Forthcoming Brent Connects Meetings for your area via zoom Oct 31st to Nov 17th

 From Brent Council

Brent Connects are area-based forums covering the five areas of the borough; Harlesden, Kilburn, Kingsbury & Kenton, Wembley and Willesden.

These meetings are an opportunity for you to meet your local ward councillors, meet other members of your community and have your say on things that matter most to you. You will be influencing decision-making and have the chance to ensure that your voice is heard.

Brent Connects meetings will be held online via Zoom for each area:

• Harlesden - Monday 31 October from 6pm to 8pm
• Kilburn - Friday 4 November from 6pm to 8pm
• Kingsbury & Kenton - Thursday 10 November from 6pm to 8pm
• Wembley - Thursday 17 November from 6pm to 8pm
• Willesden - Tuesday 15 November from 6pm to 8pm

The next meetings will focus on the upcoming round of funding for community cash, the budget consultation and a local topic specific to your area.

We want Brent Connects to create space for local communities to come together to discuss the things that matter most to them and to work collaboratively with the council and its partners to develop and test new ideas for better outcomes for Brent residents.

Councillor Fleur Donnelly-Jackson,

Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Culture 

 

Register your place and find out more about Brent Connects.

Appeal to London Assembly following Ealing Council's approval of Twyford Abbey application for bulding on Metropolitan Open Land

Ealing Planning Committee's approval of the development at Twyford Abbey is subject to referral to the GLA.  Local resident Kiran Rao has written to Green Assembly Member, Sian Berry, in an individual capacity on behalf of West Twyford residents, setting out the case against the development.

 

Twyford Abbey in Ealing is perceived to have, ‘significant public heritage, environment and community benefits.’  This lens belies the truth that the benefits outweigh the harm, grossly misinterpreting Metropolitan Open Land policy and setting a dangerous precedent.   Ealing Council approved this development on the 19th October 2022  with the comment from the Ealing Planning Committee that GLA’s stage 1 decision did not factor in perceived ‘public benefits’.  In our climate emergency, we need to protect this land in order to be able to breathe cleaner air as part of our green recovery and wellbeing. 

 

The southern proposed open space is not desirable for the harm that will be inflicted to biodiversity net loss from TPO and MOL status as communicated by 255 objectors. Residents have access to 20 acres of parkland, lakes and garden within less than a 60 metre distance of this proposed development and several play areas throughout the West Twyford area. 

 

Other community ‘benefits’ proposed by the developer are limited access to an allotment, walled garden and orchard, but these so-called benefits are only a pavement away from an 8 lane motorway!  Growing food in a highly polluted area does not constitute healthy eating and active travel along the 8-6 lane motorway to the Hanger Lane gyratory, as proposed by the developer, does not constitute healthy active travel.  We do not have the active travel infrastructure nor can it be built in to make this a viable proposition. 

 

This is not some country idyll, this is a highly polluted industrial landscape, it is traffic saturated with significant health inequalities in our community.  The officer report notes that, “harm caused to metropolitan open land would be to the northern extent of the site which is flanked by the North Circular that does not perform well in respect of its functions as metropolitan open land and it is considered that the harm would be outweighed by the aforementioned significant public benefits” but it is exactly this area where the so called ‘amenity benefits’ will reside, from the walled garden to the allotments and we will lose two thirds of MOL land, critically on a flood plain.  We do not have assurance of the flood risk, as Thames Water have only agreed to this after lengthy negotiations and on principle.

 

Furthermore, there are significant concerns by a major stakeholder- the large primary school, adjacent to this development.  School Governors have objected on safety, health and education grounds, which is not reflected in the officers report.  This school cannot be transformed into a school street due to the topology of the area and traffic calming measures do not satisfy the school (there will be an increase in 100 parking spaces in the development and increased service demand).  We fear that it will take the death of a child either through a traffic related incident or via air pollution, for Ealing Council to take note of the harm caused for this generation and future generations to come.  The school currently has 431 pupils and includes a Children's Centre with facilities for pre-school care and nursery and reception/nursery aged pupils.  This is an area of deprivation with 28.4% of pupils on free school meals.  Current air pollution directly impacts pupils' health with significant spikes in asthma and respiratory conditions.  

