Eco Saturday in Cricklewood on May 13th

 

Join BrentFoE outside Barclays Bank, Cricklewood tomorrow, 12.30pm to protest against the bank's investment in fossil fuels

 

Brent Friends of the Earth will be demonstrating alongside other activists outside Barclays Bank, Cricklewood tomorrow in opposition to the bank's investments in fossil fuels.

On its Facebook page Brent FoE say:

Barclays is the largest individual provider of current accounts in the UK and the “worst banker of fossil fuels” in Europe, according to the impact rating carried out by Ethical Consumer magazine.

 

Barclays has been Europe’s biggest investor in fossil fuels since the Paris Agreement, according to the Banking on Climate Change report, providing 36% more finance than the next worst European banker (HSBC). From 2016-19 the company invested $118.1 billion (£862 billion) in fossil fuels. It is the tenth biggest funder of fossil fuel expansion internationally.

 

At its AGM in May 2020, over 75% of Barclays shareholders voted against a resolution to end the company’s investments in fossil fuels.

 

Among the fossil fuel projects funded by Barclays are:

 

Bangladesh’s coal expansion

 

Barclays has provided funding for the Rampal Power Plant in Bangladesh. The plant threatens the world’s largest mangrove forest, the Sundarbans, a vital carbon sink that reduces CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

The Bangladeshi government plans to increase dependence on coal from 2.8% to 37% over the next decade.

 

According to Tonny Nowshin, a researcher at environmental and human rights organisation Urgewald, the pollution from the plant would cause low birth weight for 24,000 babies and premature death for 6,000 people.

 

Financing deforestation

 

Barclays has provided financial services worth millions to five beef and soy companies known for their links with deforestation. These include meat producer JBS, whose controllers confessed to bribing more than 1,800 politicians in Brazil in 2017.

 

Violations of Indigenous rights

 

Many of the projects that Barclays backs are linked to serious human rights abuses, including ongoing violations of Indigenous rights. These include the Dakota Access Pipeline and tar sands pipeline projects which will cross Indigenous territories.

 

TO JOIN THE DEMONSTRATION MEET OUTSIDE THE CROWN HOTEL, CRICKLEWOOD BROADAY AT 12.15PM. THE DEMONSTRATION IS AT THE BRANCH OF BARCLAYS OPPOSITE THE HOTEL FROM 12.30PM.

Cricklewood B&Q development - the consultation they didn't want you to know about? 2 weeks to respond

 

NorthWest2 Residents Association are drawing attention this morning to a poorly advertised new consultation on the controversial  development of the B&Q site in Cricklewood, close to the border with Brent.

Full details are on their website HERE

Main points:

New consultation now open – tell them again!

 

Barnet council have launched a new consultation, running for only two weeks from 17 May to 31 May 2021.

 

Barnet are not advertising this consultation. There are no notices around the site. They haven’t written to the thousand objectors or emailed them either. They didn’t tell us. We only found it when we looked on the website.

 

Will our thousand objections still count?

 

They had a thousand objections already in 2020. Maybe someone’s hoping that those can be ignored now that there are pretty new pictures and fine words to “prove” our objections aren’t justified.

Our view

Our view is that these are just as we thought – overbearing, overwhelming, out of keeping with Cricklewood and not even providing any social housing.

 

Tell Barnet Council what you think HERE

  

NW2 Residents' Association's objection to the 'over-bearing' B&Q Cricklewood development

Beware of the tendency to cut off height in development illustrations

 

An idea of the footprint

'Ghost' blocks

I am grateful to North West TWO Residents' Association for permission to repost this very useful article from their website LINK

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”.

More about this planning application

Our quick guide to making objections

Make your own objection – or say more

Standing together against racism and Islamophobia in Dollis Hill

The T-shirt says: There are two types: they are either your brothers in faith or your equals in humanity

Standing together in solidarity

Local people, including members of North West London Stand Up To Racism, received a warm welcome tonight at the Al-Majlis and Al- Hussaini Centre in Dollis Hill when they visited to express support and solidarity after the previous night's attack. The Chair and Secretary of Brent Trades Council were amongst the visitors.

The group were invited in to share in the celebrations and the atmosphere was positive with clear determination that such episodes would not be allowed to divide the community.

I was struck particularly by a very articulate lower secondary boy who was keen to explain his faith and at the same time emphasise his respect for all religions by explaining the meaning of the slogan on his T-shirt.

Women visitors were welcomed with  food and sweets and speeches were made thanking them for their support.

There was a low-key police presence at the Centre in Edgware Road as well as effective stewarding by the Centre itself.

Earlier Brent Council had issued this statement from Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of the council:

Our thoughts and prayers are with those who have been injured and all those affected by the serious act of violence which took place outside the Al-majlis Al-Hussaini Center last night.

