Showing posts with label open space. Show all posts
Showing posts with label open space. Show all posts

Monday 17 September 2018

Is Northwick Park open space safe? Cllr McLennan's response

This is the written reply to Gaynor Lloyd's question regarding the futire of open space in Northwick Park in the light of the One Public Estate Plans for redevelopment. She is allowed a supplementary question if she attends tonight's Council Meeeting. The meeting can be viewed on-line live HERE (if the broadcast does not go wrong again). Towards the end of the meeting there is a potentially controversial (and poorly formulated) motion reaffirming Brent Council support for the IHRA definition of anti-semitism which doesn't actually mention adopting the examples.

Question from Mrs Elizabeth Gaynor Lloyd to Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader of the Council:
In the light of (1) the change in Cabinet member responsibility since the assurance given by Councillor Tatler at the Cabinet meeting in August that the Metropolitan Open Land/ open space at Northwick Park was safe, and (2) her comments to the Harrow Times that all proposals will be made in consultation with residents which is scheduled for the coming months, and (3) the fact that a Transport Viability study was carried out almost a year ago indicating the possibility of an access road through the Ducker pool area or the golf course or the Fairway (all of which would involve a road across Metropolitan Open Land), can the Cabinet Member now vested with responsibility for this project please either confirm that these access road proposals have been abandoned or, if not, please publish a simple indication of the rough alternative routes for the access road to the Northwick Park Regeneration area proposed?
If the open space is safe, can the Cabinet member also confirm that there will be no development on the SINC Grade 1 Northwick park & the Ducker Pool B103 area and open space protected under CP18, and that these areas will be fully protected so that their value is not prejudiced by the adjoining/nearby development?
Response:
Peter Brett Associates (transport and infrastructure consultants) have been engaged by the four landowners under the One Public Estate Initiative to work alongside other consultants, to assess the transportation issues that affect the Northwick Park site and its surroundings.
Part of this study included access to the site. A number of options were considered by Peter Brett, with advantages and disadvantages of each given careful consideration. The format and details of future public consultation has yet to be agreed, but this is likely to include access options for discussion and feedback.
The February 2018 Cabinet paper, updating members of progress at Northwick Park, confirms current proposals consider a possible “land swap” of Metropolitan Open Space, subject to the necessary consents. In broad terms this would involve swapping the area currently occupied by the sports pavilion and car park, with an equivalent area immediately to the south of Northwick Park station.
(Para 4.7 Appendix One of February 2018 cabinet report):
“.... include the smaller MOL swap involving the existing pavilion area and the area immediately to the south of Northwick Park station.”
This too would form part of any public consultation.
Mrs Lloyd may be reassured by para 3.2 and 3.3 of the same report, which stated:
3.2 All of the Council freehold ownership, and the Ducker Pond, is designated as Metropolitan Open Land (‘MOL’). This effectively affords it the same planning status as Green Belt, where development for uses other than those deemed appropriate for the Green Belt will be refused unless there are exceptional circumstances. The same land area is also designated as local open space.
3.3 The Ducker Pond area is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Grade I, being of high biodiversity value. This designation extends to part of the Playgolf site, particularly the hedged area at the boundary. Part of the site also forms a section of the Capital Ring public walkway. Policy seeks to preserve and enhance the habitats in these areas.

Full Council – 17 September 2018 Motion selected by the Conservative Group

page1image3698512
With anti-Semitic hate crimes rising across London and the United Kingdom – this Council expresses that it is appalled at the increase in anti-Semitic Hate Crimes, and reiterates its support for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism.

This Council is shocked at the recent spate of anti-Semitic posters that have been going up across TfL run bus stops, and it is further shocked at the recent comments by those who have described the recent condemnation of anti-Semitic language and behaviour as a ‘Zionist’ movement – using anti-Semitic language and imagery in campaigning and online, further enflaming anti-Semitic hatred across the Borough.

This Council will immediately adopt, into its councillor and public workers code of conduct, the full and complete IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, and implement policies to ensure that hate crimes against Jewish people are acted upon quickly and decisively.

