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

Monday 8 October 2018

Tell Wembley Matters what you think about the Copland School & Ujima House redevelopment

I was unable to attend Saturday's consultation on the Copland School and Ujima House redevelopments as i was at the Green Party Conference but I expect attendance was not great because of the Wembley Stadium Event on the same day.

I went along on Thursday and there seemed to be better attendance from Brent councillors and the developer's PR team than the general public.

This video, taken from the upper floors of Ujima House, shows the current state of the Copland School site with demolition almost complete and demonstrates the size of the site. The new building of Ark Elvin Academy (successor to Copland) can be seen behind the site. The enormous black cube is the Ark Elvin Sports Hall.


This video shows the buildings on the Wembley High Road between Park Lane and Wembley Triangle. On the left of the screen is the Twin Towers building that is currently under construction and behind them to the right are Hub's planned two new tower blocks beside the railway line. At the centre on the other side of the road is the building on the Copland site which is much closer to the road that the schoolwas. Copland had some green space there and mature trees. Neither are shown on the model which was a matter of concern for residents on Thursday. There appeared to be space for a few saplings.



The building replacing Copland has some internal open space which developers said the public could access and the two new towers behind Chesterfield House have a green walk. The impression is given of many trees but these will clearly take a long time to grow into anything substantial.


As this is a Brent Council development I asked about the amount of truly affordable housing in the development (ie London Living Rent rather than 80% of market rent) but was told this was still to be decided - things are at an early stage.

I would welcome comments from those who went to the consultation and those who didn't about these proposals and so will the developers: 


These are the exhibition boards. Click on bottom right corner to enlarge to full size.

Friday 6 July 2018

Invitation to comment on HUB's plans for Chiltern Rail/High Road site




Following yesterdays post on the new blocks planned for the site alongside the  Chiltern railway behind Wembley High Road and the Chesterfield House development LINK I have received this email from Kaizan Partnership who are handling the Hub's public engagement:

Dear Wembley Matters

I am contacting you as part of the community engagement for a new proposed development called Wembley Link.

Very often community members feel that they are not consulted about development in their area and so we are making an extra effort to reach out to the wider community and are hoping that you will share this email and the attached flyer with your network, so they can see the emerging designs and give their feedback on them.

The Wembley Link site is a piece of land, alongside the railway line behind Wembley High St, close to the junction with Park Lane. It is next to the former Chesterfield House where HUB are currently constructing a new building. This part of Wembley is within a Housing Zone identified by the Mayor as suitable for ‘higher density’ housing. The buildings would provide about 250 new homes as well opening up the area around them which would  be a new public green space for the whole local community.

HUB are committed to working with the local community to ensure that the ‘Wembley Link’ scheme reflects local ambitions and contributes to positive development for the area. HUB have had a relationship with this area and the local community over many years through the process of designing and now building Chesterfield House and now look forward to continuing this relationship with Wembley Link.

The design team for Wembley Link have been working up plans for the 2 new buildings with public space and you can see the emerging designs here.

HUB are really keen to hear your feedback on the emerging designs – to understand what you like and don’t like so that this can be taken on board to improve the designs before they submit them to planning. The consultation will close on July 16th so please do have a look and tell us what you think.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very best wishes

Jonny

Jonny Zander​
Director
Kaizen Partnership

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


Tuesday 1 May 2018

Has Cllr Butt put himself in situations where his integrity can be questioned?

Philip Grant submitted a comment on the 'Dinners with Developers' story posted earlier but I think the comment deserves a post in its own right:

 It is not so much "dinners with developers" that is the issue here.

It has been confirmed that an hour-long meeting took place on the morning of 6 April 2016 IN THE LEADER'S OFFICE between Cllr. Butt, Aktar Choudhury (Operational Director, Regeneration), Terrapin Communications and their client R55.

Debra Norman has told John Duffy: 'There are no minutes of this meeting, but I am informed by Aktar that the meeting was informal and the developers spoke about their Minavel House site in general and the good progress they were making in bringing forward their proposals.'

