Proposed 24 storey block opposite Stonebridge Station comes back to Planning Committee on Wednesday

In August Brent Council deferred a decision on the plans for a 24 storey block on the Argenta House site opposite Stonebridge Staion pending an independent review of the building's design and height. The proposed development replaces a 2 storey building. Four storeys were knocked off the original 28 storey proposal after consultation with the planning department.

The Planning Advisory Service found the officers' report to the Planning Committee to be 'balanced and sound' and the application returns to Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday.

Housing proposal for the tower block

Provision of 27% affordable housing by unit (30% affordable housing by habitable room) on a nil grant basis, broken down as:

o    21 units for affordable rent (at no more than 80% of open market rents, inclusive of service charges, and capped at Local Housing Allowance rates*), disposed on a freehold / minimum 125 year leasehold to a Registered Provider and subject to an appropriate Affordable Rent nominations agreement with the Council, securing 100% nomination rights for the Council on initial lets and 75% nomination rights for the Council on subsequent lets.

o    14 units for shared ownership (as defined under section 70(6) of the Housing & Regeneration Act 2008, subject to London Plan policy affordability stipulations that total housing costs should not exceed 40% of net annual household income, disposed on a freehold / minimum 125 year leasehold to a Registered Provider, and subject to an appropriate Shared Ownership nominations agreement with the Council, that secures reasonable local priority to the units). 

*Local Housing Allowance rates for the area

Shared Accommodation Rate: £92.72 per week

One Bedroom Rate: £203.03 per week

Two Bedrooms Rate: £257.09 per week

Three Bedrooms Rate: £321.45 per week

Four Bedrooms Rate: £385.63 per week

 Conditions include: (Full Report HERE)

• Safeguarding of a bridge link to the [neighbouring] Wembley Point to  be called upon in the future and made publicly accessible
• Contribution towards a local public space
• Contribution to carbon offsetting
• Contribution to expansion of Brent's controlled parking zone
• Contribution to Stonebridge Park Station capacity study

As mentioned in my previous report on this proposal LINK the proposed tower block is next to the North Circular Road - one of London's most polluted roads. It also continues the march of tower blocks throughout the borough, joining those at Wembley Stadium, Wembley High Road/Park Lane, Alperton and the Old Oak Park Royal development.

Proposed 15 storey block for Cricklewood opposed by many local residents

The relationship of the block to surrounding buildings

As the block will appear from Cricklewood Lane

Proposals for a  6-15 storey block on the corner of Cricklewood Broadway and Cricklewood Lane  (1-13 Cricklewood Lane) is being opposed by many Barnet and Brent residents who live close to the proposed development.

These two statements extracted from comments on the Barnet Council planning portal sum up the reasons for opposition:

COMMENT 1

The proposal is based on misleading claims and specious arguments which are factually incorrect. A 15 storey high-rise extreme-density tower would dominate everything around it and be totally out of keeping with the rest of Cricklewood.

FUL-PLANNING_STATEMENT-4245340
2.12 The Site is within the wider Brent Cross Cricklewood (BXC) Framework.
It is not.
5.9 The Site is designated, by the LBB and the GLA: Cricklewood/Brent Cross Opportunity Area:
It is not.
6.28 .......the Brent Cross Regeneration Area is situated in close proximity to the Site, which provides precedent for tall buildings.
It is not "in close proximity to the Site"; There is no precedent for tall buildings
6.28 "Cricklewood is not identified by LBB as one of the areas suitable for tall buildings".

There is no Affordable Housing
7.2-Affordable housing provision will only be "discussed further with the Council".

The scheme will be detrimental to the area:
6.24 The tower "will be situated to the rear of the Site to minimise townscape views and amenity"
6.50 The scheme proposes a residential density that "exceeds the current London Plan density matrix"
6.61 "....the scheme proposal will result in several breaches of BRE daylight guidance", due to the design

Public Consultation
4.6. "an extensive process of consultation was undertaken ..... between the Applicant and the local community". This is an exaggerated and misleading claim.
4.8 reveals that only 43 people attended the exhibition, and that only 15 feedback forms were returned. Most local residents were not told

7.0 SECTION 106: the developer is making no contribution at all other than a Carbon offset payment - this is unacceptable.

If planning applications are to be decided on the basis of this kind of falsehood, that is a subversion and debasement of due democratic process, This proposal by an off-shore speculator to exploit residents' environment for commercial gain constitutes town cramming. It should be refused

COMMENT 2

Let's not pretend that anything about this development is intended to benefit the local area. It's about developers making money. The development is not in keeping with the local area, it's far too big. The development is not about providing housing to local people, there is no social housing, despite the desperate need. There is no guaranteed affordable housing.

I was born and brought up in Cricklewood and at the age of 33 I have had to move back in with my parents to be able to stay in the area that is my home. This housing is not even within my reach and in many ways I'm luckier than many other local people I am proud to call my neighbours.

Cricklewood infrastructure is already under enormous strain. I have given up trying to drive down the Broadway, the traffic barely moves. The new housing development towards staples corner, plus the planned distribution site are already going to add to an already overburdened road network. A development of that many flats would be awful, not to mention the health effects from the added pollution. The train networks are overloaded, it's nearly impossible to get on a train at Cricklewood Station as it is.