We are in close contact with the police who are looking into this as a possible hate crime. However, we are reassured that the police do not believe there is an ongoing threat to Brent's Muslim community. There is absolutely no place for hate in our borough. Violence like this will not be tolerated.

We visited representatives at the centre this afternoon and will give them all the help they need.

Brent has one of the most diverse communities in the UK and we are extremely proud of this. We will not allow cowardly acts like this to spread fear and hate amongst our residents.

Useful update on the Brent Cross Cricklewood development & associated projects

It has been really hard to keep up with the changes of direction in this long running saga so many thanks to the NW2 Residents' Association for this post from their website LINK:

Brent Cross expansion on hold

5th August 2018

Hammerson announced the expansion of Brent Cross shopping centre was on hold. It’s not obvious what this means for us, especially now that Brent Cross Cricklewood‘s been divided into three parts.

Brent Cross London

Brent Cross London is Hammerson’s part.

• Expanding the shopping centre
• Moving and expanding the bus station
• A new bridge across the North Circular
• Changing the ends of the existing bridge across the North Circular (Templehof Bridge)
• Remodelling the roundabout at Staples Corner with fast slip roads around it
• Straightening out the Cricklewood Broadway / Cricklewood Lane / Chichele Road junction
• Straightening out the Cricklewood Lane / Claremont Road / Lichfield Road junction
• Changing the junctions with the Hendon Way
• Other changes to the roads and junctions

All this is now on hold. Barnet’s position is that it must be started before October 2019, because otherwise planning permission will expire. They still believe Hammerson sees the expansion of Brent Cross as a necessity. Hammerson talked about completion in 2023 rather than 2022 but the chief executive said “it would be wrong for me to give any firm guide.”

Brent Cross South

Brent Cross South is Argent Related’s part, south of the North Circular and east of the railway line.

• Housing, in large apartment blocks
• Offices
• Shops, restaurants and other facilities

We’re told it’s going ahead. The first block has planning permission, Argent are finalising designs for two more and will soon put in planning applications for them. Some demolition and construction is scheduled for 2019. By 2022 there should be a thousand new homes and a few hundred thousand square feet of office space, plus shops, places to eat and other facilities.
Construction vehicles will normally go along Tilling Road. The first block is going to be for people moved out of Whitefield Estate, so at first there won’t be a big increase in population. On the other hand, we all know how easily the junctions clog up. Might Hammerson try to put off paying for work on the junctions and what would that do to the Brent Cross South development?

Brent Cross Thameslink

Brent Cross Thameslink is Barnet Council’s part, mainly the stretch between the Edgware Road and the railway line.

• DB Cargo’s aggregate/spoil superhub, also known as the Rail Freight Facility, behind Lidl at 400 Edgware Road. This cleared the planning committee in February and permission’s now been granted. It might be in operation in 2019.
• New sidings and rail buildings near the south end of Brent Terrace, for completion by 2020. Network Rail are already working on the site.
• The Waste Transfer Station on Edgware Road, on the Serco site. Barnet are now consulting about their redesign of this. It might be built in 2019.
• The new Thameslink station “Brent Cross West”, behind Argos, Curry’s and the old cinema, including a public pedestrian bridge across the railway, scheduled to open in 2022.
• A road bridge across the railway, south-east of Geron Way, which last year was supposed “to open in 2021 rather than 2027” and this year “by 2030”.

We expect the superhub to go ahead. It never depended on Brent Cross Cricklewood for funding or to be profitable; only a tiny proportion of the 450 HGV movements a day will be to Brent Cross Cricklewood.
There’s an argument that the Waste Transfer Station will only be needed if the Thameslink station’s built, and maybe not even then. Barnet and North London Waste Authority still seem determined to have it. It will put 350 more HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) movements on the A5 every day, it requires new traffic lights on the Edgware Road, the old plans to make it more environmentally friendly with a “brown roof” have been scaled back and there are other changes, it’s attracted 447 online objections and will mainly affect Brent residents who of course have no say in appointing Barnet’s decision-makers, but we’ve seen how relaxed Barnet’s planning committee is about such considerations already.
If Hammerson didn’t go ahead with the expansion of Brent Cross, a big part of the justification for the station would go. It will be very expensive; the government will pay for part of it and the increase in business rates from Brent Cross is supposed to match another part. Barnet insist that it’s going ahead and will not be put on hold.

