Showing posts with label tower blocks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tower blocks. Show all posts

Tuesday, 8 August 2023

Wembley high rise residents object to more tower blocks on their doorstep - Young professionals in revolt!

 Site currently

Proposed

There was a time when there was barely a peep out of anyone about proposals for tower blocks in the development zone around Wembley Stadium, mainly because apart from the residents of North End Road, few people were impacted.

Now the picture is different as the first residents of the high rises find that more buildings are going up in close proximity affecting their access to light and creating a claustrophobic atmosphere. In addition some are also protesting that the plethora of student accommodation is undermining attempts to create a sense of community. 

Both issues are cited in objections to new buildings on Watkin Road which replace low rise light industrial buildings. I am surprised that the residents did not realise this was inevitable given the high value of these sites to developers as height and densification leading to higher profits. Some even comment favourably on Quintain's developments as having more respect regarding light and privacy.



 Density and Height


This is the proposal for at total of 619 student units at 1-4 and 9 Watkin Road

The proposal includes land on both the northern and southern sides of Watkin Road, each containing blocks of purpose built student accommodation.


The southern site would contain a building that is a maximum of 27 storeys in height and is part 18 storeys and part 6 storeys and has a basement, whilst the northern site would contain a building that extends to 21 storeys in height.


The southern site is proposed to deliver 1,490sqm of commercial floorspace within the basement to 2nd floors and 419 student accommodation bed spaces (and ancillary amenity spaces) across the 3rd to 19th floors.
 

The northern site is proposed to deliver 200 student accommodation bed spaces (and ancillary amenity spaces)

Obviously with lower standards than residential accommodation more students can be fitted into the space.

The large majority of of the 54 objections to the development come from 581 North End Road but there are also objections from residents of the Helix, St Andrew's Court and Foster Apartments. The only support comes from UCFB (University Campus of Football Business) and there is one neutral comment from Great Portland Street. 

This is  representative of the the objections from 581 North End Road:

581 North End Road I, like my neighbours, strongly object to the proposed plan. I find it unacceptable that the initial plan has changed so significantly over time despite how devastating its effects on the other residents in the area are. The initial plan had many issues, too. But, the additions over time have made it even worse. Please find my reasons below.

1. Complete blockage of all daylight to my home

My home, placed on Floor 12, only gets a sliver of daylight every day from one angle, with much of my home constantly in the dark. The planned building would completely block the only daylight I get every day while working from home and resuming my daily life. The serious health implications of little to no light every day include Seasonal Affective Disorder, depression, vitamin d deficiency (which leads to bone and back pain, fatigue, frequent illness and more), and sleep disorders. The financial implications would see me having to switch on my lights almost all the time, creating an unmanageable increase in my bills. It would also mean that without the sunlight naturally warming up my flat, my flat would be colder and thus I would need to keep my heating on a lot more often.

2. Excessive number of Student Accommodation buildings in the area causing immense anti-social behaviour and a complete lack of community.

When I decided to make Wembley my permanent home and invest my hard-earned money here, I was painted a picture of a blossoming community trying to move away from hotels, student accommodations and anti-community initiatives. As it stands, our building is suffocated by the number of student accommodations (e.g. Grand Felda House, Canvas, Pavilion Court, iQ Student Accommodation, Unite Students, Host the Helix, etc.). These temporary young residents do not treat our neighbourhood as a residential area. They litter, smoke, consume drugs outdoors, throw alcohol bottles and eggs from their windows onto our communal areas and the streets below, and more. Our parcels and post get stolen all the time. There are random, stolen supermarket trolleys in front of the student accommodation buildings almost all the time, too. We are barely feeling safe and like we have neighbours we can start to build a community with as it is. We do not need more temporary residents, especially students, wreaking havoc and making Wembley Park insufferable. This has and will continue to increase our maintenance fees, too, as we have to pay to get our communal areas cleaned after they throw eggs and glass bottles.

3. Complete blockage of my flat's view

One of the main reasons I bought this specific property as opposed to other new build developments was the view of the city it promised. Currently, from my flat's two windows facing where this new plan would be built, I can see the Shard, the London Eye and more. This not only increases the quality of my life, but adds quantifiable value to my property. If this planned building was to go ahead, my flat would be boxed in without any daylight and any view. All I would be able to stare at would be a brick wall and the private lives of the residents in the new building, both of which are unacceptable. My flat's value would understandably plummet, as I, too, don't and wouldn't want to live somewhere with no view but a brick wall, no daylight, no sense of community and lots of anti-social behaviour.

4. Complete invasion of privacy

As my windows are only on one side and the proposed building's unacceptably close to ours, if I wanted to have any chance at getting fresh air or some sliver of daylight, I would need to accept the fact that complete strangers will be able to watch my every move and invade my privacy. This would mean I have to change the way I act, dress up, where I can change my clothes, how I store valuables, and more, in order to keep myself safe as a female occupant. It would also make it very easy for strangers to take photographs of me or my neighbours, our homes, etc. This is obviously not defensible.

