WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
I was so glad that I ignored the wind and the rain and popped up Barn Hill this morning. I was rewarded with a mesmerising view of spawning in progress on Barn Hill pond. The pond was quite low last year but filled up over winter and there was more spawn than I have seen for a very long time.
Leaseholders across the country have found themselves trapped in their homes as a result of the cladding and building crisis in the wake of the Grenfell fire.
In order to sell their homes leaseholders have to have an EWS1 certificate and this is not available if the building does not meet safety checks - they find that their home has no value.
While trapped in their homes they find themselves confronted with huge bills as the freeholder/management agency and the builders do not accept liability for the defect remediation. In addition they may also have to pay for additional meanwhile costs of a 'waking watch' fire marshalls engaged 24/7 to monitor the safety of the building.
The situation has left many leaseholders desperate and depressed but they have got themselves organised and are fighting back.
Leaseholders in Brent and Camden have been in the forefront of the campaign to persuade the government to take urgent action on the situation.
Join the meeting on Tuesday March 16th 6-7pm APPLICATION
Information brentcladding@gmail.com
Despite the large number of residents' objections to Quintain's revisions to its consented plans for the North East Lands section of the huge Wembley Park development, there were no questions for a resident of Marathon House after he had spoken about its impact on the daylight and skylines of residents' flats. He claimed that the application demonstrated no benefits compared with the original consent. Furthermore, he suggested that by breaking down applications into small bite size chunks developers masked the larger impact on the area.
The revisions increase the height and density of the development but move some boundary lines.
Having no questions the Committee moved on to the developer's agent who basically came out with rather a lot of what appeared to me to be greenwash. He claimed that the loss of light to residents of Marathon House was neglible and their balconies already reduced light and gave the impression of a larger loss of light than was otherwise the case.
An officer said that the benefits of the scheme was more open space, a larger capacity park (they haven't increased the size but ditched the lake and replaced with a couple of ponds), an attractive public realm with trees along Rutherford Way and making it a car free development.
 | |
Cross section of Rutherford Way
Officers argued that changes to the scheme would break up a potential 'canyon' on Rutherford Way between Marathon House (tower on right) and Unite Students on one side, and the lower Quintain development on the other. The officers' report repeated the claim that loss of light did not matter in student accommodation as it was transitory. They argued that BRE guidelines allow for special situations in urban environments and did not have to be strictly applied. They spoke about 'mirror massing' when buildings on one side of the road mirror that of the other side. The implication was that this was avoided here.
Officers echoed the agent's view that the Marathon House balconies meant more loss of light than would be the case if they were not there. They said that the Quintain blocks were set back and thus further from the middle of the road than Marathon House.
Cllr Maurice pressed on the loss of light, due to Covid more people would be working from home and there most of the time and loss of light could affect their mental health. An officer responded that the impact would be negligible on Marathon House and Unite Students.
Cllr Kennelly asked about the use of rooftop space and was told that although there was no detail yet it would be provided for amenity and bio-diversity to provide recreational and ecological benefit. The officer recognised that that the area was 'somewhat of a concrete jungle' and has been so for almost 100 years since the British Empire Exhibition and it would be nice to reintroduce the biodiversity that had been there before the BEE (watch out for cows on the roof!)
Cllr Saqib Butt said that he could not see any additional benefit compared with the oriiginally consented scheme, there were no additional housing units and he could only see loss to residents in the neighbouring blocks. Officers again pointed to trees on Rutherford Way and more space in the park due to the reduction in the size of the lake.
Cllr Kennelly said that keyworkers needed housing and often needed a car for work. Making this a car free development would exclude them. Lead officer David Glover said that there was a recent reduction in demand for parking and that people were unwilling to buy parking spaces. The development may not be suitable for such keyworkers and the Council recognised that there was a need for a range of different housing to cater for differing needs that would be open to keyworkers. Wembley Park was an ideal site for car free development being so close to Wembley Park station and other public transport with a very high PTAL rating. Kennelly expressed concern that increasingly key workers have to move out of the area and travel in to work. They needed access to centrally located housing. An officer said that Quintain recognised the need to provide some central parking for those in car free developments such as Rutherford Way.
