Brook Avenue, Wembley Park: The latest street to fall victim to high rise buildings

Guest post by a Brook Avenue resident

Proposals for the redevelopment of Wembley Park Station car park to build five new buildings between 13 and 21 storeys in height (456 residential units) have been submitted to the council. This is just the latest site highlighted for high rise, excessive density buildings that are slowly changing the face of Wembley as we know it. As a resident of Brook Avenue and having read the various local, London and national plans, I believe that the proposed development contravenes many of the policies set out in the plans and would have a serious adverse impact on the area. The site will be overdeveloped, compromising the quality of the development, character of the street and supporting infrastructure capabilities. If you are a resident of Brook avenue or the surrounding area, or even if you have been left feeling disenfranchised about the emergence of such buildings in Wembley, please read on. Details on how to get involved will be at the bottom of this post.

The 5 blocks will be 13, 13, 14,17 and 21 storeys in height, on a parcel of land that is far too small at 0.67 hectares. 

The site itself has been highlighted in numerous council plans as being “inappropriate” for tall buildings, as per the London plans guidance to grade sites on their “appropriateness” for tall buildings. Based on the council's own policies, the site is clearly not suitable for such buildings and should not be given approval. Given the significant detrimental impact tall buildings can have on local character, it is important that they emerge as part of a planned exercise in placemaking, rather than in an ad hoc, speculative way.

Wembley Area Action Plan

Areas inappropriate for tall buildings are highlighted in red

Historically, Brent is characterised by low to mid rise buildings, with any tall buildings being directed towards town centres. A 21 storey building on a road with mainly two and multi storey buildings would be completely out of keeping with the context and character of the area. The proposed developments will pose both a literal, and metaphorical encroachment on residential suburbia and as the London Plan, Chapter 7.21 states: “The building form and layout should have regard to the density and character of the surrounding development”. I'm sure over the years many of you have noticed a surge in tall buildings in Wembley, often in areas where they do not fit in with the suburban surrounding character. Whilst it is understandable that the push for taller buildings stems from a need for more housing, high density does not always have to mean high rise development. Perhaps efforts should be made for developments that both contribute to the required density and are also in keeping with the character of the area.

 A rendering of what the tallest block will look like as you enter Brook Avenue from Olympic Square

 Rendering of what the buildings would look like from verified view - Barn Rise junction with Eversley Avenue and ...

 ... Kingswood Road at junction with Elmside Road

The increase in density due to the developments would amount to serious ‘cramming’ on what is a quiet, residential, low density road. The buildings adjacent (Matthew's Close) were given an indicative capacity of 100 units in the Wembley Area Action Plan- so how can a site that is on the same street and is in fact 0.2 hectares smaller, be allowed to be built at the indicative capacity of more than quadruple that? The development would also intensify pressure on already burdened infrastructure such as schools and GP’s. The 456 units, which would house more than double that in people, would result in an increased demand for school places within the Borough, without providing any contribution to building new school classrooms. It would mean an increased pressure for the use of existing open space, without contributions to enhance that open space. The development only provides an average of 12.8sqm of private and communal amenity space per unit- this equates to only 64% of the local plan requirements, which would lead to greater pressure on the surrounding open spaces in the area (like what is currently going on with King Edwards Park). Where is the commitment from the council to create open, green spaces to accommodate the growing population of Wembley?

The proposal also makes no provisions for the loss of a car park which accommodates 200 visitors daily.  Brook Avenue is the most heavily parked road in Brent and the loss of the car park, as well as the addition of 456 new homes, will have a serious adverse impact on the street as well as the surrounding areas. Parking will spill onto Brook avenue (a street which already has issues with street parking) as well as the surrounding Barn Hill area. Without mitigation measures, the high levels of population growth anticipated due to the development will place serious pressure on the existing road network, particularly on event days.

The development will not make a significant contribution to Brent's housing needs as it favours one bed and studio flats as opposed to family homes. Brent’s predominant needs are more for larger sized (3 bed or more) family dwellings. Of the 456 dwellings that are proposed to be built, only 10% will be 3 bedroom, as opposed to the 25% that is required by the council. This is a clear lack of consideration for families which should be encouraged to stay and contribute to the establishment of a long term mixed and sustainable community in Wembley. The council's own policy states:

“It is not the intention of the council to build a large transitional location for single people and childless couples who may be forced to move on because there is no choice of family homes available”

The Development would also lead to breaches of the BRE Guidelines (Building Research Establishment) in terms of daylight and sunlight received by the neighbouring properties. It is understandable that existing levels of light cannot be maintained, but this should not be to such a degree that they breach BRE guidelines. The council should ensure that the quality of housing output is not compromised by the need to make the most efficient use of land.

