Overview of CNWL Dudden Hill Planning Application to be decided next Wednesday

 

 

 CNWL Dudden Hill Phase 1 development building heights in storeys

 

As stated in yesterday's article on the College of North West London (CNWL) Wembley Park site that and the CNWL  Dudden Hill site are separate items on the December 11th Planning Committee Agenda they are conjoined as both site sales contribute to the cost of the new CNWL building in Wembley Park that will eventually house both campuses.

The Dudden Hill site currently consists of a variety of buildings that are claimed to be no longer fit for purpose. They do, of course ,sit on a large site which is a redevelopment gold mine.

Bottom left College Green at the junction of Dudden Hill and Denzil Road. Above it is the College site and to the right, either side of the railway line is a SINC (Site of importance for nature conservation). Originally the plan was to build on the Green but its improvement is now part of the plan.

The development of the site will take place in 2 phases.

Phase 1 is to the right (East) of the red dotted line. To the extreme left of the image is an estate of two storey houses  on Selbie Road that (at the moment) are not part of the redevelopment zone.

The tallest buildings (C,D and E) are alongside the railway line, mid-height (11 to 17 storeys) in the centre of the Phase 1 development. The lowest (4 or 5 storeys) are  along Denzil Road with a small park separating them from Phase 1 and opening on to Denzil Road. There are courtyards within each cluster in both phases.

It is Phase 1 in detail that is going to Planning Committee and Phase 2 is in outline and subject to change.

The timetable covers 10 years from this Planning Committee Meeting:

May 2025 Phase 1 college buildings are vacated and staff and activities decanted to Phase 2 buildings.

Summer 2025 Demolition of Phase 1 collrge buildings and construction begins

 

2027-2032 Phase 1 housing completed

 

September 2028 completion of new CNWL facility on Olympic Way

 

September 2028 vacant possession of Phase 2 buildings secured as staff and students move to Olympic Way.

 

September 2028 demolitionof Phase 2 buildings  and new build commences 

November 2034 Phase 2 completed

 

Hill Group in their planning statement say:

Phase 1 comprises 1,076 homes across 11 buildings/blocks ranging from 4 to 28 storeys. These are:

• Building C is 24 storeys with a 20-storey shoulder and provides 187 apartments for traditional sale/rent;

• Building D is 28 storeys with a 24-storey shoulder and provides 223 build-to-rent apartments;

• Building E is 22 storeys with 18 and 10-storey shoulders and provides 196 build-to- rent apartments;

• Buildings F and G are 11 storeys each and provide 162 apartments for traditional sale/rent;

• Buildings H, J and K are 15, 17 and 11 storeys respectively and provide 239 apartments for traditional sale/rent; and

• Buildings V, W, and Y are 4-5 storeys and provide 69 affordable apartments all of which (100%) are offered at social rent.

 

Phase 1 has been designed to be the focus of the commercial uses at ground floor where the majority of homes and taller buildings are located. This part of the development is the most likely arrival point from Dollis Hill station, bus stops, and Willesden town centre, and it is prominently located with regards to passing trade along Dudden Hill Lane.

Accordingly, a precise and tailored commercial offering is proposed for Phase 1. Key elements of this include the anchor facilities of a food store and food & beverage premises located either side of the main gateway to the Site from Dudden Hill Lane. Flexible retail units (which could be small shops, restaurants, or cafes) are positioned a little deeper into the development along the east-west route, and on the corner of the neighbourhood park/Denzil Road; where they will still benefit from a good level of passing trade

They are at pains to point out that these shops are a local offer and not designed to compete with high street retail. 

A nursery is proposed that if no provider came forward could be replaced by a community facility:

The nursery size and location is also robustly secured in the Development Specification and Parameter plans. It is proposed to be located at the lower density part of the development on the corner of Denzil Road and Selbie Avenue, where it has the opportunity of taking some of the available defensible green space as a private garden for play. In the event that a commercial nursery operator cannot be found, this unit would instead come forward as an alternative form of social/community infrastructure e.g. opticians, dentist, post-office etc within Use Class E or F. It is worth noting that in the likely event that a nursery operator is forthcoming, these other forms of social/community infrastructure could still and likely will come forward within the other flexible Class E floorspace across either base.

