Despite opposition from nearby residents who said they had not been consulted and would lose light and suffer ASB from students, the planning application for 619 bed student accomodation in Watking Road, Wembley Park, was passed by Brent Planning Committee last night. The committee were told there was demand for such accommodation from London colleges as well as the Football Business University in Wembley. They were also told the provision would relieve pressure on other accommodation including HMOs and would deliver the equivalent ot 247 units towards Brent's Housing target. Officers argued that students would support the local night-time and cultural economy.
A double tower on the site of Prospect House on the North Circular Road was also approved. The site is on a flood plain and framed by the River Brent and the Grand Union Canal, as well as the polluted North Circular Road.
The site has some dubious history worth reading in this article by Alison Hopkins. LINK
This is the official one sentence Minute of the Deferral Decision:
On the basis that a majority of Members on the
Committee had indicated they were minded to refuse the application,
it was agreed to defer a final decision to a future Committee
meeting in order to enable a further
report to be provided addressing the indicative reasons outlined as
the basis for refusal, relating to affordable housing and
viability, the height and design of the scheme in relation the surrounding area and whether the
development of the site had been optimised in order to maximise the potential planning
benefits.
After more than two hours of discussion, possibly a record, at the end of Brent's Planning Committee's consideration of the Mumbai Junction application, only Chair Matt Kelcher and Vice Chair Saqib Butt (Council Leader Muhammed Butt's brother) voted to approve the planning application. The other six councillors voted to reject the application.
Rejecting an application against the advice of planning officers is highly unusual and usually results in warnings of costly appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and the likelihood of losing the case if the reasons for rejection are not sustainable in planning terms.
This is what happened last night when the members of the committee who had voted against had difficulty in articulating their reasons for rejection. In one case their reasons were also in conflict, with most members against the bulk of the design while Cllr Liz Dixon wanted the building to be bigger, claiming that increased height could enable affordable housing to be included in the development. It wasn't a conservation area so why not build higher? Tower Block Tatler watch out - you have a rival!
Councillors' concerns over the lack of affordable housing in the development were answered by officers in terms of two viability reports that, despite different figures, claimed that the development would not be financially viable if affordable housing was in the mix. As it was the developer would only return a profit of 13% against an industry standard of 17.5%
Interventions by the Head of Planning and a senior planning officer stated that the reasons given for rejection would not be sufficient to win an appeal and could incur costs on the council, were accompanied by a suggestion that instead of rejecting the application, the committee should defer it. This was taken up with relief by a shaken Cllr Kelcher who sought to persuade his committee members that this would be the best approach: officers would return with a new report that would address some of their concerns at a subsequent meeting.
One by one the councillors who had voted against the application agreed to deferral, although it was hard to see what could be changed in order to satisfy the critics who were concerned about the impact of the develoment on the wellbeing of local residents (including traffic), the design being out of character with the local suburban area, the height (2 different views) and environmental concerns - as well as the lack of affordable housing.
There were several public speakers the first of whom was ex Labour and Conservative councillor Wilhelmina Mitchell-Murray who asked, 'Is Brent Council there for the residents or for the developer?'
Cllr Bajwa (Northwick Park) opposed the development citing environmental issues, access to parks, parking and traffic. There was nothing in the application for local people.
Cllr Collymore (Northwick Park) who was only supposed to answer questions from fellow councillors became very angry and seemed to suggest that the commitee were letting down the Labour Group (I can't be sure so please check the video above that begins with her intevention). She said that the way Cllr Kelcher was behaving meant that the decision would not go in favour of her residents who paid Council Tax.
Cllr Kennelly in his submission emphasised the importance of the hospitality industry and the continuation of a hospitality venture on the Mumbai Junction/John Lyon site. He said that the application offered nothing in terms of afforable housing which should be a council priority.
Cllr Lorber (Sudbury) said that the committee should have had a site meeting with residents. The developer had paid £2,000 for a pre-application meeting with committee members but residents were unable to speak to them on site. He spoke of 'devious moves'. Cllr Kelcher reacted angrily saying that that the pre-application meeting was part of the normal process and said that the way Lorber had raised it was 'Trumpian'. He gave an assurance that the decision on the application would be madse in accordance with guidance.
The applicant, the owner of the Mumbai Junction, said it was a family run business that for various reasons including ageing and illness in the family, they had dcided to discontinue. Despite looking busy they had never had the current level of difficulty in running the business until now. He rejected Cllr Maurice's suggestion that he was using covid as an excuse.