The proposed development will pose both a literal, and metaphorical encroachment on residential suburbia. It seems that this development, like many others emerging all around Wembley, puts quantity over quality. Under the guise of “making the most efficient use of land”, other equally important criteria have been ignored, such as quality, capacity of the street, parking, impact on amenities etc. It should not go remiss to mention that should the council expect it’s policies to be taken seriously, it should lead by example, and not repeatedly contravene it’s own plans through granting permission for development where it would otherwise be unsuitable. If a building that violates so many local and national policies is granted planning permission, what will this mean for the future of Wembley?

Through the strive for the ‘regeneration’ of Wembley, the council has seemingly overlooked the thoughts and opinions of the people who make it what it is: its residents. I urge you all to get involved to help make our voices heard. I will leave you all with a quote from the Emerging Local Plan, Paragraph 4.51:

Meeting indicative capacities should not be used to justify overriding other policies where it would result in creating poor developments.

Get involved:

If you are a resident of Brook avenue or the surrounding area, you can object to this development either by writing your comments on the council website (the application reference number is 20/0967) or emailing your objection to Toby.huntingford@brent.gov.uk .

Resident of Brook Avenue

Butt announces Lunt will succeed Dave as regeneration chief at Brent Council

Brent Council has made the following announcement for what is the most powerful and influential job on the Council and one in which Muhammed Butt, leader of the council, maintains an extremely close interest:

From the Council website:

lan Lunt, the former Deputy Chief Executive of Dudley Council, will take up the role of Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment at Brent Council later this summer.

Formally starting in his new role from August, Alan is taking over from Amar Dave who is retiring.
Alan will be responsible for areas including regeneration, planning, property, parks, highways, parking, supporting businesses, driving economic growth and community protection.

He brings a wealth of experience to the job, having served as a Strategic Director for Place at Dudley Council in the West Midlands, before his promotion to Deputy Chief Executive there in 2018. Before that he served as Director for Built Environment at Sefton Council in Merseyside.

“Brent has so much going for it and I’m thrilled to be joining the council to play a leading role in helping to build upon those successes,” says Alan
.
“Good quality housing led regeneration can improve neighbourhoods – making them cleaner greener and safer – while also providing the secure home and base people need to transform people’s lives for the better.

“I am passionate about working with local communities to ensure that the benefits of regeneration are shared within the community. I’m looking forward to getting stuck in and doing my bit to help build a better Brent.”

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said:

“Alan’s track record speaks for itself and we are delighted to bring someone of his experience and expertise on board to help drive the borough forward into the 2020s.

“I’d also like to thank Amar Dave who has served Brent with the utmost professionalism and dedication over the past four years and wish him every happiness in his retirement.”

Planning Officer explains next steps in Sudbury Town Station Car Park planning process

There have been raised eyebrows over the decision to defer the Sudbury Town Station Car Park planning application last night after a 4-3 majority voted against against it.

This exchange may help explain (perhaps):

Dear Mr Lorber,

I write in response to your e-mail to Carolyn Downs within which you have questioned the deferral of the Sudbury Town Car Park application.

Members voted against the recommendation to grant planning consent and were minded to refuse planning permission due to impacts associated with the mix of housing (lack of Affordable Rent accommodation and family sized home), loss of station car parking and the impact on the surrounding streets.  Where members are minded to grant or refuse planning permission contrary to the recommendation, officers will often recommend that the application is deferred so that a report may be presented to the Planning Committee setting out the policy basis for their decision.  This is undertaken to ensure that any divergence from policy and the associated impacts of this have been clearly set out.  It strengthens the decision and is vital when defending the decision should the applicant choose to appeal or in the instance that a legal challenge is mounted (a Judicial Review).

