Quintain submit bumper bundle to next Brent Planning Committee

Quintain's developments from Barn Hill

Brent Planning Committee must be having difficulty in keeping up with the speed and complexity of Quintain's planning applications. The April 26th meeting will hear two pre-applications from Quintain and decide two applications. These items of interest in the context of my previous posting on Brent;s definition of affordable housing.

The first pre-planning application will be for the 'Green car park' where 500 'affordable' (see posting below) and private housing units are proposed above a 77 coach park and 212 car park.

On affordable housing officers' comment:

The submission documents have not included details on the proposed provision of affordable housing within the scheme, officers understand that this is still under consideration by the application team and will be included within any submission. London Plan policy 3.12 requires borough’s to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, taking account of a range of factors including local and regional requirements, the need to encourage rather than restrain development and viability. The policy requires borough’s to take account of economic viability when negotiating on affordable housing. 

The applicant will be required to demonstrate that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is being provided in this scheme unless the proposal achieves the Council’s target of 50 % Affordable Housing with a 70:30 split of Affordable Rent to Intermediate housing. This would need to be tested through the submission of a financial appraisal submitted with any future planning application which would be subject to scrutiny by or on behalf of your Officers. 

The application is proposing build to rent units within Plot E05. This will be the first purpose designed PRS block within the Wembley Masterplan and is proposed to improve marketability and absorption rates thereby allowing more units to be delivered more quickly. 

Quintain have stated they will provide affordable housing at a level to be agreed, having regard to viability testing, which has not yet been concluded. 

Units would be designed to meet the noise criteria set out within the outline consent and thus will be appropriately designed to mitigate against stadium and road noise.

The proposed mix of units does not accord with the housing mix specified within the Wembley Area Action Plan, which a considerably higher proportion of studio and one-bedroom units proposed. The applicant has specified that they would look to balance the mix of units through the delivery of additional larger units within subsequent phases of the masterplan. Officers consider this approach to be acceptable in principle as it would look to establish a balanced mix of housing in the area and are working through the implications of this with the applicant. However, given the predominance of smaller units, officers consider it necessary to secure a convent (covenant?) which requires the units to be owned and managed by a single organisation as Private Rented Section accommodation for a reasonable period of time.

The second pre-planning presention is on what Quintain are calling the Fulton Quarter (Wembley Retail Park and Fountain Studios). Quintain are holding a public consultation on this next weekend LINK.

In this case the Brent officers do make a passing reference to the new London Mayor's Supplementary Planning Guidance LINK but note also that the application does not include the units with more bedrooms needed by Brent residents:

The Wembley Area Action Plan specifies that mixed use development with predominantly commercial uses is acceptable in this location. Appropriate uses include retail, office, leisure, student accommodation, hotel and community use with a limited amount of residential. Additionally, the site lies within the Strategic Cultural Area where leisure, tourism and cultural uses are encouraged. The Area Action Plan specifies that at least one of the buildings should be in education use. 
A key element of the proposals is the potential to deliver a new higher education facility for Wembley. Whilst these discussions with potential institutions and the Council are still at a relatively early stage, the Fulton Quarter Masterplan has been designed with flexible buildings which can be used to accommodate an educational use should the discussions progress further over the coming months. The preferred location for this use would be fronting on to Olympic Way and adjacent to the College of North West London. 
The variety of proposed uses for the site are considered to be acceptable by officers and will ensure an appropriate environment is created in line with the Area Action Plan.

Affordable Housing

The proposed provision of affordable housing within the scheme is still under consideration by the application team and will be included within any submission. London Plan policy 3.12 requires borough’s to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, taking account of a range of factors including local and regional requirements, the need to encourage rather than restrain development and viability. The policy requires borough’s to take account of economic viability when negotiating on affordable housing. 
The applicant will be required to demonstrate that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is being provided in this scheme, and this would need to be tested through the submission of 
a financial appraisal submitted with any future planning application which would be subject to scrutiny by or on behalf of your Officers. 

The applicant is proposing a broad mix of units with final number yet to be agreed. The housing mix does not fully accord with the mix set out within the Wembley Area Action Plan with a greater proportion of Studio and 1-bedroom units proposed.

In the intermediate/discounted market rent and sale tenures, Quintain will look to provide the predominance of units in these tenures as studio, one and two bedroomed units.

It is expected that the units will be provided across the rented and sale tenures and so will be designed and brought forward having regard to the Housing SPG 2012 and the further evolving guidance on PRS from the Mayor. 

 The first planning application (17/0328) is for a slab of land described as:

Olympic Way and land between Fulton Road and South Way including Green Car Park, Wembley Retail Park, 1-11 Rutherford Way, 20-28 Fulton Road, Land south of Fulton Road opposite Stadium Retail Park, land opposite Wembley Hilton, land opposite London Design 

 In this case the application covers a change in the proposed layout of Plot W06:

The proposed changes to the parameters of Plot W06 are as follows:

The re-orientation of the massing of the building to create two distinct buildings, with no proposed change in height;  

Splitting of the approved B1 and C3 uses into the two separate buildings; and  

A change in the form and location of the open space as a consequence of the amendment to the buildings.