Twitter was busy during the meeting with one person tweeting that information given on traffic accidents by officer was wrong: '12 single RTAs in the last 12 months. Road rage every day at the exit of the roundabout' and 'at least 3 vehicles in the last few years went straight on the roundabout (literally) and a lady died in an RTA 50 yards away. Officers do your job properly, speak to residents.'
Cllr Collymore's references to the Labour Group perhaps reveals misunderstanding. The Planning Committee is supposed to be non-political in its quasi-judicial role and members are not whipped. The Labour Group should play no part.
Or perhaps it is not a misunderstanding and just revealing.
UPDATE: BRENT PLANNING COMMITTEE APPROVED THE APPLICATION
Councillors on Brent Planning Committee had no questions for Alperton Councillor Anton Georgiou after he gave this presentation on the Prospect House development at tonight's Brent Planning Committee.
I wonder why?
I
am here to speak against the application for the development of Prospect House
on the border of Alperton ward and on the edges of the North Circular.
I
will start by re-iterating the palpable local anger at never-ending development
in our area. Alperton has experienced more than its fair share of large
development in recent years. Schemes that have been completed and those
currently at building stage are already causing countless issues for local
residents. Whether to do with limited investment in needed infrastructure,
traffic congestion, pressures on parking provision.
This
is not the first time I have said this at Planning Committee, but decisions
being taken by this Council are driving people, many who have lived here for
most, if not all of their lives, to move away from Brent.
I therefore plead with members of the Committee to keep this in
mind when making the decision about the application in front of you today.
The possible approval of yet another large, unsightly tower
block, in this instance 23-storeys high, would continue what seems to be
Brent’s principal objective of trying to achieve its housing targets outlined
the borough plan. Fitting as many units in as possible, without acknowledging
their impact on the wider community.
Housing targets are important, particularly targets for the
right type of housing.
We all recognise that London is experiencing a shortage of genuinely
affordable homes for local people and importantly a distinct lack of Council
homes for Council tenants. However, are the units being proposed at Prospect
House and indeed others already approved in Alperton actually meeting that
need? I and many others would argue no.
I would like to refer the Committee to the report paper which
breaks down the tenure types in the proposed development.
Once again, we see a distinct lack of genuinely affordable units
and a reliance on Shared Ownership units to beef up the supposed affordable
units in the development.
A significant percentage of the supposed affordable units are
made up of Shared Ownership units. I’m confused at this, as I had thought the
Council had previously been quite clear that Shared Ownership is not an
affordable housing model, and not something that should be lumped under the
umbrella term ‘affordable’.
I would refer the Committee to comments made by Senior Council
Officers and Councillors on this matter at a Scrutiny meeting in November 2022
and elsewhere.
By approving yet another development that incorporates Shared
Ownership into the ‘affordable offer’ you will be legitimising this
controversial housing model once again and in doing so trap potential shared
owners into a housing scheme that will cause years of financial and mental
misery.
Seeking to develop another large tower block on the edge of one
of the busiest, polluted roads in Brent, is alarming and should alarm members
of the Committee too.
The area around the North Circular is notorious for bad air
quality.
This issue has become more and more prominent in recent months,
given incoming changes to ULEZ. There is universal acceptance that air
quality in London is poor. People in London die as a consequence of bad air
quality. Therefore, why would this Committee seek to approve the development of
dwellings in an unsuitable, polluted area like this?
What will the quality of life be for those who might consider
living at the Prospect House development. What will the long-term impact on
their health be?
A lack of required amenities in the vicinity of the proposed
development is also a concern and something the current owners of Prospect
House have highlighted as a reason for limited appeal from potential tenants.
Quite frankly, it is in the middle of nowhere and access to shops and other
amenities is very limited.
As is access to open green space, which I still believe is very
important to enhance the quality of life for those who may choose to live there.
A diagram in the plans show some distance would need to be travelled for a potential
resident to get to the nearest green space. It is highlighted in the diagram
that a child would need to be accompanied by a parent or carer to get to the
nearest open space, in this case Heather Park. Will it now be the norm that
young people will only have access to local green spaces in exceptional
circumstances?
For any potential residents with a disability or mobility
issues, where would the Committee suggest they do a food shop or pick up
prescription medication?
