Kilburn Square development paused. All scheme options to be reviewed but Brent Council will still seek planning approval for the designed scheme.

The saga of the controversial Kilburn Square development continues with a letter distributed to residents today. The Council's plans have encountered much opposition,

Search 'Kilburn Square' on this blog for the previous posts.

As Life in Kilburn (highly recommended) pointed out on Twitter, this is the second site paused as Windmill Court was also paused. The two sites were allocated GLA money with a strict on-site start deadline of March 31st 2023. 

Newland Court in Wembley Park is also putting up resistance to infill proposals on their estate.

 The Planning Committee due to be held on March 15th, where the contested Planning Application may have been presented, has been cancelled. 

 

UPDATE: Mumbai Junction/John Lyon pub planning application return greeted with dismay by local residents. Developer's pre-app meetings with lead councillors, officers and planning committee.

The Sudbury Court Residents' Association have reacted quickly to the return of a planning application for the Mumbai Junction(John Lyons) site.  Although the applicant claim they have listened to Muhammed Butt, councillors and officers at a pre-planning meeting. Little seems to have actually changed.

 This extract indicates a Pre-app meeting with the Planning Committee!

 

Residents at consultation gave the plans an almost unanimous thumbs down and an anonymous comment  that seems to have been accidentally published on the Statement of Community Involvement is revealing:

 

The Sudbury Court Residents Association are informing residents about the proposal via a leaflet:

 Comment on the Planning Application HERE,

      

Bridgewater development approved by Brent Planning Committee despite areas of non-compliance

Brent Planning Committee approved the revised schemes despite several areas of non-compliance with Brent Council's own guidance - the usual reasoning being the balance of benefits over disbenefits.

Only Cllr Michael Maurice voted against the application based on the shortfall of affordable housing and 3 bedroomed flats and the general design.

The issue of air quality on this busy road was not addressed  by the Committee or developer.

As Alperton ward councillor, Anton Georgiou, made a 5 minute contribution:

I always get a sense of déjà vu when addressing the Planning Committee. Every time I come here to oppose yet more dense development in my ward of Alperton, I do so on behalf of residents who are hugely frustrated and have simply had enough.

 

Affordability

 

I am not here to deny that young people like me, who were born in our borough, and have lived here our whole lives need places to live.

 

I am also not here to deny the fact that we continue to have a vast housing waiting list in Brent, which includes on it some of our most vulnerable residents.

 

That being said, I once again want to highlight that of the 173 units proposed in this development, only a fraction can be deemed realistically affordable, despite what the report states, with the vast majority being totally out of reach in terms of affordability for local people, let alone our most in need residents over the long term.

 

54 units are proposed at a London Affordable Rent level and the other 119 are shared ownership.

 

Shared ownership, as I am sure the Committee will agree, has huge pitfalls. Before approving more shared ownership schemes in Brent, we need further evidence that shared ownership is a genuinely affordable housing model. There are indicators that the most economically vulnerable are at most risk with shared ownership. It is one thing to deem units affordable at this stage, but as many already have unfortunately found out, there is no long-term guarantee of affordability. Particularly with no defined cap on rising rents on the percentage the shared-owner doesn’t ‘own’, coupled with the misery of ever increasing service charges and extra hidden costs like building repairs, the cost of lease extension, fees attached to stair-casing.

 

Don’t take my word for it, I highly recommend Committee members take a look at reports from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which go into detail about why Councils should be highly sceptical of shared ownership. In my opinion, we should be arguing against this broken housing model altogether.

 

This development also does not meet Brent’s 25% target for family sized units, as stated in the report – something that we really, really need in our borough. We do not need even more 1 to 2--bedroom boxes in the sky. Why do we have targets if we allow developers the room to always miss them?

 

Infrastructure

 

The proposed development is in an area that is experiencing intense development. The impact that this is already having on existing residents cannot be overstated. I have spoken to many families who have or are thinking about leaving Alperton because of nonstop development.

 

Planning decisions being by this Council are literally driving people out of our borough.

 

Despite the excessive amount of CIL, of which this development would contribute more to the pot, existing residents see very little done in terms of improvements to infrastructure in Alperton. In fact, we are seeing worsening standards in the area.

 

The meagre £50,000 ring fenced through section 106 contributions for One Tree Hill, will not touch the surface of ASB and other issues there. I speak from experience having seen how an NCIL bid worth over £100,000 to transform Alperton Sports Ground down the road, which had to be approved by Cabinet, did not even come close to addressing the concerns or desires of residents.