The financial viability assessment (FVA) concluded that the overall development would make and this would mean no affordable housing. However an 18% 'affordable' element was negotiated but only a small proportion is council housing and the intermediate level shared ownership:

As a general principle, Phase 2 includes a higher proportion of family housing than Phase 1. This reflects the typology of buildings within the respective phases and the locations most suitable for family homes. Phase 1 includes the taller buildings along the trainline, together with the majority of the retail, commerce, and workspace. It will create the densest and most vibrant part of the new neighbourhood. Phase 2 comprises lower-scale buildings set amongst generous green space that better lends itself for a greater quantum of family homes (and indeed the nursery and community centre). Taller, thinner buildings are naturally more suited to smaller units orientated around a central core, whilst lower, wider and longer buildings lend themselves more easily to larger family homes.

 

In addition, Phase 1 is the first phase of a regeneration scheme for which first-time buyers are the target market initially (given the very high demand). The cost of a smaller 1 or 2 bedroom unit is more attractive and affordable to this market. Phase 1 also includes build-to-rent tenures (which lend themselves to young professionals and new families) are proposed in the taller blocks. This approach is supported by London Plan policy H10 acknowledges that a higher proportion of one and two bed units are generally more appropriate in more urban locations closer to stations and town centres. The proposed mix for Phase 1 assists with the viability and deliverability of an important regeneration scheme and ability to facilitate the relocation of the CNWL.

 

All of the affordable housing proposed for Phase 1 is provided as either shared ownership or social rent, which is understood to have a greater local need than Discount Market Rent products. The Applicant has undertaken initial discussions with potential Registered Providers to ensure there is strong interest and the product and building align with market expectations. The location and product of the Affordable Housing has been carefully considered to ensure its suitable and desirable by the eventual Registered Provider.

So families needing social housing will have to wait for the second phase that starts in 2028 and is completed in 2034 - market conditions and financial viability may change the tenure. As in the Wembley Park officers' report, affordability is measured by habital room, rather than housing unit. The gives a higher percentage figure for larger properties.

It has proved to find amongst the documents any image of the whole development but the screen grabs below should give you  some idea:

Lower rise buildings along Denzil Road

Buildings at the back of College Green (junction of Denzil Road and Dudden Hill Lane)

Junction of Cooper Road and Dudden Hill

Tall building E and  lower building F looking west along Cooper Road

Looking south from the petrol station across the railway line - the new flats on the ex-plant nursery site appear to be missing.

Visible from a slightly different angle

View from arrival square along the new east - west route

 

 Hill Group summarise their case:

 

Social

 

✓ Delivery of approximately 1,934 high quality new homes across this Site (c. 1,627) and Crescent House, Wembley (307), akin to 84% of LBB’s annual London Plan requirement.

✓ Provision of 20% (by habitable room) affordable housing across the two Sites, significantly exceeding the maximum viable amount.

✓ Provision of the following at College Green alone:

o Circa 1,627 homes.

o Circa 236 family homes, including 4-bed properties.

o 18% affordable housing (by habitable room), up to 50% (123 units) of which are affordable family homes.

o A wide variety of sizes and tenures, all of which are high quality homes that balance fire regulations, dual aspect, outlook, daylight, and thermal comfort and efficiency.

✓ Delivery of a multi-use community centre suitable for indoor sports, leisure activities and community events.

✓ Provision for a new nursery and/or similar social infrastructure.

✓ Provision of local amenities including convenience store, food and beverage premises, gym, and Build to Rent lounges.

✓ Provision of flexible workspace with potential for ‘maker space’.