Other stuff

The outline planning permission area includes Donoghues on Claremont Road and Cricklewood Green on Cricklewood Lane. According to the planning statement for the Waste Transfer Station, “The PB Donoghue site is identified for redevelopment in Phase 4 of the BXC regeneration and is currently not anticipated to be redeveloped until after 2028.” Last year the Green was registered as an Asset of Community Value and before that councillors swore that it would not be developed as long as they were councillors, but a senior council officer tells us he still wants to develop it.
The B&Q buildings and car park are not part of Brent Cross Cricklewood, nor is 1-13 Cricklewood Lane (where the Co-op, Lucky 7 and other shops are), nor is the Galtymore site on the corner of Depot Approach and Cricklewood Broadway, opposite Beacon Bingo.

Hello Barnet Council, anyone there? Can you hear us? Do you keep your promises? Yes, we're from Brent but we also matter...

Ex-Liberal Democrat councillor, Alison Hopkins, has written to Barnet CouncilChief Executive after officers and others have failed to keep their promises to makie contact:


Dear Mr Hooton

I am writing to you as a former Brent councillor and organiser of a major residents organisation in Dollis Hill in Brent. I am also Co-ordinator of the Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Cricklewood Regeneration. 

Over the past several years, I and many other residents have attended consultation and engagement meetings about the Brent Cross redevelopment, as many of us are seriously worried about its impact here. 

On each occasion, we have raised concerns and issues, and then followed those up in writing. Each time, we have been faithfully promised contact by officers from Barnet, and staff from Capita and G L Hearn. Most recently, we attended a session at Crest Academy, were we were told contact would be forthcoming within days. Despite numerous phone calls, emails and contacts with Barnet, Soundings, and G L Hearn, there has been NO engagement from yourselves. 

We simply want answers to the questions we have repeatedly raised and we want officers to meet with us and explain why certain decisions have been taken. Frankly, Barnet’s attitude comes across as dismissive of a neighbouring borough and its people at the very least. It is discourteous and shows no empathy with how deeply worried people here are for their future wellbeing and our environment. 

Can you please ask your officers to make contact, and keep their many promises over the past years? I do intend to raise formal complaints if needed, as well as utilising those contacts I have within the London Assembly, as well as local and national media. However, I would like to offer Barnet a chance to put matters right.

Alison Hopkins

-->

Green AM urges London Mayor to reject Cricklewood Rail-Freight Facility

Caroline Russell, Green Assembly Member for London, has written to the London Mayor urging him to reject the planning application for the Rail-Freight facility in Cricklewood.

Her letter is below (click on bottom right square to enlarge)

Superhub approved by Barnet - what's next?

From NW2 Residents' Association

Barnet’s planning committee approved the application for an aggregates/spoil road/rail site at 400 Edgware Road, after hearing the planning officer recommend approval, residents, the Barnet & Camden London Assembly member and Barnet, Brent and Camden councillors speak against it and DB Cargo’s executive speak for it. Speakers were questioned by the committee but the chair, having announced that there would be no deferral, moved to a vote without further discussion. Six voted in favour and five against, apparently dividing by political party.

The application now has to be referred to the Mayor of London “for his final decision, known as a Stage 2 referral. The Mayor has 14 days to make a decision to allow the local planning authority decision to stand, to direct refusal, or to take over the application, thus becoming the local planning authority.” The last option is known as “calling in” the application and can take a while; the Mayor would hold a public hearing and issue a decision then or later. That initial 14-day deadline for the Mayor to decide whether to intervene starts from the formal referral to him by the borough. We don’t know how long that will take; we’ve heard of it taking up to six months but it might be that Barnet were ready to refer it immediately.

We hope the Mayor will engage and we will write to him.

Fury as Barnet Council approves Cricklewood Aggregate Superhub

I couldn't be at both the Academy and Cricklewood Aggregate Superhub meeting tonight so here is the sad news from the Barnet Planning Committee as conveyed by Twitter postings:

2. NW2 Res Association‏ @NW2_RA 30m30 minutes ago

   Barnet Council voted along party lines, 6 Conservative councillors approved the aggregate superhub, 5 Labour against. It passed. We’re furious. How dare they?

   
   
3. Fordwych Residents‏ @FordwychRA 7m7 minutes ago
This is terrible news for Cricklewood and surrounding areas. Surely it must go to appeal? There are so many flaws in the reports done by Capita and Barnet. We are extremely concerned about increased traffic and pollution. They didn’t listen to residents.


  Lorna Jane Russell‏ @lornajane2 58m58 minutes ago
Really disappointed that Barnet Tories ignored resident concerns from three London boroughs and voted to approve the Cricklewood super hub. Well done to @BarnetLabour for voting against it, and to everyone that spoke passionately against it this evening! @NW2_RA @FordwychRA


Fordwych Residents‏ @FordwychRA
Replying to @lornajane2 @BarnetLabour @NW2_RA
Thanks Lorna. We really appreciated you speaking against this proposal on behalf of Camden residents. Raising important issues on additional traffic and HGVs using Fordwych Road and other roads in our area. So disappointed it was passed.

