View from Bridge Road - green marks proposed development
Changes in height proposed (click on image to try and enlarge)
Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday March 10th is at the earlier time of 4pm. This of course makes it hard for residents who wish to make representations about developments that affect them to attend. The main application submitted is for the North East Lands area which includes housing blocks, towers and a park. Watch the livestream of the meeting HERE.
Brent Council decided that the revision did not need to go out to formal consultation as it was already a consented application and the changes did not affect the overall scheme to a significant extent and so a Section 73 application was valid.
The revisions mean a reduction in height in some cases but as the diagram shows increases in others.
This objection summarises what many of the objectors had to say. Many were from existing residents of blocks in the area who have found themselves facing new developments which throw their building into shadow as the height and density increases.
I am a resident of
Marathon House and I strongly object to Quintain's attempt to revise this
planning application (no. 20/2844)
If accepted, the revision will permit the
building opposite Marathon House (building NE03) to double in height from 60
feet to 120 feet, blocking any sunlight from coming in to Marathon House.
Further, it will move the block 6.5m closer to Marathon House on what is
already a narrow street.
I therefore object to the revision for the following
reasons:
-The proposed change will significantly affect
the quality of life and wellbeing of Marathon House residents whose access to
sunlight will be blocked. A study commissioned by Quintain themselves even
states that almost all windows in Marathon House will face a minor, moderate or
major loss of sunlight from what has been originally planned under this
application - this loss is in addition to the fact that Marathon House was
already set to lose access to a certain amount of light under the original
plans. From paragraph 4.3.50 of the Supplementary Environmental Statement, I
can see that my property will experience a moderate/major loss of sunlight.
- Further, the study does not take into account
that Marathon House has balconies which extend out of the building. This means
that the study commissioned by Quintain is not an accurate reflection of just
how negatively the proposed change will impact residents - the real life impact
will be worse. Moreover, given that Quintain are wanting to also move NE03
closer to Marathon House, residents will no longer be able to enjoy the privacy
of their own balconies.
- Clearly this is not a minor alteration - it is
a material change and therefore warrants to be considered under a new
application, not under a Section 73 application.
- There is absolutely no reason for Quintain to
justifiably need this building to be so tall. It will not improve the area
which has already undergone significant development. The changes evidently do
not have the area's best interests in mind.
- The Council should balance the negative impact
on residents/the local area if the revision is permitted against the negative
impact on Quintain if it is not. As already stated above, residents will lose
sunlight, privacy and space, affecting their quality of life and wellbeing if
this application is accepted. The area will suffer from being congested and
aesthetically unpleasant. In contrast, if it is refused, the impact on Quintain
is negligible, given in particular that they have already benefitted from the
mass redevelopment of the area and will still be redeveloping the entire Yellow
Car Park area.
- The taller building will overshadow the much
needed but limited green space in the area. We also understand that the size of
the green space in the Yellow Car Park redevelopment is going to be
significantly reduced, meaning the overcrowding in it has already been
increased since the original plans were drawn up. There is no need to
exacerbate this problem further.
- The location of the tall building also makes
no sense given its placement as against the new landmark Canada Gardens.
Surely, the most logical place for such a tall building to be is on the same
side as Canada Gardens on the outer edge of the yellow car park. It also
detracts from the attraction of the stadium.
- Typically, Quintain do consult with residents
on developments in the local area with us and we have generally been quite
supportive of their work. It is therefore extremely disappointing that we have
not been consulted about this hugely material change - one wonders whether
Quintain knew of the serious problem this would cause the residents and
therefore tried to get the revision through quietly.
- Quintain themselves have previously objected
to the loss of light from the development of tall buildings on Watkin Road - it
is therefore hypocritical of them to impose the same negative impact on others.
- The Council should also consider that under
paragraph 2.5 of the Brent Local Plan Development Management Policies, it is
acknowledged that the development is required to create a high quality
environment "addressing issues like space between buildings, privacy, outlook,
daylighting, shadowing, microclimates and amenity space". Clearly, the
revision proposed by Quintain will do the exact opposite.
For the reasons stated above, I see no
reasonable outcome other than to refuse this application.
The officers' report looks at the issue of 'protected views' of the stadium but as previously they find the impact tolerable. This is an example from the comparatively new Chalkhill Park (the green line represents the proposed development, the pink the comulative and yellow the emerging) As you can see one block rises up almost to the top of the stadium arch:
View from Chalkhill Park
The report does sometimes feel like gaslighting:
In
Chalkhill Park existing views towards
the Stadium arch are partly obscured by trees and existing and consented tall
buildings. At the position assessed in the 2018 ES, the tip of the tall
building proposed on Plot NE02 would conceal part of the Stadium arch, however
a new tree now obscures much of that view. Moving right of that position to
avoid the tree, the Stadium arch is seen more clearly, though still
partially obscured on either side by trees at the edge of the park. The
proposed tall building on Plot NE03 would be set lower than NE02 and would
allow the Stadium arch to be read fully above it. The taller element on NE02
would appear to the right of the arch and would be largely obscured by the
trees at the edge of the park. The tall building outlined in green within the
centre of the arch is the tallest part of NE05 (which is unchanged from the
consented scheme in this application). The curved profile of the arch would
remain clearly legible, and would dominate the view to the distance beyond the
trees and tall buildings. It is considered that the visibility and distinctive
character of the Stadium arch would be preserved.
