Uproar over Brent's Alperton high rise approval, despite application “failing to meet requirements in 13 different matters”

Guest post by Alperton resident Andrew Linnie

Once again questions are being raised regarding the scrutiny under which Brent Council Planning Committee examines applications in the Alperton growth area, after the approval on August 9^th of a development at 245-253 Ealing Road. 

The site is formed of two small plots separated by a private laneway, one section a disused HSBC bank and the other formerly a pub called the Plough. As was the case with Minavil House in May, I was speaking on behalf of locals in opposition to the proposal. Neighbouring residents objected for a wide variety of reasons, and the planners at Brent Council conceded that the plans for the development, which will feature 92 flats in two towers over 9 and 10 stories, failed to meet a large number of planning regulations and considerations.

 

144 neighbouring windows failed light assessments, yet were deemed acceptable anyway. Some homes, between this scheme and the impact of 255 Ealing Road, are losing almost all of their direct sunlight. It was asked at the meeting of August 9^th what the point of such assessments is, if even the worst affected windows are to be deemed “acceptable given the context”. The effect of the buildings’ imposing height is exacerbated by the fact that their positioning fails to meet standards – none of the nearby existing buildings is 20m away as recommended by the London Plan, and one building, the currently-under-construction 255 Ealing Road, is less than 10m away from the proposed towers, failing to even meet the less stringent 10m separation guideline required elsewhere.

 

Residents also raised concerns over the legality of access through private land to the new development. According to the submitted plans, the emergency exit at the rear of Block A of the building opens directly into garden beds owned and maintained by residents of the 243 Ealing Road development, though the plans incorrectly show this as being paved. The residential and commercial refuse stores on the side of the same block open facing a privately owned laneway connecting Hatton and Ealing Roads. The access to these stores along the side of the building is less than 100cm wide at its narrowest point, narrower than Brent Council’s 1100 litre bins. 

Planners recommended in a supplementary report that access should be added into the refuse stores from the private laneway bisecting the site, ignoring the fact that it is privately owned and maintained by residents of the development next door. This was just one of many design flaws in the plan, including a wheelchair accessible unit included on the ninth floor of a building with just one lift, and the fact that, although obscured windows are planned for the rear of block A to avoid encroaching on privacy in neighbouring Braunston House, there are still balconies looking directly into nearby homes.

The mix of housing was another concern which failed tests. Just 16% of units are family sized, well short of the 25% requirement, and the affordable housing provision fails to meet expectations by some distance, at 26%. The density of surrounding schemes is 260 housing units/hectare, the maximum recommended in the London Plan. The scheme approved this week is 800 units/hectare. Planners said this is mitigated by the community space provided, a community space which less than a quarter of respondents in the public consultation said they wanted, and which is only 166sqm.

The current non-residential space provided on the site is 832sqm, so this “mitigation” actually represents a loss of over 80% plus added demand, while Alperton still has under half the open space of an average London ward. Saying that the density is similar to nearby developments ignores the fact that those developments included a significant provision of open space and retail units, which are still unused due to a lack of access.

 

This, like other developments nearby, is described as ‘car-free’ and provides 10 disabled spaces for accessible units, but no parking for the other 82 homes. The impact of this is estimated to be 66 additional cars parking in neighbouring streets, leading to an extension of the Controlled Parking Zone. There is a large provision for cycle parking, however the roads nearby are all marked red in the lowest category for cycle safety by TFL, and the only segregated cycle lane in the ward of Alperton, along the canal, is unlit and dangerous at night. 

While the buildings are close to Alperton Station, TFL say Alperton ward has one of the lowest average PTAL (Public Transport Access) scores in all of Brent. Hundreds of new homes have been approved in the area without any plan for improved services, notably the 251 units in the controversial 26 storey Minavil House tower, approved in May despite widespread opposition and a limit of 17 storeys in the area’s Masterplan. According to an independent transport assessor the figures presented at the council for the transport impact of Minavil House nearby were out by a factor of 8. Once again, there was much debate at planning committee level regarding the quality of transport services in the area, particularly with regard to the accessibility of Alperton Station and the lack of night services. The state of medical services in the area, already severely stretched, was also raised.

