Alperton Bus Garage development and neighbours 3 years on -

 

Planning permission was granted for the redevelopment of Alperton bus garage in April 2021. The Planning Committee were informed that previous policy had a 14 storey limit on the height of buildings in the area. However, planning officers said that the 'emerging' local plan allowed for tall buildings on the site. Buildings  of 21, 25 and 28 storeys were approved. It is so close to Alperton station that residents are likely to be able to abseil on to the platform!

See 'Your neighbourhood turned upside down. Have your say on local plan'

 Cllr Maurice voted against the application on grounds 'of over-development, height and its destruction of the area's once pleasant suburban character.'

 Alperton councillor Anton Georgiou presented the case against the application quoting the views of local residents.  Many cited over-development, height and density as concerns. See:

Alperton residents' trenchant views on the Alperton Bus Garage planning application fail to stop approval of the development

 

 Above and below are views of the development as it takes shape.

Opposite the site is Minavil House where a low rise commercial site was demolished and replaced with a development that included a 27 storey tower, This development was valued at £64m.

From the Grand Union canal (developer before the bus garage development)

Last week

 

Emerging heights in the tall building zone (Alperton High School bottom right)

There several pipeline developments in the area. One on Ealing Road, wedged between two new developments is a  former  HSBC bank and the Plough public house.

In 2018 plans were approved for two buildings of 9 and 10 storeys on the site with a total of 92 flats. A member of the public asked a question at Full Council after doubts were raised about the application See:

Uproar over Brent's Alperton high rise approval, despite application “failing to meet requirements in 13 different matters”

 Councillor Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills:, in her response said:

Planning applications of this size raise a number of complex, and often competing issues; in this case, involving the redevelopment of the site to provide two buildings, 9 and 10 storeys, for 92 new flats, a pub and a community use, it raised many issues – the appearance and build of the new buildings, the amount of residential provided, the mix of units, parking arrangements, etc. Officers and Committee members balance all of the different issues, including the planning objections, and make their decision against national, regional and local policies. These issues are often finely balanced, and opinions will often differ as to the merits of a particular case. 

 

Sometimes, one policy objective, (e.g. securing additional housing, or maintaining a public house on the site) might be given more weight than, for example, a reduced level of parking. In this case, the planning merits of the proposal were carefully considered. Officers made some pragmatic judgments around the proposal to achieve, on this allocated site in a housing zone, some 92 new units – a quarter of which are affordable – that works on the site. The committee report makes it clear that whilst some policies are not met, many are, and taking the scheme in its entirety, members felt that the benefits outweighed any harm.

The question does not mention what safety regulations are broken here. However, it is a long established – and correct – principle, that planning does not duplicate requirements set out in other regulations and laws; these will be assessed by other bodies at the appropriate time, whether that be under Building Regulations or Health and Safety rules.

A new application for the site was lodged in August 2024, for two buildings of up to 10 storeys on the site. Planning Officers noted that the previous application had lapsed  because of new fire regulations and the requirement for additional evacuation cores. LINK

In addition to this development  the Boat/Pleasure Boat pub, opposite the bus garage has been demolished and the site is now behind hoardings.

 The last proposal I saw was in a consultation for a 22 storey tower and a replacement pub. Here, as at the Plough site this will probably be re-designated as a 'comunity facility'.

 

 

Family Yoga taster at Preston Community Library Saturday 7th December 10.30am - 11.15am

 

Rumi's Kitchen Reimagined: A New Chapter at 120 Craven Park Road and it is wonderful

 I was so impressed by seeing this on Rumi's Newsletter today that I felt I must share it with you. They have done a beautiful transformation job on this Harlesden building and their work contributes so much to the community.

Road closures and bus diversions for Saturday's England v USA match at Wembley Stadium

UPDATE: Bridge Park online Exhibition won't be live until Wednesday

The online exhibition on the proposals for the Bridge Park/Unisys site did not go live today despite the earlier  news announcement by Brent Council that it would do so.

Instead it will be live on Thursday when the first inperson consultation will be held. A spokeman for the  Four Agency who are managing the consultation said that they thought it better to have the launch and consultation on the same day.

The Hillside Corridor project also includes Morland Gardens, Twybridge Way and Bernard Shaw House.

