Showing posts with label The Hub. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Hub. Show all posts

Thursday 5 July 2018

Consultation on more blocks behind Chesterfield House 'Twin Towers' closes on July 16th


Consultation is taking place on the building of two blocks, one of 16 storeys and another 18 storeys, behind the 'Twin Towers' (26 and 21 storey) replacement for Chesterfield House at the junction of Park Lane and Wembley High Road.


The consultation closes on July 16th. The buildings will be behind the shops on the High Road and bordered by the Chiltern railway line.  The designers make great play of a green 'Wemba Forest' corridor  around the blocks, name after Wemba who cleared a space (lea) in the forest in the area. Forest is perhaps a rather grand name for what is planned behind the shops but the artist's impression is extremely imaginative to say the least. Across the railway line there is a wooded embankment and the 2 storey houses of Park Court that will now be overlooked by four tower blocks.

I have published the design brochure below and the consultation  survey can be found HERE
Click lower right corner for full size version


Wednesday 6 April 2016

Just 4 councillors allow TwinTowers to change the face of Wembley Central

Impression from Park Lane Methodist Church/Park Lane Primary
The 26/21 storey Twin Towers block at the junction of Park Lane and Wembley High Road was given the go ahead by the Planning Committee on Wednesday evening. There were 4 votes for the the proposal, 2 against and 2 abstentions.  Sarah Marquis, Chair of Planning Committee, voted against the application.

Afterwards residents were aghast that two councillors abstained on such a major issue. If there is any committee where councillors are expected to make a decision it is planning. If you don't have enough information to make a decision you should keep on asking questions until you do.

If the vote had tied 4/4 I presume Marquis would have exercised a casting vote against the application.

Denise Cheong with just 2 minutes to represent hundred of local residents made a presentation on the impact of the high density high rise blocks on the local area, the impact on current over-crowded roads and public transport and the fact that the development did not comply with established GLA and Brent standards.

Cllr Sam Stopp (Labour, Wembley Central) appeared to have been so impressed by the developer's consultation procedures and his openness that this had persuaded him to support the development despite recognising that the building was not perfect. He would like to have seen it less high but its height was based on what officers had told the developer was possible. He thought the building's orientation was not ideal.

Stopp went to to list the positives: The excellent consultation by the developer, quality of the building design, provision of community space.

He went on to contrast the developer's consultation with that by the Council. Local residents seemed to have found out about the proposal late in the day with a rush of contacts comparatively recently. The Council needed to adopt a more open and transparent approach to consultation. As in Islington, we need members' panels which are accessible to the public so they can question developers and councillors.

David Glover, the planning officer,was faced with the task of explaining why officers were supporting the application despite it not complying with policies on density, carbon emissions, living space,  open space, play space and the proportion of affordable housing.

He claimed that although the building did not meet the standards that it could be approved by reference to the  guidelines that interpreted policy.  He echoed Cllr Stopp in praising the quality of the finish of the building and the flats.  He said that the restricted nature of the site justified the developer in building at greater height and density than set out in the local plan.  The 28% affordable hosing (rather than the recommended 50%)  had been subject to independent viability assessments. Initially the developer offered a higher proportion of affordable housing but this was limited to a 7 year period after which it would move to market rents.  Officers had negotiated a lower proportion of affordable housing but for perpetuity.

Some of the most  incisive qustioning came from Sarah Marquis, chair of the committee, who pointed out that the density was double that recommended for town centre locations and doubted that it complied with the requirement that not meeting those standards could only be supported if it was 'clearly and robustly justified by local circumstances.'  The density was that which applied to international city locations rather than a local town centre.

She went on to query the planners' claim that the development was allowed because the local plan allowed 'tall building' in the  Wembley Central vicinity. She pointed out that local tall buldings were much lower and that the previous application in the sites had been for 17 storeys. It was a big leap from the 30metre definition of tall to the 85metres of this development.

In the course of the discussion the developer confirmed that they were also seeking to purchase the green space on the embankment behind Chesterfield house and their aim would be to build residential properties there. This was not followed up by the Committee but would obviosuly add to the issues around local infrastructure including traffic density and school places. The negotiations had not got very far  and purchase of the garage space behind Chesterfield House to provide disabled parking for the new development has not been completed.

