Guest post by Philip Grant
One of the large schemes approved at Brent’s
Planning Committee meeting in February 2021 was for a mixed-use redevelopment
of the Abbey Manufacturing Estate and Edwards Yard, at Mount Pleasant in
Alperton. I’ve since found out how Edwards Yard got its name. This is the story
behind it, and the reason why that name should be retained in the new
development.
1.
Aerial impression
of the Abbey Estate development. (From
application 20/3156 drawings, with notes added)
My quest began when I was seeking information about
another Alperton business, Cousland & Browne, to help answer a local
history query I’d received. They had been timber merchants, beside the canal.
One of the answers I received was from Diane, whose father used to deliver
timber for them. She remembered, along with her mother, going in the lorry with
him all the way to Saundersfoot in Wales, on one of those trips in the late
1950s.
2.
Cousland &
Browne advert. (From Curley’s
Directory of Wembley. 1956)
The Paddington branch of the Grand Junction (now
Grand Union) Canal opened in 1801. It cut its way through the village of Alperton,
and helped bring lots of trade and small canal side industries to this mainly
rural part of Middlesex. Bricks, gravel and hay were sent into London, while
rubbish and other waste products were brought out to be processed. The boiling
of food waste to feed the pigs at three farms, and the manufacture of oil and
manure from fish refuse meant that Alperton had a smelly reputation in late
Victorian times!
3.
A busy canal wharf
at Alperton, 1923. (From Geoffrey
Hewlett’s “Wembley”)
Diane’s grandfather, John William Edwards, was born
in Wembley in 1869. By the early 1900s he was employed as the farm bailiff at
Clyde Vale Farm. He lived in Alperton Cottage, at the eastern end of Honeypot
Lane (later renamed Mount Pleasant), where the rear entrance to Lyon Park
School is now. He and his wife had a number of children, including Diane’s
father, David, who was born in the cottage in 1909.
By the early 1920s, John Edwards was trading as a
haulage contractor. His sons Albert, Henry and David joined him in what became
the family business of J. Edwards & Sons. At first it was horse-drawn
carts, and as well as general haulage the jobs they took on included delivering
materials to Wembley Park, for construction of the Empire Stadium and some of
the British Empire Exhibition buildings.
4. J. Edwards & Sons horse and cart, 1920s.
In 1923, the sports equipment manufacturers,
Charles Webber & Co, had purchased a 5-acre site in Honeypot Lane, formerly
the Alperton Park brickfields. The following year they sold a plot of land to
John Edwards, as he needed a larger base for his business. The rest of the
Webber’s land became the Abbey Trading Estate.
Edwards built a house, with stables for 11 horses
in a yard behind it, in 1925. “Meadow View”, soon to be addressed as 122 Mount
Pleasant, was beside a row of workers’ cottages built by Alperton’s Victorian
entrepreneur, Henry Haynes. In 1931, John Edwards bought more land behind the
cottages, creating the site which has been known as Edwards Yard ever since.
5.
John with one of
his horses at Edwards Yard, 1930s.
The extra land was used to build garages for the
firm’s growing number of lorries. The family home, where John Edwards lived for
the rest of his life, was also where the business was run from. A sign on the
front of the house read:
Meadow View
J Edwards & Sons
Motor & Horse Transport Contractors
Phone Wembley 1922
6.
John Edwards with
one of his sons, sitting on the running board of a lorry, 1930s.
The rapid expansion of suburban estate building in
Wembley and surrounding areas, from the mid-1920s onwards, meant that J Edwards
& Sons were rarely short of work. John Edwards finally retired from the
business in 1943, gifting it and the yard to his three sons. After the end of
the war their lorries were busy, both with general haulage work and clearing of
bomb-damaged sites.
Henry Edwards retired from the partnership in 1954.
As not all of the yard was still needed, some of the garage buildings were
rented to other small businesses. David was left running the business by
himself once Albert retired in 1963. He kept on transporting goods and clearing
rubbish from local factories, with several lorries and a couple of employed
drivers, until he retired in 1967 and the haulage business ceased. After that,
all of Edwards Yard was let out to small businesses, many of which operated
from there for decades.
7.
An artist’s view
of the Abbey Estate development, with the potential new Edwards Yard on the
left.
(From planning application 20/3156 drawings)
The yard stayed in the ownership of the Edwards
family until it was finally sold to Zedhomes Limited in 2019. Now Diane has
asked the developer to retain the Edwards name as part of the new development.
A block of four houses is planned to be built on the site of the old yard.
Edwards Yard would be an ideal name for these, to remember a place that has
been a part of Alperton’s heritage for nearly 100 years!
Philip Grant (with thanks to Diane for the information and Edwards family
photos).
