'Scrap the whole Brent Cross Regeneration Plan'- Brent Cross Coalition

The Brent Cross Coalition has  welcomed the collapse of what they call  'the grotesque, car-based Brent Cross scheme'. However. they say it is totally unacceptable to still go ahead with the 'easy-profit shopping centre expansion', which they have been told  told is a 'possibility'. Neighbouring Brent Council fought this successfully in the late 1990s, and is likely to again. 

The Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross-Cricklewood Plan say:

We demand the whole plan is scrapped, and the arrogant local developers, and their ineffective PR company, are removed from the project.

Measures in the new Localism Act mean that over-bearing property companies, in alliance with the conceited Barnet Council, cannot get away with “business as usual”. This is a great day for people-power – not Hammerson plc and not Mike Freer (former Barnet leader, now MP).

We want development based on people’s aspirations for a sustainable, low-carbon, exciting regeneration of the area. This means starting from scratch, and will also obviously have to wait for improvements in the economy.

The developers have wasted many years – not ONE home has been built, not ONE transport improvement. Barnet Council has also wasted many hours of work in promoting something nobody wanted - their web site still estimates 29,000 extra cars every day in the Brent Cross area, which would cause traffic misery.

The developers have just received planning permission for a small building at Brent Cross – but have resorted to making the application from a tax haven in the Channel Islands. They have no shame, and are behaving no better than bankers.

Lia Colacicco, Co-ordinator of the Brent Cross Coalition, said:

“The regeneration was always a mirage; despite the PR spin, the developers were only ever committed to building a few hundred new housing units anyway. In return for cheaply purchasing large swathes of public land, their main return to the local population would have been gridlocked traffic. I hope the next deal is more transparent, and involves a stretch of light rail to link to local tube lines.”

Alison Hopkins, Dollis Hill resident, said:

“What we are being offered now is little different from the rejected shopping centre planning application of 13 years ago. We will still get lots of extra traffic, but no transport improvements. The developers want to 'pick the low-hanging fruit' of what pays out quick profits. The Brent Cross Waste Incinerator seems to be a dead project now, but we will continue to campaign, to make absolutely sure.”

David Howard, Chair of the Federation of Residents Associations of Barnet, said:

“The Brent Cross Cricklewood development would have had a negative impact on the infrastructure and the environment of much of North London and for generations to come. Brian Coleman cannot quote my phrase of “hobbit homes”, since he has done nothing to stop the scheme, and we have. We need the public land at Brent Cross to be kept out of the hands of the developers, and corridors across it reserved for future light railway to Brent Cross Northern Line station, and to other local areas.”

Councillor Shafique Choudhary, London Borough of Brent, said:

"Unfortunately, this probably means that the developers and Barnet council are trying to get what they wanted all along, which is the expansion of their Brent Cross 'out-of-town' shopping centre, with no other benefits. This is something that my borough, the neighbouring London Borough of Brent, fought long and hard, but successfully against, in the late 1990s. That included making a convincing case at an appeal inquiry to a Planning Inspector, who found in our favour. The Brent Cross Coalition and Brent Council may have another fight on their hands!

Should we de-designate industrial area around Wembley Stadium?

The industrial area around Wembley Stadium

 The consultation on the future of the industrial area around Wembley Stadium ends on Monday. The document is HERE and the consultation website is HERE . The consultation includes the possibility of restricting the number of waste management facilities in the area.

Key points from document re waste management (NB there are also sections on transport etc) SIL=Strategic Industrial Location):

Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be a continuing need to retain the vast majority of SIL in the borough, it should also be recognised that the de-designation of some employment land could be beneficial in promoting jobs growth locally if land is redeveloped for mixed use development, as with key parts of the regeneration area to the west. In addition, there are concerns that the proximity of industrial sites, and associated bad neighbour uses, to key regeneration sites is harming their development prospects because of the potential environmental impacts upon them. There is a particular concern that the juxtaposition of the industrial estate with proposed sensitive uses, such as a proposed new primary school on Fulton Road, will have an impact on the attractiveness of the school.