Brent Council's objections to Geron Way Waste Transfer Station

Despite several requests before Christmas to Brent Planning for a copy of the Letter of Objection sent to the London Borough of Barnet regarding the planning application for the waste transfer station at 2 Geron Way, Cricklewood, NW2 6GJ, I received no response from the officer concerned and the planning south office did not know of its existence. I looked on the Planning Portal of the London Borough of Barnet for a copy to no avail. It is clearly a problem that there is no reasonable access to the document in either borough.

4.1.18 Brent Council has now provided a much more legible copy of their objection letter to Barnet Council

Summary of Letter of Objection dated December 7th 2017

The London Borough of Brent objects in principle to the provision of a waste transfer station in this location, on the western side of the railway with vehicular access from Geron Way.

Impact on residential amenity and highways impact: Brent objects to the proposal on this ground. The impact on the highway network from the heavy goods traffic generated by the proposal is such that it would have an unacceptable impact on the flow of traffic, with consequent harm to the road network and amenity of residents in the area by reason of the environment created.

Traffic Volumes: The letter contains a detailed analysis and comments 'this results in an average daily total of 227 arrivals and 49 departures for the maximum 226,000 tonne capacity. This is about three times the number of Heavy Goods Vehicles surveyed accessing the existing site on Brent Terrace. Spread evenly over a 10 hour day, this would equate to 23 incoming loads and 5 outgoing loads per hour.  Flows would therefore total 56 two-way movements per hour which is a considerable increase over the existing HGV volumes. (More in document)

Environmental Impact: Brent is concerned that the proposal has not adequately demonstrated that there will not be an impact on environmental quality. In the event of an approval to ensure protection of the environment, the following conditions should be imposed:

Prior to the commencement of the development these matters should be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and implemented as approved:

• plans for the continual assessment of emissions and maintenance of the air treatment system/odour abatement system of the enclosed waste transfer station
• a scheme to protect the occupants of neighbouring residential accommodation from high concentrations of air pollutants; any potential source of nuisance should be identified and incorporated in this scheme with a schedule of mitigation measures.' The schedule of mitigation shall include but not be limited to the impact upon noise vibration, dust, odour and any other emissions that may affect the general amenity of the neighbouring receptors. (More in document)

Why NLWA originally opposed the resiting of the Cricklewood dump - has anything changed?

In her submission to Barnet Council on the proposed waste transfer facility on the Edgware Road LINK, Alison Hopkins mentioned the North London Waste Authority's orginal opposition to the resiting.

For information here is their original objection:

Temporary application for Cricklewood Superhub withdrawn but battle over permanent use continues

The North West Two Residents' Association have published the following update on the Cricklewood Rail-Freight Superhub LINK:

DB Cargo have told residents that they’re withdrawing their temporary-period application to use the site for aggregates for 18 months. They’re carrying on with the application for permanent use, bringing aggregates in by rail and out by road, plus construction waste in by road to go out by rail.

DB Cargo might once have hoped that the temporary application could be approved before the permanent one was published and objections came in, but that opportunity seems to have passed. They now want to have more meetings to discuss residents’ concerns and say their aim is for the rail freight facility to have no impact on residents’ quality of life.

More than 680 objections can now be read on the Barnet website and that may not include some that were sent by email. There are also some consultee responses in among the online documents.
Transport for London say they’re supportive of the proposal but require a Road Safety Audit, information on how the development helps reduce emissions and confirmation that the development contributes to improving pedestrian and cycle facilities along the A5. (That last is awkward, as the application took the attitude that cycling on the A5 is bad already and can be ignored.)

Barnet’s Transport & Regeneration team raised over 30 concerns and stated that “until the outstanding issues identified above are appropriately addressed the Transport & Regeneration team cannot support the subject planning application.”

They:

• identify contradictions and inconsistencies in the application
• find the turning manouevers using both lanes of traffic to enter the site unacceptable
• suggest better provision is needed for HGVs turning right into the site
• are concerned that the access road may become clogged
• question whether surveys on the A5 and at other facilities are applicable or comparable
• want to know just how many HGV movements are being proposed as the application keeps chopping and changing
• are concerned that the application considers some nearby junctions but not the three (Geron Way, Oxgate Gardens and Dollis Hill Lane) with the highest rates of personal-injury accidents
• query if 9 employees is a realistic assumption if there are 4 plots being let out to more than 1 company
• and more.

Satisfying these concerns and TfL’s may require not only conducting fresh surveys, modelling and calculations but changing designs including some redesign of the A5. We haven’t heard any firm suggestions for when this might be completed and ready for any further consultation, or when the application might finally go on the planning committee’s agenda.