 

The recent loss of Alperton Bus Garage, a major, historic transport infrastructure site, just metres from the proposed development, has had a knock-on effect on local bus services. The concern that this would happen was brushed aside when the decision on that development was made.

 

I also note references to proximity to Alperton station and the Piccadilly Line in this report. In theory yes, it is a great asset that should be adequately serving local need. It does not. The infrequency of Piccadilly Line trains on the Alperton branch, when compared to the Heathrow one continues to be a major problem that results in huge backlogs at rush hour times. Despite recognition by all developers in the area that Alperton station is becoming a major travel hub that will be used by more local people the contribution towards step-free access by the developer is nowhere near enough to realise this aspiration.

                                                                           

Many of us have long highlighted the dire and dangerous state of local pavements. Metres from the proposed site on Bridgewater Road over 30% of paving slabs are regarded by Council Officers to be in need of repair and yet there is never enough resource to do essential remedial works. I find the response to a resident comment on this matter in the report particularly interesting, as it states “Community Infrastructure Levy funding could contribute towards works of this type”, which in my view and from my understanding of CIL would set a precedent.

 

Fundamentally, Alperton residents do not understand why more and more developments are being granted approval by this Committee whilst the state of local infrastructure is so bad.

 

Parking

 

A major issue we as Councillors have to contend with is the demand for parking provision in our wards. I can only reiterate how bad the situation is in Alperton, even more so in immediate areas surrounding new development.

 

There does not seem to be an overarching plan by the local authority to deal with inevitable increases in the number of vehicles on our roads. Existing residents are already contending with pressures on local parking provision as it stands – this development will make it worse. I do not believe the £80,000 contribution by the developer towards the implementation of a Controlled Parking Zone is a fix. The imposition of a CPZ without resident consent is wrong.

 

If we want to move away from reliance on car use, which I agree with, why is the Council not investing heavily in active travel infrastructure measures, like cycle lanes, alongside the approval of even more development in Alperton. It is short-sighted not to.

 

Conclusion

 

I appeal to every member of the Committee to really consider what this authority achieves by imposing yet more tower blocks in Alperton.

 

The focus of this Council should at this stage be to take stock, establish whether existing development has contributed to making our area better and gain a better awareness of the dangers of promoting shared ownership.

 

I strongly urge you to reject this application.  

 

Bridgewater Road, Alperton scheme back at Planning Committee tonight with amendments - are the homes 'truly affordable'?

The already consented scheme at the Westend Saab and Boyriven Textiles site in Bridgewater Road, Alperton will come back to Planning Committee tonight with changes.

The Committee is at 6pm and can be viewed HERE.

Officers' summarise the changes as:

The number of residential homes proposed is 173, compared to 124 in the consented scheme (an uplift of 49 homes). As with the consented scheme, all units would be provided as affordable housing in a policy-compliant mix of tenures. The scheme would secure 54 London Affordable Rented homes (the consented scheme secured 47 London Affordable Rented homes) and 119 intermediate homes (the consented scheme secured 77 intermediate homes).

· The amount of industrial floorspace proposed is 2,228sqm (GIA) compared to 1,878sqm in the consented scheme. It would continue to fall within use classes E(g)(ii) and E(g)(iii) as per the consented scheme.

· The bulk, scale and massing of the proposal would be altered, with the base element of the building increasing from one to two storeys and the lower point block (Block A) increasing in height from eleven to 13 storeys. Both the three-storey frontage building and the seven-storey central linking element at the rear would be removed, and the width and depth of both point blocks would be increased. The height of the taller Block B would remain at 19 storeys

 

 Given the recent discussion on Wembley Matters about the Brent Poverty Commission's view that the only rent truly afforable for Brent residents is council or social rent it is worth noting that 'affordable' home in this case  (54) actually refers to London Affordable Rent (higher than social rent) and the intermediate homes (1190 are actually shared ownership not considered affordable and with many drawbacks.

 

Remember Cllr Rita Conneely  recently told Scrutiny Committee to be very careful about terminology, especially as regards 'affordable' housing - transparency and ready understandability by the public is essential!

In addition to the main report there is a Supplementary of interest to Clear Air Advocates. I have especially highlighed on questionable paragraph.

 

A further review of baseline conditions and residual effects was conducted and is summarised below. In terms of baseline conditions, an additional 12 months of published air quality data has become available since the preparation of the Air Quality Assessment, across the full 2021 calendar year. However, the impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak upon air quality, due to nationwide changes in transport patterns and pollutant concentrations, mean that data from 2021 would not be representative of baseline conditions and so should not be used for assessment purposes. Therefore the approach taken in the Air Quality Assessment, to use 2019 as a baseline year, is considered to remain the most robust means of assessment. The newly available data would not impact the results, conclusion or proposed mitigation.

