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.