Temporary application for Cricklewood Superhub withdrawn but battle over permanent use continues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

Hopkins lambasts Cricklewood Freight Hub Horror

 Ex-councillor Alison Hopkins has lambasted the plans for a rail freight superhub next to the A5 in Cricklewood.  Today is deadline day for submissions to Barnet Council - go to LINK to make a comment. Please make sure you include your email address on the online form.

Hopkins wrote:

This is a truly appalling plan which will blight the lives of tens of thousands across Barnet and Brent. It is, of course, not planned for the leafy glades where the wealthy live in Barnet, but right on the border with Brent, where the less well off, the ordinary and the down right disadvantaged live, work and go to school. 

As well as the dump already planned on the doorsteps of Dollis Hill, with hundreds of lorries a day, Barnet now plan to impose a polluting miasma of choking dust on us. A few hundred yards from an infants school, NEXT to a college, and behind a supermarket? The A5 is already the most polluted road in London: this adds yet more muck, with more ill health and more early deaths. 

It’s about time Barnet listened not only to its residents, but also to its neighbours.Brent is as badly affected by the mess you are creating all along the A5 - and yet, you do not reply to emails, you spread misinformation at so called consultation meetings and give the nod to appallingly damaging plans like this. 

In summary: this proposal is wholly unacceptable on the grounds of pollution, massive traffic increases and the utterly adverse effect on real people with real lives.

HGV and dust nightmare on Wembley High Road

In a comment on the Heron House development local resident Jaine Lunn also commented on the impact of redevelopment works on High Road Wembley on residents and provided photographic evidence:

The work at Brent House development is causing a massive amount of chaos. The traffic management plan is bloody useless. We have HGV's parked on both sides of the High Road, and in the bus lane, on the pavements, last week I had 3 parked in my street, on the pavement engines running idling for over 30 minutes at a time. The footprint of the site is so small, they have a huge crane, piling thing, and a minimum of 20 lorries a day picking up rubbish and delivering plant and cement. When Chesterfield House gets going God knows how the High Road is going to cope. As I stated before 8 sites within 500 metres of my house. The dust and pollution is so bad I cannot open the windows.

 

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

Activist slams Capita & Barnet Council over Brent Cross regen plans

Local activist Alison Hopkins has written to the current Public Inquiry into the the compulsory purchases of the Brent Cross Regeneration Scheme outlining its impact on local residents. It is long so please use the 'Read more'  button to get the whole picture

I am writing to you as a long-time resident – over forty years - of Humber Road NW2 in the London Borough of Brent, and as the former Brent councillor for this ward, Dollis Hill. I am also representing many local residents and associations in this letter.

I request that you pass the following to the Inspector leading the Public Inquiry into CPO3 for the Brent Cross Regeneration scheme as a matter of urgency.

This is on the grounds that not only are Barnet Council and Capita utterly failing to listen to local people, as has been their pattern for over a decade, but are also gravely misleading the Inspector. I have been personally attempting to have proper discussions and gain true answers to the points raised here for almost a decade. I have constantly been stalled by Barnet, Capita and their partners, especially G L Hearn.

Most recently, residents who attended the so-called public consultations in Dollis Hill were promised full responses, but these have never been forthcoming. G L Hearn promised to arrange a meeting with Barnet officers after the latest consultation meeting in April. Despite repeated emails from me, and others, this has never happened. We are being neglected and ignored by Barnet/Capita deliberately.

As we are in a neighbouring borough, they feel entirely free to do so, to our huge detriment, presumably because we do not constitute their electorate. Dollis Hill is DIRECTLY ADJACENT to the development and will be more affected by these proposed road changes than ANY residential part of Barnet. This is unfair under common law.

URGENT: Support the anti-incinerator campaign Saturday morning

It appears that the Harlesden Incinerator proposal will go back to Ealing Planning Committee on November 6th, following its postponement at the August meeting.  Anti incinerator campaigners will be assembling near the proposed site in Chanel Gate Road (turn left from Willesden Junction station and on the opposite side of the road) at 11.30am to demonstrate their continued opposition.  Supporters are urged to bring placards and banners.