✓ At least 1.45 hectares of new and enhanced green space, including:

o c. 0.29 hectare of retained and enhanced public open space (on Selbie Avenue and Dudden Hill Lane).

o c. 0.38 hectare new publicly-accessible neighbourhood park.

o c. 0.78 hectare of communal courtyards and podium/roof terraces for tenants.

✓ Fully policy-compliant play space provision on Site for all ages.

 

Environmental

 

✓ Landscape design ethos around women and children’s (physical and perceived) safety, achieving safer pedestrian connections and through-routes.

✓ Landscape-led development with integrated sustainable drainage strategy, planting of over 350 new trees, achieving an exceptionally high Urban Greening Factor score of 0.57. This is almost 50% over the policy target and would be one of if not the greenest developments proposed in Brent to date.

✓ A sensitive landscape response to the adjacent railway SINC.

✓ Hill to act as long term stewards of the development, managing the landscape and public realm to a high standard.

✓ Local townscape and streetscape benefits (and no heritage harm).

✓ All electric energy strategy, with glazing optimised to balance daylight with overheating.

✓ Operational carbon reduction of over 80% beyond Part L 2021; far surpassing the policy minimum target of 35 % and reflects the detailed consideration to sustainability in the project design. This will minimise energy bills for residents with 25% achieved through lean measures that reduce actual energy use.

✓ Non-residential units to meet BREEAM ‘Excellent’.

✓ Responsible sourcing of construction materials.

✓ Car-free development, except blue-badge parking and car-club spaces. Overall net reduction in parking and vehicle trips compared to existing college, bringing air quality and transport network benefits.

✓ Upgraded Dudden Hill Lane / Cooper Road junction including new pedestrian and cycle crossing point, improving access to Dollis Hill Station.

✓ Pavement widening on Denzil Road.

✓ Air Quality Positive development.

 

Thjere are only two resident comments on the Brent Council Planning Portal - both neutral.

 

https://pa.brent.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=neighbourComments&keyVal=DCAPR_169398

 

Looking at the overall context it is worth remembering the scheme for Neasden Goods Yard, not far away, where most of the proposed towers are higher than the highest on the CNWL site at 30, 40, 42, 43 and 51 storeys. LINK

 

 

Wembley Park planning application to build 31 storey and 18 storey building on Olympic Way college site to be heard at Planning Committee next week

 

The new buildings from Bobby Moore Bridge (Bridge Road opposite station)

The College of North West London building that will be demolished

 

 In 2017 I predicted that the merger of the College of North West London and City of Westminster College as United  Colleges would lead to deals involving their property portfolio but I rather underestimated the extent of change that this would involve. Will property deals follow CNWL and CWC merger?

In Brent the plan involve the sale of both College of North West London College sites (Wembley Park's Crescent House and Dudden Hill's College Park) for housing development with  the profit funding a new college building on Olympic Way/Fulton Road. This was  given planning permission in July 2023 on the site of the Olympic Office Centre, formerly the HQ of Network Housing.

 

New Wembley Park Campus building

Brent Council was involved via a loan given to United Colleges to help set up the deal. CNWL has already sold its Kilburn site and sold its other Wembley Park building to the Education Funding Agency to provide accommodation for Michaela School.

If your head is spinning perhaps this explanation from Brent Planning Officers will help:

Officers have carefully weighed up the conclusions drawn by the viability assessment and the policy requirement for the delivery the new college facility in order to enable the release these two sites for development. Officers also have attached weight to the benefits associated with the delivery of the new college. Officers consider that the inter-relationship between these two schemes and the delivery of the new college facility is material to the consideration of this application, and a Section 106 obligation will prevent the implementation of these two applications unless the construction of the new College building is going ahead.

 

It is therefore considered reasonable and appropriate for the Council to place weight on the financial contribution that the sale of these two sites will make towards the delivery of the new college building and officers have also evaluated the scheme on this basis. However, it is for the decision maker to determine what weight should be applied to the facilitating role that the sale of these sites play in the delivery of the new college facility.

