The Preston Story – Part 3

Guest blog by Chris Coates of Preston Community Library. Plenty of material here, especially the video,  for local teachers who are teaching the Second World War to Year 6 next academic year.

Part 2 of The Preston Story ended in the early years of the 20^th century with Preston still a rural hamlet. Its small population were employed on farms or as servants in the large houses starting to appear along Preston Road – their middle-class residents now able to commute into London from the ‘request stop’ Halt on the Metropolitan Railway. At weekends, the population was swelled by visitors to the two golf clubs, the shooting grounds and the various sports grounds owned by London-based companies.

1.A 1930s postcard of Preston Hill, with bridge over the Wealdstone Brook in the distance.
(From the Wembley History Society Collection – Brent Archives online image 8979)

The years following the First World War brought fast moving change to Preston. Local farms had specialised in producing hay for the 1000s of horses in London - Uxendon and Forty Farms were 100% meadow land in 1900. As motor traffic increased the demand fell, so some farms closed while others down-sized. In 1907, there were 66 farms in Wembley and by 1937 there were only nine.

2.The rib-making workshop for aeroplane wings at Hooper & Co, North Wembley, 1917.

At the same time, new industrial areas near Preston attracted workers away from agriculture and, during the war, women were encouraged to leave domestic service for better paid, though often dangerous, work in factories. In Kingsbury, there were 4 aeroplane companies including The Aircraft Manufacturing Company, which by 1918 was employing 4,400 people, more than half of them women. Another company, Hooper & Co, moved to East Lane, North Wembley in 1917 to build the Sopwith Camel and produce spare parts for other planes. The site – later the GEC estate – covered 40 acres including a flying ground and railway sidings. British Oxygen also moved to East Lane in 1918, as did the Wrigley [chewing gum] Company in 1926. 

From 1921, Christ Church College, Oxford, Harrow School and other landowners sold their Preston estates for building development. Developers were attracted by the good transport links both into London and to the North. Local roads, including Forty Lane, had been widened and improved to ease visitor access to the 1924-5 British Empire Exhibition and the train network had been extended and modernised. The Metropolitan Line was electrified through to Harrow by 1908 and the Bakerloo Line, running on L. & N.W.R tracks, electrified out to Watford Junction by 1922. A large triangle of land was created between the lines where commuters might find the Metroland dream of a modern home in beautiful countryside plus a fast rail service into London.

 3.The cover of the 1921 edition of the Metro-Land guide. (Image from the internet)

The term "Metro-land" was coined by the Metropolitan Railway Company’s marketing department in 1915 to promote sales of housing on its land in the North-west London suburbs. The Company did not build housing in Preston, but other developers were clearly influenced by the Metroland ideal of Tudor Revival design. Sadly, John Betjeman gives only a passing [literally!] reference to Preston in his many Metroland poems:

Smoothly from Harrow, passing Preston Road,
They saw the last green fields and misty sky….      Baker St Station Buffet [1954]

4.The Preston Hotel, c.1930. (Brent Archives online image 1680)

Housing and shops spread along Preston Road in the 1920s. Several builders were involved in the development, notably Clifford Sabey who built the Preston Hotel (now The Preston) c.1927 and Preston Park Primary School in 1932. The lovely Harrow Golf Clubhouse, that we saw in Part 2, overlooking peaceful fields and the meandering Crouch Brook, was demolished in 1928 and the Preston Park Estate began to cover the whole golf course and fields beyond up to the Bakerloo Line boundary, taking some 12 years to be completed.

                 5.An aerial view looking west from Preston Road, 1932. 

                           (From “Britain from Above”, image EPW037564)

This aerial photograph, taken in 1932, looks west across the growing Preston Park Estate. Logan Road, Carlton Avenue East, College Road and Preston Road down to St Augustine’s Avenue can clearly be seen, with the Crouch Brook crossing Glendale Gardens, the school grounds and the fields beyond. Sudbury Court Estate in the distance is nearing completion.

6.Exterior and interior views of The Windermere, built 1938. (Images from the internet)

Some developers included outstanding designs. The Lawns Court estate on The Avenue, was built in the Moderne style on the old Forty Farm estate around 1931.  The Windermere, a Grade 2 listed pub in Windermere Avenue, was built in 1938 in the Dutch style, with Art Deco interiors. To enhance the attraction of the area for commuters, the old Halt was replaced with a proper Preston Road station, built to the west of the road bridge in 1931-2, and a new station, South Kenton, on the Bakerloo Line, was opened in 1933.