Prospect House is also located within Flood Zone 3a and sits
between the Grand Union Canal and close to the River Brent. Whilst the Flood
Risk Assessment is considered to be acceptable, I continue to have concerns
about the potential for flooding, particularly in light of recent major
flooding very close to the site in Tokyngton Avenue. In recent weeks this
has been flooded three times.
There is always a risk of flooding when buildings of this size
and scale are built so close to a watercourse, coupled with it being in an area
known to be vulnerable to flooding.
The fallout from flooding has a major impact on all residents in
the area, I can only imagine the huge inconveniences we will have to put up
with if indeed flooding occurs at this site in future. Are you confident
that enough has been done to mitigate this potential risk?
I ask that the Committee reject this application based on all
the points raised and in view of the unsuitability of this site for another
large housing block.
I also request that the Committee take the time to visit
Alperton in the near future to understand the concerns residents and I have
long raised with you.
It is time that this Council pauses and takes stock of the
negative impact developments like this one will have and have had in our area.
If you do not, you will continue to drive lifelong residents out of their
borough.
When asylum seekers currently accommodated at the Holiday Inn, Wembley, protested yesterday they were joined in solidarity by local people sick of the anti-refugee propaganda put out by the Government and much of the press.
In a leaflet given out at the protest they said:
Homes Not Hotels: The vast majority of us have been waiting for over 9 months for a decision - many of us for two years and more. Imagine what it is like, waiting with daily anxiety and sleepless nights to know if you are safe. With no right to work, nutritionless food, a few pounds a week, guards at the door. Theses are more like prisons than hotels. But with no fixed sentence or check out time.
Compassion not Cruella: We know we're not the only group in need. Other people are using food banks, struggling with rents and health services. When our claims are processed that will be us too! But asylun seekers are being blamed for all the problem of this country. We hope that everyne can see that this is the divisive strategy of Home Secretary Suella Braveman.
Alice Lester, Brent Council's Director of Regeneration, Growth and Employment, has refused the request to recluse some councillors or defer the Mumbai Junction item.
In an email she wrote:
You have requested a stage 2 review of your complaint, and also that some members of the planning committee are recused from consideration of the planning application reference 22/3260, 231 Watford Road.
You also suggest that the application should be deferred from the committee as given this request for a stage 2 review, the complaints process is ongoing.
The Council’s position is that the investigation into the stage 1 complaint demonstrated that the planning application can be considered by the committee as currently constituted, and a sound decision is able to be made. A stage
2 complaint investigation does not outweigh the process of determining planning applications in a timely manner.
If a person sufficiently affected by the planning decision believes that the decision is legally flawed, the correct process to follow is to challenge it via a judicial review.
The complaints team will progress the stage 2 review on behalf of the Chief Executive.
There was a time when there was barely a peep out of anyone about proposals for tower blocks in the development zone around Wembley Stadium, mainly because apart from the residents of North End Road, few people were impacted.
Now the picture is different as the first residents of the high rises find that more buildings are going up in close proximity affecting their access to light and creating a claustrophobic atmosphere. In addition some are also protesting that the plethora of student accommodation is undermining attempts to create a sense of community.
Both issues are cited in objections to new buildings on Watkin Road which replace low rise light industrial buildings. I am surprised that the residents did not realise this was inevitable given the high value of these sites to developers as height and densification leading to higher profits. Some even comment favourably on Quintain's developments as having more respect regarding light and privacy.
Density and Height
This is the proposal for at total of 619 student units at 1-4 and 9 Watkin Road
The proposal includes land on both the northern and southern sides of Watkin Road, each containing blocks of purpose built student accommodation.
The southern site would contain a building that is a maximum of 27 storeys in height and is part 18 storeys and part 6 storeys and has a basement, whilst the northern site would contain a building that extends to 21 storeys in height.
The southern site is proposed to deliver 1,490sqm of commercial floorspace within the basement to 2nd floors and 419 student accommodation bed spaces (and ancillary amenity spaces) across the 3rd to 19th floors.
The northern site is proposed to deliver 200 student accommodation bed spaces (and ancillary amenity spaces)
Obviously with lower standards than residential accommodation more students can be fitted into the space.
The large majority of of the 54 objections to the development come from 581 North End Road but there are also objections from residents of the Helix, St Andrew's Court and Foster Apartments. The only support comes from UCFB (University Campus of Football Business) and there is one neutral comment from Great Portland Street.
