be altered. My final argument against yet another large development in Alperton, relates to the safety of such buildings with COVID and other potential air-borne, highly transmissible viruses we might face. With limitations on ability to social distance, particularly in communal areas, like shared lifts, I am fearful about the continued building of developments like this one, particularly in relation to public health.

If you make the mistake of approving this development, as I have said before, Alperton will continue to be a place to sleep and not to live. Brent are turning my ward into a concrete jungle, and we are simply fed up of it. Enough is enough.