Showing posts with label Alperton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alperton. Show all posts

Saturday 2 September 2023

Brent Council's Strategic CIL £4.5m spending plans for Alperton parks, Kilburn Medical Centre and Harlesden Picture Palace

There's a bit of a spending spree on the Cabinet Agenda for  September 11th. The Stragetic Community Infrastructure Levy (gained from a levy on new developments)  is in  a fairly healthy state and there are proposals in the meeting papers for spending on three major projects. (Extracts from Cabinet papers):

Cabinet Reports Pack

Parks Improvements in the Alperton Growth Area - £525,466

The growth in the Alperton Growth area, with 1,400 new homes delivered in the past 10 years and at least 6,500 new homes expected by 2040, is resulting in increasing demand on local parks and open spaces and the need for improvements to them. The parks and open spaces in Alperton have long been identified for investment, initially in the 2011 masterplan and again in the Local Plan. There are also proven public health benefits from improving access to parks and open green spaces. 

The estimated cost for the improvement works in the parks and the sports ground is £625,466 and includes 10% contingency and 10% future maintenance cost allowance. This report seeks approval for a budget allocation to this value of £625,466, with an allocation of £525,466 Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (SCIL) and £100,000 from the public health reserve to fund this spend.

South Kilburn Medical Centre - additional £600,000

 Cabinet agreed in April 2020 a SCIL contribution of £3.47 million for the 3 medical centres proposed in growth areas (Wembley Park, Grand Union, and South Kilburn). The funding was towards the physical fit out of the medical centres. The South Kilburn contribution was agreed at £1,104 million. A funding agreement was subsequently entered into with the then CCG.

The Integrated Care Partnership (ICP) now advise that due to the increase in costs the South Kilburn medical centre is no longer viable, with a viability gap of £1.2 million. The ICP have agreed to contribute half of this, if the Council agrees to match fund this at up to £600,000 from SCIL.

 

Harlesden Picture Palace  -  £3,300,000

This report is part of the Council’s ongoing commitment to create long lasting positive change to Harlesden for the benefit of the communities that live there.
 

The Picture Palace building is expected to become a significant cultural and community use anchor for the community and the Council has been working with a consortium of local organisations to deliver this exciting project. By approving the use of SCIL for the building refurbishment, it will allow the
project’s ambitions to be realised and for the Harlesden communities to be able to operate and utilise the building in the future.

The refurbishment project helps to meet outcomes within the Borough Plan, namely Strategic Priority 3 Thriving Communities to allow the local community to be involved in and lead on activities for their communities. The project also delivers on an objective within the Black Community Action Plan by developing a community space to be run and managed by local communities. It also helps to achieve objectives within the Local Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan by providing community facilities for Brent’s growing population




Monday 14 August 2023

Wembley Park 'regeneration v gentrification' revisited 6 years on - do the warnings in this article still hold?


Wembley Matters has been following the development of the Wembley Park 'regeneration' areas for some time. In October 2017 LINK  I published the guest post below which attempted to look forward to the impact of what the author termed 'gentrification' rather than regeneration.  Some might argue that 'gentrification' doesn't fit as very few residents lived in the largely light industrial and warehouse area that were displaced, but it could apply to the wider area with many working class people unable to continue to live here.

Since then we have seen what residents claim is over-development in Alperton, further demolition and building on South Kilburn estate with shrinking green space; masterplan for the Neasden Stations area with high rises on the College of North Wesr London  Dudden Hill site and the light industrial area between Willesden High Road and Dudden Hill; and the huge re-development of the 'one public estate' (comprising Network Homes, NHS NW London, University of Westminster Brent Council) of what will almost be a new town in Northwick Park.

This is the original article with my introduction:

 

There have been many postings on this website about Quintain's Wembley Park 'regeneration' and even more comments, particularly as the development has accelerated recently eating up warehouse and industrial units and apparently squeezing tower blocks into any spare space. In this guest posting Dilan Tulsiani stands back and considers the implications for local people as well as the locality itself.
 