Lead officer David Glover, discussing the impact on Marathon House residents said that there could not be a 'who comes first has the final say.' system/ Merely because their development went up first occupants could not then decide what was built opposite them - such a polcy would tie the hands of developers and planners. The revisions had an 'acceptable' impact on surrounding properties.
Brent and Harrow Green Parties have launched a Crowdfunder to help Emma Wallace, our candidate in the GLA election, in her campaign. DONATE HERE
This election is held under a fair voting system so every vote counts, which makes it one of the most important election campaigns the Greens can fight.
Greens have a great record of delivering on the London Assembly. From getting the Mayor to declare a Climate Emergency to winning £45 million worth of funding for youth clubs. Sian Berry and Caroline Russell, our two Green Party London Assembly members, get stuff done and we can get more Greens in the Assembly to do more!
We just need your support and hopefully your donations, because we are committed to using our platform in the Assembly to demand real change.
We will fight for action on the climate emergency so we can create the greenest city in the world.
We have a clear plan to keep London moving. We’ll move past polluting cars and invest in the future of travel public transport, walking and cycling.
And we will bring fresh thinking to housing, aiming to make sure no one is struggling to put a roof over their head. Every donation to this Crowdfunder is about reaching voters locally.
In Brent and Harrow we need to reach and win over as many residents as possible. Your donation will help us reach Londoners on social media, via the post and over the phone.
We can’t rely on billionaires and corporate donors like the other parties. We are a grassroots movement and your donations can help get our message through and win the support we need.
Thank you so much,
Emma Wallace, GLA Brent & Harrow Candidate
P.S. Because we're a political party
· Please note all donations will go to Harrow Green Party to help our campaign to elect Emma Wallace to the London Assembly.
· We're required to run permissibility checks on donations over £500. These will be completed as pledges are made. For the same reason, we cannot accept anonymous donations over £500.
· If you make multiple donations to us, they may be aggregated for our reporting purposes.
· Your details will appear in our election returns if valued over £500, and if you donate over £7,500 your identity will appear on the Electoral Commission website
Promoted by Martin Francis on behalf of Emma Wallace and Brent and Harrow Green Parties c/o 23 Saltcroft Close. Wembley, HA9 9JJ.
View from Bridge Road - green marks proposed development
Changes in height proposed (click on image to try and enlarge)
Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday March 10th is at the earlier time of 4pm. This of course makes it hard for residents who wish to make representations about developments that affect them to attend. The main application submitted is for the North East Lands area which includes housing blocks, towers and a park. Watch the livestream of the meeting HERE.
Brent Council decided that the revision did not need to go out to formal consultation as it was already a consented application and the changes did not affect the overall scheme to a significant extent and so a Section 73 application was valid.
The revisions mean a reduction in height in some cases but as the diagram shows increases in others.
This objection summarises what many of the objectors had to say. Many were from existing residents of blocks in the area who have found themselves facing new developments which throw their building into shadow as the height and density increases.
I am a resident of Marathon House and I strongly object to Quintain's attempt to revise this planning application (no. 20/2844)
If accepted, the revision will permit the building opposite Marathon House (building NE03) to double in height from 60 feet to 120 feet, blocking any sunlight from coming in to Marathon House. Further, it will move the block 6.5m closer to Marathon House on what is already a narrow street.
I therefore object to the revision for the following reasons:
-The proposed change will significantly affect the quality of life and wellbeing of Marathon House residents whose access to sunlight will be blocked. A study commissioned by Quintain themselves even states that almost all windows in Marathon House will face a minor, moderate or major loss of sunlight from what has been originally planned under this application - this loss is in addition to the fact that Marathon House was already set to lose access to a certain amount of light under the original plans. From paragraph 4.3.50 of the Supplementary Environmental Statement, I can see that my property will experience a moderate/major loss of sunlight.
- Further, the study does not take into account that Marathon House has balconies which extend out of the building. This means that the study commissioned by Quintain is not an accurate reflection of just how negatively the proposed change will impact residents - the real life impact will be worse. Moreover, given that Quintain are wanting to also move NE03 closer to Marathon House, residents will no longer be able to enjoy the privacy of their own balconies.
- Clearly this is not a minor alteration - it is a material change and therefore warrants to be considered under a new application, not under a Section 73 application.