The views of the relevant members were clear and a report clearly setting out the policy basis for these matters will be presented to the next Planning Committee meeting.  There was some discussion between members about applicants revising schemes to address concerns raised by members.  In some instances applicants do choose to make changes to schemes to address the concerns raised by members but whilst the Council must accept changes to the scheme that do not result in the need for further consultation, amendments will not be requested by officers.

Development Management Manager

Planning and Regeneration

Thank you for your email. I am aware of the arrangement.

My concern is that none of that was explained during the web screening.

A lay person watching would be confused at seeking the application being Refused after a 2 hour discussion only to find that there was then a 2nd vote to defer it.

They will be even more surprised (shocked) that when brought back with some minor cosmetic changes the Refusal decision may then be reversed and the plans approved.

I hope that if the applicants do make changes they resubmit so that a further consultation takes place which is subject to a site visit where the concerns raised will be easier to highlight and explain.

Regards

Paul Lorber

Winning hearts and minds on St Raph's

Two groups are active on social media with differing views on the current consultation taking place over the future of St Raphael's Estate.  Brent Council has put forward two possibilities - refurbishment with infill or demolition with the new blocks financed by private development on the same site.  South Kilburn has come into the equation both as a positive exemplar and a negative one.

From St Raphael's Estate Community

www.architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk

From St Raphael's Voice

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-community/st-raphaels-estate/

Comments are welcome but please focus on the issues not the people involved.

Is there a case to defer the South Kilburn application at Planning Committee application after reports muddle?

I have been having a frustrating time tonight trying to write about the major South Kilburn development, worth millions of pounds, that is coming up at Planning Committee tomorrow.

First of all the Council website had no agenda for tomorrow's meeting (there was one earlier in the week):

After I tweeted Cllr Denselow, Chair of the Planning Committee, it was reinstated.  Then a document on which I had been working, including details of the vital viability assessment for the scheme, became unavailable: (It should be HERE)

 I had screengrabbed a couple of pieces from  the report before it disappeared. This extract was significant because it appears to justify a 'poor doors' policy in the private block that under the revised scheme will now have some social housing. It comes from the same Strutt & Parker Report that I quoted in my piece on South Kilburn gentrification. LINK

This extract gives the values attached to the private development:

I don't now have the report to refer to but Type eg 1B2P refers to the number of bedrooms and people i.e. 1 Bedroom 2 persons etc. GDV perhaps Gross Development Value of that type of property. Then presumably the average price per property and the average sale value per square foot.

Referring back to the now published agenda I found that the Supplementary Report for this development (18/4920) was not actually on the agenda. Instead it had the Supplementary Report for 18/4919 attached:

When I eventually found the relevant Supplementary Report I noticed this:

Basically the Major Adverse [Impact on Daylight] figures had been copied from Moderate Adverse. After correction the impact was much worse in George House, Swift House and Carlton House than first stated but officers were still able to say that a major adverse impact on a quarter of the rooms was 'not so significant that it would outweigh the benefits of the proposals.'

There were other corrections and clarifications in the Supplementary Report for 18/4920 that was uploaded very late to  an agenda which is supposed to be available a week before the meeting.

I have suggested to Cllr Denselow  that these problems mean the public are not able to scrutinise the application properly (and probably councillors too) so the application should be deferred.

Brent Council announces dates for South Kilburn regeneration ballot

Brent Council has now published this Press Release on the South Kilburn ballot. The PR machine is notching up a gear:

Dates for an upcoming residents' ballot in South Kilburn have been announced, with the community set to confirm if it continues to support its regeneration.

Residents who are eligible to vote will receive a voting pack in the post from Electoral Reform Services, the independent body who are managing the ballot, by Friday 20 September and can cast their vote straight away by post, online or telephone.

The voting period will last for three weeks, with all votes having to be received by 5pm on Monday 14 October. The result will be shared with residents by post by Monday 21 October.

The award-wining regeneration is already halfway towards creating 1,400 brand new council homes, helping to address the major housing shortage in the borough. The plans will also improve the neighbourhood as a whole, with new community facilities including a health centre, parks and open spaces.

This week the landlord offer, which explains what eligible residents stand to gain from the regeneration plans, is being published.

Council tenants, and those in temporary accommodation, will be offered a brand new high quality home in South Kilburn, or elsewhere if they prefer, that is the same size or bigger than their current property. They will also receive £6,400 as a home loss payment plus all moving expenses paid for.

