The Wesh Harp Joint Consultative Committee is usually a fairly mild affair but it livened up considerably last night when a resident suggested that Barnet Council were happy to let volunteers do the work needed to maintain the Welsh Harp but brushed aside any criticism. The Brent Council chair of the Committee, Cllr Krupa Sheth, had refused to allow 'one issue' to dominate proceedings.
The bridge access is just visible on Barratt's publicity
The resident wanted to discuss the fact that current West Hendon residents had no knowledge of the proposed bridge across the Welsh Harp at the Silk Stream first suggested in the original planning application in 2013 LINK. Having found out about it they were furious, particularly as they would be expected to pay for its maintenance, in addition to that for the Cool Oak Pedestrian Bridge, through their service charges.
The planning approval had involved a different group of residents and needed to be revisited. The bridge had originally been proposed when a primary school was to be built on the West Hendon site and would have given the pupils a short cut to extensive proposed sports facilities on the opposite bank.
The primary school proposal had been dropped and the facilities drastically reduced so it was claimed the bridge was not necessary and a 'bridge to nowhere'.
Ben Watt of the Cool Oak group. had long opposed the bridge because of its detrimental impact on the SSSI and disturbance to wild life, as well as doubts over its construction given the silty nature of the site. He was also concerned with the safety of anyone crossing the bridge. He sets out his case under Any Other Business in the above clip.
Barnet councillors were hard put to justify the bridge, claiming it had been secured under a Section 106 agreement with Barratt, and Barratts wanted to build it. It was a private bridge for public use. There were counter claims that Barratts had told residents that Barnet Council wanted to build it, although Labour who form the current administration, opposed it in 2013. Has it become a Labour vanity project?
Proposals for 16+ provision at the previous Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre remained vague with any continuation of the primary environmental provision apparently not part of plans. I will ask for more information regarding the appointment mentioned in the last paragraph.
Welsh Harp Centre:
The Centre is expected to provide opportunities for young people aged 16+ with SEND during curriculum time, with provision for community use at other times. The provision for young people with SEND will focus on developing vocational skills, such as skills in horticulture, as well as offering opportunities to better prepare Brent’s young people with SEND for adulthood.
In respect of the building programme the stage 2 design has now been approved. The Council’s project team has a pre-planning application meeting scheduled in November with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to outline the current design and obtain feedback. The LPA feedback and consultation with a wide range of stakeholders will influence the next stage of spatial design.
In terms of provision, Brent Council’s, Children, Young People & Community Development team are currently recruiting a staff member who will have oversight of the Welsh Harp Centre including curriculum development and liaison with community groups. It is expected that the post holder will start in January 2026.
13 comments:
The Brent end of the Welsh Harp didn’t have money to maintain the Environmental Education Centre, which would have covered some of the remit of the Barnet proposals. A great facility, now defunded. On the other side, the Barnet end of the Welsh Harp wish to support a privately funded bridge, and a facility that provides SEND support, horticulture and vocational skills. Could the two councils work together here to use the empty buildings that are already there, potentially securing support from Barratt, and benefit everyone?
In response to Sadat,... if only it was that simple and cost effective.......let'see if they can put their heads together and do something that will benefit all concerned, especially the young people.
Why build the bridge if its not needed??? Spend the money on ways to improve wildlife habitat.
The London Mega City of car-free housing tower hundreds, needs such walk, push, peddle bridges to ease congestion growth and create direct movement routes. Such bridges count as public transport investments by developers.
Brent could learn and ask for more such public transport investments of re-developers in Brent. If you don't ask, you definitely don't get- Vistry prefers to off-set green spending to Chiswick House walled kitchen garden, rather than rejuvenate South Kilburn's 2ha 60 year old 100 veteran tree park which is directly opposite its new car-free towering Kilburn Wall.
Bridge sounds good. Unfortunately the north circular side is a mess and would benefit from fixing up
Barnet is the only one of the Great West City's six boroughs (from Brent Cross to Hounslow, from Westfield to Wembley) so far not to deny that a giant scale new London tenanted mega city is happening tower-by-tower, bit-by-bit. Maybe this influences their mega city movement and nature access planning for car-free housing towers Barnet? Tower Lords vote is for this mega city to be opaque (no transparent plan), warehousing, precarious and colonial.
National Labour needs to make public the Great West City Plan of which Welsh Harp is a key green lung. Challenge developers to make good human wellbeing and health focused growth real.
There should be life and human care beyond its being conservation areas only rationed and limited.
A north circular direct movement bridge across. It can be done/ it cant be done.
Build car-free mega city movement bridges off-site and assemble roadside adjacent, one day closure to put the foot/cycle bridge across. Reduced congestion and a strong plan B for car-free tower sky house dwellers during public transport strikes. No political representation, no interest is the reason for no- mega city plan happening.
This unnecessary bridge should not be built on unstable silt beds damaging a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
A SSSI is a legally protected area of land in the UK with important wildlife, geology, or natural features, designated to protect the country's most valuable natural heritage, including rare or endangered species, unique habitats, and geological formations.
It’s a reservoir, a man made entity designed to hold water. The way to support engagement with it as a sssi is to make it more accessible. A bridge won’t damage anything.
Blue green lung.
Climate denial and access to nature denial more typical of population growth only exclusion zones. Well played Barnet.
As a reservior it might be a man made entity but it was built when the surrounding areas weren't impacted by high rise and high density developments - as these developments encroach on every single space it has become an ever more important vital habitat for nature and wildlife! The green lungs of the area.
Would be interesting to see Kier Starmer standing at Westfield and looking towards Wembley and then talking the UK public through what the Great Western car-free, garden-free, global mega city of tower hundreds will be like for its precarious tenants to live in.
If he then looked towards Central London Kier would see Grenfell Tower being demolished behind its giant shroud. 1/3rd is gone already. Where is Grenfell being removed to, hopefully it is to a respectful memorial site somewhere reasonably local?
Post a Comment