Click here for earlier articles about the road/rail superhub.

Vital questions on dust impact of Cricklewood Rail-Road Aggregate Superhub

The following article is republished with permission from the NW2 Residents' Association blog LINK
 

-->

The planning application for a road/rail superhub at 400 Edgware Road tells us

“it is estimated that a total of 370 – 570 Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) could leave the site each day, to export aggregate” which could be “including sand and gravel” or “will depend on local demand and could consist of sand, ballast or MOT Type 1 road stone (mixture of stone fragments and fine particles)”, 

and there’s demand for cement too.

This stuff will be brought in by rail, stocked in piles, and loaded into HGVs. It’s dusty stuff and a dusty business handling it. So how much dust will there be?

In one of the 17 appendices, there are tables covering 42 different locations with all sorts of figures for current levels and predicted levels of NO₂ and PM₁₀ pollution from … traffic. Dust pollution from the unloading of trains, from the loading of HGVs and from the stockpiles, from the basic operation of the site – that’s not included. It’s left out of the calculations and there are no figures for dust levels at other aggregate sites.

We are told that the wind’s generally in a good direction, blowing from the south-west across the railway tracks, but often in a bad direction, blowing down from the north-east instead. We’re told that on average, the wind isn’t likely to ‘re-suspend’ dust – to actually pick it up – because

“approximately 57% of the time mean-hourly winds do not exceed moderate levels.”

That ‘moderate’ 57% includes the gusty hours when the wind’s rising and falling, and it happily ignores the 43% of the time that that mean-hourly winds do exceed moderate levels – often by quite a lot.

There will be rain, and mitigation measures: there’ll be sprinklers. Wheels will be washed. Drivers will be told to cover their loads.

“It is anticipated the dust impact during the operational phase will be minimised.”

What does ‘minimised’ mean? Politicians talk of minimising the tax burden and very occasionally shave a percent or two off – we still pay plenty. It seems we’re being told we have to accept ‘minimised’ dust pollution as part of our regeneration. It will annoy us but it will not be significant. Here’s what Appendix 13-1 says:

“Guidance recognises that, even with a rigorous dust management plan in place, it is not possible to guarantee that the dust mitigation measures will be effective all the time, for instance under adverse weather conditions. The local community may therefore experience occasional, short-term dust annoyance. The scale of this would not normally be considered sufficient to change the conclusion that the effects will be ‘not significant’.”

That last sentence is beautifully phrased. But what are we being told? That we will suffer, but that such suffering is usually written off as insignificant when people are planning giant dust-generating operations.

There will be monitoring, we’re told, and something will be done if there’s too much dust. How much is too much? We’re not told. That would open up the whole question of how much dust there will be, and nobody wants to say.

There’s more about the superhub on our page here. Do add your comments and share what you know about the proposal below, but if you want the council to listen, you’ll have to object on their website. The planning application is here; its reference number is 17/5761/EIA. You can add your comments and objections online there, or email the case officer Chloe.Thomson@barnet.gov.uk. The full site name is “Cricklewood Railway Yard, the land at rear of 400 Edgware Road NW2 6ND”. The deadline is 18 October 2017.

You could also copy local councillors in. Council elections are in May.

Barnet – Childs Hill ward
cllr.p.zinkin@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.j.cohen@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.c.ryde@barnet.gov.uk
Barnet – Golders Green ward
cllr.m.cohen@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.d.cohen@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.r.thompstone@barnet.gov.uk
Brent – Dollis Hill ward
cllr.parvez.ahmed@brent.gov.uk
cllr.liz.dixon@brent.gov.uk
cllr.arshad.mahmood@brent.gov.uk
Brent – Mapesbury ward
cllr.helen.carr@brent.gov.uk
cllr.lia.colacicco@brent.gov.uk
cllr.ahmad.shahzad@brent.gov.uk
Camden – Fortune Green ward
richard.olszewski@camden.gov.uk
flick.rea@camden.gov.uk
lorna.russell@camden.gov.uk

October 18th deadline for comments on huge Cricklewood rail freight super hub

Reposted from  the NW2 Residents Association website LINK with their permission. Thank you.

Artist's impression of the proposed hub

Barnet Council plan to have a huge rail yard on the land behind Lidl, opposite the Cricklewood Bus Depot, at 400 Edgware Road. Planning permission has been applied for, and the public consultation ends on 18th October.

The land is owned by National Rail, and the freight company DB Cargo has a 125-year lease, due to expire in 2121. Their ambition is to make Cricklewood one of just three rail freight super-hubs in London, according to evidence given to a House of Lords transport select committee.

