'The missing' undermine Brent Scrutiny as its wrestles with the Barham Trust accounts. Brent CEO commissions independent review of the accounts and associated issues.

 Four councillors were missing from the meeting of Brent Public Realm and Resources Scrutiny Committee last night (Cllrs Miller, Mitchell, Shah and Aden) as well as the CHief Executive, Head Of Audit and representatives from Brent Council property team. The meeting was a call-in by 5 opposition councillors on the Barham Trust accounts. LINK

The latter absences particularly affected the Committee's ability to get answers to their questions. This was compounded by a ruling that councillors could only ask about the format of the accounts, and the changes made in the presentation, but not the accuracy of the figures. They could not touch on 'operational' issues. At one point legal officers seemed to back down and say questions about the figures could be asked but Cllr Tatler (deputising for Cllr Muhammed Butt who is at a wedding in Pakistan, but acting as a Barham Park trustee) quickly stepped in to declare her complete confidence in the accounts, and officers were not pressed further to answer the questions, leaving committee members high and dry.

Cllr Geogiou drew attention to the call-in paper that had been approved by officers that clearly referred to inaccuracies in the accounts, rather than just the presentation. He was puzzled as to why he could not ask about figures,

On the last point (above) the Committee found out for the first time that a council committee had ruled that the Council could not pay for the  £25,000 consultant's site redevelopment  report (architect's fees)  from capital funds, and that this would have to be paid from the Trust's own funds, despite an earlier agreement for council payment.

Presenting the call-in Cllr Paul Lorber drew attention to the recording of an income of £1,625 for 2022/23 when the income from the site's four main tenants (excluding the children's centre) should be £54,000 as well as include income from funfairs.  Towards the end of the meeting the finance officer said the £1,625 was a net figure which suggests there were a lot of arrears in that year. 

Officers repeatedly claimed that the change in the method of presentation of the accounts was to make them more understandable and transparent with the council's contribution clear. A perplexed Cllr  Fraser (a substitute), herself a trustee elsewhere, felt the new presentation raised more questions than answers.  The Committee were told that questions  about rent should be addressed to Brent Property but they were not present to answer.

Lorber clashed with officers over their rulings and Cllr Tatler at the end of the meeting said that she was going to report him via a complaint about his treatment of officers.

The carpet was rather pulled from beneath the Committee when they were told that the Chief Executive of Brent had commissioned her own additional consultancy review to provide independent assurances over the recent comments and the correctness of the accounts. This was ongoing and would be concluded in early November.

They became confused about what exactly might happen to their recommendations in the light of the CEO's report. The CEO was not present to answer and officers felt unable to answer for her.

A laconic Cllr Long wondered if a Trust was the best way of looking after Barham Park and was swiftly told that present arrangements had recently been confirmed.

Summing up, Committee Chair, Cllr Rita Conneely said that she respected Cllr Tatler's position of absolute confidence in the accounts but a move towards more transparency would be welcomed by people who have an interest in Barham Park and its governance. 

The results of the CEO's reports were not in front of the Committee and so it would be difficult for the them to preempt what was in the report and prejudge any conclusions. Everything that had been done so far appeared to be in line with the Charity Commission, but the committee did not have that data.

Scrutiny Committee had requested earlier this week, when they received paperwork from the Head of Audit, who signed off the report,  that they be present at the meeting. They were not available  and so could not answer questions, which was a shame.

Conneely went to on to say that although some information was available to the committe it also limited some of the questions they would like to have asked.  Her own position would be that the commitete should recommend that when the CEO's  had completed her report, that any concerns or examples of good practiced, should be shared with the Trust for consideration and for implementation.

She hoped that the CEO's report and the Trust itself would reflect on the committee's discussion and the additional matters that were raised by Scrutiny councillors, and would be considered as evidence in their future meetings.

Committee members asked how they could gain further information and were told  that they would have to make Members' Requests.

