Eleven Brent councillors call for deferral of Barnet decision on aggregate superhub

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.

Ark Pioneer school gets planning permission despite massive local opposition

Artist's impression of the new school (Barnet Times)

Wednesday's Barnet Planning Committee approved the building of a new school on the former Underhill Stadium despite 500 objections to building on the undeveloped Green Belt of the former football ground and opposition from Andrew Dismore, Labour London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden. Around 150 local people attended the Planning Committee.

All six members of the Committee, including the chair, voted for the proposal. Observers commented on the low level of questioning by councillors and their reluctance to engage with objectors. At least two were said to be disparaging towards the improving nearby Totteridge Academy which may well be detrimentally affected by the new school.

Objectors had argued that Totteridge could have been expanded on its current footprint for any increase in secondary pupil numbers as an alternative to building a new school. They felt, in any case, that misleading figures had been given on future need. New housing was mainly one and two bedroomed rather than family three bedroomed and that any bulge in the eight wards surrounding the Green Belt site would peak by 2025 at the latest.  Local children who attend faith primary schools tend to move on to faith secondary schools and a significant number go to private or selective schools. Saracens is opening a new all-through school in Colindale in Graham Park.

All this means that the new school's intake is likely to come from further away and there will be increased traffic congestion as public transport to the site is poor.

Perhaps most galling was that the CEO of Ark was allowed to give a promotional speech extolling the merits of the proposed Ark Pioneer with its controversial methods.

Ark DID hit the rocks in Barnet last night

 

Vin-dic-tive - Deviant Art

Guest blog by Jenny Brown

The pubic gallery was packed at Hendon Town Hall last night as residents, teachers, school governors and teaching assistants listened to the councillors question and discuss the issues regarding the Education Funding Agency's application for the building of an all-though Ark Pioneer free school on green belt land. LINK

Barnet Planning Committe rejected the planning application for the  Free School proposed by ARK PIONEER.

The EFA/ARK can appeal but the fact that Barnet council turned down the ARK PIONEER application for planning permission has  particular reference to Free Schools in general.

The decision from Barnet shows how important it is to get involved at the planning application stage and to have local councillors working with residents and resident associations.

The proposed site is in a Labour ward with active hard working councillors. Conservative supporters lobbied their councillors  too so the Conservative dominated planning committee was not prepared to pass this over-development so near to other primary and secondary schools that have scope for expansion.

The message from Barnet is that we (parents, residents, governors and teachers) expect the recommendations and legal guidance for outside play space, safety and standards, to apply to Free Schools as they do to other buildings.

This stand from Barnet should be widely shared to empower other areas to defend themselves from Free Schools especially  ARK PIONEER and their low level of education and building design.

Shortage of land for free schools is no excuse for not planning additional housing along with school places and infrastructure.

Last night the EFA /applicant for ARK argued that lack of outside play space was acceptable since in some free schools children play on roof tops. I think this one comment, tipped the balance against the whole project and the public were genuinely shocked.

Need for school places was especially relevant because the proposed site is green belt. The EFA and Tory councillors  tried unsuccessfully to argue that although it is a site on green belt, there are officers, toilets and football stands built in the recent past. Even in leafy Barnet, air quality samples are too high and at the proposed site, Barnet Friends of the Earth  found that it was high at the site.

Residents and councillors were unimpressed by the EFA  offering to purchase roads, widen them and install traffic lights. which would increase air pollution from stationary vehicles at red lights.

Areas with unsound short term arrangements for schools, should let national education organisations such as CASE know.

CASE is aware of these issues for example at Kingston Community School children are in an unsafe building surrounded by main roads with no fire assembly point possible and no plan to get children to safety should there be any type of emergency.  Buildings that are unsafe or unsuitable should not be accepted as schools. CASE would like to hear from anyone in the Kingston area who would like to help this particular school. Please visit the CASE website and consider joining.

Finally just to say that Barnet teachers and governors of local schools are shocked at the EFA's proposal to misuse the education budget by spending on roads, especially at this time.  Although this issue was not raised last night, as not relevant to a planning  committee, nevertheless the waste of money by the  Education Funding Agency is utterly unacceptable especially as the amount is enormous. CASE is working on the figures to be released soon.  Please consider looking for information on CASE. LINK

Barnet Labour Party  LINK published the following statement after the decision LINK

Plans to build an all-through Ark Academy school for up to 1,680 pupils on the Underhill Stadium site have been rejected at Barnet Council's Planning Committee (25 January).

Councillors on the committee ruled that the size and bulk of the school was too big for the site, that traffic and parking resulting from the school would have an unacceptable impact, and that there were no exceptional circumstances to allow the school to be built on greenbelt land.

The plans for the school have caused controversy and concern amongst residents living near the Underhill Stadium site, many of whom were worried about the size and scale of the school, and the parking and traffic problems it will cause.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had also advised Barnet Council in October that the school's planning application as originally submitted did not comply with the London Plan.

Labour Underhill councillors had organised a public meeting for residents in September so they could hear direct from Ark representatives and Barnet council officers about the plans for the school. Over 150 residents attended, and at the end of the meeting an indicative vote showed an overwhelming majority were opposed to the plans.

Underhill councillor, Paul Edwards, who spoke against the planning application at the committee said:

I am very glad that common sense prevailed at the committee last night.

The committee's ruling reflects the concerns that residents raised at the public meeting we organised four months ago.

Their main concerns include the size and height of the school buildings; the resulting traffic problems that will inevitably paralyse Mays Lane and surrounding roads; and the development of local Green Belt land.

The development is excessively large given its very close proximity to local housing.  It will take more than three times as many pupils as the Totteridge Academy, which has a much larger site and could accommodate further expansion.

The size of the building means the school will undoubtedly invade the privacy of the  homes and gardens surrounding the school – regardless of any of the fine words in this document.

The arrival of more than 120 teaching staff and 1800 pupils every day will exacerbate a traffic problem that has already reached unacceptable levels for local residents. 62 parking spaces is going to lead to increased street parking and will inevitably lead to future calls for a CPZ.

The residents who live in close proximity of this development do not want to see this scale of development in their back gardens, nor would I suggest would any member of the committee.