In August last year, South Kilburn residents received issue 1 of South Kilburn Regeneration News. A welcome sign that we might be kept informed of progress, despite the fact that `issue 1' came after regeneration has been going on for nearly 20 years, and in those preceding years there has been no attempt to let us know what is happening.
Rumours abound that the regeneration has hit the rocks and is stalling. Nothing seems to have happened with the Carlton Vale Boulevard scheme.. The medical centre promised for 2015 has yet to materialise, and in the meantime the building in which the Kilburn Park surgery was based has been declared unfit for use and then sold off. Rumours say the new medical centre will be opened early next year, but no information has been circulated, no explanation for the lateness or whether this medical centre will actually be up to the standard originally promised. A further rumour is that developers are pushing for an even smaller proportion of social housing than in earlier stages, with a preference for expensive market flats, would, if true, mean that any idea that this addresses the housing crisis is a bad joke.
Wembley Matters has carried several reports on the disgusting state of some of the blocks which tenants have been decanted to while waiting for new flats. Word has it that the stalling of regeneration means that many who have been promised new flats in South Kilburn will not be able to move into them for years.
South Kilburn regeneration has been plagued with problems throughout, with new blocks having to have scaffold up for years while cladding is removed, heating and mould issues in many new blocks and, most notorious of all, Granville New Homes blocks costing more to put right than the original cost. And the company that botched Granville New Homes given new contracts by Brent Council! On top of which many moved into new blocks find their rents and especially their service charges rising considerably. Many of the problems associated with new blocks have been denied by Brent, and there certainly haven't been issues of Regeneration News to tell us what is going on.
No-one attempts to give South Kilburn residents a truthful account of what is happening. Raising these issues at Brent Connects doesn't get any answers, let alone a commitment to inform residents. South Kilburn Trust, supposedly overseeing the regeneration of the Carlton/Granville site never reaches out to South Kilburn residents and appears to be totally unaccountable, despite claiming to represent the interests of South Kilburn residents.. Even those few who have time and ability to trawl through - often impenetrable - Council documents are often none the wiser.
Having endured 20 years of living in a building site, compounded by Brent Council persuading HS2 to build their vent shaft in the middle of the estate (with the support of South Kilburn Trust) rather than on a empty car park near Queens Park station, and facing probably another 15 years on a building site, residents really do have a right to clear, truthful information.
Pete Firmin, chair of Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association, South Kilburn
The above video was posted on Twitter yesterday revealing the state of Blake Court on the South Kilburn Estate. @DCustodians said:
Welcome to #BlakeCourtThis the airy 4th floor. Recently redecorated to a high standard by squatters.
Just needs a do not disturb sign. Tenants are a bit inconvenienced, work/school
and all but who are we to complain?
A picture of an an attempted break-in and soiled lift were also posted:
I thought it was appropriate to publish these images in the light of the Housing Report going to Brent Cabinet on Monday. The report includes a section on South Kilburn where it is proposed that some voids (empty properties) on the estate are brought into use as temporary accommodation.
The fact that only 52 of 534 properties are considered suitable is in itself telling and clearly it is not just the flats themselves that need to be suitable - safe, clean - but the surrounding 'unsuitable flats', staircases, lifts and security that needs to be considered.
Wembley Matters has revealed the £13m deficit in the housing budget caused by the rising number of homeless people in temporary hotel accommodation or expensive private rented placements. LINK The council hopes to save on the average £3,000 a night for the 52 households:
There are currently 534 void
properties across the South Kilburn regeneration site as households have either
been moved into new or alternative homes, or leasehold properties have been
bought back. Due to the increased demand for temporary accommodation and rising
hotel costs, an exercise has been carried out to assess the suitability of
South Kilburn voids for use as temporary accommodation.