Options BIW 1

1. Leave the extent of the SIL as currently defined.

2. Introduce policy whereby development proposals adjacent to SIL should have regard to the potential effectiveness of these locations

3. De-designate SIL immediately adjacent to key sites identified for regeneration which will include residential or other sensitive uses.

4. De-designate substantial part of the SIL to facilitate wider regeneration and environmental improvement

There is a general view that if a significant proportion of land is occupied by uses such as open storage, aggregate depots and waste management, this will have a negative impact upon the regeneration potential of the wider area and will provide only a limited number of jobs. One way of dealing with the problem, especially to prevent it getting any worse,is to put a limit on the amount of land devoted to such uses.

Options BIW 2

1. No limit on the proportion of the SIL devoted to waste uses or open storage.

2. Allow no further waste management or open storage uses in the SIL.

3. Consider individual proposals on their merits and only restrict such uses if  evidence of detrimental impact.

4. Actively promote the re-location of existing, badly located waste management sites.

De-designation could mean that the West London Waste Authority's ear-marking of a site in the area for waste processing (technology unstated but incineration feared) will not succeed.

DENHAM ISSUES 'STOP' ORDER ON BRENT CROSS APPLICATION

The Government Office for London yesterday issued  a 'stop notice' on the Brent Cross Cricklewood Development.  This instruction, under Section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Order 1995, directs Barnet Council not to grant planning permission on this application without specific authorisation from John Denham, the secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Denham has now given himself more time to consider whether to call in the application for a public inquiry. He has wider powers than Boris Johnson and will need to consider the massive local opposition, sustainability issues and the views of neighbouring councils.

Brent Council's reservations are summarised in a letter from Paul Lorber, leader of the Council and Cllr. Alec Castle (Dollis Hill):

We have restated Brent’s formal opposition to the plans, and made clear that until key wider planning aspects of importance to us are resolved, our strong objections will remain.



The developers have paid little attention to transport issues, and without measures in place to alleviate the likely problems of thousands of extra cars and heavy freight lorries navigating the streets off Cricklewood Broadway and Edgware Road, the impact in Cricklewood, Dollis Hill and Dudden Hill would be devastating.


In our view, no work should begin until appropriate traffic measures and parking restrictions have been formally agreed and put in place. These in turn must be properly informed and influenced by a long-awaited study on the wider traffic flow around the A5 Corridor.

The stop notice does not definitely mean that Denham will call in the application or order a public inquiry but does indicate that the Coalition for A Sustainable Brent Cross Cricklewood Plan have made a considerable impact. They deserve our congratulations and thanks.

Coalition: Why John Denham Must Call in Brent Cross Plans

The Coalition opposing the 4.5 billion development for a Brent Cross Cricklewood new town is urging Secretary of State John Denham to call the development in to Public Inquiry, in view of Barnet sending the papers to the Government Office for London and the Mayor of London.
The Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Cricklewood Plan believe the development clearly meets the criteria to merit a call-in as set out in section 77 of the Town and Country planning Act1990[1]. The Secretary of State’s powers to call this in are very general and discretionary. Barnet should have referred this to the Secretary of State prior to the planning meeting on the grounds that Barnet owns some of the land.

 Some other grounds for call-in are :
- significant effects beyond the immediate locality
- giving rise to substantial regional or national controversy or where issues are of more than local importance
- raise significant architectural and urban design issues
- and in 2008 the sustainability of the proposed development was specifically added as a criterion.

Lia Colacicco, Coalition Co-ordinator and Mapesbury resident says, “ This scheme could be called in on several criteria but in particular because its effects go far beyond the immediate area, Brent and Camden councils object to it, local people don’t want it in this form, and because it is completely unsustainable in terms of traffic, housing, and the environment. There was no meaningful public consultation so we are now calling on John Denham to call it in immediately so that these disastrous plans can undergo full public scrutiny….”

Darren Johnson (Green Party London Assembly Member) says “given Boris Johnson’s manifesto commitment to cut London carbon emissions 60% by 2025 and build more environmentally friendly homes the Mayor must refuse this development. From 2016 all new homes are required to be carbon zero whereas this development falls far short of that.”

