Bridgewater development approved by Brent Planning Committee despite areas of non-compliance

Brent Planning Committee approved the revised schemes despite several areas of non-compliance with Brent Council's own guidance - the usual reasoning being the balance of benefits over disbenefits.

Only Cllr Michael Maurice voted against the application based on the shortfall of affordable housing and 3 bedroomed flats and the general design.

The issue of air quality on this busy road was not addressed  by the Committee or developer.

As Alperton ward councillor, Anton Georgiou, made a 5 minute contribution:

I always get a sense of déjà vu when addressing the Planning Committee. Every time I come here to oppose yet more dense development in my ward of Alperton, I do so on behalf of residents who are hugely frustrated and have simply had enough.

 

Affordability

 

I am not here to deny that young people like me, who were born in our borough, and have lived here our whole lives need places to live.

 

I am also not here to deny the fact that we continue to have a vast housing waiting list in Brent, which includes on it some of our most vulnerable residents.

 

That being said, I once again want to highlight that of the 173 units proposed in this development, only a fraction can be deemed realistically affordable, despite what the report states, with the vast majority being totally out of reach in terms of affordability for local people, let alone our most in need residents over the long term.

 

54 units are proposed at a London Affordable Rent level and the other 119 are shared ownership.

 

Shared ownership, as I am sure the Committee will agree, has huge pitfalls. Before approving more shared ownership schemes in Brent, we need further evidence that shared ownership is a genuinely affordable housing model. There are indicators that the most economically vulnerable are at most risk with shared ownership. It is one thing to deem units affordable at this stage, but as many already have unfortunately found out, there is no long-term guarantee of affordability. Particularly with no defined cap on rising rents on the percentage the shared-owner doesn’t ‘own’, coupled with the misery of ever increasing service charges and extra hidden costs like building repairs, the cost of lease extension, fees attached to stair-casing.

 

Don’t take my word for it, I highly recommend Committee members take a look at reports from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which go into detail about why Councils should be highly sceptical of shared ownership. In my opinion, we should be arguing against this broken housing model altogether.

 

This development also does not meet Brent’s 25% target for family sized units, as stated in the report – something that we really, really need in our borough. We do not need even more 1 to 2--bedroom boxes in the sky. Why do we have targets if we allow developers the room to always miss them?

 

Infrastructure

 

The proposed development is in an area that is experiencing intense development. The impact that this is already having on existing residents cannot be overstated. I have spoken to many families who have or are thinking about leaving Alperton because of nonstop development.

 

Planning decisions being by this Council are literally driving people out of our borough.

 

Despite the excessive amount of CIL, of which this development would contribute more to the pot, existing residents see very little done in terms of improvements to infrastructure in Alperton. In fact, we are seeing worsening standards in the area.

 

The meagre £50,000 ring fenced through section 106 contributions for One Tree Hill, will not touch the surface of ASB and other issues there. I speak from experience having seen how an NCIL bid worth over £100,000 to transform Alperton Sports Ground down the road, which had to be approved by Cabinet, did not even come close to addressing the concerns or desires of residents.

 

The recent loss of Alperton Bus Garage, a major, historic transport infrastructure site, just metres from the proposed development, has had a knock-on effect on local bus services. The concern that this would happen was brushed aside when the decision on that development was made.

 

I also note references to proximity to Alperton station and the Piccadilly Line in this report. In theory yes, it is a great asset that should be adequately serving local need. It does not. The infrequency of Piccadilly Line trains on the Alperton branch, when compared to the Heathrow one continues to be a major problem that results in huge backlogs at rush hour times. Despite recognition by all developers in the area that Alperton station is becoming a major travel hub that will be used by more local people the contribution towards step-free access by the developer is nowhere near enough to realise this aspiration.

                                                                           

Many of us have long highlighted the dire and dangerous state of local pavements. Metres from the proposed site on Bridgewater Road over 30% of paving slabs are regarded by Council Officers to be in need of repair and yet there is never enough resource to do essential remedial works. I find the response to a resident comment on this matter in the report particularly interesting, as it states “Community Infrastructure Levy funding could contribute towards works of this type”, which in my view and from my understanding of CIL would set a precedent.

 

Fundamentally, Alperton residents do not understand why more and more developments are being granted approval by this Committee whilst the state of local infrastructure is so bad.

