WEMBLEY MATTERS

Thursday, 15 August 2013

Indefatigable Kensal Rise campaigners come out fighting for yet another round

Those passionate and stubborn campaigners of Kensal Rise just won't give up, winning my admiration and that of many other people.

In a no holds barred exchange on the Kilburn Times website they take on the developer of the Kensal Rise Library building LINK and have made the following call to their supporters:

Act now to save the library!

What’s happening?
Property developer Andrew Gillick has submitted plans to put six luxury flats and a house in the Kensal Rise Library Building. The building has always been for community use. So campaigners (The Friends of Kensal Rise Library) have tried to protect the building by persuading Brent Council to list it as an ‘Asset of Community Value’.

However, if the Planning Committee ignores this listing and Gillick succeeds, only a small part of the building will remain for the community. Once the building goes residential the community will lose it forever. A building that the community helped to pay for, and has used and loved for over a hundred years.

The Friends of Kensal Rise Library (FKRL) have considered the developer’s proposal in detail with the help of expert advice, and have decided to oppose the grant of planning permission. They consider that the whole building should remain for the benefit of the community.

What can I do?
Write to Brent Council expressing your concerns. You can write by post or email, or make your comments online. In order for your objection to be valid, you must include your full name and address, and the reference number for the application, which is 13/2058.

You can see the full planning application on the Brent Council website at http://tiny.cc/9vnc1w (where you can also make online comments).

The case officer is Robin Sedgwick, telephone 020 8937 5229, and you can contact him with any queries about the application. The statutory consultation period ends on 29th August 2013, but objections received until around the end of August are likely to be taken into account.

Write online or by post
Email address for objections: robin.sedgwick@brent.gov.uk
Postal address for objections:
Mr Robin Sedgwick, Planning Department, Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ
It is much better and more powerful to write your own letter
It is important the Council receives as many written objections as possible.
Remember to include your name, address and planning reference number: 13/2058

Letter writing sessions: Come to one of our letter writing sessions to be held on:
Saturday 17th August & Sunday 18th August 11am-4pm at the Pop-up Library (corner of Bathurst Gdns & College Rd)

On what basis can I object to the application?
Brent Council states on its website that they will take into account issues that include the following (our emphasis added):· Problems of noise, smell, dust, traffic etc.
· Loss of light, privacy or outlook
· Number, size, layout, siting and external appearance of buildings
· The impact on traffic safety and conges-tion; the effects on parking provision
· The impact on travel patterns – the availability of public transport and facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people
· The impact on the environment and public safety
· The loss of trees and other natural features
· The provision of landscaping
· The adequacy of infrastructure like roads and schools etc
· The impact on protected areas like Conservation Areas,
· Protected Open Space and Nature Conservation Sites
· Loss of Protected Land Uses (in areas or sites which are retained for residential use, community use)
· Impact on employment
· Opportunities for crime from the design of the development
· The effect on the character of the area
· It is also relevant that the building has been listed as an Asset of Community Value. This applies to the whole building and means that the planners must take into account that the building has been listed in this way.
If there is anything else you would like to mention then it is best to include it rather than leave it out.

The Council states that the following cannot be taken into account when deciding a planning application:
· Loss of property value.
· Nuisance from building work (this is controlled by other legislation)
· Moral considerations (e.g. objections to drinking, gambling etc.)
· The personality of the applicant
· Boundary disputes and other private matters
· The fact that an applicant may make a commercial gain as a result of a successful application
· Matters covered by Building Regulations (impact on foundations, sewerage etc)
· Loss of view from a private property
· Commercial competition, where for example a proposed shop will directly compete for the trade of another.

More about the background to the current situation
Last year, Brent Council chose to return Kensal Rise Library to All Souls College, Oxford, rather than accept a proposal from the Friends of Kensal Rise Library to run the library at no cost to the Council. All Souls then held an open marketing process and the Friends submitted a proposal that would have retained the whole building for community use. Instead of accepting this, All Souls have chosen to sell the library building to a property developer whose priority is making a huge profit out of the building with little regard for what this community wants or needs.