Councillor Michael Maurice Kenton Ward
-->

Wednesday 31 January 2018

Harrow School defeated for second time by protectors of open green space

Illustration: Harrow Hill Trust
Following their defeat over proposed public footpath changes LINK Harrow School yesterday received a second blow when London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has rejected plans for a new school sports facility which would have been built on protected green space.

Sadiq Khan made it clear he supports the expansion of Harrow School’s sporting facilities and would welcome the greater access offered to the local community – but that it should not come at the expense of protecting open, green spaces, particularly when alternative options are available.

The plans included construction of a 7,300 sq m sports block – of which 4,600 sq m would have built on designated Metropolitan Open Land, which is largely undeveloped.

The Mayor's new London Plan, which was published for consultation at the end of last year, affords the same protection to Metropolitan Open Land as that given to the Green Belt.

In rejecting the application, the Mayor invited Harrow School to work with his planning team to develop a new application for a sports hall on the footprint of its existing site.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said:
Since becoming Mayor I have been clear that protecting London’s precious green spaces is one of my top priorities.

I absolutely support the school’s ambitions to expand its sporting facilities, and their plans to open them up to the local community for the benefit of people of all ages are to be commended.

However, I’m clear that expansion of this kind must not encroach on open green space, which is one of the capital’s most important and cherished assets. Nor, in this case, is it necessary to do so, as other options are available.

I hope the school will rethink its plans and come up with a scheme which allows them to provide a new facility for their pupils and the community without harming the area’s precious green spaces.

Friday 19 June 2015

Welsh Harp Centre tender advertised with July 7th deadline

This advertisement appeared in the Kilburn Times yesterday. Unlike an earlier public notice it stipulates the continuation of environmental education work at the site, which is reassuring.

It is likely that there will be a bid by a school/schools in Brent, perhaps in partnership with a charity or voluntary organisation.

However success may depend on the balanced judgement the Council makes between the criteria for maximising monetary value and recognising the social value of a bid.

NB The deadline is July 7th 2015, not 2915 as the advertisement states!

Monday 27 January 2014

Chaotic scenes at Gladstone Free School 'consultation'

There were chaotic scenes at the Crown Moran Hotel in Cricklewood tonight when locals clashed with the Gladstone Free School organisers over plans to build on Metropolitan Open Space next to Gladstone Park.

It was clearly a  mistake to combine a meeting for parents about the proposed curriculum and school uniform with a statutory consultation about whether the school should go ahead and sign a funding agreement with the DfE.

Ray Watson, who has worked for the DfE on academy conversion and the setting up of free schools,  and spoke for the governing body on legal issues, found himself in trouble when challenged about whether the consultation was 'clear, concise and transparent' s required, about the length of the consultation, if the free school would deprive local authority schools of funding, and whether a building would be ready in time for the 2014 intake.  He denied that Brent Council had said 'no' to the use of the site for a free school 'for the simple reason that no planning application has been made' but reliable sources have told me that the Council has made it clear in talks with the free school provider that they were opposed to the use of the Gladstone Park site.

A governor fared no better when challenged whether she was 'local' and her reply, 'Yes, I come from Barnet'was greeted with gales of laughter.

A speaker from the floor said he had contacted Crest Academy and Whitefield schools and had found that there were 160 vacancies each for both girls and boys at nearby Crest Academy and for 50 boys and 60 girls over the border in Barnet. He claimed that the argument that the new school was needed because of a shortage of school places was therefore wrong.

Paul Phillips, the principal designate of the free school, who looked increasingly dejected as the meeting went on,  gave an account of the school's small school structure, (120 children in each year group - 3 classes); its commitment to a broad, engaging and 'personalised'  curriculum which went beyond examination preparation, and its provision of a model more akin to what existed in primary schools and that would enable a smooth transition.   He had worked in  the state sector for 27 years and in 11 schools.

The account was listened to carefully but afterwards people felt much of it would be said by any good local authority school.

The issue of the site kept coming back and it was clear that there was real anger from local residents about the threat to their green space and at times this became an argument between prospective parents and residents with accusation that a middle class elite were trying to set up a school for themselves on the community's land.

Asked if the meeting had been deliberately arranged in a pub to discourage Muslim parents the free school oirganisers said 'no' and offered to hold another meeting in non-licensed premises.

