Wembley Hill Road application: Quality of life of residents versus the demands of Wembley Growth Area - a fair balance?

 

The Allied Irish Bank site (by the bus) and St George Hotel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Linden Avenue from Wembley Hill Road - an additional storey will be added to St George Hotel on left

Traditional 2 storey house on Linden Avenue already dwarfed by the hotel before a storey is added

 Mostyn Avenue from Wembley Hll Road (Allied Irish Bank building to right)

From left to right - current 2 storey building heights (Mostyn Ave) the St George's Hotel development (Linden Avenue) & Cottrell House

There are no huge Wembley Park developments on the agenda for Wednesday's Planning Committee but this one for the ex-Allied Irish Bank building and the St George Hotel sums up some of the issues  facing long-standing local residents, too readily dismissed as NIMBYs, when the Wembley Park development begins to spill over into their streets and overshadow  their traditional 2 storey dwellings.  Gradually new developments appear to be creeping up Wembley Hill from Wembley Hill Road.

The proposal adds a floor to  the St George Hotel and demolishes the Allied Irish Bank building to make way for an hotel extension and a two storey basement.

In this case planners cite the Wembley Growth Area to justify the impact on the residents (my emphasis) :

Overall given urban context of the area and dense nature of development in the area the proposed development would allow for an appropriate relationship with the neighbouring properties within the vicinity of the application site. The NPPF outlines that  local authorities should take a positive approach to applications for alternative uses which is currently developed but not allocated for a specific purpose and applications for alternative uses on the land should be supported, where the proposed use would contribute to meeting an unmet need for development in the area. There is some expectation for the development not to fully comply with the daylight and sunlight guidance given that the site is located within the Wembley Growth Area whereby additional height is expected when considering the surrounding context of traditional two storey dwellings to the west of the site.

 

The additional storey above Crown House would increase the degree of impact on the amenities of the occupants of No. 1 Linden Avenue beyond that envisaged within SPD 1when viewed from their rear garden in terms of overbearing appearance and sense of enclosure. However, the impact must be balanced against the benefits of the scheme. The proposal would contribute towards providing visitor facilities within the Growth Area meeting the objectives of both local and regional policy.

 

There are only 5 comments on the proposal  (all Object) and three of those, unsurpisingly, come from 1 Linden Avenue.  When you read the comments, as for other applications, it is as if the planners and residents occupy two different universes: This is one set of comments:

 The demolition of the existing building will cause serious health and safety issues for the local residents, neighbours and my family, as being an old building the amount of dust and pollution can be detrimental effect on health of my elderly retired parents and their grandchildren (who they babysit). Also being an old building I would like to see the asbestos reports and require assurances that if present it will be disposed of according to Health & Safety laws. The time and duration of the demolition will be on-going for a substantial period of time and also will create unnecessary noise thought out the day. Another note is that I am worried about the vibrations from the work being carried out.

With regards to the proposed building the block will overlook our property and with the amount of new levels this will invade our privacy even more than it is already, as it will be able to look onto the back of the house and will certainly impact on the peaceful enjoyment of our home and garden and the building will be visually overbearing. It is an inappropriate design for this part of the road and such a large building would be totally out of keeping with the neighbouring properties.

Parking restriction are already in affect and the limit of spaces is already scarce since the hotel has been using residence bays for their patrons. Currently, the terrace road is already busy and congested so bigger building would mean will be a problem both at night and day.

Please note that I have received this information late, and speaking to other residence they have not even seen any literature for every household that will have an impact by this development. Therefore, I am concerned that not all objections will be aired in time.

Finally, I would just like to add that since the adjacent hotel hs been a hinderance since it has been built, talking to local residence there has been a number of complaints to the council for antisocial and noise pollition in exisiting building thus if owners care little about local residence, they would care even less when this building goes up.

 

Attending Planning Committee I see time and time again residents' concerns brushed aside and non-compliance with planning guidelines justified for the sake of these 'balances' that officers' cite.

 

It is interesting that recently objections have not just come from pensioners occupying some of the older properties but from new residents such as those at Shams Court and those in the new tower blocks who find that there are plans for additional blocks wedged between the existing ones depriving them of light and space. Perhaps alliances can be built?

 

By the way I better mention a condition attached to the recommended consent.  The number of rooms in the hotel will be increased by 63 to a total of 112. Officers are concerned about coaches dropping off customers at the hotel on a busy road and narrow one-way side streets so are calling for a 'coach management strategy.' How practical the proposed arrangem nts are remains to be seen.