On the 29th of August 2017, Quintain, a property investment and development business, announced via its website that it was ‘spending £1m a day on construction making Wembley Park one of the UK’s biggest construction sites’. According to Quintain, there will be over 8,500 jobs created, with a further 3,000 homes under construction ‘delivered at a pace not seen at any other London development site’. The construction framework consists of six contractors, the notables being: McLaren, Wates, Sisk and Carillion. Quintain have recently shifted their construction policy from ‘build to buy’ to ‘build to rent’. They aim to build over 7,000 new homes, with 5,000 labelled as ‘build to rent’, and a further 2,300 as “affordable”.

 

Quintain and Brent Council have both resisted using the term ‘gentrification’ to describe their partnership in transforming the area. Instead, you’ll see ‘regeneration’ on practically every website or poster promoting the ongoing process. This is understandable, as the critics of any form of gentrification, are quick to label the selective description by property developers as deceptive and dishonest. Technically speaking, regeneration is embedded within the process of gentrification. The Cambridge Dictionary defines regeneration: ‘to improve a place or system, especially by making it more active or successful’. Gentrification is defined as: ‘the process by which a place, especially part of a city, changes from a being poor to being a richer one, where people from a higher social class live’. Wembley Park’s ‘regeneration’ process factually falls under both definitions (for the remainder of this article I will use the term ‘gentrification’ instead of ‘regeneration’, as it is more accurate to my subject matter). Although, to prevent an ethical breakdown, new tenants would probably cling to ‘regeneration’ as an ontological justification for staying in Wembley.

 

Residents who have lived in Brent for more than a decade will remember the industrial abyss that used to exist just a short walk from the station. In this sense, the gleaming metallic towers, illusory designer outlet and newly placed pavement are well relished. However, there are a few fundamental concerns that have simply been swept aside. Firstly, the effect on the surrounding areas. There is no surprise, that most, if not all the flats in Wembley are not “affordable”. In fact, that term is usually used to provoke a narrative of relativity concerning financial status. Quintain has invested £900 million into Wembley Park, without careful consideration and evaluation from the residents of Brent, this could lead to some serious socio-economic disparities. David Fell, a research analyst at Hamptons International states that property prices in HA9 “have risen by 14% in the last year [2016], compared to a London average of 10%.” Just down the road from Wembley Park, a two-bedroom flat is valued around £335,000. A flat of the same size, less than 10 minutes’ walk away, is valued at £450,000 - £500,000. Recently, Alto has sold two-bedroom flats in Wembley Park for £800,000.

 

A similar problem was highlighted in 2014 during gentrification processes in South Kilburn, where a member of the Residents’ Association claimed: “Those who have been living in the area are essentially being driven out. This all amounts to a social cleansing of South Kilburn.” Moreover, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations emphasised that the residents who have lived in South Kilburn for generations could no longer afford to live in their homes. These are not trivial or isolated matters. They’re simply the effects of gentrification. Wealth concentrated in one single area in this manner, will have drastic consequences. The surrounding populations will be allowed to use facilities, shops and walk the newly paved streets, but there is a cap on their indulgence of this ideology. Consider what the residents of Chalkhill think when their homes are (literally and metaphorically) overshadowed by the new apartment towers. When they, like so many other communities, have a lack of funding within their own neighbourhoods, along with other serious social issues. To name one, in Brent and Hounslow 34 high-rise buildings failed fire cladding tests issued after the horrendous disaster at Grenfell Tower. In contrast, I think it would be perfectly safe to assume that the newly built apartments in Wembley Park have some of the best fire safety systems available.

 

 Attached to this disparity of wealth is the subsequent problem of crime. There is no doubt that the new properties will have a well-maintained police presence, due to the proximity of the stadium, along with security guards for each building. Due to the disparity, crimes in the surrounding areas may increase. Let’s take some of surrounding areas as examples (take these as approximate averages): From January - August 2017, Alperton has had the average total crime rate of 118/month, Dollis Hill’s average total crime rate was 137/month, and Tokyngton stands at an average of 188/month. Tokyngton is the closest of the three areas to Wembley Park, and in recent years it has had a subsequent increase in total crimes committed. If the investment in selective industries and areas remains or increases in the next decade, there should be no surprise at the increase in crime. This correlation was well represented in gentrification processes in New York, especially Harlem. As living standards get higher, the price of property increases, more people will forcibly turn to crime – both petty and serious. The socio-cultural divide will only widen.