However, there is a fly in the ointment. Brent Council want to avoid the 'Landlord Promise' made at the time of the South Kilburn Regeneation Ballot, applying to these households (my highlighting):
Of the 534 voids, 52 have
been identified as suitable for potential use. This is based on their condition
and the impact of using them on the regeneration programme. These are based in
John Ratcliffe, William Dunbar, William Saville, and Zangwill. Historically,
those living in temporary accommodation on the regeneration site were included
in the South Kilburn Promise (Landlord Offer), which commits to re-housing
temporary accommodation residents within South Kilburn, with the option to move
outside of the estate (with the household’s agreement) along with other
commitments. This was specifically for those impacted at the time of the
ballot. If these voids are used for temporary accommodation, this report
recommends that the South Kilburn Promise does not apply going forward. This
implications of this proposal on the 2019 ballot outcome have been discussed with
the Greater London Authority and no implications were identified.
The rational[e] for the promise
not applying going forward to temporary households, is largely based on these
households bypassing the choice-based lettings scheme, where other households
have waited for years for family sized accommodation. Additionally, these
households will not have been impacted by the regeneration scheme in the way
those involved with the ballot.
This proposal does create a
risk that temporary households will need to be decanted elsewhere, most likely
away from the estate, when blocks are due to be demolished. Plus, there will be
two tiers of temporary accommodation on the site, those who are eligible for
the South Kilburn Promise and those who are not. This risk however is balanced
by the immediate reduction in pressure for the Council as moving 52 households
out of their current temporary accommodation and into South Kilburn would save
the Council approximately £3,017 a night based on the
average nightly rate paid and subsidy loss currently being covered by the
Council. The use of these void properties has wider benefits to the overall
wellbeing of households currently facing homelessness, many of whom are having
to be placed outside of the borough which ultimately affects schooling and
work.
There is another pitfall in that the council is required to consult on any change in its Lettings Policy in order to amend the Landlord Offer.:
To amend the South Kilburn Promise (Landlord
Offer) for new temporary accommodation tenants, the Council is required to
amend the Local Lettings Policy (allocations scheme) which requires
consultation. The Council is currently seeking legal advice on how to consult
and once obtained, this will guide officers to carry out the relevant
consultation ahead of any decision being finalised.
The council had to open up bidding for council properties to homeless people after a legal judgement in 2021-22 when a teenager took them to court. LINK That was the last change in the lettings policy. It is likely that South Kilburn residents, especially those waiting for accommodation on the estate, presently in accommodation outside the area, in temporary accommodation or decanted temporarily while waiting to be permanently housed in new build will be very wary of any change in the South Kilburn Promise. If it can be done once for one group, could it be withdrawn later for another group?
This will depend to some extent on residents perception of progress on the whole South Kilburn Regeneration. A letter to Wembley Matters in November outlined the problems in terms of delivery and impact on those waiting to be rehoused. LINK
There are ongoing problems with defects to properties with L&Q one of the most notable and the ongoing Granville New Homes debacle where the cost of remediation is now put at £25m (against that budget gap of £13m) having been purchased for £17.1m by the council. Still no news on any council move for compensation from the builder. LINK
A veteran observer of the South Kilburn scene was asked for their view by Wembley Matters in the light of the latest news:
If the council were were to hold another ballot, would all those in temporary accommodation still vote yes if they were told they would not be getting a new home in South Kilburn for at least 10 years and that some of them would have to move into old blocks waiting to be demolished while they wait.
Although there are 730 households in temporary accommodation, we do not know how many of them have a South Kilburn connection but at the last consultation the ones that had it were promised a new home soon if they voted yes.
There are 370 secure council tenants waiting for a new home today and we will find out soon the exact numbers in each of the 7 blocks left and when they might be decanted.
But the next batch of new homes are for secure council tenants from both Craic and Crone Court and there are none for those in temporary accomodation. Of course the council could change their allocation policy to favour those in temporary accommodation but this is most unlikely.
There should be some more new homes available in 2029 which were for those in phases 7 and 8 but now they might go to those currently in temporary accommodation. I am not sure how many new homes will be available but there will be fewer than 100 and by then because of possible financial issues, many of the homes could be sold, or become shared ownership homes.