It is worth noting that the housing component of the scheme has 115 for private rent and 35 London Housing Bank units which at 80% of market rents are not affordable to most Brent residents

  35 units are provided as London Housing Bank units. This is a time limited affordable housing product, supported by the GLA, with rents set at 80% of the market level for a minimum period of seven years. In accordance with the GLA guidance, after seven years these units can be sold to the market or to tenants as individual homes, retained as affordable housing or transferred into the company’s housing portfolio. A decision will not be made until much nearer the time but the potential for tenants to either remain or relocate to other units (private or Discount Market Rent) within the wider Masterplan scheme will be a key consideration so as to maintain a strong sense of community and to ensure that Wembley continues to develop as a vibrant, balanced and sustainable neighbourhood. This is to be comprised as follows:  9 studio, 15 1 bedroom, 11 2 bedrooms 0 3 bedrooms

The second application for the 'Land North East of Wembley Stadium' (17/0462) is likely to be most controversial with Wembley National Stadium Limited making representations.

The proposal for Plot E01 E02 comprises of four buildings splayed radially, providing 3 distinct landscaped gardens. The proposed development provides 633 residential apartments and 3,376sqm GEA of non-residential floorsapce together with cycle parking for residents, all associated external amenity space, hard and soft landscaping and ancillary areas including a basement.  

Residential Accommodation

• The ground floors will accommodate residential entrances and lobbies, concierge facilities, commercial spaces, residential amenity, circulation and primary access to upper floors.
• Building 1 provides 195 residential apartments across 15 levels above podium floor.
• Building 2 provides 186 residential apartments across 12 levels above podium floor.

• Building 3 provides 153 residential apartments across 12 levels and upper ground floor. • Building 4 provides 99 residential apartments across 12 levels and upper ground floor. • Each apartment has access to a private balcony or terrace. 

Non-Residential Space

The proposal as submitted proposed the provision of 3,376sqm GEA of non-residential floorspace within the ground and lower ground levels that would be used for purposes within Use Classes A1-A2, D1-D2 and/or B1 on its Northern, Western and Southern facades within Block 1, 2 and 3. However, this does not fully accord with the parameter plans approved through the outline consent which only allow uses within Use Class D1 (community) and C3 (residential dwellings) within these plots. As such, a condition has been recommended restricting the use of these units to Uses Class D1.

 Wembley National Stadium say:

Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) 
WNSL supports the principle of high quality development within Wembley Park that will improve the surrounding environment of the stadium. The close relation of plots E01/E02 to the stadium and the scope for impact on existing operations means these proposals are of particular importance to WNSL and we raise the following key points. 
 

1.         Introduction of non-residential uses WNSL does not necessarily oppose the principle of ground floor A2, B1 or D2 uses in Plot E01/E02, however, it can only support this inclusion if it satisfied the potential uses would not impact event day operations. Of particular concern is the proposed A1 use and the impact this could have on the flow of spectators through the area, including Perimeter Way East. Retail uses would introduce the possibility of crowd flow pinch points which could cause safety and security issues and impact the access and egress times. WNSL would only consider A1 use acceptable in E01/E02 if appropriate measures were put in place to mitigate any event day impact.

2.         Active frontages on Perimeter Way East The reserved matters application is inconsistent with the approved parameters in terms of the extent of the defined active ground floor frontage and pedestrian entrances for the E01/E02 scheme. In principle, WNSL do not object to pedestrian entrances from Perimeter Way East; however, for stadium event day safety it cannot support the use of commercial frontages on Perimeter Way East during event operations.

3.         Servicing and Residential Movement WNSL consider a condition should be attached to any permission that clears and restricts all movement on Perimeter Way East on event days unless for required emergency services.

WNSL request further information in relation to ‘resident movement on event day’ to demonstrate how this will be suitably managed and controlled

4.         Noise The application does not seek to discharge Condition 34 which relates to residential units affected by externally generated noise. WNSL look to forward to future confirmation that the noise levels set out in the condition are adhered to.

5.         Design The application material does not provide an elevation from Olympic Way that shows both plots E01/E02 and plot W03 and how they relate to the stadium. An additional drawing is requested so that this key view can be appropriately reviewed.

6.         Car Parking The proposed car park access for Plot E01/E02 is indicated to be made from the adjacent E05 car park. This may be an acceptable solution but cannot be confirmed until a scheme is approved. Accordingly a condition is required that prevents any use of the car parking spaces as shown on the submitted drawings until a satisfactory access arrangements have been approved.

Brent Officers note the points raised by WNSL and have the following observations to make:

1.  The flexible use of the non-residential uses for purposes within a number of Use Classes (A1, A2, D1, D2 or B1) is proposed within the submission. However, this is not considered to materially accord with the parameter plans which only allow Use Class C3 and D1 within this plot. As such, a condition has been recommended restricting the use of these units to Use Class D1.