 

Officers consider that this should be given substantial weight given that the new college facility cannot be delivered without the sale of these sites to the College, not only for financial reasons (as the sale is required to fund the college) but also for planning policy and legal reasons (as Section 106 obligations will prevent the implementation of these two applications, if approved, unless the new college facility is going ahead).

This is rather a lot of pressure on Planning Committee to agree the application, particularly as Brent Council helped facilitate the deal.

The impact of the 18 and 31 storey building on the views from Wembley Park Station and Bridge Road is enormous. It will loom in front of the more distant views along Olympic Way to the stadium as well as from vehicles travelling between Wembley Central and Wembley Park.

 

 The problem will the piecemeal approval of the various Wembley Park applications is that the wider context is not always evident. For example the view below doesn't show the tower blocks under construction at Wembley Park station  along Brook Road, opposite the proposed buildings. In the illustration you can barely see the station itself.

 

The pink buildings in the illustrations are buildings in the pipeline for the approved Fulton Quarter. This the area behind the college building made up of the Stadium Retail Park, McDonalds and the Troubadour Theatre. LINK

The Fulton Quarter will provide 995 homes.

I have tried to show the overall impact by roughly placing the two towers in context below. The numbers refer to the number of storeys in each block.

 

 The viability assessment referred to in the officers' remarks is about how much affordable housing can be supplied and still give the developer a return. The officers make the figures at Wembley Park more palatable by combining the two ex-college sites:

The affordable units classed as intermediate by officers are shared ownership. Not affordable for most Brent residents and the Council itself is aware of the product's shortcomings. See LINK.
 

It is surprising given the magnitude of this application that the Brent Planning Portal LINK states only 6 comments have been received. The only comment actually shown is from Ilford:

I object to this planning application for these two buildings of 18 and 31 storeys in height for various social, environmental, public health and fire safety reasons. For example Wembley has now seen more than enough high density housing schemes in recent years that has put an overall strain on local social infrastructure. Also the townscape has been greatly changed which has had an inevitable effect upon local heritage around here too. This particular housing scheme is also being funded by a private building firm so therefore these flats are highly unlikely to be genuinely affordable to local residents. Fire safety has to be another major consideration in planning terms especially with the tower block fires that we have seen across Greater London in recent years as well.

The application for the Dudden Hill College Green CNWL site will also be heard at the Planning Committee next week, December 11th. I will review that later. LINK

 

Christmas at Chalkhill Saturday December 7th 12-4

 

Brent's Community Infrastructure Levy funds at record levels but without government policy change unavailable to offset planned £16m cuts

 

SCIL: Strategic Infrastructure Levy NCIL: Neighbourhood Infrastrure Levy

The latest Brent Infrastructure Funding Statement showing how Brent Council has used the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)  in 2023-24 strengthenss the case for relaxation of the restrictions on spending of the funds raised. £143m of Strategic CIL remains unspent and £15.5m of Neighbourhood CIL. 

The Council's 2025-2026 proposes £16m of cuts to council services.

Strategic CIL cannot be used currently for the day to day running of the Council. The Lead Member for Finance in her Forward to the report states that the current shortage of funds for that provision can only be addressed by the Government increasing local government funding.

However, following a suggestion made by Liberal Democrat councillor, Anton Georgiou, Cllr Muhammed Butt and Cllr Shama Tatler have written to the Government LINK calling for more flexibility regarding CIL spending to relieve some of the pressure in the short term:

Easing restrictions does not mean abandoning fiscal responsibility, rather adapting to current realities and the challenges councils are facing. Councils can still practice sound financial management while using CIL more flexibly. Establishing clear guidelines and accountability for the use of CIL funds would ensure that the funds are used effectively and responsibly.

The figures speak for themselves:

 

CIL spending and allocation:

 

Neighbourhood CIL allocations and spend are reported in the Brent Infrastructure Funding Report and too detailed to include here but well worth reviewing. See LINK. 