 

Parking

 

A major issue we as Councillors have to contend with is the demand for parking provision in our wards. I can only reiterate how bad the situation is in Alperton, even more so in immediate areas surrounding new development.

 

There does not seem to be an overarching plan by the local authority to deal with inevitable increases in the number of vehicles on our roads. Existing residents are already contending with pressures on local parking provision as it stands – this development will make it worse. I do not believe the £80,000 contribution by the developer towards the implementation of a Controlled Parking Zone is a fix. The imposition of a CPZ without resident consent is wrong.

 

If we want to move away from reliance on car use, which I agree with, why is the Council not investing heavily in active travel infrastructure measures, like cycle lanes, alongside the approval of even more development in Alperton. It is short-sighted not to.

 

Conclusion

 

I appeal to every member of the Committee to really consider what this authority achieves by imposing yet more tower blocks in Alperton.

 

The focus of this Council should at this stage be to take stock, establish whether existing development has contributed to making our area better and gain a better awareness of the dangers of promoting shared ownership.

 

I strongly urge you to reject this application.  

 

Bridgewater Road, Alperton scheme back at Planning Committee tonight with amendments - are the homes 'truly affordable'?

The already consented scheme at the Westend Saab and Boyriven Textiles site in Bridgewater Road, Alperton will come back to Planning Committee tonight with changes.

The Committee is at 6pm and can be viewed HERE.

Officers' summarise the changes as:

The number of residential homes proposed is 173, compared to 124 in the consented scheme (an uplift of 49 homes). As with the consented scheme, all units would be provided as affordable housing in a policy-compliant mix of tenures. The scheme would secure 54 London Affordable Rented homes (the consented scheme secured 47 London Affordable Rented homes) and 119 intermediate homes (the consented scheme secured 77 intermediate homes).

· The amount of industrial floorspace proposed is 2,228sqm (GIA) compared to 1,878sqm in the consented scheme. It would continue to fall within use classes E(g)(ii) and E(g)(iii) as per the consented scheme.

· The bulk, scale and massing of the proposal would be altered, with the base element of the building increasing from one to two storeys and the lower point block (Block A) increasing in height from eleven to 13 storeys. Both the three-storey frontage building and the seven-storey central linking element at the rear would be removed, and the width and depth of both point blocks would be increased. The height of the taller Block B would remain at 19 storeys

 

 Given the recent discussion on Wembley Matters about the Brent Poverty Commission's view that the only rent truly afforable for Brent residents is council or social rent it is worth noting that 'affordable' home in this case  (54) actually refers to London Affordable Rent (higher than social rent) and the intermediate homes (1190 are actually shared ownership not considered affordable and with many drawbacks.

 

Remember Cllr Rita Conneely  recently told Scrutiny Committee to be very careful about terminology, especially as regards 'affordable' housing - transparency and ready understandability by the public is essential!

In addition to the main report there is a Supplementary of interest to Clear Air Advocates. I have especially highlighed on questionable paragraph.

 

A further review of baseline conditions and residual effects was conducted and is summarised below. In terms of baseline conditions, an additional 12 months of published air quality data has become available since the preparation of the Air Quality Assessment, across the full 2021 calendar year. However, the impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak upon air quality, due to nationwide changes in transport patterns and pollutant concentrations, mean that data from 2021 would not be representative of baseline conditions and so should not be used for assessment purposes. Therefore the approach taken in the Air Quality Assessment, to use 2019 as a baseline year, is considered to remain the most robust means of assessment. The newly available data would not impact the results, conclusion or proposed mitigation.

In terms of residual impacts on air quality, the predicted demolition and construction effects would not be affected by the amendments to the plans and would remain insignificant. In terms of operational effects, relocating two residential units from the first floor to the second floor would reduce the exposure of future residents to poor air quality, in line with the expectations of the Air Quality Positive approach.

 

Conversely, relocating the residents lounge to the ground floor could result in future residents being exposed to poor air quality. Mitigation measures such as nitrogen oxide filtration would be required to prevent significant health
impacts on residents using the lounge.

It is likely that these mitigation measures would not support windows in the lounge being openable. However, it should be noted that the residents lounge is not required by policy but is proposed as additional to the private internal space of residents’ homes and the private and communal external amenity space provided.