Have your say at two exhibitions to find out more in person at Brent Start, Twybridge Way, London NW10 0ST on Thursday 28 November, from 3 to 7pm or Saturday 30 November, from 10am to 2pm

UPDATE

Reply from Brent Council to a query from Wembley Matters reader:

 

The online version of the exhibition will be available on Wednesday afternoon, apologies for the delay. The council’s web team will be updating the news article to reflect this change.

 

I can confirm that the online version of the exhibition and the exhibition at Brent Start on 28 and 30 November 2024, will include outline proposals for Morland Gardens and other Hillside Corridor sites as well as those for Bridge Park. There will be a questionnaire available online (from Wednesday) and at the exhibitions with a specific section for the sites within the Hillside Corridor, including Morland Gardens, for residents to provide their responses to.

Still time to respond to Brent Council's proposed service cuts and fees increases

 Brent Council is running a consultation on its Draft Budget that includes some increases in charges as well as service cutbacks. Council Tax is to be increased by 4.99% and Council Tax Support for the vulnerable reduced.

The Council's website explains:

Councils across London are facing a series of unprecedented financial challenges, caused by a perfect storm of continued high inflation, rapidly increasing demand for services and reduced government funding since 2010. 

Across all budgets and service areas, London Councils estimates that boroughs will overspend on their original budget plans by over £600m in 2024/25. 

Brent is not immune to these pressures, with an expensive adult social care bill getting more so every year because of an ageing population as well as soaring levels of homelessness, with around 150 new families presenting as homeless most weeks. 

On top of £222m of cuts made since 2010, a further £16 million must be saved in 2025-26 to balance the books.  

The council has pulled together budget proposals which aim to protect the services residents rely on most as far as possible and protect the organisation’s longstanding healthy financial position. It is now asking for local people’s views on these proposals. 

Proposals in the draft budget include: 

• Increase charge for bulky waste collection from £40 to £55 
• Increase garden waste annual subscription from £65 to £69 
• A 4.99% increase in council tax, with 2% ring-fenced for adult social care 
• Changes to our Council Tax Support Scheme: https://www.brent.gov.uk/news-in-brent/2024/october/council-tax-support-scheme-consultation-gets-the-green-light

View draft budget proposals: Issue - items at meetings - Draft Budget 2025/26

 

BUDGET CONSULTATION ONLINE SESSIONS
THE WEBSITE SAYS CONSULTATION WILL RUN UNTIL DECEMBER 15TH BUT AS YOU CAN SEE THE WILLESDEN EVENT IS IN JANUARY!

Harlesden Connects Online November 26^th 6pm to 7pm

Kingsbury and Kenton Connects Online December 2^nd 6pm-7pm

Kilburn Connects Online December 12^th 6pm-7pm

Willesden Connects Online January 9^th 6pm-7pm

The Wembley Connects took place last week attended by 5 people.

Apart from the charges above there are other charges in the proposal including charging the elderly monthly  for Telecare services (they vary widely across councils) and increases for mortuary and bereavement services.  A £1m cut is based on wider use of reablement services to keep people from reliance on long-term care services and additional respite capacity for individuals with learning disabilities and reduce reliance on residential respite placements.

Care leavers aso suffer  with proposals to halve the number of weekends offered at Gordon Brown Centre for courses to support their independence and a reduction in spend on the SafeBase that supports the health and wellbeing of care leavers in higher education. Given the concerns about the vulnerability of care leavers this seems short-sighted.

 Apart from the Environment Services fee rise above there is a proposal for a £5 delivery charge for new or replacement binsand a proposal to cease the subscription to the online Recylopedia  resource which recieves 12,000 clicks a month.

A staffing and structural review of Public Realm posts results in the deletion of 3-4 posts which apparently will lead to 'local solutions for local problems.'  I hope Scrutiny Committee will explore what that means.

It is proposed to use an agency for occupational health service:

It is anticipated that a saving £100,000 could be delivered through the outsourcing of the OH contract.  By switching to an external provider, we would only pay the costs for our actual usage. We also pay high agency rates as OH specialists are hard to recruit and there is a national skills shortag. There is a downside in the Risk Assessment:Reduced service and longer waiting times to be seen by an OH professional as the service won’t be inhouse and bespoke. This will be mitigated as far as possible through close monitoring of performance. 

The deletion of 5 posts in Finance and Resorces is mitigated by 'automation'.

Check the list in Appendix below for the proposals  and if you want more details note the reference number and go to Appendix B. Click bottom right corner for full page.

