Have your say on the Northfields development in Alperton - starting this evening

Not the Ealing Northfields but a brownfield site just north of the North Circular Road between Alperton and Stonebridge Park station. The development has been the subject of several consultations and another phase starts today with a 'Walk and Talk' workshop.

Places are limited at these events so please book your place in advance by emailing  info@futurenorthfields.com

Tonight's workshop will start at the new Northfields Information Centre building on Beresford Avenue.

Is £17.8m spend on Wembley Stadium public realm a good use of CIL cash?

I am grateful to fellow blogger James Powney LINK for drawing attention to last week's Cabinet decision to spend £17.8m of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) cash raised through the Quintain development on improving the Public Realm outside Brent Civic Centre and along Olympic Way.

Just in case we thought that there may be other areas of Wembley or Brent  that could do with an infrastucture uplift, Brent claim that there will be benefits for the borough as well as Quintain.  In particular they want a public square outside the Wembley Library and restrictions on Quintain's plans for site NW04 adjacent to the Civic Centre. They argue that this will support an 'education quarter'. The Council has told the College of North West London LINK that it wishes to acquire the College's Wembley Site and 'would not look favourably on planning permission for the required housing provision if the college proceeds with an alternative developer.'

 This is what the Officer's Report LINK had to say: 

To assist in achieving the vision for Wembley, a significant element in terms of place making is the provision of new and substantial steps to the stadium to replace the pedestrian way (‘pedway’) and works to the public realm between Wembley Park underground station and the National Stadium Wembley: Olympic Way. This will enhance the area, both from an aesthetic and functional requirement. 


Olympic Way as a piece of public realm is showing its age. It does not present the type of quality considered consistent with the environment necessary for a world renowned iconic venue and the wider Wembley Park development. In the context of other pressing infrastructure needs and other Council revenue spending requirements, a response might be that a significant Council funding contribution 
towards these changes should be a low priority. Nevertheless, this would be a simplistic and does not take account of all factors, including limitations associated with funding streams generated from development. CIL funding attained by the Council is specifically related to infrastructure and is not available to support Council general revenue spending. In addition this proposed change in public realm should be seen as part of a wider picture about what will be achieved in Wembley which will have far reaching positive impacts for Brent and its prospects.

Improved public realm has a key role in place-making. Such changes in their own right have the potential to totally transform the perception and function of an area. It can lead to enhanced social and economic value benefits that far outweigh the initial investment. Notable examples of the impacts of such transformational public realm changes are Regent’s Street, Granary Square at Kings Cross, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Liverpool city centres. Empirical evidence set out in valuing the Benefits of Regeneration published by CLG 2010 indicates a benefit cost ratio of 1.4 for public realm work. Specific evidence associated with Sheffield indicated that the £9.5 million invested in the Peace Gardens has generated £4.5 million visitor shopping/leisure spend per annum that otherwise would not have occurred. In addition it attracted commercial property investment and occupiers that otherwise would not have come, improving investment yields with the associated economic benefits of providing access to future investor funding. 


The transformational change of Wembley has and will continue to require strong partnership working between the Council, developers and key stakeholders. As part of providing certainty and support for investment, the Council has previously identified that it will use contributions generated by Quintain’s developments to support the new infrastructure. Key elements relate to where these contributions will be prioritised relate to the provision of new jobs and homes and improvements to the environment and public realm. As part of the shared vision for Wembley, the Council has worked closely with Quintain in identifying the quality of public space that both organisations consider is necessary to enhance the Wembley offer. 

Following a design competition, in which the council participated, Dixon Jones were selected as Architects and Gross Max as Landscape Architects for Olympic Way. Designs have been developed over a number of months that when implemented will: 

·                 Provide new hard and soft landscaping throughout 


·                 New coordinated crossing at Fulton Road 


·                 New Lighting columns with large banners and future digital screens 


·                 New Trees 


·                 Built in services to allow pop up and cultural events 


·                 Fast Wifi throughout 


·                 Containment for future digital screens 


·                 Wayfinding 


·                 Create a significant square outside Civic Centre 


·                 Remove of the Pedway and new substantial steps 


·                 Enhanced entrance to the stadium 


·                 New Retail / meeting point below new stadium steps 


·                 Removal of surplus ramps and steps adjacent to 1 Olympic Way 


·                 Cycle parking at Wembley Park station 


·                 Treatment to Bobby Moore Bridge 


·      Long term management arrangements through potential for designation as a ‘Area of special interest’ 

Powney, an ex-Labour councillor, comments:

I am not not reassured by the opacity of Quintain's relationship with the Council, or what often strike me as the perverse judgements of Cllr Muhammed Butt in planning matters, or the degree to which the Planning Committee is independent of the Council Leader's influence. 

Agreed.

Greens challenge tree felling in Gladstone Park

The Green Party's parliamentary candidate for Brent Central, Shaka Lish, has challenged Brent Council about the felling of trees in Gladstone Park.

Accusing Brent Council of an act of 'wilful vandalism' she asked, 'What is the point of cutting down our beautiful, healthy, ancient trees?' She asked if the Council had any plans to replace them.

At the recent Brent Clean Air meeting at the Civic Centre, Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt, extolled the benefits of trees to combat air pollution but a closer examination shows this may be no more than hot air.