In terms of residual impacts on air quality, the predicted demolition and construction effects would not be affected by the amendments to the plans and would remain insignificant. In terms of operational effects, relocating two residential units from the first floor to the second floor would reduce the exposure of future residents to poor air quality, in line with the expectations of the Air Quality Positive approach.

 

Conversely, relocating the residents lounge to the ground floor could result in future residents being exposed to poor air quality. Mitigation measures such as nitrogen oxide filtration would be required to prevent significant health
impacts on residents using the lounge.

It is likely that these mitigation measures would not support windows in the lounge being openable. However, it should be noted that the residents lounge is not required by policy but is proposed as additional to the private internal space of residents’ homes and the private and communal external amenity space provided.

Residents could choose whether to make use of it, and would be less likely to use it for prolonged periods of time compared to their own homes and the external spaces. In these circumstances, it is considered that non-openable windows would be acceptable.

The necessary mitigation measures could be secured by the following proposed additional condition:

“Condition 29: Prior to first occupation or use of the development, further details of air quality mitigation measures required to ensure acceptable air quality levels in the residents’ lounge, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable standard of air quality for residents is achieved within the development.”

The proposed scheme also delivers significant planning benefits over and above those secured in the consented scheme, principally the increased number of affordable homes and increased amount of industrial floorspace. Although the development has not been demonstrated to be Air Quality Positive, these factors,taken together with the fallback position and proposed mitigation measures outlined above, are considered to outweigh the harm caused by this limited conflict with policy in this case.

Amendments to plan numbers (Condition 2):
Minor amendments to the list of approved plans are proposed.

These reflect the submission of an existing site plan to aid CIL calculations, and minor alterations to the elevational drawings including amendments to fenestration detailing. These alterations would have a negligible impact on the overall design quality and appearance of the proposal and are not considered to
require reconsultation

 

Recommendation: Remains to GRANT PERMISSION subject to conditions and s106 obligations as set out in the Committee Report and the additional Condition 29 proposed above

Is there any protection in Brent for 'locally listed' buildings?

 

This is the entry in a list of local listed heritage assets in Brent compiled by Brent Council in 2020. LINK The public may assume that once listed there is protection from development and that the council will have a default position of protecting the borough's heritage as part of their duty to the community.  It is not as easy as that as the Altamira (1 Morland Gardens) controversy shows, the approval of tower blocks next to Alperton Station (according to the list itself a local landmark) and the close call on the demolition of Willesden Green Victorian Library.

This is what the Council website says about such assets (my emphasis):

We have identified a number of non-designated heritage assets and included them on a ‘Local List’ of buildings or structures of architectural or historic Interest.

View the descriptions of all the locally listed assets in Brent (.pdf, 9.48MB).

These assets include monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions.

While not statutory listed, these buildings and structures are of good quality design or are historically significant. They are important local landmarks in their own right and make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of their area.

The inclusion on the local list simply means that we will take into account the heritage asset’s special local architectural or historic significance when considering a planning application.

Brent Council Planning Officers 'took into account' the impact of a development on the local listed Beis Yaakov Primary School, Edgware Road, of a 19 storey replacement for the existing car showroom and multi-storey car park. Using 'non-designated' rather than 'locally listed' for the building appears to diminish its value : 

In terms of the impact on the Beis Yaakov Primary School, the GLA Stage 1 report considers that the taller elements do not appear overbearing on the asset in townscape views as the building height transitions down towards the boundary. The design of the proposal is considered to be a significant improvement on the existing car park, and more harmonious with the brick facades of the locally listed building. Consequently the GLA considered that there would be no harm to this non-designated heritage asset.

It is important to note that the nearest part of the School building is a recent addition that is not of any historic or architectural significance and that the consented scheme at Park Parade immediately to the north of the School would also feature a tall point block as part of a large and bulky building stepping forward of the School to align with the street frontage. As noted above, the School buildings would be largely obscured by this scheme in RV1. Brent's Heritage Officer considers that any harm caused to the significance of the heritage asset and its setting, as a result of the visual impact of the seven-storey
height of the nearest element in relation to the School building as shown in RV1, would be very limited given the relative significance of this element of the School building.

The proposal would bring forward redevelopment of an allocated site that currently makes a negative contribution to the street scene, providing new housing including affordable housing in addition to new commercial workspace. These benefits are considered to outweigh the very limited harm to the non-designated heritage asset in this instance.