Residents could choose whether to make use of it, and would be less likely to use it for prolonged periods of time compared to their own homes and the external spaces. In these circumstances, it is considered that non-openable windows would be acceptable.

The necessary mitigation measures could be secured by the following proposed additional condition:

“Condition 29: Prior to first occupation or use of the development, further details of air quality mitigation measures required to ensure acceptable air quality levels in the residents’ lounge, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable standard of air quality for residents is achieved within the development.”

The proposed scheme also delivers significant planning benefits over and above those secured in the consented scheme, principally the increased number of affordable homes and increased amount of industrial floorspace. Although the development has not been demonstrated to be Air Quality Positive, these factors,taken together with the fallback position and proposed mitigation measures outlined above, are considered to outweigh the harm caused by this limited conflict with policy in this case.

Amendments to plan numbers (Condition 2):
Minor amendments to the list of approved plans are proposed.

These reflect the submission of an existing site plan to aid CIL calculations, and minor alterations to the elevational drawings including amendments to fenestration detailing. These alterations would have a negligible impact on the overall design quality and appearance of the proposal and are not considered to
require reconsultation

 

Recommendation: Remains to GRANT PERMISSION subject to conditions and s106 obligations as set out in the Committee Report and the additional Condition 29 proposed above

Brent Cabinet approve consultation on moving Islamia Primary School from Queens Park to Kingsbury despite parental opposition

Islamia Primary School parents presented a petition opposing the move of the school to the Strathcona site in Kingsbury at today's Cabinet meeting.  Public space in the meeting room was limited but 15 or so parent supporters squeezed in to back up Jamad Guled as she spoke to the petition:

 

The Yusuf Islam Foundation has issued  Islamia Primary school with an eviction notice. For the past couple of years Brent Council and Islamia's  governing body have been in talks in regard to moving the school to South Kenton which is over 6 miles away from Queen's Park.

 

Last June the Governing body  informed parents that  the decision was made  to move and  it was just being finalised. No mention of a consultation.

 

Panicked parents had to write to the council and were reassured  no decision was made yet and the school had a statutory duty to consult parents. 

 

Unfortunately, this attempt to mislead the parents created a lot of unnecessary  confusion,  frustration and mistrust.

 

 This petition was signed by 509 stakeholders, this undeniably demonstrates that the local community is against such move and worried about the future.

 

A change like this requires a serious discussion around issues like :

 

1) affordability especially since we are in the midst of a cost of living crisis ( low income families, single parent households and those with work and caring responsibilities will be left behind)

 

2)accessibility ( how will children with mobility problems,  children with sensory difficulties  or families with multiple young children travel safely  to a location with no viable parking facilities nor lifts)  they will be left behind as well.

 

3) higher population density ( how will local residents cope with increased traffic and people?

 

4) the environmental impact of  increased number of vehicles driving from different locations and accessing a small area like the Strathcona site.

 

5)safety concerns when hundreds of young children will  have to travel to a school  located in an industrial area near a car repair centre,and will also be accessing busy train station platforms every day at peak times.

 

Parents demand that  an equality and impact assessment is carried  out to protect the most vulnerable families.

 

We must bear in mind that some families, no matter the sacrifice required will choose to travel. How is the council going to protect and support those families? 

 

Others will choose to home-school.

 

This will make monitoring children's attainment and safety difficult and put further pressure on services required to monitor  and safeguard children.

 

This representation  is an opportunity to voice our anguish and worry as parents.  It aims to shed a light on the blatant discrimination this decision will enable.

 

It is our hope that this will be an opportunity to rise above the mighty  power afforded to some  VA schools which make it extremely hard for parents to be heard, to enforce  accountability and demand transparency. 

 

The truth  is, we are where we are because many opportunities were missed  over the years. Should the children be the scapegoats for those?

 

We are calling upon the council to finally  listen and act in the best interest of Islamia's children. 

 

We are tired of being permanently in limbo and kept in the dark.

 

 Everyone here knows that Strathcona is not a fair nor safe solution and should have never been an option made available to  Islamia's Governing body. If the governing body cannot uphold its duty of care, then the council must  step in, and safeguard children's futures by withdrawing this inadequate offer and  find a local solution.In the second part of my petition l have discussed the option of the new school being built in South Kilburn.

 

I firmly believe this is the best  solution. The council has a duty to use taxpayers where needed most.