 

The Plough Pub, which has been closed for over a year, was open until developers purchased the site. Cllr Mary Daly pursued the planning officers on the issue of the pub’s upkeep, and the fact that it was not advertised for lease for the statutory 24 months after closure. The building has been allowed to decay since its closure, according to residents. 

Cllr Michael Maurice at one point of the meeting counted off 13 matters in which the proposal failed to meet guidelines and requirements.

The developers of the scheme failed to take into consideration the views put forward in the initial consultation. The design is seen by many as inappropriate for the site and lacks context, to the point that the area will become a patchwork of clashing styles. There are five unrelated styles of high rise architecture already approved or constructed, this adding yet another. The developer made no effort to gather views from residents until the week in the run up to the planning meeting, at which point it was much too late to make a difference. 42 addresses objected to the scheme, none responded in favour. Many also raised concerns as to the safety of residents during the construction phase, as the buildings occupy the entire site and will necessitate external building space, impacting on the ability of emergency services to access neighbouring homes.

 "Are our councillors and planners here to enforce the laws and guidelines for local people, 

or to make excuses and exceptions for private developers?”

When speaking at the meeting on behalf of objecting residents, I concluded by asking our representatives what their duty in the process is, in the their opinion: “This scheme fails light, massing, density, air, noise, access and other tests, yet is recommended for approval. Are our councillors and planners here to enforce the laws and guidelines for local people, or to make excuses and exceptions for private developers?”

The Planning Committee was split three votes to three, with Cllr Daly abstaining despite raising many concerns. At that point the chair, Cllr Agha, cast a deciding vote in favour of the development proceeding, and in doing so gave me an answer to my question. One wonders at this point just how many guidelines and regulations a developer would have to ignore for Brent Council Planning Committee to refuse them permission.

Ealing Road development likely to attract opposition at Planning Committee tonight

Brent Planning Committee will be considering an application for 245-9 and 257 Ealing Road, HA0 1EX this evening.

A partly 9 storey and part 10 storey building will replace the present two storey buildings (above) with 92 flats: 7 studios, 45 1 bedroom, 26 2 bedrooms and 14 3 bedrooms.

The Plough, a large pub, would be replaced by a smaller pub on the ground floor.  The pub would be run as a commercial enterprise with some community access by agreement.

Unusually a supplementary report has been tabled LINK with many additional and altered conditions.

The application has attracted 42 objections, mainly from residents of the new blocks recently built in the area who see the development as threatening their amenity. LINK

Revealed-the true extent and cost of fly-tipping in Brent

The Local Government Association has published an analysis LINK of the extent and cost of fly-tipping in different local authorities. They are careful to point out difficulties in terms of making direct comparisons between authorities (1) but it makes for interesting reading and shows what a huge challenge the issue is here in Brent and across the country. Whether the higher bulk collection fee LINK Brent has introduced from September will worsen the problem remains to be seen.

On the tables below the comparison is with the mean for London local authorities, excluding the City of London. The site is interactive so if you visit you can select other comparisons.

(1) This data is from the collection "ENV24 Fly-tipping incidents and actions taken", published by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Fly-tipping statistics are taken from the WasteDataFlow database.

Fly-tipping is the illegal deposit of waste on land, contrary to Section 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Local authorities and the Environment Agency both have a responsibility in respect of illegally deposited waste. This includes local authorities and the Environment Agency collecting and reporting data on fly-tipping in their area, this dataset however, only includes LA collected data. Due to varying levels of estimation between councils and years, some caution is needed in the interpretation of the trends. Direct comparison between local authorities may also not be appropriate as there can be some differences in approach, where there is a level of discretion in using the guidance on reporting. The situation is complex and can be influenced by population density, housing stock, demographics, commuter routes, the rigour with which local authorities identify incidents or encourage the public to report incidents, training of street crews, and increased used of more sophisticated methods for capturing and reporting incidents. Therefore, in assessing the figures local authorities should not be classified as 'good' or 'poor' performers based purely on numbers of fly-tips.

UPDATE Gladstone Park trees: Brent claims only the dead, dying, diseased or dangerous are felled

Brent Council has responded to Green Party candidate Shaka Lish's concerns LINK about the large number of trees recently felled in Gladstone Park with this statement:

We do not remove trees that are healthy and do not threaten to undermine property or threaten personal safety, staff and visitors. The trees that have been removed were dead, dying, diseased or considered to be dangerous and threatening to cause harm to persons or property. The most recent tree to be felled was near the railway line, it had failed at its base and would have fallen across the railway line if left. The trees are inspected by Arborists prior to being felled, unless it is an emergency then Health & Safety comes first.