Deadline for responding to planning application: 29^th August 2013

In his planning application the developer says we are a ‘vocal minority’, let’s prove him wrong and show him that Kensal Green/Kensal Rise are unified on this issue and are in fact a ‘vocal majority’.

A majority that does not want flats in the library but wants the building to remain for the benefit of the whole community and to have in it what we need and want.

Hi Everyone,Urgent update! Act now to save the library!What’s happening?
Property developer Andrew Gillick has submitted plans to put six luxury flats and a house in the Kensal Rise Library Building. The building has always been for community use. So campaigners (The Friends of Kensal Rise Library) have tried to protect the building by persuading Brent Council to list it as an ‘Asset of Community Value’.
However, if the Planning Committee ignores this listing and Gillick succeeds, only a small part of the building will remain for the community. Once the building goes residential the community will lose it forever. A building that the community helped to pay for, and has used and loved for over a hundred years.
The Friends of Kensal Rise Library (FKRL) have considered the developer’s proposal in detail with the help of expert advice, and have decided to oppose the grant of planning permission. They consider that the whole building should remain for the benefit of the community. What can I do?
Write to Brent Council expressing your concerns. You can write by post or email, or make your comments online. In order for your objection to be valid, you must include your full name and address, and the reference number for the application, which is 13/2058.
You can see the full planning application on the Brent Council website at http://tiny.cc/9vnc1w (where you can also make online comments).
The case officer is Robin Sedgwick, telephone 020 8937 5229, and you can contact him with any queries about the application. The statutory consultation period ends on 29th August 2013, but objections received until around the end of August are likely to be taken into account.
Write online or by post
Email address for objections: robin.sedgwick@brent.gov.uk
Postal address for objections:
Mr Robin Sedgwick, Planning Department, Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ
It is much better and more powerful to write your own letter
It is important the Council receives as many written objections as possible.
Remember to include your name, address and planning reference number: 13/2058
Letter writing sessions: Come to one of our letter writing sessions to be held on:
Saturday 17th August & Sunday 18th August 11am-4pm at the Pop-up Library (corner of Bathurst Gdns & College Rd)

A majority that does not want flats in the library but wants the building to remain for the benefit of the whole community and to have in it what we need and want.

- See more at: http://www.savekensalriselibrary.org/2013/08/13/august-update-act-now%E2%80%8F/#sthash.VpIGquqP.dpuf

A majority that does not want flats in the library but wants the building to remain for the benefit of the whole community and to have in it what we need and want.

- See more at: http://www.savekensalriselibrary.org/2013/08/13/august-update-act-now%E2%80%8F/#sthash.cnTNUaXH.dpuf

Wednesday, 14 August 2013

Cllr Van Kalwala makes the case against the Harlesden Incinerator

Recorded at Ealing Council Planning Committee August 14th 2013

Decision on Harlesden Incinerator deferred

Outside Ealing Town Hall this evening

The Ealing Planning Committee tonight deferred a decision on the proposd Harlesden Incinerator after councillors expressed concern that they did not have full enough information to make a decision. This was particularly the case with the Council's expert on some of the chemistry involved in emissions and air quality being on leave.

Councillors were particularly concerned that the Regulatory Officers from Ealing, Brent and Hammrsmith and Fulham had all expressed, to different degrees, opposition to the plans.

Planning Officers had argued that because the plans would be reviewed by both the London Mayor and the Secretary of State that they did not sufficient grounds to recommend rejection although they recognised that it was a contentious application which raised serious health and safety issues.

Councillors gave short shrift to officers' argument that the impact of the existing Power Day facility close to the site could not be taken into consideration, and questioned why the site had been chosen when the survey carried out by the West London Waste Authority for suitable waste processing sites had failed to shortlist the Harlesden/Willesden site because there were 'ample' more suitable alternatives available.

It became very clear that councillors were determined to get cast iron guarantees on the facility's safety and pollution caused by lorry movements and were not satisfied with the reassurances they had received.

The decision will now go to a further committee meeting by which time further and better information should be available which both sides will be able to deploy.

Tuesday, 13 August 2013

Urgent call to stop the Harlesden Incinerator

Urgent message from The Island Triangle Residents' Association (TITRA)

STOP THE DUMP!