Overview of area spending

 In addition to CIL Brent can also raise money through Section 106 agreements with developers and these have become significant particularly in housing. Again there is a significant amount of money unspent in the fund:

 

 

 

 

 301 'affordable units' were secured through Section 106 but only four were social rent:

Strategic CIL to be used for new Kilburn Primary School building and Open Space improvements: some associated issues.

Current site

 Proposed

 

 Proposed in wider context

 

It has been no secret that in the past there has been resistance by the neighbouring South Kilburn schools, Carlton Vale Infant School and Kilburn Park Foundation School (a junior school), to amalgamation. However, they have recently been operating as a Federation with some joint management and leadership.

Now Brent Council has come forward with plans to build a new combined school building on the existing  Carlton Vale Infant site (KVI) and Kilburn Park School Foundation (KPFS). The demolished KPFS site would be incorporated into an improved South Kilburn Open Space.

The proposal before Cabinet on Monday December 9th is:

Approves the use of £12.9m of SCIL funding, for the construction of a 1 Form Entry primary school with a nursery and the infrastructure to expand to a 2FE school (including decanting of Carlton Vale Infant school to Kilburn Park Junior school and the associated building works), as part of South Kilburn Regeneration Programme.

 Approves the use of £4.4 m of SCIL funding, for the enhancement of the South Kilburn Open Space, as part of the South Kilburn Regeneration Programme. 

Given the difficulties facing the delivery (and viability) of the remaining housing schemes on South Kilburn the proposal, by using £17.3m of Strategic CIL, removes any funding through the regeneration.

As a Foundation school Kilburn Park has possession of its land and will have to agree a land transfer to Brent Council. Brent Council once in possession will have to request permission from the Department for Education to use the land for non-educational purpose, namely the improvement of the open space.

There is a potential fly in the ointment here because Islamia Primary is still looking for a site following an eviction order from the Islam Yusuf Foundation. The Strathcona site as an alternative was overwhelmingly rejected by parents. A potential school building will be standing empty and available before demolition. Islamia could appeal to the DfE not to release the land for non-educational purposes.

Both CVI and KPSF are operating well below capacity. The latest figures I have managed to find are CVI 56 pupils out of a capacity of 230, and KPFS 66 out of a capacity of 240. As a result the LA is proposing a one form entry school (30 per year group) and a 26 place nursery. In addition however, the build will include infrastructure for expansion to 2 forms of entry if required when demand increases as a result of the regeneration, but importantly the officers' report (rather puzzlingly) states:

20. It should be noted that should the need arise for the new school to expand to a 2FE school in the future, there is no provision in this proposal to cover these costs.

The  regeneration so far does not appear to have  resulted in much of an increase in the rolls of the two schools despite Good Ofsted report. If future housing tenure is aimed at young professionals rather than families the anticipated demand may not materialise.

This brings us to another issue. Brent Council has a School Places Strategy that deals with falling numbers in primary schools in some areas of the borough, with amalgamations and federations, and potential closures as part of the solution. Because school funding is based on the number of pupils, falling numbers impact on the school budget. As argued in some recent discussions this impacts in turn on the capacity of the school to employ the full range of staff to offer a broad and balanced curriculum and SEND support.

The officers' report sees a glowing role and future for the new school:

15. The school will not only support the educational needs of the growing population but will also act as a catalyst for community cohesion, social mobility, and local economic growth, linking directly to the wider regeneration goal.

    The new school will not only replace outdated facilities but will create a modern, efficient educational environment that meets the needs of South Kilburn’s children now and in the future. It aims to provide top-tier educational facilities at the heart of the community, fostering community cohesion and improving life chances for residents.

The officers' report does not see an early increased demand for places and discounts the Islamia interest:

 The modelling exercise [ ] identified that there would be sufficient capacity over the next five years (the 2027/2028 academic year) to meet projected need if a one form of entry primary school replaced CVI and KPJ schools, taking into account the likely relocation of Islamia Primary School away from the area.