7.A newspaper article about South Kenton Station, from the Nottingham Evening Post, 1 February 1934

 

By now it was clear that the new heart of Preston would be to the south of the old hamlet. More shops appeared around the station in the 1930s and by 1936 Preston was being described as ‘a high class and rapidly growing residential area with a population of between 6,000 and 7,000 people’. Under Wembley's Town Planning Scheme 1931-2, the remaining country lanes in the area were improved and Clay Lane re-named Preston Hill - both it and Preston Road became straightened and widened suburban streets by 1937. Preston Manor Secondary School was built in 1938 for the families moving into the area.

8.Carlton Avenue East from the corner of Longfield Avenue, c.1935. (Brent Archives online image 10539)
[Note the newly-planted lime trees, and the absence of traffic!]

Development moved north-east of Preston when the Metropolitan Railway extension from Wembley to Stanmore (later the Bakerloo and today the Jubilee Line) was opened in 1932. The final remnants of the old Uxendon Manor estate that we looked at in Parts 1 and 2 were demolished to make way for it. Forty Green began being built over as early as 1923, but in the years that followed housing covered the whole of Uxendon, except for Barn Hill Open Space, which had been purchased by the Council from the owners of Preston Farm in 1927.

 
The demand for building workers far outstripped local availability. As in previous times, migrant or incoming labour was vital. Government schemes brought unemployed workers from ‘Distressed Areas’ in the North to meet the inter-war development boom in the South East. My father came down from Durham on such a Scheme and was put to navvying on building sites in Kingsbury. After finding work more suited to his skills, he, like many generations of migrant workers before him, settled in the area.

 9.Bombs dropped on Preston, 1 October 1940 to 6 June 1941 (where multiple bombs fell, number shown).(Image from the bombsight.org website)

The Second World War came to Preston in August 1940, when incendiary bombs were dropped on Barn Hill. Later in the Blitz, the area was hit more severely. This bombing map from the 1940s shows 43 High Explosive Bombs dropped from October 1940 to June 1941 in Preston, probably aiming for the rail networks or for North Wembley’s industrial complex - especially the GEC Research Centre where radar systems were being developed. 

10.Wembley's A.R.P. Post 32, in The Avenue, c.1939. (From a Brent Archives local history article)

The A.R.P. [Air Raid Precautions] Post above was in The Avenue, Wembley Park. The wardens’ name-sign for their base shows a rattle, to warn residents of a possible gas attack, and a bell to signal the ‘all clear’ afterwards. A.R.P. wardens also enforced the ‘blackout’. Heavy curtains and shutters were required on all private residences and commercial premises to prevent light escaping and helping enemy bombers locate their targets. 

At the start of the war, Government evacuation schemes moved children out of the cities. In 1940, the City of Benares, an evacuee ship on its way to Canada, was torpedoed by a German submarine with heavy loss of life, including 77 evacuated children. Many Wembley children were on the Benares and 7 pupils from Preston Park Primary School were among those who died. Further plans to relocate British children abroad were cancelled. 

11.Excerpt from Preston Park Primary School diary, September 1940, listing 7 pupils lost on City of Benares.

British Restaurants were set up for those made homeless, but later became open to all, serving meals each day at 1 shilling for 3 courses. There were 8 British Restaurants in Wembley, including Preston [1943] at 3-7 Lincoln Parade, Preston Road - the building survives at the junction with Carlton Avenue East. 

 12.War Savings poster, 1942. (Image from the TUC Library Collection)

Everyone on the Home Front was expected to contribute in some way – in war work, ARP, the Home Guard or the War Savings Campaign. Elmstead Avenue’s War Savings Group managed to collect £40,000 for the war effort through its activities. Children were encouraged to help collect recycling. There is a short silent film of Kenton Boy Scouts doing just that in Woodcock Hill!

Families with space were expected to accept billeted essential workers, Land Army women working on the remaining Preston farms, or refugees. Wembley’s Empire Pool acted as the Middlesex Reception Centre for European refugees and many were found temporary homes locally. The Church of the Ascension church hall [built 1937] in The Avenue set up a refugee club. The Church itself was not built until 1957.

