Brent Planners' rulings in Wembley: Curiouser and Curiouser

“Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).  [Alice in Wonderland]

 

A modern day Alice in Wembleyland may have a similar reaction to some of the content of reports coming up before the Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday for developments around Wembley Stadium which are in Council leader Muhammed Butt's Tokyngton ward.

Despite recent publicity about planners ignoring the stipulations of Brent's own planning policies, as well as the London plan, convoluted arguments are used to justify ignoring them once again.

Brent had a 20%  cap for the proportion of student accommodation in the Wembley area in terms of the total population. It had ruled that the cap had now been reached. However two applications are on the agenda  for Parkwood House Albion Way and Unit 1-5 Cannon Trading Estate, in First Avenue for 283 and 678 beds respectively. The latter as part of a new campus for the University College of Football Business (UCFB) which includes educational facilities.

Planners use projected population growth to rule that the number of units in a 20% cap is actually higher than they had previously said:

 The research carried out by officers took into consideration the actual consents (rather than an average 12% increase as argued by the applicants) and concluded that the projected population growth of the WAAP (Wembley Area Action Plan) area would have been 27,377 if considered solely on the site allocations, however when taking into consideration the site allocations, and deliverable planning permissions granted to date (both implemented and extant) the current WAAP area population increase as of October 2017 stands at 32,842. Based on this, it is considered that when considered against the 5444 student bedrooms granted to date, this would mean that the current percentage of student accommodation against residential population stands at 16.6%, which would allow for an additional 1,123 rooms before the 20% cap is reached. 


The researched carried out by applicants and officers in relation to the Parkwood House application (17/2782) has significant bearing on this application. Given that Parkwood House (283 beds) and UCFB (678 beds) together propose an additional 961 student beds within the WAAP area, both schemes can be accommodated within the revised 20% student cap of 1,123 beds.

 The UCFB application has received 46 supporting comments and none against. Look a little further and you find that 39 of the 46 come from existing student accommodation in Victoria Halls, Felda House and Unite Students.

The Parkway development has not yet got a student accommodation provider to run the site. It consists of a part 13 and part 17 storey development.  The height restrictions of the WAAP (Wembley Area Action Plan) are casually circumvented:

• The approach to the height, massing and material palette is supported as it will provide a high architectural quality that is appropriate for a building of this height. The site is designated within the Wembley Area Action Plan as "Inappropriate for tall buildings". However, the proposed building relates well to the other tall buildings within the immediate vicinity, forming a logical cluster of tall buildings that also achieves an appropriate relationship with the nearby lower mansion blocks to the north.

 As I have remarked before, once tall buildings are allowed, they are used as a precedent for more in the same vicinity. The Football University building is 9-11 storeys in height.

Further to the proportion of student accommodation and the height of buildings another long-running sore is Brent's attitude towards affordable housing. Too often planners do not state exactly what is meant by 'affordable' skating over the details  but the report on the Quintain application for 'Land East of Wembley Stadium' has to respond to representations from the London Mayor's Office.

Affordable housing: 23% offered as DMR (Discounted Market Rent) at up to 80% of market rate is wholly unacceptable and must be significantly increased, noting the introduction of high density residential on this Opportunity Area and Housing Zone site. The affordability of the affordable housing must also be addressed. GLA officers will robustly scrutinise the viability assessment to maximise affordable housing provision. Once secured, any on-site affordable housing must remain affordable in perpetuity, and appropriate covenants and clawbacks secured in accordance with the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG 

An initial offer of 23% affordable housing by the developer was reduced to 7% when Brent tried to make it truly affordable for Brent residents, but they find this proportion 'acceptable'.

In order to deliver affordable units at London Living Rent levels, more planning gain subsidy is required, and this change has a consequential negative impact on the quantum of affordable housing the scheme can provide when compared to the applicants’ original offer. The Council's consultants have advised the Council that at London Living Rent levels the maximum reasonable level of affordable housing provision that the scheme can currently viably provide is 28 units, representing 6.6% by unit (7% by habitable room). The applicants have offered 32 units, representing a minimum 7% by unit (8% by habitable room). It is accepted that the reduction in the affordable housing quantum from 23% to a minimum of 7% is a notable change, however after considering local housing needs and affordability and the wider Wembley Park affordable housing provision discussed above, officers take the view that this is outweighed by the important benefits associated with London Living Rent, including the significant increase in affordability that this tenure provides for Brent residents.