She later added, in response to a further question from Cllr. Duffy: 'You have asked below whether it is usual that there were no minutes were taken. Yes, given the nature of the meeting it is usual that no minutes were taken.' But as has been set out previously on "Wembley Matters", there has been specific guidance in place from the Local Government Association for the past few years that a Council Officer should attend any such meeting with a developer, and make a written minute of the discussions, a document which the public should be able to read.

Terrapin Communications was also representing Hub, and although Hub were not present at that meeting, it would have been possible for Terrapin to mention something encouraging support for Hub's Chesterfield House planning application, which (by coincidence?) was being considered by Brent's Planning Committee that evening. In the absence of minutes prepared by a Council Officer, there is no evidence as to whether, or not, that matter was raised.

An FoI last autumn revealed that Terrapin Communications also had a meeting with Cllr. Butt on the eve of the Minavil House planning application being approved by Brent's Planning Committee (another coincidence?). Again, no minutes were taken by a Council Officer of those discussions.

The issue here is whether Cllr. Butt may have interfered with Brent's proper Planning process, which he is specifically not allowed to do.

There is a "hearsay" allegation (from an unnamed Brent Labour backbencher - NOT Cllr. Duffy) that several Labour councillors on the Planning Committee have admitted privately that Cllr. Butt had instructed them how to vote on particular planning applications. Ms Norman was not able to take any action over these allegations, as none of the Labour councillors allegedly involved was willing to go "on record" over this.

Nothing has (yet) been proved against Cllr. Butt, but one of the requirements under the Code of Conduct for people in public life (including councillors and Council Officers) is that you should not put yourself in situations where your integrity could be called into question.

By holding meetings with developers or their representatives (such as Terrapin Communications), close to major planning decisions with which they are involved, and not ensuring that proper minutes are kept of those discussions, Cllr. Butt HAS put himself in a position where his integrity could be called into question.


Duffy pursues Cabinet members' 'Dinners with Developers' controversy

The Chesterfield House (AKA Twin Towers) development now underway
In an email to Debra Norman, Brent Council's Director of Legal and HR Services, Cllr John Duffy, standing as an independent in Kilburn ward, has sought further information on councillors' meetings with developers and their public relations advisers.

Duffy's email sets out his concerns and questions:




Dear Ms Norman ,

I wish to raise the issue of meetings between Cabinet Members and developers. 

I asked you in email on the 3/10/2017  "if any meeting with Terrapin involving planning officers, regeneration officers and Councillors was declared during the application to redeveloped Chesterfield House.” you replied" No meetings with Terrapin have been declared by officers or councillors other than the meeting of 9.5.17." 

Later you confirmed in an email on the 23/03/2018 saying  "I confirm that there was a meeting between Terrapin Communications and their client RSS which took place on Wednesday 5th April 2016  between 10-30-11-30 am. The meeting took place in the leaders officers in the Civic Centre and was attended for the council by Cllr Butt and Cllr Aktar Choudhury. (Operational Director Regeneration)".You also stated in your email that " the diaries of the council attendees have been cross referenced to confirm the meeting took place on the date .

As I have said above I asked you in my email on the 3/10/2017  "if any meeting with Terrapin involving planning officers, regeneration officers and Councillors was declared during the application to redeveloped Chesterfield House. you replied" No meetings with Terrapin have been declared by officers or councillors other than the meeting of 9.5.17." The correct answer should have been yes  a meeting took place on Wednesday 5th April 2016 in the Civic Centre with Terrapin .The 5th April 2016 was the morning the application for the redeveloped of Chesterfield House was to be heard by the planning committee.

Chesterfield House was a controversial planning application because of the lack of amenity space in the development and the lack of affordable housing, falling well below the target set by the Mayor of London. 

The controversial plan was passed at the committee by 4 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions with Cllr Marquis, Cllr Maurice  voting against and Cllrs Agha, Chroudhary, Colaccicco and Mahmood voting for the development and Cllr Patel and Ezeajughi abstaining.

Later Terrapin Communications placed an ad on their web-site saying 
TERRAPIN AIDS BRENT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS

Residents in Brent are set to benefit from an exciting new community centre along with other public improvements thanks to a new development in the Borough. Terrapin Communications helped Hub Group secure planning consent for the scheme.  Designed by Macerator Lavington, it will also include 239 new residential units in two new buildings, one twenty six storeys, the other twenty one storeys. 

