Brent consults on design guide for new developments - but will it be followed?

In a press release on Friday Brent Council announced consultation on a new Suppelementary Planning Document (SDP1):

Residents, businesses and developers are being called to have their say on a document that will influence future development in Brent.

The supplementary planning document (SPD1) sets out a number of principles that new development in Brent must be in line with, in order to receive planning permission.

The principles include things such as respecting the character, landscape, streetscape, architectural and historic environment of the area and ensuring new development is of an appropriate size, scale and mass in design which goes well with neighbouring development.

Cllr Shama Tatler, Brent Council's Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Highways and Planning, said:

We are very much open to new development in Brent and it's important that new buildings are to the standard and appropriate design that our residents want to see in the borough.

That's why this document is so important, as it will set out the principles by which future applications will be judged.

The document has gone through a process of consultation where earlier feedback has been taken into account and amends made to the version we are seeking views on now, so the opinions given by residents, businesses and developers really do matter and I'd encourage everyone to have their say.

More information is available online at www.brent.gov.uk/spd1

 Guidelines are of couse only effective if they are followed and Brent's record is not great. Too often planning officers' reports find spurious reasons for allowing through a development that does not meet the existing guidelines.

Here are some examples that acccording to the guidelines of developments would not be approved  alongside actual developments that have been approved.

The 'Twin Towers' (Chesterfield House) currently being built on Park Lane/Wembley High Road

Lakeside Way, Wembley Park

Willesden residents protest over asphalt pavement (Kilburn Times)

The full draft of the SDP1: (click on bottom right cross to enlarge to full size):

Plans for bungalows on Kings Drive garage site to be decided on Wednesday

The trees behind the garages are in the gardens of Barnhill residents

The car park, eventual access to the bungalows

The 'poor quality' trees on the boundary

3D view of the development, note the absence of the Barnhill garden trees behind the bungalows

Ariel view. Expensive private Barnhill houses on left, Kings Dricve council estate on the right

Site at present with garages

Proposed site plan

I have to state an interest on this issue as I am a resident on the King's Drive/Pilgrims Way estate although not in the immediate vicinity of this planned development. The proposal to build four affordable bungalow homes on the current garage site is part of a Council strategy to find space for new homes on Brent estates on under-utilised or redundant areas. Details of schemes across the borough can be found HERE.

This scheme aroused a lot of opposition on the estate and hence the referral to Planning Committee for their consideration. The issue is one of balancing the need for new affordable homes with potential loss of amenity to current residents. In particular estate residents felt that the garages had been deliberately run down and not marketed for rent which enabled the Council to declare them not needed.  There was also concern at the potential loss of parking spaces and the loss of the trees. The garages form a sort of barrier between the expensive private houses of Barnhill and the council house blocks with the mature trees in the Barnhill gardens screening the view of the blocks.

There was no detailed survey of the Barnhill garden trees but the report, answering concerns about the trees overhanging the bungalows, says that under common law they can be cut back to the boundary.

A parking space will be provided for each bungalow and an additional 25 'communal' parking spaces will be provided. When I visited this evening there were 25 cars parked on the site.

A potential problem is difficulty of access. This is already a problem on the estate's cul-de-sac roads with parked vehicles blocking access to delivery lorries. Residents on Saltcroft Close suffer from many missed blue and grey bin collections because of this issue. They were not collected this week.

Full report HERE

Brent councillors declare support for Village School strikers

Letter in current Kilburn Times

Uo to now Cllr Jumbo Chan has been a lone Labour councillor voice in first of all supporting staff at The Village School in opposing academisation through a Multi Academy Trust, and then, when the school academised,  in supporting the strike aimed at safe-guarding working conditions.

Interestingly he has now been joined by 14 Labour colleagues including Michael Pavey and Roxanne Mashari who have both challenged Muhammed Butt for the leadership,  several newly elected councillors as well as veterans.

I hope this is a welcome sign of some independent thinking and action that will be carried through into other issues.

Do afternoon Cabinet meetings reduce accountability?

I thought that the early timing of the first Cabinet meeting of the new administration was deliberately fixed to allow a General Purposes Committee (with almost the same personnel) to take place afterwards, but the next Cabinet meeting is at 4pm on June 18th.

This switch to office hours clearly makes it easier for officers, and perhaps reduces costs, but at the same time restricts the ability of the public who are in employment or have school age children to attend to watch proceedings or make representations. The same must go for backbench councillors who work.

