Brent Council revises Newland Court planning application reducing the number of units

 

Revised application

July 2022 application

Some residents received a letter from Brent Council before the weekend directing them to a revised Newland Court application. Unfortunately the documentation had not been uploaded to the Council Planning Portal and only appeared this morning, perhaps after a rminder from Wembley Matters.  The deadline for responses is May 25th.

The number of housing units has been reduced from 7 to 5, fewer trees will be removed and on-site parking increased according to Maddox acting for the applicant,  Brent Council:

 

This planning statement addendum has been prepared to account for minor changes to the scheme, in response to feedback received from officers at Brent Borough Council and other stakeholders during the consultation stage on the original planning application which was submitted in September 2022 (LPA ref: 22/3124).

 

Notably, this included concerns from the highways officer regarding parking overspill, whereby the removal of residential units and additional car parking along Newland Court was recommended. The tree officer also raised concerns regarding the future maintenance of trees.

 

The Applicant has carefully reviewed the proposals in line with these comments, with the total number of residential units reduced alongside several other resultant changes. These are summarised below, with this addendum prepared as an updated to the previously submitted planning statement – accounting for all key changes.

 

• Units 01 and 07 have been omitted from the proposals. As such, the total number of units has been reduced from seven to five units – now comprising 3 x 3-bedroom 5 person units and 2 x 4-bed 7 person units.

• The removal of two residential units has allowed for a substantial increase to car parking.

• In total, 28 on-street car parking spaces are now re-provided as part of the proposals (in comparison to 12 under the original planning application).

• The private amenity areas serving the proposed units have been increased in size (again as a result in the reduction to the total number of residential units). This is explained in further under the proposed development section and within the Design and Access addendum (as prepared by FBM).

• The overall site area has reduced to 0.350hectares (as a result of the reduction in total unit number).

• The location of the bin stores has been revised to more convenient locations for existing/future residents.

• The total number of trees and tree groups proposed for removal to accommodate the proposals has been reduced from 13 to eight trees and tree groups. These are all low-Grade C trees and tree groups. 14 new trees will be planted across the site.

• 15 existing trees and tree groups will be retained, with additional protection measures proposed for five of these trees and tree groups which will be affected by the proposed works. This is summarised in full within the supporting Arboriculture Impact Assessment Addendum (March 2023) (as prepared by Waterman).

• The reduction in the total number of residential units minimises maintenance of trees whilst enhancing the outlook for future residents. This directly responds to previous concerns from Brent Borough Council’s Tree officer.

• Further landscaping has been incorporated at the entrance of the scheme, enhancing outlook and a sense of arrival for residents and visitors – directly in line with comments received form Brent Borough Council planning officers. 1.7 metre footpaths are also provided either side of the proposed one-way street, allowing additional green space to communal green areas of Newland Court.

355 new hotel rooms for Olympic Way plus 26 storey private residential block. Nearby residents complain of daylight and sunlight impact,

 The new hotel tower replacing 3 Olympic Way and the Novotel upper extension

The rattle of luggage trolleys will become louder along Olympic Way if Brent Planning Committee approves a new 23 storey hotel to replace the  current much lower 7 storey building at 3 Olympic Way  and a further 6 storey upper floor extension to the Novotel making it 16 storeys  high.

The officers' report states;

The proposed hotel accommodation would comprise of an upwards and infill extension to the existing Novotel at 5 Olympic Way, as well as separate, new hotel directly adjacent at 3 Olympic Way. The application states the new hotel would be a 3 star model and that the reception area to the existing Novotel would be transformed to create a shared reception area for the both the existing and proposed hotels, with extended restaurant offer to cater for both hotels too. The leisure facilities proposed (i.e. swimming pool and gym) at basement level below the proposed hotel will also serve the existing Novotel.

 

In apparent contradiction to this description of shared facilities the officers also state:

 

This hotel is planned to be used by a different hotel operator, (i.e. it would not constitute a further extension to the Novotel), and would have 260 hotel rooms.

