Brent Council announces appointment of new Corporate Director of Communities and Regeneration

 Press release from Brent Council (unedited)

 

Zahur Khan is set to become Brent Council’s new Corporate Director of Communities and Regeneration, after joining from Lewisham Council where he is Director of Public Realm.

 

In a career spanning more than 20 years, Zahur has led a diverse range of services from highways, transport, parking and street cleansing as well as significant regeneration and development programmes.

 

Beginning his career at Hackney Council in 1994 before moving to Islington Council, Zahur worked his way up through the ranks to become Head of Public Realm. Following 13 successful years in Islington, Zahur enjoyed spells in Director level roles at Nottingham City Council and the City of London Corporation. The services Zahur led at the City of London earned a national reputation for innovation and excellence and contributed to a thriving local economy. Most recently, Zahur has been the Director of Public Realm at Lewisham leading a directorate of more than 400 people delivering solutions that help manage and enhance the public realm.

 

Carolyn Downs, Chief Executive of Brent Council, said: 

 

I am delighted to welcome Zahur to Brent. Regeneration is at the core of what we do but what is most important is that the next phase of our regeneration is co-designed and owned by our communities. It is about making sure our communities see the benefits of regeneration, including through employment and skills. Zahur shares this vision and has the knowledge and leadership skills to help us deliver the next phase of Brent’s ambitious agenda.

Zahur will be responsible for several key areas in the council including regeneration, planning, supporting businesses, driving economic growth, community safety, equalities, policy, scrutiny, strategic partnerships, communications and engagement.

 

Zahur said:

 

I am delighted to be joining Brent which is one of the most diverse and most exciting boroughs in London. I am passionate about improving opportunities for the communities of Brent and helping residents to achieve their aspirations. Brent’s challenges provide exciting opportunities for us to adapt and listen to the needs and desires of everyone who lives or works in Brent. Through innovative ways of working we can do more to enable residents and businesses to thrive and prosper.

 

Brent Council’s Leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt, welcomed the appointment. He said:

 

 I am looking forward to working with Zahur as we seek to empower local people, partners, businesses and organisations to help shape the borough’s future. Putting communities at the heart of everything we do is what this council is all about. I’m delighted to have Zahur on board to help us to create a borough alive with opportunities and a borough where no one is left behind.

Zahur will take up the vacant Corporate Director of Communities and Regeneration post from January 2023.

 

Plans for 1,500 homes on College of North West London's Dudden Hill site revealed - it's early days get your feedback in

 

The College Entrance

The Hill Group held an on-line consultation and an in-person consultation this week in the first stage of their engagement with the public over plans for the  extensive Dudden Hill campus.  I attended both.

The College will be demolished in phases with the eventual move of both the Dudden Hill and Wembley Park students to a new building in Wembley Park on the site of Network House.

The plans are for c1,500 new homes, work spaces, retail, nursery and community facilities. They are at an early stage and little detail is available. This gives residents a possible opportunity to influence the development.

Some buildings were demolished some time ago but there are also comparatively new buildings that will be demolished when redevelopment gets underway:

 

 

 

The plans include a central green open space as well as the retention of the green at the junction of Dudden Hill and Denzil Road.

A tree survey of the site is to be completed but a tour of the site yesterday demonstrated that there are some attractive specimens which I hope will be retained.

 

The size of the plot can be seen from this satellite image. Note the green corridor along the railway line and the area near Dudden Hill Lane and the green where buildings have already been demolished.

 

Among the issues I raised was the heights of the buildings. The highest blocks will be along the railway line and complement the tall buildings on the other side of the line on the former garden centre site. Lower blocks will front Denzil Road and  Selbie Avenue.

I was told that tenure for the homes had not yet been decided and there were ongoing discussions with Brent Council. I stressed the importance of the provision of genuinely affordable housing and the findings of the Brent Poverty Commission that social housing was the only housing type that was affordable for Brent residents on the housing list. It was cleared that despite the issues involved shared housing would be part of the mix as well as private sale and built to rent. We discussed the current conditions regarding cost inflation.

You will see from the boards below that there is quite a lot of retail planned within the development. When I raised doubts about that given how many such units remain unlet in Wembley Park I was told that this was a different sort of development and the retail would serve the residents rather than visitors. It was not envisaged that it would compete with other nearby retail outlets.