 

There is a total misrepresentation of Green Belt/MOL policy and how it should be applied and there is a breach of biodiversity net gain.   

 

According to Directive 2011/92/EU Annex II, which forms part of The Town And Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, an EIA is required for 10. (b) Urban development projects, including the construction of shopping centres and car parks. The applicability threshold (ii) the development includes more than 150 dwellings is fulfilled.

 

The report and its conclusions are unbalanced and selective.  For example on (page 88 and following) Ealing Council mentions the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 but does not consider chapter 15, namely conserving and enhancing the natural environment.  This selective approach to conveying and interpreting policy, is neither transparent nor fair.  

 

You cannot remove 157 mature protected trees and woodland and expect there to be biodiversity net gain in replacing established trees and woodland with saplings.  The £100K for tree planting is not proportionate to the scale of this development with no aftercare plan in place.  A high proportion of newly planted trees in our area die as the  Ealing’s tree department is under-resourced. 

There is a total misrepresentation of Green Belt/MOL policy and how it should be applied;

 

●      Policy G3A of the London Plan affords MOL the same planning status as the Green Belt. Policy G3A protects MOL from inappropriate development in accordance with the national planning policy tests that apply to the Green Belt. These tests are set out in the NPPF.

●      Policy 147 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

●      Policy 148 of the NPPF states that 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

●      Policy 149 of the NPPF states that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. The policy identifies types of development that are exceptions to this policy. None of these exceptions apply here.

●      London Plan and NPPF policies do not appear to have been considered in the documents relating to this proposal

●      Concerned that the 'Assessment of Impact of Development Proposals on Metropolitan Open land' submitted to support the proposal does not test the development against these policies.

 

In relation to housing;

 

●      There are approximately 1850 new actual/proposed accommodation units around Lakeside Drive to 1849 around Hanger Lane Gyratory and other major developments; The Royal Waterside and Grand Union sites that have a bearing on local impact.

●      The proposal intends to deliver 110 affordable homes, which would allow for the delivery of 36% affordable units. London Plan Policies H4, H5 and the Mayor's Affordable Housing and Viability SPG seek to maximise the delivery of affordable housing with a strategic target of 50% across London. The threshold level of affordable housing on gross residential development is initially set at a minimum of 35%. This 'threshold approach' is sought by the applicant for one purpose only, i.e., to become eligible to follow the Fast-Track Route set out in the SPG, that will allow the applicant to not submit a viability assessment or be subject to a late stage viability review.

●      Ealing Council blames this failure on problems with migrating pipeline data into the GLA’s Planning London Datahub, which replaced the GLA’s London Development Database in 2020. Worse still, it is now using this excuse to apply the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development (see Twyford Abbey  planning application ref - 222378LBC and 222341FUL (Schedule Items 03 & 04 f2 of the officer’s report) due to be decided at Planning Committee on 19 October).

 

 We dispute the Council’s account of the reasons given in the officer’s report for Twyford Abbey for the lack of a 5-year housing land supply figure. See Planning Policies - Housing Land Supply.

 

The figures provided to the GLA’s Planning London Datahub originate from Ealing Council. If the Council has been aware of this data migration problem since 2020, why has it not taken steps to analyse its own data in the meantime as most other local authorities across the country have to do?

 

Indeed, why is it that by July 2021 (it may well be more now), 15 London boroughs, including the largest (Barnet) have been able to produce AMRs including 5-year housing land supply for 2019/20 when Ealing hasn’t?

 

When we enquired directly with the GLA on 28 September, we received by return an email from Peter Kemp, the Head of Change and Delivery, Planning saying that:’ You will be pleased to hear that the Datahub is now fully operational for Ealing, and as such any data that you are now looking for is now accessible, plus significant amounts more.’ 