Resident leaseholders will receive market value for their property plus a 10% home loss payment and all moving fees and expenses paid.

Councillor Shama Tatler, Brent Council's Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, said:

More than 600 families have already benefitted from a new high quality, suitably sized home in South Kilburn. The South Kilburn masterplan, which was developed alongside the community, is the best way of creating a safe, diverse neighbourhood for all generations, making sure that 1,400 more local families get the modern, comfortable homes they deserve.

The ballot will be the ninth of its kind in the capital since Mayor Sadiq Khan introduced new rules giving residents the final say on major regeneration projects.

The regeneration programme in South Kilburn has won numerous awards including RESI Development of the Year for 2018 and Best Design at the 2018 National Housing Awards.

Recently the Carlton & Granville development, which is part of the regeneration programme, won two prizes at the New London Awards for architecture - celebrating the best new buildings in the capital.

Residents can get dedicated advice as a leaseholder, council tenant or household in temporary accommodation by emailing ersk@brent.gov.uk or coming along to an upcoming drop in session which will take place Craik Court Community Room, Craik Court, Carlton Vale on:

• Tuesday 3 September, 5-7pm
• Thursday 12 September, 11am-1pm
• Saturday 21 September, 11am-1pm
• Wednesday 25 September, 5-7pm
• Tuesday 1 October, 5-7pm
• Wednesday 9 October, 5-7pm.

Residents can also get free, independent advice from Communities First by ringing freephone 0300 365 7150 or by emailing southkilburn@communitiesfirst.uk.com

A list of current and planned housing developments in Brent

People often tell me that they have great difficulty in keeping up with all the regeneration and housing developments in Brent which include Wembley Park, Wembley Central, South Kilburn, Alperton, Northfields and smaller sites.

This document submitted to the Queensbury appeal includes an Appendix listing current and future developments. Click bottom right square for a full-sized copy.

Campaigners call for a 'NO' vote in South Kilburn regeneration ballot

There was a mixed reception at a consultation on South Kilburn regeneration for the leaflet below. Residents generally welcomed it but some leading councillors were not at all pleased with campaigners.

Residents of 17 blocks  will have a Yes/No vote on whether the regeneration should go ahead.

Vote NO in the South Kilburn Ballot!

Fix these problems first!

·      Many of the new flats have had major problems, with flammable cladding, leaking roofs, mould and much more.

·      Rents will be higher in new flats and rise more quickly than Council rents.

·      Most people won’t remain Council tenants but be transferred to a Housing Association (HA), which already have higher rents. There have been many complaints about how unresponsive HAs are.

·       Service charges have gone up considerably for HA tenants.

·      Not all new flats are as large as current flats.

·      Temporary tenants (some of whom have been temporary for as long as 10 years) in South Kilburn, but they are being offered worse tenancy agreements than those who are already secure tenants.

The ballot asks if regeneration should continue, without addressing any of these problems. Balloting 17 blocks at the same time means residents whose blocks only need refurbishing are pitched against residents whose blocks should be demolished and replaced by better housing.

Both the local (Kilburn) Labour Party and the borough-wide Brent Labour Party have called on the Council to suspend regeneration while these issues are sorted out.

Vote NO and call on Brent Council to come back with proposals which really address our housing problems.

This leaflet is produced by local residents and activists. For information, contact theotherwiseclub@gmail.com

-->

South Kilburn to get Brent's first regeneration ballot

Guest post by South Kilburn resident John Healy reflecting on the latest developments in the South Kilburn Saga

It all began in 1999 when the residents of South Kilburn made a bid for NDC (New Deal for Communities) money, which they got in 2001.  Some of the money was used to start building new homes, with Thames Court* being the first one to be developed, followed by a Regeneration Masterplan of the whole estate in 2004.  

The residents worked in partnership alongside the Council to draw up the terms of the regeneration, including an offer of one new home to every secure council tenant required to move out of their current home when it was due to be demolished. That is still the case with the publication last Friday (5/7/19) of our landlord's (Brent Council) latest offer that can be found in the papers going to Cabinet on July 15th LINK There will be a Needs Assessment a year before any move to confirm any medical needs, change in circumstance or other preferences:

Before any more regeneration can go ahead in South Kilburn, the council has to hold a ballot for the residents of the seventeen remaining tower blocks. There is only one question on the ballot paper:

 Are you in favour of the proposal to continue with the regeneration of South Kilburn? 