Community spaces are planned and the public are invited to share ideas for what they should be. A nursery is already planned. An earlier visitor had suggested a swimming pool. I was interested that there shddould be an accessible and affordable space in which the new residents and other locals could get together with perhaps a cafe along the lines of the Chalkhill Community Centre model.

Further questions were raised about 'child yield' the number of chidlren expected to live in the 1,500 homes and the capacity of local schools as well as the impact of increased commuter traffic on Dollis Hill Jubilee line station.

The on-line webinar had a small section on the separate but connected WembleyPark  campus redevelopment also to be be built by the Hill Group. This is separate from Quintain's development of the 'Fulton Quarter' which includes the curren retail park, McDonalds and the former TV studios, now a temporary theatre,

The Wembey site has the  Wealdstone Brook running by and there are plans to see if this can be naturalised. I of course spoke about the extreme climate change flooding dangers as covered elsewhere on Wembley Matters.  A very tall building will be the cornerstone of this development but there will be a separate consultation on this. 

Concerns that came up earlier when plans were first publicised was whether the new integrated College site in Wembley Park would be able to house the space hungry engineering and building faculties that exist in Dudden Hill and whether Willesden area students would be happy travelling to Wembley Park for their courses.

Have a look at the Exhibition Boards below kindly supplied by Hill Group and submit any questions or feedback to collegegreen@fourcommunications.com .

Click on bottom right corner for full page view.

Twyford Abbey development approved by Ealing Plannng Committee despite overwhelming opposition from residents, and from the nearby primary school, local councillors, the GLA and Rupa Huq MP

 

 

The recording of the Twyford Abbey development application representations and discussion at Ealing Planning Committee can be viewed above.  The application to develop on Metropolitan Open Land, currently in private hands, was approved despite overwhelming opposition from residents, and opposition from two ward councillors, the GLA and Rupa Haq MP.  It involves the loss of 157 mature trees and 7 acres of protected woodland.

 

Brent borders the site and some Brent residents registered objections. However, Brent Council was consulted and had no objections.The planning committee's  decision will now go to the GLA.

 

 Twyford Abbey and the South Lawn

 

The GLA had commented on strategic issues:

 

Land Use Principles
The proposal does not meet the exceptions of paragraph 149 of the NPPF and constitutes inappropriate development on MOL which is, by definition, harmful. A full public benefits package is required to determine whether ‘very special circumstances’ exist to outweigh the harm to MOL and any other harm. Confirmation is also required as to whether the loss of the extant school permission is considered acceptable in terms of being in a borough of identified
need, or other social infrastructure.

Urban Design/Heritage
The proposal would result in harm to the grade II listed Abbey, with a degree of harm to the walled garden and St Marys Church which will need to be weighed against the public benefits including those related to the restoration of the historic buildings. This exercise will be undertaken at Stage II referral once the additional information is provided (including views) and a full public benefits package is
available.

Other Matters
Also required are a London Plan (2021) compliant fire statement and consideration of pedestrian access to the North Circular as well as further information/revisions in relation to housing, affordable housing, transport and sustainable development.

Planning Officer Response: Noted, and all above matters will need to be discussed with the GLA during the Stage II process and are included in this report.

 

 These are the 'Very Special Circumstances' put forward in support of the application. 

 

Rupa Huq MP wrote:

 

I am writing to register my concerns with the above application in relation to the repurposing of Twyford Abbey for residential accommodation and formally object.

 

I was pleased to get a look at Twyford Abbey recently courtesy of the developer. Whilst I grew up locally this was the first time I’d seen the historic Abbey buildings and got behind the gates. The setting is hugely impressive and I agree that something better should be done with it other than lying dormant.

 

However, I am very concerned about the impact that such a monster development proposal will have, both on the site itself, and on local residents in surrounding streets. The provision of some 326 new homes on a relatively small site represents a very dense development of unnecessary height including seven new blocks of flats, along with a terrace and other stand- alone homes, represents a significant increase in the built footprint of this primarily greenfield site.

 

This proposal is completely incompatible with the nature of the site and the surrounding two storey residential roads; and will adversely affect the outlook of existing homes and longstanding residents on Iveagh Avenue and Brentmead Gardens forever. Significantly this is also metropolitan open land i.e. quasi green belt. Under the London Plan, metropolitan open land is afforded the same status and protection as green belt and is expected to be protected from inappropriate development.