 

Why is it that the Council, knowing the significance of the 5-year housing land supply, has not used the almost three weeks since the GLA’s confirmation to calculate that as a matter of urgency?  It seems to us that the Council’s withholding of a 5-year housing land supply figure betrays its own desire to collude with the developer in tipping the balance in favour of the development.

 

Finally, in terms of Air Quality (AQ) we consulted AQ experts at Imperial College London. 

 

●      In terms of air quality, the final sentence of the Detailed Air Quality Assessment report states, “The development has been assessed to exceed air quality neutral, but with the implementation of mitigation measures, this could be reduced.” LBE has committed to enforcing air quality neutral policy, therefore, by its own admission, the application should be rejected. I would not expect the phrase, “with the implementation of mitigation measures, this could be reduced” to be considered sufficiently strong to override this stated policy. Concrete measures to ensure it is air quality neutral should be enforced. I note that those mitigation measures proposed (encouragement of cycling, electrical charge points etc) may reduce impact, but it will not make it neutral. 

●      The application should not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality.  This does & is therefore in breach of The London Plan 2021 Policy SI1.

 

Our community was portrayed as not wanting change.  We do wish to see the restoration of Twyford Abbey but this needs to be done sympathetically with respect to the biodiversity and protections that exist and the typology of the area.  Ealing council need to be shown leadership to provide an alternative vision for this site, it could so easily be a genuine public asset.  This decision, if approved, will be devastating for this and future generations to come. 

Humphry Repton returns to Wembley Park

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant

 

 

I wrote about the work of the landscape gardener Humphry Repton in Part 1 of The Wembley Park Story, as part of “local history in lockdown” in May 2020. He turned farmland at Wembley owned by Richard Page, into a landscaped country estate around a house previously called “Wellers”, in 1793. Repton had firm views on what such estates should be called:

 

‘There is at present no word by which we express that sort of territory adjacent to a country mansion, which being too large for a garden, too wild for pleasure ground, and too neat for a farm, is yet often denied the name of a park, because it is not fed by deer. I generally waive this distinction, and call the wood and lawns, near every house, a park, whether fed by deer, by sheep, or heavy cattle.’

 

That’s how Wembley Park got its name, and it was, as Repton said in a letter to a friend in May 1793, ‘a most beautiful spot near Harrow’. 

 

Extract from a letter written by Humphry Repton on 6 May 1793. (From a copy at Brent Archives)

 

I don’t know how many times, if ever, Humphry Repton came back to Wembley Park after that, before his death in 1818. But a celebration of his career in 2018 by The Gardens Trust has led to his return this week. 

 

As part of their “Sharing Repton” events, a bust of the famous landscape designer, by the sculptor Hannah Northam, was donated to the Trust by Haddonstone. It was decided to award this as a prize in a competition open to places across the country where Repton had worked – and the winner was … Wembley Park!

 

Last Wednesday afternoon, I was one of a small crowd standing at the corner of Elvin Gardens, beside Humphry Repton Lane. Some of the builders working nearby were giving us puzzled looks, but seemed even more puzzled by a cloaked figure, wearing a Quintain hard hat.

 

 

The mystery figure was revealed when we were joined by the (even more beautifully robed) Deputy Mayor of Brent, Cllr. Orleen Hylton, who unveiled the bust of Humphry Repton.

 

 

As an aside, the pendant on the Deputy Mayor’s chain of office bears the date “1937”, another piece of local history. It was part of the Civic Regalia donated by the local benefactor Titus Barham, the Chairman of the Express Dairies company, when Wembley was made a borough in that year. He was chosen to be Wembley’s first Mayor, but he died just before the borough received its Charter. He left his home in Sudbury, and its beautiful grounds, for the enjoyment of the people of Wembley, and they were opened as Barham Park in January 1938.

 

In her short speech at the unveiling, The Garden Trust’s Head of Operations, Linden Groves, noted that all of Repton’s designs for this part of the Wembley Park estate had now gone, to be replaced by Quintain’s ongoing development. However, she was impressed by the modern landscaping of areas like Elvin Gardens. She emphasised how important green spaces were for the wellbeing of residents, as had been clearly shown during the Covid-19 lockdowns.
 