 

One last fundamental issue is an assessment by The FA (for those like myself who are not sport literate: The Football Association). In May 2016, The FA complained that Brent Council was considering those who visit the stadium “an afterthought”. The recent constructions sites, which appear directly outside the stadium, could present potential hazards to fans, according to the FA. In fact, these new apartments would present the highest, and thus the most expensive flats, with their own personalised view of the games below them. Wembley is already set to be overcrowded, yet with ongoing construction, and busy venues/rush hour, there should be an effective policy by the council to counter this.

 

Ultimately, I see no realistic counter-movement to what seems to be an unchecked gentrification process at Wembley. In the next decade, Wembley, just as many other towns in Greater London, will be injected with huge sums of money, none of which will aid ingrained social issues, but will make these issues less noticeable for those living in the newly ‘regenerated’ areas. In the meanwhile, surrounding populations will attempt to readjust and comfort themselves from their high price of living with the luxurious shopping outlets built on the borders between their areas and the ‘newly regenerated Wembley Park’.

 


Friday 11 August 2023

Changes to 79 and 83 bus routes from August 26th

From TfL

 From Saturday 26 August, we are making some changes to our services on bus routes 79 and 83 around Alperton.

Route 79 will no longer serve stops between Alperton station and Alperton, Sainsbury's. Instead, it will be extended to Stonebridge Park station via Mount Pleasant and Beresford Avenue.

Buses on this route will continue to run every 12 minutes during the daytime Monday to Saturdays, and every 15 minutes during the evenings and all day on Sundays.

Route 83 will be extended from Alperton station to Alperton, Sainsbury's.

Buses on this route will continue to run every eight minutes during the daytime Monday to Saturdays, every 10 minutes during the daytime on Sundays and every 12 minutes during the evening on all days.

For travel between Alperton station and Alperton, Sainsbury's, use newly extended route 83 or existing route 224.

We will keep these changes under review to ensure we continue to offer the best service we can. For more information on these and other service changes, visit our bus changes page.

Monday 31 July 2023

TfL confirms 79 and 83 bus route changes after consultation

 From Transport for London



Alperton and Stonebridge Park - Proposed changes to bus routes 79 and 83

Consultation has concluded

Update 31 July 2023 

Today we have published our consultation report following this consultation.

We received 256 responses to the consultation and would like to thank everyone that took part. A range of views were expressed in response to consultation. Generally, the feedback was positive with overall support for the proposals.

Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we have decided to proceed with the proposed changes to bus routes 79 and 83 as set out in the consultation.

The service changes are expected to take place during 2023  (Autumn) . Any changes will be supported with customer information in advance, and with minimal disruption to current bus journeys.

Thank you again to everyone that took part.

Executive Summary of Consultation Report

Between 6 March and 16 April 2023, we held a public consultation proposing
changes to bus routes 79 and 83 in the Alperton and Stonebridge Park areas of the London Borough of Brent.


Our aim was to adapt and develop the local bus network to support increased
demand for buses along Mount Pleasant and Beresford Avenue. It also aimed to
maintain bus links between Alperton Station and Sainsbury’s while creating new bus links between there and Kingsbury, West Hendon and Hendon. The proposals are summarised below:


• Route 79 - proposing extension of the route to serve Stonebridge Park
Station via Ealing Road, Mount Pleasant and Beresford Avenue. As a result,
the 79 would no longer serve bus stops between Ealing Road and Alperton,
Sainsbury’s


• Route 83 – proposed extension of the route from its current end point at
Alperton Station to a new end point at Alperton Sainsbury’s


We received 256 responses to the consultation. Of these, 254 were from members
of the public and two were from stakeholders.


The consultation sought to understand what respondents thought about the changes.