The site would not have capacity to accommodate any coach parking. Therefore, any potential coach parties arriving to the site would be required to use other coach parking areas (e.g. those associated with the Stadium) to load and unload guests. A coach management strategy has been required through a S106 planning obligation to ensure the management of coaches arriving on site is conducted appropriately to avoid coaches arriving at the site itself. This would look to contain agreement for nearby car parks such as Wembley Park before coach bookings can be accepted. The applicant would therefore provide a shuttle bus service that would pick up and drop off guests from the relevant coach park. These arrangements would also be secured as part of the coach management strategy.

 

PLANNING COMMITTEE LINK

FA appoint chair for independent review of Euro2020 Cup Final looking at events inside and outside Wembley Stadium on July 11th

 

Brent Council to continue Covid19 precautions in its public buildings

 Brent Council Announcement:

As of today, most COVID-19 legal restrictions will be lifted and it will be up to individuals to assess the risks and act accordingly. However in light of rising COVID case numbers in Brent and for the safety of both our staff and community, we will continue to take precautions in our public buildings.

We ask that you continue to wear a face covering in all public spaces in Brent including libraries, the gallery and museum, as will our staff. We will be leaving sanitisation stations in place and ask you to continue to scan the Test and Trace QR code on entering our buildings. 

Library opening hours

We are extending opening hours at Wembley and Willesden Green libraries from today – Monday 19th July – so they will now be open until 8pm on weekdays. We will also slowly be beginning to reintroduce our full range of services over the next few weeks and months.

We also ask that you continue to book PCs and study spaces in advance of your visit and respect others space when browsing.

We look forward to continuing to welcome you back to all our sites and will also be continuing virtual events. Thank you all in advance for helping us all keep safe and look after one another.

Council to extend consultations on Kilburn Square development over the summer

Cllr Southwood speaking on the development proposals for Watling Gardens, Windmill Court and Kilburn Square at this morning's Cabinet said that she was aware of Kilburn Square residents' concerns.  Some of these would be dealt with at the Planning Committee stage but she recognised that Covid restrictions had meant that the Council had not been able to engage with residents as much as they would lik,e so consultation would be extended over the summer. She emphasised that no final decisions would be made and she would come back to Cabinet when team had heard from 'more people, in greater depth.' She said that the main point of the agenda items was to put the necessary legal requirements in place.

 She said that they were working to improve the stability of the Tenant Management Organisation and finding ways to working towards a constructive environment in which the inevitable concerns could be addressed.

Cabinet to approve 'last resort' compulsory purchase orders on Watling Gardens, Windmill Court and Kilburn Square this morning ahead of demolition to make way for new housing

 Brent Council will be asked to approve an approach to 'in-fill' plans for Watling Gardens, Windmill Court and Kilburn Square this morning: 

To delegate authority for the Strategic Director Community Wellbeing to make an application to seek the Secretary of State’s consent under section 19 of the Housing Act 1985 to appropriate any part of Watling Gardens, Windmill Court or Kilburn Square including any part consisting of a house or part of a house so that parts of these sites are no longer held for the purposes of Part ll of the Housing Act 1985.

The estates are part of the Council's scheme to increase the number of Council homes by demolishing 59 properties at Watling Gardens and Windmill Court and the appropriation of council owned land for housing.  125 additional homes are planned for Watling Gardens, 60 for Windmill Court and 178 for Kilburn Square.

The Officers' report states that the demolition of 59 homes is not sufficient to trigger a residents' ballot under London Mayoral powers.

Compulsory purchase will only be used if negotiations with leaseholders over their loss of rights fail, the report states.

Regarding Council tenants the report says:

The project team will be basing early engagement offers of alternative accommodation and decant options for secure residents on the current Allocation Policy and the statutory consultation required in connection with the use of Ground 10A of the Housing Act 1985 4

 

The current Allocation Policy will apply to secure residents to be decanted from 1-11 Watling Gardens, 1-30 Claire Court and 1-18 Windmill Court. Under the current allocation policy secure residents affected by the infill developments will be placed into Band A on a phased basis to bid for an alternative home. Early engagement with residents and leaseholders has started with a view to obtain vacant possession of the required blocks as soon as possible

The report justifies the choice of Watling and Windmill:

Watling Gardens and Windmill Court were chosen due to the relatively low density of housing on the sites compared to modern developments in London and the fact that the land is wholly owned by the Council and thus avoids land acquisition costs. Furthermore the development provides the opportunity to carry out extensive long term soft and hard landscape improvement works. The infill programme on each of the sites will deliver new play facilities, activity areas, revised parking arrangements, improvements to a community hall, improved environmental and wellbeing spaces and solve the current problems of anti-social behaviour in the undercroft. It is possible to omit some or all of these improvements however this will reduce the positive impact of the development.