2.  The introduction of active frontages on perimeter way is supported by officers. It is considered that this is a good design approach based on sound principles and will activate the southern side of the building as well as providing surveillance on what may otherwise become and under-used service road. It also contributes to the relationship between the proposed development and stadium and will provide an appropriate environment on non event days for future residents of the building and locality. In relation to event day safety, the measures referred to above are considered sufficient to ensure the subject site is appropriately managed and therefore reduce their event day impact. Active frontages for two small non-residential units are proposed outside of the “Areas for Active Frontages” shown on “Parameter plan 08 - Proposed Uses” which was approved through the outline consent. However, this is not considered to materially change the scheme, given the scale and nature of the proposals within the outline consent and the material planning considerations associated with this element of the proposal. The outline consent allows non-residential uses at ground floor level and the parameter plan identies parts of these plots facing both Olympic Way and Perimeter Way East as being area for active frontages. Whilst the Reserved Matters proposals look to provide activity in areas slightly outside of those identified on the Uses parameter plan, they do not introduce them within streets where active frontages were not previously approved.

3.  Details on servicing and deliveries will need to be submitted under condition 26 of the Masterplan planning

permission which is required to be discharged prior to occupation. This will ensure appropriate measures are in place so as not to affect the stadium or crowd flow on event days.

4.  The reserved matters application does not seek to discharge condition 34 relating to the internal noise environment at this time. Details of this will need to be submitted under condition 34 of the Masterplan planning permission which is required to be discharged prior to occupation.

5.  The applicant has submitted an image of Plots E01/2 together with Plot W03. These show that the designs are not duplicates but have a similar language and officers consider they compliment each other when viewed together. The overall design approach and finished appearance of the development is supported by officers.

6.  The plans do not include access to the car park and therefore it cannot be accessed by vehicles. Condition 11 of the Masterplan consent restricts any vehicular access to this area unless details of access that do not conflict with stadium vehicular or crowd flows have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Until such time the car park cannot be used. This is in compliance with the requirements of the masterplan and ensures that an appropriate approach will be secured before any vehicular movements to this plot take place.

 

39.8% (252 flats) of the residential units is provided as 'affordable' housing. 39.2% (248 flats) are to be delivered as private market rent. The remaining 21% (133 flats) are to be London Housing Bank dwellings. (See above) The mix comprises 123 x studios, 219 x 1bed units, 229 x 2bed units, 55 x 3bed units and 7 x 4bed units.  

I hope councillors will probe further into what is meant by affordable here. 

Quintain's Fulton Quarter Masterplan - can we save some more "Wembley Lions"?

Guest post by Philip Grant

In a blog last week (LINK) ) Martin drew our attention to Quintain's latest consultation on the redevelopment of the "Fulton Quarter" at Wembley Park. This includes the former Fountain TV Studios, whose fascinating story I wrote a guest blog about when it closed last December (LINK) 

Although Wembley has lost a fantastic high-tech business, there is something from our local heritage which can be saved when the studio building is demolished. Two lion head architectural ornaments, from the British Empire Exhibition building which was converted to film studios in 1928, were preserved when that building was demolished in 1989. They were re-used to embellish the walls outside a new entrance to the remaining "Studio 5", which became Fountain TV. 

The lion was the emblem for the BEE, and it was adopted as a popular symbol for Wembley itself, with both the stadium's speedway team (from 1929) and the arena's ice hockey team (from 1934) known as the "Wembley Lions". Through Wembley History Society, I worked with Brent Council and Quintain to put one concrete lion head (from the Palace of Industry building) on permanent public display in 2014, to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the British Empire Exhibition. 

Now I am hoping to persuade Quintain to recycle the two "Wembley Lions" from Fountain Studios, as part of their landscaping plans for the Fulton Quarter. As well as providing an attractive feature in the public spaces which the proposed development promises, this would help to share the stories of Wembley Park and the Wembley Park Studios with future residents and visitors.

I hope that Martin will be able to put a copy of my comments document (submitted to Quintain's consultation) below, so that you can read what I have in mind, if you are interested. If you think my suggestion is a good one, please send your own "comments" on the Fulton Quarter Masterplan, including your support for Philip Grant's ideas for incorporating the BEE / Fountain TV lions into the landscaping scheme, to Quintain at the consultation email address: info@wembleypark.com . Thank you.

Is Brent Council using Sadiq's or Boris's definition of 'affordable' homes

Brent Planning Committee at its meeting on April 26th will be hearing two pre-application presentations from Quintain and making a decision on two planning applications from them. All contain references to 'affordable' housing.

Over the weekend my attention was caught by a tweet from Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, publicising his draft affordable housing and viability supplementary planning guidance (November 2016 LINK)

As I have long had a gripe with Brent Planning Officers over their failure to explain what they mean by 'affordable' housing in their reports to Planning Committee (usually 80% of market ents which are not affordable for local residents) I thought it was worth looking at what the Mayor had to say.

The supplementary guidance states:

The Mayor strongly encourages LPAs (local Planning Authorities) to apply the affordable housing threshold approach to applications for sites which are capable of delivering ten or more units. In addition, when developing future affordable housing policy (and other policies on planning obligations and CIL levels) LPAs are strongly encouraged to take account of this Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and the importance the Mayor places on increasing the numbers of affordable homes

Central to this is the London Living Rent capped at one-third of the median gross household income for the borough:

Definition of London Living Rent

London Living Rent is a new type of intermediate affordable housing that will help, through low rents on time-limited tenancies, households with around average earnings save for a deposit to buy their own home. Eligibility for London Living Rent is restricted to existing tenants with a maximum household income of £60,000, without sufficient current savings to purchase a home in the local area.