Planning Decision

Wednesday August 14th

EALING COUNCIL ARE

RECOMMENDING APPROVAL

The incinerator will burn 198,000 tonnes of waste every year, just 200 yards from TITRA home
Smelly waste will arrive by road (130 lorries per day) along Old Oak Lane,Channel Gate Road

PROTEST Outside Ealing Town Hall at 6.15pm on Wednesday August 14th

ATTEND The Planning Committee immediately afterwards, Ealing Town Hall 7pm

COMPLAIN CALL: Ealing Planning 020 8825 6600
email: planning@ealing.gov.uk

Clean Power's application: PP/2012/3267 'Planning Application for Energy Recovery Centre, Channel Gate Road, NW10 6UQ'

Monday, 12 August 2013

Housing Co-op has vacancies in Barham Park

The 476 Housing co-op has some one and three bedroom properties available on the Barham Park Estate in Brent. The estate is a three minutes walk from Sudbury Town tube and ten minutes walk away from Wembley Central which is a joint underground/overground station.

All the flats are in very good unfurnished condition, and should be available for twelve months rental.

As the co-op is a fully mutual organisation founded to provide housing at a fair rent, we do our best to keep the costs as low as possible. The three bedroom flats are ideal for benefits claimants under the age of 35 years who are prepared to share, and all the properties are rented out for less than the Local Housing Allowance for that part of Brent.

If you or anyone you know is interested please contact info@476housing.org.uk as soon as possible.

WEBSITE

'Racist van' will not return without consultation following legal action threat

Solicitors Deighton Pierece Glynn issued the following statement this morning:

The Home Office have agreed never to run adverts telling migrants to go home again without consulting.

Following our letter to the Home Office, threatening legal action of the decision to pilot a campaign driving large vans around London which displayed messages telling migrants to ‘go home’, the Government has confirmed that if any further campaigns of a similar nature are planned, they would carry out a consultation with local authorities and community groups. The Government accepted that the purpose of consulting would be so that it could have ‘due regard’ to the effect a campaign of this nature would have on the communities living in the affected areas.

Our clients’ legal challenge was based on the Government’s failure to comply with the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. This duty requires the Government to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and harassment based on race and religion, as well as to foster good relations between people from different racial and religious groups. Due to the inflammatory nature of the campaign, as voiced by several prominent public figures including Vince Cable MP and the leaders of Brent and Redbridge Councils, the due regard duty was high, and a consultation should have been carried out before the pilot began so that the Government could have properly considered the effect of the campaign before deciding whether to go ahead.

The one week pilot has ended. However, the Government has provided an assurance that if the Home Office were to carry out any further campaigns of this nature it would have due regard to the effect this would have on migrants living in those communities and in so doing would carry out a consultation. Any such consultation would of course have to be meaningful.

One of our clients, Raymond Murray, commented:

I’m very pleased the Home Office has seen sense and will do things differently in future, and hopefully they’ll never try a stunt like this again.

Refugee and Migrant Forum of East London (RAMFEL) and Migrant Rights Network (MRN) will be running a series of workshops across London to support those interested in campaigning against the Government’s anti-immigration policies. Solicitors from Deighton Pierce Glynn and Bhatt Murphy will be on the discussion panels. See here for further information.

The Claimants are represented by Louise Whitfield and Sasha Rozansky.

Sunday, 11 August 2013

Another iconic Willesden Green building to go?

Electric House

Officers are recommending that the August 21st Brent Planning Committee should approve the demolition of the three storey locally listed Electric House in Willesden Lane, which is in a Conservation Area, and its replacement by a 7 storey residential and retail development. The proposal follows on from the battle over the nearby Willesden Green Victorian Library and the current campaign over the future of the Queensbury pub.

The report states:

Council officers are of the opinion that the building does make a contribution towards the local streetscape although its design and appearance make it distinct from the surrounding built environment.