Cllr Saqib Butt declared himself satisfied with the accounts but Cllr Moghaddam said unanswered questions meant that he was not happy with them. Cllr Butt and Cllr Tatler said that they thought the call-in was a waste of time and the monies expended put to better use. Cllr Georgiou strongly contested this saying call-in was part of effective scrutiny and accountability and essential to local democracy. For the record he disassociated himself from their remarks.

A rather frustrating meeting all round.

Council summit on 'stark' crisis in providing homeless safety net within current funding

I recently reported on the financial crisis facing Brent Council due to the rising number of homeless in the borough and the spiralling cost of temporary accommodation.  I have just received notice of this meeting which Brent councillors may be interested in attending.

Over 100 councils will attend an emergency summit taking place on Tuesday 31 October to discuss the escalating social and financial crisis created by the unprecedented demand for temporary accommodation.

 

Hosted by Eastbourne Borough Council and the District Councils’ Network, this summit aims to share insight from the councils attending and will result in a joint cross-party letter to the government ahead of the Autumn Statement urging immediate action.

 

Councillor Stephen Holt, Leader of Eastbourne Borough Council, said:

 

The situation is stark. 

 

Councils provide a safety net for the most vulnerable people who need our help, and that safety net is at real risk of failing. 

 

Figures from the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities have shown that the cost of temporary accommodation to local authorities reached 1.7bn last year and is increasing rapidly. This is wholly unsustainable for councils, and the situation is now critical.

 

The summit will explore solutions from the government, including: 

 

• Increase Local Housing Allowance rates for private rented accommodation 
• Develop policy to stimulate retention and supply in the privately rented sector 
• Review the housing benefit subsidy rate for local authority homelessness placements 
• Give district councils the powers, funding, and resources needed to increase the supply of social housing
• Increase the level of Discretionary Housing Payment and Homelessness Prevention Grant

 

The Minister for Local Government, Lee Rowley, has been invited to attend the summit.

 

Councillor Hannah Dalton, the District Councils’ Network spokesperson for health, housing and hardship, said:

 

Across the country, we are experiencing a spiralling tide of need, driven by a severe shortage of social housing, the cost of living crisis, and an unstable and unaffordable private rented sector. This means as district councils, we are placing an unprecedented number of people in temporary accommodation, which is cripplingly expensive for councils and unsuitable for residents. 

 

Districts are vital to preventing homelessness and providing resolution when our residents are faced with no alternative. Without urgent intervention, the very existence of this safety net is under threat.

 

We are therefore calling on the government to act now and urgently adopt our five asks ahead of the Autumn Statement. While these alone will not end homelessness, they will go a long way in reducing the number of families in temporary accommodation and the series of challenges that come with this.

 

The summit will take place remotely on Tuesday 31st October from 9.30am to 11am.

 

Any council leaders, housing portfolio holders or senior council officers wishing to attend the summit should email laura.walsh@lewes-eastbourne.gov.uk.

Council housing – does Brent know what it is doing?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

An aerial view of the Newland Court estate. (From Google Maps satellite view)

 

Although much of the attention at the 15 November Planning Committee meeting will be on the deferred Kilburn Square application, there is another Council infill housing application which may well be on the agenda. 

 

Brent New Council Homes Programme’s Newland Court garages proposals (22/3124) were first submitted on 7 September 2022. Many residents, both on the estate and whose homes backed onto the very narrow site, objected to the plans. My own objection was mainly because the established trees along the boundary, protected as part of the Barn Hill Conservation Area, grow both over and under the site, making it impractical for the proposed development.

 

Brent’s April 2023 revised five homes plan for the Newland Court infill scheme.

 

Although Planning Officers should have refused the application, they instead allowed the Council’s architects and planning agent to submit revised plans in April, which reduced the number of homes from seven to five (so extra cost, reduced viability). Surely this scheme could not go ahead? I’m grateful to Marc, and other Newland Court residents, for their permission to quote from correspondence they have received from Brent Council over recent months, which has inspired the title of this guest post.