Challenged on what would happen to children who were due to start in Year 7 at the Gladstone Free School in September, just 8 months away, if not site had been acquired and there was not building to move into,.  Ray Watson said there had been a similar scenario in Bradford when a free school opening was deferred. He would hope that the parent would have also applied for places elsewhere but that Gladstone would work with the local authority to find the children places. Which would suggest that they may end up in Crest after all.

Eventually the meeting split into two halves with the 32 parent or so, going off to another room to discuss uniforms, curriculum etc while the remainder, mainly residents, stayed being and had an an ad hoc meeting to organise their opposition.

My own position is that I am opposed to free schools on grounds of principle: they fragment the local authority schools system, they are not democratically accountable to local residents, they take up funds that could be used to support local authority schools, they often employ unqualified teachers and in the case of Stem 6 in Islington undermine basic teacher conditions of service. I am also against the loss of green open space in a borough that needs to protect every inch it has.






Sunday 10 March 2013

Brent Planning: Incompetence or Corporate Cover-up?

This Guest Blog by local historian Philip Grant is longer than usual but raises some fundamental issues regarding planning that merit full exposition.

If you are interested in how Brent’s local government works in practice, I invite you to consider this case study. Although I have asked the question, I will leave you to decide the answer. If you wish to leave a comment, please do. You can comment anonymously, but it would help if you could give some (genuine) information, so that other readers know whether you are a “Willesden Green resident”, a “public relations consultant from Winchester”, a “Brent Council insider” or an “unconnected outsider”.

At a special Planning Committee meeting on 21 February, consent was granted to an application in the name of Galliford Try Plc to redevelop the Willesden Green Library Centre. On 22 February I lodged a complaint with Brent's Chief Executive that there had been a breach of Brent's Planning Code of Practice at that meeting. This breach was the failure to make available for inspection at the meeting the public register in which the Planning Officers reporting on the application should have declared a "prejudicial interest", so that the decision was taken without the committee being aware that the report, and the recommendation which they accepted, might not be impartial. I made it clear that my complaint was about the actions of Council Officers; I was not criticising the Planning Committee members in any way. Councillor Ketan Sheth had chaired the meeting in an exemplary way, treating all parties fairly and with great courtesy.

Brent’s Planning Code of Practice is part of the Council’s Constitution. It ‘seeks to ensure that officers and members consider and decide planning matters in an open and transparent manner’, and sets out rules which are intended to make sure that planning decisions are not only made fairly, but that they are seen to be made fairly. Item (or rule) 12 says:

12. If any officer of the Council who is involved in making recommendations or decisions on planning applications has had any involvement with an applicant, agent or interested party, whether or not in connection with the particular application being determined, which could possibly lead an observer with knowledge of all the relevant facts to suppose that there might be any possibility that the involvement could affect the officer's judgement in any way, then that officer shall declare a prejudicial interest in the public register held by the Director of Regeneration and Major Projects and take no part in the decision making process. The declaration of such interest shall also be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. This public register to be available for inspection at Planning Committee meetings.

The complaint was not some "trumped-up" delaying tactic or "sour grapes" on my part. As Brent was in reality a “joint applicant” with Galliford Try in the plans for the new Cultural Centre, I had first raised the question of the need for any of Brent's Planning Officers reporting on this proposed development to declare a "prejudicial interest" in the public register, with Brent's Chief Planning Officer, Chris Walker, as far back as May and June 2012, in respect of the initial application which was later withdrawn. I had reminded him and his Area Team Manager, Andy Bates, of this a few days before 21 February.

I had also alerted the Democratic Services Officer responsible for the Planning Committee meetings of the importance of this matter, and that I would wish to inspect the public register a few minutes before the meeting. At around 6.45pm on 21 February I had approached this Officer in the Committee Room, introduced myself, and asked to see the public register. He gave me conflicting reasons as to why the register was not available to view, one of which seemed to be that no such register existed, another that it was only available to view online and a third that it was kept at Brent House, and that I would have to make arrangements to view it there. I asked him to inform the Chairman, at the start of the meeting, about the absence of the public register, and that it was important for the business of the meeting that it should be available. He did not do so.