Development of a two-form entry school would likely lead to spare places in the area which would not be an efficient use of resources. However, in the longer term given the level of planned regeneration, it was felt prudent to design options that would allow the new primary school to be relatively easily expanded to a 2 FE school should the need arise.

 However the new school will not be occupied until 2029, after that period, according to the timeline. Will a 2 form need be apparent by then and additional work needed?:

 

There are no design details of the new school as yet but it may well be a similar to the pre-assembled Wembley Manor SEND school in London Road. LINK

Proposals for the improvement of the  South Kilburn Open Space are promising at this stage:

28. The proposed landscape strategy of the South Kilburn open space includes ecological enhancements and activation of the open space through a network of safe routes, creating opportunities to bring together new and existing residents of South Kilburn. The proposed improvements include new cycle and pedestrian connections, a new multi-activity area, youth space, gym trail, woodland play area and earthworks, enhanced biodiversity, community orchard, and growing space, and a proposed community pavilion that can accommodate community space and café. Officers within the Parks Service have commented on the design proposals, to ensure ease of maintenance and community benefit. 

    
    

    
    

How Brent MPs voted on the Assisted Dying Bill

 Dawn Butler (Brent East) and Barry Gardiner (Brent West) voted against the Bill and  Georgia Gould (Queens Park and Maida Vale) voted for the Bill.

Morland Gardens – now there is a real chance to save the Victorian villa!

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant in a personal capacity

The Victorian villa, “Altamira” and community garden, at the corner of Hillside and Brentfield Road.

 

My first guest post about the 1870s Italianate-style Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, in February 2020 (!), asked “Housing or Heritage? Or both?” Now BOTH is a real possibility again, following the exhibition and its subsequent consultation on Bridge Park and the Hillside Corridor (see Martin’s recent post for details).

 

If you are interested in the chance to save this beautiful and historically important local landmark, and see it put to good use for future generations of local residents to enjoy, please read on. I will outline the current position, and how you can help, in this latest guest post (there will be “links” to earlier ones, if you would like more information).

 

The Council’s original plans for redeveloping 1 Morland Gardens, which had been the home of Brent’s adult education college since the 1990s, were approved by the Cabinet in January 2020, and then by five (out of eight) members of the Planning Committee later in the year. They included demolishing the locally-listed heritage building (against national and Brent planning policies) and building over the community garden outside the property, which the Council had no legal right to do, and would have breached its air quality and climate change policies.

 

The project failed, after the Council’s planning consent expired at the end of October 2023, without construction work having begun. Since November 2023, Brent Council have been carrying out a review of their future plans for the Morland Gardens site, after the Brent Start college was moved out to a “temporary” home (meant to be for just two years while the redevelopment was carried out). One year on, I would have expected the Council’s ‘outline proposals’ from this review, which were unveiled as part of the Bridge Park and Hillside Corridor exhibition on 28 November, to be more than this:

 

‘This site, formerly Brent Start’s home before they moved to Twybridge Way, is going to be redeveloped. The Council plans to build new council homes and community facilities here. We want to hear what you think is needed.’

           The entire Morland Gardens section from the exhibition.

I had a good conversation at the exhibition with Brent’s Head of Capital Delivery. One thing he made clear was that site for the new proposals, following the consultation, would only be for within the 1 Morland Gardens boundary. They no longer plan to build on the community garden land outside ('we have learned some lessons from last time').

 

The plans for Brent’s new leisure centre building at Bridge Park show that the new Brent Start college, and the affordable workspace, which were going to be at Morland Gardens under the Council’s failed 2020 scheme, will be at Bridge Park instead. This means that they do not have to be part of the future plans for the 1 Morland Gardens site.

 

A section drawing through Brent’s proposed new Bridge Park building, from the exhibition.