 

As this threat of a detrimental development had been hanging over her head for a year, one resident wrote to Brent Council’s Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods in September 2023, to ask what was going on. This was the reply she received, from Brent’s Tenancy and Neighbourhoods Service Manager on 18 September:

 

‘Thank you for your e-mail dated 5 September, which is addressed to Kate Dian, Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods.

 

Newland Road is not a Private Road, as the site is own by the Council and based on a public land.

 

Due to current financial pressure the proposed infill will not go ahead. This has now been confirmed by our housing supply and partnership services.

 

Your site is included in the next round of consultation for ‘Off street-controlled parking’. We expect the consultation to take place before the end of this calendar year. As the proposed infill will not go ahead, the associated cost and its implications are now not relevant issues, which requires further clarity.’

 

The reply was shared with her neighbours, to great relief, although there was some puzzlement over the reference that “Newland Road” ‘is not a Private Road’, as the Council’s signs at either end of it say the opposite.

 

Signs at the gated entrance to one end of the Newland Court estate road.
(Courtesy of Michelle Hart)

 

Marc, one of the Newland Court residents who has been leading the battle against the plans, and the way in which he and his neighbours have been treated by the Council over them, was not convinced by this “good news”. He’d been told that Brent’s application would be going to Planning Committee on 18 October. He wrote to the Lead Member for Housing, seeking clarification, and this was the response he received on 4 October:

 

‘Dear Marc,

 

Firstly, I would like to apologise for the delay in responding to your enquiry. I have now had an opportunity to review this matter and liaised with the development team; my findings are as follows.

 

As you will appreciate there is a chronic housing shortage in Brent, which the Council is committed to addressing, by utilising available resources to increase the supply of affordable homes.

 

Although building costs have increased due to the current economic climate, the Council are reviewing the pipeline and will continue to pursue planning permission for schemes within the New Council Homes Programme, including the Newland Court development site: should planning approval be secured, then an extensive financial review to assess the financial viability of each development going forward will be undertaken.

 

At this stage, no formal decision about the Newland Court development proposal has been made and on behalf of the Council I would like to sincerely apologise for any confusion caused because of recent communication which has been circulated.

 

I recognise this may not be the response you hoped for and note your comments, but I trust the above clarifies the Council’s position in respect of this matter.

 

Cllr Promise Knight
Stonebridge Ward
Lead Member for Housing, Homelessness, and Renters’ Security’

 

So, Brent Council’s housing team is spending time and money, pressing on with seeking planning consent for schemes (often small ones) which it doesn’t know whether it will ever be able to afford to build.

 

I have to say, yet again, that if they had got on and built the 250 homes on the vacant Council-owned brownfield site at Cecil Avenue (the former Copland School), which they obtained full planning consent for in February 2021, and built them all as Council homes, they would have done much better in ‘utilising available resources to increase the supply of affordable homes.’ Instead, those homes won’t be available until  2026, 152 of them will be sold privately by Brent’s “developer partner”, and only 59 will be for Council tenants at London Affordable Rent.

 

The Rokesby Place car park on 3 October 2023.

 

They received planning consent for at least two small infill schemes last year. The August 2022 Planning Committee meeting approved Brent’s application to build two four-bedroom houses on the car park at Rokesby Place. These were supposed to be homes at Social Rent level, for Brent families in housing need, although Planning Officers changed that to London Affordable Rent (which would be £772 a year more, at 2022/23 levels).

 

By November 2022, Brent’s Cabinet were told that Rokesby Place would not be viable as genuinely affordable housing, so that one of the two houses might have to be sold privately. Even then, no action seems to have been taken to build the two houses, as shown by the recent photograph of the car park “site” above.

 

In December 2022, Planning Committee approved another Brent two houses infill application, for the garage site behind homes at Broadview (a late 1950s Wembley Council estate in Kingsbury, now with many houses privately-owned through “right to buy”). They did so despite misleading information from Planning Officers, which had been brought to their attention by objectors!