When it was my turn to speak, as an objector, I took the opportunity to say that the public register of Officers' prejudicial interests should have been available to inspect at the meeting, and that Mr Walker and Mr Bates should have signed it. Later in the meeting Councillor Mary Daly asked the Chief Planning Officer for his comments on the points I had raised. Mr Walker did not refer to the public register or to "prejudicial interest", but did say that his department took care to separate staff dealing with planning applications from those who were giving advice to colleagues in Regeneration and Major Projects on proposed schemes. He also said that no one could tell him what to recommend in terms of planning matters. The committee’s Legal Advisor stayed silent on the Code of Practice points throughout the meeting.

My complaint was passed to Fiona Ledden, Brent’s Chief Legal Officer and the Council’s Monitoring Officer for ensuring that all its planning procedures are carried out properly, to look into and reply to me. If he considers it appropriate, Martin will have added links below to pdf versions of her letter to me 1 March and my reply of 2 March to her, setting out our respective views. Please feel free to read them if you are interested, but I will summarise the main points as follows:

It is Fiona Ledden’s view that:

1.   Chris Walker and Andy Bates do not have an “involvement” with Andy Donald, Director of Regeneration and Major Projects. They just happen to work for the same Council department.
2.   Because of the Separation of Powers between the Planning and Regeneration sides of the department, there is no real possibility that the report to Planning Committee could be anything other than totally impartial.
3.     She agrees 'that as a matter of good practice the Public Register should have been available at the Committee meeting for inspection', but does not consider that this had any effect on the Committee's decision.

It is my view that:

1.    Messrs Walker and Bates should have declared a "prejudicial interest" in the register (it is possible that they did, but without seeing it I can't be sure) because their "involvement" with Andy Donald, and his with the WGCC project, might possibly have affected how they wrote the report and recommendation.
2.      Applying the proper tests for "prejudicial interest" it is clear from the actual report that there were parts which were not impartial. This, coupled with their "involvement" (although they may not have taken part in discussions with the Regeneration Officers, they have been working together in Brent House for the past year with colleagues who were promoting the scheme and expecting it to be approved, and their boss was the man responsible for "delivering" this project for Brent Council), means that item 12 of the Code of Practice must apply.
3.      The public register of prejudicial interests is supposed to be available to inspect at each meeting of the Planning Committee, but it was not and members were not made aware of the key information it should have contained. Reports to committee have to be impartial, and the committee are generally expected to accept the Planning Officer’s recommendation. Had they been aware that this report might not be impartial, they would have considered it in a more critical way. As a result, their decision cannot be seen to have been made fairly, which is the whole point of Brent’s Planning Code of Practice.

Another important part of Brent’s Planning Code of Practice is item (or rule) 1, which puts in formal terms another of its stated purposes: ‘The provisions of this code are designed to ensure that planning decisions are taken on proper planning grounds’. Item 1 says:
1. Members of the Planning Committee shall determine applications in accordance with the Unitary Development Plan [now the adopted Local Development Framework] unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
As the committee need to know whether applications meet Brent’s adopted planning policies, and if they do not whether there are “material considerations” which mean that an application should still be accepted, you would expect the Planning Officer’s report to contain this sort of information. The report on the Willesden Green Library Centre application was noticeably lacking in such details. I will illustrate this using the issue of open space as an example.

The Officer’s report to the 21 February meeting on application 12/2924 included a list of 22 issues on which objections had been raised, including these on open space
OBJECTIONS
The principal issues that have been raised are set out below:

2. The new building would lose the sense of openness towards the front of the site that the existing building provides for.
3. The loss of the open space to the front of the existing library is unacceptable in itself. It is well used by the community. The proposed open space is hidden around the back of the new library building and will not be welcoming.
I had actually sent a detailed letter about the open space issues to Planning Case Officer, Andy Bates, on 13 January. I summarised in an online comment, which can be seen on the Brent Planning “view comments” webpage for application 12/2924. Here are some extracts:

14/01/2013: BRENT'S PLANNING POLICY SAYS OPEN SPACE SHOULD BE PRESERVED - The development proposals contained in this application, to build the new Cultural Centre over that open space, go against policy CP18 in the adopted Core Strategy of Brent’s Local Development Framework and against policies set out in Chapter 7 ("London's Living Places and Spaces") of the 2011 London Plan. / This local open space was created as part of the Willesden Library expansion scheme in the 1980's, as one of the policy commitments given by Brent Council in the Willesden Green District Plan, adopted in December 1980. / The District Plan identified the site which Brent Council was then acquiring for its new Library Centre as the ideal location for a variety of new community facilities. The plans which were then drawn up for those facilities, in full consultation with the local community, included this 'much-needed open space' on the Willesden High Road side of the Library Centre. / Part 5 of Brent's 2010 planning Core Strategy shows that the area around the High Road in Willesden Green is still an area of open space deficiency, and says that local open space in such areas is 'crucially important to the borough' and in 'need of protection'. That is why core policy CP18 says 'Open space ... of local value will be protected from inappropriate development and will be preserved for the benefit, enjoyment, health and well being of Brent's residents, visitors and wildlife.' / It is clear that the proposals in the planning application to build over the open space in front of Willesden Green Library Centre would be 'development harmful to its use and purpose as open space', so that the open space should be preserved. 

The summary of objections did not reflect the planning policy points I had made, so what did the main body of the Officer’s report say on these matters? These are the main extracts:

FACILITIES OUTSIDE THE BUILDING

The development proposes to change the current open areas around the building – principally by providing the new ‘Brondesbury Walk’ and improvements to the public realm in Grange Road. / The range of current outside areas includes the space to the rear of the library, the small children’s play area adjacent to it and the space to the front of the library building./

The application scheme creates a new street entitled ‘Brondesbury Walk’ to the rear of the new library which provides a single space larger than any of the single areas that exist at present. However, the space would be some 65 square metres smaller than a combination of the existing space to the rear and the open area to the front (total 565 square metres rather than 625 square metres). This small reduction is acknowledged. However, in qualitative terms it is considered that the proposed spaces will, at least, be equal to the existing offer.... / The intention is that the space will be used as a new local square for use by existing and future communities. It will be predominantly hard paved, but will include mature trees to provide visual interest and shade. The level change between the WGCC and the residential Block A will allow for a double terrace of seating to be provided for visitors of the Centre to use. /

It is proposed that the new WGCC building will sit in a sensitively interpreted civic space which will provide a high quality setting for the building. The spaces will not only provide formal civic amenity, but interesting play facilities making the public space around the centre as much of a destination as the building. The quality of landscape interpretation, including the use of level changes, has allowed a sensitive designed progression from the civic public spaces adjacent to the Cultural Centre to the semi-private and private areas of the residential development behind.

There was still no mention of Brent’s core policy CP18, an admission that there would be a smaller area of open space of at least equal quality ‘to the existing offer’, but a claim that it would be a better ‘civic space’, which presumably is regarded as a “material consideration”. If the report had stated that the application’s proposals on open space went against Brent’s planning policies, but had then set out a clear argument as to why the benefits of the new scheme were considered to outweigh those policy considerations, then it might have been considered even-handed. However, I can see no valid reason why core policy CP18 was not brought to the attention of Planning Committee. 

The report also failed to mention that the main function of the top level of “Brondesbury Walk” is to provide pedestrian access and natural light to one side of residential Block A (which will be built right up to the edge of the land which Brent is giving to Galliford Try in return for the developer constructing the new Cultural Centre). Another factor making the proposed new open space even smaller is that its western (Grange Road) end must be kept clear, to allow lorries servicing the Cultural Centre to reverse into “Brondesbury Walk” in order to turn round.

The open space issues are just one of a number of areas where clearly identified failures to comply with Brent’s planning policies, which were brought to the attention of Planning Officers, have not been properly reported to Planning Committee in this case. The Officers' report can hardly be claimed to be impartial in these circumstances. Add to this the strong case as to why those Officers should have declared a “prejudicial interest” in the public register, and the failure to have that register available for inspection at the Planning Committee meeting, and I hope you can see why I felt it necessary to complain about the apparent breach of Brent’s Planning Code of Practice. 

Was what has happened the result of incompetence, a corporate cover-up or was there nothing wrong at all with the actions of Council Officers? Fiona Ledden is a trained lawyer, and I am not, so it is possible that I may have misunderstood how the Code is meant to work in practice. What do you think?