The planning application is not limited to the hotels. The site includes a large car park space between Olympic Way and North End Road that will be built on. 

Plans for this space includes a 26 storey  residential building with 142 private homes named the 'Central Residence' and a 10 storey bullding of 30  apartments facing North End Road for 'affordable' housing.

The proposal goes to Brent Planning Committee at their meeting on Wednesday May 10th 6pm. Residents can apply to speak  on the proposal.  LINK

 

 The officers' report spends considerable space on the problems of 'viability of social housing provision' and ends with agreeing that despite much higher requirements in terms of guidance that 10.4% social rent and 6.97% London Shared Ownership is all that can be provided in terms of financial viability of the whole development.

 To summarise 142 homes (82.5%) will be private, 18 social rent (10.4%) and 12 shared ownership (6.97%) shared ownership.  So only 1 in 10 of the homes will be properly affordable.

As social and shared ownerships are all in one building on North End Road there is no impingement by 'affordabe residents' on the private area.

The officers' report addresses existing residents' concerns over access to daylight and sunlight  (they say Danes Court, Pinnacle Tower, Trabriz Court and Felda House are affected) with this statement:

The growth area designation which applies to this location, and which envisions significant housing growth within the locality of the site is given significant weight. The expectation for significant development within this growth area, as well as the expected high-density nature of development, would naturally reduce the expectations for full compliance with the daylight and sunlight guidance for new development in this location. As noted above, the undeveloped nature of a large proportion of the site affords some surrounding buildings access to a higher level of existing sunlight and a generous baseline scenario, however this is a location where change is expected to occur and the existing baseline conditions cannot realistically be maintained

The officers' report states that there are 22 objections to the development but there are 57 recorded (some going back to the 2021 application);

Here is a recent objection;

Danes Court resident: In response to your further letter regarding the application 3-5 Olympic Way HA9 0NP, I wish to again oppose these plans. I can see no significant change to the planning application for this site, which was first opposed by me in March 2022.

As I mentioned before, the proposal to develop and build a building on 3-5 Olympic Way of basement ground, nine, twenty two, and twenty five storeys will have a very detrimental impact on me and my family (and other Danes Court residents). I live in 22 Danes Court which faces and is adjacent to North End Road. Over a period of several years our quality of life has declined considerably due to the building of numerous very tall blocks of flats and student accommodation; Victoria Hall, Felda House, Scape, 1 Olympic Way, Anthology, and recently a vast Barrett tower block of flats. These have had a considerable impact on the light on my flat. Since these buildings have been erected and most recently 1 Olympic way where a 15 storey tower block had been built opposite our flat (to add insult to injury, this block appears to be unoccupied!), the light to my flat has almost disappeared. We now have almost no sunlight onto our flat. The days of enjoying an afternoon sitting on my balcony are a distant memory and with this proposal we will be almost constantly living in shade.

The proposal to build 9, 22 and 25 storey buildings plus add six storeys to the Novotel hotel will almost completely decimate any remaining light on our flat. This is not only detrimental to our well being, but our health as well. The reduction in light and privacy have impacted on our mental health and quality of life. Plants that used to thrive on my balcony now do not due to lack of sun (this may seem minor to you but is important to me). This proposal will significantly negatively impact on mine and others quality of life. Please consider the Right to Light Act 1959. I have lived in my flat for 28 years and enjoyed wonderful light for most of that, now it has lessened to very little and this proposal will take most of the little light we have particularly in the afternoons.

These buildings plus a supermarket will bring more people and traffic, which will also impact on the noise, litter (a huge problem since all these buildings have been erected in and near North End Road), privacy, anti-social behaviour and traffic. North End Road is a dangerous rat run of traffic, fumes and noise. It is almost impossible to cross without taking your life in your hands. Lorries, cars, vans and occasionally coaches thunder down that road. We are also often disturbed by vehicles sounding their horns in the midst of severe congestion of traffic during school pick ups and event days. Adding further congestion with traffic from these buildings will increase the nightmare of this hideous, dangerous road.