 

Has any progress been made on building those “much needed Council homes”? None that I can see, and I suspect that they will never be built. The houses on this tiny unsuitable site would cost more than usual to build because they would need extensive soundproofing (because they would be just 20 metres from the Jubilee Line tracks), and will need a special water tank constructed under the front forecourt (as fire engines could not get close enough to them, because of a long access drive only 2 metres wide).

 

Cllrs Butt, Tatler and Knight at the Watling Gardens “groundbreaking” event, October 2023.
(Brent Council publicity photograph)

 

Brent Council does claim that it is having some success in “Delivering New Council Homes”, as shown by this staged photograph taken at Watling Gardens. Their planning application was submitted in 2021, and received full consent in April 2022. Eighteen months later, they are just starting work on the project, and it will be ‘winter 2025’ before the homes are finally “delivered”.

 

That is not all. The Council’s June 2022 press release, headed “Another 125 new council homes for local families”, was rather misleading, as a blog by Martin at the time pointed out. 42 Council homes are being demolished to make way for the redevelopment, and 34 of the new homes will be used to house displaced tenants. 45 will be 1-bedroom “independent living” flats for elderly people (not for families). The Cabinet decided that 24 of the remainder should be “converted” from London Affordable Rent to shared ownership. That leaves only 22 of these “New Council Homes” available for local people waiting for a genuinely affordable home to rent.

 

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness, and Renters’ Security,
in a July 2022 Brent PR video promoting its Clement Close infill proposals.

 

There is no dispute that Brent needs thousands more genuinely affordable homes to rent, and the borough’s Labour leadership promised to build 1,000 of these in the five years up to March 2024, and a further 700 (part-funded by a promise of over £100m from the GLA) by 2028.

 

I agree with the Council that the steep rise in the cost of building materials, and in interest rates, has made their task more difficult. But poor decision making, and poor advice from some Council Officers, have played a big part in delaying some schemes, and seeing others put on hold.

 

Why has so much time and effort (and money) gone into small infill schemes which common sense should have told them would never work, either practically or financially?

 

Why have they wasted two years trying to push through an unacceptable proposal for Kilburn Square (missing out on the chunk of GLA 2016-2023 Affordable Homes Programme funding which would have been available), when if they had worked with the local community on a smaller scheme, construction could already be underway?

 

And to go back to my original question on Council housing: ‘does Brent know what it is doing?’

Philip Grant

'NEWLAND COURT - POSTSCRIPT:

A number of Newland Court residents have copied me into emails they have sent in the past ten days to Brent's Council Leader, Chief Executive, Planning Committee members and others at the Civic Centre.

These emails have listed what is wrong with the plans for their estate, the lack of any meaningful consultation with them over the proposals, the ignoring of their objections by Planning Officers, the Council's off-hand responses to correspondence over the proposals (one example: email responses 'seem like the respondent is reading of a script like a cold fish. We are not stupid, please get to the facts and stop insulting our intelligence.'), and they have called for the Planning Committee to visit the estate and see for themselves how ridiculous the plans are.

Councillor Muhammed Butt, or his Complaints and Casework Officer on his behalf (it's interesting that the Council Leader needs his own Complaints Officer!), has sent a letter to one of the residents, copied to others who have drawn these important issues to his attention. It says:

'Your enquiry has been forwarded to the respective department, who will look into the issue and make every effort to resolve it.'

I will ask Martin to add a copy of the "Office of the Leader" letter below my article above, as evidence of his apparent indifference to the views of local residents, who are also Council housing estate tenants and leaseholders.

 

 

 

UPDATE: Eleven Brent Labour councillors have now signed the Muslim councillors' letter to the Labour leadership requesting the Labour Party call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza

Eleven  Brent Labour Councillors have now signed the letter from more than 250 Muslim Labour councillors formally calling on the Labour leadership to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the humanitarian crisis. The signatories include Council leader Muhammed Butt's brother, the deputy mayor and a former whip of the Labour Group.