It is aimed at single people, couples and other households with more than one person, but is unlikely to be suitable for house shares of multiple adults due to the household income limit. Any update to this criteria will be provided through the GLA’s annual monitoring reports. The GLA has calculated ward-level caps for London Living Rent homes based on one-third of median gross household income for the local borough.  

The cap varies from the Borough median by up to 20 per cent in line with house prices within the ward. The caps have further variation based on the number of bedrooms within the home. Registered Providers (RPs) have the flexibility to let homes at lower rents if they wish. 

RPs are expected to actively encourage London Living Rent tenants into home ownership. They will be expected to assess the ability and inclination to save of prospective tenants and, where part of mixed-tenure schemes, offer tenants
the right to purchase their London Living Rent home on a shared ownership basis.  Further information on this product is available in Homes for Londoners: Affordable Housing Programme 2016-2021. As set out in the current annual monitoring report, for intermediate dwellings
 to be considered affordable, annual housing costs, including mortgage (assuming reasonable interest rates and deposit requirements), rent and service charges should be no greater than 40% of net household income.(My emphasis)

Importantly in the light of Quintain's entry into the Build to Rent market the guidance says these should 'preferably' be at London Living Rent levels:

Affordable housing tenure: the pathway recognises the need for all homes on the Build to Rent development to stay under single management and as such will encourage affordable homes on the development to be delivered as discounted market rent (preferably at London Living Rent levels), managed by the Build to Rent provider (or possibly via another designated manager). 

At the very least Planning Committee members should establish with officers whether they are using Sadiq Khan's definition of 'affordable' based on the median borough income or Boris Johnson's 80% of market rent.


 

Protest over Donoghue's Cricklewood waste facility April 28th

From a group of local residents and community groups campaigning for the urgent relocation of overgrown P B Donoghue waste management site in residential Cricklewood

Twitter @DumpDonoghue 

Brent 'one of the worst councils for trying to force families out of London' report claims

Over the holiday weekend Brent Council has become the focus for attention over its housing policy. A report by Housing Action Southwark and Lambeth claims that Brent Council is one of the worst London boroughs in forcing families out of London:

  Not all London boroughs force homeless families into the private sector (for example Southwark and Islington), but out of the 23 that have in the last year, 75% have tried to force homeless families out of London. However, some are worse than others, with the Labour ran councils of Brent and Newham accounting for two-thirds of the out-of-London placements.

Brent council tried to move 112 families to the West Midlands last year alone, with 65 refusing and likely facing further homelessness. This is from a total of 139 out-of-London offers made by Brent council, meaning that 80% of the time that Brent council offer someone private rented accommodation out of London it is in the West Midlands. Very clearly Brent are not trying to find the nearest suitable accommodation to Brent as the Nzolomeso ruling requires LINK.

Nearly all of the households (95%) that Brent and Newham councils have tried to move out of London have children. These out of London placements will seriously disrupt their childhood and education. The councils will probably argue that families with children are the households that they struggle most to house in London due to the effects of the benefit cap. However, the case of the Telford placements (see below) shows that out-of-London placements are being used for families who not affected by the benefit cap. The fact that 29 other London boroughs can house homeless families without moving any, or many, families out of London shows that what Newham and Brent are doing is not necessary. Due to the massive difference in behaviour and use of private sector placements across London boroughs, the actions of Brent and Newham can therefore be seen as ideological.

The report gives a case study of Brent Council's moving of families to Telford in Shropshire:

As Brent were the worst council for trying to force families out of London we decided to look in detail at their use of out-of-London private sector discharges. We took the case study of the 11 households that Brent had tried to force to move to Telford, Shropshire. All 11 of these households had refused Brent council’s offer, likely facing further homelessness as a result. According to the council none of these 11 families reviewed the decision to be moved to Telford or approached social services for help under the Children’s Act. This means the families would have had to have found accommodation themselves or stayed with friends or family.

FOIs revealed that all private sector discharges were to the same property that the council kept re-offering to household after household. This means that one house in Telford resulted in further homelessness for 11 families. No family viewed the property but it also appears from the notice given to these families explaining the offer and its consequences (see below) that no expenses were offered to view the property and they were only given 24 hours from receiving the letter to decide whether to accept the offer. All 11 families obviously decided the property was unsuitable, but Brent did not get the message. It is worrying that Brent kept offering this property, which very quickly they knew was going to be rejected. The later offers of this house in Telford are not done by a council who are trying to house homeless families, but rather one who is trying to end any responsibility they have towards homeless families as efficiently as possible.

The suitability assessments that Brent carried out for each family were also obtained through FOI (summary of the assessments is in the Appendix). The questionnaires asked basic facts such as the age of children, work details and medical needs. The assessments showed that across the 11 families there were 35 children, 29 who were school age. The offers therefore would have had serious disruption to many children’s lives. 9 of the 11 families also had parents in work. This means that the offers were potentially breaking the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012 which requires local authorities to consider the disruption caused by the location of accommodation to a household’s employment. It also means that most of the families would not have been subject to the benefit cap, meaning there would be far more available and affordable areas in which the council could place them, making the decision to place the families in Telford even more worrying.  