Member for Sudbury Ward, Members Room, Brent Civic Centre (Objects)
Comment submitted date: Mon 10 May 2021
Comments of Councillor Mary Daly in response to statuary consultation by Brent Planning Department to application 21/1106
The park keepers Cottages in Barham Park was built to provide accommodation for workers maintaining the unique park with diverse habitat and historic features.
The Park no longer had park keepers the empty cottages were sold The Barham Trust in 2012 to fund maintenance pf the park.
Since that time the new owner has submitted a number planning applications for the redevelopment of the site.
As a local Councillor the majority of my residents have supported sustainable developing of the cottages.
Two applications have been approved '16/1209, 17/5067 but clearly not built out.
Two applications (14/2078), 19/0788) refused because of their detrimental impact on Barham Park
It is concerning and puzzling that the applicant claims the receipt of extensive preapplication advice and that that advise was that 'that the principal of the development is acceptable'
Barham Park is not an asset owned by Brent Council but is a bequest to the people of Wembley (subsequently the London Borough of Brent) to be managed on the people's behalf by Brent Council.
The site in question is within the curtilage of Historic Barham Park. It is not as suggested in a densely built up area. The nearest taller buildings are across the busy Harrow Rd in Barham Village. The Harrow Rd acts as a border between Barham Park and the residential streets.
There are no other tall buildings within the Curtilage of the park and as pointed out less than two years ago in 19/0788 when refusing permission on that occasion ' the an inappropriate height associated with bulk and massing would appear prominent and have a negative impact on the open nature of the park setting'
Application 21/1106
Application 21/1106 is also four stories four stories In addition to being tall it is also sprawling with balconies reaching to and possibly beyond the development boundaries. ( the report is not specific but illustrations suggests it)'
The building extends beyond four stories and is out of character because there appears to be s pergola like structure and a garden on the roof '(again the report is not specific but illustrations suggest it)
The Developer claims to be bringing the character of suburban Sudbury into the park when describing its design. The park however has a different history and purpose with buildings reminding park users of the area's nineteenth/early twentieth century farming past. for example the eighteenth/ nineteenth century buildings, the walled gardens and walkways.
The extensive cover of trees includes as the almost 300 year old mulberry tree. And a very old plane tree. The historic park is a space residents go to walk and contemplate (it is common to see people sitting on the many benches in the park), enjoying the extensive natural life in the park or playing and exercising.
Application 21/110
The new application invites Brent Planning to consider a four story sprawling building with the additional element of a car park within the curtilage of Barham Park on the application site
The Car Park and Parking on the site
It would be unwise to assume that the car park is for the sole benefit of the future residents of the Proposed development. It is common in such developments to seek parking simply to sell it to enhance the profit to be gained from the development. The addition of a six place car park on an historic Barham Park seems even more incoherent when considering the applicant argued for the benefits of the site in terms of its excellent public transport links. The site (4x2 beds, 3x3 beds 2x4 beds) normally warrants 11/12 parking spaces. There is no discussion about the parking needs of all the car owning potential residents (up to 40 people) were the application to be granted.
This will raise demand for on street Parking. The applicant and planners may argue the surrounding streets can absorb the amount of off on street parking generated by the development .
That is not the case because the regeneration of Barham Village where parking was sacrificed to a larger number of housing units the majority of whom are permit free resulting in a very large overspill into neighbouring streets.
The accelerating breakup of family homes in the area into Houses of multiple occupation or flats
Commuter parking
Shopper parking
Further developments already approved 18/3069 is also permit free and 19\1241 (currently being appealed) will rely on onstreet parking if built out.
The applicant has further failed to provide disabled parking as required by policy
It appears the applicant has not considered the incongruity of creating a car park within the curtilage of an historic park.
Biodiversity
The Applicant pretty much dismissed the existence of Bats on Barham Park, however the Boroughs own SINC Review 2014. suggests evidence of species of bat was recorded some years earlier. And recommended that 'until further survey work is done the precautionary principal should be used and the site considered as a bat foraging site' it is unclear if that work has ever been done.
Species supported by habitat in Barham Park includes reptiles, birds, invertebrates, foraging as well as possibly roosting bats were reported by the 2014 SINC report .
The bird species observed at the time of the report in the area nearest the proposed development site include Long tailed tits, starlings, ring necked parakeets. A resident a very experienced Ornithologist reported seeing the rarer lesser spotted woodpecker within the last few months.
The tree species sited nearest to the proposed development within the park includes Horse Chestnut, London Plane and 'Willow. the developer makes reference to a mature Cedar of Lebanon to the front of the site whose canopy is acknowledged to be only meter from the balconies of some of the proposed flats.
The applicant also acknowledges that there are nesting birds within the site.
There is no description of the proposed development in relation to the rear perimeter of the proposed development but illustrations seem to show balconies reaching beyond the rear fence. What is clear is that Barham Park with its hundreds of trees is home to a diverse habitat which have not properly been surveyed and the preliminary surveys presented by the developer is not acceptable. The planning department must request more comprehensive independent surveys to establish the impact of such a dense development especially on that very vulnerable section of the park.
