The proposals for the redevelopment of Brent Cross seem to have been
going on since the turn of the century. Like many recent developments it
is just over the border from Brent and has received opposition from
Kilburn, Dollis Hill and Cricklewood residents.
This is the Barnet Green Party's submission:
This is the Barnet Green Party's submission:
Barnet Council is currently considering a massive planning
application for the Brent Cross Cricklewood redevelopment, including a huge
extension to the shopping centre and a whole new residential town.
Barnet Greens say the BXC plans are full of utter ‘greenwash’,
seeking to create a false impression about the environmental sustainability of
this multi-billion pound project.
Here are the main objections we have submitted to the
council:
1.These plans must be suspended until the development
partners pledge to make the whole site carbon neutral and set out measures they
will take to achieve that target. Sainsbury’s has already opened its first
carbon neutral store (bit.ly/1bjnRQG) and plans to open more, showing that the
technologies are available to make the Brent Cross shopping centre and the
housing developments completely carbon neutral or carbon positive.
The proposed buildings are likely to exist for several
decades at least and there is no way whatsoever that the British government
will achieve its aim of a 60 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050
if concrete giants like the Brent Cross shopping centre are still belching out
carbon dioxide from heating, lighting and air conditioning.
This scheme is an ideal opportunity to install energy conservation
measures and sustainable power facilities right from the beginning. There is
plenty of scope on the site for enough wind turbines, solar arrays and ground
source heat pumps to make the whole area carbon positive, never mind carbon
neutral.
So why aren’t they doing it? As well as benefitting the
environment, carbon neutrality would save money for the people who live in the
new town and for the businesses, as their energy bills would be much lower รข€“
they might even make money by feeding electricity back into the grid.
Can it be that the developers are more interested in
building cheaply than in saving on running costs for the future occupants of
the homes and commercial buildings?
2. At a time when neighbourhood shopping areas are under
threat all over London from post office closure, cut backs to libraries and the
marginal viability of many small shops and pubs, Barnet Council should be
making a broader study, paid for by the developers, of the likely impact of
Brent Cross Cricklewood on other shopping areas in the borough.
The scheme is not just about new housing and a so-called
town centre, the whole thing is based on “an expanded and improved shopping
centre”, with an “enhanced retail offer including new stores at Brent Cross
Shopping Centre”, to cite the developers’ own documents.
3.When the council has assessed the likely impact, it should
order the developers to pay whatever it costs to ensure the sustainability of
Hendon, Golders Green and the other nearby centres: better street layouts,
improved public transport, more greenery, more public toilets, more benches to
rest on or whatever it takes to ensure that these neighbourhood areas remain
available and attractive for local residents to use.
4. As for the transport issues surrounding the new plans, of
course there should be a direct rail link to the expanded shopping centre
rather than more car parking. The developers say they expect cars still to be
the main way that people get there but why is that? People will no doubt
continue to want to shop at Brent Cross but why should they necessarily go by
car? Do people mostly go to Oxford Street or Westfield shopping centres by car?
Of course not, because they are properly served by London Underground lines and
by buses.
The Brent Cross Cricklewood developers should be instructed
to provide attractive and adequate Tube/train/tram, bus, cycle and pedestrian
links for there to be a likelihood of far fewer than the projected extra 29,000
car journeys per day in the area.
5.The Clitterhouse Farm buildings should be saved.
Preserving them would only require minor alterations to the overall plan.
6. If waste treatment facilities are to remain part of the
plan, it should be specified that the priority should be sustainable systems
such as anaerobic digestion and/or other systems from the growing range of
alternative technologies.
7. It should be specified that no waste incineration should
take place at the Geron Way cite. A new waste plan is under consideration for
North London and it would be simple and cost-free for the designers of that
plan to omit any proposal for incineration at Geron Way. This would in any case
match the practicalities of the site, given the current objections by Bestway
and others.
Check out the plans for yourself HERE