13.Metropolitan trains come and go at Preston Road Station, while a steam train races past on the British Rail tracks. (Photograph taken by a trainspotter in October 1962 – Brent Archives online image 8654)

After the war, a prefab estate was built for bombed-out families at Tenterden Close, Woodcock Hill, and was there until the late 1960s. Housing development continued to the north and east of Preston Road, and The Mall was extended to the Wealdstone Brook, cutting across playing fields to make a more direct route from Preston Hill to Kingsbury.  In 1947 another place of worship, a Liberal synagogue, was built on Preston Road. By 1951 Preston's population had risen to 12,408. The company owned sports fields on Woodcock Hill were bought by Middlesex County Council for Wembley in 1957 and renamed the John Billam Sports Ground after a previous Mayor.

                  14.Preston Road Station, c.1960. (Brent Archives online image 8636)

             15.Shops in Preston Road c.1960, from the junction with Grasmere     Avenue.    (Brent Archives online image 8628

By the early 1960s, all of Preston's old buildings in the original hamlet had been lost. Preston Farm, Hillside Farm and the Preston Tea Gardens demolished for flats and John Lyon’s farm replaced by John Perrin Place – a council housing estate. After hundreds of years with little change, within 50 years the tiny village of Preston had become a radically different place – and very much part of London. 

If you have memories of Preston in the Second World War or the years following, please share them in the Comments box below. Do return for Part 4 of the Preston Story when we will look at our area today.

Chris Coates,
Preston Community Library

72 years on – the Olympic marathon race at Wembley, 1948

Guest blog by Philip Grant

Two weeks ago, we celebrated the 1908 Olympic marathon race on its 112^th anniversary, with a video including newsreel film of the two leading runners, with a crowd in Wembley High Road watching them.

The Olympic marathon runners on a circuit of the track, before leaving Wembley Stadium, 7 August 1948.

When I wrote to Joe Neanor, who had made the video, he said that he had also recently run the 1948 Olympic Marathon race route – and he supplied a link to a colour film of the race, which took place 72 years ago today. That race started and finished in Wembley Stadium, and went out and back along Forty Lane, Fryent Way and Honeypot Lane to Stanmore, with a loop through the countryside of Hertfordshire. It was a tough course, with plenty of hills to climb!

 

The 1948 Olympic marathon course map and details. (Images from the internet)

If you watch the video below, it will take you back in time, and you will spot scenes you recognise, as they were in 1948, including Olympic Way and the Town Hall. As the runners head back towards Wembley, there are some key moments in the race, along Fryent Way with what are now the fields of Fryent Country Park in the background. And the finish in the stadium is almost as dramatic as that in the 1908 Olympic marathon!

As you can see the International Olympic Committee has banned live viewing of the video on Wembley Matters but you can view it on You Tube by clicking on the embedded link or use this LINK.

Cross party campaign needed to oppose Jenrick's assault on the community's already limited say on new developments

The Wembley Park skyline from Barnhill

Residents of Brent may feel frustrated that their opposition to developments in South Kilburn, Alperton, Wembley Central, Sudbury, Queensbury and Wembley Park have been swept aside at Planning Committee and may think there is already a 'planning free for all' in the borough, but if government proposals go through the situation will become worse with that Committee's role curtailed.

London Councils said yesterday:

London Councils has stated its strong opposition to “any moves towards a planning free-for-all”. 

Responding to the government’s white paper on planning policy, London Councils expressed concern that the changes will severely restrict boroughs’ ability to uphold quality standards and to ensure affordable housing targets are met.

The cross-party group, which represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London Corporation, is opposed to eroding councils’ control over development in their area through zoning arrangements.

These arrangements risk mirroring the lack of control local authorities have over notoriously poor-quality permitted development rights (PDR) schemes. PDR often produces low-quality residential accommodation in unsuitable locations, with no requirement for affordable housing, and a loss of employment space.

Boroughs are particularly alarmed by the white paper’s proposed abolition of Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy agreements, which local authorities use to make sure development includes affordable homes. Weakening council planning powers will also make it more difficult to push developers on reducing carbon emissions, undermining national climate change measures.

Cllr Darren Rodwell, London Councils’ Executive Member for Housing & Planning, said:

These changes are potentially disastrous for Londoners and could reduce the amount of affordable housing built in the capital.  

London is suffering the most severe homelessness crisis in the country and the chronic shortage of affordable housing is at the heart of this. It would be a massive step backwards if the government undermined boroughs’ ability to ensure new development in London includes affordable homes. 