But with only 70 new homes available in 2029 and around a 1000 households expecting to get one of them, most of them are going to be disappointed.
I wonder if Osbornes Law will be interested in the new proposals?
Brent Council are resending the Hereford &
Exeter site, along with the Craik Court-Crone Court -Zangwill House (CCZ) site back to planning, as the new buildings
will need second staircases.
The CCZ site was due to be completed by 2029 but it
will now be much later.
This has a knock-on effect, as all those tenants
and some of those in temporary housing will now face longer waits for a new
home.
The CCZ project is in phase 6 which now means that
phases 7 & 8 will now be pushed several years forward beyond their
schedules.
Previously the council always said 'the whole 15 year (?)
South Kilburn Regeneration would be completed by 2029' but that date now looks
unachievable.
Also, the SK budget is facing financial
difficulties but for now the budget has not been changed but the council are
reducing their overall Capital programme by 25% (£103M.) covering the rest of
this year and 2024/25.
We will find out the costs of the SK Regeneration
at the meeting in February 2024 when the council sets their budgets for the
future years.
The increased costs of the SK regeneration are the result
of the higher interest rates that the council have to pay for their borrowing,
together with high inflation causing increases in the cost of building
materials and higher labour costs.
It now looks like the 72 council homes on the NWCC
site due in 2025 may be the last ones for some time and I expect that the
allocations have already been made, as all the needs assessments have all been
completed.
That leaves approximately 370 tenants and those in
temporary housing having to wait for several more years before they will be
offered a new home in SK.
Nobody seems to be bothered about this but the Peel
site LINK has only 42 homes
for social rent out of a total of 308 new homes. That is roughly 15% instead of
the usual 50:50. So far 38 of the 42 are already occupied with the remaining 4
homes not available until 2026.
The Peel site is the largest one of all the SK
sites but has the lowest number of social homes available. Many of the new
homes are both for private sale as usual but there are also several shared
ownership properties.
The 72 homes on the NWCC site will be available in
2025 with allocations given in 2024, although as I understand it the possible
tenants have already completed their needs assessments. NWCC is Neville House,
Winstanley and some of Carlton House and the Carlton Centre
This might be of interest to the tenant you
featured in Wembley Matters on the 4th October LINK.
However, it seems that anyone in SK needing a 4 bed
or higher have been offered new homes in both Stonebridge and Wembley.
All
the remaining tenants and those in temporary housing wish to remain in South
Kilburn, as their children attend school there, although some of them have been
offered a new larger home in both Stonebridge & Wembley, However, this
causes further allocation problems for Brent over who should get priority for a
new home.
The Queen's Park Cullen House site will probably
need to go back to planning, as the current one was approved as far back as
2016 with the tenants decanted in 2014.
However, the council still do not own the site.
They have been trying since 2019 to purchase the Falcon Public House but
Londonewcastle will not sell it. Londonewcastle built all the new blocks in
Albert Road and may be holding out to win the contract for the Cullen House/Queens
Park site, but the council do not want them. So will Cllr. Butt get his way or
will he be disappointed?
This is the key site, as Cllr. Butt said it would
mark the new gateway to SK with several up-market stores in the ground floors with
flats above them,
Countryside say because they are developing the
Health Centre on the Peel site, they had to reduce the number of social homes
to make it viable for them.
Back in 2004 I seem to remember there was NDC money
set aside to fund two health centres (and not just one) but the funding was
'borrowed by the Primary Care Trust' and would be made available when the
health centres were to be developed
But of course, the Primary Care Trust' closed down
and passed its assets to the Brent CCG who themselves have now closed down and
are now in the super CCG (8 CCG's)
So, I assume the money has long gone and that is
why we are having to rely on Countryside to build it and the Council to provide
the revenue to run it.
These proposal are due to go to Planning during the Autumn. The Council's website states:
The redevelopment site comprising of Masefield
House, Wordsworth House, and Dickens House, as well as Kilburn Open Space and
Carlton Vale Infant School forms part of the South Kilburn regeneration
programme.