We also asked two closed questions asking people to let us know how often they
travelled on the bus routes in scope, and how they believed the proposals may affect their bus journey.


A total of 196 responded to the question about how the proposals may affect
passengers bus journeys. Of these, 74 per cent of respondents believed their bus
journey would be more convenient.


Generally, feedback was positive with overall support for the proposals. Supportive comments included alternative route suggestions and a general view the bus routes should run more frequently. Comments in opposition to the proposals were minimal and were related to traffic congestion and associated increased pollution and journey reliability if additional buses are introduced to Mount Pleasant, Beresford Avenue and Ealing Road.



Tuesday 13 September 2022

Bridgewater development approved by Brent Planning Committee despite areas of non-compliance

Brent Planning Committee approved the revised schemes despite several areas of non-compliance with Brent Council's own guidance - the usual reasoning being the balance of benefits over disbenefits.

Only Cllr Michael Maurice voted against the application based on the shortfall of affordable housing and 3 bedroomed flats and the general design.

The issue of air quality on this busy road was not addressed  by the Committee or developer.

As Alperton ward councillor, Anton Georgiou, made a 5 minute contribution:

I always get a sense of déjà vu when addressing the Planning Committee. Every time I come here to oppose yet more dense development in my ward of Alperton, I do so on behalf of residents who are hugely frustrated and have simply had enough.

 

Affordability

 

I am not here to deny that young people like me, who were born in our borough, and have lived here our whole lives need places to live.

 

I am also not here to deny the fact that we continue to have a vast housing waiting list in Brent, which includes on it some of our most vulnerable residents.

 

That being said, I once again want to highlight that of the 173 units proposed in this development, only a fraction can be deemed realistically affordable, despite what the report states, with the vast majority being totally out of reach in terms of affordability for local people, let alone our most in need residents over the long term.

 

54 units are proposed at a London Affordable Rent level and the other 119 are shared ownership.

 

Shared ownership, as I am sure the Committee will agree, has huge pitfalls. Before approving more shared ownership schemes in Brent, we need further evidence that shared ownership is a genuinely affordable housing model. There are indicators that the most economically vulnerable are at most risk with shared ownership. It is one thing to deem units affordable at this stage, but as many already have unfortunately found out, there is no long-term guarantee of affordability. Particularly with no defined cap on rising rents on the percentage the shared-owner doesn’t ‘own’, coupled with the misery of ever increasing service charges and extra hidden costs like building repairs, the cost of lease extension, fees attached to stair-casing.

 

Don’t take my word for it, I highly recommend Committee members take a look at reports from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which go into detail about why Councils should be highly sceptical of shared ownership. In my opinion, we should be arguing against this broken housing model altogether.

 

This development also does not meet Brent’s 25% target for family sized units, as stated in the report – something that we really, really need in our borough. We do not need even more 1 to 2--bedroom boxes in the sky. Why do we have targets if we allow developers the room to always miss them?

 

Infrastructure

 

The proposed development is in an area that is experiencing intense development. The impact that this is already having on existing residents cannot be overstated. I have spoken to many families who have or are thinking about leaving Alperton because of nonstop development.

 

Planning decisions being by this Council are literally driving people out of our borough.

 

Despite the excessive amount of CIL, of which this development would contribute more to the pot, existing residents see very little done in terms of improvements to infrastructure in Alperton. In fact, we are seeing worsening standards in the area.

 

The meagre £50,000 ring fenced through section 106 contributions for One Tree Hill, will not touch the surface of ASB and other issues there. I speak from experience having seen how an NCIL bid worth over £100,000 to transform Alperton Sports Ground down the road, which had to be approved by Cabinet, did not even come close to addressing the concerns or desires of residents.

 

The recent loss of Alperton Bus Garage, a major, historic transport infrastructure site, just metres from the proposed development, has had a knock-on effect on local bus services. The concern that this would happen was brushed aside when the decision on that development was made.