A
second cumulative scenario has been provided for the Chalkhill Park view which includes two schemes which have a
resolution to grant consent (Euro House planning application ref: 20/2033 and
Watkin Road (Strawberry Star) planning application ref: 20/0587). The Euro
House scheme would appear to the left of the arch. The Watkin Road (Strawberry
Star) scheme towards the centre and right of the arch would almost fully
obscure Plots NE02 and NE03. The part of NE02 not obscured by the Strawberry
Star scheme would be set well to the right of the Stadium arch and would be
almost entirely hidden by trees. The profile of the Stadium arch would still be
legible on the skyline and the top of the arch would not be impacted by either
the proposed scheme or the Strawberry Star scheme.
Elsewhere the revised amount of sunlight in the proposed North Park is reduced from 99.6% of the area seeing at least 2 hours of sunlight to 91.5% - a reduction of 8.1% but still seen as 'adequate.'
Concern about loss of light to existing blocks is not seen as a serious issue in the wider context. Here are some key points from the officers' report and the final conclusion:
Major regeneration projects will inevitably have an impact on
surrounding developments and in many cases will lead to a degree of light loss.
Notwithstanding this, proposed developments should be designed to keep any
adverse impacts within reasonable limits. In terms of the design of the
proposed development in relation to the surrounding developments, it is
important to note the following:
The proposed development would be set within an existing densely
developed urban environment in which neighbouring developments are tall and built
close to the edge of the footpath and the centre line of the adjacent road.
This relationship manifestly reduces the amount of light these properties will
receive when the surrounding area is developed.
In December 2020, the applicant made a number of significant changes
from the originally submitted plans (September 2020) which have had beneficial
impacts on daylight and sunlight of neighbouring properties. These included
moving buildings further away from neighbouring properties and reducing the height
of some buildings.
The buildings proposed along Rutherford Way would almost all be lower in
height than those opposite. For example, Marathon House is 49.21m above ground
level (82.5m AOD) whereas the proposed NE03 building directly opposite would be
33.72m above ground level (67.2m AOD).
The buildings proposed along Rutherford Way be set back a greater
distance from the centre point of the road than those on the opposite side of
the road. For example, the main façade of Marathon House is around 10.9m from
the road centreline, whereas the NE03 building directly opposite would be 14.6m
from the road centreline.
The building of NE01 would be set back a greater distance from the
centre point of the Fulton Road than those on the opposite side of the road.
‘Mirror massing’ is a recognised BRE assessment approach whereby the
impact of a proposed scheme is compared to the impact that would be experienced
if a ‘mirror image’ of the existing development were to be constructed. If the
existing Rutherford Way buildings were replicated as a mirror image on the
opposite side of the road, the impact on neighbouring daylight and sunlight
would be worse than the impact of the proposed scheme.
Whilst it is important to ensure that acceptable daylight and sunlight
conditions are achieved for surrounding properties, full compliance with BRE
guidelines is rarely achieved in dense urban locations such as this. Indeed,
the BRE guidance itself notes that it should be taken as guidance rather than a
rigid set of rules and the guidance was formulated to be most appropriately
applied to lower density suburban environments rather than dense urban
environments. The BRE guidance acknowledges (paragraph 1.6) that ‘In special
circumstances, the developer or planning authority may wish to use different
target values. For example, in a historic city centre, or in an area with
modern high rise buildings, a higher degree of obstruction may be unavoidable
if new developments are to match the height and proportions of existing
buildings.’
CONCLUSION
The
proposed amendments to the previously approved parameters plans would enable a
revised scheme to be delivered which would provide a number of benefits over
the previously approved outline plans. The proposed amended scheme is
considered to be in keeping with the vision for how development in the Wembley
regeneration area is to take place, and would introduce activity and vitality
in this area whilst creating a pleasant environment along Rutherford Way and a
welcoming link to the Northern Park. Based on the illustrative images, the
building designs would deliver an attractive and contemporary scheme, the final
quality of which would be secured through the submission of detailed plans at Reserved
Matters stage and the approval of appropriate materials through condition.
An
increase in the density of elements of the scheme through increased heights and
moving building lines closer to existing residential properties would
inevitably have some impacts in terms of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing
levels for existing properties and the Northern Park. However, on balance, and
taking into account the wider regenerative benefits of the scheme, it is
considered that these impacts would be within reasonable limits and acceptable
amenity levels would still be maintained.
Taken
as a whole, the revised scheme accords with the relevant planning policies and
guidance and it is therefore recommended that the proposed amendments set out
within this Section 73 planning application are approved.
CHANGES IN THE NORTH PARK PROPOSAL
After this post was published commenters asked about the proposed North Park. The revised application makes the changes below:
Initial Plan
Revised Plan