 

It is ironic that Brent are now proposing to rehome Brent Start on the Bridge Park site, as that is what I suggested in October 2021, before they moved the college out of Morland Gardens. That suggestion was made in correspondence with Stonebridge Ward councillors, with a copy to the Cabinet members and Council Officers involved. It would have allowed Brent to go ahead with its Stonebridge Phase 2 housing scheme at Twybridge Way, which received planning consent in May 2020.

 

I repeated that suggestion to Brent Council’s Leader in an email of 19 January 2022, sending the text of this comment I had made under Martin’s blog “Muhammed Butt hails High Court's Bridge Park Appeal ruling”, reporting the Court’s decision and Cllr. Butt’s reaction to it:

 

‘This decision means that the development of the long-blighted Unisys building can also go ahead.

 

That would give Brent the opportunity to work with the developer, to include in the redevelopment scheme the modern college facilities that Brent Start Adult College needs, paid for by the £15m of CIL money which the Council has set aside for that.

 

The new college on that site would be ideally placed, next door to 'the fantastic new leisure and employment centre that local people need and deserve' at Bridge Park.

 

Building the new college facility there would mean only one disruptive move for the college, rather than a move into temporary accommodation in the "Stonebridge Annexe" building at Twybridge Way, then back again to Morland Gardens after two or more years.

 

A decision to pursue the "Unisys" option for the college would immediately free-up the Twybridge Way site for Phase 2 of Brent's Stonebridge Housing scheme, including family houses and much-needed New Accommodation for Independent Living flats.

 

It would also mean that the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens would not need to be demolished, but could be sympathetically incorporated into a new housing scheme on that site, once the college had moved to its new facilities.

 

That looks like a win/win/win situation, and should be quickly and seriously considered.’

 

The exchange of emails is recorded in full in the comments under that article (which some might find interesting reading!). The first response to my suggestion was from Cllr. Muhammed Butt: ‘Morland Gardens is not part of the work around Bridge Park and will continue to progress in its current form separately to Bridge Park.’

 

The last response was from Brent’s then Director of Regeneration on the Leader’s behalf: ‘The proposed developments at Morland Gardens and Bridge Park will continue as planned. There will be no changes to the proposed re-development at Morland Gardens as a result.’ My “final word” to the Director on 31 January 2022 was: ‘If (or when) your proposed [Morland Gardens] redevelopment comes to nothing, the Council won't be able claim that it was not warned of the mistakes it had made, and the risks it had decided to take.’

 

If only they had listened! It would have saved several wasted years and millions of pounds of Brent Council money! But, to quote the words of a song, ‘they would not listen, they did not know how, perhaps they’ll listen now.’

 

“The Starry Night” by Vincent van Gogh, which inspired the song, (Image from the internet)

 

I was assured at the exhibition that the Council still has an open mind on whether to retain the Victorian villa as part of the new redevelopment proposals. Officers will await the outcome of the consultation process before drawing up their recommendations for Morland Gardens. I am as sceptical as many of you will be about Brent Council “consultations” (‘they would not listen, they’re not listening still, perhaps they never will’), but I hope, and believe, there is a real chance that a strong show of support for retaining the Victorian villa would swing the decision that way.

 

Brent Council’s stated policy on valuing heritage assets. (From a supporting document to the Local Plan)

 

That is why I am asking for your help, please. If you agree that this important heritage asset should not be ‘lost forever to the community and future generations’, and that it should ‘be used for regeneration and place-making purposes’, please share that view as part of the consultation exercise. Please do that as soon as you can, and definitely before 6 January 2025.

 

There is an online consultation, but that is mainly about Bridge Park, with a few tick box options for possible Morland Gardens facilities at the end of the long survey form. If you are responding to the survey on the Bridge Park proposals, you could give your views on keeping the Victorian villa in the “other” box at the end of this Morland Gardens section:

 

The Morland Gardens section of the online survey form.

 

To be sure that your views reach the decision makers, I’d suggest instead that you send your views, including that the heritage building should be retained, in an email headed “Morland Gardens consultation” to: bridgepark@four.agency , with a copy to: neil.martin@brent.gov.uk  

 

Thank you!