What will
be delivered?
The proposals for this site are being designed by
award winning architects Karakusevic Carson Architects and include 5 new
mixed-tenure housing blocks, and a new two-form entry primary school.
Two of the new blocks will front the newly-reinstated Percy Road in line with
the Council’s masterplan aspiration. The proposals also include housing blocks
along Malvern Road. These have been designed in an urban villa style to
complement existing villa blocks in the area, including on Malvern Road.
The exact tenure split is to be finalised during
design development, but current proposals envisage 100 new units. This includes
approximately 37 affordable units for existing South Kilburn residents.
The proposals have been carefully designed
throughout to maximise the retention of existing mature trees and to ensure
homes are all dual aspect, allowing for natural light and ventilation.
The new school will be a high-quality and
sustainable learning environment for pupils aged 3-11. The designs include
space for a nursery, specialist teaching areas for music, food/science and art,
and additional spaces for children with special educational needs. This
includes physical disability, visual impairments, and hearing impairment. The
school will also contain spaces that can be securely used by the local
community during out of school hours such as a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA). The
Council is working with local Kilburn Park and Carlton Vale Schools to see how
the schools can benefit from the new school. Future governance arrangements
will be subjected to statutory consultation with the schools and the wider
school community.
Under the same planning application, proposals are
being brought forward for the redevelopment of other parts of the South Kilburn
area. This includes an expansion and improvement of the Kilburn Open
Space.
As well as this, there will be 52 new mixed-tenure
properties (exact numbers to be confirmed through continued design development)
on the site currently occupied by Carlton Vale Infant School. This includes a
residential block of circa 37 flats facing Kilburn House on Malvern Place.
Three shared ownership units will also be in this block.
To help meet local resident’s needs, these
proposals also include 15 four-bedroom affordable terraced homes for existing
South Kilburn residents.
Wembley Matters likes to keep you informed about what is going on locally and this event at Box Park on Olympic Way may intrigue you. However with BOGOF (Buy One Get One Free) tickets at £474 including VAT you may not be rushing for the special offer. It would be interesting to know if Brent Cabinet housing and regeneration leads will be attending as some of the questions in 'Key Themes' are well worth addressing in terms of development in the borough.
From the event website LINK. (original punctuation etc)
The third annual Festival of Place is back on 6
July at Boxpark Wembley in Wembley Park, London, a stone’s throw from the
legendary stadium in Europe’s largest build-to-rent development.
Bringing together our community to discern and
imagine a positive social, equitable and environmental future for places.
Featuring fresh thinking and challenging conversations with a riot of
talks and workshops that inspire and connect our creative community of
placemakers seeking to renew our cities, designing and developing human
networks and habitats.
Special offer! Add one ticket in your basket, and
your second ticket is free! After checkout please assign both names to your
tickets (you can reassign anytime before the event)
Update your thinking. Learn. Get inspired.
Break down silos and come
together with professionals to tackle the major issues facing urban
development in an environment where it is safe to ask questions.
Gain frank insight from experts, including
authors, scientists, cultural leaders, developers, investors, scientists,
designers, community workers and city leaders.
Ideal for the whole placemaking team, from
developer to designer, investor to local government.
Participate and meet new collaborators seeking to
address the biggest challenges facing makers of place, through online
masterclasses and workshops, where you will roll your sleeves up around the
table.
Key themes for 2022
how can the design of places support public health
and reduce inequalities?
what are the key ingredients that developers and
designers can get right in order to reduce health and social inequalities
through their place interventions? we tackle the issue from several angles,
inviting economists, researchers and public health professionals to share their
insights on meaningful infrastructure and place interventions
myth-busting and greenwash: secrets and lies in ESG
investment
what are the emerging issues with the growth in investment targeting social and
environmental impact? what does good look like, and what are the challenges and
opportunities as capital is nudging place and regeneration?
regeneration without leaving folks behind
how to ensure inclusive and good growth in rapidly changing places, from
manchester to birmingham? what would a truly levelled-up country look
like?
feminist urbanism: exploring an equal city
how can the design of places promote gender equality and what research and
activism is taking place to create more equal places
putting empathy and care at the heart of places
what if we centred empathy and caring? how would our places be designed and
developed if they were focussed on nuturing empathy?
radical land reform and renewable design
how are the systems around land ownership and land value limiting our ability
to tackle the pressing challenges of our time? what can we do about it and what
are the alternatives?