I hope that Cllr. Hylton will take that message back to her fellow councillors, as well as telling them about Humphry Repton, and the bust of him in the gardens just behind the Civic Centre.

 

The location of the Humphry Repton bust – see lime green arrow. (Image from Google Maps)

 

The site across Humphry Repton Lane from the bust has been built on since the aerial image above, and the block of apartments nearing completion is called Repton Gardens. Quintain originally planned to move the bust to Union Park, when work on that is completed, but its present location seems far more appropriate. I hope you will take the opportunity to go and see “Humphry” when you are in the area!

 

 

If you would like to find out more about Humphry Repton and his work, the London Parks & Gardens Trust has recently published “Repton in London – The Gardens and Landscapes of Humphry Repton (1752-1818) in the London Boroughs”. I will be recommending that Brent Libraries gets at least one copy that can be borrowed, but if you would like your own copy, go to: https://www.londongardenstrust.org/publications/repton.php

Philip Grant.

Brent Council announces appointment of new Corporate Director of Communities and Regeneration

 Press release from Brent Council (unedited)

 

Zahur Khan is set to become Brent Council’s new Corporate Director of Communities and Regeneration, after joining from Lewisham Council where he is Director of Public Realm.

 

In a career spanning more than 20 years, Zahur has led a diverse range of services from highways, transport, parking and street cleansing as well as significant regeneration and development programmes.

 

Beginning his career at Hackney Council in 1994 before moving to Islington Council, Zahur worked his way up through the ranks to become Head of Public Realm. Following 13 successful years in Islington, Zahur enjoyed spells in Director level roles at Nottingham City Council and the City of London Corporation. The services Zahur led at the City of London earned a national reputation for innovation and excellence and contributed to a thriving local economy. Most recently, Zahur has been the Director of Public Realm at Lewisham leading a directorate of more than 400 people delivering solutions that help manage and enhance the public realm.

 

Carolyn Downs, Chief Executive of Brent Council, said: 

 

I am delighted to welcome Zahur to Brent. Regeneration is at the core of what we do but what is most important is that the next phase of our regeneration is co-designed and owned by our communities. It is about making sure our communities see the benefits of regeneration, including through employment and skills. Zahur shares this vision and has the knowledge and leadership skills to help us deliver the next phase of Brent’s ambitious agenda.

Zahur will be responsible for several key areas in the council including regeneration, planning, supporting businesses, driving economic growth, community safety, equalities, policy, scrutiny, strategic partnerships, communications and engagement.

 

Zahur said:

 

I am delighted to be joining Brent which is one of the most diverse and most exciting boroughs in London. I am passionate about improving opportunities for the communities of Brent and helping residents to achieve their aspirations. Brent’s challenges provide exciting opportunities for us to adapt and listen to the needs and desires of everyone who lives or works in Brent. Through innovative ways of working we can do more to enable residents and businesses to thrive and prosper.

 

Brent Council’s Leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt, welcomed the appointment. He said:

 

 I am looking forward to working with Zahur as we seek to empower local people, partners, businesses and organisations to help shape the borough’s future. Putting communities at the heart of everything we do is what this council is all about. I’m delighted to have Zahur on board to help us to create a borough alive with opportunities and a borough where no one is left behind.

Zahur will take up the vacant Corporate Director of Communities and Regeneration post from January 2023.

 

Plans for 1,500 homes on College of North West London's Dudden Hill site revealed - it's early days get your feedback in

 

The College Entrance

The Hill Group held an on-line consultation and an in-person consultation this week in the first stage of their engagement with the public over plans for the  extensive Dudden Hill campus.  I attended both.

The College will be demolished in phases with the eventual move of both the Dudden Hill and Wembley Park students to a new building in Wembley Park on the site of Network House.

