The applicant denied all knowledge of flooding at 231 Watford Road and last week's Planning Committee when the Mumbai Junction plannin application was approved. The above video has been sent to planning officers as they need to be awate of the real situation.
A resident writes:
There are usually 3 or 4 event like this per year when the drainage manhole on Sudbury Court Drive near the junction with Bengeworth Road blows out due to a lack of capacity in the surface water drainage systems locally. The water runs down hill to the roundabout and across the road towards 23 Watford Road. Thames Water are often contacted via the council to resolve.
Officers also appeared to minimise the number of traffic accidents on roads in the area. Twitter tells a different story.
Residents of the Hyde Housing Company's development in Stonebridge are in despair over huge gas bills that have put many tenants in arrears with no hope of being able to pay.
Hyde boasted of the energy efficiency of the district heating network that supplies the homes but this appears not to be reflected in residents' bills.
The situation has left residents accumulating arrears of between £1,500 and £3,000 plus.
The energy network is supplied by Switch2 and supplies heating and hot water to more than 50 homes. Tenants reported erratic billing and Switch2 admitted that 22 homes had been given estimated bills because their meters were not working properly. Tenants think it is many more homes than this.
As reported before on Wembley Matters heating networks are classed as commercial when they have a shared system, rather than domestic when the flat or house has its own boiler. This means that residents served by a heating network do not benefit from the energy price cap that applies only to domestic customers.
Residents told me that their complaints about erratic and inaccurate billing have been passed backwards and forwards between Hyde Housing and Switch2, leaving them with nowhere to go to resolve the problem.
The energy supplier is procured by Hyde and tenants have no say regarding the supplier and were not consulted when Hyde recently renewed the contract, despite high levels of of dissatisfaction. Residents are able to seek the best deal for their electricity supplier.
Some residents stopped heating their social housing properties because of the high bills, putting their own health and that of their children at risk.
Some of the Hyde social housing
Hyde told residents in an email:
Hyde only passes on the unit cost of the heat per kw/hr (plus 5% VAT), the utility provider's standing charge) plus 5% VAT and Switch 2's metering and billing costs (plus 20% VAT). Hyde's energy costs went up significantly in 2022 due to the conflict in Ukraine when both electricity and gas cost increased due to shortage of supply and other market forces. Hyde does not make any surplus on these costs and there are no 'hidden' charges.
The last sentence appears to refer to the practice of some housing providers that get a percentage of bills back from energy providers that they procure - thus having a motivation to support higher bills.
The Standing Charge on the bills shown to me by one tenant was £8.87 a month previously and reduced to £7.37 via the new contract from July. That is an annual standing charge of £88.44 for heating and hot water before any metering charge. In contrast OVO energy's gas standing charge for domestic customers is £5.82 per month, £69.84 annually.
Some residents said their standing charge had been much higher and said that Hyde failed to give them full information about the heating system at the beginning of their let.
I turned to Trust Pilot to see how Switch 2 fared in terms of customer experience.
The reviews are mixed but this very recent review seems to reflect the experience of Hyde tenants:
This
company needs to be honest and take the comments and complaints of the
customers seriously. Switch2 company is the most ineffective and
expensive energy provider in the UK. They are ripping off and send
brutally high charges to customers. In terms of customer services and
dealing with inquiries of the customers they are the worst.
Date of experience: 05 August 2023
And this:
They
have increased standard unit price by 350% and increased a standing
charge from 40p to around 1 pound a day meaning that in average I would
have to pay 700£ just for standing charge a year that's no gas usage
included. Not even given the fact that the current unit price at 31p is
three times bigger than current average of around 7-10p per kWh
Date of experience: 31 July 2023
The Hyde tenants have decided to put a number of demands to the Hyde and Switch2:
1. Switch 2 to check ALL meters (not just those identified by Switch2) and replace where necessary, providing Smart Meters to be provided for all residents.
2. Because of the unreliability of billing, faulty meters and administrative errors Switch2 to write off accumulated customers' debt and start the new contract with a clean slate.
3. Hyde to consider changing the heating network supplier in consulation with residents.
From Saturday 26 August, we are making some changes to our services on bus routes 79 and 83 around Alperton.
Route 79 will no longer serve stops between Alperton station and Alperton, Sainsbury's. Instead, it will be extended to Stonebridge Park station via Mount Pleasant and Beresford Avenue.
Buses on this route will continue to run every 12 minutes during the daytime Monday to Saturdays, and every 15 minutes during the evenings and all day on Sundays.