One possible reason why this Telford house was deemed so unsuitable by the families (even more so than offers to Birmingham, which more Brent families accepted and is a similar distance from London) is because it is a much less culturally diverse place. Our FOIs revealed that of the 8 families Brent council attempted to send to Telford which they had ethnicity data on, half were not white, and the 4 who were recorded as white were not necessarily white British (a County Court case here against Brent is by a Polishwoman for example). From the 2011 Census Telford is 90% white British compared to 53% for Birmingham and 18% for Brent.

Even though Brent Council said none of the 11 families reviewed the private sector discharge there was one court case reviewing the suitability of an offer in Telford by Brent council covered on the Nearly Legal blog. This means that either Brent Council were not accurate in their FOI response or that they were still making private sector offers to Telford after the time period for which the information they gave us covered. This court case shows how even though the person was actually trying to accept the Telford offer, Brent were clearly just using the offer to try and end a homeless duty to the family as they turned the parent’s temporary illness into a rejection of the offer.

 All this is happening while Brent Council is approving planning applications by Quintain for developments that are unaffordable for local people.

This is the full HASL report (Click bottom right for full size version):

Cut Tory education policy waste - not school funding

With education in the news over the weekend as the teaching unions meet I was interested in this information from Janes Eades of Wandsworth NUT and CASE (Campaign for the Advancement of State Education).
 

Much has been in the news about the cuts which will be taking place in schools, forcing many schools to cut staffing.  However, there has been virtually no coverage of the waste of money as a direct result of the implementation of the Government policy of opening 'free' schools, UTCs and studio schools, combined with the conversion of schools into academies, controlled by trusts which are often not up to the job or which are financially irresponsible.

The NUT/ATL have put together information on how different parts of the country will be affected and this can be seen on the School Cuts website.

However, I have looked at ways in which the Government have been wasting millions:

Sorting out Old Oak and Park Royal regeneration - lessons for Wembley?

Vision...

... and reality (Schedule of Board meetings)

The Brent and Kilburn Times has an interesting front page story today on the multi-million Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) plan. London Mayor Sadiq Khan following a review of the project which criticised former Mayor Boris Johnson for rushing into an agreement withe the government on unfavourable terms and leaving the project 'in a mess',  has appointed a new chair, Liz Peace, former CEO of the British Property Federation.

Presumably sorting out the mess may also involve sorting out the OPDC Board which should have been scrutinising the project along with GLA members.  Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, is a member of the Board.

These are the Board's functions:

The OPDC Board is responsible for governing the OPDC. Their responsibilities include:

• providing leadership, advice and support
• setting strategic direction and overall policy
• monitoring standards, performance and corporate governance
• representing the OPDC with other stakeholders

Cllr Sarah Marquis is a member of the Board's Planning Committee.

What I found particularly interesting, after the controversy over Quintain's high rise developments around Wembley Stadium and elsewhere in Brent, was Navin Shah AM's statement in the Kilburn Times article that he was concerned about the number of 'excessively tall buildings' planned for Old Oak/Park Royal.

Clearly he has a role as GLA member for Brent and Harrow to scrutinise a Mayoral project but it seems odd that he has been silent on the high rise developments in Wembley, including the 26 storey 'Twin Towers' at the junction of Wembley High Road and Park Lane. In his statement to the Kilburn Times he also spoke about engagement with local residents and businesses, something that was sadly lacking in the recent Wembley Stadium/Spurs planning application:

Old Oak Common and Park Royal don't need 'mini Manhattan' like glass and steel towers. The development corporation must actively and genuinely engage at all stages with local residents, businesses and stakeholders to ensure their aspirations are taken into account.

Nor do we and yes, Brent Council must.

The OPDC is holding a consultation on Regulation 19 of the draft Local Plan on Wednesday 26th April at 7pm, at the CoClub, 140 Wakles Far, Road, London W3 6UG 

The OPDC say:

The nature of the next stage of consultations is very different to last year Regulation 18 draft Local Plan, so we’re holding an event to go through the differences. This will enable you to have your say in the future of Old Oak and Park Royal once the consultation is launched.

Teachers invited to celebrate Welsh Harp Centre & find out about its outdoor learning programme

Teachers and pupils in Brent fought hard against the proposed closure of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre and it was saved when the Thames21charity took it over from Brent Council.

This is a message for Brent teachers and educatiors from Thames21

Teachers and Educators – join us by the campfire!

Thames21 is hosting an open afternoon at the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre in Brent, for teachers and educators.

This get together is being held to celebrate our first anniversary of managing the site and to share our outdoor learning programme.

There are a wealth of opportunities for developing the centre and we’re really keen to hear what other ‘outside of the classroom’ learning activities people are interested in attending there.

We’ll host a tour of the site and give a camp fire lighting demonstration after which you can cook up your own tasty treats.

We’re meeting from 4.30pm – 6pm, so feel free to drop in at any time.

To book your spot, please get in touch with Edel Fingleton, Thames21’s Education Coordinator, at edel.fingleton@thames21.org.uk or by telephone on 07734 871 728 to book your spot.

Residents' views absent from offical record of Wembley Stadium Planning Committee meeting

Residents' claims that they were not being heard over the issue of the Wembley Stadium/Tottenham Hotspur planning application to increase the number of full capacity events at the stadium appear to have been borne out by the minutes of the Planning Committee published today.