South Kilburn's partitioned first Brent regeneration
ballot in 2019 included only 1,000 scattered selected households, while
excluding the other 3,516 households in the South Kilburn Growth Area from any
ballot vote say at all in the new tall building zone (TBZ) plan. This is
proving to be an unsustainable social injustice and human rights abuse i.e. the
entire community complex land has become surplus brownfield land for the
coloniser market.
I count as one of these 3,516 households in South Kilburn
neighbourhood excluded entirely from Brent's ballot of South Kilburn 2019.The Brent neighbourhood masterplan for South
Kilburn vote in 2004 had allowed a vote say to every household in this zone
regarding a future land uses neighbourhood regeneration plan (a plan which was
unilaterally Brent cancelled in 2017).
Why this harsh and exclusionary change of landlord
neighbourhood governance policy in SK for 2019 and harsh denial of the right to
a democratic say regarding the vague new South Kilburn TBZ future towards 2041?
Brent now only boasts and taunts the South Kilburn massive household majority
excluded from the ballot vote about its partitioned and excluding ballot of
2019 - "And in South Kilburn where we are regenerating, we had the biggest
estate regeneration resident ballot in London with a 72% turnout and 84% of
people voting in favour" - this refers only to the 1000 households allowed
a vote. Ignored are the 3,516 South Kilburn households excluded entirely from a
ballot vote say regarding the developer-led TBZ new plan.
With the community-led neighbourhood partnership
regeneration masterplan balloted 2004 unilaterally cancelled by Brent five days
after the Grenfell fire in 2017, surely Brent landlords new unilateral land use
TBZ plan should be put to a vote of all 4,516+ South Kilburn households in
2022- especially as Brent aims to by five times grow the SK population to over
36,000 by 2041.
I would propose a Brent ballot 2 remedy in 2022, in which
all 4,516+ households in SK have a ballot vote to correct the gross injustice
of 2019.This ballot 2 would force the public landlord to offer a new
responsible high quality detailed, healthy, cohesive, inclusive, civil and
flood attenuation aware plan for SK future land uses towards 2041 which is
clearly in the best interests of all who live South Kilburn Land.
A decade or so ago when plans for Wembley Park regeneration were at the beginning stage, Brent Green Party suggested that a section of the land should be set aside for a 'green enterprise zone' with subsidised start up business rates. Such a zone would concentrate on developing the products needed to cope with climate change and would work closely with the College of North West London and other further and higher education institutions to provide training and apprenticeships. We warned that employment in retail, apart from being low paid, relied on rampant consumerism. As the area developed hospitality, with similar drawbacks, has also been developed in the restaurants and pubs in the area. Both of course are also threatend by Covid19 restrictions, although of course we couldn't forsee that. The building boom in the area was promised to provide jobs for 10-20 years although they may not all go to local people.
The area around the stadium had a lot of light industry which provided local employment but that is gradually disappearing as regeneration reaches out its tentacles along the roads around the stadium. Two storey sites and warehouses are gobbled up to build high-rise rented flats and student accommodation - and who can blame the owners for selling up?
People used to complaint that the stadium was in the middle of an industrial estate - now they complain it is in the middle of a housing estate. Good town planning could surely have provided something better in the way of both housing and jobs for lcoal people.
In the photographs below you can see the survivors nestled at the foot of the blocks - you have to look very hard in some cases.
I thought it worth recording the transition for the record.