This information is from the Stop the Incinerator website LINK

Q and A’s about the application and the story so far

What is the application for?
The application by Clean Power UK Ltd is for an Energy Recovery Centre.It will handle 195,000 tonnes of waste per year
Where is the site?
The site is in Chanel Gate Road, NW10 6UQ. This is technically in Ealing Borough but is within a ¼ mile of properties in Brent. The site is within 150 yards of a densely populated area of Victorian houses. The facility would also be close to a primary school
Why should Brent residents be concerned?
There will be approximately 67 HGV lorries going to and from the site every day. This will add to the already congested road network in Harlesden and on Old Oak Lane. Apart from the noise, vibration and possible smells from the waste, the exhaust emissions from these vehicles will cause severe damage to the air quality in the area
There will also be gases such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emitted from the waste plant itself, from the FOUR 25metre high chimneys
The polluted air will drift across homes in Ealing, Brent and even Hammersmith and Fulham
What have residents done so far to object to the scheme?
Residents from a wide area have sent over 700 letters of objection to Ealing Council about the application, raising the issues of damage to the air quality and to their residential amenity, noise and smells. A petition has also been forwarded hy HEART of Harlesden with 1324 signatures of objection
What stage is the application now?
Ealing Council are required to make a decision on the application. They have discussed the application already, on 14 August, 2013, but could not reach a decision due to several of the councillors on the planning committee demanding more detailed and concise information about the impact that the facility would have on local residents
It is possibly that they will discuss the application again on 6 November 2013, BUT THIS DATE IS NOT YET CONFIRMED. We will keep this page updated, and notify you by email as soon as we hear
What can residents do now?
Keep spreading the word about the scheme so that as many people as possible in the area hear about it. If the planning meeting does go ahead on 6 November 2013, then there will be a SITE VISIT on 2 November 2013. This is when residents should turn out in force to show the members of Ealing’s planning committee that there is colossal opposition to the plans
If they don’t think that WE CARE – why should THEY CARE!
Why do they call it an Energy Recovery Centre and NOT an Incinerator?
Essentially because it sounds a lot better! The 2 processes that would be used at the facility are pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion – decomposition of food materials in sealed containers to release gases plant. Pyrolysis – thermal decomposition of waste material.  Whilst it can be argued that the anaerobic process is not incineration, the pyrolysis IS considered in many countries to be a form of incineration for more views on this go to
http://park-life.org/2012/12/heard-about-the-new-incinerator-a-very-dangerous-neighbour/
How is the west London Waste Plan involved?
The West London Waste Plan was drawn up by six London boroughs, including Brent and Ealing to agree a waste strategy and identify suitable sites. They are required by Boris Johnson, to have a strategy in place for dealing with waste. Clean Power and Ealing think the WLWP has no weight and but Brent does. Clean Power uses the mayor’s London Plan, which wants to promote so-called green businesses (waste treatment plants) as its guide
What have the local councillors been doing to help?
Brent councillors have been a huge support to residents. Cllr Claudia Hector and Cllr Van Kawala have worked extremely hard to raise awareness and object to the plans,  Similarly Ealing councillors have supported residents in the campaign against the scheme, and Cllr Kate Crawford spoke in support of Ealing residents at the last planning meeting in August
What is Brent Council’s position on the application?
Both Brent Council and Hammersmith and Fulham Councils are strongly opposed to the plans and have sent their objections to Ealing
What about HS2? Surely that means that the Incinerator cannot be built?
Firstly there is no absolute certainty at this time that the rail link WILL go ahead. There are still consultations and legal challenges taking place
Secondly there is a chance that even if the HS2 rail link was built, the Incinerator could still be built on the site. It would depend on the actual route of the HS2 and, for example, if the link to Northolt is overground or via tunnel
Lastly what does Boris Johnson have to do with the application?
It has been agreed that whatever decision Ealing Council reach, the application will then be passed to the Mayor. He will then make the final decision. This does not bode well as Boris recently approved a similar facility in South London, and the location there was a nature reserve!
So can we win?
Absolutely YES – it is possible for Councils to refuse these applications
A few months ago the residents in Brierley Hill, Dudley, West Midlands fought a long battle against Clean Power and – thanks to the support of their councillors – they won!
We can win too, but we must keep up the fight and show we care about the area we live in