Ms Norman , you may think this is an issue about Terrapin Communications and how they operate. Well it is not.

I am concerned about the accuracy of the information I was provided with by officers. My concerns are three fold did any member of the Cabinet speak to members of the planning committee to express support for the application. I hope you will clarify if that took place by asking members of the committee.

However my main concerns is not about councillors, it’s about how officers are setting -up meeting between developers and Cabinet members. These senior officers could not answer a simple members inquiry about a meeting, to the point they forgot the day and the  year the meeting took place. When all they had to do was check their diaries . 

My third concern is the confusion about who attended the meeting , as along with Cllr Warren I wrote to Terrapin about the meeting which took place on April 5th 2016 and they replied they had no meetings with officers or Cllr Butt on that date or any other date.

Cllr Butt and Cllr Tatler (Lead Member for Regeneration) also stated they received  hospitality from Terrapin.  09/05/17 - Three course meal with developers from the construction industry. Estimated value between £30-40. Received from Terrapin Communications, London.

However Terrapin denied they paid for any hospitality for Cllr Butt or Cllr Tatler on that date or any other date.

Ms Norman , I am sure you appreciate when you are dealing with millions of  pounds worth of investment, it’s important that Councillors are told by officers, who they are meeting, who is paying for  the hospitality and [ensure they] are not taken advantage or misled. These meetings cannot be dismissed by the legal department as informal and therefore need no agendas or minutes or details of who attended.

Therefore I would ask you to undertake a full inquiry ASAP to get to the truth of who met who and why. Also why Cllr Butt and Cllr Tatler's entered the wrong who was paying for their lunch.

I would also ask that the inquiry is not undertake by internal audit, as I have no faith in their Independents.

Regards

John Duffy

 Debra Norman responded regarding the April 5th meeting and guideliens on meetings with developers:
The meeting was not minuted as it was informal and so the discussion did not need to be recorded for the purposes of any formal processes.

You have asked whether there is a Code of Practice in respect of meetings with developers.

The Planning Code of Practice has for a long time contained provisions which cover approaches from developers and others to planning committee members.   In January of this year a section was added to the Code (at the request of the Leader) to cover meetings with developers.  It was not in place at the time of the meeting to which you refer.  The new section states as follows:

Discussions between members and meetings with developers or their representatives

28      Provided Members comply with the practical requirements of this code and the requirements of the Members’ Code of Conduct, there is no legal rule against Members, whether of the same group or not, discussing strategic planning issues, general policy issues or even future decisions.

29      Similarly, joint working, both formal and informal, and dialogue between Members of the Planning Committee and Members of the Cabinet is recognised as a legitimate reality of local government life. Members of the Planning Committee need to ensure that when making planning decisions, they make up their own mind and on the planning merits.

30      Relevant Members of the Cabinet are entitled to meet with developers or their representatives and other relevant stakeholders as part of their role to promote Brent and the regeneration, development and other commercial opportunities available in the borough. In doing so, Members of the Cabinet must always act in the best interests of the council and ultimately in the public interest, and in accordance with the high standards of conduct expected of Members, to ensure that the integrity of the planning process is not undermined and the council is not brought into disrepute.

31      Reasonable care and judgement should be exercised in relation to such meetings, taking into account the purpose of the meeting, the nature of the issues to be discussed and the timing. In appropriate circumstances, exercising proper judgement may include ensuring a record is kept of the meeting. Cabinet Members should make sure it is understood that their participation in marketing events or commercial discussions is separate from the administrative and regulatory roles of Members of the Planning Committee.

32      Although Members of the Cabinet are entitled to express support or opposition to  development proposed in the borough, they cannot use their position as a Member improperly to confer on or secure for any person, an advantage or disadvantage.

33      As pre-application discussions or discussions about undecided applications require particular care, the following additional rules apply. An officer must make the arrangements for such meetings, attend and write notes. The meeting arrangements must include agreeing an agenda in advance

Terrapin Communications' response to John Duffy's questions:

 
1.  How did you “ help?” [HUB group secure planning consent]

Terrapin Communications assisted with the community consultation for this scheme. 

2.What meetings were held with Brent Councillors and Officers.... who attended and when ?