 

Current government policy dictates that nature should be left in a better state at the end of development processes than at the start and that we should be aware of carbon footprint. It is not clear to me that this is proven here when the application proposes the removal of some 100 mature trees, including trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order – at a time when people talk of offsetting by planting trees to contribute to the urban ecosystem. As well as an immediate loss of habitat and biodiversity locally, the value of the trees in offsetting air pollution from the adjacent A406 dual carriageway is significant to local residents. Furthermore, the loss of the trees as part of the outlook from existing properties would represent a loss of amenity for local residents.

 

Existing residents here anyway feel stuck in a no man’s land between Brent and Ealing with e.g. no doctor’s surgery. Such a substantial residential development and concomitant population growth in this area will place local services – which are generally limited in this area – under significant strain. There is insufficient parking proposed which I foresee difficulties with.

 

Some elements of the proposal are indeed eye-catching. I agree that the grounds should be opened up and the Abbey deserves better than to rot away. However, the explanation I sought on my site visit of balancing resident privacy requirements of what are being presented as exclusive residences and allowing the public to roam the green spaces is not clear in my mind. My worry is this will ultimately be a gated community. The proposed provision of barely one-third of units as genuinely affordable housing will mean that this development does little to assist with the affordable housing shortage in Ealing, and falls below the expectations of genuinely affordable housing provision of both Ealing Council and the Mayor.

 

Whilst obviously the developer is sensing pound signs in their eyes, I feel that there are better uses for this great site. I understand that there is for example extant planning permission in perpetuity for a school. This - with the public able to use the greenspace of the grounds at weekends - feels a more acceptable solution. There is precedent for this in Ealing e.g. with the very successful Ada Lovelace school. I know of at least one local independent school which is seeking to expand and there may be others.

 

In conclusion, while I feel there is a better use for Twyford Abbey than lying dormant I remain unconvinced that this proposal represents the best possible long-term, sustainable and sensitive solution for the future of the Twyford Abbey site that would safeguard the heritage and biodiversity of the site and provide real benefits to the Abbey’s neighbours.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Dr Rupa Huq
Member of Parliament for Ealing Central and Acton

 

 

'Bills too high, pay too small - we need energy for ALL' 650k petition presented to Downing Street

With a cardboard cut-out of Liz Truss as real one otherwise engaged (Photo: Fuel Poverty Action)
 

Away from the pantomime in the House of Commons, a petition calling for an overhaul of our energy pricing structure was delivered to Downing Street yesterday.. The ‘Energy For All’ petition signed by over 650,000 people, calls for a universal, free amount of energy that would cover everyone’s basic necessities of heating, lighting and cooking. This would be paid for by ending the millions of pounds spent daily on fossil fuel subsidies, windfall taxes on excess profits of energy companies and higher prices for profligate energy use.

The event, organised by Fuel Poverty Action, included a rally and march attended by around 100 people.

 

Stuart Bretherton, Energy For All Campaign Coordinator, said:

 

Millions of people will face fuel poverty this winter, with prices sitting at double what they were last year, and now renewed uncertainty over how high they will climb next year. Energy For All would deliver justice and security to all consumers now and in the future, by ensuring everyone’s basic needs are met and that steps are taken to address the climate crisis. Ordinary people cannot keep footing the bill for crises created by the wealthy, it's time for the big polluters and profiteers to pay their share.

 

In Old Palace Yard, Westminster, the crowd were addressed by speakers including Lord Prem Sikka, Caroline Lucas MP, Clive Lewis MP and Matt Lay, National Officer for Energy at Unison. Also in attendance were representatives of a number of different social movements, NGOs and direct action groups. Speakers from groups that have endorsed the campaign ranged from Disabled People Against Cuts, Tax Justice UK, the National Pensioners Convention and Just Stop Oil.

 

 

 Photo: Fuel Poverty Action

 

 

The march was led by a large ‘Energy For All’ banner while others carried light-bulb shaped placards displaying the same message. Attendees chanted, ‘Energy Pricing’s: Upside Down!’with a cardboard cut-out of Prime Minister Liz Truss standing on her head visualising this call and response.