 

I also note references to proximity to Alperton station and the Piccadilly Line in this report. In theory yes, it is a great asset that should be adequately serving local need. It does not. The infrequency of Piccadilly Line trains on the Alperton branch, when compared to the Heathrow one continues to be a major problem that results in huge backlogs at rush hour times. Despite recognition by all developers in the area that Alperton station is becoming a major travel hub that will be used by more local people the contribution towards step-free access by the developer is nowhere near enough to realise this aspiration.

                                                                           

Many of us have long highlighted the dire and dangerous state of local pavements. Metres from the proposed site on Bridgewater Road over 30% of paving slabs are regarded by Council Officers to be in need of repair and yet there is never enough resource to do essential remedial works. I find the response to a resident comment on this matter in the report particularly interesting, as it states “Community Infrastructure Levy funding could contribute towards works of this type”, which in my view and from my understanding of CIL would set a precedent.

 

Fundamentally, Alperton residents do not understand why more and more developments are being granted approval by this Committee whilst the state of local infrastructure is so bad.

 

Parking

 

A major issue we as Councillors have to contend with is the demand for parking provision in our wards. I can only reiterate how bad the situation is in Alperton, even more so in immediate areas surrounding new development.

 

There does not seem to be an overarching plan by the local authority to deal with inevitable increases in the number of vehicles on our roads. Existing residents are already contending with pressures on local parking provision as it stands – this development will make it worse. I do not believe the £80,000 contribution by the developer towards the implementation of a Controlled Parking Zone is a fix. The imposition of a CPZ without resident consent is wrong.

 

If we want to move away from reliance on car use, which I agree with, why is the Council not investing heavily in active travel infrastructure measures, like cycle lanes, alongside the approval of even more development in Alperton. It is short-sighted not to.

 

Conclusion

 

I appeal to every member of the Committee to really consider what this authority achieves by imposing yet more tower blocks in Alperton.

 

The focus of this Council should at this stage be to take stock, establish whether existing development has contributed to making our area better and gain a better awareness of the dangers of promoting shared ownership.

 

I strongly urge you to reject this application.  

 

Bridgewater Road, Alperton scheme back at Planning Committee tonight with amendments - are the homes 'truly affordable'?


The already consented scheme at the Westend Saab and Boyriven Textiles site in Bridgewater Road, Alperton will come back to Planning Committee tonight with changes.

The Committee is at 6pm and can be viewed HERE.

Officers' summarise the changes as:

The number of residential homes proposed is 173, compared to 124 in the consented scheme (an uplift of 49 homes). As with the consented scheme, all units would be provided as affordable housing in a policy-compliant mix of tenures. The scheme would secure 54 London Affordable Rented homes (the consented scheme secured 47 London Affordable Rented homes) and 119 intermediate homes (the consented scheme secured 77 intermediate homes).


·
The amount of industrial floorspace proposed is 2,228sqm (GIA) compared to 1,878sqm in the consented scheme. It would continue to fall within use classes E(g)(ii) and E(g)(iii) as per the consented scheme.


·
The bulk, scale and massing of the proposal would be altered, with the base element of the building increasing from one to two storeys and the lower point block (Block A) increasing in height from eleven to 13 storeys. Both the three-storey frontage building and the seven-storey central linking element at the rear would be removed, and the width and depth of both point blocks would be increased. The height of the taller Block B would remain at 19 storeys

 

 Given the recent discussion on Wembley Matters about the Brent Poverty Commission's view that the only rent truly afforable for Brent residents is council or social rent it is worth noting that 'affordable' home in this case  (54) actually refers to London Affordable Rent (higher than social rent) and the intermediate homes (1190 are actually shared ownership not considered affordable and with many drawbacks.

 

Remember Cllr Rita Conneely  recently told Scrutiny Committee to be very careful about terminology, especially as regards 'affordable' housing - transparency and ready understandability by the public is essential!


In addition to the main report there is a Supplementary of interest to Clear Air Advocates. I have especially highlighed on questionable paragraph.