 

Philip Grant

UPDATED: Bridge Park consultation exhibition boards published. Unisys, Bridge Park, Morland Gardens, Twybridge Way, Roy Smith House, Bernard Shaw House are all affected. Second public consultation tomorrow 10am to 2pm

 The Unisys site

 

The boards for the Stonebridge/Bridge Park/Unisys/Morland Gardens development have been published today to coincide with the first public consultation:

Brent Start, Twybridge Way, London NW10 0ST on Thursday 28 November, from 3 to 7pm or Saturday 30 November, from 10am to 2pm (Note Saturday is a Wembley Event Day - England v USA).

 The Unisys site would provide more than 1,000 homes (tenure to be decided), a hotel and commercial premises. It appears that the current twin Unisys buildings on the site will be demolished.

Interesting it is now proposal to move Brent Start to Bridge Park rather than Morland Gardens as first proposed. The plans are for new council homes and community facilities here. It is not clear that this means the Altamira Victorian house will be saved from demolition as previously proposed. 

The online consultation can be found HERE. Please note this is much more than a consultation just about Bridge Park. The Hillside Regenration Corridor includes Unisys, Twybridge Way, Morland Gardens, Roy Smith House and Bernard Shaw House as can be seen below.

 

This is a portion of one board that points to 'High Level Views' - unfortunately the image leaves out 32 storey Stonebridge Place and 24 storey Argenta House next to 'The Wem'. You would have to be pretty high yourself to see past those blocks. In fact the two blocks in the corner of the Unisys Site (North Circular and Harrow Road) are 32 and 34 storeys high. The hotel on Harrow Road itself will be 16 storeys high.

Planned  new developments below with Argenta House in black. Stonebridge Park station is white roof in bottom left corner.

Below are some of the exhibition boards for you to review before responding to the consultation or visiting the exhibitions inperson and discussing with staff there.

Click right bottom X for whole page view. 

Bottom right to download a copy.

 

ONLINE CONSULTATION

UPDATE

I went to the exhibition yesterday and chatted to some of the architects and the developer but most importantly some of the local people who had dropped into the session.

The architects were proud of the work that had gone into the planning of the greens spaces and gardens that address flooding  and run off potential on the site. The site historically included an oxbow, a loop, in the River Brent to the south of what is now the North Circular over which was a stone bridge. The river was rerouted so it flows alongside the North Circular and is joined by the Wembley Brook at Argenta House. Place names on the south side give a clue to water courses in the area: Brentfield, Conduit Way, Miitchell Brook, Sladebrook and the canal feeder.

Bridge Park Leisure Centre is currently in the centre of the site but will be tucked into the southern corner under the current plans.  Residents were concerned that there was no car parking allocated or space for a coach to park to let off  parties of school children using the planned swimming pool.

The Morland Gardens site is earmarked for a community space and homes but there was no detail except that the Memorial Garden will no longer be built on and Brent Start adult education will not be housed there. The future of the Altamira Victorian villa appears to be subject to further discussion.

The plans showed Brent Start on 3 floors beneath a residential tower adjoined to the Leisure Centre and concerns were voiced that this would be insufficient for its needs.

 

There was inevitable scepticism about the proposals given the history and this was particularly true of the 1,000 new homes promised for the Unisys site. There were no details regarding tenure and one local insisted (without much hope) that they should be council or social rent homes.

The Unisys site is to be developed by Stonebridge Real Estate Development Ltd, owned by General Mediterraean Holdings. GMH were there (though their badges said GHM) and were a rather isolated group.  I was interested in the financial viability of the development with an eye on the inevitable viability assessment that would reduce the amount of affordable housing on site. They did not want to discuss the financial position of Stonebridge Real Estate but assured me that GMH had plenty of money if there were any problems.

GMH is registered in Luxembourg and has an interesting history. See LINK