The minutes merely list the names and organisations of those who made detailed and well-researched presentations to the Planning Committee with not even a summary of what they had to say.The presentations of Chris Bryant for Wembley National stadium Limited and Donna-Maria Cullen of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club are treated in a similar way.

This means that there is no official historical record of both the objections and the undertakings given by the applicants.

I think it is also noteworthy that the written representations of Cllr Butt,  leader of the council and Cllr Ketan Sheth, are not recorded.  As Planning Committee is not livestreamed this means that local residents have no access to what they wrote although they may have influenced the Planning Committee's decision.

These are the minutes as they appear on the Council website LINK:

PROPOSAL:  Proposed variation of condition 3 (event cap, to allow 31 additional full capacity events) and removal of condition 33 (temporary traffic management) of planning permission reference 99/2400, which was for:

Full planning application to consider the complete demolition of Wembley Stadium and clearance of the site to provide a 90,000-seat sports and entertainment stadium (Use Class D2), 4750m2 of office accommodation (Use Class B1), banqueting/conference facilities (Use Class D2), ancillary facilities including catering, restaurant (Use Class A3), retail, kiosks (Use Class A1), toilets and servicing space; re-grading of existing levels within the application site and removal of trees, alteration of existing and provision of new access points (pedestrian and vehicular), and parking for up to 458 coaches, 43 mini-buses and 1,200 cars or 2,900 cars (or combination thereof) including 250 Orange Badge parking spaces.

As approved, condition 3 stated that for two years following completion of the stadium, subject to the completion of specific improvement works to Wembley Park Station and construction of roads known as Estate Access Corridor and Stadium Access Corridor, the number of major sporting events held at the stadium in any one year was restricted to no more than 22 (to exclude European Cup and World Cup events where England/UK is the host nation), and the number of major non-sporting events to 15. After this, additional events over and above this were permitted subject to the number of spectators being limited to the capacity of the lower and middle tiers of the stadium. The proposal would allow for up to an additional 22 major sporting Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) events between 1 August 2017 and 31 July 2018.

A major event (which may or may not include THFC) would be considered to be an event in the stadium bowl with a capacity in excess of 10,000 people.

The application includes the submission of an Environmental Statement.

RECOMMENDATION:

Resolve to grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a satisfactory deed of variation to the existing Section 106 legal agreement to achieve the matters set out in the report, delegate authority to the Head of Planning to make minor changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives) prior to the decision, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the committee.

David Glover (Area Planning Manager) introduced the proposal and responded to members’ questions.  He referenced the supplementary report which provided additional detail on some of the mitigation measures proposed, and some additional measures beyond what was contained within the main committee report. In his view the measures amplified in the main and supplementary reports would assist to mitigate the impacts of the greater number of major events which the application proposed. He added that Section 106 financial contributions were secured in the original planning consent. 

Dr Ruth Kosmin spoke on behalf of Barnhill Residents’ Association (BHRA) objecting to the proposal.

Dr Michael Calderbank objected to the proposal on behalf of Wembley Park Residents’ Association.

Denise Cheong representing Wembley Champions also spoke in objection to the proposal.

D Bablas on behalf of Wembley High Road Businesses Association also spoke in objection to the proposal.

Fatima-Karim Khaku representing BHRA also spoke in objection to the proposal.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Choudhary, ward member, stated that he had been approached by members of BHRA. Councillor Choudhary objected to the proposal on the grounds that it did not contain adequate information to assess the environmental, transport and business impacts.  He added that in addition to increased anti-social behaviour, the proposal would put a strain on the road network in the area.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Stopp stated that he had been approached by local residents. Councillor Stopp stated that the potential benefits of the proposal would be outweighed by the costs to the area including fear of anti-social behaviour and increased litter (evidenced by the increase in the caseload from his constituents) and undesirable precedent.

Alice Lester (Head of Planning) read out in full, the written statements submitted by Councillors Butt and Ketan Sheth (ward members).

Chris Bryant representing Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) addressed the Committee, answered members’ questions.

Donna-Maria Cullen on behalf of THFC addressed the Committee in similar terms and answered members’ questions.  

In the ensuing discussion, members questioned the applicants on a number of issues including search for alternative venues, the weight placed on residents’ views, measures they would take to reduce impact on local traders, transport and amenity impacts and the cost of policing.  Members heard that following a wide ranging search, Wembley Stadium was identified as the most preferred site that would suit the needs and aspirations of THFC.  The applicants continued that as a direct result of local views, full capacity events had been revised to 22 and that attending fans would be given a directory of local traders where they could shop.  They reiterated the mitigation measures to address the transport and amenity impacts.

Tony Kennedy and John Fletcher from the Council’s from Highways and Transportation outlined additional measures to reduce transport impact.   

DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended.

(Voting: For 6; Against 1; Abstention 0)

Note:  The Committee voted to disapply the guillotine procedure to enable members to continue consideration of the application beyond 10:00pm.