 

A further review of baseline conditions and residual effects was conducted and is summarised below. In terms of baseline conditions, an additional 12 months of published air quality data has become available since the preparation of the Air Quality Assessment, across the full 2021 calendar year. However, the impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak upon air quality, due to nationwide changes in transport patterns and pollutant concentrations, mean that data from 2021 would not be representative of baseline conditions and so should not be used for assessment purposes. Therefore the approach taken in the Air Quality Assessment, to use 2019 as a baseline year, is considered to remain the most robust means of assessment. The newly available data would not impact the results, conclusion or proposed mitigation.

In terms of residual impacts on air quality, the predicted demolition and construction effects would not be affected by the amendments to the plans and would remain insignificant. In terms of operational effects, relocating two residential units from the first floor to the second floor would reduce the exposure of future residents to poor air quality, in line with the expectations of the Air Quality Positive approach.

 

Conversely, relocating the residents lounge to the ground floor could result in future residents being exposed to poor air quality. Mitigation measures such as nitrogen oxide filtration would be required to prevent significant health
impacts on residents using the lounge
.

It is likely that these mitigation measures would not support windows in the lounge being openable. However, it should be noted that the residents lounge is not required by policy but is proposed as additional to the private internal space of residents’ homes and the private and communal external amenity space provided.

Residents could choose whether to make use of it, and would be less likely to use it for prolonged periods of time compared to their own homes and the external spaces. In these circumstances, it is considered that non-openable windows would be acceptable.


The necessary mitigation measures could be secured by the following proposed additional condition:


“Condition 29: Prior to first occupation or use of the development, further details of air quality mitigation measures required to ensure acceptable air quality levels in the residents’ lounge, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.


The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.


Reason: To ensure an acceptable standard of air quality for residents is achieved within the development.”


The proposed scheme also delivers significant planning benefits over and above those secured in the consented scheme, principally the increased number of affordable homes and increased amount of industrial floorspace. Although the development has not been demonstrated to be Air Quality Positive, these factors,taken together with the fallback position and proposed mitigation measures outlined above, are considered to outweigh the harm caused by this limited conflict with policy in this case.


Amendments to plan numbers (Condition 2):
Minor amendments to the list of approved plans are proposed.


These reflect the submission of an existing site plan to aid CIL calculations, and minor alterations to the elevational drawings including amendments to fenestration detailing. These alterations would have a negligible impact on the overall design quality and appearance of the proposal and are not considered to
require reconsultation

 

Recommendation: Remains to GRANT PERMISSION subject to conditions and s106 obligations as set out in the Committee Report and the additional Condition 29 proposed above

Tuesday 19 April 2022

Conservatives confuse Alperton voters

 A leaflet distributed in Alperton ward has confused voters. On one side the leaflet, 'Alperton Ward Matters',  lists the three Alperton candidates.

On the other side, proving just how much Alperton ward matters they list the same three candidates as standing for Wembley Hill ward!



Thursday 3 March 2022

But, Brent Council, who's the guy in yellow?

 

PHOTO: Local residents celebrating the launch of the new One Tree Hill community garden along with Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council (far right), Cllr Neil Nerva, Cabinet Member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure (in fluorescent green), Cllr Krupa Sheth Cabinet Member for Environment and Ward Member for Wembley Central (in red) and Chirag Gir, Chairman of Wembley Central and Alperton Residents’ Association (far left).


A press release from Brent Council dropped into my in-box a short while ago, neatly reinforcing the point I made about social media in the last post.

The caption supplied by the Brent Council Press Office names the Labour Cabinet members present but ignores the man in yellow - who just happens to be a local Alperton councillor who works hard for the community but is a Liberal Democrat.

The 'non-person' is Cllr Anton Georgiou and he commented to Wembley Matters:

It was good to be with local residents and members of Wembley Central and Alperton Residents’ Association (WCARA) who have worked so hard on this project. 


I’m proud to have supported residents over the past two years, particularly keen local gardeners, who want to encourage even more people to get involved in growing flowers and vegetables in the area. 


We all know how important it is for mental health and well-being to be outdoors, enjoying nature and I’m hopeful Brent Council will commit to installing more planters as a way of encouraging even wider participation. This is particularly needed given the number of people in Alperton and Wembley who do not have access to their own gardens. 