Freight trains will bring aggregate and other building materials to the yard at night. This will be offloaded and moved to storage areas. During the day lorries will deliver it to building sites all over London. The spoil from building sites will also be brought in by lorry and taken away by train.

The site footprint is approximately four times the size of Donoghues, and the application refers to an average of 452, rising to 800 HGVs per day. The site would operate Monday-Friday 7am to 7pm and on Saturday 7am to 2pm.

Local residents have raised enough environmental objections for the planning committee to delay a decision on a smaller temporary operation on the site; but the council posted the application for the permanent site the very next morning.

The main worries are:

• volume of traffic in an already congested and highly polluted area. Barnet has designated the A5 from Staples Corner to Cricklewood Lane as a focus area in need of air quality improvement. This will make it worse!
• effect of more HGVs on narrow roads such as Cricklewood Lane and Walm Lane, side roads and bus routes
• proximity of dirty industry to a conservation area, schools, the bus depot, supermarket, new flats at Fellows Square, housing in Brent
• pollution from irritant dust from the aggregate (aggregate is sand, gravel, crushed stone and rubble from demolitions, and so forth)
• noise of the operation and operating hours
• history of poor enforcement when regulations are broken
• possible effect on houses of vibration from heavy trains and lorries (the nearest houses are 19th-century, many others in the area are also 100 years old or more)
• possible effect on local water table
• general blight on residential areas.

The planning application is here; its reference number is 17/5761/EIA. You can add your comments and objections online there, or email the case officer Chloe.Thomson@barnet.gov.uk. The full site name is “Cricklewood Railway Yard, the land at rear of 400 Edgware Road NW2 6ND”. The deadline is 18 October 2017.

You could also copy local councillors in. Council elections are in May.
Barnet – Childs Hill ward
cllr.p.zinkin@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.j.cohen@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.c.ryde@barnet.gov.uk
Barnet – Golders Green ward
cllr.m.cohen@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.d.cohen@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.r.thompstone@barnet.gov.uk
Brent – Dollis Hill ward
cllr.parvez.ahmed@brent.gov.uk
cllr.liz.dixon@brent.gov.uk
cllr.arshad.mahmood@brent.gov.uk
Brent – Mapesbury ward
cllr.helen.carr@brent.gov.uk
cllr.lia.colacicco@brent.gov.uk
cllr.ahmad.shahzad@brent.gov.uk
Camden – Fortune Green ward
richard.olszewski@camden.gov.uk
flick.rea@camden.gov.uk
lorna.russell@camden.gov.uk

Out of sight, out of mind: Voices from Cricklewood on PSPO’s

Guest post by Scott Bartle, Brent Green Party

Resistance to poverty

Guest post by Scott Bartle

 

In March, Cllr Tom Miller, Brent Labour’s ‘Cabinet Member for Stronger Communities’ announced in the local newspaper a £2million splurge on CCTV and expansion of the use of Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs). 

This week, it was announced that the council has extended the PSPO ‘borough-wide’, with further claims from Cllr Miller of obtaining the ability to:

“create a borough that residents feel safe and protected in, and the introduction of this borough-wide PSPO will boost our efforts to get rid of street drinking and anti-social behaviour in Brent, whilst making sure that those who need help for substance abuse are given the support they need” LINK

Protection Orders (PSPOs) were created under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and allow councils to criminalise, non-criminal behaviour. Where Anti Social Behaviour Orders (Abs's), introduced 16 years earlier in 1998 (under the Crime and Disorder Act) were directed at individuals, the PSPOs are zonal and cover anyone within them.

PSPO’s are instead selected as a means to tackle called ‘undesirable or antisocial behaviour’, as they require less consultation than byelaws and are easier to enforce. A breach in a byelaw requires a trip to court & to be proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, whereas breach of a PSPO is determined merely by a ‘reasonable belief’. There is also limited scope to scrutinise or challenge a PSPO despite their use to target minority or vulnerable groups and curtail their human rights. 

Cricklewood Consultation 

Last year Brent Council offered a consultation on extending the use of PSPOs as a ‘crime reduction initiative’ around Chichele Road in Cricklewood. On this occasion, the target of the PSPO were people congregating on a road seeking work at a place where there was this tradition for nearly 150 years. Historically these were Irish people, but a recent Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) suggested it was now people originating from Eastern Europe. Those who offered people work were from a variety of backgrounds, including British, Asian, Eastern European and others. 

The results of the consultation indicated that a whopping 91.67% of people strongly agreed / agree with extension of the the PSPO scheme. This left only 4.17% of people who strongly disagreed / disagree with it continuing. As such, the Labour run council, in disservice to the origins of its party name voted for an extension of the PSPO with a nonchalance for workers best placed within an England of a century ago.