Barnet Council in its submission on the application took a different view:

 Objection: (1) detrimental to residential amenities of residents in Barnet, in
particular occupants of lower levels of Blocks A and B of Zenith House; (2) detrimental impact on streetscene and wider local area due to height, massing and imbalanced nature; (3) separated access for affordable housing element goes against principles of inclusive design, having detrimental impact on shared community.

Cynics may well say that Brent  Council objects to developments along its border with Barnet and Barnet to those in Brent!  

Brent Planning Committee granted consent to the application.

There are many buildings across the borough on this list and it is well worth looking through for buildings near you. Given the amount of development in the borough and Brent Council's lack of respect for heritage you may need to mount a campaign at short notice!

There is some confusion between 'locally listed' 'non-designated' heritage assets and those on the national register.   Brent has just one Grade 1 building listed by Historic England, the 12th century St Andrews Old Church in Kingsbury.

The Grade 2 buildings are Church of All Souls, Harlesden; Church of St Andrew, Willesden; Church of St Mary, Willesden; Hundred Elms Farm Outbuilding, Sudbury; Gaumont State Cinema (now a church), Kilburn; New Parish Church of St. Andrew, Kingsbury; Sudbury Town Underground Station, Sudbury; The Old Oxgate Farmhouse, Cricklewood; Viaduct, North Circular Road, Stonebridge.

LETTER: Windmill Court residents join others in pinpointing flaws in Brent Council's infill proposals

 

The site in context. Red rectangles are the development areas

 Brent Council's Key Plan

Dear Editor,

In your earlier article on controversies over Brent Council infill proposals, Common threads emerging as council tenants rebel over Brent's infill plans, you missed out Windmill Court on Shoot-Up Hill which is close to Watling Gardens.  We are one of the three in the Cooperation Agreement with Network Homes alongside Watling Gardens and Kilburn Square.

The Windmill Court application went before the planning committee on the same night as Watling Gardens.

One councillor objected to the application and one, Cllr Kennelly abstained on fire safety grounds (he’s no longer on the committee).

The head of planning, Mr Ansell, chose to ignore the legislative requirements under land use planning for fire safety and even directed the committee members that it was not a matter for them and could be dealt with at building control.(See video  below)

This is against the current fire safety requirements and a breach of the legislation on fire safety in high rise buildings that came into force on 1st August 2021. 

The legislation, Planning Gateway One, came from the Dame Judith Hackett recommendations to ensure that fire safety and access is dealt with at the earliest possible stage. 

Under Planning Gateway One Windmill Court tower block at 17 storeys with 120 households is a relevant building. The legislation requires a change in culture in that the existing building and the land around it has to be part of the planning process and taken into proper consideration regarding fire safety and access. This should be done at planning committee but Brent have clearly not incorporated the necessary change in culture to take proper account of the legislative requirements. 

You would be aware that planning would usually have been concerned only with what was being proposed and not the existing buildings and residents. I am unsure whether they deliberately chose to overlook the legislation on a proposal where the design concept being put forward is fundamentally flawed.

I noticed you picked up on the sale of some of the properties at Watling Gardens. Under the Mayor’s affordable housing this does allow for shared ownership to be included under the banner of affordable housing.

Windmill Court is financially unviable to the tune of millions and we did notice in an early Cabinet document where they included us along with Watling Gardens in a mention about increasing sales!

Whilst this is all being done under the banner of new council homes the chance is that they will be offloaded onto another housing organisation and a large number will be sold.

As for the affordable rent and local lettings policy. This is problematic for existing residents wanting to downsize or requiring a larger property. The council quite recently produced a document showing council rent’s for all sizes of homes with regards this year’s increase of 4.1%. 

 

When you compare this to the Mayors affordable housing rent benchmarks and include the service charge the differences are quite stark. Someone downsizing from a two bedroom property to a one bedroom property would be paying an extra £60 per week. Someone here at Windmill Court in a one bedroom flat with a child or children requiring a two bedroom flat would have an increase above an extra £60 a week and would lose having a separate kitchen and lounge. The option to consider staying in their one bedroom property with a kitchen that is large enough for a table and chairs and utilising the lounge as the parental bedroom would save them over £60 per week.

This is creating a two tier system on Brent estates where existing residents are having amenities removed to allow for new residents at higher rents being given what was previously shared communal space as private outdoor space as per GLA requirements.

We have had the same shoddy work with misrepresentations and misinformation and lack of communication. The submitted documents for planning also have misrepresentations and misinformation.

 

The submitted fire statement contains erroneous information and this has to be the most concerning. 