- There is absolutely no reason for Quintain to justifiably need this building to be so tall. It will not improve the area which has already undergone significant development. The changes evidently do not have the area's best interests in mind.
- The Council should balance the negative impact on residents/the local area if the revision is permitted against the negative impact on Quintain if it is not. As already stated above, residents will lose sunlight, privacy and space, affecting their quality of life and wellbeing if this application is accepted. The area will suffer from being congested and aesthetically unpleasant. In contrast, if it is refused, the impact on Quintain is negligible, given in particular that they have already benefitted from the mass redevelopment of the area and will still be redeveloping the entire Yellow Car Park area.
- The taller building will overshadow the much needed but limited green space in the area. We also understand that the size of the green space in the Yellow Car Park redevelopment is going to be significantly reduced, meaning the overcrowding in it has already been increased since the original plans were drawn up. There is no need to exacerbate this problem further.
- The location of the tall building also makes no sense given its placement as against the new landmark Canada Gardens. Surely, the most logical place for such a tall building to be is on the same side as Canada Gardens on the outer edge of the yellow car park. It also detracts from the attraction of the stadium.
- Typically, Quintain do consult with residents on developments in the local area with us and we have generally been quite supportive of their work. It is therefore extremely disappointing that we have not been consulted about this hugely material change - one wonders whether Quintain knew of the serious problem this would cause the residents and therefore tried to get the revision through quietly.
- Quintain themselves have previously objected to the loss of light from the development of tall buildings on Watkin Road - it is therefore hypocritical of them to impose the same negative impact on others.
- The Council should also consider that under paragraph 2.5 of the Brent Local Plan Development Management Policies, it is acknowledged that the development is required to create a high quality environment "addressing issues like space between buildings, privacy, outlook, daylighting, shadowing, microclimates and amenity space". Clearly, the revision proposed by Quintain will do the exact opposite.
For the reasons stated above, I see no reasonable outcome other than to refuse this application.
The officers' report looks at the issue of 'protected views' of the stadium but as previously they find the impact tolerable. This is an example from the comparatively new Chalkhill Park (the green line represents the proposed development, the pink the comulative and yellow the emerging) As you can see one block rises up almost to the top of the stadium arch:
View from Chalkhill Park
The report does sometimes feel like gaslighting:
In Chalkhill Park existing views towards the Stadium arch are partly obscured by trees and existing and consented tall buildings. At the position assessed in the 2018 ES, the tip of the tall building proposed on Plot NE02 would conceal part of the Stadium arch, however a new tree now obscures much of that view. Moving right of that position to avoid the tree, the Stadium arch is seen more clearly, though still partially obscured on either side by trees at the edge of the park. The proposed tall building on Plot NE03 would be set lower than NE02 and would allow the Stadium arch to be read fully above it. The taller element on NE02 would appear to the right of the arch and would be largely obscured by the trees at the edge of the park. The tall building outlined in green within the centre of the arch is the tallest part of NE05 (which is unchanged from the consented scheme in this application). The curved profile of the arch would remain clearly legible, and would dominate the view to the distance beyond the trees and tall buildings. It is considered that the visibility and distinctive character of the Stadium arch would be preserved.
A second cumulative scenario has been provided for the Chalkhill Park view which includes two schemes which have a resolution to grant consent (Euro House planning application ref: 20/2033 and Watkin Road (Strawberry Star) planning application ref: 20/0587). The Euro House scheme would appear to the left of the arch. The Watkin Road (Strawberry Star) scheme towards the centre and right of the arch would almost fully obscure Plots NE02 and NE03. The part of NE02 not obscured by the Strawberry Star scheme would be set well to the right of the Stadium arch and would be almost entirely hidden by trees. The profile of the Stadium arch would still be legible on the skyline and the top of the arch would not be impacted by either the proposed scheme or the Strawberry Star scheme.
Elsewhere the revised amount of sunlight in the proposed North Park is reduced from 99.6% of the area seeing at least 2 hours of sunlight to 91.5% - a reduction of 8.1% but still seen as 'adequate.'
Concern about loss of light to existing blocks is not seen as a serious issue in the wider context. Here are some key points from the officers' report and the final conclusion:
Major regeneration projects will inevitably have an impact on surrounding developments and in many cases will lead to a degree of light loss.
