The present police houses and police station (concealed by tree)
The proposal
A revised planning application for the ex-police houses and police station in Willesden High Road will be heard at Brent Planning Committee next week (Wednesday June 11th 6pm).
An appeal by the developer was turned down by the Planning Inspectorate on various grounds but the developer now claims that these have been addressed in the new application. In their report to the Planning Committee, Brent planning officers concur but 60 objectors to the proposal strongly disagree.
The proposal is for demolition of the police house and some outbuildings and replacement with a 4 storey building that wraps around the police station. There would be 25 flats and a commercial space in the retained police station. The landmark sycamore tree would stay but have its crown reduced.
The garden area has come in for criticism as it contains something called a Mound but with no specifics on size and height.
Perhaps it is an aspect that the developer will happily remove to assuage the objectors - not a hill that they would want to die on!
After revision of the Viability Assessment four social homes are proposed out of the 25 planned but that provision could be replaced by a contribution of £1.1m to be used for social housing elsewhere.
Trees have a high profile at present as the council has launched its new Strategy for consultation. This application serves as an example of how trees on a development site are currently treated by Brent planning officers:
A total of 7 trees (T6 to
T12) and one group of trees (G13) are proposed to be removed from the site to
accommodate the development. These have all been categorised as C trees (Trees
of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10
years, or young trees with a stem diameter below 150mm) and not of sufficient
quality to present a constraint to development
The submitted report notes that
G13 are low quality shrub like planting located within the current front garden.
Brent’s Principal Tree Officer was satisfied with their removal subject to
their replacement as part of the landscaping scheme. The scheme proposes 9 new
trees within the site, 7 of which are located within the communal garden and 2
within the frontage on High Road.
To facilitate the
development works are proposed to two of the retained trees, T1 Sycamore and T3
Birch. T3 Birch would also require minor access facilitation pruning to allow
erection of protective fencing and site hoarding. This is not considered to be
a major issue.. It is proposed to further construct walls and patio areas
within the RPA of T1 which is the Sycamore Tree located to the frontage on High
Road, Willesden. It is proposed to Crown Reduce the Sycamore tree (T1).
The bulk and density of the new building and its impact on the character of the area are two of the main concerns of objectors. Cllr Maurice (Kenton ward) and Cllr Long (Willesden Green ward) have objected to the scheme.
One objector uses refreshingly straight forward language that contrasts with the dry language of the officers' report:
I Strongly object to this nonsense.
A mound? A bloody Mound?! This is Willesden, not the Peak District. What a
cynical, disingenuous ruse by the developers to pretend it is for amenity and
play space. They are too cheap to get rid of their demolition debris properly
and respectfully and so propose to bury it. It would effectively be a slag heap
- a waste tip - an invasion of privacy and amenity and an insult to
intelligence. This cannot be a serious suggestion - the developers haven't even
bothered with size or scale (a molehill would not require permission, so how
big a mountain do they want?). Please do not allow this precedent to be set. To
paraphrase the Basques, 'If you tolerate this, then your garden will be next.'
The ignominy does not stop there:
The developers are proposing to inflict on the immediate neighbours (and new
residents) 5m2 balconies directly overlooking gardens and bay windows into
bedrooms and living rooms (where is the privacy, also, for the balcony users
and pedestrians?) There is no precedent for this in any of the surrounding
streets.
Why propose siting a loading bay on a quiet residential road, when one already
exists on the High Road around the corner (a far more suitable space)?
Why pretend (again!) that the view from the window of the nearest house is just
of a brick wall? The Inspectorate specifically stated that, despite being told
that by the developers, she went into the room and saw for herself it was not
true. Why are they perpetuating that same untruth and continuing to suggest blocking
the same precious light?
Why are the developers plans and documents so shoddily put together that they
take an age and numerous attempts to navigate?
Brent Planning Committee. No, please. Just no.
The planning officers' report uses the familiar argument that the benefits of the scheme outweigh any negatives including the scheme not meeting natural light and amenity space guidelines and recommend that the Planning Committee approve the application:
The proposal is considered
to accord with the development plan, having regard to all material planning considerations, and
that the application should be approved subject to conditions and a Section106
Agreement to secure the planning obligations.
The assessment has given
significant weight to the appeal decision as a material consideration, and it
is considered that this scheme has overcome the previous reasons for the
dismissed appeal.
The proposal would deliver
25 new homes towards Brent’s housing targets, of which 28% would be family
sized which would contribute to an identified need in the borough.
Whilst the
proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the Willesden Green
Conservation Area, such harm is significantly outweighed by the benefits of the
scheme. Furthermore, the retention of part of the non-designated heritage asset,
along with the delivery of an appropriate commercial town centre use (which has
the potential to be employment generating) in a sustainable location is
considered to outweigh the absence of securing an employment use as outlined in
the site allocation and the and the limited conflict with policy would be outweighed
by the planning benefits.
LINK TO AGENDA ITEM