It was signed by:

Cllr Tariq Dar MBE – Brent Council

Cllr Sandra Kabir – Brent Council

Cllr Saqlain Choudry – Brent Council

Cllr Rita Begum – Brent Council

Cllr Saqib Butt, Vice Chair Planning Committee – Brent Council

Cllr Ishma Moeen – Brent Council

 Cllr Parvez Ahmed (Chair Licensing Committee) - Brent Council

 Cllr Ajmal Akram - Brent Council

 Cllr Amer Agha - Brent Council

Cllr Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam - Brent Council

Cllr Harbi Farah (Cabinet Member for Safer Communities & Public Safety) - Brent Council

Dear Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner,

We the undersigned write to you as Muslim Labour Party councillors, formally calling  on the Labour Party to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the  humanitarian disaster.

5,791 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes on Gaza since 7th October. Of  those killed 2,360 of them have been children. It has also been reported that 704  Palestinians had been killed in the previous 24 hours alone. This is in addition to 1400 Israelis who lost their lives in the shocking terror attacks of October 7th.

Everyday we fail to call on the government and the international community to push  for cessation of hostilities, Gazan children and hundreds of innocent men and women  pay the price. As a party that bases its principles on fairness and justice, we can not sit  idly by as Palestinian’s face collective punishment.

This week five UN agencies, including The World Food Programme (WFP) and the  World Health Organization (WHO) have called for a humanitarian ceasefire as they  described the conditions in Gaza as “catastrophic”. Leaders across all faiths, including  the Archbishop of Canterbury, have also called for a ceasefire and polling shows the  vast majority of Britons and Labour voters support this position (YouGov poll: 76% of  the British public support a ceasefire).

The humanitarian aid that has passed through into Gaza through the Rafah crossing is  a ‘drop in the ocean’ compared to the humanitarian crisis at large in the region.  Without an immediate ceasefire, UN agencies, NGO’s and charities have made it clear  that much needed aid will not reach pregnant women, children, critically ill patients  and those others that will simply be left to die.

Gaza is home to 2.2 million people, over half of whom are children. Before this crisis  began, over 80% of the population relied on aid, now this crisis has turned to  catastrophe. The innocent civilians in Gaza have had nothing to do with this crisis and  bear no responsibility to its outcome.

As Labour councillors elected to serve our constituents, the message we have been  hearing repeatedly over the past 2 weeks is simple, people just want an end to the  bloodshed and the loss of innocent life. No nation, no people or community should  have to endure collective punishment and the same should be the case for the  Palestinian people. We are also clear that hostages held captive must also be returned  to their families safely.

Therefore, as Labour Party councillors, as members, and as members of the Muslim  community we urge the Labour Party to urgently adopt a position of calling for an  immediate ceasefire, calling on the UK government and the international community  to act upon this proposal to save innocent human lives.

'Flood? What flood? Never heard anything about it,' say Wembley Point developer's agents as Tokyngton Wembley Point towers approved

 

 

Sometimes there is a jaw-dropping moment at Brent Planning Committee. Often it is the sheer audacity of planning officers' justification of developer's failure to meeting the demands of planning guidance. 

Yesterday it was the confession of the Wembley Point developer's agent team that they knew nothing about the August floods at the Argenta House/Tokyngton Avenue site adjacent to the area on which they wish to build. 

 

 

 Heavy pumping equipment at the site

 

They seemed pretty nonchalant about their ignorance but this leads to a second thought. Why did Brent planning officers not inform them about the incident which led to TV and newspaper headlines, with one person having to be rescued from their van and families evacuated.  Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, had even visited the site to reassure residents and tweeted about it. LINK

 

 

Even more troubling, the matter was smoothly passed over and the Committee went on to approve the application, with even the most sceptical coucncillor, Tory Cllr Jayanti Patel (substituting for Cllr Maurice), voting for approval.