Notwithstanding this, proposed developments should be designed to keep any adverse impacts within reasonable limits. In terms of the design of the proposed development in relation to the surrounding developments, it is important to note the following:
The proposed development would be set within an existing densely developed urban environment in which neighbouring developments are tall and built close to the edge of the footpath and the centre line of the adjacent road. This relationship manifestly reduces the amount of light these properties will receive when the surrounding area is developed.
In December 2020, the applicant made a number of significant changes from the originally submitted plans (September 2020) which have had beneficial impacts on daylight and sunlight of neighbouring properties. These included moving buildings further away from neighbouring properties and reducing the height of some buildings.
The buildings proposed along Rutherford Way would almost all be lower in height than those opposite. For example, Marathon House is 49.21m above ground level (82.5m AOD) whereas the proposed NE03 building directly opposite would be 33.72m above ground level (67.2m AOD).
The buildings proposed along Rutherford Way be set back a greater distance from the centre point of the road than those on the opposite side of the road. For example, the main façade of Marathon House is around 10.9m from the road centreline, whereas the NE03 building directly opposite would be 14.6m from the road centreline.
The building of NE01 would be set back a greater distance from the centre point of the Fulton Road than those on the opposite side of the road.
‘Mirror massing’ is a recognised BRE assessment approach whereby the impact of a proposed scheme is compared to the impact that would be experienced if a ‘mirror image’ of the existing development were to be constructed. If the existing Rutherford Way buildings were replicated as a mirror image on the opposite side of the road, the impact on neighbouring daylight and sunlight would be worse than the impact of the proposed scheme.
Whilst it is important to ensure that acceptable daylight and sunlight conditions are achieved for surrounding properties, full compliance with BRE guidelines is rarely achieved in dense urban locations such as this. Indeed, the BRE guidance itself notes that it should be taken as guidance rather than a rigid set of rules and the guidance was formulated to be most appropriately applied to lower density suburban environments rather than dense urban environments. The BRE guidance acknowledges (paragraph 1.6) that ‘In special circumstances, the developer or planning authority may wish to use different target values. For example, in a historic city centre, or in an area with modern high rise buildings, a higher degree of obstruction may be unavoidable if new developments are to match the height and proportions of existing buildings.’
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendments to the previously approved parameters plans would enable a revised scheme to be delivered which would provide a number of benefits over the previously approved outline plans. The proposed amended scheme is considered to be in keeping with the vision for how development in the Wembley regeneration area is to take place, and would introduce activity and vitality in this area whilst creating a pleasant environment along Rutherford Way and a welcoming link to the Northern Park. Based on the illustrative images, the building designs would deliver an attractive and contemporary scheme, the final quality of which would be secured through the submission of detailed plans at Reserved Matters stage and the approval of appropriate materials through condition.
An increase in the density of elements of the scheme through increased heights and moving building lines closer to existing residential properties would inevitably have some impacts in terms of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing levels for existing properties and the Northern Park. However, on balance, and taking into account the wider regenerative benefits of the scheme, it is considered that these impacts would be within reasonable limits and acceptable amenity levels would still be maintained.
Taken as a whole, the revised scheme accords with the relevant planning policies and guidance and it is therefore recommended that the proposed amendments set out within this Section 73 planning application are approved.
CHANGES IN THE NORTH PARK PROPOSAL
After this post was published commenters asked about the proposed North Park. The revised application makes the changes below:
Initial Plan
Revised Plan
Brent Council has published the Press Release below. I welcome the news as an ex-Harlesden (St John's Avenue) resident. The High Street, Craven Park and Station Road have a greater variety of shops than many high streets that are dominated (or perhaps 'were' after the impact of lockdown) by chain stores. Harlesden, when I was last there before Covid, had more wet fish shops than many a coastal town. I remember an American friend visiting Harlesden fascinated by the architecture of the buildings above the shop frontages as much as the shops themselves. I hope that this project marks a positive change in Brent Council's attitude to our heritage.
Part of the High Street selected for shopfront improvements
PRESS RELEASE
Harlesden is set to be transformed by a million-pound regeneration project after Brent successfully secured funds for a Harlesden Gateway High Streets Heritage Action Zone. Brent’s winning bid will create a scheme to improve the area and restore lost features on historic buildings in Harlesden town centre over the next two years.