For reference the London Living Rent is set by the London Mayor's Office based on median household income per ward. These are the Brent figures: 

Click on image to enlarge

The full details and basis for calculation can be found HERE

It should be noted that viability reviews usually reduce the amount of affordable housing rather than increase it.

This buildings will be 10-21 storeys high affecting views of the stadium so a curious feature of this application is the statement by Wembley National Stadium Limited which quotes its arrangement with Quintain as a reason for not opposing this scheme, although they appear to be really against it:

The scale, size and occupancy of the development is different to that previously approved for this plot, and the introduction of residential use has led to a significantly different form, massing and height for E05. This effects (sic) the view of the Stadium from Great Central Way, which is a key route into the Stadium for spectators, teams, officials and dignitaries. Ordinarily, this increase in scale and change in view may give cause for The FA to wish to object. Ordinarily, this increase in scale and impact may give cause for The FA to wish to object. (sic) In this instance however, we have a close working relationship and contractual arrangements in place with the applicant (which include provision of facilities, tenant management arrangements, anti-ambush protection and other measures to protect Stadium operations on both event days and non-event days). We do wish to put on record that any future developments of similar scale and size where we do not enjoy the same arrangements with the applicant will lead to an objection.

The last sentence looks like a demand that any further applications by Quintain will need similar 'arrangements' if WNSL are not to oppose them. Presumably if such arrangements are made they will be happy for the 'iconic stadium views' to disappear behind a curtain of tower blocks.

Brent playing into the perception that developers have an unfair advantage in the planning process - Cllr Warren

The 'Twin Towers' approved by Brent Council on the Chesterfield House site

John Warren, the Brent Conservative Group leader has followed up Muhammed Butt's response to questions about his meetings with developers. LINK

Dear Muhammed,

                             Thank you for your response, and I am well aware that I should contact our chief legal officer, as and, when I have sufficient evidence to put forward a credible complaint.

1. It does not reflect well on our F.O.I. reporting that we cannot get basic information right. How many other F.O.I. responses are incorrect?

2. I still believe that L.G.A. guidance has not been followed.

3. I question why lead members - as opposed to officers -  need to attend so many meetings with developers, notably Quintain, Hub Group and R55. It plays into the widespread perception that their planning applications are given a completely unfair advantage in the whole planning process.

How many times have I heard objectors to developments say that "the dice is loaded against them?" in making very real and reasonable objections. Minavil House LINK and Chesterfield House LINK are glaring examples!

4. I do make comments of objections / support on planning applications. I would argue that all of my comments are on record - I do not have unrecorded meetings and I have never lobbied a planning committee member.

John Warren

Brent Movie Fun Day for children Saturday 16th December

Venue St Raphael's Chidlren Centre, Rainborough Close, London, NW10 OTS (Near IKEA)

NEU call on Brent Labour leadership to follow Corbyn's policy on privatisation of education ahead of Village school strike

From the National Education Union in Brent
 

-->

Staff at The Village School in Kingsbury, Brent have voted to take strike action against the proposal to turn the school into an academy, part of a Multi Academy Trust (MAT). Unless the proposal to become a MAT is withdrawn, NEU* staff will strike before Christmas.

John Roche, NEU ATL section Brent Secretary said:

The school passed its last Ofsted in with an ‘Outstanding’ judgement in all categories in October 2016 so clearly there is no educational reason to seek to become an academy. Furthermore, Brent Local Authority has put millions of pounds into this special school and now a state asset, our asset, is proposed to be privatised. Staff ask why is a Labour Authority not up in arms at this attempt to foist a Tory policy on one of their schools?

Lesley Gouldbourne, NEU NUT section Brent Secretary said:

The Government’s academy programme has proved a corrupt shambles that has done nothing to improve education and lacks accountability, in particular with finances. The Wakefield City Academy Trust (WCAT) has collapsed leaving 21 schools in chaos affecting 8500 children. Joining a MAT means all the school’s assets and any surpluses are handed over. A small group of unaccountable, unelected trustees control the finances. I am also finding it hard to understand why a Labour Council is not opposing the privatisation of this jewel in Brent's crown, especially at a time when it is taking other services back in-house. Cllr Butt has not replied to my email about this.

A report on BBC news in Leeds and West Yorkshire stated, “During a Wakefield Council meeting it was claimed that the Trust (WCAT) moved millions of pounds of school reserves into its centralised accounts prior to collapse. Leader Peter Box said he would be talking to the police about his concerns”. 