This is the modelling of the water flow in the event of a flood - it goes into the Wembley Brook which residents of Tokyngton Avenue should be alert to.

 

"In the event of a flood, floodwater from the River Brent which surfaces on the Site flows around the north and south of the existing Wembley Point building, discharging into Wembley Brook, which is within the demise of Argentina House(sic)"  [Design and Access Statement]

Cllr Dixon abstained on the basis that there was insufficient affordable housing in the scheme (24.8%) against a target of 35% if the Local Plan target of 50% could not be met. She was also concerned about the discrepancy between two independent viability ssessments that led to the reduction in affordable housing. She wanted developers to be more ambitious, even if that meant adding a few storeys to the proposals, and for officesr to be more demanding.

Despite many objections on the planning portal and 29 properties being affected by restricted access to light and overlooking, there  was no speaker against the 550 unit (only 116 'affordable') homes. This is in marked contrast to the number of public representations at the Mumbai Junction application at the last meeting.

 

 From the Design and Access Statement

 

Although Stonebridge Boxing Club was named as the occupant of the proposed community building in the Design and Access statement, the developer's agent hastily clarified on questioning that it could be another community organisation.

 

The application now goes to the GLA where you can register to be kept informed of progress. LINK

 

Call-in on Thursday to hold Brent Council accountable for alleged errors in the Barham Park Trust accounts

The saga of the Barham Park Trust accounts continues on Thursday when the Public Realm and Resources Scrutiny Committee considers a call-in of the Council decision to approve the accounts because of alleged inaccuracies which could lead to reputational damage.

The call-in follows attempts by councillors to query and correct the accounts at meetings of the Trust Committee which is headed by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt and composed solely of members of his Cabinet. LINK

 

The call-in has been made by opposition members. 

 

Stonebridge Park tower blocks at Brent Planning tomorrow as flood issues highlighted by current events

 The proposed developments at the corner of Harrow Road/North Circular (Wembley side)

 

Videos of the weekend floods included one of partially submerged uncompleted new homes on a flood site. As readers know there was flooding at Stonebridge Park and Tokyngton Avenue earlier this year when the Wembley Brook was blocked by preparation work on the new Argenta House site. This week an application goes to Planning Committee for two more tower blocks to sit alongside Argenta 26 storeys and Wem Tower (aka Wembley Point, The Wem)  21 storeys. These will be 32 storeys and 20 storeys on a relative small site where the Wembley Brook joins the River Brent, close to the North Circular Road.

The application will be considreed by Brent Planning Committee tomorrow. Watch live from 6pm HERE,

 

 

The Flood Risk Assessment for the site includes illustrations that indicate the level of possible flooding from fluvial (rivers) and surface water.

As the amount of flooding and extreme weather events is accelerating faster than expected it is possible that at some point in the future all these buildings will be surrounded by water for a time.  The buidlings will be designed to be 'floodable' and plans will have to be put in place for evacuation of residents and workers (my highlighting):

 

Flood warning/evacuation plan

 

207. The EA have advised that ideally, applicants should demonstrate a new development

has a safe, dry access/egress route during a 1% annual probability flood event, including an

allowance for climate change, or else a route with a 'very low' hazard rating in accordance with FD2320: Flood Risk Assessment Guidance for New Development. In situations where it's not possible to ensure dry access/egress routes, consideration may be given if it can be demonstrated that proposed 'wet' routes still remain safe for site users.

 

208. The development at Wembley Point does not have a means of dry access/egress during the design flood event. The applicant has submitted a Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan (Pell Frischmann, Ref. 102139-PF-ZZ-ZZ-RP-D-0003, dated 24/04/2023). This highlights that as noted in the SFRA Level 2, under the 1% (1 in 100) AEP plus 35% climate the whole site is submerged. The latest modelling shows that during a 1% AEP flood event plus climate change the depth of flooding across the site is circa 600 mm and the expected velocity is circa 0.98 m/s. The deep, fast flowing water means the post development flood hazard rating for the site is shown to be predominantly "Danger to Most". This means that safe access/egress route cannot be guaranteed during a flood event.