5. We have not been formally informed about this proposal at all

We, the residents of 581 North End Road, have not been sent any formal notifications or offered opportunities to object to a plan that is happening a stone's throw away from us. We found out by sheer luck. I believe that this is not legally sound.

6. Brent Council should prioritise safety and a sense of community over money for money's sake.

We pay our council taxes, have put all of our savings into investing in the future of Wembley and show commitment to building a community in an area that lacks it. Yet, Brent consistently accepting more and more student accommodation buildings and quick rental business models like Quintain’s shows that the council is more interested in filling its pockets than taking care of its dedicated residents who hope to spend years if not decades of their lives here.

7. I do not believe the proximity of the proposed buildings to ours complies with the legal regulations and privacy recommendations for London.

8. It is difficult enough for any family to consider raising children in the area with so many young students wreaking havoc and making the area dangerous. The proposed plan would make it even less likely for families to ever want to live in or stay in Wembley. This would cause the continued deterioration of the area, the culture it breeds and the community it harbours.

9. The culmination of these issues would make other young professionals, innovators, communities, etc. avoid investing in and enriching the culture of Wembley. This would make Wembley retain its unfortunate reputation as a "student village" that is only visited for a football game or a concert once a year and avoided at all costs otherwise.


View from Empire Court, North End road 0- before and after:

 




 

Friday, 19 August 2022

The new face of Wembley revealed in the view from Barn Hill

 

The tower blocks around Wembley Stadium, from Barn Hill

The 'Twin Towers' on former Chesterfield House site (Park Lane/Wembley High Road) and new blocks being squeezed in next to the Chiltern Line, from Barn Hill

 

There's quite an audience for old sepia photographs of Brent and its various 'villages'. I wonder of these might be looked back on with nostalgia one day with attention drawn to the Metroland houses in the foreground, that have long-since been demolished and replaced by more tower blocks?

Tuesday, 14 June 2022

A tale of 'Towerblock Tatler' and 'Taylor's Towers' as Shama Tatler makes bid to become Labour parliamentary candidate for Watford

 

As mentioned by Wembley Matters on May 1st LINK Shama Tatler has her eyes on becoming Labour's parliamentary candidate for Watford and so did not stand for the deputy leader of Brent Council's Labour Group.

Today she launched her campaign for the nomination  on twitter with links to a pretty slick campaign website LINK and announced backers including David Lammy MP.

She will find herself in the strange situation where she will be standing for a local Labour Party that has campaigned against the Liberal Democrat Watford Mayor on the basis of the building of tower blocks in the area. They even call them 'Taylor's Towers'.  In Brent of course in her role as Lead Member for Regeneration Shama Tatler has strongly supported the building of tower blocks in Alperton, Wembley, Stonebridge and South Kilburn earning herself the nickname  'Towerblock Tatler.' 

These are examples of the Labour campaign in Watford:


 The image is hard to read so this is it says:

  • The Liberal Democrats have taken their eyes off the ball here in Watford and have spectacularly failed to reduce the housing targets for our town.
  • They shamelessly blame everyone else for their disastrous decisions which are all of their own making. They've allowed these towers
  • UNLIKE neighbouring Three Rivers Council, the Lib Dems here have failed to bring in policies that prevent high developments, but we get more and more Taylor's Towers springing up here, there and everywhere.
  • The Liberal Democrat's biggest failure yet is a 24 storey tower block. That's just the start if they get in again. They'll be yet more and more ever higher and higher 'Taylor's Towers.

IS THAT WHAT YOU REALLY WANT?

  You can have some fun substituting Labour for Liberal Democrats, and Brent for Watford and Tatler's Towers for Taylor's Towers and see if it makes sense.


 It will be an interesting selection meeting.  Perhaps they should invite Peter Taylor to be a guest panellist?


On her website Cllr Tatler highlights her 6 years' experience as Cabinet member for Regeneration, Property and Planning and includes an image of South Kilburn but not any tower blocks...


 


 

Wednesday, 19 July 2017

Specialist to visit each Brent tower block between now and September to establish fire safety works needed

Monday's July 24th Cabinet Meeting will set things moving on the £10m extra agreed to enhance fire safety measures in Brent's high rise blocks.

The report states:


Council agreed that the Chief Executive should write to the Government as a matter of urgency to request that the Government provide direct financial support to meet the costs that will be incurred. The letter has been sent to the Government requesting financial support, as well as requesting that the Government urgently consider revocation of the permitted development rights for office to residential conversions; that the Government review the building control laws which allow the use of building control teams from both the private sector and other local authorities to inspect buildings which can mean a total lack of oversight by local authority inspectors of the fire risk level in some privately owned high rise blocks and that the Government address whether licensing laws for landlords in the private sector are stringent enough to ensure that all dwellings are fit for human habitation.
Actions to develop the detailed work programme for enhanced fire measures in High-rise blocks
A specification is in the process of being developed, which will outline the enhanced fire detection equipment that could be installed, over and above the required standard. In order to establish the exact works required, a suitably qualified specialist will carry out a survey of each building, and specify the schedule of works. This will be specific to each block, but may include detection systems localised alarms in communal areas and/or dwellings, fire suppression systems such as sprinklers, or smoke extraction systems.
The appropriate procurement framework will be accessed in order to appoint the relevant specialists required in order to complete this preparatory work.
Surveyors will visit all blocks between now and September in order to carry out these surveys, which will inform the detailed plan which will be brought back for consideration by Cabinet in October 2017.
It will be important to keep residents informed and reassured throughout this process. A letter has been sent to all tenants and leaseholders to advise them of the outcome of the Full Council discussion, attached at Annex 3, and a programme of communication will continue throughout this process.