The Council did not say if the trees are to be replaced.

This is Shaka's response:

Who are the Aborists making these decisions? Is this a new company that Brent is using? It is apparent to many users of the park that in recent times there is a lot of felling taking place, more than has happened in the past. Has your health and safety policy been updated? Changed? The two trees that have recently been cut down were perfectly healthy, there was nothing wrong with them at all. So can you specifically explain to me why they were felled? Here's an inserted picture of one of the trees in the height of Autumn, looking perfectly healthy.

Also, more importantly, I would like to know, as a Brent Green party candidate, campaigner and member, are you keeping a record of the number of trees that are being cut down and do you plan to replace them?

These trees are our heritage and our history. Some are hundreds of years old. They are our natural allies in our fight against pollution and they contribute to our health and wellbeing. They are beautiful and majestic to look at and be around. Brent seems to be cutting down these trees with no thought to these important benefits. Do you have any idea how heartbreaking it is to see these grand trees cut down in this way? I am not alone in feeling this way and I will make sure that it is publicly and widely known the actions that Brent is taking and win support to make sure this violence against our trees is properly accountable and justified.

Now the government hands Quintain £76m loan

Housing Minister Alok Sharma and Quintain's Head of Communications Harriet Park

 Hard on the heels of Brent Council's decision LINK to spend £17.6m of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on public realm infrastructure in the Quintain development comes news that the UK government is to loan Quintain £76m to provide infrastructure for its Wembley development.

Quintain, owned by Dallas based private equity company Lone Star LINK seems to be doing quite well from both local and national government.

Announcing the loan, housing minister Alok Sharma said: “Developments like Wembley Park are a great example of…boosting the choice and quality of homes on the market.” Sharma also promised to relax planning regulations to allow more such schemes.
 
Quintain Chief Executive Angus Dodd, said: “This £65m government loan will be match funded by Quintain to provide a £130m infrastructure investment into Wembley Park to deliver new car and coach parking, an energy centre and the first phase of the new seven-acre public park. Not only will this funding allow these critical elements to be brought forward, it will also support the more rapid delivery of new homes.”

The new homes in question are 7,600 new flats of which 6,800 will be for private rent. It is the UK's biggest development of homes built specifically for private rent. These homes will not be affordable for Wembley residents earning the average local income.

Brent Council introduces £35 charge for bulky waste collections & gives tips on how to avoid the charge

From the Brent Council website

Residents are being called upon to offer their old white goods and furniture to charities and others through online web communities in a bid to help those in need - and avoid the cost of a collection of bulky items.

From September, collection charges in Brent for large items such as sofas, beds and washing machines will be brought into line with those of neighbouring boroughs and Brent Council is keen for its residents to avoid paying out unnecessarily for a collection.

“It doesn’t make any sense to pay someone to get rid of something, that someone else in your local community would gladly take off you for nothing,” Cllr Eleanor Southwood, Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for the Environment, said.

“Online web communities such as Freecycle and Freegle and several auctioneering sites are becoming more and more popular and they are a great way to link up people in need of certain items that can’t afford to buy new, with those who need to get rid.

“We have heard how people have used these sites to get rid of everything from an old piano, drawers, wardrobes, beds, electronic equipment, baby buggies through to empty paint pots, so it’s true that one person’s junk is another’s treasure.

“Charity shops too are interested in what you might be off-loading and many offer a collection service for furniture, so it may be worth a call to them in the first instance to see if you can support a worthy cause.

“Of course, it may be the case that your item can’t be used by the charities and Freecycle users, so if you are unable to take it to the Abbey Road recycling centre yourself, you may wish to order a special collection.”

Bulky waste collections with private companies start at around £50 and increase in price depending on the weight of the items collected, however Brent Council offers up to five bulky items collected at price of £35.

Neighbouring Harrow also charges £35 but for four items, Ealing charges £40 for eight items, Barnet charges £45 for one electrical item and Hounslow charges £50 for five items. Only Camden is cheaper than Brent, with up to five items collected for £25.