Route 83 will be extended from Alperton station to Alperton, Sainsbury's.
Buses on this route will continue to run every eight minutes during the daytime Monday to Saturdays, every 10 minutes during the daytime on Sundays and every 12 minutes during the evening on all days.
For travel between Alperton station and Alperton, Sainsbury's, use newly extended route 83 or existing route 224.
We will keep these changes under review to ensure we continue to offer the best service we can. For more information on these and other service changes, visit ourbus changes page.
I saw a lot of delighted children and parents leaving the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre today after a school holiday session, One parent, said it was 'Awesome. I didn't even know the reservoir existed.'
The above events are at the other end of the Harp and go beyond the summer holiday.
Sign up for these FREE nature workshops for kids!
Happening at the Welsh Harp.
First event this Sunday!
Sign up: http://tinyurl.com/WHtreekids
Join
us for FOUR FREE summer workshops for children at the Welsh Harp (Brent
Reservoir)! SIGN UP FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING WORKSHOPS!
West Hendon Community Hub Marsh Drive London NW9 7QQ
1. Let's Create a Nature Diary
Date: August 13th, Time: 2-5pm
Calling
all young adventurers and nature enthusiasts! In this immersive
workshop, children aged 6-14 will get the chance to create their very
own nature diaries. They will explore the Welsh Harp's diverse
ecosystem, observe plants and animals, and document their findings
through drawings, descriptions, and personal reflections. Encourage your
child to connect with nature and nurture their artistic talents in this
engaging and hands-on experience.
2. Forest Bathing & Believing
Date: August 19th, Time: 2-4pm
Immerse
your child in the magic of nature and inspire their belief in the
wonders of the natural world. Through mindful forest bathing techniques,
storytelling, and imaginative activities, children aged 6-14 will
experience the healing power of nature and discover their own
connections to the environment. Join us for a unique workshop that
nurtures belief, imagination, and a deep appreciation for the Welsh
Harp's serene forest.
3. Litter Scavenger Hunt
Date: August 27th, Time: 2-4pm
Calling
all eco-warriors! Join us for an exciting and educational litter
scavenger hunt at the Welsh Harp. Children aged 6-14 will become
environmental detectives, exploring the area and uncovering hidden
litter in a fun and interactive way. They will learn about the impact of
litter on our environment and participate in a rewarding cleanup
activity. Let's empower our children to make a positive change and keep
the Welsh Harp beautiful!
4. Exploring Nature through Imagination & Writing
Date: September 10th, Time: 2-4pm
Unleash
your child's creativity and curiosity as we embark on a journey of
exploring nature through imagination and writing. Through interactive
activities and guided exercises, children aged 6-14 will learn to
observe the natural world around them and use their imagination to
create captivating stories inspired by the Welsh Harp's scenic beauty.
Let their creativity flourish in this enchanting workshop!
The boring stuff:
All children must be accompanied by a parent/guardian
Please dress children sensibly and for outdoors - that means waterproof gear, sunscreen, sturdy shoes etc
Please register for one or more of the workshops using the 'more options' tab under 'When and Where'.
If you have any queries or have trouble registering please email friendsofwelshharp@gmail.com
Route of new bridge across north marsh wetlands as they were in 1990s (IMAGE: COOL OAK)
Ben Watt, founder of the the Cool Oak group (Welsh Harp) has written a disturbing blog post LINK about the proposed 200 metre long steel and concrete footbridge across the Welsh Harp from the private estate that has replaced the West Hendon estate.
Ben Watt points out that this undermines the Joint Vision for the Welsh Harp that Barnet Council and Brent Council and other agencies have recently signed.
Brent Parks Forum is urging everyone to write to Barnet Council along the lines below:
We object to the new bridge due to be built over the North
Marsh of the Welsh Harp by Barratt PLC. We understand Barnet Council has
statutory powers under s.97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to stop
this. The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 clearly states: "It is an
offence to intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage the listed features of
a SSSI or disturb its listed fauna, without reasonable excuse".
Unless the bridge is cancelled or the route altered, all of
the signatories to the newly published Joint Vision for the Welsh Harp - which
includes Barnet Council - will be party to the partial destruction of one of
the oldest and most famous SSSIs in the UK.
Sign off with full address for your objections to be lodged
with the Councillor. Keep a record of the email.
It is also important that Brent Council, as a signatory to the Joint Vision, also opposes the plans.
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.