The plans are for c1,500 new homes, work spaces, retail, nursery and community facilities. They are at an early stage and little detail is available. This gives residents a possible opportunity to influence the development.

Some buildings were demolished some time ago but there are also comparatively new buildings that will be demolished when redevelopment gets underway:

 

 

 

The plans include a central green open space as well as the retention of the green at the junction of Dudden Hill and Denzil Road.

A tree survey of the site is to be completed but a tour of the site yesterday demonstrated that there are some attractive specimens which I hope will be retained.

 

The size of the plot can be seen from this satellite image. Note the green corridor along the railway line and the area near Dudden Hill Lane and the green where buildings have already been demolished.

 

Among the issues I raised was the heights of the buildings. The highest blocks will be along the railway line and complement the tall buildings on the other side of the line on the former garden centre site. Lower blocks will front Denzil Road and  Selbie Avenue.

I was told that tenure for the homes had not yet been decided and there were ongoing discussions with Brent Council. I stressed the importance of the provision of genuinely affordable housing and the findings of the Brent Poverty Commission that social housing was the only housing type that was affordable for Brent residents on the housing list. It was cleared that despite the issues involved shared housing would be part of the mix as well as private sale and built to rent. We discussed the current conditions regarding cost inflation.

You will see from the boards below that there is quite a lot of retail planned within the development. When I raised doubts about that given how many such units remain unlet in Wembley Park I was told that this was a different sort of development and the retail would serve the residents rather than visitors. It was not envisaged that it would compete with other nearby retail outlets.

Community spaces are planned and the public are invited to share ideas for what they should be. A nursery is already planned. An earlier visitor had suggested a swimming pool. I was interested that there shddould be an accessible and affordable space in which the new residents and other locals could get together with perhaps a cafe along the lines of the Chalkhill Community Centre model.

Further questions were raised about 'child yield' the number of chidlren expected to live in the 1,500 homes and the capacity of local schools as well as the impact of increased commuter traffic on Dollis Hill Jubilee line station.

The on-line webinar had a small section on the separate but connected WembleyPark  campus redevelopment also to be be built by the Hill Group. This is separate from Quintain's development of the 'Fulton Quarter' which includes the curren retail park, McDonalds and the former TV studios, now a temporary theatre,

The Wembey site has the  Wealdstone Brook running by and there are plans to see if this can be naturalised. I of course spoke about the extreme climate change flooding dangers as covered elsewhere on Wembley Matters.  A very tall building will be the cornerstone of this development but there will be a separate consultation on this. 

Concerns that came up earlier when plans were first publicised was whether the new integrated College site in Wembley Park would be able to house the space hungry engineering and building faculties that exist in Dudden Hill and whether Willesden area students would be happy travelling to Wembley Park for their courses.

Have a look at the Exhibition Boards below kindly supplied by Hill Group and submit any questions or feedback to collegegreen@fourcommunications.com .

Click on bottom right corner for full page view.

Twyford Abbey development approved by Ealing Plannng Committee despite overwhelming opposition from residents, and from the nearby primary school, local councillors, the GLA and Rupa Huq MP

 

 

The recording of the Twyford Abbey development application representations and discussion at Ealing Planning Committee can be viewed above.  The application to develop on Metropolitan Open Land, currently in private hands, was approved despite overwhelming opposition from residents, and opposition from two ward councillors, the GLA and Rupa Haq MP.  It involves the loss of 157 mature trees and 7 acres of protected woodland.

 

Brent borders the site and some Brent residents registered objections. However, Brent Council was consulted and had no objections.The planning committee's  decision will now go to the GLA.

 

 Twyford Abbey and the South Lawn

 

The GLA had commented on strategic issues:

 

Land Use Principles
The proposal does not meet the exceptions of paragraph 149 of the NPPF and constitutes inappropriate development on MOL which is, by definition, harmful. A full public benefits package is required to determine whether ‘very special circumstances’ exist to outweigh the harm to MOL and any other harm. Confirmation is also required as to whether the loss of the extant school permission is considered acceptable in terms of being in a borough of identified
need, or other social infrastructure.

