Wembley: How it feels to live on a multi-building site

Guest post by Wembley resident Jaine Lunn
 

A normal day in the life of one Wembley Central resident.

Thank god for a very rainy day, Wednesday 2^nd August 2017.

 At least it keeps all the dust and fumes down from the numerous developments under construction or demolition within 500 metres of my home.

 No birdsong, lack of trees I guess, just numerous HGV’s back and forth fromeight building sites.  Parking wherever they can, engines running, irrespective of pavements or pedestrians, off loading, collecting and delivering skips, and all manner of toxic waste.  Air Quality? What’s that? Brent Council concerned about doing something about it – er I doubt it, well certainly not for the next few years, maybe in 2021 when most of these developments will have been completed.

Cotterell House, Formerly unused and home to Blue Rooms Restaurant	Wembley Hill Road Currently under demolition	55 Residential, 6/8/10 storeys
Mahatma Gandi House Former Brent Council Housing Offices	Wembley Hill Road Under demolition	198 Residential 10 & 21 storeys
South West Lands (Quintain) Area around Chiltern Cutting and South Way	South Way Under construction	800+ Residential Up to 19 storeys
Brent House Former One Stop Shop for most council services	Wembley High Road Under demolition	248 Residential Various sizes no more than 13 storeys = to Elizabeth House
Jenga Court Converted office block	Wembley High Road under construction	34 Residential 6 Storeys
Lanmor House Converted office block	Wembley High Road Under construction	36 Residential 6 storeys
Ark Elvin Academy Former Coplands School	To rear of Wembley High Road Under construction
Chesterfield House Former Brent Council	Wembley High Road and Park Lane	239 Residential units 21 and 26 storeys
8 total in progress		Total 1,610 Units

Jenga Court and Lanmor House were granted planning permission under permitted development so Brent Council had no say in what was being built or size of flats etc, and could not demand amenity space, storage or reduce existing car parking provison.

In actually reading Wembley Calling and Wembley Master Plan regeneration etc etc:

How many of these developments meet the 25% stated for 3 bed+ homes desperately needed in this area?

How many have allowed 10% for disabled use?

How many meet the minimum requirements of amenity space and storage for the amount of residents that will inhabit these properties?

As many of these buildings will be “Car Free Developments” ……we all know what that old chestnut means.  Where will all these people park their cars?  Wembley is already at astronomic proportions of gridlock during peak hours on a normal day, let alone Event days. 

Buses and Trains are heaving with people on a daily basis.  TfL need to have a re-think of how they are going to deliver public transport in this area when its population is expanding at a phenomenal rate.

Whilst I accept that Wembley is one of the best locations for service by Public Transport with its numerous train stations and buses, in its present form it does not provide the kind of service that makes people want to give up their cars. Many of my neighbours who live in the CPZ and all have permits to park, need their vehicles to get to work.  Many work unsociable hours at Heathrow Airport or in companies providing 24 hour services/logistics often starting between 3.00 and 5.00 am when public transport is not available to get them to their destinations, or bring them home past midnight, only to find out they cannot park as the CPZ ends at 6.30 p.m. creating a “free for all” if you can find a space that is.

GJA: Time to get angry about air pollution

From the Greener Jobs Alliance

The Greener Jobs Alliance gives a response to the Government Air Pollution Plan published in July 2017 and identifies how union and community activists can respond.

No one can say that the Government hasn’t been given a chance to get this right. We’ve had 3 court cases since 2011 all pointing out that the UK is in breach of its legal duty. In May 2017 a consultation document where the overwhelming response was that more needs to be done. Finally, on July 26th, we got the publication of ‘The UK plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide emissions’. LINK


Not surprisingly the ‘plan’ has been panned for failing to tackle this public health emergency. By not adequately addressing what should be done now, rather than in 23 years time, the Government has condemned thousands of people to a premature death. Advocating a ban on petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040 is all well and good, but we needed a clear framework for the urgent implementation of clean air zones before 2020. Other shortcomings are highlighted in articles published following the launch of the report.

Five things you need to know about Gove's air pollution plans - Energy Desk

FoE Latest on Air Quality Plan

The government's air pollution plan is a beautiful smokescreen - Guardian Environment

We agree with Client Earth’s James Thornton’s observation that “it is little more than a shabby rewrite of the previous draft plans and is underwhelming and lacking in urgency. Having promised to make air quality a top priority, Michael Gove appears to have fallen at the first hurdle.”

What happened to the ‘polluter pays principle’?

The Greener Jobs Alliance called for specific duties to be placed on businesses. In our submission to the consultation, we pointed out that ‘There should be a legal duty on large businesses to carry out an emissions assessment. For example, a single employer may be responsible for generating thousands of vehicle movements every day by their staff and suppliers. They need to provide evidence that they have a transport policy in place to bring their emissions down within clear time limits’. 

  It is part of a system that fails to make oil, gas and coal companies face up to the wider social costs inflicted by their products. In fact, they end up getting massive subsidies. For example, earlier this year files were leaked showing £4.9 billion provided to fossil fuel firms in export finance by the government since 2010. LINK


Far from setting out any obligations on employers, the Government plan advocates the exact opposite. We are told in Para 47 that ‘The UK government is clear that any action to improve air quality must not be done at the expense of local businesses’. So much for the principle of the polluter pays. Most air pollution is generated by work-related activities and yet the individual and the state pick up the bill. The need for a focus on employer’s responsibilities makes it even more important that trades unions start to get serious about air pollution. This is a workplace issue and must be treated as such.