Saturday 9 March 2013

Cllr Powney courts controversy again

Parachute Games in what could become Willesden Town Square
Cllr James Powney has once again courted controversy with a comment on his blog. This time he turned his attention to the application to register the open space outside Willesden Green Library as a Town Square. A public inquiry by an independent inspector concluded some time ago and the inspector's report has taken longer than expected to be published. Some have concluded that it has not been such an open and shut case as Brent Council and the developer Galliford Try, who both opposed the application, expected.

Last  Sunday Cllr Powney wrote on his blog:
I am told that the report on a possible Town Green in front of Willesden Green Library Centre will take longer than anticipated.  There has always been a suspicion that the entire request is merely vexatious, and an attempt to delay the rebuild of Willesden Green Library Centre.  Certainly, the accounts I have heard of some of the testimony given at the enquiry would cohere with that notion.
To his credit Cllr Powney has published a number of trenchant comments on his 'merely vexatious' claim and they make lively reading. They can be read HERE

Residents were concerned that there was a problem of 'predetermination' around the planning application itself because Brent Council had instigated the redevelopment proposal and formed a partnership with Galliford Try/Linden Homes but was also the planning authority.  Now the question arises again as Brent Executive member Cllr Powney appears to be predetermining the outcome of the independent inquiry by suggesting that the application was vexatious. Brent Council makes the decision on whether to accept the inspector's report.


Saturday 7 July 2012

New Wembley Plan sets out future development

The new Wembley Action Plan will be discussed at the Brent Executive on Monday July 16th. The document is large and highly detailed and the key policies have been modified in the light of consultation to which Brent Green Party contributed.

The plan covers new housing, education and health facilities as well as open space. The definition of 'affordable housing' as being 80% of market rents, still puts such housing out of reach of many local people on low incomes, particularly in the light of the housing benefit cap.  The plans include a new primary school and a new community swimming pool in the area and there is a cap of 20% of total housing on the provision of student accommodation.

There is a welcome section on climate change and  open spaces. A possible pedestrian bridge over the railway line that would link Chalkhill with the Wembley regeneration area is an interesting proposal.

The full report is available on the Brent Council website but the preferred options are summarised below:


The following are a summary of the key policies in the Plan by topic. There are also a
number of major site proposals which provide further detailed guidance for developers on individual sites.

Urban Design & Placemaking

Character & Urban Form - Development should seek to reinforce and emphasise the distinctive character of each locality
A Legible Wembley - The council will continue to focus of the three stations as the principle gateways into the Wembley area, whilst the enhancement of nodes around key junctions will be sought
Public Art - Contributions towards public art will be sought from development within the area, particularly at key gateways or where new open spaces are proposed
Tall Buildings - will be acceptable only in a limited number of locations within the Wembley area. These are shown in the Plan. A number of views to the stadium will be protected
Olympic Way - Development must be carefully designed and scaled to respect the predominance of Wembley Stadium and its arch.

Business, Industry & Waste

Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL) - de-designation of relatively small areas of land including on South Way (temp. Stadium car park) and the Euro Car
Wembley Stadium Business Park - area reduced in size with waste management limited to east of the area
Offices - Purpose-built offices promoted in area close to Wembley Park station Town Centres, Shopping, Leisure And Tourism
Town centre boundary - defined for area extending from Forty Lane to Ealing Road
Sequential approach to development - is emphasised, with large foodstore directed to High Road location, preferably Brent House site.
Large-scale leisure/tourism/cultural development – is appropriate east of Olympic Way
Hot-food takeaways - No more within 400m of a school entrance and no morethan 7% in any stretch of primary or secondary frontage (currently 7% in Wembley as a whole).
Vacant sites or buildings - promoted for occupation by temporary, creative uses.

Transport

Improved access - for public transport, pedestrians and cyclists, particularly along the Wembley Hill Road / Forty Lane corridor.
Improved highway access - for car travel from the North Circular by improving the Stadium Access Corridor (via Great Central Way / South Way) and the Western Access Corridor (via Fifth Way / Fulton Way). Land take required for a number of improvements.
Buses - incrementally provide improved penetration of the masterplan area by buses as development is built out.
Car parking - encourage car parking in locations on the edge of the town centre. Parking standards to be tighter to facilitate level of development proposed.
Through traffic - package of measures to discourage through traffic on Wembley High Road.
Pedestrian access – to be improved between the Masterplan area and High Road.
Coach parking for stadium- criteria based approach for locations including within 960 metres. 