 

 There is a separate report tabled for the controversial Kilburn Square development. Keith Anderson from the local campaign against the council's plans said:

 

As far as we can see this is mainly an enabling report to allow them to do pretty much what they want on the entire area including both the clinic and mental health buildings, where the new tower and extra care facility are due to go, and all the rest of the Co-op estate site, including the trees and green space that Buildings C and D would remove.

 

We also spotted in the modifications to the Local Plan that they want to slip in a clause allowing tall buildings on the KS site – so they don’t contravene the Plan if they press ahead with another 17 storey tower. Not that any of this project, Plan A or a smaller Plan B, is covered by the Local Plan in the 0-5 year frame!

 

They’ve had strong pushback from local neighbours (and some estate residents) on the Zooms two weeks ago. And the petition is up to 740 signatures. 

 

Cllr Southwood keeps saying the designs are not finalised (and there’s a brief statement to that effect in today’s report) – but we have limited faith in that; the report also has language about the overriding need for more social housing, which they seem to think means they can ride roughshod over any counter arguments about the wellbeing of the current estate residents or the interests of our local community.

 

 The meeting takes place at 10am this morning AGENDA

You can watch the webcast of the meeting HERE

 

 

Kilburn Square  petition http://chng.it/xwxLyYcDhP

 

New Council Homes is welcoming feedback from anyone in Kilburn Brent, Kilburn Camden or Queen’s Park Wards. Details from streetgroups@mistral.co.uk 

Two men arrested over Euro2020 Final theft

 From Metropolitan Police

Two men have been arrested on suspicion of theft following allegations that they took items and shared them, for the purpose of allowing people to have unauthorised access to Wembley stadium during the Euro 2020 final.

An 18-year-old man from Ilford, London and an 18-year-old man from Newham, London have both been released under police investigation while enquiries continue.

The action comes following a commitment by the Met to investigate offences during the Euro 2020 final, which resulted in a breach of security at Wembley stadium.

Shams Court residents in revolt as yet another development on their doorstep removes their right to light

 

Shams Court, Fulton Road

A four storey block of flats, Shams Court is tucked away between Olympic Way, North End Road and Fulton Road. Gradually it has been encircled by high rise buildings and now more are on their way.

Yesterday comments closed for the existing 6 storey building facing Olympic Way (3 Olympic Way below) to be replaced by a 6 storey hotel extension, an 8 storey building and 22 storey and 25 storey towers.

3 Olympic Way (today)

Proposed

This is the description of the plans on the Brent Council Planning Portal:

21/2130 | Demolition of existing building at 3 Olympic Way and erection of 3 buildings of basement, ground and 8, 22 and 25 storeys (excluding rooftop plant) to provide 178 residential units (Use Class C3), new hotel accommodation comprising 260 rooms (Use Class C1) and a retail food store (Use Class E). 6-storey extension to existing hotel at 5 Olympic Way to provide 95 additional hotel rooms (Use Class C1) and amenities, extension of ground floor to create new colonnade and public realm improvements to Olympic Way. Other works associated with development include new access from North End Road, disabled car parking, cycle parking, private and communal amenity spaces, public realm works and other associated works | Olympic House, 3 and Novotel, 5 Olympic Way, Wembley, HA9 

Only 22 comments are recorded on the portal and as usual Brent Council hasn't published the Consultee comments for the public to see.  All 22 comments from Shams Court, Danes Court and MacLaren Court object to the development. A resident from Shams Court claims that they only found out about the proposals by accident and were thus able to inform the other 8 flats, despite the developer admitting that Shams Court is the building most affected by the plans.

This is typical of the comments:

This planning application will have a serious, detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the homeowners of the 9 flats at Shams Court, a 4 storey block.


Shams Court flats were sold in 2014 and were a part of the development holding Pinnacle Tower flats, the Novotel Hotel and other affordable housing flats. Since then we've had non-stop construction works and high rise buildings built around us, namely the Scape Wembley (29 storeys) and Felda House (17 storeys) which tower over Shams Court (to the East of Shams Court).


The development of these towers next to Pinnacle Tower (18 Storey tower to the South of Shams Court) and the Novotel (19 storeys to the West of Shams Court) left us with very little natural light and a claustrophobic environment to live in. We are overlooked in our flats and on our roof garden, leaving us with little privacy. Noise levels, anti-social behaviour, disturbance and nuisance from overcrowding of a small area with thousands of people greatly depreciated our quality of life since we first bought our new homes at Shams Court.