“We are not concerned with the very poor. They are unthinkable, and only to be approached by the statistician or the poet.” E.M Forster (Howards End, 1910).  

Lies, dammed lies and statistics 

As with most statistics, the devils in the detail and its noteworthy the 4.17% who responded and strongly disagreed, were actually only one person (myself). This left only 23 people who strongly agreed to the scheme and agreed with the proposals. 14 of these people left comments and it is these voices of Cricklewood that are worthy of further examination. 

Voices from Cricklewood

1. Male, aged 25–34 identifying as Asian British / Pakistani

“It’s necessary. This whole thing about people picking up casual workers causes the roads to get blocked as well during times of high traffic and this can cause buses to be delayed. It’s also problematic when the people looking for work just stand on the pavements and are in the way of people trying to walk and get somewhere. Really, this PSPO should be a permanent thing” 

This person’s concerns related to public infrastructure, claims that people seeking work were responsible for bus delays and the use of pavements. 

2. Male, aged 45–54 identifying as Mixed/Dual heritage, White & Asian.

“I have heard too many local anecdotes from neighbours that there are still too many instances of casual workers causing public disturbances in the local area.”

The definition of anecdote is ‘accounts regarded as unreliable or hearsay’. For many, rush hour for most people is a time of public disturbance. 

3. Female, aged 35–44 who did not wish to disclose ethnicity

“I don’t think its safe when I see large group of casual workers coming off a coach or waiting to be picked up on the road” 

This person felt scared upon witnessing the demographics of casual workers. It is unsaid if this is a fear of men, or a fear of particular men (i.e. people from eastern Europe). Yet, perhaps conflating the behaviour of a small minority of violent men with all men or people from Europe. 

4. Male, 55–64 identifying as White British

“It should be applied wherever and to the extent necessary.”

No qualifications but to the ‘extent necessary’, might be everything or nothing. 

5. Male, 45–55, identifying as White British. 

“I think this is important to continue to help improve the safety of people in the area”

This person cites safety which is relational to an unspecified danger. Is this person also scared of men or just ‘mostly Eastern European men’? 

6. Male, 55–64, identifying as White British

“What needs to be stopped is groups (almost exclusively male) of people continually and regularly gathering and drinking on the streets (particularly Cricklewood Broadway & Cricklewood Lane (particularly on the grassed area outside B&Q)”

This person identifies ‘street-drinkers’ as a problem, which is nothing to do with workers on Chichele Road. As detailed earlier, ‘street-drinking’ is an indicator of other social problems.

7. Male, 55–63, identifying as White British 

“This has to be kept going to safeguard surrounding areas as well as Cricklewood. Thank you.”

‘Safeguarding’ occurs a response to a perception of risk, danger or fear. 

8. Female, 35–44, identifying as White British

“I would be very grateful if this were extended. I am a woman who lives on (a nearby) road and used to feel very intimidated by the often large groups of men congregating on the corner of Sheldon Road and Chichele Road and stopped walking down Sheldon Road as a result. Since the PSPO order came into effect, the sizes of the groups has reduced and I feel able to use the road again”.

This person felt intimidated by ‘large groups of men’, over-estimating danger?

9. Male, 45–54, identifying as Mixed / Dual Heritage.

“It’s really important to have this in place and enforced properly. The gangs of men who still gather there are very off putting to the local residents and businesses. And note they still gather there despite the order currently in force.”

This person highlights the PSPO as ineffective, but wishes to prevent people or ‘business’ from experiencing ‘off-putting’ or unpleasant feelings. 

10. Female, 45–54, identifying as White British

“There are still large numbers of men waiting on the corner of Sheldon and Chichele Roads for large parts of the day. I haven’t seen any evidence of them being moved on by the police.”

Another person reports that the PSPO has been ineffective. 

11. Female, 35–44, identifying as White British

“I would still like something to be done about rough sleepers in Gladstone Park. I would also suggest that casual labourers are not the only source of ‘antisocial behaviour’ in Cricklewood. We are subject to near weekly racist abuse as Muslims on Cricklewood Broadway and in Gladstone Park — I do not walk in the park alone with my kids any more and have not done so for over 6 years because every time I went someone said something offensive to me. I am English. I am local. I do not feel safe or comfortable on Cricklewood’s streets. Please do something about this.”

A local woman who doesn’t feel safe on Cricklewood streets or Gladstone Park because of regular abuse relating to their religion, perhaps as a consequence of wider societal issues. 

12. Female, 55–64, identifying as White British

Without the PSPO in Cricklewood it is intimidating trying to walk in the area because of the large groups of migrants loitering looking for work. They also hang around the street corners at the weekend but when there is no work, drinking and loitering and it is not pleasant.