YES / NO

 If the council get a majority (50.001%) of yes votes, out of all the total votes cast, then all the blocks will be demolished. The council have not said yet what will happen if they were to lose the ballot.

Over 1,000 residents  will be allowed to vote, including secure tenants & leaseholders and one possible contentious group of residents,namely the 235 residents living in temporary accommodation across the South Kilburn estate.  My understanding is that they will need to vote 'Yes' in the hope that the council will eventually give them permanent housing although this may take several years.  However, if they do vote 'yes', this will ensure that the council win the ballot although  it appears the council are confident of winning even without their votes.

* Thames Court was supposed to be the most environmentally built structure in England at that time, 2003.  I cannot remember the actual costs but it came in several millions over budget and the 'green materials' took the blame. The result was that council decided that there were not going to to be any more 'green buildings' in South Kilburn because of the extra costs incurred.

Call for halt to regeneration of council estates in Brent until concern over sub-standard housing addressed

Chase House, South Kilburn

Concern over the quality of housing in regeneration areas, including South Kilburn (above) first raised on Wembley Matters LINK has continued with reports of sub-standard work in Argo House,

Now Hampstead and Kilburn Constituency Labour Party has called for a halt to future regeneration in South Kilburn and across the borough, pending a Brent Council consultation with affected communities. In a motion passed unanimously last night they said that the halt should last until Brent Council and affected communities are satisfied that the housing being built is of sufficient standard and that the housing associations and property developers are taking their responsibilties to the community seriously.

The motion cited sub-standard work both externally and internally and neglect and failure to act by both developers and housing associations.

Proposals for a ballot of  residents of blocks affected by the next round of regeneration  on South Kilburn are  expected to be announced soon. Meanwhile residents on St Raphaels Estate continue to be concerned over demolition and regeneration proposals there with many preferring a programme of refurbishment.

St Raph's Redevelopment Latest - Meeting tonight at Oakington Manor Primary School

Brent Council is holding a meeting this evening (6pm February 21st) at Oakington Manor Primary School* for St Raphael's Estate residents and stakeholders based on the estate  to discuss the appointment of an Independent Advisor.

The Independent Advisor according to the Council will:

• Set up and run a Tenants/Residents/Stakeholders Board. The Board will have a formal structure and make sure that tenants and the community are formally engaged in the process to arrive at a preferred option for the Estate and are at the forefront of decision making.
• Provide independent advice to all those who live withing St Raphael's regardless of tenure.
• Carry out engagement and consultation, which will include enabling all tenants, residents and stakeholders to contribute to the decision-making process related to the future proposals in accordance with best practice and to disseminate information and encourage attendance at events and activities which are taking place.

The Council has invited 5 organisations to bid:

1. Communities First Foundation
2. Newman Francis Ltd
3. PPCR Associates Limited
4. Priority Estates Project
5. Source Partnership

Residents and stakeholders will decide who will be recruited as their Independent Advisor at two meetings - tonight's and on March 5th.  Tonight's workshop will concentrate on questions to ask the organisations above, discuss what they want the the Independent Advisors to present at the next meeting, and whether they wish to attend the meeting with the Independent Advisors.

The meeting on arch 5th at 6.30pm at Oakington Manor School will enable residents and stakeholders to have the final say on who their Independent Advisor will be. They will be able to  hear presentations from the applicants, ask questions and  vote for the Advisor of their choice.

As the St Raphael's Twitter account states above there is also a meeting planned for February 27th at Brent Civic Centre 6.30pm-8.30pm. This will be a public meeting for a wider discussion about the future of the estate which includes the key issue of refurbishment or demolition and new build, with the latter financed in part by private housing.