The population of the New Development
The development would see for the first time since the park was bequeathed to the people of Brent a population at least forty people living within the parks Curtilage. Driving to and from the site. attracting other vehicular activity on the site such as delivery vehicles etc . those impacts on the park has not been addressed Requiring large industrial sized waste disposal bins within the site.
The area immediately surrounding the proposed development on Barham Park is already degraded because it was used to store heavy materials and machinery to facilitate the regeneration of Barham Estate.
It is also subjected to heavy vehicles and machinery during Irving's Fair several times each year. the upshot is the section in question is compacted and degraded and subject to more flooding as a result. It is the first section of the park a visitor one sees approaching the park from Sudbury Town and one of the most frequently visited.
The prospect of more materials and heavy machinery further degrading the site as a result of further building on the curtilage of the park
The recent and proposed degradation of this section of the park is contrary to the bequest of the park for the enjoyment of the people of Brent. The area needs to be recovered not face another developer onslaught.
The Sudbury Neighbourhood Plan, a Brent Planning Policy is clear in its vision for Barham Park
'recognises the need to restore. Repair and improve existing landscaping in the park'
'Create enhanced eco -habitats for wildlife and educational purposes'
'the park contains a limited amount of play facilities and Play equipment. 'The consultation demonstrates there is a demand for improving and expanding the range and amount of sports and play facilities '
It needs to be recognised that the proposed development site is within the Curtilage of Barham Park and any development of the site needs to adhere to Sudbury Neighbourhood Plan because it echoes the objectives of the original bequest to entrust the Barham Park for the enjoyment of the people of Brent. The present proposal abutting a particularly degraded section of the park, risks further degradation of the ecology of a particularly prominent and used section of the park by introducing a car park onto the Curtilage of the park in an overdevelopment which is not intended to enhance the Park for the people of Brent.
The development
I am not able to comment on the development because there is insufficient information in the
oapplication relating to
The height of the building
The large balconies, their exact overhand,
the relationship of the building to the perimeter of the site,
the relationship of the site to Harrow Rd .
I will this week seek an appointment with Planning officers to view documents not in the application and reserve the right to make further comments if that is required.
Having imagined the building whilst on site it is clearly a dominant and overbearing feature and more inappropriate than 19/0788 because as well as being tall it is also more sprawling and introduces a car park within the Curtilage of Barham Park.
A brown field site
The characterisation of the former parkkeepers cottages as ' brown field land' without the context of its siting within the curtilage of Barham Park has caused particular offence amongst residents. It is recognised that the park keepers cottages have been unused for some years and that sustainable development is welcomed would enhance the Park.
A consistency of approach
Application 17/5067 was approved by Brent Planning. I consulted residents including Sudbury Town Residents Association Representatives during the consultation. It is worth noting there was no objections to the plan because there was unanimity in the community that the proposal was an enhancement of the site. This highlights the pragmatism of the local community who want sustainable development not high density development within the curtilage of Barham Park because it degrades heritage of Barham Park.
(The statement 'the site lies within the setting of the Holt Conservation area' is puzzling, as the Holt Conservation Area appears to be in Wrexham in Wales).
The National Planning Policy Frameworks PPG states that that 'where a proposal would lead to harm' there must be a demonstration of the proposals public benefits
Such demonstrations of public benefit
'should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not be a private benefit'
Application 21/1107 is clearly a private benefit to the applicant and any future residents of the site there is no benefit to the park users. For that reason alone it should be rejected
Brent Planners have already rejected a less dense less sprawling fourstory development (19/0788)
'the proposed development would incorporate an inappropriate height and associated bulk and massing that would appear prominent and have a negative impact on the open setting of the park'
Cllr Stevens and I were the only objectors on that occasion but our comments were informed by consultation with residents.
Whilst I appreciate the site is in private ownership and the developer has a right to submit the serious of planning applications the and have them considered by Brent Planning authority has a duty to consider them. Consideration must always be given to the fact it is within the Curtilage of Historic Barham Park a bequest to the People of Brent.
It is worth noting that consideration of the importance of Barham Park as a local heritage asset, its value to the health and wellbeing of the Boroughs peoples, Its fragile ecosystem, Its precious but vulnerable building has not been acknowledged.
The application is presented as the redevelopment of a brownfield site in an urban area inviting high density housing and car parking A readthrough of my comments demonstrates a united community pragmatic about improvement by sustainable development of the site but consistently resistant to dense overdevelopment because of the impact of the park they value so highly.
There is also consistency in the approach of Brent Planning in interpreting policy to the benefit of the park by accepting sustainable applications for the site and rejecting overdevelopment.
I request officers of the council refuse this application please