 

 Appendix B - detailed proposals with risk assessments.

 

 

 

Even the lowest income families will pay some Council Tax next year Brent Council proposes. Consultation in progress ending on December 15th.

 

Brent Council is consulting on making changes in the Council Tax Support scheme. As you can see from above their drop-in sessions have attracted very few people. There is still time to take part in the consultation online that ends on December 15th 2024. Residents' Brent Council Tax bill is expected to increase by a further 5% in 2025-26.

The council is seeking savings of £2m on the scheme by revising the proportion of Council Tax  paid by working families in need of support.  The lowest income group would now receive a reduction of 65% rather than the 100%  reduction (ie pay no Council Tax)  at present:

I have embedded the full consultation document below. To take part in the consultation follow this LINK.

 

Does London Mayor's new guidance on purpose built student accommodation address recent concerns in Brent?

 Marketing  video for purpose built student accommodation in Wembley Park

 

There has recently been discussion about the amount of purpose built student accommodation in Brent, with some disquiet even in the Brent Planning Committee. (See LINK) Rather than reflecting an anti-student prejudice it is often about the loss of sites that could otherwise be used for family housing and questions about balancing local communities.

Brent planners have insisted that the need for student accommodation both in Brent and London as whole has been established and contributes to housing targets,

The London Mayor has recently published London Plans guidance for London local planning authorities which reviews some of the issues. The full document can be found HERE and key extracts follow (my highlighting):

 

The Purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) London Plan Guidance (LPG) provides advice on how to apply London Plan Policy H15 to best meet London’s needs. This guidance applies to a specialist form of housing designed and managed for students. This typically comprises a mixture of flats for 6-8 students with shared living spaces, and larger studio flats, plus additional communal social spaces and other facilities.

As well as providing students with a place to live, PBSA can play an important role in alleviating pressures on the wider private rental sector. Indirectly its provision also helps underpin London’s higher education sector as a global player, and the wider knowledge economy of the city.

The LPG sets out detailed advice on siting, designing and developing such housing, including balancing it with other housing types. It aims to ensure that these developments are designed and managed to be of good quality, safe and inclusive and integrated into their neighbourhood. The guidance is aimed at those designing PBSA schemes and decision-makers assessing them as part of the planning application process.

 

London’s universities are disproportionately concentrated in a few areas, including within the CAZ (Central Activity Zone) . PBSA (Purpose Built Student Accommodation) has clustered in similar areas, particularly in inner London. This has diversified the student accommodation offer from the traditional, university-built PBSA, and private rented homes. Several boroughs where this is the case have sought to limit further growth in such (purpose built) student accommodation, as well as in some cases, HMOs Homes of Multiple Occupation). This reflects their concerns about housing mix in their neighbourhoods and the potential ‘crowding out’ of conventional housing, given other types of housing need amongst their population. However, in turn, other boroughs (including within outer London, some distance from where London’s universities are concentrated) have since seen a particularly high influx of PBSA schemes, giving rise to similar concerns.

 

PBSA in relation to neighbourhood housing mix can be considered in two ways:

 

• In support of PBSA proposals that help disperse from traditional concentrations to alternative, suitable locations – perhaps adding an element of student housing to existing residential stock that is primarily conventional housing. This may be particularly relevant where there is a shortage of family homes, which students are currently occupying as HMOs or which they could be in future, in light of PBSA shortages.

 

• As a more negative consideration, where there are long-standing or more recent concentrations of PBSA, or similar, non-self-contained accommodation, relative to conventional housing. This may be spatial (in particular neighbourhoods) or as a proportion of housing delivery, where PBSA may be considered to be ‘crowding out’ conventional housing schemes. Such dominance may be particularly acute under certain market conditions; and where development sites are limited (which would ordinarily be equally attractive for conventional residential use).

 

PBSA should form part of a wider positive strategy in delivering mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods in most Local Plans. It should be acknowledged that what is considered an appropriate balance of PBSA and conventional housing will differ across London, and within boroughs. Local Plans should identify if and where spatial concentration of PBSA, or proliferation of PBSA delivery compared to conventional housing delivery, is impacting the ability to ensure mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods. They should also identify more positive opportunities for PBSA to help contribute to local and strategic objectives.

This could be used to develop spatial policies; or to indicate the significance of neighbourhood or pipeline housing mix in decision-making.