A Freedom of Information request by Wembley Matters LINK established that Brent Council keeps no records of trees lost, felled and replaced in its parks and that none of the 62 trees removed on Brent Housing Partnership estates Jan 1st-Dec 31st 2016 had been replaced.

Parks maintenance is contracted  out to Veolia as part of the Public Realm contract and Gristwood and Toms is contracted to deal with trees over a specific height.

It's ironic given all the above that Brent Council has received a Forestry Commission London's Trees and Woodland Award LINK:

Borough Tree Award - Brent Council Tree Planting Project, Sudbury Town, Barn Hill, Harlesden and Kensal Green 

The Trees and Development Award: Wembley Park – Arena Square and Wembley Park Boulevard.  Market Square (meantime planting). Quintain, London Borough of Brent

St Raphael's Fun Day - Brent at its best!

Widespread objections to Alperton high rise giant

Guest post by Andrew Linnie.  This issue was covered earlier on Wembley Matters LINK

R55’s Minavil House project in Alperton has been the subject of much debate and controversy for some time now. The tower, standing at 26 storeys, will bring a huge shift in the landscape of the area, and was described by various industry publications as the tallest building in the entire borough. This came as quite a surprise to residents both old and new, as the 2011 Alperton Masterplan adopted by Brent Council set out a vision for the area of buildings up to a maximum of 17 storeys. It would stand to reason that a building a full 9 storeys above the maximum height for the area would be a cause for debate, but Brent Council seemed uninterested in engaging with the discussion.

The proposal shown towering over twelve storeys above its nearest neighbour (Submitted application drawings).

At the planning committee meeting in May, I put forward the concerns of residents in the two minute speaking time allotted to a single objector. It is of note that the council allows three minutes to the developer to put forward their case. Those concerns included the loss of light and sky to surrounding dwellings, the spurious transport impact figures used, and the fact that the building directly contravened the supporting planning document (SPD) for the area. These issues were largely disregarded in the ensuing discussion among councillors and the scheme was approved. None of the three councillors for Alperton (Cllrs Allie, Chohan and Patel) attended the meeting.

At this point I wrote a petition which over 200 residents signed, and further problems with the development were noted. In its disregard for context the project’s density runs off the charts, featuring twice the number of housing units per hectare of neighbouring schemes. A conversation with an independent transport assessor involved with another development in the ward reinforced the assertion that the transport impact figures presented at the meeting – of just two additional passengers per train at peak times – were wildly underestimating the impact of a development this size. The issues of light and sky persisted, and concerns about access and the level of parking provided remain unanswered (there are 251 homes but only 35 parking spaces, most of which are for a Lidl on the ground floor). It also emerged that the architectural justifications for the project’s height from R55’s own online publication misrepresented the scale of neighbouring buildings and created an impression of the constructed landscape rising towards the Minavil site which, in reality, does not exist.

The architectural justification for the project, with the actual numbers of storeys added. It shows large leaps in height between buildings only three storeys apart, and a small step up from 14 to 26 storeys. The image also implies a rising contour between two 11 storey buildings of equal height (R55).

The petition was addressed to MP for Brent North Barry Gardiner, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, the members of the GLA including our local assembly member Navin Shah, and the councillors for the ward of Alperton and Brent in general.

Mr Gardiner held a meeting in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy in which he addressed the issues of residents in high rise buildings. Present at the meeting were many locals, representatives of housing trusts, Brent Borough Fire Commander Mark Davis, and the Head of Planning for Brent. When pursued by Mr Gardiner on the point of whether such proposals are assessed for their fire risk, the Head of Planning admitted they are not. For a disproportionately tall building with a small footprint, on a site hemmed in by a canal, a bridge and an industrial estate, this added further grave concerns for neighbouring homes.

Though Mr Shah’s office and Mr Gardiner were responsive to the petition, the scheme was passed back from the Mayor of London to Brent for approval with no intervention. Unless the Secretary of State for Planning (Alok Sharma) decides to intervene, the building work will commence, reportedly in November. At that point the debate will inevitably turn from one about this particular site to one about the wider area, and what kind of regeneration the local population want. When commitments are made to residents to lead a regeneration area in a certain direction and then entirely forgotten at the planning committee level, questions must be asked as to whether Brent Council are representing the interests of local people or the interests of developers.

Matt Hutchinson at Tone's Friday 28th July

Our rights to safe housing-South Kilburn Meeting tonight

Brent Housing Scrutiny Committee also meets tonight (7pm Brent Civic Centre) and has an item on Fire Safety in Brent buildings as well as an update on the BHP being taken back in-house.

Breathing London - Brent's Parks and Open Spaces (as you've never seen them before)

Guest post by Philip Grant

I have just heard about the "Breathing London" project organised by the Royal Photographic Society earlier this year, which aimed to capture the diversity of London's public green and open spaces. It produced a website with a large gallery of photographs, which you can visit and search by borough to see pictures of parks and open spaces, large and small, in your area.Link

One of the local photographers taking part was Gareth Davies from Kingsbury, who specialises in 360 degree panorama images. He photographed all 92 of the parks and open spaces listed by Brent Council as public spaces which they (or the City of London) maintain in the borough. His fascinating pictures are on the "Breathing London" website, but you can also view them as a slideshow on his own website. Link  

 

 There you will find local parks that you did not know existed, and some that you have never visited, but will know that you want to visit now. Why not go and explore some of them (perhaps with your children or grandchildren, in the school holidays) this summer?