The High Streets Heritage Action Zone is part of the £95 million government-funded programme delivered by Historic England to unlock the potential of 68 high streets across the country. The Harlesden scheme will help support Brent’s economic recovery and breathe new life into the area.
Historic England’s original funding award for the project was worth more than £437,600. Since then, they have offered a further £95,000 to support the programme.
Brent Council will match this with over £454,000 through a successful bid to the NCIL fund (Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy) which is funded by new developments in the borough, bringing the total investment to almost £1 million.
The funding will help deliver:
Cllr Shama Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning, said:
We are really grateful for this £532,000 of funding from Historic England to deliver the High Streets Heritage Action Zone for Harlesden, and for the GLA’s funding in 2018 to undertake a detailed study of Harlesden through Hawkins Brown Architects, which helped to set the ambitions and vision for the town centre.
The funding is part of more than £5 million investment in Harlesden town centre, and the surrounding area, to provide community facilities, cultural events, workspace and general improvements from 2020 to 2022. This project will help create opportunities for the town centre, the local residents and businesses that are fundamental to its success.
Refugee Support Network has secured funding sources of over £1 million for the project. Catherine Gladwell, chief executive of Refugee Support Network, said:
We are so grateful to have received such generous support from Historic England and from NCIL through Brent as we turn a disused bank into a refugee youth education centre and community hub. Thanks to Historic England, the exterior of the building will be able to be restored in line with its historic architecture and features, and, thanks to the NCIL fund at Brent Council, the inside of the building will be transformed into a youth friendly space in the heart of Harlesden. We're delighted to be partnering with both organisations on this important community project.
Verena McCaig, Heritage at Risk projects officer for Historic England, said:
Every high street has a distinctive history that can be harnessed to help it thrive again. We’re excited to help deliver a High Streets Heritage Action Zone in Harlesden that will restore shop fronts and regenerate the former HSBC building - looking after and celebrating the places at the heart of our communities, and the buildings and public spaces which define their character.
Brondesbury residents protested this morning as work was about to start on replacing paving with asphalt. This is the latest of several protests over Brent Council policy which the council claim is environmentally superior to replacing paving and safer for pedestrians.
The counter-arguments to the policy were published HERE
Residents and workers in North Wembley are being asked to get tested following the discovery of a case of the South African Covid-19 variant in the area.
Everyone aged 16 and over who live or work in the enhanced testing area below are being asked to take a PCR Covid-19 test, even if they are not showing any symptoms.
This is to see if it has spread in the community and if so, to help contain it by asking all those affected and their recent contacts to self-isolate.
Those without symptoms are being asked to get tested at:
Those with symptoms are being asked to get tested at either:
Home testing kits will be delivered to a small number of addresses and letters will be sent to these households letting them know.
Any positive cases will be examined to determine which strain of the virus the person has been infected with. This will help to see how far – if at all – the South African variant has spread in the community and to enable better understanding of this variant.
Those who test positive may be able to claim a £500 payment if they are on a lower income and cannot go to work because they are self-isolating.
Dr Melanie Smith, Director of Public Health at Brent Council, said:
A case of the new South African variant of COVID-19 has been found in North Wembley and cannot be traced back to international travel.
We’re encouraging all those living in the enhanced testing area to get tested so we can see how far – if at all – the virus has spread.
Not only will this enable us to find any more cases of the variant, but it may help us find more cases of Covid-19 in general, particularly from those not showing symptoms, and this will in turn help us reduce the spread of the virus in Brent.
It doesn’t matter whether you have symptoms or not, please do the right thing and get tested to protect your family, friends and community.
Professor Kevin Fenton, Regional Director at Public Health England London, said:
The UK has one of the best genomic systems in the world which has allowed us to detect the variant originating in South Africa here in North Wembley. I urge everyone offered a test to take it up to help us to monitor the virus in our communities and to help suppress and control the spread of this variant.
The most important thing is that people continue to follow the guidance that is in place – limit your number of contacts, wash your hands regularly and thoroughly, keep your distance and cover your face. If you test positive by any method, you must isolate to stop the spread of the virus.
For more information, visit www.brent.gov.uk/enhancedtesting