Supporting documents:

Brent litter enforcement patrols recommended to be brought in-house

The Brent Cabinet is recommended to bring the litter patrol service, currently provided by Kingdom Limited in a pilot programme, in-house when the pilot finishes:

The pilot has been a helpful exercise and the performance has been shown to be good. Operating issues around the application of this type of service in Brent are now properly understood. The FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice) issue rate has exceeded projections, payment rates, income have been stronger than projected, and a number of ‘added value’ services have been successfully trialled. It is therefore recommended that the Council now plans to continue providing this service, beyond June 2017, on a long term basis. The review suggests that an in-house service, delivered along the same operating lines as the pilot contract, may offer the best long-term value for the council. 

Without any explicit reference to Cllr John Duffy's LINK concern that the Council was losing potential revenue through out-sourcing the service there is a recognition that, despite a greater risk to the Council, that an in-house service would generate greater income for the Council:

8. The issue is therefore to consider the likely surplus that the council would make if it ran the operation in house. Using the same figures for ticket issue and collection rates (which therefore implicitly assumes that the quality of service would be the same) the council could expect to issue 5,962 FPNs in a year (i.e. twice the amount issued in the pilot six months). The gross income for these would be £0.477m if all were paid.
   
   
9. The collection rate has been established, in paragraph 8.6, as being around 85%, so total income would be £0.405m. Paragraph 6.2 has set out that the likely cost of an in house team would be around £0.25m (£15k of which would be up-front, year 1 equipment costs only), which would imply a surplus under the in-house option of £0.155m. 
   
   
10. There is therefore a reasonable expectation of a modest additional surplus under the in-house model compared to the option of procuring a new contract. Provided that the reasonable expectation was that the operational performance of in house service would be at least as good as that provided by a private contractor then the financial evaluation would support a conclusion that the service should be provided in house.
    

0. 
   
   
   
   
   
   

New Quintain consultation on Fountain Studios site and additional proposals

Following the March consultation LINK Quintain have come back with revised plans for the Wembley Retail Park/Fountain Studios site and will be mounting a public exhibition at  the London Designer Outlet next week. The exhibition will be at Unit 71 on the first floor on Thursday 20th April 4pm-8pm, Friday 21st April 4pm-8pm and Saturday 22nd April 10am-2pm.

Quintain are calling this the 'Fulton Quarter Masterplan' and apart from new homes and commercial space are now suggesting a 'new higher education facility' . The College of North West London is next to the site.

Additionally, in what seems to be a departure from the long-term plan to make the Wembley Stadium area a 'public transport destination', they will be presenting proposals for a new coach park and multi-storey car park at VDC Careys and a build to rent development on Plot E05.

www.yourwembleypark.com  info@wembleypark.com  0800 307 7564

The updated proposals:

Labour's selection for Kenton ward

Kenton ward selection for Labour candidates for  Brent Council 2018 local elections: Syed Alam, Nyela Reid, Rajan Seelan

Northwick Park ward candidate selections

Candidates for Northwick Park for May 2018 council elections were chosen last night. Margaret McLennan, currently deputy leader of Brent Council, was selected along with Keith Perrin and Robert Johnson.

The selection assumed greater importance in the light of the One Public Estate proposal for Northwick Park LINK and it is not clear that the trio will be able to agree a common approach.

'In-house' management of council housing favoured in Brent Council survey - Full Council debate April 20th

There will be a Special Brent Full Council meeting on Thursday April 20th, 7pm Civic Centre, to consider the outcome of the survey of council tenants and leaseholders on options for the future management of council housing in the borough.

2,937 residents responded to the survey (26% return) to consider the options:

a. Continue with Brent Hoising Partnership on a reformed basis
b. Bring the service back in-house under direct control of the council
c. Enter into partnership with another organisation to provide the service

49.1% of respondents supported option b with 55.6% of lease holders and 47.3% of tenants in favour.

After debate at Full Council the proposal to bring the service in-house will go to Cabineton Monday April 24th.

The decision will be made against the background of a deficit in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and further 'savings' and 'transformation' will be necessary:

1. The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget is £56.1m and is used for the management and maintenance of the HRA stock and for the repayment of the HRA debt. The HRA is a ring fenced account. The BHP Management Fee for the current year is £7.5m. This fee is for managing and maintaining the HRA properties on behalf of the Council. Core management costs, including this fee are £12.5m per annum.
   
2. 12.2  The Housing and Planning Act 2016 will have a significant impact on Brent’s Council housing and its financial position in coming years. The implications for which are continuously being reviewed with more comprehensive analysis to follow once the details are published by Government.
   
3. 12.3  Based on current assumptions and changes in the Housing and Planning Act,
   an efficiency savings target of circa £3.6m would be required to balance the HRA if the current assumptions on changes materialise.
   
4. 12.4  The savings to the HRA upon the initial implementation of the in-house housing management service are estimated to be £1m pa. These are provisional figures and will be refined as planning for the implementation of the selected option is progressed.
   
5. 12.5  The decision to bring the housing management service in-house alone is not sufficient to cover the gap without wider transformation. This, then, reinforces the need for further transformation in the service.
   

I hope councillors will explore what 'transformation' could involve when they debate the proposal.

AGENDA For Ful Council Meeting

Background:

The Council owns almost 11,500 homes, mostly flats on small and medium-sized estates, with around 7,700 tenants and 3,700 leaseholders. Around 43,000 people live in these homes - over 1 in 8 of Brent’s population. Around a third of tenants are over 60, 4% have a disability and 8% have a vulnerability of some kind. The Council is responsible for management and maintenance services and has delegated these to BHP since 2002, under a Management Agreement. BHP is a company with a Board of 13 people comprising residents, Councillors and independent persons with an independent chair. BHP provides all landlord services, directly or through contracts, including:

Tenancy Management – e.g. lettings, rent collection, resident engagement,

Right to Buy and the oversight of two Tenant Management Organisations. 