Councils play a crucial role in the planning system, safeguarding our communities’ long-term interests and upholding quality standards. While we support ambitions to build more housing, we strongly oppose any moves towards a planning free-for-all – which would lead to lower quality and fewer affordable homes in London. 

We will be sharing our concerns with ministers. Councils  certainly need more detailed information and reassurance from the government over how these changes would work.

London Councils has repeatedly highlighted inadequate funding, rather than the planning system, as the key factor explaining the capital’s housing pressures.

Boroughs grant around 50,000 planning approvals each year and there are approximately 305,000 new homes in the capital's development pipeline. Boroughs do not have – and are not being given – powers to make developers build out planning permissions. Instead, the white paper would remove their ability to ensure good quality, sustainable development with sufficient affordable housing.

There are currently 243,000 London households on council housing waiting lists. Over 58,000 homeless households are placed in temporary accommodation by London boroughs. The capital accounts for two-thirds of homelessness in England.

To address the shortage of affordable housing in the capital, London Councils is seeking increased government investment and improved support for council housebuilding. This requires an end to all national restrictions on the use of Right to Buy receipts, so that every penny raised from council house sales can be reinvested in replacements, and confirmation of long-term social rent levels.

London’s council housing stock is under considerable pressure. 287,000 London council houses have been sold through Right to Buy since the policy’s introduction in 1980. In 2016-17, 3,138 council homes were sold in London and only 1,445 replaced.

Commenting on the proposed abolition of Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) agreements, Cllr Shama Tatler (Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning) and currently a candidate for Labour's NEC, said on Twitter:

S106 whilst a technical element of planning not only secures affordable housing commitments on a development but also a wide range of infrastructure guarantees AND locks in commitments to local employment opportunities

Under these streamlined reforms in planning what is there to ensure delivery? Timely delivery? Can't see how developers will be pushed for delivery after permission is granted. 

Commenting  on Robert Jenrick's claim of a 5 year delivery delay in developments she said:

Nearly 90% of all planning applications are determined within 13weeks. Large schemes rightly need time and scrutiny to make sure they contribute to the placemaking of an area, affordable housing and infrastructure.

A proposal that the requirement for a proportion of affordable housing be provided should be raised to only apply to developments of 50 units and over she pointed out:

A large proportion of site allocations and schemes in Brent are on small sites with less that 50 homes. This is going hugely impact affordable housing delivery.

We can expect to see planning applications for 49 units as developers maximise their profits from market price housing.

In an exchange with me on Twitter, Cllr James Denselow, currently Chair of Brent Planning Committee, even doubted that the Committee would continue to exist under the proposals:

The website ONLondon LINK reported Green Party AM Sian Berry's comment which will be of interest to people on Brent's estates, particularly St Raphael's:

Green Party AM and mayoral candidate Siân Berry was also critical, saying an “imbalance of power” in a planning system “already heavily weighted towards big developers over local communities” will be made even worse by centralised “top down targets” and reduced scrutiny and rights.

“People living on estates in London will be chilled to see whole areas proposed to be set aside for ‘growth’ or ‘renewal’ without a single mention of the rights of people already living there,” Berry said. “These new proposals don’t even set out whether residents will have a real say over the areas where they have made their homes and communities being earmarked for instant planning permission.”

Liberal Brent Councillor, Anton Georgiou (Alperton) told Wembley Matters:

Planning decisions have a massive impact on local communities. It cannot be a free for all allowing rich developers to force massive tower blocks and regeneration in our area. There must be local scrutiny and local control to help protect our community and ensure the concerns of residents are heard throughout the decision making process. But also to ensure that the right type of genuinely affordable and social homes are being built. These top down changes are wrong and must be stopped.

Alperton & Wembley Central are 'blooming lovely' - Best Garden Competition results

This year, as part of #Blossom2020, Wembley Central and Alperton Residents Association (WCARA) ran their first ever Best Garden Competition - they were impressed by the enthusiasm, passion and commitment shown.