The news of the ballot delay was announced in a Brent Council press release yesterday. I would be interested in further details of the first phase which the release says will be on open space and can proceed without a ballot.
PRESS RELEASE
Work is well underway to develop the two options for the future of St Raph’s estate.
Despite the huge challenges of Covid-19, residents have been working,
virtually, on what infill and redevelopment options might look like
ahead of the proposed ballot next year.
Given
the uncertainties and possible changes to local Covid restrictions, the
Residents Board has agreed that the ballot should take place next year,
instead of this Autumn as originally planned. We’re hopeful that this
will enable face-to-face conversations to resume, ensuring each
household has the chance to fully understand what both options would
mean for them.
In
the meantime, the design team will begin work with the community to
create detailed designs for the first phase of development. The designs
will follow the Community Design Code and will show what new homes could
look like, although it won’t be finalised until after the ballot.
The
location of the first phase is open space to the south of the estate.
It does not involve demolishing any homes and can proceed whatever the
outcome of next year’s ballot.
The
costs for delivering both infill and redevelopment were also recently
carefully reviewed by Brent Council. Both remain affordable but will
continue to be monitored, in light of the pandemic.
Cllr Eleanor Southwood, Brent’s Cabinet Member for Housing and Welfare Reform, said:
We’re
absolutely committed to delivering what residents want for the future
of St Raph’s. Coronavirus has shone a light on the number of households
in the borough living in overcrowded homes or temporary accommodation,
without access to their own private outdoor space or good quality parks.
To make matters worse, many private renters face crippling rents
combined with the risk of eviction. It’s vital that we work together
with the community to create these much needed new, affordable homes for
local people sooner rather than later.
An upcoming virtual exhibition will
give residents an opportunity to see each masterplan option for the
first time, and to give their feedback. The exhibition will be online
for four weeks, from Friday 23 October 2020 until Saturday 28 November
2020.
The
council is sending an update to all households on the estate this week.
Residents can also get answers to any questions by emailing straphs@brent.gov.uk
Proposals for
the redevelopment of Wembley
Park Station car park to build five new buildings between 13 and 21 storeys in
height (456 residential units) have been submitted to the council. This is just
the latest site highlighted for high rise, excessive density buildings that are
slowly changing the face of Wembley as we know it. As a resident of Brook
Avenue and having read the various local, London and national plans, I believe
that the proposed development contravenes many of the policies set out
in the plans and would have a serious adverse impact on the area. The site will
be overdeveloped, compromising the quality of the development, character of the
street and supporting infrastructure capabilities. If you are a resident of
Brook avenue or the surrounding area, or even if you have been left feeling
disenfranchised about the emergence of such buildings in Wembley, please read
on. Details on how to get involved will be at the bottom of this post.
The 5 blocks
will be 13, 13, 14,17 and 21 storeys in height, on a parcel of land that is far
too small at 0.67 hectares.
The site
itself has been highlighted in numerous council plans as being “inappropriate”
for tall buildings, as per the London plans guidance to grade sites on their
“appropriateness” for tall buildings. Based on the council's own policies, the site is clearly not
suitable for such buildings and should not be given approval. Given the
significant detrimental impact tall buildings can have on local character, it
is important that they emerge as part of a planned exercise in placemaking,
rather than in an ad hoc, speculative way.
Wembley Area Action Plan
Areas inappropriate for tall buildings are
highlighted in red
Historically,
Brent is characterised by low to mid rise buildings, with any tall buildings being
directed towards town centres. A 21 storey building on a road with mainly two
and multi storey buildings would be completely out of keeping with the context
and character of the area. The proposed developments will pose both a literal,
and metaphorical encroachment on residential suburbia and as the London Plan,
Chapter 7.21 states: “The building form
and layout should have regard to the density and character of the surrounding
development”. I'm sure over the years many of you have noticed a surge in tall
buildings in Wembley, often in areas where they do not fit in with the suburban
surrounding character. Whilst it is understandable that the push for taller
buildings stems from a need for more housing, high density does not always have
to mean high rise development. Perhaps efforts should be made for developments
that both contribute to the required density and are also in keeping with the
character of the area.