The Danes and Empire Court flats were built in around the 1930s. The recent buildings have smothered them, (they are now hidden by surrounding ugly concrete tower blocks,) and brought only negative impact on the residents.


Litter has increased substantially. Only today I watched a man empty his care boot of plastic water bottles and chuck them on the ground. Take away food containers and other rubbish had led to an increase in vermin and made the area look run down, which I am sure has contributed to an increase in crime. Ie drug dealing has become the norm.


This proposal will considerably further add to the detrimental impact on mine and other residents qualify of life. Therefore I oppose it.

And one from April last year:

Shams Court resident:  

With reference to planning application 21/2130, I would like to register my strong objections to this application as it will have a major impact on all occupants of my address, all 9 flats in Shams Court, and I believe our opinions should be counted as we have clearly been identified in the plans as THOSE MOST AFFECTED. My reasons for objecting are as below:


1. Developers have stated that they consulted us (the owners of Sham's Court). This is entirely UNTRUE and NO attempt has been made by the developers to consult any of the owners of Sham's Court. This is just one example of the falsehoods mentioned in their planning application.


2. From the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessment you can see that the 8, 22 and 25 storey buildings will completely overshadow the ENTIRE SOURCE OF NATURAL LIGHT to our kitchen and bathroom. This is our MAIN source of natural light.


3. Shams Court is a small 4 storey building, which will be engulfed in full 360degrees by extremely high towers. The image attached has a mouse which points to the EXACT location of my flat. You can very clearly see the tower would block ALL daylight through my windows and is in touching distance of the building. It is visibly engulfing my apartment and the entire Shams Court. We would be left in darkness ALL DAY- you can literally see a full shadow on the developer's image of our flat.


4. In the new report our kitchen and Bathroom windows would get 1% of daylight and with the daylight from the front living room and bedrooms would be an acceptable daylight required. I completely disagree with this. Our living room is long and hence the daylight coming in will not get to the kitchen area and we will be below the living standard acceptable daylight. Also presently we have to leave the bathroom door open to have daylight in the hallway and entrance area. Therefore when the bathroom receives 1% daylight the area mentioned will be in total darkness. This is outrageous. How can you ignore where we receive such a significant proportion of our daylight. It is false representation of the effects of this project. The developers have omitted key information in their reports.


Additionally, the costs of electricity have sky-rocketed. Once the light has been reduced to a pathetic 1%, I will have to keep my lights on constantly, using an excessive amount of energy. This is bad for the environment and will put considerable strain on my finances due to the electricity price increase. Shams Court was purpose built as affordable housing - which it will no longer be


5. The buildings will tower over Sham's Court and we will be in engulfed in darkness. Our roof garden will be overshadowed leading to no daylight/sunlight and our privacy will be entirely lost. My mother who lives with me and is a key worker from home will be working in her room in a very dark environment. This is not acceptable for mental health or working conditions.


6. This development will have detrimental effects on our living standards, privacy and health. This is going to affect every resident's privacy. All of us will be under heavy stress which can cause significant damage to our health and everyday living conditions both during construction and even more-so after completion due to significant increase in population density, noise, nuisance and anti-social behaviour. There are six young children in our block and their lives deserve better than this scenario. This development, if approved, will have an unbearable impact on the mental and physical health of every resident and child in this small 4-storey building.


7. The development of 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) have already left us with very little natural light and an extremely claustrophobic environment to live in. Our privacy has already been significantly reduced with existing towers. Approving this development will remove any remaining privacy that we have.


8. The layout and density of this development is clearly over-development and is overbearing in depth and height. Leading to all forms of uncomfortable situations. The construction will have detrimental effects on living standards, noise levels, cranes, dust emissions, demolition, digging and construction and trackout of materials and heavy vehicle noise will lead us to living in a terrible environment.


9. Noise levels, anti-social behaviour, disturbance and nuisance from overcrowding of a very small area with thousands of people will significantly affect our quality of life on a daily basis. We already struggle with noise in the area and this will increase it infinitely.