Hank Roberts, NEU ATL section London Executive said:

The NEU believes that the Labour Council leadership is not following the democratically established overwhelming majority of Brent Labour Party members that oppose the loss of more Council LA controlled schools to be handed over to be privately run by Trusts. This is clear from the resolutions passed unanimously at Brent LP meetings and the London Region of the LP. Jeremy Corbyn’s opposition to the privatisation of state education has been made clear. Instead, it appears that they are doing the bidding of senior paid Council employees with an agenda.

Brent could lose Community Cardiology Service after February 2018 - the public have not been consulted

From Brent Patient Voice
 

We have learned that the Brent Clinical Commissioning Group  Community Cardiology Clinics at Wembley and Willesden are closing at the end of February. While we know that the CCG has been discussing the future of this service with local hospital trusts there is no information in the public domain. We have written as below to the CCG Chief Operating Officer, Sheik Auladin, to press for public consultation on this issue as required by the NHS Act
2006. A full response has been promised.

Dear Sheik,

BRENT COMMUNITY CARDIOLOGY SERVICE RE-COMMISSIONING: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND CONSULTATION.

Peter Latham has not yet received any acknowledgement or reply to his letters to you dated 29 November and 5 December 2017 about the future of the Community Cardiology.

We have seen the email letter from Brent CCG dated 30 November 2017 notifying Brent GPs that the current NHS Brent Community Cardiology Service provided by Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (RFL) from both Willesden Centre for Health and Care and Wembley Centre for Health and Care will come to an end on 28^th February 2018 with no further extension. RFL are not accepting new patients for this service after 4 December 2017.

Brent Patient Voice are very concerned at the short time now left before the end of the current RFL provider contract for the Brent Community Cardiology Service on 28 February 2018. Brent CCG do not appear to have published anything about their proposals for commissioning such NHS Brent cardiology healthcare services after the end of this contract.

Clearly a number of questions arise. They include the location or locations of replacement clinics, whether equivalent resources will be transferred to new providers, what will happen to patient records and to cases in progress. This list is not exhaustive.

We feel that we must now formally remind Brent CCG that under section 14Z2 of the NHS Act 2006 as amended it would be unlawful for Brent CCG to develop or consider changes in the commissioning arrangements where the implementatiom of the proposals would have an impact on the manner in which the services are delivered to patients or the range of services
available to them without full public involvement and consultation by the CCG.

Please now arrange for someone to respond to acknowledge receipt of this letter and to say how and when Brent CCG propose to inform us as to their proposals for NHS Brent cardiology services after the end of the current RFL contract and for involving the public under the terms of s.14Z2 before final decisions are taken.

Yours sincerely

Robin Sharp
Chair Brent Patient Voice

Raised Voices for Palestine at Wembley Central station

Raised Voices at Wembley Central Station

Guest blog by Raised Voices

On Thursday evening commuters at Wembley Central station were greeted with some lively songs in support of justice for Palestine. Raised Voices choir couldn’t have chosen a better day to gather at the station entrance to highlight the Palestinian cause. For simultaneously, out there in the West Bank and Gaza, Palestinians themselves were raising three days of rage and rampage in response to Donald Trump’s controversial announcement that he would move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

Raised Voices LINK choir had obtained permission under Transport for London’s charities scheme to sing in this busy station for their pre-Christmas busking event to raise funds for the charity Medical Aid for Palestinians LINK. MAP is an energetic organization founded more than thirty years ago, with offices in Ramallah, Gaza and Lebanon as well as Islington, north London. It reaches out to the most vulnerable Palestinian communities with the aim of achieving the highest attainable standard of healthcare in those hostile circumstances. ‘Health and dignity for Palestinians’ is their motto.

Maternal and child health is a strong focus for MAP, including advice, support and training for neo-natal doctors and nurses, and treatment for malnourished youngsters. In the West Bank, MAP run a mobile clinic serving 31 Bedouin communities in the Jordan Valley with primary health care, including ante- and post-natal services. In East Jerusalem the charity is supporting psychosocial activities for children mentally damaged by the tensions of that contested city.

To the Gaza Strip MAP send teams of orthopaedic and plastic surgeons to operate on individuals with the most serious and complex injuries, deliver essential equipment and train specialist Palestinian surgeons who are prevented from obtaining advanced training overseas. MAP procured and delivered a stunning half a million pounds-worth of surgical equipment for limb reconstruction surgery after Israel’s attacks on Gaza in 2014. 