 

 Carlton Vale and Kilburn Park have been struggling with numbers for years and cannot fill the new  2FE school being built. They  currently have respectively 77 and 76 children on roll. For a capacity of 230 and 240.

 

2022’s national census predicts a further decline in birth rates  therefore there  will be no shortage of primary schools places in the foreseeable future. So the council cannot invoke pressing needs.

 

 Government data shows that schools in the area are all operating well below capacity and can easily accommodate children from Carlton Vale and Kilburn Park when their school is demolished. 

 

That will be a like for like solution that will not disrupt their lives.

 

Islamia's children  will not be afforded the same consideration whether the school moves or shuts down  and some children will have to join neighbouring schools. 

 

Islamia's children will lose the faith element In their education .And faith matters.

 

 How can the council justify earmarking the new school for two empty schools when an oversubscribed and popular  one is at risk of shutting down? Who will safeguard Islamia's  children travelling 6 miles for compulsory education?

 

 Let us not forget that Islamia is a Brent school.

 

Sofia Moussaoui, Chair of Governors at Islamia, also spoke.  She said that she had seen the petition and the Governing Board would consider if the proposal for South Kilburn was viable but the Council had said the site was not available. Anyway it  would not have been available for 4 years and the school had only 2 years  in which to find an alternative site.  The school had been under pressure in terms of space, occupying a split site that was supposed to be temporary, but they had been there for 14 years.

 

She said, 'Ideally  we will take parents with us.  We will look into how to get them there. The main thing is to get families behind us.'

 

Leader of the Council, Muhammed Butt said that the Council would take on parents' broad concerns  over the viability of the proposal but the South Kilburn site was not an option. It was a long-long term part of the South Kilburn Development Master Plan.

 

Cllr Grahl, Cabinet Lead for Schools,  said that she recognised that the Council had invested in other sites but unfortunately South Kilburn was tied up as part of a development. Eviction had come at a time when no other sites were available in Queens Park.  An effort had gone into the Strathcona project and the Council will work to ensure a smooth transition for parents and children. The consultation would enable parents to contribute and the Council will look at how to facilitate access particularly for children with special needs.

 

Cllr Butt added that the petitioners will be able to have a say through the consultation. The main issue is to secure the futuure of the school working with the Governing Board and the Trust. He personally had been out to look for alternative sites and Strathcona was the only one that can be developed as a permanent site.

 

Perplexingly no questions were asked about why the Yusuf Islam Foundation had evicted the voluntary aided primary school while the private secondary schools remained. No reasons were given in the Cabinet papers and neither Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) or the Foundation have replied to the question, 'Why the eviction notice ?' sent on Twitter, Facebook and email.

 Social media reactions:

 The report that clears the way for a formal consultation on the move was approved by Cabinet.

 

 

 

Brent Council's cancellation of community skips on the demise of the Queen 'ludicrous'

 Amidst the tributes over the weekend there were exchanges on social media about the most inept reactions of some organisations to the death of the Queen. Brent Council's cancellation of community skips got an honourable mention.

On the community skips page of its website Brent Council announced:

Following news of the death of Her Majesty The Queen and in line with guidance during the period of national mourning, all community skip events up to and including 19 September have been cancelled. Alternative dates are being sought and these will be published on this page as soon as possible.

 

In fact Government guidance said:

 

 The areas affected by the cancellations included Harlesden and Kensal Green, Kenton, Kingsbury. Barnhill, Queens Park and Kilburn.

A local resident contacted Wembley Matters this morning to say:

Much as I adored Her Majsty and am deeply saddened by her passing, this is utterly ludicrous!

 

Unfortunately some residents who had prepared items for the skip and are now inconvenienced by their storage, and with no new date fixed, may be tempted to fly-tip them. 

Please don't.

Newland Court residents call on Kilburn Times to cover their concerns over Brent's infill proposals

 

Newland Court

 

The residents of Newland Court and Grendon Gardens have written to the editor of the Brent and Kilburn Times asking him report on their concerns over Brent Council's infill proposals:

Dear André Langlois,

 

I am sure you are aware of Brent Council's 'infill' programme to build as many properties as possible in existing estates within Brent at any cost, even the mental health and wellbeing of all the residents that these 'infill' proposals will affect. I would like to invite you or one of your newspapers' representatives to come to our estate and see for yourself why building 7 new townhouses at Newland Court just doesn't make sense on so many grounds including the fact that Brent Council are prepared to ignore their own Brent Council's Planning Guidance and go ahead with this proposal. This proposal also affects residents of Grendon Gardens whose gardens back onto the proposed site and whose trees will all either be damaged or destroyed and are all sited in a conservation area of Barnhill. 