The last Cabinet meeting only lasted about 20 minutes as major items were rubber-stamped and it is likely that Cabinet meetings held at 4pm will routinely be over by 5pm.

This may be a small point but is part of a gradual erosion of transparency when it is even more important that a council with a very large majority and a tiny official oppositon is held to account.

Is this worth £17.8m of our CIL money? Proposals for Olympic Way.

The new public space

The Agenda of the next Planning Committee LINK contains plans for the space next to the Brent Civic Centre/Wembley Library. Readers will recall that modification of the original outline permission for this site was what Brent Council hoped to gain from their decision to use £17.8m CIL money, contributed by Quintain, to replace the Pedway to Wembley Stadium with steps, along with other improvements to Olympic Way.

The planning application for the Pedway is separate, and commitee members are told that  this decision can be made independently of that application. However, the area included in the application overlaps the Pedway (NW04) below, so depends on its removal. If the Pedway is not removed some parts of the propsoed building on the plot will not go ahead.

A further condition is changes in the height and length of the new building adjacent to the space. The height is raised from 88.5m to 100m and the length is shortened from 57m tp 41m as seen from Olympic Way. The gaps between the new building and the one to its north will be reduced from 21m to 12m.

The plan includes a canopy/colonade along Olympic Way and a single storey pavilion building. The report mentions a potential bridge to the Civic Centre but does not provide any detail.

The new square with the replacement steps

The design brochure is posted below: (Click bottom right for full size)

Alison Hopkins rages against the machines - both mechanical and political!

Former Liberal Democrat councillor and Dollis Hill resident Alison Hopkins has reacted angrily to Sadiq Khan's decision to allow the Cricklewood Aggregate Superhub to go ahead.
In a statement for Wembley Matters she said:

This just shows that protests by some Brent councillors to the Mayor of London were simply grandstanding in the run up to the election: those photos of them wearing facemasks were a stunt. When Brent Labour realised the depth of fury at the proposals for both the aggregate terminal (Cricklewood Superhub) and the waste transfer facility (WTF), Cllr Butt hastily asked Barnet to arrange a so-called “consultation” meeting at the Crown, earlier this year. But, Brent councillors had ALREADY had presentations from Barnet about how wonderful Brent Cross would be back in October 2017! They didn’t bother telling any residents about the WTF planning application though – and there have been far too many cosy behind the scenes meeting between both the Leaders of both councils and senior officers, as well as with developers. 

Sadiq Khan is the latest Mayor of London not to support people in Brent, Barnet and Camden who oppose the Brent Cross “Regeneration” and the resulting mess. Livingstone lauded it, Boris approved it and Sadiq has rolled over in front of the juggernaut that is Hammersons and the Brent Cross developers. There’s far too much cosiness in all this. Originally, for example, the North London Waste Authority objected to moving their WTF to “our” side of the tracks. . They suddenly withdrew ALL objections at the last possible moment . I've done several FoI requests since, but they are evasive as hell on the subject. Add in the fact that the developers have consistently been mendacious about so called consultations and the results of said consultations and you’ve the perfect storm. 

As I’ve said before, those of us who live on the edges of Brent and Barnet are ignored by our respective councils. In Dollis Hill we could end up being the filling in a sandwich of rubbish dump and aggregate terminal. 

For Brent, it’s all about Wembley. And shops. For Barnet, it's all about Brent Cross. And shops. Not much difference between them, is there? 

I've asked Barnet Council when the WTF will go to their Planning Committee, but they’re being very evasive on that. The recent rubber stamping of what’s known as the Brent Cross CPO3 – Compulsory Purchase Order 3 – by the Secretary of State might have been a very different matter if there had been real political opposition from Brent councillors and MPs. But instead, what happened was active support by Brent for road layout changes which will have an appalling impact on people in Dollis Hill and Cricklewood. 

But then, I’ve an email from one from one councillor who thinks the WTF isn't that bad – and during the elections, Labour canvassers and councillors simply didn’t know the difference between the aggregate terminal and the WTF. One of them actually told me that the WTF had been given planning permission by Paul Lorber. (!) They also consistently told local people that it was far too late to stop the dump or the aggregate terminal. That really wasn’t the case, but it would have taken real political will and challenge which seems to have vanished entirely. 

