Eleven Brent councillors whose wards border on the A5 have written to the Chair of Barnet Planning Committee ahead of tomorrow evening's Planning Committee meeting at Barnet Town Hall in Hendon asking for a deferral of the hearing on the aggregate superhub behind 400 Edgware Road.
Dear Chair,
CALL FOR DEFERRAL
SITE: 400 Cricklewood Railway Yard, Land at Rear Of 400 Edgware Road, Road, Cricklewood, NW2 6ND
17/5383
I write on behalf of eleven Brent councillors whose wards border the A5. As your neighbours we are asking you to defer this item on the Agenda for February 8th.
As a member of the Brent planning committee I realise how you must feel about outside interest. We are also aware of the need for industrial uses in London (strategic industrial land) – but believe that these still need to be on appropriately located sites that are not in such tight knit urban areas with high concentrations of residential, and where people are living in already congested and highly polluted areas. I think most of us share your interest in building the new Thameslink station.
But despite common ground we would urge you to address several material planning considerations which are unaddressed or unresolved. We also note that documents are still being added to the website, leading to the feeling of a last-minute rush.
Should you decide to approve I have added some CONDITIONS for the applicant which would help mitigate some of the worst side-effects of traffic and pollution
1. THE PRINCIPLE OF AN AGGREGATES SITE
Delivery of the Thameslink station is not predicated on the aggregate facility – the site could be used for some OTHER railway-connected use. For instance, the Barnet Council-supported West London Orbital Railway needs a train depot.
2. THE REVISED APPLICATION DOES NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE MAYOR BECAUSE IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONSE FROM THE MAYOR HAD BEEN PUBLISHED.
It is considered that the application should not be determined until a comprehensive response to the Mayor’s Stage 1 report has been made by the applicant.
The Stage 1 report was issued by the Mayor of London on 29 November 2017. That report stated that the proposals did not comply with the London Plan and set out 4 detailed issues that required further resolution regarding Air Quality. Transport, Urban Design and Flood Risk.
Our main concern is that as the entire site would not be fully enclosed, it would not be in accordance with Policy S18 D 4 of the London Plan
This policy states that
“…where a site is likely to produce significant air quality, dust or noise impacts, it should be fully enclosed
3. IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE REFUSED ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE LOCAL PLAN AND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION (2014) AND THAT A ROBUST JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS DEPARTURE HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY THE APPLICANT.
Planning Permission for the comprehensive redevelopment of Brent Cross Cricklewood (“BXC”) was granted in October 2010. A Section 73 planning permission was subsequently granted in 2014. For the Cricklewood rail site (the application site) the comprehensive redevelopment envisaged a containerised intermodal facility predominantly contained within a new building.
The planning statement submitted in 2017 with this revised application states ‘The Proposed Development does not comply with the approved parameters in the 2014 Permission’…………… ‘The Proposed Development will replace the existing supplemental strategic freight site occupied by NLWA and will represent a departure from the form of facility that was envisaged in the Development Framework and the 2014 Permission.’
The sole justification for this departure is based on the Strategic Rail Freight Assessment attached to the application, which presents relatively little evidence. Furthermore, the study is inconclusive and stops short of stating that a containerised intermodal facility is not viable, indeed it states;
Network Rail’s market study states that this sector will experience significant growth, with 9.6% annual growth being estimated……………In the medium-term intermodal traffic may be attracted to the site, but this would require changes in external factors such as road congestion charging or lorry pollution restrictions
The study was completed in January 2015 with a final version in March 2016 and there has been significant change in the future likelihood of lorry pollution restrictions since then. In addition, the future of the Radlett site, which was cited as a key reason for reducing demand at Cricklewood, is in doubt as the Council has not yet sold the site to the operator.
4. HIGHWAYS IMPACT
Please see Brent’s two objection documents
5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Brent objects to the proposal on this ground. The application would cause harm to the amenities of the premises and neighbouring environment in terms of noise, light and air pollution. The scheme would increase pollution in an Air Quality Management Area.
Please see Brent’s two objection documents
6. LOCAL DEMOCRACY
This site is one of the first areas of the comprehensive redevelopment of the Brent Cross regeneration. The move away from the 2010 proposal for an intermodal containerised facility to a site with unregulated access for the part open storage and transfer of aggregates is regrettable. The justification for this departure is inadequate and does not align with the objectives of the regeneration of Cricklewood. It sets a precedent for the down grading of the wider regeneration proposal that will have detrimental impacts on the local community and should be resisted.
IN CONCLUSION, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT UNADRESSED MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS TO WARRANT A DEFERRAL, PARTICULARLY NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE LONDON PLAN.
Good to see at last. They aren't wrong!
ReplyDeleteA prime example of why politicians are at amongst the least trusted people.
ReplyDeleteThese 11 Brent Councillors are happy to throw stones at a council where their voice means nothing & where having a say comes at no cost to them. Yet where they do actually have power in BRENT - they do sweet nothing to challenge the obnoxious decision making within the borough.
--- slow ---- hand---- claps----.
Other than Lia, who has been a stalwart of the campaign against the Brent Cross scheme for over a decade, the Brent councillors are all very late to the party. To say the least: the day BEFORE the committee meeting?
ReplyDeleteWhy has Navin only just spoken out? Where are Dawn and BArry G in all this? Martin will remember well when fighting this unholy mess was truly cross party and when Brent actually spoke out properly.
Those councillors (not Lia, as I say) could all have been protesting this for years, as could Mo. Why haven't they? Why have there been cosy meetings between the two council leaders? Unminuted again, perhaps?
Why didn't any of the councillors who attended the Barnet presentation on the 7th November 2017 see fit to alert locals to the new planning applications for both WTF and RFF? The ones who came to the meeting at the Crown last week seemed totally surprised at the implications of all of this. There's no excuse for that: this is a fifteen year old fight, or more.
I held a public meeting about the dump/WTF in Dollis Hill in 2016 which was far better publicised and had more attendees than ANY of Barnet's consultation meetings here, or even the one last week.
One of those Dollis councillors thinks the WTF and RFF are the same thing.I despair, really I do.
Barnet stated for years that no incinerator was included in the plans. Yet suddenly, last week, the good news for Brent is that there's no incinerator! Mendacious, self serving and people for whom the word consultation has a meaning that is a total corruption of the word. It's not about TELLING people, folks, and doing everything behind closed doors.
And that last closed door comment applies to both Barnet AND Brent. Barnet plans to screw up local road layouts here. Brent fully supports it: I have public domain emails from the CPO Inquiry which prove that. No one in Dollis was consulted about that, of course, by EITHER council. And guess what, none of our councillors knew. Apparently.
The only good news is that one of the speakers against is a barrister. I hope he can use the evidence which a Dollis Hill chap has produced, at length, showing how badly flawed the traffic analyses are.
Yes I remember the early days of the Coalition and helped set up the blog now run by John. All credit to you and Lia (she may have still been a Green Party member back then) for staying on top of the twists and turns of this development. This is the earliest coverage (2009) on this blog. https://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/brent-cross-opposition-goes-london-wide.html
ReplyDeleteI think, dredging through what remains of my brain, that I first got involved properly in something like 2006 or 2007. It had been on my radar a bit before then: I've a leaflet with the Glorious Empire that was to be Brent Cross and that's 2004!
ReplyDelete