A
rendering of what the tallest block will look like as you enter Brook Avenue
from Olympic Square
Rendering
of what the buildings would look like from verified view - Barn Rise junction with Eversley Avenue and ...
... Kingswood Road at junction with Elmside Road
The increase
in density due to the developments would amount to serious ‘cramming’ on what
is a quiet, residential, low density road. The buildings adjacent (Matthew's
Close) were given an indicative capacity of 100 units in the Wembley Area
Action Plan- so how can a site that is on the same street and is in fact 0.2
hectares smaller, be allowed to be built at the indicative capacity of more
than quadruple that? The development would also intensify pressure on already
burdened infrastructure such as schools and GP’s. The 456 units, which would
house more than double that in people, would result in an increased demand for
school places within the Borough, without providing any contribution to
building new school classrooms. It would mean an increased pressure for the use
of existing open space, without contributions to enhance that open space. The
development only provides an average of 12.8sqm of private and communal amenity
space per unit- this equates to only 64% of the local plan requirements, which
would lead to greater pressure on the surrounding open spaces in the area (like
what is currently going on with King Edwards Park). Where is the commitment
from the council to create open, green spaces to accommodate the growing
population of Wembley?
The proposal also makes no provisions for the loss
of a car park which accommodates 200 visitors daily. Brook Avenue is the most heavily
parked road in Brent and the loss of the car park, as well as the addition of
456 new homes, will have a serious adverse impact on the street as well as the
surrounding areas. Parking will spill onto Brook avenue (a street which already
has issues with street parking) as well as the surrounding Barn Hill area. Without
mitigation measures, the high levels of population growth anticipated due to
the development will place serious pressure on the existing road network,
particularly on event days.
The
development will not make a significant contribution to Brent's housing needs
as it favours one bed and studio flats as opposed to family homes. Brent’s
predominant needs are more for larger sized (3 bed or more) family dwellings.
Of the 456 dwellings that are proposed to be built, only 10% will be 3 bedroom,
as opposed to the 25% that is required by the council. This is a clear lack of
consideration for families which should be encouraged to stay and contribute to
the establishment of a long term mixed and sustainable community in Wembley.
The council's own policy states:
“It is not the intention of the council to build a large transitional
location for single people and childless couples who may be forced to move on
because there is no choice of family homes available”
The
Development would also lead to breaches of the BRE Guidelines (Building
Research Establishment) in terms of daylight and sunlight received by the
neighbouring properties. It is understandable that existing levels of light
cannot be maintained, but this should not be to such a degree that they breach
BRE guidelines. The council should ensure that the quality of housing output is
not compromised by the need to make the most efficient use of land.
The proposed
development will pose both a literal, and metaphorical encroachment on
residential suburbia.It seems that
this development, like many others emerging all around Wembley, puts quantity
over quality. Under the guise of “making the most efficient use of land”, other
equally important criteria have been ignored, such as quality, capacity of the
street, parking, impact on amenities etc. It should not go remiss to mention
that should the council expect it’s policies to be taken seriously, it should
lead by example, and not repeatedly contravene it’s own plans through granting
permission for development where it would otherwise be unsuitable. If a building that violates so
many local and national policies is granted planning permission, what will this
mean for the future of Wembley?
Through the
strive for the ‘regeneration’ of Wembley, the council has seemingly overlooked
the thoughts and opinions of the people who make it what it is: its residents.
I urge you all to get involved to help make our voices heard. I will leave you
all with a quote from the Emerging Local Plan, Paragraph 4.51:
Meeting indicative capacities should not be used to justify overriding
other policies where it would result in creating poor developments.
Get involved:
If you are a
resident of Brook avenue or the surrounding area, you can object to this
development either by writing your comments on the council website (the
application reference number is 20/0967) or emailing your objection to Toby.huntingford@brent.gov.uk .