 

 

Ruth London of Fuel Poverty Action said:

 

In our present system, the less energy you use, the more you pay per unit and the more you use, the less you pay per unit. This is upside down. Energy For All is a plan to turn it rightside up.

 

 Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) addresses the crowd

 

Over 20 MPs from multiple parties also attended to show their support for the demand. A day prior to the petition hand-in, Early Day Motion 470: Proposed Energy Equity Commission Bill was launched in parliament. The bill would realise some of the key components of the ‘Energy For All’ demand, implementing a Universal basic energy allowance, supplemented by a social tariff and a national street-by-street insulation and retrofitting program.

 

 

Clive Lewis MP said:

 

 I know from listening to my constituents, from knocking on their doors, that they are in dire straits. That’s why I’ve introduced the universal basic energy bill. That bill will ensure that everyone, including the poorest, have up to 90% of their energy needs met.

 

 

Green MP Caroline Lucas (Photo: Fuel Poverty Action)

 

Caroline Lucas MP said:

 

We are here to say cold homes are a political choice and we are here to demand different political choices. It’s not a choice between heating and eating, people can’t do either. We are here to demand that this government puts people and the planet ahead of the profits of the big energy companies.

 

Fuel Poverty Action vows to continue pushing for Energy For All which could deliver energy security to consumers and end fuel poverty, while also accelerating action on climate change. The group will do so online, in parliament and on the streets and invites people of all experiences and backgrounds to join in demanding Energy For All.

 

 

 Further information at Fuel Poverty Action website.

First consultation on massive redevelopment of the Dudden Hill College of North West London site on zoom tonight and tomorrow at the college 3pm-7.30pm

 

 

The Hill Group will be holding public consultation events for the proposed College Green scheme on Thursday 20 October from 3pm to 7.30pm and Saturday 22 October from 11am to 2pm. These will take place at College of North West London Willesden Campus, Denzil Road, London NW10 2XD. They will also be holding a public consultation webinar event on Wednesday 19 October at 7pm. The link to register for the webinar is:
https://fourcommunications.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_tBBYKv8mS2KTKHQMIQs1jg 

 

 Wembley Matters has covered these plans since 2019 and the college's merger with Westminster College came rise to speculation over selling off of some property. Current plans are for CNWL to move to a new site in Wembley Park, with the Dudden Hill site and the current Wembley Park site redeveloped. The site is part of the Neasden Stations Growth Area Draft Masterplan LINK.

 

An old view of the college and College Green

 

The development is site 3 of the Neasden Growth Area Masterplan

 Artist's image (right) of the development from Masterplan

 From the Draft Masterplan - contrast with Hill Group's description for the consultation (top of page) including increase in homes from 1,100 to 1,500 and dropping of 'affordable' description.

 

Artist's impression of the development 

 

 

 

Demonstration against Twyford Abbey (Hanger Lane) development at Ealing Council tomorrow night. Removal of 130 trees and loss of biodiversity. Nearby primary school objects.

The community around the Ealing and Brent borderlands around Twyford Abbey will be protesting from 6.15pm on Wednesday evening outside Ealing Council, the building next to Ealing Town Hall before the planning application to build on the site will be decided. The protesters are calling for the application to be rejected.  249 out of the 256 comments on Ealing Council's Planning Portal object to the application and include people from nearby Brent addresses.

Local resident Kiran Rao writes: 

 

Twyford Abbey ( NW10 7DP) in Hanger Lane has existed much as it has since the 11th century, when it was mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086. There has been a church and manor house on the site since the 13th century.

It is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), and a blanket Tree Preservation Order (TPO) covers the majority of trees onsite, including 7 acres of woodland. The site is also located within an Archaeological Interest Area, in relation to the potential for remains of a mediaeval moated manor house.

A development of 326 flats is proposed in close proximity to an 8 lane motorway, on a flood plain and in an area that is over populated, over developed and consistently exceeds acceptable pollution levels. This will see the removal of over 130 mature trees and loss of biodiversity. This is unacceptable in our climate emergency.

248 objections have been lodged. Ealing Council’s recommendation shows bias (providing selective reference and misinterpretation of policy) and does not reference an objection by a key stakeholder, the large primary school (objection here) who is adjacent to this development. The school objects on safety, health and education grounds, which will negatively impact this generation and future generations to come. We fear it won’t be long before we have another case of Ella Kissi Debrah. There are huge health inequalities in our area and no reference to the Council’s commitment to its Climate and Ecological Emergency Strategy or its air quality neutral policy (please refer to comment from 7 Park Close).