Shahrar Ali, Green candidate for Brent Central, Steffi Gray of Brent Friends of the Earth, and other activists at the Brent Campaign Against Climate Change Meeting Photo: Jan Nevill

The campaign was strongly backed at Tuesday's meeting on Fighting Climate Change after Copenhagen. People were clear that the regeneration proposals represented a reckless disregard for issues of over-consuption, sustainability and consultation.

The Mayor and Secretary of State John Denham have until just March 12th to call in the plans for Public Inquiry.

Criteria for a Call-in.
Petition Calling for a Public Inquiry
Coalition Website

Darren Johnson calls for Public Inquiry into 'fundamentally unacceptable' Brent Cross development

BRENT CROSS - NOW DEMAND PUBLIC INQUIRY

Despite massive local opposition, Barnet Council last night approved the 'pie in the sky' planning application for a massive Brent Cross Shopping Centre expansion. Details remained vague,many questions remained unanswered and the possible toxic implications of the Brent  Cross incinerator hung over the meeting like a black cloud, but the smooth talking and jaw-droppingly patronising Mr Joseph won the day for the developers. A cross-party coalition of councillors (although of course they are non-party on planning matters) passed the application 8-1,with 1 abstention, apparently on the reckless basis of 'we've been waiting for a long time to do something about this, this is all we've got, so we better do it whatever our reservations may be'.

The decision has been condemned by Sarah Teather MP, Navin Shah AM, Darren Johnson AM and Jean Lambert MEP,  (details on Brent Cross Coalition Blog), who are united in calling for a public inquiry.

You can add your own voice to the Public Inquiry call - details HERE

A MESSAGE FROM THE COALITION FOR A SUSTAINABLE BRENT CROSS DEVELOPMENT

Another milestone in the Coalition's  fight against the monstrous and unsustainable Brent Cross development approaches on Wednesday.

We need you, your friends, neighbours and colleagues to be outside the Hendon Town Hall at 5.30pm on November 18th with your banners, voices, but most of all your determination.

We demand nothing less than a full Public Inquiry so that these ill-thought out and shoddy plans can be thoroughly scrutinised and the concerns of residents, environmental groups and Camden and Brent councils can be properly addressed - not fobbed off by public relations flannel.

Together we can win.We are not going to let Barnet Council blight our lives and those of future generations!

BRENT COALITION STRENGTHENED AS COUNCIL FACES PROJECT COLLAPSE

Jean Lambert, Member of the European Parliament, this week backed the Brent Cross Coalition's call for a Public Inquiry into the Brent Cross Cricklewood Redevelopment Plan.

The Coalition is now supported by individuals at every level of political representation, as she joins Sarah Teather MP for Brent East; Navin Shah, London Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow, Darren Johnson, Chair of the London Assembly; and many local councillors in calling for a public inquiry.  In addition the Coalition is supported by Barnet and Brent Friends of the Earth, Brent Cyclists and organisations representing thousands of local residents in Barnet and Brent.

In announcing her support, the London Green MEP said, “This scheme clearly has regional repercussions in terms of its scale, because of questions of compliance with the London Plan, issues regarding traffic pollution and transport infrastructure. There are also unanswered questions about the planned waste disposal process and its impact on health. I fully support the Coalition’s call for a full Public Inquiry so that an informed and robust debate can take place into such a major and controversial development.”

While support for the Coalition continued to build Barnet Council was forced to contemplate the possible collapse of the whole project.  A report prepared for their cabinet admitted that there would be no return for developers in the delayed first phase of the development and that the first rent revenues for the Council would not be realised until 2018. They drastically slashed the number of guaranteed housing units to 795 units against the overall total for the project publicised by the developers of 7,500 units.  It is clear that after the first phase nothing is certain and there is still a risk of developers pulling out.Much more information is available on the Coalition's blog HERE.

No wonder the Barnet cabinet discussed face saving strategies in the event of the whole project collapsing.