Both the WTF and aggregate super hub are a disaster for us all. It's also appalling that what used to be a cross party and almost all party campaign against the so-called Brent Cross regeneration  is now not. This transcends party politics and ought to have had proper opposition from Brent and from local MPs as it once did. Navin and both Carolines are honourable exceptions in all this, as are the local Greens, but who is actually standing up for us?

-->

Brent set to approve new primary school next to busy road despite air pollution warnings

The actual site yesterday

Artist's impressions of the new school above and below

Less than two weeks after Brent Clean Air warned about the need for urgent action to protect children from air pollution in schools site next to busy roads LINK, Brent Planning Committee will be considering building a 630 pupil primary school and nursery on the car park of York House, next to busy (and likely to be busier as Wembley continues to expand through regeneration) Empire Way, close to Wembley Stadium Station.  Traffic is already far busier than the artist's impression above, and busier at school times than shown in my photograph.

However, the Officer's report for the Committee LINK  does not go into any detail about air pollution, referring instead to a far more general reference back in 2015 when outline planning permission was given and focusing on the impact of demolition and construction rather than children's daily exposure to pollution.

They suggest that the playground will be protected from air pollution by the school building, although a rooftop multi use games area (MUGA) is planned as well as a rooftop learning area.  The playground itself is very small for a 630 pupil school.

Ariel view over the school playground

There is an acknowledgement that the area has heavy traffic as the report proposes that there should be reserved parking for parents at the red multi-storey car park near the LDO which would be a dropping off point for the children. Entry to York House itself will be via the LDO.

The present car park bounded by Empire Way, Stadium Way and the Royal Route

The school will be run by Ark as goverment policy does not allow local authorities to build new schools, and anyway Brent Council leader, Muhammed Butt,  who attended the February consultation meeting about the plans, is a great fan of Ark. and sits on the governing body of Ark Elvin which is round the corner from the proposed school. Others in Brent Labour Party are critics of the whole academies programme. Putting that aside there is no discussion on whether a school of that size is required as the recent pupil census showed spare places in Brent Primary schools LINK and there may be a further reduction as a consequence of Brexit.  Of course new flats are going up at a pace around Wembley stadium but they are not being designed, or marketed, as accommodation for families.

Quite a test for the scrutiny powers of the new Planning Committee.

Disappointment as London Mayor decides not to intervene in the Cricklewood Aggregate Hub

Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, yesterday decided not to intervene in the construction of an aggregate Superhub in Cricklewood. It was open to him to directly refuse the application approved by Barnet Council or take it over himself.

The GLA report (see below) concludes that initial concerns have been addressed and that the application now conforms with the London Plan and the draft London Plan.

Intervention by the Secretary of State is now very unlikely and campaigners will be considering their next moves.

The Superhub was opposed by Fordych, Dollis Hill, Mapesbury and NorthWestTwo residents' associations.  Brent Council objected on highways and environmental grounds but 'noted that some concerns had been addressed following the submission of revised details.' Camden Council supported the application in principle but objected on amenity grounds.

There was cross-party opposition from GLA members:

Caroline Russell  (Green) – Objected to the proposals on the following grounds: committee voted in favour by a majority of one vote; transparency and objectivity; neighbouring boroughs of Brent and Camden have both objected to the proposals; the change in nature of the facility, from intermodal to aggregates / construction waste, was undertaken without public consultation; impact on well-being of residents in Barnet, Brent and Camden; air quality impacts; and traffic impacts. 

Caroline Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)  – Objected on the following grounds: slim majority, with councillors voting along ‘party lines’; transparency; objections raised from Brent and Camden Councils; scheme will impact the well-being and amenity of residents in Barnet, Brent and Camden; air quality impacts; and traffic impacts. 


Navin Shah  (Labour) – Objected to the proposals due to the impact upon noise, dust, traffic, pollution and quality of life. 


Following the Mayour announcement Caroline Russell, Green Party Assembly Member for London, said:

I share the disappointment of Brent residents at the Mayor’s decision not to intervene in the granting of planning permission by Barnet Council for the Cricklewood Superhub in the Edgware Road. Although the Superhub is in Barnet it is nearby Brent residents who will pay the social cost in terms of extra heavy lorry danger noise and pollution. The decision is particularly disappointing because there was united, well-informed opposition  from local residents’ associations as well as from Green, Labour and Liberal Democrat London Assembly Members