Monday, 26 June 2017

Carolyn Downs intervenes on request for special post-Grenfell Brent Council meeting.

In the wake of the Grenfell Tower disaster one of the major lessons must surely be that councils should listen to their residents and their actions should be transparent.

The Council's Chief Executive Officer, Carolyn Downs,  has intervened in Cllr Duffy's attempt to have a Special Full Council Meeting on July 3rd on  the issue of fire safety in Brent's high-rise blocks.

She has written to the Mayor, who makes decisions on Special Meetings, to give her advice:
-->
Dear Mr Mayor

I am writing to give you my advice regarding the request for an extraordinary/special council meeting.

Firstly the request was made last night by Cllr Duffy and to date I and other officers have seen confirmation by email from Councillors Warren, Stopp and Pavey. This as it stands is not enough. 

According to the legal and constitutional rules, a special meeting can be called by the Mayor.  Alternatively, a requisition signed by 5 councillors can be presented to the Mayor. If a special meeting is not called by the Mayor within 7 days, the requisition itself will trigger a extraordinary meeting. A requisition need not be sent to the mayor personally. It can be sent to Tom Cattermole, the Head of Executive and Member Services. 

The constitution further requires that any requisition must be accompanied by notice of the motion or motions to be debated at the meeting. We have received a motion from Cllr Duffy. 

This means that even if a valid requisition is received today then the mayor has 7 days to decide whether to call the meeting. If you took seven days then the earliest possible date for a special meeting of the council would be 13/7/17.

If you were to agree today then 5 clear working days will be needed before the meeting can be held and so the earliest it could be held is 4/7/17. Our next scheduled Council meeting is 10/7/17.

The reason we held a member drop in session last week was to enable members to answer road by road and block by block questions with the relevant officers present as this is a very technical matter. 11 members attended of which 2 were Cabinet members. Cabinet were briefed additionally and Cllr Shahzad arranged a separate briefing for himself. 

We will need to ensure that a discussion at a full council meeting is managed to ensure that it does not cause additional anxiety for residents in the Borough. We need to ensure that we retain the calm and professional environment in which the council, the fire brigade and other registered providers are managing this situation. We also need to ensure that information is shared in a way in which the public can understand it. Last week's member briefing and our web site give relevant information.   I believe that our council has responded well locally alongside putting c30 officers into the response to Grenfell Tower.

This is a very important topic and all members will no doubt wish to be present at the Council meeting that discusses it and for the sake of 3 working days it is surely appropriate to have the discussion on a date that has been in all members‘ diaries for some time.

My suggestion to you is that we hold another drop in session for councillors followed by a collective discussion of a less technical and more tactical and policy nature. I also suggest that officers write all of this up and make it publicly available as a part of the papers for the full council meeting. We can do this later this week or on 3/7/17 when I know a lot of Councillors have a group meeting arranged anyway. 

We can then have a major discussion at our programmed full council meeting based on the facts and a report circulated in advance.  We have, in the past, had back bench sponsored debates and we could, with the agreement of members, suspend the rules around those to enable a fuller and longer discussion, have a panel of technical officers available for any questions and also ensure that Councillors are able to take a full part in the discussion for as long as is necessary. I would ensure relevant officer and also seek Fire Brigade attendance. 

Clearly the decision to have the meeting before the 10/07/17  is your decision but I thought it transparent to share with all Councillors my advice to you.  I hope no-one will see this advice as being unhelpful and obstructive. It is intended to be quite the opposite. 

If you do agree to an earlier and special council meeting with the revised motion proposed by Cllr Duffy I still think it important that officers prepare a full report in advance, that we invite the fire brigade and technical officers and that we hold another drop in session to give members the opportunity to ask detailed and technical questions in advance. 

Yours ever



Carolyn






Sunday, 28 April 2013

Barratt's Welsh Harp development proposals in stark illustration

The illustrations below show the present West Hendon Estate and Barratt's proposals. The new plans are much higher density and sited closer to the wildfowl reserve.

#

Thursday, 25 October 2012

Tenders sought for £50m plus South Kilburn contract

Brent Council is looking to select a partner to deliver the redevelopment of 'Site 11b', which sits within the South Kilburn masterplan area. The contract will be worth £50m to £60m

The masterplan proposes the removal of many of the existing tower blocks, replacing them with 2,400 medium-rise flats. .

Brent Council said that its expectation is for 'exemplar, award winning high quality developments in South Kilburn'. For Site 11b, the council has secured outline planning permission.  It will grant a long leasehold for the demolition of existing structures on site and erection of new mixed use development comprising of up to 144 residential units and up to 480m2 of commercial floor space.