This isn’t just another planning application. This goes to the heart of what community is and how we need to strike a balance in urban environments in order to live sustainably in this climate emergency. We would like this historical gem to be in public ownership and used for public good. The council can realise this vision as there is section 106 money from other developments in our area and this would not further degrade this community.

 

The Governing Board of West Twyford Primary School have submitted this objection to the scheme:

 

As the Governing Body of West Twyford Primary School, we wish to register our objections to the proposed development of The Twyford Abbey site. These concerns are about the impact that it will have on the children attending the school both now, and in the future, and the impact on their education, health and quality of school experience.

We are particularly concerned about the increase in traffic that this development will bring and the attendant issues of noise, pollution and danger to children.

The development is considerable and will allow for 100 car parking spaces. This will mean a very significant increase in traffic on Twyford Abbey road. This road is already busy and is the only access road for the school. Even those walking, cycling or scooting need to use this road to enter and leave the school in the morning and evening. This increased traffic will present a much greater danger of an accident. Parents regularly complain about the dangers of traffic on the road and this development will make this situation worse. In particular one of the exits from the site is barely 1 meter from one of the school gates which children use to enter and exit the school. This represents an unacceptable danger of children and families being hit by cars.

The increased car usage will result in greater noise. West Twyford currently has the main road on the southern side but this development will add traffic to the western side too. When the school was rebuilt, it was moved away from the main road to both reduce noise and pollution. This development will put that back. In order to learn their best children require a calm environment. Noise can distract, disturb and negatively impact on stress and mental health. This will put them at risk. Currently 38% of the school is identified as disadvantaged children (they are eligible for the pupil premium grant). These children often live in small, cramped accommodation. Many of them live near the North Circular Road or Hanger Lane Gyratory. West Twyford is an oasis of calm and peace. Our children already have many stresses and strains in their lives which impact their health and life chances: we as the governors do not think these should be added too by this development. 

Pollution is another major concern, as noted the cars will exit right next to our children entering and exiting the school, which will dramatically increase the pollution levels both from exhaust fumes and tyres. There is very clear evidence of the negative effect of air pollution on young children and we are also concerned about the reduction in trees and how this will affect this. The gate next to the entrance is used mainly by young children from years 1,2 and 3. They are still growing and developing, and would be negatively impacted by increased pollution.

We think that 100 parking spaces for 326 dwellings is insufficient. In discussion with the developers, they stated that car use is declining London. In our view this is naïve and anyone living next to such main roads will want a car; some dwellings may well want two or more and we are concerned about the effect of cars being parked in the local area, which would mean a greater number than the allowed for 100 cars. We understand that this already happens in other developments nearby. Once the site is completed there will be nothing that we can do about this potentially very large increase in the number of cars in the area and the increase in traffic. However, it will affect the children of West Twyford for generations to come. We understand that many of our school community are very concerned about this and this is a concern that we share and take very seriously.

We also object to the placing of an electric substation adjacent to the schools grounds. This appears on the plans next to the northern boundary. Substations can be noisy and it is concerning to have one sited so close to where the children will play. 

 

In conclusion we have reviewed the plans carefully and spoken to the developers. In our considered opinion this development will have an unduly negative impact on the school and its children. We foresee an unacceptable increase in noise, pollution and traffic. We consider this development to be overambitious in the number of new dwellings and to have inadequately dealt with the traffic restrictions imposed by the location. For these reasons we object to the proposed development.

 

Ealing Green Party Chair, Neil Reynolds  said:

If the Twyford Abbey development is approved by the planning committee, it will be further evidence that Ealing Council puts the needs of developers before nature and local residents. 

The site has significant ecological value with over 200 trees  that have protection orders on them. The feelings of residents are also quite clear with a huge number of objections. The simple truth is you can't claim that planting new saplings, many of which die, is an adequate replacement for very mature trees that clean Ealing's air and are valuable carbon absorbers in a climate emergency. 

The council promised to regrow and rewild at the last election, if they approve this development it will show how shallow that slogan is. I really hope they see sense.