*Oakington Manor Primary School, Oakington Manor Drive, Wembley HA9 6NF

Development plans for South Kilburn's Neville House and Carlton House

Ariel view of the present site

The Plans

Brent Council has published (Reference 18/4920) its planning application for Neville House, Carlton House and several neighbouring buildings on the South Kilburn Estate LINK:

Demolition of all existing buildings and erection of a part six, seven, eight, nine, ten and twelve storey building arranged around a courtyard (Western Building) providing 148 units (23 x studios, 53 x 1bed, 50 x 2 bed and 22 x 3bed) including a concierge and residential communal room at ground floor and a part seven, eight, nine and ten storey L shaped building (Eastern Building) providing 116 residential units (60 x 1bed, 38 x 2bed, 16 x 3bed and 2 x 4bed).  Construction of a basement under the Western Building with a car lift and access from Albert Road.  The provision of a shared surface with the extension of Neville Road from Denmark Road to Albert Road, with associated car parking, cycle provision, bin stores, landscaping and ancillary works. | 1-8 INC Neville House & Neville House Garages, Neville Road, 1-64 INC Winterleys and Seahorse Day Nursery, Albert Road, 113-128 Carlton House and Carlton House Hall, Canterbury Terrace London, NW6

As can be seen from  the images above the proposed new development is much denser and with the highest block 10 storeys, much taller. The amount of green space is reduced.

There are only two comments so far on the Planning Portal. One is classified as neutral and is concerned about the amount of car parking that will be available for 264 units. The over makes a number of points:

I strongly object to the current planning applications on the grounds that we will lose, privacy, light and outlook, especially those flats in Swift House that are south facing, looking over Albert Road.

I am the one of these Swift House flats and when I purchased the flat, the Brent council plans to replace Winterley, Neville and Carlton houses were to build 6 storey buildings max, which now have duplicated. This has a negative impact on the neighbourhood as well as on my property.

The main appeal when we purchased our flat was its light, privacy and outlook, which will be heavily diminished with the current planning.

Additionally, I would like to raise concerns about losing existing green spaces, amenity spaces and trees in the areas. The garden land around Neville House and Winterleys House will be replaced with 8 to 12 storey buildings that will make the area packed witch concrete. Also, the huge number of new dwellings will make the zone highly dense and increase the traffic narrow roads in the area.

With this in mind, I would like to object to these plans and ask to reduce the height of the buildings proposed in this plan, to reduce the impact on light and privacy on the surrounding buildings, and to avoid converting an area that now is airy and green into a packed, overbuilt and overcrowded area.

On social housing the Planning Statement claims:

The proposed development provides a 47 % quantum of affordable housing (measured by habitable room), with 100% social rent provision. 


The affordable housing units will be located in the Eastern Building. The provision of 116 socially rented properties represents an uplift of 36 socially rented properties on site compared with the existing provision of 80 social rented properties.
 

The Carlton House site is identified as having an indicative capacity for 66 dwellings, of which 29 for market and 37 affordable; and the Neville / Winterleys site as having capacity for 137 units, of which 61 would be market housing and 76 affordable units.

The Brent Council Forward Plan 15 indicates that the Cabinet on March 11th will discuss a ballot on South Kilburn Estate but gives no further information. The London Mayor has adopted a policy requiring ballots of estate residents affected by regeneration and one is to be held on the St Raphaels proposals.  This followed pressure from within and outside the Labour Party, including that of Geen Assembly Member Sian Berry. Release of Mayoral funding at £100k for each affordable unit and £28k for shared equity is dependent on ballots being held.

Residents will be concerned about the loss of community facilities involved in the proposals. The Planning Statement comments:

The proposed development will result in the loss of Carlton Hall, a 173 m2 community centre and a small community use (106 m2) on the ground floor of Winterley’s House that is currently used by a small nursery. Carlton Hall was previously used by the South Kilburn Trust, however this organisation has now moved to the new Carlton and Granville Centre within the wider South Kilburn estate. Carlton Hall will temporarily be used as a Doctor’s surgery until the 
 neighbouring Peel site is redeveloped where a new Health Centre Hub is being provided for the GP surgery in the longer term. The proposed Western Building will incorporate a small communal space on the ground floor that will be for the building’s residents use. 

It is considered that there is sufficient community use provision in the vicinity of the site which includes Carlton and Granville Nursey, and Carlton Vale Infant School. Within and close to the wider South Kilburn estate there is a range of community facilities. This includes the St Augustine’s Sports Hall (with community access), The Tabot Centre After School Club, The Xhamia e Shqiptareve Community and Cultural Centre and The Vale Community Centre. There are also a range of local sports facilities nearby including Moberly Sports Centre.