This is representative of the the objections from 581 North End Road:
581 North End Road I, like my neighbours, strongly object to the proposed
plan. I find it unacceptable that the initial plan has changed so significantly
over time despite how devastating its effects on the other residents in the
area are. The initial plan had many issues, too. But, the additions over time
have made it even worse. Please find my reasons below.
1. Complete blockage of all daylight to my home
My home, placed on Floor 12, only gets a sliver of daylight every day from one
angle, with much of my home constantly in the dark. The planned building would
completely block the only daylight I get every day while working from home and
resuming my daily life. The serious health implications of little to no light
every day include Seasonal Affective Disorder, depression, vitamin d deficiency
(which leads to bone and back pain, fatigue, frequent illness and more), and
sleep disorders. The financial implications would see me having to switch on my
lights almost all the time, creating an unmanageable increase in my bills. It
would also mean that without the sunlight naturally warming up my flat, my flat
would be colder and thus I would need to keep my heating on a lot more often.
2. Excessive number of Student Accommodation buildings in the area causing
immense anti-social behaviour and a complete lack of community.
When I decided to make Wembley my permanent home and invest my hard-earned
money here, I was painted a picture of a blossoming community trying to move
away from hotels, student accommodations and anti-community initiatives. As it
stands, our building is suffocated by the number of student accommodations
(e.g. Grand Felda House, Canvas, Pavilion Court, iQ Student Accommodation,
Unite Students, Host the Helix, etc.). These temporary young residents do not
treat our neighbourhood as a residential area. They litter, smoke, consume
drugs outdoors, throw alcohol bottles and eggs from their windows onto our
communal areas and the streets below, and more. Our parcels and post get stolen
all the time. There are random, stolen supermarket trolleys in front of the
student accommodation buildings almost all the time, too. We are barely feeling
safe and like we have neighbours we can start to build a community with as it
is. We do not need more temporary residents, especially students, wreaking
havoc and making Wembley Park insufferable. This has and will continue to
increase our maintenance fees, too, as we have to pay to get our communal areas
cleaned after they throw eggs and glass bottles.
3. Complete blockage of my flat's view
One of the main reasons I bought this specific property as opposed to other new
build developments was the view of the city it promised. Currently, from my
flat's two windows facing where this new plan would be built, I can see the
Shard, the London Eye and more. This not only increases the quality of my life,
but adds quantifiable value to my property. If this planned building was to go
ahead, my flat would be boxed in without any daylight and any view. All I would
be able to stare at would be a brick wall and the private lives of the
residents in the new building, both of which are unacceptable. My flat's value
would understandably plummet, as I, too, don't and wouldn't want to live
somewhere with no view but a brick wall, no daylight, no sense of community and
lots of anti-social behaviour.
4. Complete invasion of privacy
As my windows are only on one side and the proposed building's unacceptably
close to ours, if I wanted to have any chance at getting fresh air or some
sliver of daylight, I would need to accept the fact that complete strangers
will be able to watch my every move and invade my privacy. This would mean I have
to change the way I act, dress up, where I can change my clothes, how I store
valuables, and more, in order to keep myself safe as a female occupant. It
would also make it very easy for strangers to take photographs of me or my
neighbours, our homes, etc. This is obviously not defensible.
5. We have not been formally informed about this proposal at all
We, the residents of 581 North End Road, have not been sent any formal
notifications or offered opportunities to object to a plan that is happening a stone's
throw away from us. We found out by sheer luck. I believe that this is not
legally sound.
6. Brent Council should prioritise safety and a sense of community over money
for money's sake.
We pay our council taxes, have put all of our savings into investing in the
future of Wembley and show commitment to building a community in an area that
lacks it. Yet, Brent consistently accepting more and more student accommodation
buildings and quick rental business models like Quintain’s shows that the
council is more interested in filling its pockets than taking care of its
dedicated residents who hope to spend years if not decades of their lives here.
7. I do not believe the proximity of the proposed buildings to ours complies
with the legal regulations and privacy recommendations for London.
8. It is difficult enough for any family to consider raising children in the
area with so many young students wreaking havoc and making the area dangerous.
The proposed plan would make it even less likely for families to ever want to
live in or stay in Wembley. This would cause the continued deterioration of the
area, the culture it breeds and the community it harbours.
9. The culmination of these issues would make other young professionals,
innovators, communities, etc. avoid investing in and enriching the culture of
Wembley. This would make Wembley retain its unfortunate reputation as a
"student village" that is only visited for a football game or a
concert once a year and avoided at all costs otherwise.
View from Empire Court, North End road 0- before and after:
