Crunch day for Preston Community Library at Planning Committee on Wednesday 21st August

Ground floor plan showing flat and accommodation entrance and library space

Frontage from Carlton Avenue East

Preston Community Library is at the centre of a planning decision to be made by Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday August 21st LINK. The community library emerged from a fierce campaign against closure and campaigners decided to run a volunteer library to safeguard the site and service until a council run service was reinstated. Recently the library was commended in the Bookseller's Library of the Year Award, the first volunteer library to receive such a commendation.

Campaigners won the status of Asset of Community Value (ACV) for the library and its retention is guaranteed in Brent Council's redevelopment proposal that includes provision of a new building with 12 affordable flats on the site as well as a smaller library space.

Supporters of the library have varying views on the proposal with some supporting the development as a way of ensuring the survival of the library and the replacement of a flimsy building which is not fit for modern purposes. They accept that the  smaller floorspace will be more flexible and adaptable than the current classroom layout. Others oppose the development because the library provision will be smaller than the current floorspace and they wish the library to continue as it is - often without any redevelopment to provide housing.

There are 67 objections in all including that from the South Kenton and Preston Park Residents Association.  Ground include the height and density of the proposed building, its failure to fit in with the local 'metroplitan style' semi-detached houses, traffic impact, overlooking of nearby gardens, lack of play-space for children and danger of surface flooding. Neighbouring Twinstar Car Sales oppose the development partly due to it overlooking their premises but also because it limits their own redevelopment proposals. An earlier submission by them was turned down.

Councillor Kennelly in hs submission recognised the benefits of re-providing the library facility to allow its continued operation in the long term, but highlighted concerns regarding the impact of the proposal upon the privacy of the properties on Longfield Avenue and the need to remove windows/balconies facing onto these properties, 
that the design of the building is not in keeping with the character of the area and could set a precedent. 

I would expect Cllr Michael Maurice, who is a member of the Planning Committee, to recuse himself from this agenda item as he has expressed strong views on the proposal. 


Three supportive comments claimed that 
the proposal will provide much needed affordable housing within the borough in a decent standard of accommodation, that the 
 site is in a sustainable location close to local amenities, transport links and schools 
and the proposal will allow the long term operation of the library to take place on the site in a 
modernised building 

As shown in the plan above the library space will be provided as a shell at this stage and Preston Library will fit it out themselves using the £268,000 they were granted from Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy that was conditional on the redevelopment going ahead. LINK


Below I have reproduced three views from the Council Planning Portal to illustrate the issues:

NEUTRAL

Since this development was first proposed in 2010, I have read and reviewed the many ideas and suggestions from Brent Council. Previous proposals failed to provide adequate provision for a Library or community space. This space has always been and remains an integral part of our community in Preston Ward. Since 2016, I have seen a more engaged approach from Brent Council and a willingness to listen to the community. Although these plans require further alterations, the basic provision for a sustainable community library in the long term is the most important factor in my decision to support this development as a resident and councillor.

The space available to the community will be maintained and modernised. It will allow the Preston Community Library and Hub to build upon their hard work and success by granting long term security both financially and structurally. The current building is approaching the end of its natural life and will require substantial work to maintain the current standards. By supporting this proposal, I believe that the long term future of Preston Community Library and Hub will be secured.

However, I am concerned that the current proposals do not meet the necessary safety concerns for the development to proceed in its current format. Firstly, at every public meeting local residents have expressed their concerns over privacy and child safety. The proposals have continuously failed to meet these concerns. To help protect residents, I propose that all balconies are removed from the final design and no windows overlook the residents on Longfield Avenue. The safety and protection of vulnerable residents should be the first priority for the Planning Committee.

Secondly, the design of the building does not keep with the local architecture. This community has a traditional metropolitan look, which these proposals do not reflect. I am concerned that this will open the floodgates to applications that do not reflect the traditional beauty of the local area. Therefore to maintain the high standards in the local area, these proposals should be reviewed once again.

Finally, I do not believe that adequate planning or consultation has been completed in regards to the impact of increased traffic and reduced pedestrian access whilst work is being completed. I would strongly question any survey that has been completed by the council and ask why they have asked for such little public engagement on this issue. It is my belief that the current proposals will hurt local business and impact upon the lives of both elderly and vulnerable resident. It will lead to an increase in pollution and congestion. The lungs of young residents are most affected by the fumes from parked traffic, I implore the Planning Committee to ask Brent Council to think again about these proposals.

I want to make very clear that my support for this project hinges upon the guarantee of the long term future of the Community Library and Hub. Should the Committee or Brent Council attempt to reverse these plans and commitments that have been made to the community, I would be unable to continue with my support.

FOR

I strongly support this development, because it will provide a new and better laid out and equipped library, rather than it having to make do and mend in a building that has seen better days. I agree with an earlier comment that the library is an important resource for the community which allows people a safe creative environment to interact and encourages diversity, and that it has a positive function in social, health and economic terms.

I also, unlike most of the people opposing the development, positively welcome the development of affordable housing, particularly at a time when across London around 80% of new market housing is affordable to only 20% of working households and there is marked reluctance by private landlords to let to households claiming Housing Benefit.

Brent Council's housing strategy acknowledges that the opportunities for large-scale new development in Brent are constrained by land availability and costs, so smaller developments must play their part in helping to provide homes for those who don't have them or are poorly and insecurely housed.

We in this community should welcome this opportunity to increase the affordable rented housing stock. Too many of the comments opposing the development simply smack of nimybism.

AGAINST

We wish to make you aware of a number of strong objection that we have with regards to the proposed development of  Preston Community Library. As an immediate neighbour to the site of the proposed development, we are of the view that the proposed development will have a serious impact on our standard of Living. Our specific objections are as follows.

1 Detrimental impact upon residential amenities.

We believe that the proposed development is a direct contravention of the policies, it does not respect local context and street pattern or in particular, the scale and proportion of surrounding buildings and would be entirely out of the character of the area, The proposed Development is 4 storey building and is much higher than neighbouring property. The proposed dwelling incorporates an external balcony at front and rear of development unlike any other neighbouring property, so the scale and design of the development will be entirely out of keeping.

The proposal would demonstrably harm the amenities enjoyed by local residents, in particular safe and available on-road parking (see point 6), valuable green space (see point 4), privacy ( see Point 5) and the right to enjoy a quiet and safe residential environment.

2 Need To avoid town cramming

We believe that the proposed development is a direct contravention of the policies. The proposed dwelling would significantly alter the fabric of the area to serious cramming in what is a low density road, The proposed dwelling have very small garden, but the nature and orientation of the plot means that the garden would actually be very small for a four-story dwelling, particularly compared with the large plots typically enjoyed by the surrounding properties. The proposal allows very little space for landscaping and we believe that it would lead to gross over-development of the site. The proposed development would not result in a benefit in environmental and landscape term, to the contrary it would lead to the loss of valuable green space.

3 Communal Play Space Policy S4 (Mayor of London)

We believe there is no Communal Play space for children and Young people in accordance with the requirement of Policy S4 Play and informal recreation as per Mayor of London Plan (Minimum for 10 children)

4 Protection of valuable open space under TPO

We have grave concerns about the adverse effect the proposed development would have on large tree will be removed this will affect wildlife haven for many birds and valuable contribution to the street scene and area and are an amenity for local residents.

5. Loss of privacy and overlooking

The proposed site of development and scale that the primary amenity area of our garden, resulting in a serious invasion of our privacy.

We believe that the proposed development is a direct contravention of policy of the District Wide Local Plan. The design of the proposed development dose not affords adequate privacy for the occupants of the building or of adjacent residential properties. Particularly, with regard to their right to the quite enjoyment of garden amenities. We would urge you to consider the responsibilities of the council under the Human Right Act in particular Protocol 1, Article 1 which states that a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions which includes the home and other land. We believe that the proposed development would have a dominating impact on us and our right to the quite enjoyment of our property. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act stats that person has the substantive right to respect for their private and family life.

6. Inadequate Parking and Access.

We believe that the proposed development does not provide sufficient parking space to meet these requirement ( As specified in transport report this kind of development require 14 space for flat resident plus about 5 space for library users plus disable space for both library user and flat resident) in addition to this , there is already intense on street parking pressure on the road on Carlton Avenue East, Longfield avenue, Fernleigh Court, and we believe the proposed additional parking provision will damage both highway safety and residential amenity.
Also proposed development showing hoarding taking public footpath and parking bay outside library and will create blind spot junction and will increased on road safety and accident.

7. Our other objection are listed below.

1) Nuisance and annoyance obstruction of the view
2) Twinstar similar Development been refused by Brent council reference 08/3173
3) Consultation meeting 76% Neighbours and library user object the development proposal
4) We believe proposed Development will create overshadowing in our property

We would be grateful if the council would take our objection into consideration when deciding this application. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with a representative of planning department to illustrate our objections at first hand.

Brent Council issues reassurance on dam safety precautions at the Welsh Harp reservoir

Following the article by Philip Grant LINK on the Welsh Harp dam risk in the light of the Whaly Bridge incident, Brent Council has written to him with the following statement:

The council work with the Environment Agency directly as part of both the Brent Resilience Forum and the London Resilience Forum. To assure you, responses to a breach, or potential breach, of a reservoir form elements of the risk registers for both organisations. The Brent Resilience Forum has a specific multi-agency flood plan in place, including for a breach of Welsh Harp Reservoir. A specific emergency planning training exercise on a flood breach is also hoped to be conducted at some point next year.

As you may be aware, the Canal and River Trust rather than the council is the reservoir operator at the Brent Reservoir and owns the watercourse there. We have recently been in further contact with the Trust since the events at Whaley Bridge and they re-iterated the inspections and procedures that they have in place to ensure the safe management and maintenance of the reservoir. You may wish to contact them directly in relation to this matter for your information.

I am aware that you may place this response in the public domain so I thought it would also be useful to highlight what measures residents can take to prepare for any flood risk:

· There is information available on the council’s website here:
https://www.brent.gov.uk/emergencies/severe-weather/flooding/

· Residents can check the different types of flood risk for your property via the Environment Agency website: here
https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk

· Residents can also use this site to sign up for specific flood warnings: here
https://www.gov.uk/sign-up-for-flood-warnings

I hope this provides re-assurance that the council has multi-agency plans in place for any instances of flooding in the borough, along with a Flood Management Strategy on our website sent to you previously.

Bobby Moore Wembley mural may be shown in the future 'should the Council choose to do this.'

 

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt

Brent Council Planning Department has responded to a resident’s query about the Bobby Moore Bridge murals stating that the historic murals ‘may be shown in the future should the Council choose to do this.’  The resident was unhappy with Brent Council's decision to allow most of the mural to be covered up by advertising. 

I don’t think I am going to put my money on a reappearance any time soon based on that comment!

Brent Council response:

This relates to the advertising on the side walls of the Bobby Moore Bridge underpass that covers the tile murals that are on those walls.

By way of background, the bridge itself, including the tile murals and the walls upon which the murals are located are owned by the Council.  The Bobby Moore Bridge subway was constructed between 1991 and 1993 as part of the pedestrianisation of Olympic Way by Brent Council. The tile murals were erected at the same time and depict a range of sporting and entertainment events from the history of Wembley Stadium and Wembley Arena.

The Council owns the structure and its walls, but The Council has leased the walls to Quintain for the installation of advertising.  Vinyl adverts have been displayed on these walls for several years.

Following a request to the Council from the Wembley History Society, Quintain engaged with the society to working up the proposals to uncover an element of the murals.  This resulted in the current proposals which included uncovering a portion of the mural which depicts football at the original stadium.  The chair of the society confirmed that they were in support of the proposals.

Applications were submitted by Quintain to change the advertisements and uncover this section of the mural.  Light boxes and advertisements were proposed to be affixed to the bridge in a way that would not damage the tile murals, allowing them to be uncovered in the future.  The application for advertisement consent together with an advertisement for the approval of details pursuant to a planning condition were considered by the Planning Committee on 16 July.  The merits of the proposal were set out in the reports for that committee meeting and were debated at length by Planning Committee members.  The applications were approved at that meeting.

The tiles are not to be ‘obliterated’ as suggested in the e-mail, but rather, the new advertisements are to be fixed in a way that does not damage the mural.  This was a key part of the proposals to put up the light boxes and advertising.  The Council’s heritage officer has checked the works regularly to ensure that they are being undertaken in an appropriate way.  The current proposals result in more of the tile mural being visible within the underpass and ensures that the mural is protected.  Parts of the mural will still remain under advertising, but they will be protected so that they may be shown in the future should the Council choose to do this.

Previous posts on this subject:

Tile murals –Wembley Park’s heritage in the balance

Wembley Park’s tilemurals – now you see them … soon you won’t! 

'Gateway toWembley' mural to be covered by advertising

Update on the Bobby Moore mural asfans pour into Wembley for the FA Community Shield

Let's build a 24* storey housing block on a flood plain close to Brent's most polluted road...

The proposed 28 storey block with nearby terraced houses and Wembley Point for comparison (revisd image of 24 storeys awaited)

Argenta House on Argenta Way, opposite Stonebridge Park Station where the new block will be built. 
Wembley Point in the background.

© Copyright Jaggery  Creative Commons Licence

Following on from Wembley Central's 'Twin Towers', the tower blocks around Wembley Stadium and those approved in Alperton, a 24 (*the developer's PR agency informs me that 4 storeys have been knocked off the original proposed 28 storeys) storey tower block proposal is going to Brent Planning Committee at its next meeting on Wednesday September 21st.

What is particularly worrying about this proposal is that the 28 storeys (which replace a two storey building) will be built on a flood plain where both Wembley Brook and the River Brent flow and next to the heavily polluted North Circular Road.

Not an ideal site for housing one would think but it is close to Wembley Point which is being converted to accommodation and across the road from he long empty Unisys building which is part of the larger Brent Council supported development which includes Bridge Park complex. Housing and a hotel are planned there as well as a smaller sports centre. Currently Stonebridge residents are in dispute over the plans.

As always Brent planning officers  find reasons to support the plans despite the obvious drawbacks. This is a breakdown of the flats planned for the block. The definition of 'affordable' used is'no more than 80%  of open market rents' (ie unaffordable for the most needy Brent residents):

The wording of a petition and a submission against the development is not available on the Brent Planning Portal. 

Officers argue that the'maximun reasonable amount [of affordable and intermediate housing] has been provided on a near policy compliant tenure split.' It will be subject to further viability assessments as the development proceeds.

While recognising the flood risk and the worsening situation as a result of climate change, and taking into ac count that the first three storeys of the development will not include residential accommodation, the officers state:

At face value on the basis of evidence provided by the applicants it appears, notwithstanding that some of the site is within functional floodplain, from a technical perspective there is the ability to create betterment over the current situation through new development. This is in relation to flood risk onsite and elsewhere (though reducing footprint/obstructions within the channel), improving the aesthetic, recreational and environmental/ bio-diversity performance of the river channel/ environs and also the appearance/ perception of this gateway site whilst meeting the very real issue of meeting housing needs.

 I would hope committee members investigate that statement a little more.

The section on pollution from traffic is even more opaque with officers concentrating on how the new development would add to traffic pollution rather than on existing levels of pollution, but go on to say:

Related to the above, air quality at the lowest levels of the building (levels 6 and below), especially on the eastern elevation closer to the North Circular, would not meet the air quality objections for Nitrogen Oxide, although particulate matter objectives would be met at all levels. This shows that the emissions from the North Circular have a major effect on air quality at the site, albeit that the impact is predicated greatest at the lower elevations and the effect decreases with height. 

However officers assure Planning Committee members that:

Officers have questioned the effectiveness of NOx filtration systems in these flats, since the flats will have opening windows and doors onto balconies. Opening of such doors and windows would result in untreated air entering the internal habitable rooms (depending on air pressure differences). The applicant's air quality consultant has carried out further testing to clarify that the efficiencies of the NOx filters are such that the NO2 levels in the internal air will be 80-90% lower than the incident air, meaning that the affected flats' windows would need to be open for at least 88-89% of the time for internal parts of the flats to exceed the annual mean Air Quality Objective levels that are considered safe. Similarly, it has been confirmed that the use of the balconies on these levels by occupants, even for extended periods, will not result in occupants' air exposure exceeding the annual mean air quality objectives for NO2. As such, it would be necessary for an occupant to live on the balcony (including at night) for such objectives to be exceeded.