First prizes, kindly presented by The Chase star and local resident Shaun Wallace, were awarded as follows:

BEST BACK GARDEN

 

Best Back Garden - Amarbai Patel, Alperton Resident - prize kindly donated by Birchen Grove Garden Centre

BEST FRONT GARDEN

Best Front Garden - Sandhya Patel, Wembley Central Resident - prize kindly donated by Birchen Grove Garden Centre

BEST USE OF SMALL SPACE

Best use of Small Space – Nawaar Al-Ahmed, Alperton Resident

Highly Commended prizes were presented as follows:

Back Garden - Neera Lakhmana, Wembley Central Resident & Jyoti Desai, Alperton Resident

Front Garden - Kit Friend & Siobhan Cafferkey, both Alperton Residents

Best use of Small Space – Manisha Patel, Wembley Central Resident

A token ‘thank you’ gift of a selection of seeds was presented to all other entrants.

Pictures of the winning gardens can be seen here:  https://www.wcara.org.uk/latest-news

1 Morland Gardens – update on the Brent v. Heritage planning battle - Next round at Planning Committee on August 12th

Guest blog by Philip Grant, in a personal capacity.

If you have read my guest blogs on Brent Council’s planning application 20/0345, you may have missed two recent comments. I will set these out below, for ease of reference, as well as drawing attention to some interesting flaws in the “public benefits” of the proposals (supposed to justify demolition), that have emerged from recent “consultee comments” I have now seen.

1.The Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, with 2 Morland Gardens beyond, from the top of Hillside.

I have added this comment to my How significant is significance? blog of 25 June:

FOR INFORMATION:

I have now received a copy of the consultee comments by Brent's Principal Heritage Officer, on the Heritage Impact Assessment and other evidence submitted since his original comments in April 2020.

I can imagine that he was under pressure from those at the Council promoting this application to confirm the HIA assessment that 1 Morland Gardens is a heritage asset of "low significance".

 

He has resisted reducing the building's score from 8 out of 12 (although from his reference's to the architect, H.E. Kendall Jnr., I suspect he would have liked to increase the architecture score to 3 out of 3, but has also resisted doing that). Despite keeping the same score, he has changed his original significance description from "high" to "medium".

Here are the Principal Heritage Officer's comments of 29 July 2020 on significance:

'1 Morland Gardens is a Locally Listed Building [a non-designated heritage asset] but not in a conservation area nor a statutory listed building. The local list description confirms and sets out its significance. It has a significance score of 8 out of 12. This actually places the building at ‘medium’ significance rather than of high significance as I stated in my initial advice.

National Planning Guidance, Historic environment, paragraph 8 states that an ‘Analysis of relevant information can generate a clear understanding of the affected asset, the heritage interests represented in it, and their relative importance.’ I have therefore considered the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) report by Lichfields submitted by the applicants and comments made by other consultees such as the Victorian Society and those with a special interest. I have thus taken into account the available evidence and necessary expertise [National Planning Policy Framework para.190].

The HIA asserts that ‘according to Brent’s local listing criteria the following score is more appropriate to the building: 6/12, due to the authenticity of the building being affected by its 20th century alteration and extension and the lack of its surviving historic context.’ It has been given ‘low significance’. I have looked closely at the reasoning and I do not share the view on the determination that was made.

I am persuaded by Anthony Geraghty MA PhD, Professor of the History of Architecture at the University of York. He rates Henry Edward Kendall Jr. as ‘an architect of considerable importance whose nineteenth century villa characterises work by an architect of genuine and lasting significance.’ This is supported by the Victorian Society who make the point that the Stonebridge Park Estate was a development by a Victorian ‘architect of note’ and a ‘good
surviving example of a key aspect of Kendall's small, domestic works’. 

It is clear to me that 1 Morland Gardens should be considered a local heritage asset of special interest. There are only 2 of this belvedere towered design left in Brent. There are many examples of Italianate origin seen in the Borough (throughout the South Kilburn Conservation Area, for example) but these are by speculative builders and not by a significant architect like Kendall.

With this in mind, I am firmly of the view that the building is of ‘medium’ significance with a score of 8 out of 12 as none of the evidence provided introduces anything much new.'

2.Elevation drawing from the plans submitted in February 2020.

I added this comment to my Why Brent should withdraw its application to demolish 1 Morland Gardens blog of 20 July:

FOR INFORMATION:

This morning I received (from "The Office of the Leader") a letter from Amar Dave (Strategic Director, Regeneration and Environment), in reply to my open email of 19 July, on behalf of Brent Council as applicant in this case (20/0345). He replied to all the points I had raised, and I will summarise his long letter below.