Leaseholder Management – e.g. service charges and major works. 


     Property services – e.g. estate management, repairs and major works 


    Development services – the delivery of a new-build programme on existing estates 


Now in Willesden Green: The onward march of high rise and student accommodation

Replace this...

with this:

Brent Council has designated various areas of the borough, particularly Wembley, as suitable for high rise development but it is apparent that there is seepage into other areas. Often one high rise once approved and built enables more as a precedent is set.

In Willesden Green the Queensbury project was subject to a community campaign based both on the saving of a pub as a community resource and the unsuitability of the planned new building in a conservation area. However Electric House at the junction of Walm Lane, Willesden Lane and the High Road was approved.

Now Electric House will have a part 8 storey, part 7 storey neighbour to replace the current 'meanwhile  space' shops of Queens Parade.

The applicant argues that the Council wish to see residential use of the site, the type of residential is not specified so that student accommodation complies.

There are around 2,500 student residences built or planned in the Wembley Stadium area but one, if only for 120 units, in Willesden Green sets a new precedent.

The planning application also includes 5 commercial units and a basement warehouse area.

It is early days for public comments but several objections are along the lines of this one from a resident in the neighbouring Electric House:

I wish to raise the following objections regarding application reference 17/0322:

1) Brent's Core Strategy CP2 states "The borough will aim to achieve the London Plan target that 50% of new homes should be affordable. At least 25% of new homes should be family sized (3 bedrooms or more)." The 120 high quality student units does not meet the definition of 'affordable housing' according to gov.uk; "social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market."

2) A planning application in 2013 for 34 residential units was refused on the basis that the density of the units would exceed the London Plan and Brent Council recommendations. The 120 studio units would far exceed the density of the rejected 2013 application

3) The 7 and 8-storey proposed buildings would have scale and design that harms the character and appearance of the Willesden Green Conservation Area

4) The existing buildings according to the 2013 committee report '...are considered to make a contribution towards the character and appearance of the Conservation Area'. The demolition of these buildings will be a severe detriment to the Willesden Green Conservation Area.

5) The current amount of retail space is 590sqm, the planning application provides for 324sqm of retail space - a loss of 266sqm which would be an unacceptable threat to the high street.

6) In the absence of a legal agreement to control parking, the absence of an on-site servicing bay and a delivery and servicing plan to control servicing the proposed development will generate a demand for on-street parking and servicing that cannot be accommodated within the surrounding area and on Willesden Lane and Walm Lane, as such the development would give rise to highway conditions that would be prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety

7) The 2013 refused application suggested lack of road access to the retail units as a reason to refuse. If the proposed commercial units would be served by an access route surrounding Electric House, as a resident I object to service vehicles passing my window and causing a disturbance

8) Electric House has unresolved pest problems as evidenced by the rat traps laid out by Network Living near in the bin area. The addition of 120 students next door with will likely exacerbate the problem and create problems for the surrounding area

9) Brent have so far been unable to collect the refuse and recycling safely and on time from Electric House with only 25 units. There have been incidents of the doors being left open, and the recycling going weeks without collection. The additional 120 units will provide unwanted strain on these services.

Former Labour councillor James Powney writing about the proposal on his blog LINK says:

I think that [the development] is frankly too big.  Brent has a policy of concentrating tall buildings in its five growth areas for a reason - to protect the lower density developments in the rest of the Borough.  There is a creeping pressure on Willesden to accept bigger and bigger blocks.  Electric House was one of those, which I can accept because of its position at the head of a street.  Similarly with the Erin Court development from a much earlier time, but The Queensbury redevelopment was rightly refused as much too big. 

The provision of more student housing is also questionable in an area that already suffers from an extremely transient population.  In the past, Brent planning committee refused student accommodation at the former Spotted Dog development citing this as a reason.  The logic behind this has not changed.

So far there is only one supporting statement:

Overall I now support this revised plan as the proposed buildings will still enable the view of the Electric House clock.

I think that Westminster University would be good to approach as they have a site in Baker Street only 10 minutes away by Tube.

I would like to see that the buildings are clad in real red brick and not synthetic to match with the Conservation Area, and also would like see that the landscaping also extends to the building by providing a green roof or wall and bird boxes (swifts perhaps) in the design.

I like the idea of flexible shop space as we do lack larger shop accommodation for chains. But would like to see that the shop frontage conform to the design guide produced by Cllr Tom Miller for Willesden Green.

As for the existing tenants of the retail spaces, I would encourage the developers to find them alternative accommodation in some of the spaces that are empty along the High Road to make up for the disruption to their businesses and the fact that they are unlikely to be able to afford the higher rents that no doubt will happen.

Perhaps one of the retail spaces could be a technical hub (with cafe?)? This would be suitable for students to use and also would enable the local population to use the facilities as we have many who work from home and would welcome such an initiative. And enable them to have a meeting place with clients.

LINK to application 17/0322