Why are we intent on letting outside financial interests come in and create so much damage to the place we live. Let's redevelop Cricklewood, some areas desperately need it but let's do it in a way that works for local people, before we realise we've ruined our home for a quick buck.

If you wish to comment on the proposal or read more about it follow this LINK

Another high-rise development for Wembley but where is the truly affordable housing?

From the planning document

Shortly after my article about the high rise 20 storey development behind the Brent Civic Centre LINK Quintain have put in their planning application (14/4931) for the South West Lands. This is the area along the Chiltern line going south from Wembley Stadium station which is crossed by White Horse Bridge (below) Full documentation for the Planning Application can be found HERE

New developments in white

This fills in the space currently occupied by shrubbery. The application leaves some options which will probably be decided by Quintain on grounds of viability (or better known as profit) in negotiation with Brent Council.

Some of the blocks are 19 storeys high, just one storey below the blocks planned behind the Civic Centre and three or so higher than the Orbis Hotel next to the White Horse Bridge.

Someone recently asked why, having demolished the tower blocks of Chalkhill and Stonebridge, the Council were now supporting the building of them in Wembley?

This is an artist's impression of the impact on the skyline:

Summary of Planning Application

A hybrid planning application, for the redevelopment of the site to provide seven mixed use buildings up to 19 storeys in height accommodating: outline planning permission for up to a total of 75,000sqm to 85,000sqm mixed floor space including up to 67,000sqm of C3 residential accommodation (approximately 725 units); 8,000sqm to 14,000sqm for additional C3 residential accommodation,

C1 hotel and/or sui generis student accommodation (an additional approximate 125 residential units; or 200-250 bed hotel; or approximate 500 student units; or approximate 35 residential units and 200 bed hotel); 1,500sqm to 3,000sqm for Classes B1/A1/A2/A3/A4/D1/D2; together with associated open space and landscaping; car parking, cycle storage, pedestrian, cycle and vehicle access; associated highway works; improvements to rear access to Neeld Parade; and associated infrastructure full planning permission for a basement beneath Plots SW03 - SW05 to accommodate 284 car parking spaces and 19 motor cycle spaces; Building 3A within Plot SW03 to accommodate 183 residential units and 368 cycle spaces at ground floor; and associated infrastructure, landscaping and open space

In the consultation last year, which got a low number of response, out of the 37 general comments the largest number on a single topic was nine (from Consultation summary):

Nine comments express ed the view that affordable housing/family housing should form part of the development and be delivered quickly.

Nine comments related to specific suggestions for provision of infrastructure/amenities as part of the development. These suggestions included schools, GPs and provision for youth, the elderly and disabled people.

So are the consultees going to get what they requested?  The application gives two scenarios for the amount and type of housing:

In Scenario 1 the proportion of social rented housing is 2.2% and in Scenario 2 5%. This is against Brent's 50% target for affordable accommodation. As usual the definition of affordable is unclear but for the developer seems to include the Intermediate category and is hedged by caveats..

-->

At present, the proportion of the affordable units is not known as this will be subject to negotiations, planning priorities and viability. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, a range of affordable housing provision has been considered to ensure the impacts at both ends of the spectrum are identified and,where necessary, mitigated. The range assessed is between 10% (Scenario 1) and 25% (Scenario 2) by unit. In the event that affordable housing provision falls outside these bounds, a review will be undertaken to identify any new impacts or significant changes to the impacts identified as part of this assessment.

Given the amount of housing Quintain's assessment of the number of children in the development seems low. The number of 3 bedroomed properties, a priority for many Brent families is low. Perhaps the developers are assuming most of the residents with be Dinkies (Double Income No Kids).

From this prediction they suggest there is already enough secondary school places if Gateway and  Gladstone Free Schools open (a gamble?)  and the development will have a 'negligible effect'  locally. However there they may be the need for some Community Infrastructure Levy contribution to primary school places as the development is deemed to have a 'minor adverse effect'. With GP's lists at capacity locally it also suggests a CiL contribution to health provision may be necessary.

It is worth reminding ourselves what was promised in terms of social provision for local people at the beginning of the Quintain development, aside from affordable housing:

Anticipated infrastructure is expected to include (inter alia):

· 2 x 2 forms of entry primary school; a new combined primary (2FE) and secondary school (6FE) on the Wembley Park site;

· Extensions to existing local schools; nursery places;

· At least 2.4ha of new public open space comprising of a new park (1.2ha min) and 3 pocket parks/squares (0.4ha each);

·Improvements to the quality and accessibility of existing open spaces;

·A new community swimming pool; indoor and outdoor sports facilities;

·Play areas; new health facilities with space for 14 GPs and 11 new dentists;

and  new multi-use community facilities.

I recommend that among the hundreds of documents you read the Socio-Economic Chapter of the application which covers some of these issues. LINK

Among the positives about the development are the provision of green space and play space for children although we will need to see details about public accessibility and quality. Some of the buildings will have green roofs.

However once again we have to ask, where is the benefit for the ordinary people of Wembley/Brent and what will the Council do to increase the proportion of truly affordable housing for local people?

Queensbury Pub in Willesden Green Saved