For their part, Raised Voices singers are a member of a lively UK-wide movement of ‘campaigning choirs’, that come together annually in a ‘street choirs festival’. They meet every Thursday evening at the Doreen Bazell Community Centre in Chenies Street, St.Pancras, to develop and practise an impressive repertoire of songs that range across a number of urgent themes including opposition to militarism, war and the arms trade; welcome to refugees; and responsibility for the environment. 

Raised Voices are actively seeking new members, so if your New Year’s Resolution this time around is ‘getting active for change’ and if you love to sing but draw the line at Christmas carols, here’s your chance: roll up at the Doreen Bazell Centre at 7.30 one Thursday evening and give it a try.

Further information:  
info@raised-voices.co.uk     info@map.org.uk

Brent to amend Code of Conduct to cover councillors' meetings with developers

Readers will remember that ex Brent Council leader Paul Lorber raised some questions of his own, addressed to Brent CEO Carolyn Downs, about the meetinsgh with planners and the Alperton Masterplan.

The Q&A is below. Lorber's questions in italics. Some of Downs' answer cover several of the questions. Paul Lorber has responded to Downs' answers at the foot of this post.

Are you aware of these meetings, did you attend and did you authorise them?

 We are a Borough that is in need of homes for our residents and it is positive news that we have public, charitable and private sector partners that wish to work with us. To enable the building of these homes requires positive partnership working which means we have to engage with the private sector and have meaningful dialogue. In every authority that wishes to build homes there will be meetings with the private sector and the appropriate officers to attend including Chief Executives.

As the Chief Executive I do where appropriate attend meetings to ensure that I provide the required guidance. At the meetings there is discussion on the scheme and the appropriateness of it for the whole Borough. The meetings do discuss the nature of the scheme, they do not discuss financial matters as these are discussed separately and appropriately with Planning Officers.

The meetings do not involve members from the Planning Committee. They will involve the appropriate colleagues from Planning to ensure that we receive the professional advice when required. These meetings take place to ensure that I and all officers are working in the best interests of Brent residents.

You will be aware that the Alperton Masterplan was subject to public consultation, including with residents, and that the height of the buildings in the area were restricted "to up to 17 storeys".

When did the Council change the Masterplan or its policies to breach this commitment to local people and allow buildings of 26 storeys?

What exactly was the purpose of the meetings with the developer, who initiated them and was the height of the buildings they propose and any financial contributions discussed?

 You raised the matter of the masterplan.  The 2011 Alperton Masterplan SPD has not been changed. Whilst a material consideration in the consideration of planning applications in the area, it is now quite out of date and circumstances have changed, including the designation of the area as a Housing Zone. The committee considered the SPD during their assessment of the application, along with other policies, including the proximity to the station and high PTAL rating, and the significant proportion of affordable housing being provided in the scheme.

You will be aware that Brent Council subscribes to Open Government and that involvement of the Leader of the Council with Developers at a time when their Planning application, in breach of the Masterplan height limits, is being considered is of justified public interest.

What discussions about this Developers Plans took place in the regular Leadership/Officer meetings and how did any of these influence the planning process? Did any officers from Planning or any Councillors on the Planning Committee attend any of these meetings?

Please set out the protocol dealing with the issue of the Leader or any Councillors meeting Developers at a time when their major Planning applications are under consideration.

You asked about the protocol dealing with the Leader or any Councillors meeting with Developers.  The Planning Code of Conduct can be found in part 5 of the Council’s constitution, the latest version of which is on our website at http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=584&MId=4313&Ver=4&Info=1.  In addition other guidance has been given to members from time to time about this.  We are in the process of reviewing the Planning Code of Conduct, including adding a section specifically dealing with meeting with developers involving councillors who are not members of the Planning Committee. 

There is now a new Planning application for a 28 storey building on the site of the Boat pub in Bridgewater Road/Ealing Road. Can you advise what meetings involving Councillors or Officers took place discussing a proposal over 50% taller than the 17 storey Alperton Master Plan limit?

Additionally, you also asked whether I had attended, authorised or been aware of meetings with R55. I did not attend any. I was aware of the lunch. I do not need to authorise such meetings.  As long as the relevant officers are present, which they were, I would be comfortable for such meetings to proceed.

Paul Lorber's response:

Dear Ms Downs

Thank you for your reply.