 

We are all aware that there is a housing shortage especially for 3-4 bedroom family homes and that some families wait an average of 15 years. After all, I was one of them but this housing shortage has been a problem for over 40 years and Brent have been aware of this and have done nothing.  Suddenly because of pressure from the government to build new social homes and the fact that they may lose a certain amount of funding if they don't by a given date, they have decided to build in almost all their existing estates at any cost. Why??? because they have sold all or most of their plots of land to private developers to build unaffordable homes that are either bought or rented by foreign investors. You only have to see what has happened around Wembley Stadium as one example. 

 

Brent council moved their headquarters to the Civic Centre (at a cost of about £100 million but rumoured to be a lot more) from the former Brent Town Hall on Forty Avenue and sold the land which is now a private French School. That land could have been used to create 100's  of council homes. There are numerous little plots of open spaced land scattered across Brent that could be used for homes. There are lots of derelict homes that Brent could gain purchasing orders for and of course the former Unisys building on the corner of Harrow Road and the North Circular that has stood empty for 25 years in wasted legal disputes. Below is a link to Wembley Matters with a letter I wrote to Councillor Promise Knight and a few other Labour Councillors including MP Barry Gardiner regarding this issue.

 

So I hope you can write an article in your newspaper highlighting our issues and concerns regarding this matter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Marc Etukudo

On behalf of residents of Newland Court and Grendon Gardens. 

 

 

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/07/newland-court-residents-objection-to.html

 

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/08/newland-court-residents-put-question-to.html

 

Quintain sells off Wembley Arena

 

From Quintain Ltd

 Quintain, the developer and asset manager behind Wembley Park, confirms that it has completed the sale of the OVO Arena Wembley to Intermediate Capital Group (ICG). This forms part of Quintain’s strategy to focus activities going forward on build to rent residential across development and asset management, neighbourhood retail and placemaking.

Built in 1934, the OVO Arena Wembley (formerly Wembley Arena) has played host to some of the world’s most famous artists, including David Bowie, Queen, Abba, Britney Spears and Beyonce. It is the venue where artists love to stand on stage and shout “Hello, Wembley!”.

Purchased by Quintain in 2002 as part of an initial acquisition of 44 acres of land in Wembley Park, the OVO Arena Wembley was transformed by Quintain in 2006 with a £36m refurbishment which, along with the new stadium, cemented Wembley’s position as one of the premier UK locations for live music and entertainment.

Built as the “Empire Pool” in 1934 to host swimming events for the Empire Games, the Arena has also hosted events for both the 1948 and 2012 Olympics. Today the Arena typically hosts 120 events a year across sport, music, comedy and entertainment.

With a capacity of 12,500, the Arena is the second largest in London and is operated by ASM Global, the leading entertainment venue operator, with a portfolio of over 350 venues worldwide.

James Saunders, CEO of Quintain, said: “As we build out the Wembley Park estate, with 3,000 more homes still to deliver, we continue to focus our efforts on our Build to Rent ambition, neighbourhood retail and placemaking. Naturally, we will work with ICG and ASM to ensure that the world-famous OVO Arena Wembley will remain an important part of this world class destination and neighbourhood.”

Andreas Papadolambakis of ICG Real Estate, said: “We’re delighted to be the new custodians of the iconic OVO Arena and to be partnering with ASM, a globally renowned arena operator. The investment represents ICG Real Estate’s first in the content and live entertainment space, a sector which is benefitting from structural tailwinds. As music consumption has pivoted towards streaming, touring has become increasingly important for artists whilst consumers are dedicating an increasing portion of their disposable income to experiences over material goods. We expect this to be the first of a programme of investments in the European content and live entertainment market.”

Chris Bray, Executive VP Europe of ASM Global, said: “Quintain have been excellent landlords for the OVO Arena for the last 20 years and we thank them for their stewardship. We look forward to working with new owners, ICG, to enhance Britain’s most iconic arena and continue to bring world class acts and artists to this world-famous entertainment district.”