He said that the architectural and historic significance of the Victorian villa had been understood at an early stage of the planning process, saying: 'The assessment was reviewed by planners following submission and we were informed that it was a very thorough assessment of the condition of the historic building.' - My response to this would be that if their assessment had demonstrated a proper understanding of the building's significance, they would not have been asked to provide one, several months after their original application was submitted!

He did not agree my assertion that 65 homes, a new education centre and affordable workspace was an overdevelopment of this small site, saying: 'Further, the results of our option appraisal and public consultation within the locality showed significant need for these facilities in Stonebridge.'

In response to my assertion that the "low significance" assessment was false, he said: 'This report provided an independent assessment of the significance of the locally listed building.' He also said: 'The validity of the HIA has been confirmed by the Planning Officers.' - My response would be that, despite what the Planning officers might have said, the Council's Principal Heritage Officer has rejected the HIA's claim that the significance score should be reduced from 8 out of 12 to only 6 out of 12.

In response to my question of whether the Officers and councillors proposing this scheme 'really intend to use the HIA, seeking to deceive Brent’s planning committee into approving a planning application which they should really reject?’ Mr Dave has said: 'The HIA is part of the suite of planning documents to be assessed by officers, and considered by the Planning Committee. This will include in the report the assessment of the Council’s own Principal Heritage Officer. The Committee will be able to come to their own judgement on the significance of the building, and will balance this against all other aspects of the scheme.'

He has also said: 'We do not accept your assertion that a decision as either landowner, or as a planning authority, to agree this scheme would put "every other heritage asset in Brent at risk of demolition".'

The Council does not intend to withdraw its planning application.

3.Revised ground floor plan for 1 Morland Gardens, submitted June 2020.

I wrote in my Brent Relents! blog recently that the Council had agreed to change its practice of not making “consultee comments” on planning applications publicly available on its website. Those comments can be really valuable in identifying weaknesses in applications that affect you, and it’s not only the Heritage Officer’s comments that are of interest on this application.

Transport and access: The original plans included a loading bay, for deliveries and refuse collection, as a lay-by on Hillside, but both TfL and the Council’s Transportation Unit said this was unacceptable, because of the danger it would cause to pedestrians. The loading bay has now been moved to the end of Morland Gardens (a cul-de-sac), taking a bite out of the “Arrival Garden” at the entrance to the new adult education college. More of that garden’s paved area has been lost because the GLA objected to the lack of visitor cycle parking.

The loading bay will be the only place where deliveries can be made to the entire proposed development, and is reached along a minor side road with parking spaces on both sides. The latest comments from the Transportation Unit still have concerns about access and servicing of the building. ‘This servicing area will be convenient for the relocated refuse store and the college, but less so for the lower ground floor workspace’. The answer suggested is that: ‘… to ensure the loading area does not become congested, a Delivery and Servicing Management Plan is sought as a condition of any approval.’

That suggested plan (‘to be approved before the building is occupied’) just covers the college and the affordable workspace on the lower floors. What about deliveries to the 65 homes on the upper floors? Given experience during the Covid-19 lockdown, and the growing switch to online shopping, the people living in those homes are likely to need many deliveries as well. It is 50 metres from the loading bay to the entrance door for the tall block of flats, and over 100 metres to the entrance of the homes further down Hillside. Each trip by a delivery driver will take a long time, so where will the other delivery vans or lorries park while waiting for their turn? And can you imagine the nightmare when 65 families are moving into their new homes?

One of the factors causing more deliveries will be that the new homes will be “car free” – no parking spaces (except for disabled) and no permits allowed for street parking. In reality, many residents will have cars (the planning estimate is around 58, based on data for the number and mix of units). What is the answer to this problem? A familiar one to those who have seen previous planning cases – a Section 106 agreement for ‘a financial contribution of £32,500 towards the introduction of a year-round Controlled Parking Zone in the vicinity of the site’!

4.A view of the site - taken from a Google maps 3D satellite image.

Environmental: If you compare the “Google” view with the new ground floor plan above, you will see that the proposed new building comes much closer to Brentfield Road and Hillside than the existing building. The 1994 Harlesden City Challenge garden (which Brent’s application describes as neglected – well, whose fault is that!), and the wide pavement area behind it will be built over, with a much smaller “Arrival Garden” in front of the college entrance instead. In spite of this, the Council’s proposals are claimed to provide ‘improved public realm’.