10. The ground stability will certainly be compromised with the large-scale excavation proposed. We share an underground basement with the existing Novotel hotel and further construction of this nature can lead to a weak structure and compromise the safety and integrity of all the surrounding buildings.


We kindly ask Brent council to understand the detrimental effects this proposal will have on the residents of Shams Court. We trust you to protect us from this loss of all natural light, increased noise pollution, disturbance, loss of privacy and increase in anti-social behavior.


We hope you will protect us from these outrageous, inconsiderate proposals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good Law Project plans legal challenge over voter ID rules

 

 From Good Law Project

Plans to bring forward a legal challenge over new mandatory voter ID rules ahead of the next general election were announced by Good Law Project yesterday (Sunday 30th April). This comes on the back of mounting concerns that the Government’s Elections Act 2022, which requires voters to present certain forms of photo ID, could lead to significant numbers being turned away from polling booths at this Thursday’s local elections across England.

This legislation, expected to cost the taxpayer up to £180 million over ten years, provides a list of valid Government-accepted photo IDs to vote with. However, the list has sparked significant controversy as it includes many forms of ID available to older people, such as an Older Person’s Bus Pass or 60+ Oyster Card, but disallows 18+ Oyster Cards and 16-25 railcards.

Good Law Project has been raising concerns about how these rules could disenfranchise young people and other communities. 

As a possible solution, the Government recently introduced ‘Voter Authority Certificates’, but the latest figures show the scheme has had a very poor take up with around 4% of the estimated 2.1 million people who do not have valid ID applying for one.

Good Law Project has taken and will proceed from legal advice from a team led by a specialist King’s Counsel to monitor the effects and impacts of the voter ID rules on the upcoming local elections and bring a case against the Government to challenge these rules before the general election.

Executive Director of Good Law Project, Jo Maugham KC, said:

The voter ID rules are a really bad thing to happen in a democracy - a needless act of sabotage against the universality of the franchise. 

On the evidence, they cannot be explained otherwise than as an attempt to deny those likely to vote against the Government the ability to do so. They need to be challenged, in court. And this is exactly what we plan to do.

Wembley Stadium - what might have been

 A Wembley Stadium centenary guest snippet from local historian Philip Grant.

 

 

Euro 1996 football fans, heading for the future! (Image: Foster & Partners)

 

It’s 1996, and Wembley is staging the final games in the Euros football tournament. But the original stadium, built in 1923 for the British Empire Exhibition is showing its age, and it has been agreed that it needs to be replaced.

 

In April 1996, the “go ahead” Brent Council had launched its masterplan for the redevelopment of the area around the stadium, with improved public transport links and parking facilities, and more public open space around the stadium to improve pedestrian circulation. At the centre of this new Wembley Park would be ‘a world class Wembley Stadium for the 21^st century’, designed by Foster and Partners for the English National Stadium Trust.

 

The logo of the old Wembley Stadium, up to 2000. (Image: Wembley Stadium Ltd)

 

But, of course, you could not demolish the iconic “twin towers”. They had been made a Grade II listed heritage asset in 1976, and English Heritage said that they must be retained. Many football fans, and many in the press and general public, agreed.

 

The stand-alone “twin towers”, in front of the new “Wembley Wave” stadium. (Image: Foster & Partners)

 

Sir Norman Foster’s solution was to demolish the rest of the old stadium, and move the twin towers northwards, by around 100metres, towards Wembley Park Station. They would still provide a gateway to the stadium precinct for spectators coming up Olympic Way, but moving them would create the space for the pitch to be turned through 90º, so that it would get the best natural light.

 

The new stadium would have a fully retractable roof, supported by a metal framework running above the top of its outer walls, and dubbed the “Wembley Wave”. It would seat 80,000 spectators for football and rugby matches, and 75,000 for athletics events (the track would be under retractable seating). The external skin of the stadium would provide a giant screen, on which pictures could be projected.  

 

The new stadium lit up at night, with a large open space to its north-east. 