Here the fear of ‘large groups’ has been specified as ‘migrants’, indicating support for a PSPO based upon wider negative societal attitudes. ‘Loitering’ is an interesting term as its defined as ‘without purpose’ yet these people at Chichele road were ‘looking for work’.

13. Male, 55–64, who did not wish to disclose ethnicity.

“Please extend to include undesirables, loitering dealing in questionable substance on the street”.

This person does not specify the ‘undesirables’ and those ‘dealing in questionable substance’ are by definition not the people looking for work. 

14. Female, 45–54, identifying as White British.

Situation better but still not cured. Can be very intimidating to walk along the pavement where these people gather. Please extend the PSPO

This person, whilst supporting the PSPO indicates that its use has been ineffective. This person wishes for a PSPO to solve intimidation and fear of people gathering. 

In summary 

The intention of the PSPO was to prevent people congregating on a road seeking work, at a place where people have done so for nearly 150 years. Yet the voices from Cricklewood introduced us to people in fear of ‘men, migrants or groups of people’ as well as ‘loiterers’ and ‘undesirables’. The voices of Cricklewood sought for the the PSPO to be used as a a mechanism ‘where-ever’ for the benefit of ‘business’ to tackle social problems ranging from ‘drinking’ to ‘racism’ on ‘hearsay’. Yet similar to ‘crackdowns’ from time immemorial on other societal ills such as ‘gambling’, ‘drugs’ or ‘prostitution’, voices of Cricklewood identified that the PSPO was ineffective. 

So what to do? 

Across the country, from Newcastle down to, Brighton, Exeter or Hackney The Green Party have been vocal in their objection to PSPOs. This is because CCTV & PSPOs merely displace social issues & criminalise people who are of minority groups or are vulnerable. 

The voices from Cricklewood indicated a number of people feeling scared and intimidated walking around their local streets. Yet, the people themselves identified that these issues were wider than people seeking work. Racist or religious abuse are considered hate crimes, yet despite government initiatives reports of hate crime are said to be increasing. Societal issues can’t be tackled by a PSPO anymore than they could be tackled by an ASBO. 

If we take the current headline example of ‘street-drinking’, In guidance produced for Police Commissioners, Mark Ward of Alcohol Concern highlighted that ‘Street drinking’ is often an indicator of other problems.At the end of August, Brent Food Bank told the Brent and Kilburn Times that provision of food for people in poverty has increased by 200% in 3 years. Shelter reported a there are millions only one pay check away from not paying their mortgage or rent. Understandable, given average rents in Brent are 75% of average earnings and homelessness has doubled between 2009 and 2014. In addition, Brent has the 13th highest rate of unemployment in the country.

People will need to seek work to get money and support their families and the ‘men’ or ‘migrants’ of Chichele road are no different. Others, might understandably struggle with the pressures that society places upon them and turn to ‘street-drinking’ or end up homeless. In cold weather, Alcohol Concern report that the people ‘street-drinking’ do so because they are homeless. 

The common thread of what does work to help ‘street drinkers’, according to best practice relates to the building of trusting relationships. Coercion in any relationship can be toxic and it is understood that legal coercion, such as that occurring as a consequence of PSPOs aggravate factors associated with social exclusion and undermine individual motivation to change.

Claims such as that made by Cllr Miller above, that people should be criminalised for their own support or protection is an example of what sociologist John J Rodger describes as the criminalisation of social policy. It is evidence of a neoliberal philosophy in action, where the criminal justice system and its associated sanctions are used in place of social welfare. Furthermore, placing people at risk of a criminal record and a £1000 fine as offered by a PSPO burdens people with more problems to get back on track.

If the problem is people congregating for work: how about provision of somewhere safe to do so? If the problem is littering (which is classified as anti-social behaviour in the ‘crime’ figures) then is it not the councils responsibility to provide bins? If roads are congested, isn’t Transport for London & the cities infrastructure under shared ownership?

If a report in the paper was true that people were ‘defecating’ or ‘urinating’ outside, how about Cllr’s remembering that the provision of public toilets is vital public service. Brent is similar to other Councils across the country who do not see toilets as a priority. Brent has a mere 12 public toilets listed that do not include Library’s leisure centres or the civic centre. Yet its not just these workers who are affected, its older people and those with disabilities.

If we recognise a theme of all of these issues relates to poverty, then its time to vote for a political party that will offer a basic income. In the meantime, this borough-wide PSPO needs to be scrapped as criminalising people affected by the poor decisions of government is not a proportionate response. Especially given, the Cricklewood Consultation indicated that implementation of the ‘borough-wide PSPO’ may in part be based upon both fear of and negative societal attitudes towards people perceived as ‘migrants’.