 

209. The Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan has set out that when it is possible to evacuate the site, the evacuation procedure would be signalised via an alarm system for the shared and public areas, and the Flood Warnings Direct service for those in individual properties. The preferred evacuation procedure all residents, workers and visitors would be to leave the site and seek refuge outside on higher ground. The evacuation route would be to exit the site via the north-western access on Point Place and then head north-eastly towards Harrow Road. Higher ground to the north can then be accessed via Harrow Road.

 

210. If the site cannot be fully evacuated or in the case of sudden inundation associated with catastrophic failure of the Brent Reservoir, refuge should be provided on site, The site comprises of multi-story floor levels, where the upper floor levels of the building will count as primary areas of refuge. Following this, they should then wait for the flood waters to recede or until emergency services direct otherwise. The development deploys a water entry strategy, allowing water to enter the majority of the ground floor of the proposed buildings, therefore safe refuge must be sought on the upper floors.

 

211. The proposed evacuation route from the ground floor, through internal stairwells, to the first floor.  Following the instruction to evacuate, there are various locations of refuge that all residents, workers and pedestrians could use in the event of a flood. The site comprises of multi-story floor levels, where the upper floor levels of the building will count as primary areas of refuge, these can be accessed through the internal stairwell. If people are seeking refuge in the upper floors, they should wait for the flood waters to recede or until emergency services direct otherwise.

It does make you wonder about the wisdom of building here at all despite assurances that measures will be put in place. Perhaps the development should be renamed 'Stonebridge-on-Brent'.

Aside from all this the developer has returned with a lower amount of 'affordable' housing than in the initial application. The percentage now with the previous application in brackets:

Of the 515 units:

Private 77.5% (65.8%)

London Shared Ownership 8.3%  (11.1%)

London Affordable Rent 14.2% (23.1%)

Officers support the developer's viability assessment provided for the change.

There are many objections to the scheme on the Brent Planning Portal. many of them coming from occupants of the Wem Tower who claim that they have no prior warning of the massive development that will take place on their doorstep - although it has to be noted that there is one occupant who has submitted a long statement in support of the scheme.

Other objections come from the nearby two storey housing that will by overshadowed to the north of the development in Derek Avenue and Tokyngton Avenue.   

The application includes landscaping and minor play provision on the site opening up the site to the public.

The report considers concerns that the new development will spoil the views of the Brent Railway Stonebridge Viaduct:

The [Heritage] assessment notes that the development will be visible in the background when viewing [The Brent Railway Viaduct], but also noting that the existing Wembley Point building is also within that view. The heritage assessment sets out that while there would be some visual intrusion into the extended setting of the viaduct, that this is considered to cause a low, minor level of harm which would be "less than substantial" to the setting and significance of this heritage asset. Officers agree that the degree of change and harm would be limited, and consider that this would be "less than substantial". It is considered that this harm is significantly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme which include the provision of homes (including Affordable Homes), new publicly accessible space and routes and significant improvements to the local streetscape and environment

One interesting aspect of the proposal is the provision of a 3 storey building to be occupied by Stonebridge Boxing Club, who have popped up in several planning applications.

 

 

 

The application is deficient in several respects as planning officers acknowledge in making their recommendation to councillors that it should nonetheless be approved. The familiar mantra that the 'benefits outweigh the harm' is used again:

The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan when read as a whole. There are some divergences from policy (such as the amount of external amenity and play space), and some impacts that go beyond guidance levels (such as the light received by some properties) and the proposal will result in "less than substantial" harm to one designated heritage asset. However, the benefits of the scheme are considered to significantly outweigh the harm. It is recommended that the planning committee resolve to grant permission subject to the stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London, the completion of a legal agreement as set out above and subject to the conditions listed.