Regular readers will not be surprised at the report's conclusion:

Officers consider that the scheme meets planning policy objectives and is in general conformitywith local, regional and national policy. The proposal would make a positive contribution to the area,whilst having an acceptable impact on and relationship with the existing surrounding development.Officers recommend the application for approval subject to the conditions and obligations set out in this report

The full report has much more detail including comments from the owners of Wembley Point regarding a possible bridge between the two buildings which will now occupty the site and potential improvements to Stonebridge Park Station. Available HERE

Residents can apply to the chair of the Planning Committee for leave to make representations at the meeting before a decision is made. Contact the Governance Officer
Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk; 020 8937 1354

McDonald's seeks restaurant licence for period when Asda isn't open!

Extract from the licence application

Wembley Asda opening hours

Asda today confirmed to Wembley Matters that McDonald's restaurant would be open for the same hours as the store (above). McDonald's application form LINK (above) lists late night refreshments on Saturday and Sunday when Asda is closed overnight.

Brent Planners seek further information from McDonalds on McDelivery service at Wembley Asda - cafe now closed and gutted

The Planning Officer dealing with the application for a McDonald's restaurant in Wembley Asda has replied to Wembley Matters' query regarding the McDelivery facility:

I had previously requested further information from the applicants regarding how the proposed McDelivery window would operate and the impact the proposals would have on transport movements, pedestrian flow and parking, including the disabled parking provision and parking associated with the operation of the window.  I have contacted the applicants again today regarding the further information required, including the noise impact.   

I will keep you informed with regard to further information received and how we intend to take this forward.  We will ensure that further information relevant to the determination of the proposals is made public and that the public have the opportunity to comment further.

Meanwhile today the existing cafe has been closed and is boarded off inside the store and outside, and the interior gutted.

-->

CONFIRMATION: McDonalds to open in Wembley Asda

An existing McDonalds in an Asda store

McDonalds and Asda today confirmed that they are to open an in-store McDonalds at Asda Wembley Park.

An Asda spokesperson said:

We’re always looking for new ways to innovate and we work with a number of partners across our stores and online to enhance our offering for customers. We are pleased that plans for a McDonald’s in our Wembley store have been confirmed and customers can expect to see this open towards the end of the year.

A McDonald’s spokesperson:

We can confirm that plans have been submitted for a new restaurant at the Asda in Wembley. We look forward to progressing with this application and hope to invest in the local community as well as creating at least 45 new jobs.

Neither answered questions on the proposed opening hours of the restaurant or the hours of a McDelivery service that would operate from the site but McDonald's licence application  LINK is for 'late night refreshments' between 11pm and 5am both indoors and outdoors.

The plan submitted with the licence application shows an extensive operation: (Click on image to enlarge);

Brent Council Planning Department is still to answer questions from Wembley Matters on the application which has not been welcomed by residents living close to the store who are already bothered by noise from the store's home delivery service. The planning application on the Council website refers only to the positioning of a McDelivery window on the store's frontage. LINK

However an investigation by Wembley Matters has found that a Certificate of Lawfulness for an 'ancillary restaurant' within Asda (replacing the present restaurant)  was issued by Brent Council planners in January 2019 LINK on the grounds that:

The proposed café/restaurant is lawful in that it does not constitute a material change of use within the definitions set out in Section 55A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.Therefore, planning permission is not required.

This means that the application did not go to Planning Committee and neither neighbours nor councillors were consulted.

You can make a comment on the licence application HERE The application number is 16965 Deadline August 30th 2019.

It is unclear how another McDonalds in the vicinity (there are McDonalds on Blackbird Hill and at the Stadium Retail Park, Wembley Park) fits in with the Council's desire to tackle Brent's high child obesity rate as well as the need to tackle littering and noise nuisance.

Green Jobs for Now and for Tomorrow - Public Meeting at Bridge Park September 11th

Please note that the meeting will be subject to a change of format if it falls within a General Election purdah period. Register for the meeting HERE