The Council's Urban Design Officer states: The building was Locally listed principally for its stylisticcontribution to local street scape character; in terms of plan form the building has difficult proportions with a very large open ground floor and relatively small floor plates higher up. This makes the reuse of the building very difficult and it is difficult to see what alternative contemporary use could be found that would be able to use the difficult spaces with and success or viability. It is always regrettable to lose a building in a conservation area but as Electric House would be very difficult to viably convert to other uses the Council needs to balance the Community benefits that a new multi-unit residential development may bring. Unfortunately buildings that are difficult to convert lie unused for many years and subsequently suffer from lack of maintenance.

The officers argue that to compensate for the loss any replacement building will have to be of ' the highest quality of design to ensure that it makes a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area'. This should be made a condition of planning approval.

The consultation on the plans received 20 objections among which were:

Loss of an existing local landmark building which contributes to the character of the Willesden Green

Conservation Area.

The proposed building in conjunction with other developments within the town centre will destroy the

character of Willesden Green

The proposed building reflects nothing of the architectural characteristics of the area.

The height of the proposed building would create a terracing effect on an important intersection resulting in

a more dense and darker streetscape.

The building is too large and imposing and out of scale with neighbouring buildings.

Broken roof lines are a feature of the area and will not be replicated with the proposed development.

Loss of light to habitable room windows on the neighbouring Sheil Court

Over-parking on surrounding streets and in car park at Sheil Court

Proposed development will exacerbate existing congestion problems.

The space could be better used as a public park.

If housing is to be built it should be terraced housing or a maximum of four storeys as people are happier

in such buildings.

Having balconies on the road side is misguided as the road is too noisy and dirty for prospective

residents to use and will instead be used as additional storage space which is unsightly.

The Planning and Conservation Areas Act 1990 requires that areas should retain their essential

character, whereas the planned development represents a radical change to the area and will annihilate

the current Conservation Area streetscape.

It fails the challenge to preserve areas of character whilst at the same time enabling higher density

development.

The existing building could be suitably converted for residential.

The proposed development will overshadow a wide number of neighbouring properties

Documentation going before the Committee:

Document 1 LINK Document 2 LINK

More student tower blocks for North End Road, Wembley

Residents of North End Road, and especially those in Danes Court, will have a new towering neighbour if plans for Karma House are approved by Brent Planning Committee on August 21st.

The three storey office block will be replaced by a building of part 9, 14, 17 and 19 storeys comprising 450 private student rooms. The development is very close to the existing 17 storey Victoria Hall student block and the 20 storey mixed hotel/residential development on the former Shubette House site.

The site was subject to a previous planning application in which on the 28th July 2005 Brent's planning committee resolved to grant outline planning permission for the demolition of the existing Karma House building and the erection of a building ranging in height for 8 to 17 storeyscomprising a 120-bedroom hotel on the 1st - 5th floors, 108 timeshare or apartment hotel lets on 6th - 15th floors (84 studios, 24 one-bedroom), a public viewing gallery and restaurant on the 16th floor, one basementlevel of 40 parking spaces and associated facilities. The s106 agreement was signed and outline permission formally granted on the 17th April 2008. The application reference was 05/0626.

The report notes that an application was made to extend the time frame for the earlier application in June and it was hoped to consider both the applications at the same time. However, 'as further information is required' this will now not be considered until September.

The report does not say why, in this case, the student block application was not considered until then, One local resident's consultation comment on the current plan said:

Any further proposed development via increased density should positively impact the lives of existing residents and empower them.The previous scheme (hotel,restaurant, viewing gallery) would invite and attract residents and the public and would be useful to them while another exclusive student development would not. These student developments only serve to make money for their developers at a complete loss of amenity to existing residents.

Some of the residents say that the construction of what in effect is a 'student village' close to their homes will change the nature of a quiet family residential area while others claim that the Victoria Hall development has resulted in no tangible benefits for local people.

Officers recommending approval of the scheme note that the development, coming on top of the 2,600 plus student rooms completed or in process, will nonetheless not breach the 20% limit the Council put on the student proportion of new residents. However, they insert the caveat that it may be breached in the short-term if this accommodation comes on stream before other developments are completed.

The report claims that the protected views of Wembley Stadium from Barn Hill will not be detrimentally affected by the development and say that 'natural surveillance' makes 24 hour security on the block unnecessary.

Full report HERE