We strongly object to this
planning application. Many of our reasons have already been well
expressed by our fellow residents’ associations, our individual members
and many others; we won’t repeat them all.
We note that much of
the application is speculative, conditional and non-committal (“should
be provided”, “should be designed”). It avoids saying that things will
be done in accordance with the application, and the only assurances are
that the development will be a fine thing for Cricklewood. These
assurances are not well-founded and only bolster the impression that
this developer is not committed to the project.
The application
seeks to justify excessive height, massing and density by claiming the
proposal solves trivial or non-existent problems.
Repeatedly, the
25-storey tower is described as an aid to wayfinding and legibility. No
evidence is presented that people are having trouble finding their way.
Central Cricklewood is highly legible with one main road, the A5, and
one significant crossroads leading to Cricklewood Station on one side
and Willesden Green Station on the other. Finding the way from
Cricklewood Station is helped by Legible London signage and if finding
the station were a problem, more signs could be provided. They would be
cheaper and far less obtrusive than a 25-storey tower block. All this
self-serving justification does is emphasise how starkly visible the
development would be from all around.
The application makes much of providing a public pedestrian and cycling route between Depot Approach and Cricklewood Lane.
– It would not serve pedestrians coming to or from the Railway Terraces via Kara Way; that route is already blocked at Kara Way.
–
It would not serve cyclists travelling between Cricklewood Lane and the
A5 junction with Depot Approach. The concept fails to meet Transport
for London’s London Cycling Design Standards. Diverting off straight
roads to cycle up and down sharp inclines and in amongst pedestrians
fails to satisfy the core outcomes of directness, comfort, coherence and
adaptability to increasing volumes, and breaches the principle that
bicycles must be treated as vehicles, not pedestrians.
– It would bring pedestrians and cyclists into conflict with each other.
– The traffic and transport sections of the application make no attempt to evaluate likely use or benefits of this feature.
A
pedestrian route would have to be provided so residents of the
development can move around it, and it cannot reasonably be gated. It’s
not a community benefit and declaring it a cycle route only benefits the
applicant.
The application criticises Cricklewood for not having a
library or a town hall, but does not say it will rectify this or offer
any other community facilities, with the exception of public access to
the spaces between building plots. It calls one of these spaces a Town
Square, though it would sit apart from the roads, and shows it with a
brightly lit cinema or advertising screen shining into the windows of
the residents across Cricklewood Lane (no assessment of this impact is
offered).
The developers have no clear ideas on how the
ground-floor commercial spaces would be used, and no strategy for
encouraging appropriate uses, let alone allocation to develop the
community. There is no policy to ensure they are let and do not remain
empty as at nearby Fellows Square.
No social housing is offered
and there is only an “aspiration” to provide the minimum of 35%
“affordable” units. This fails to meet London’s needs and it fails to
meet the needs of our community. The application should be rejected for
this reason alone.
The statement of community engagement makes it
clear that the developers have not consulted Cricklewood residents so
that our views will be taken into account. The statement ends with a
brief series of rejections of every criticism, and the plans have not
been modified to take any concern into account. That was not engagement.
The
open space in the development is not commensurate with the increase in
population, which would increase demand on existing and prospective open
spaces. The application avoids quantifying this.
The impact of
the development on its surroundings would be significant and adverse, as
the report from Montague Evans states repeatedly. That report hopes
that good design might somewhat mitigate the significant adverse
impacts. This does not address the fundamental problem.
Whether
15-storey or 25-storey, these blocks are not appropriate for this area.
The tallest buildings around or in process of gaining approval are
9-storey, and they are the exception. Most of the entire neighbourhood
is 2-storey or 3-storey. Not even the blocks of Brent Cross South, at
some distance, are so high. These blocks would dominate the area. They
would be overbearing, far too high and excessively massive. They would
be detrimental to the neighbourhood and incoherent with it. Barnet,
Brent and Camden still have no joint plan or co-ordinated approach to
Cricklewood’s development, but it is clear that there is no prospect of
similar development in the Brent and Camden parts of central
Cricklewood.
The application states “There will be significant
changes to some local views as a result of the regeneration of the Site.
These changes and the visibility of the tallest elements on the Site
signal the regeneration of the Site and the positive changes brought to
the neighbourhood in returning the Site back into active use.” The
current residents of Cricklewood and anyone that comes to live on the
site would have to live with the permanent changes this development
would make and their direct and lasting impact on our lives. These tower
blocks cannot be justified by being called a “signal”.