Terrapin Communications requested one meeting with Cllr Sam Stopp. Cllr Stopp attended a meeting on 29 May 2015.  

3.What, in broad terms,was discussed at these meetings?

The benefits of the scheme for local people and the applicants’ commitment to consultation were discussed with Cllr Stopp. This is set out in the Statement of Community Involvement submitted as part of the planning application. 

4. What hospitality did you offer to Brent Councillors / Officers. - names,dates,details please?

None. 

5. What lobbying did Terrapin do in respect of the planning committee members making the Chesterfield House decision ?

None.

6. Would you please confirm that ,at all times,Terrapin acted in line with the code of conduct laid down by your regulatory body/ bodies - please confirm which relevant bodies are applicable.

Yes.
-->

Thursday 26 April 2018

Building plans for Wembley section of the Chiltern line green corridor


HUB developers have issued their early plans for a site alongside the Chiltern railway line in Wembley. They are already developing the former Chesterfield House site on the corner of Park Lane and the High Road.

The HUB website states:

HUB has purchased two pieces of Network Rail land on the Eastern Fringe of Wembley High Road, situated behind its Chesterfield House scheme.

Development of the sites will be carried out over two phases, delivering up to 300 homes, continuing HUB’s involvement in the revitalisation of Wembley High Road.

Glenn Howells Architects has been appointed to draw up plans for the first phase, which will consist of around 200 homes across two buildings.

HUB has been working closely with the London Borough of Brent to help ensure the sustainable and coherent development of the Wembley Housing Zone, within which this newest development will reside.

As its name suggests, the Wembley Link area is the crucial crossover between new developments in the town centre and those emerging in Wembley Park.
Given the height of the 'Twin Towers' that HUB are building on the site of Chesterfield House I asked HUB about the height of their proposed Wembley Link development.

The 'Twin Towers' with Chiltern line in foreground
 HUB responded:
At this point we are at the very earliest stage of formulating the plans for Wembley Link and so don’t have more information that we are ready to share. We will be conducting widespread engagement with the local community in advance of putting in a planning application, in order to ensure that the proposed scheme pays due regard to local aspirations and wider plans for the area. We will get in touch with you as soon as there is more detailed information to share.
Residents have expressed concern about the loss of  part of the 'green corridor' that not only acts as a passage for wildlife and provides a green space in a built up area but also helps alleviate air pollution and muffles the sound of trains to the benefit of residents.

Residents fear that following Network Rail's sell-off of land to HUB that the opposite embankment and that further north could also be sold for development.




-->
-->

Friday 12 January 2018

Brent Council cancels joint venture with HUB for 'commercial reasons'

From Inside Housing LINK

-->
Brent Council has cancelled a development vehicle it had proposed to form with developer Hub for “commercial reasons”.

A report to be submitted to the council next week LINK notes that the joint venture “is not proceeding at this time” and that the council as a result is focusing on a smaller housing programme in Wembley.

Brent had been in negotiations with Hub over forming a joint venture or a development vehicle aimed at delivering 651 homes, 215 of which would be affordable.

The proposal was to transfer both council land and land owned by Hub into the vehicle. Part of the point of the vehicle was to use it to purchase Network Rail land, as homes built on land sold directly to councils don’t count towards Network Rail’s quotas.

The cabinet voted in June last year to endorse the proposal, with full details to be decided in a following meeting.

It now intends to continue with a smaller development programme on the other, non-Network Rail sites.

The council also provided seed funding of £1.6m to the project, aiming to secure £8m of grant funding from the Greater London Authority (GLA) for land acquisition.

One of the sites to be funded with GLA money, Ujima House, was purchased in June last year after the approval of the plans. 

Inside Housing has asked Brent Council about its alternative plans for funding this purchase.

Tuesday 5 April 2016

New Wembley Twin Towers pic shows true impact of the 26 storey development

Click to enlarge

This illustration from the Hub Organaniation's website shows the height and mass of the proposed replacement of the 'Twin Towers' which will replace Chesterfield House if the Planning Committee grants permission on Wednesday evening.

The comparison with other buildings in the High Road and Park Lane is telling.  The Committee may be minded to lop a few storeys off the building (developers often take that into account when they submit plans) but it is doubtful that this would be enough to reduce the impact.