The extent of this additional land which is now subject to acquisition and development can be seen in this illustration:

Click to enlarge

There was a group of young people in the public gallery who applauded when the planning application was approved. Apparently in the wake of the closure of the Wembley Youth Centre LINK they thought they would be able to carry on their activities in the ground floor community space provided by the developer.  It is of course by no means certain that they would be chosen to occupy the space and we know from other applications that this could be a fraught process.  It feels sometimes that we grasp crumbs from the rich man's (developer's) table.

The actual process of building on a site surrounded by traffic congestion with difficult access and parking sounds as if it will be a two year nightmare for local residents not to mention the impact when crowds travel to the stadium and arena.

I am left puzzled by how the committee members who voted for the development could have felt persuaded despite all the arguments above. Does a community space and 'quality finish' really outweigh the disadvantages?

The voting details are below. A further puzzle was how Cllr Colacioco asked all the right questions, got extremely unsatisfactory answers, and then voted for the application!
 

Voting on the application was as follows:

FOR 4                           Cllrs Agha, Choudhary, Colacicco and Mahmood
AGAINST  2                Cllrs Marquis (Chair) and Cllr  Maurice
ABSTENTION  2         Cllrs Ezeajughi and Cllr Patel

Denise Cheong's speech on behalf of residents can be found HERE



Sunday 3 April 2016

Residents outline their concerns on Wembley 'Twin Towers' development


The view from Park Lane Wembley. Chesterfield House is the building on the left. The highest of the Twin Towers will be 2-1/2 times the height of the flats on the right.
Only three members of the public turned up when Brent Planning Committee visited the site of the proposed 'Twin Towers' replacement for Chesterfield House on Saturday morning.

In summary concerns were:
  • Although recognised Chesterfield House needed to be replaced concerns that the replacement was far too tall for the area.
  • The building's height removing light from other nearby buildings.
  • Concern that the extra dwellings will add to traffic congestion on Park Lane, already a problem, and as no parking on site that the new residents will park on nearby residential streets.
  • Concern that vehicles servicing the flats or delivering would have nowhere to park at the busy junction as the present bays would be inadequate for the number of dwellings.
  • Increased danger at the junction Park Lane/Wembley High Road which already experiences accidents.
  • Concern that the increased population of children from the new flats will not be able to find places at already over-crowded local schools.
During the presentation by the developer, The Hub, we were told that they were in talks to buy the woodland site at the back of Chesterfield House beside the Chiltern Line. This was likely to be developed as more flats but the Hub confirmed that this would be a separate application and that the Twin Towers plan was not dependent on the new purchase.

The unregulated land at the back of Chesterfield House, presently garages, would be used for disabled parking bays for the flats. Woodland is to the left.


I understand that Cllr Sam Stopp (Wembley Central) will speak on the planning application at Wednesday's Planning Committee Meeting.This will be the first meeting of the Planning Committee since Steven Weeks, Head of Area Planning, left the Council.

Tuesday 29 March 2016

UPDATED: Now a Monster 'Twin Towers' for Park Lane/Wembley High Road


Having recently posted LINK a story about the 'monster' that Barnet Council and Barratt Homes have erected on the banks of the Welsh Harp it pains me to see that Brent Council are proposing a 'twin towers' development in the heart of Wembley in which the highest tower is only 3 storeys lower than the West Hendon development.

The developer's, The Hub Group. in their own illustration of the proposed scheme LINK cut off the upper storeys but it is clear that the new buildings will dwarf the Wembley High Road and as I showed with the West Hendon building will dominate the local landscape. I fear it will loom over Park Lane Primary School and King Edward VII Park which are further up Park Lane.


The Officer's Report LINK states that despite the issues around height they support the application in the wider context of regeneration and ongoing changes to the local buildings profile:

As with the Brent House application the planners recognise that the amount of amenity space in the development is deficient but tolerate that on the grounds that it is a town centre development with space constraints.

The report has a long section on the issue of 'affordable housing' on the site and viability studies. The proposal that emerged is that the North block will have affordable housing consisting of:

33 units at London Housing Allowance levels (LHA)

35 units at 80% of Open Market Rents (OMR)

The other units in the block would be let at open market rents:

35 units at  private sector rents - full market rents (PSR)

The 136 units in the South Block will be sold on the open market.

The officers contend that this is better than the initial 43% 'affordable' offer from The Hub Group because that offer was time limited and the eventual agreement is in perpetuity.

Whichever way the 50% affordable target has not been met.

The report notes that no representations have been received from councillors in the affected wards of Preston, Wembley Central and Tokyngton.

Ground floor plan (added in response to a comment below)