Housing

Affordable Rent at up to 80% of market rent, including service charges and determined with regard to local incomes and house prices.
Family Housing – at least 25% of new homes in Wembley should be family sized.
Supported Housing – Existing supported housing protected. Extra care housing sought on sites where development is primarily residential, where residential amenity is good and where it is near to open space.
Private Rented Sector – high quality, purpose-built, private sector rented accommodation will be encouraged through a flexible approach to the proportion of affordable housing and unit size mix.
Student Accommodation – will form part of major mixed use development but will be capped at 20% of the projected increase in population 

Social Infrastructure

Primary Schools - Provision of school land on the Wembley Industrial Park site
- identified in Site Specific Allocation. A further (minimum) two form entry school in the vicinity of the town centre.
Secondary Schools - Contributions towards secondary provision will also be sought through CIL
GP/Dentists provision - where other local capacity (e.g. Chalkhill Health Centre) is used up-long term provision as population grows
Community Halls - provision as provided in the NW Lands (i.e. smaller areas at no rent) and use this as a basis of achieving space across the masterplan area
Creative workspace - Cross reference to the created in NW Lands application & intention to provide more low cost creative workspace in mixed used developments across the area
Sports and play infrastructure - Cross reference to that may sit in open space and housing chapters
Temporary uses - reference to provision of meanwhile and temporary uses that will provide opportunities for social interaction

Climate Change

Decentralised Energy - major developments will be expected to connect to, or contribute to, the Decentralised Energy System where feasible. Developments completed before the energy centre should be designed for future connection
Energy from Waste - major energy from waste facilities will be allowed only east of Fourth Way. Smaller scale proposals to recover energy from waste generated locally will be supported subject to impact assessments
Greening Wembley - development proposals must incorporate urban greening including green roofs, green walls, trees and soft landscaping
Flooding – proposals within Flood Risk Zones must not reduce floodplain storage or increase maximum flood levels. All major proposals will be required to apply Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

Open Space, Sports and Wildlife

Open Space Provision - require a new park of 1.2ha adjacent to Engineers Way, orientated E-W and 3 parks of 0.4 ha. Support enhancement and improvements e.g. a new pedestrian bridge link across Met. /Jubilee lines to Chalkhill Open Space
Food Growing - require major new residential development to provide space for food growing and encourage the use of vacant spaces for temporary food growing
Sports Facilities - use development contributions to improve the provision of sports facilities and the council will make new or upgraded sports facilities available for community use out of school hours
River Brent and Wealdstone Brook – adj. development sites to undertake opportunities to provide amenity space, biodiversity improvements and semi-naturalisation of Wealdstone Brook

Sunday 10 June 2012

Peace rally in threatened Willesden Green public space

The Brent chapter of London Citizens rallied in the open space outside Willesden Green Library on Saturday as they launched a 100 Days of Peace. The 100 days refers to the 50 days of peace that were observed between warring groups before and after the ancient Olympic Games that allowed athletes to get to the games safely.

Following last year's riots and recent violent crimes London Citizens aim to create 'CitySafe Zones' where the community works together to provide safe havens. There were speakers from many local schools and organisations, including a Year 2 pupil and Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council expressed his support for the scheme. Former MP Dawn Butler was also in attendance.

Willesden Green is one such safe space so it was ironical that the rally  was being held somewhere that will disappear if the proposed redevelopment. of Willesden Green Library Centre goes ahead. Instead of being on the high road and open to view, the replacement open space will be behind the new building and over-shadowed by the new flats. It will be in shadow most of the day and shoppers will not be able to see it from the High Road. Many local people think that it will be far from safe.

An allocation has made been to register the open space as a Town Green or Town Square. It is not yet clear what impact, if any, the application will make on the redevelopment plans.

The rally from Wembley High Road
Muhammed Butt addresses the crowd 

The crowd represented Brent's diversity
Can we afford to lose this public space?