I’m not surprised that the Leader of the Council and two Lead Members were free to attend the photo op yesterday morning. They love the camera. It is however, slightly concerning that my presence was ignored in the official Brent Council press release. With local elections around the corner, I’ve expressed disappointment at what seems to be repeat favouritism by the Council of a certain group of Councillors. This needs to stop.”




Sunday 16 January 2022

Soaring communal heating bills likely to add to the troubles of residents in Brent's new developments

 

An article in yesterday's Guardian set alarm bells ringing for people in Brent who are buying or renting some of the new developments that have communal heating.  

LINK

Guardian Money explained:

While households with conventional heating systems have been told they could face 50%-plus increases to gas and electricity bills when the cap is increased on 1 April, people who bought or rent apartments in one of the 17,000 blocks in the UK that rely on communal heating and hot water systems are facing fourfold increases as suppliers pass on the huge wholesale price increases unchecked.

It is thought that up to 500,000 people live in developments where at least some of the heating or hot water is provided by a centrally controlled system, usually administered by the company that manages the estate.

Apartments in these developments are all supplied by a single energy supplier, and because this is classified as a commercial deal rather than domestic supply, the residents have not had bills protected by Ofgem’s price cap.

The article gives the example of a Manchester owner of a two bedroomed flat whose energy bill went up from £80 in November to £260 in December.

Individual occupiers cannot change their energy supplier so will be reliant on the managers of the developments to negotiate a deal. Systems designed to reduce carbon and lower bills may unfortunately prove to be an additional burden to people already facing high service charges and in some cases costs for cladding removal, building defects remediation and fire watches.

The Agenda for a June 2021 meeting of residents in George House, South Kilburn, gives a flavour of the range of issues facing residents at an L&Q development LINK:

Proposed agenda for 22nd June Swift George Residents Association meeting

  1. Clarification/update on works to heating & hot water pipe work (including explanation of recent system outages).
  2. Update on replacing terracotta cladding & issuing of EWS1 form 3 and clarification of fire safety policy
  3. Update on safety of windows following the failure of hinges in another L&Q development (we believe we have the same hinges)
  4. Update on service charge refund (the review Rob Hunter had been carrying out).
  5. Energy meters & billing – energy meters appear not to be working or faulty.
  6. Pigeons – reports received of them nesting on the roof of George House and leaving deposits on the flat roof of the 6th floor
  7. Any Other Business (AOB)

Some of the heating issues may have been resolved see HERE

Wembley Matters would be interested in hearing from residents in the South Kilburn, Wembley Park and Alperton regeneration areas who have communal heating  systems if they have been impacted by higher energy costs.

Monday 16 August 2021

The new Minavil House in Alperton rises and rises but a taller development is to come on the Alperton Bus Garage site

 

A 26 storey giant rises on the site previously occupied by Minavil House (below)


I would not deny that Minavil House (opposite Alperton Bus station) was ripe for development - but from 2 storeys to 26 is a mighty leap and a trip to Alperton today revealed its impact on the local rail and street scene. The original Minavil House became derelict and was damaged by a fire in 2018. The developer R55 was one of several  invited to a three course dinner with the Leader of Brent Council and some council officers by property PR agency Terrapin Communications back in 2017. Questions were asked about the hospitality event and Cllr Butt answered. LINK 

 

R55 is also responsible for the 255 Ealing Road development and The Workshop (Willesden) development near Dollis Hill - a development that is much bigger than the name would suggest. LINK


Questions were raised at the planning stage about the height of the building at the time and how it fitted in with the local landscape. In fact its height was later cited as a justiification for a 28 storey building almost opposite on the site of Alperton bus garage.

 

Minavil House from Alperton Station

From Bridgewater Road

The illustration below gives the height of the various towers in progress or planned:

Alperton High School bottom right and Alperton Station

 

On the way to Alperton on the 297 bus I took a photograph (below)  of the building locally known as the 'Twin Towers', named 'Uncle' by its  owner and on the site of the former Chesterfield House at the junction of Park Lane and Wembley High Road. It shows the visual impact of such a building from  suburban Wembley Park Drive. The tallest tower is 26 storeys.