 (Image: Foster & Partners)

 

Those pictures could include moving images for the benefit of spectators outside the stadium, in a large square to the north-east of the new Wembley. This open space would allow fans to circulate more freely around the stadium, and avoid congestion, both before and after matches or concerts. 

 

As we all know, this is not the new stadium Wembley actually got, in 2007. I think there are parts of the 1996 design, including the extra public space around the stadium, which would have been an improvement! [Others, like moving the “twin towers”, were probably impractical.] What do you think?

 

Philip Grant
(With thanks to Paul, for the pictures)

 

 

UPDATED with questions for the Barham Park Trustees from Cllr Paul Lorber - Brent Council on Barham Park Covenant: 'Move along, nothing to see here.'

 The is a covenant on the plot in Barham Park which is the subject of a planning application to demolish two 2 storey houses and replace with four 3 storey houses. The restrictive covenant may have to be removed to allow development, so I put in an FoI request to Brent Council on its valuation.

This is the answer received today:

 1. Please confirm if you have acquired a professional valuation of the
Covenant attached to the two  properties at 776-778 Harrow Road, Barham
Park that were sold to George Irwin.

 
Response: The Council has not acquired a professional valuation of the
covenant attached to the two properties at 776-778 Harrow Road, Barham
Park. 

2. If not, have Brent Council officers made their own valuation and
informed the Trustees of  Barham Park accordingly? 

Response: No. 

3. If either have been done, what is the valuation of the Covenant?
 

Response: This is not known as a valuation has not been carried out.

UPDATE Cllr Paul Lorber has submitted the following comment with some vital questions for the Trustees of Barham Park.

Thanks to Martin for asking for information which should not be cloaked in secrecy.

I am would be surprised if none of the Trustees (5 Labour Councillors who sit in the Cabinet) asked for a valuation of the Covenant. The 5 Trustees/Councillors have a clear fiduciary duty to protect the value of the Charity assets and the Covenant may well be the Barham Park Charity's most valuable asset.

As the applicant also confirmed that they do not currently own ALL the land to which the latest application applies there is clearly some land owned by the Barham Park Charity they wish to build or take ownership off.

If I was one of the Trustees I would certainly ask for full legal and financial advice on the implications of both the Planning Applications, The Covenants (including it value) and the land not currently in the applicants' ownership which may be lost to the Park should the application be approved.

Aside of the Panning Application we therefore have 2 very clear issues for the Trustees to consider and to be properly advised on:

1. Will the Trustees stand by the Covenant and block any expansion of building in Barham Park?
2. If not why not?
3. If not what price will they charge instead of enforcing the Covenant?
4. Will they protect Barham Park in line with Council policies in relation to Open Spaces and refuse to sell any part of the Park that the applicant clearly needs as part of the current planning permission?
5. If they are mindful to sell the extra land needed by the applicant what price will they require to do so?

The Trustees duty in this case is to the Barham Park Charity and NOT to the Council and they will no doubt be reminded of this. The Council Officers may well feel obliged to obtain expert legal advice and possibly guidance from the Charity Commission to ensure that the Trustees act in the best interests of the Charity and no one else - even if this means blocking any building in the Park irrespective of what planning permission is granted.

As the land is part of a charitable endowment there are complex issues to consider as simply granting planning permission will not be the end of the matter - after all somehow a planning permission to demolish the two houses and replace them with more slipped through in 2017 and was never implemented.

The issues of the Covenant is also not simply as there are numerous beneficiaries to whom the Covenant may relate to - including possibly all the current leaseholders of the parts of the other buildings in Barham Park.

One of those leaseholders is Barham Community Library which pays rent to the Barham Park Charity.

I am one of the Trustees of Barham Community Library and as such am especially keen to ensure that Brent Council Officers managing the Barham Park Charity deal with this matter properly, obtain all the necessary advice and be transparent in all their dealings.

Hopefully Martin's questions will now prompt Brent Council officers to obtain the Valuations and advice they and the Trustees will need.