Our committee members have been researching every area including the council submitting the Lambeth Methodology Survey on available alternative parking spaces which includes 37 spaces on the A5 Shoot Up Hill that have 0% stress! That’s because they don’t exist! And listing CPZ’s in Camden as being available to Brent residents!

An anonymous consultant appears to have been paid  £43,340:00, mostly in £1,750:00 amounts, according to the Windmill Court submitted invoices.

I am attaching the video from the planning committee where fire safety is discussed. The first part with Mr Ansell explaining the change in legislation and stating this is a genuine serious concern then proceeding to direct members that it’s not a matter for them which is advice that is against the law. The second is Clr Kennelly expressing dissatisfaction with the reply and suggesting deferral of the application.

Yours sincerely,

A Concerned Windmill Court Resident

(Name supplied)

30 Brondesbury Park: 'Incremental intensification' is the name of the game

 

30 Brondesbury Park, NW6

The border wall on Aylestone Avenue

The proposed new building and terraced housing

Brent's Local Plan was formally adopted with barely a murmer of opposition in February and along with other guidelines with influence the work of Brent Council's Planning Committee henceforth.

 

We are familiar with 'intensification corridors', 'town centre density', and 'tall building zones', all destined to change the face of Brent and increase its population.

 

Small residential sites are also ear-marked for development via 'incremental intensification' and the planning proposal for 30 Brondesbury Park, NW6, is an early example of what we are likely to see in the future. 

 

The proposal is to demolish the existing building and construct a three-storey building containing six flats in its place (three x 2-bedroom and three x 3-bedroom), together with a terrace of three x 3-bedroom houses addressing the Aylestone Avenue frontage.

 

Planning officers support the application as contributing to increasing the stock of housing in the borough and especially welcome the family sized accommodation. They accept the viability assessment that says the arithmetic means that the developer cannot make a contribution towards affordable housing.

 

The application has some elements in common with that in Queens Walk, Kingsbury  LINK where a block of flats replaced a family sized house on the corner with Salmon Street. Wembley Matters has since found evidence that rather than residential flats the development operates as holiday lets.

 

30 Brondesbury Park, like Queens Walk, is a corner site with garden space, and similar arguments are marshalled to support the development.

 

Planners state that Brent Policy BH4 supports development within the curtilage of a dwelling and that Policy H2 and the Local Plan recognises that the 'use of  small residential sites can make a valuable contribution to the delivery of new housing and some incremental change to local character could be acceptable on this basis.'

 

In short building a larger development utilising garden space is acceptable and sits alongside the 'fill-in' housing that is taking place on Brent's council estates.

 

Furthermore, 'the intensification of smaller sites is expected to form an important part of the delivery of housing to meet Brent's housing need during the [Local] plan period' and this is supported by the NPPF that expects the planning system, to meet the need for homes.

 

As we know corner houses such as 30 Brondesbury Park with a garden often has a long garden wall or fence along the adjacent road. Brent planners seemingly see that as dead space:

 

Neighbours have also raised concerns that the proposal would result in development of garden land, or ‘garden grabbing’. However, corner sites are considered to offer some scope for infilling in this way, in comparison to development of rear gardens that are enclosed by other rear gardens. In this case the extent of 2m high boundary wall along Aylestone Avenue creates an extensive dead frontage that adds nothing positive to the street scene. The proposal would break up this frontage by providing a building which would have a clear visual relationship to the main building but would remain clearly subservient to it. This would activate the street scene more effectively than the existing blank wall.

 

The London Plan is quoted by officers in support of the application: 

London Plan Policy D3 sets out a design-led approach to new development that responds positively to local context and optimises the site’s capacity for growth by seeking development of the most appropriate form and land use. It encourages incremental densification in areas that are not considered suitable for higher density development.

 

We have become familiar with claims that what neighbours often see as out of character developments are justified by Brent planners as 'landmark' or 'destination' buildings; in this case:

 

The site layout and building lines are considered appropriate for this prominent corner site, and to act as a gateway signalling the transition to the more domestic scale of the side street. [Aylestone Avenue]

 

There is little comfort for those concerned about the environmental impact of building on gardens, already suffering from the paving over of front, and increasingly, back gardens:

 

Residential gardens are generally considered to have low ecological value due to their small size, the nature of the use and, in this case in particular, proximity to disturbance from road traffic.

 

Officers note the 21 objections 'raising concerns regarding over-development and the impact on the character of the area, including the overall scale and mass of the proposal, front building line on Aylestone Avenue and loss of trees and green space, impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of daylight and privacy, increased pressure on on-street parking' and these are dealt with in the officers' report LINK with the Planning Committee recommended to approve the application.