The latest Stage 1 comments from the GLA point out that the new plans only deliver an “Urban Greening Factor” of 0.2, which falls well short of the target of 0.4, saying: ‘The applicant should therefore seek to improve the quantity and quality of urban greening across the site.’ They also point to the continuing lack of an ecological statement, outlining the impact of the development on different species, and measures to provide a biodiversity gain, in line with London and National planning policies.

Air quality also has a “red flag” against it in the GLA’s comments. 1 Morland Gardens is in an Air Quality Management Area, next to one of the poorest air quality sites in Brent, at the junction of Hillside and Brentfield Road. The ’baseline local air quality’ is poor. The development needs to deliver an Air Quality Neutral assessment for both building and transport emissions, and the GLA are not satisfied that it does. It is already clear from the application’s own assessment that the Nitrogen Dioxide levels would be too high to allow windows to be opened on the ground floor (college) and the next two floors (of homes) above!

Although the plans will provide a one metre wider pavement along Hillside, instead of a low wall then open space, the pavement will be flanked by the building itself (see elevation drawing above). Fumes from the passing traffic will be trapped, and instead of the curving wall and wide pavement turning into Morland Gardens, pedestrians (including students arriving on the No. 18 bus to the Hillside Hub stop) will need to walk up to within 5 metres of the busy junction.

Water: Thames Water have pointed out that the revised plans submitted do nothing to answer objections to the proposals which they made in March. ‘Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing SURFACE WATER infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this development proposal.’ In other words, the increased rainwater run-off would be too much for the local drains, and if no action is taken to address this, a heavy storm (more likely with Climate Change) could cause water to flood down Hillside! They want a condition added that no properties should be occupied until ‘all surface water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been completed.’ The developer (the Council) would have to pay for those upgrades.

The second objection from March that had still not been dealt with by 6 July was: ‘The proposed development is located within 5m of a strategic water main. Thames Water do NOT permit the building over or construction within 5m, of strategic water mains.’ By taking so much of the site (and adjoining public realm) for the new building, the Council have caused this problem. If they don’t make its “footprint” smaller, the main drinking water supply pipe for this area will have to be moved further out under the highway, at the Council’s expense, before any construction on the site can begin. Imagine the traffic chaos on Hillside / Brentfield Road that will cause!

Despite these weaknesses, and more, in the Council’s plans for 1 Morland Gardens, you can be sure that Planning Officers will recommend it for approval, probably at the “virtual” Planning Committee meeting on 12 August. Willesden Local History Society hope to participate, with my support, to oppose the application.


Philip Grant 

Editor's Note:  

The Planning Committee on August 12th starts at 6pm (following a pre-meeting at 5pm) and after the preliminaries of declarations of interest and approaches, 1 Morland  Gardens is the first item.  The proceedings can be viewed live via a link to the Webcast on the Agenda here: http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=115&MId=6107

'Former Victorian building at Craven Park - see Binali's comment below.'

 

 

BREAKING Brent issues urgent warning over Covid 19 cases rise in the borough

FROM BRENT COUNCIL

An important message from Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council.

Today I have to share an urgent warning for everyone in Brent. For the first time in several weeks confirmed cases of Covid-19 in Brent are rising again, with 41 people testing positive for the virus over the past fortnight.

We are all rightly worried about a second wave of the virus and the recent increase in cases, which have also been seen elsewhere across the country. With this in mind I am asking for your help to prevent a second wave of the deadly virus in Brent.

Together, we all need to pay maximum attention to our surroundings at all times. We desperately want to avoid a situation where we cannot visit each other’s homes again.

I know you are likely to have heard this advice before but it is now vital that we all continue to act on it:

• Wash your hands, or use hand sanitiser, regularly and for at least 20 seconds
• Wear a face covering in shops and supermarkets, on public transport and when in other indoor spaces where keeping apart from others isn’t possible. Please always take a face covering with you when you leave your home in case you need to use it.
• Get a free test now if you have any Covid-19 symptoms
• Stay at home if you test positive for the virus, or have been in contact with someone who has tested positive.

Please pass this message onto your family, friends and neighbours. More information is here if you need it

I know we all want to get back to doing the things we love. However, we cannot do that if cases continue to rise. Let’s not throw away the hard work and sacrifices made by so many of our friends, neighbours and loved ones during lockdown.

Together, by following the NHS advice, we can stamp out coronavirus in Brent and prevent a second lockdown.