Cuts to local council budgets have led Brent and other local authorities to find new ways to cover the cost of providing a bulky waste collection service, however exceptions will be made for the most hard-pressed residents as eligible benefit claimants will not be charged for a one-off collection.

Cllr Southwood added:

“Like anything in life it would be great if the service was free for everyone, but year-on-year cuts to our budget from central government mean that’s just not a possibility.

“The good news though is that if you can’t donate, sell or give away your items, then at £35 this is a really competitively priced service which helps keep it sustainable and offers Brent residents great value for money.”

Give it away and save

Charities

Most charity shops love to take things off you that you no longer need. If you have trouble finding a shop willing to take a large item, try the British Heart Foundation's free furniture and electrical collection service.

Online sites and web communities

• Freecycle – the original platform for helping match up those in need of certain items, with those who want rid.
• Freegle – Around 17,000 people in Brent are using Freegle to give away and make use of items that are no longer needed by some people.
• Gumtree – Online classified adverts to pass on your no longer needed items.
• Facebook – Now featuring local buy and sell groups to sell or giveaway items with no fees.
• eBay – Buy and sell items on the well-known online auctioning site.
• Preloved - The popular classified site features a Freeloved section, letting you pick up things for free. While it's free to advertise your wares, users pay £5/year to get first dibs on the latest freebies.
• SnaffleUp - While still relatively small, SnaffleUp's modern design means it's easy to browse for freebies.
• Re-cycle - A charity that isn’t able to collect unwanted bicycles, but can take them off you at several drop off points for them to be reused in developing countries in Africa.

Know of any others? Let us know and we’ll update this web page.

Save money

If your bulky item can’t be re-used and you need a special collection, then why not ask if your neighbours if they have anything to get rid of at the same time, so that you can split the cost of collecting the five items with them?

No to privatisation of public assets - StopHDV latest

From StopHDV

A Judicial Review of the Haringey Development (Demolition) Vehicle  is being filed in the High Court this week on the grounds of it not having been consulted on, never having gone to a full Council, equalities impact not having been adequately considered, and on the risk to public finances not being made transparent or explained. There was a successful crowdfunding campaign which along with local collections and donations has raised  £25,000 towards legal costs. The last update on this is HERE

The campaign is a broad coalition of forces including both constituency Labour parties, LibDems, Greens, trades unions, community organisations, residents and leaseholders associations. Despite this the ‘red Tory’ Labour Cabinet led by Claire Kober, who also is chair of London Councils, are determined to go ahead with the £2 Billion transfer of the local authority’s Council estates, land and property including over 500 business units to a partnership with Lendlease. We believe however they cannot sign any contracts while this in legal dispute and a hearing could be any time through the autumn.

September is a critical month in linking this — the biggest attempted privatisation of local authority assets in UK history — with the various similar attempts at social cleansing and depriving ordinary people of their rights to housing across London in favour of corporate developer-led ‘’regeneration’’. We are aware particularly of what Lendlease has done in Southwark, of the Cressingham Gardens campaign in Lambeth, and of new developments in Tower Hamlets, and possibly Camden, and in most cases in Labour-controlled authorities. We wish to mobilise with groups such as the Radical Housing Network, ASH, Defend Council Housing, those demanding justice for Grenfell in K and C, and others to build a fightback across London sufficient to turn the tide against these ‘’regenerations’’ which are attacking the very lives of our communities.
StopHDV is calling a march on Saturday 23 September in Haringey which will have key speakers from elsewhere as well as local and we want as many as possible from across the capital to join. First details below:

The plan so far is to assemble on Saturday 23rd September at around noon at Tottenham Green (150 yards up the hill from Seven Sisters Tube station), then march from 1pm to assemble around 2.30 - 3  at Finsbury Park.  The route should take us past Seven Sisters up West Green Road along Green Lanes to Finsbury Park. Depending on consent from the authorities, we may have to reverse the route and start at Finsbury Park.

Finsbury Park is close to two tube stations (Manor House and Finsbury Park.). It is also where Haringey, Hackney and Islington meet and not far from the Camden borders. No local Spurs match that day  (they'll be playing at Wembley) and no Arsenal one either, so no congestion on transport from football crowds.  

The start and end points should make it fairly easy for most of London to get to and from. It just needs building across London. Please tell your contacts!
More information HERE