Mandatory Clean Air Zones needed

Defra’s own evidence makes it clear that charge zones are the most effective way to tackle pollution. Yet local authorities don’t have to produce plans until December 2018. Implementation could take much longer and cash strapped councils will find it hard to comply. A campaign is needed urgently to turn CAZs that charge or ban dirty vehicles from a last resort to a first resort measure. They must be coordinated and funded by central government. This is a national public health crisis and requires a national response. Who should pay for this? Large businesses that fail to show effective measures for reducing their distribution/supply and travel emissions.

What should trade unions do?

Union members measure air pollution outside and inside the workplace

Currently, the UCU is the only union with national policy on tackling air pollution. Every union needs to draw up plans for involving their safety reps in making this an occupational health priority. Indoor and outdoor pollution are often linked. Toxic air kills whether a worker is exposed inside or outside a building. It is also an area that lends itself to cross union engagement through trades union councils linking up at a city and regional level with community activists. Unions also need to get involved in consultations over the introduction and implementation of Clean Air Zones. In addition to London, there are 28 other local authorities in England that are required to take local action in ’the shortest possible time’. These are referenced on Page 31 of the report. Unions need to check this list and prioritise how they will respond.

Additional night time fire patrols at Forum House, Wembley Park

FirstPort, the property services company for Forum House at Wembley Park have issued the following advice to leaseholders and residents:

Fire Safety and ACM Cladding on part of Forum House

The following information has been issued to keep you fully abreast of the current position in respect of the building in the unlikely event of a fire at the property.

Following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower we have carried out some reviews of the building that we manage, in line with Government (DCLG) advice.

Through this review it has been established that some of the trim on the roof section and parts of the facia of The North Core (above the reception) are partially clad in a silver aluminium cladding material which is referred to as ACM. This relates to a small proportion of the building façade and at this juncture should not give rise to undue concern albeit that we are considering the options and actions open to us.

On receiving this information we contacted the Fire and Rescue Services and also notified the building’s insurers to establish if any immediate action was required. Initial findings are that no immediate action is necessary.

You may have heard it reported that the Government has produced an updated document, setting out fresh guidelines for testing procedure/s. This includes testing the entire cladding system and not just the exterior cladding material.
This is important as the systems behind this cladded facia can be key to the structure’s performance in the event of a fire, and the nature of this system can differ significantly from building to building.

As a result we need to consider the further guidance provided from these results before we can definitively conclude if any action or replacement is to be required on Forum House.

In the interim we pro-actively invited the Fire Brigade to carry out an inspection of the building in order to ascertain if there was anything further we can do to enhance fire safety at Forum House. Thankfully they were happy with the processes and strategy we have in place and were satisfied that we operate the development correctly and efficiently in terms of fire safety.

Nevertheless, taking into account the guidance issued by the Fire Brigade at other affected comparable buildings, we have instructed additional patrols of the building by the onsite staff during the night time and I can confirm that these have begun. These will stay in place until further notice.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind you all that a “stay put” policy is in operation at Forum House in the unlikely event of a fire. Homes and developments such as Forum House are built with fire compartmentation, which is designed to resist the passage of fire between the walls and doors giving ample time for the fire services to arrive.

In this way, the fire service are given plenty of time to assess risks and ensure that, if needed, any evacuation is managed in a safe and orderly fashion.

In addition, the communal corridors and escape passages at Forum House are equipped with smoke ventilation systems to improve conditions for means of escape and fire-fighting by limiting obscuration and toxicity in the common escape routes. These systems are tested regularly and in line with manufacturers recommendations.

We understand that there may be concerns around the “stay put” policy at this time. The following remains the guidance from the London Fire Brigade:

“If there is a fire inside your apartment leave, closing the door behind you and call 999. If there is a fire elsewhere in the building, and not inside your own apartment their advice is to stay put. The Fire Service will carry out an evacuation of the other apartments if necessary.”

Further information can be found on http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/staying-in-or-going- out.asp.

We also ask that residents ensure they remove anything that is combustible on their balconies. This is of course a stipulation in your lease but as is apparent from walking around the building there are a number of residents that continue to breach this lease requirement. Barbeques and storing items other than small garden furniture are examples of such breaches. In light of the above, we would ask that you comply with this instruction as a matter of urgency.

Fire safety should be at the forefront of everyone’s mind, and to that end please ensure you are comfortable with the fire procedures, know where the nearest fire exit is and make sure the smoke alarms in your apartment are tested regularly and replaced every 10 years. It is also good practice to close all your apartment’s internal doors when you go to bed at night.

We will advise if any specific action or change is needed and we will continue to keep you updated in relation to this matter. Meanwhile, we will also continue to track any findings or new guidelines and take the appropriate actions.

Finally, should you have any further general questions or queries we would in the first instance refer you to the enclosed statement and guidance relating to fire safety. However, should you have any questions that are not answered by this document then please do not hesitate to contact us.

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.