Urban Design/Heritage
The proposal would result in harm to the grade II listed Abbey, with a degree of harm to the walled garden and St Marys Church which will need to be weighed against the public benefits including those related to the restoration of the historic buildings. This exercise will be undertaken at Stage II referral once the additional information is provided (including views) and a full public benefits package is
available.

Other Matters
Also required are a London Plan (2021) compliant fire statement and consideration of pedestrian access to the North Circular as well as further information/revisions in relation to housing, affordable housing, transport and sustainable development.

Planning Officer Response: Noted, and all above matters will need to be discussed with the GLA during the Stage II process and are included in this report.

 

 These are the 'Very Special Circumstances' put forward in support of the application. 

 

Rupa Huq MP wrote:

 

I am writing to register my concerns with the above application in relation to the repurposing of Twyford Abbey for residential accommodation and formally object.

 

I was pleased to get a look at Twyford Abbey recently courtesy of the developer. Whilst I grew up locally this was the first time I’d seen the historic Abbey buildings and got behind the gates. The setting is hugely impressive and I agree that something better should be done with it other than lying dormant.

 

However, I am very concerned about the impact that such a monster development proposal will have, both on the site itself, and on local residents in surrounding streets. The provision of some 326 new homes on a relatively small site represents a very dense development of unnecessary height including seven new blocks of flats, along with a terrace and other stand- alone homes, represents a significant increase in the built footprint of this primarily greenfield site.

 

This proposal is completely incompatible with the nature of the site and the surrounding two storey residential roads; and will adversely affect the outlook of existing homes and longstanding residents on Iveagh Avenue and Brentmead Gardens forever. Significantly this is also metropolitan open land i.e. quasi green belt. Under the London Plan, metropolitan open land is afforded the same status and protection as green belt and is expected to be protected from inappropriate development.

 

Current government policy dictates that nature should be left in a better state at the end of development processes than at the start and that we should be aware of carbon footprint. It is not clear to me that this is proven here when the application proposes the removal of some 100 mature trees, including trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order – at a time when people talk of offsetting by planting trees to contribute to the urban ecosystem. As well as an immediate loss of habitat and biodiversity locally, the value of the trees in offsetting air pollution from the adjacent A406 dual carriageway is significant to local residents. Furthermore, the loss of the trees as part of the outlook from existing properties would represent a loss of amenity for local residents.

 

Existing residents here anyway feel stuck in a no man’s land between Brent and Ealing with e.g. no doctor’s surgery. Such a substantial residential development and concomitant population growth in this area will place local services – which are generally limited in this area – under significant strain. There is insufficient parking proposed which I foresee difficulties with.

 

Some elements of the proposal are indeed eye-catching. I agree that the grounds should be opened up and the Abbey deserves better than to rot away. However, the explanation I sought on my site visit of balancing resident privacy requirements of what are being presented as exclusive residences and allowing the public to roam the green spaces is not clear in my mind. My worry is this will ultimately be a gated community. The proposed provision of barely one-third of units as genuinely affordable housing will mean that this development does little to assist with the affordable housing shortage in Ealing, and falls below the expectations of genuinely affordable housing provision of both Ealing Council and the Mayor.

 

Whilst obviously the developer is sensing pound signs in their eyes, I feel that there are better uses for this great site. I understand that there is for example extant planning permission in perpetuity for a school. This - with the public able to use the greenspace of the grounds at weekends - feels a more acceptable solution. There is precedent for this in Ealing e.g. with the very successful Ada Lovelace school. I know of at least one local independent school which is seeking to expand and there may be others.

 

In conclusion, while I feel there is a better use for Twyford Abbey than lying dormant I remain unconvinced that this proposal represents the best possible long-term, sustainable and sensitive solution for the future of the Twyford Abbey site that would safeguard the heritage and biodiversity of the site and provide real benefits to the Abbey’s neighbours.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Dr Rupa Huq
Member of Parliament for Ealing Central and Acton