To grant the application of a 25 storey block immediately at the back of Shams Court (to the South) would be shameful. We are already overcrowded and overlooked. We would be left with no natural light from every single direction and be subjected to enduring increased noise pollution, disturbance, loss of privacy and anti-social behaviour.


It is without doubt that the new norm for the majority of working professionals would be to spend most, if not all, of their time working from home, without access to offices. These proposal will be detrimental to our health and well-being as Shams Court will be the place we reside for the vast majority of our days.


I must also stress that Shams Court was sold as a means of affordable housing (shared ownership). To have yet another massive building towering over us will severely lower the value of our homes, trapping the residents of Shams Court in negative equity, within homes they cannot sell due to the poor quality environment that's been created by non-stop construction of high rise structures around us.


We put faith in Brent Council to understand the detrimental effect this proposal will have on the residents of Shams Court. We hope you will protect us from these deleterious proposals. The idea of a small 4-storey block being immediately towered over by high rise buildings on every side (in very close proximity) is ludicrous. Yet this is what is being proposed.


I would urge you to visit Shams Court, or view a satellite map of the existing towers surrounding us to see the detrimental impact that this proposal would have on Shams Court residents.


When the original development was built in 2014, it's assumed the developers were granted the permission to build our development, under a section 106 agreement. The grant of which would have relied heavily on the provision of affordable housing. They are now intending to subject the same residents of their affordable housing to awful living conditions, ruining our prospects and well-being by building yet another tower on top of us. This is nothing short of cruel and deceitful behaviour.


Within the documentation provided on this portal, I can say that there are false claims of consultation between the developers and residents. There's a mention of ongoing communication with residents Dec 2020, Jan 2021 and Feb 2021. This has simply not happened and these proposals have only recently come to our attention.


The Daylight Assessment document also fails to include Shams Court on various parts of the document, for example the '2 hours of sunlight before and after' impact assessment. I believe the developers are purposefully misleading Brent Council on the impact that these structures will have on Shams Court.


For the sake our physical and mental health I sincerely hope that these plans are refused.

Another residents says:

I am a key worker who was born, lived and worked in Brent and that's why I was able to buy within our block. We really enjoy living here and generally feel that the development in the area is for the good. However, when plans will (admitted by the developer) have a detrimental effect on our living standards (and therefore our health), it is unfair that we and our baby twins (and our lovely neighbours) are either being forced to live in a terrible environment (during building but more importantly, after) or being forced out from our homes.


The developer is the same company that owns the Novotel and the Pinnacle Tower. They, in fact, built our flats as part of the then planning agreement to have part of the requirements to have a certain proportion of the development available for keyworkers - but they themselves are now pushing us out by making living conditions uninhabitable, or proposing and writing plans that will have that effect.

 

Given what happened last Sunday at Euro202 it is important that planning officers consider the impact of another high density development of Olympic (Wembley) Way on security and crowd control.

The plans have wider repercussions regarding the protections that are supposed to be in place for protected views of Wembley Stadium and what has been described as the claustrophobic, canyon like, approach to the stadium along Olympic Way.

The 'protected' cumulative view from Barn Hill. The 3 Olympic Way towers are in green outline and those in the pipeline in pink - including plans for the Wembley Stadium Retail Park and Fountain Studios site.

 The view along Olympic Way with the green and pink outlines of the proposal and those that have preliminary agreement.

 

 Danes Court in North End Road (now opened up to through traffic) the proposed development will be on the right.

Claim that 'Wembley Variant' soaring amongst fans after Euro2020

 I have just returned from Olympic Way where there was a positive and friendly atmosphere with many families present BUT even in the most crowded outdoor spaces no masks being worn. However, masks were worn in Sainsbury's my fans stocking up with beer,

The i Newspaper has published a story claiming that Covid19 is soaring amongst groups of fans who attended the Euro2020 matches at Wembley Stadium - sufficient for it to be dubbed the 'Wembley Variant'.

Report HERE It was published yesterday and updated this morning.

The introduction to the report.

Swathes of England football fans have reported testing positive for coronavirus following the Euros final on Sunday night, as Public Health England (PHE) issued renewed calls for regular testing ahead of the lifting of restrictions on Monday.

Some fans said that “pretty much everyone” they knew who headed to the stadium had contracted the virus or was self-isolating. The large numbers of fans reporting positive Covid tests following the match has led people to dub the illness “the Wembley variant”.

The final at Wembley, which was part of a Government trial to test the safety of large events, saw 60,000 fans attend with no social distancing or masks after producing a negative test result. However, thousands more congregated outside and dozens of ticketless fans stormed the stadium.

Government Data up to July 12th LINK