I note your view about the need for positive engagement with Developers. They of course have their interests at heart and those of their investors - often based in offshore tax havens.

It is also a fact that getting planning permission for a 26 storey block is substantially more profitable than a 17 storey block. In fact the extra 9 storeys add a disproportionate amount to those profits.

The Alperton Masterplan which is still available via the Brent Council website makes a great deal from the fact that local people were consulted and contributed to the plan. It specifically highlights the fact that the maximum height of the buildings in the area would be up to 17 storeys.

Unless I have missed it there is no reference to residents being either consulted or informed that despite their past involvement it is now regarded as "out of date" and that Officers or Councillors on an obscure Committee decided that the 17 storey limit can be ditched and replaced by a 'Developers' free for all. What is the point of involving local people in helping to develop Planning. Policies in their area when an arbitrary decision to call them "out of date" enables key aspects, such as height of buildings, which residents regard as important, are over ridden in this way.

Is so called consultation in public participation in developing local plans in Brent just an empty gesture and a sham? 

Proximity to a station does not justify extra 9 storeys on top of an already very tall building. The residents who live in the Ealing Road area already endure problems including traffic jams and displacement parking from buildings with inadequate car parking spaces.

It is clear from the current Brent approach that the views of local residents count for very little. Perhaps the right and honest approach to deal with an "out of date" Alperton Masterplan would have been to update it with a proper involvement of local residents. 

Greenpeace hail spoof Coca Cola ad success

The Kilburn Times LINK reports that Camden Greenpeace protested outside Brent Civic Centre today ahead of the Coca Cola truck's visit to the LDO tomorrow.

Greenpeace are campaigning against the soft drink company's use of plastic bottles that are poluting the world oceans. This is what they had to say about their Christmas campaign against Coca Cola:

At the top of Coca-Cola’s Christmas list is the warm glow of good PR. From the nationwide tour of its iconic red truck to the hyped release of its famous Holidays are Coming advert, Coke’s marketing has gone into overdrive. But this year the brand is sharing the spotlight with our ocean plastics campaign. We’ve been riding the wave of Coca-Cola’s relentless advertising – and being seen in all the right places.

We’ve been popping up to call on the world’s biggest soft drinks company – the maker of  3,400 plastic bottles a second – to do our oceans a festive favour and ditch throwaway plastic. In the UK alone, 16 million plastic bottles a day aren’t recycled and many of these end up in our oceans. A glitzy ad campaign won’t change that: we need Coca-Cola to take responsibility for its plastic packaging at every step.

So here’s how our spoof of a well-known Christmas ad has wormed its way into the heart of Coke’s precious PR push.

Owning the conversation the day Coke released its Holidays are Coming advert 

The challenge for us was, how do we hijack Coke’s PR push when we can’t compete with its advertising budget? We decided to gate-crash Coca-Cola’s release with our own video launch hours before. There’s an annual flurry of Christmas adverts by big brands like Coke and we wanted to see if we could nab a bit of their newsworthiness and reach a bigger audience by taking over the hashtag. And thanks to you it looks like we succeeded. According to Blurrt, 66% of the conversation about Coca-Cola on the day we launched was taken by tweets mentioning Greenpeace UK. When you followed #HolidaysAreComing you discovered, “Greenpeace UK released an advert the same day as Coca-Cola, calling them out for the amount of recyclable plastic bottles dumped into the ocean each year.” Win!

Marketing media love our ad 

We wanted our video to reach Coca-Cola’s PR team directly, and calculated that the best way to do that was to make something that their industry bible might feature. We wanted our parody to replicate the slickness of the original and look like it could be the real thing. And it paid off – we made headlines like Soft focus, subversive unease: how Greenpeace parodied the iconic Coca-Cola Christmas ad and Lower budgets, higher impact? Our Christmas panel on the charity campaigns cutting through the crowd. And now it looks like we might have actually taken Coke’s place. PR Week highlighted ours as one of the season’s best adverts and we’ve made it into their top five Christmas campaigns! The favourite is out to a public vote here.

A global campaign for a global brand 

So far we’ve had over 3.5 million views on Facebook worldwide. It’s been shared from Australia to Africa, in the US and New Zealand, in Turkey, Israel and Germany, and many more. We might just have taken the shine off Coca-Cola’s Christmas. We’ve definitely heaped on the pressure for Coke to start 2018 with a new year’s resolution to seriously curb its plastic habit.

Join us here.