Showing posts with label HS2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HS2. Show all posts

Wednesday 27 April 2022

LETTER: Could the South Kilburn HS2 Vent serve as a wartime bunker for the estate?

 Dear Editor

I am unhappy about the HS2 pollution vent and escape staircase being forced on us in South Kilburn without any mitigation for the estate from HS2.

 

 

The Vent (Photo: Ian Visits)

 

I tried to get HS2 to invest some of its vast local mitigation funds in the South Kilburn Public Open Space (Kilburn Park), Brent Kilburn's only park sized park open to all Londoners 24/7 - an ideal sizable open area worthy of investment and protection, perfect open space to use in any HS2 tunnel emergency. Yet pretty much as a Local Green Space Designation in the  new Brent Local Plan application was rejected, HS2 and the redevelopers had zero interest in this local compensation investment funding proposal.

 

However thinking about full scale war in Europe happening in 2022, maybe      'being Londongrad makes us safe' could be lazy government party think?  In WW2 South Kilburn was bombed from Europe's mainland, so in WW3 why not again, or have modern weapons delivery systems regressed since 1939? Countries like Ukraine, Slovakia and Germany all  have a defence emergency forward plan and major taxpayer money is invested in bunkersbecause of the bombing risk, so why not the UK?   

 

South Kilburn Stations Growth Area has a massive population density with towered car free housing the only infrastructure (and a re-developer sideline business in underground car parks/ extra access vehicle roads for surrounding de-growth protected zones customers). The possible risk of an HS2 tunnel fire and train passengers needing to escape from the HS2 tunnel is predicted and designed for. But what about looking at this design in reverse? Instead of rail passengers escaping up the staircase, South Kilburn residents could escape down the same staircase into this massive tunnel system to survive London being bombed. The HS2 vent/ staircase would finally have its local plus value. (In Kharkiv people have been living on underground trains in tunnels for 61 days so far a predicted emergency defence planned for in advance by Ukraine government).

 

This on site HS2 vent/ emergency staircase is a London emergency defence infrastructure near ready-made asset (would need an up-graded door and to be urban disguised). And such a bunker as key London emergency infrastructure may even attract people to live in South Kilburn (Hampstead and Belsize Park already have cold war era bunkers). My thinking is also that this emergency amenity could lead to a new footpath and cycle bridge being built over the electrified railway to this tunnels entrance point from Kilburn conservation 'village' north side, better connecting Brent Kilburn Town and shortening active travel journey time's in Kilburn everyday life.

 

Who knows this new HS2 built defence infrastructure bunker for South Kilburn might even lead to social infrastructure investment for this mega population density revenue raising project being allowed?

 

David Walton

Flood Local Action South Kilburn

 

 

Tuesday 22 March 2022

South Kilburn residents will have to endure a summer of 24 hours a day, 5 days a week, work on the HS2 vent. Is Brent Council concerned for their health and wellbeing?

 


Seven years ago South Kilburn residents demonstrated against the siting of an HS2 vent on the estate because of the disruption its building would cause and the fact that it was right next to a primary school.

They were even more furious when they discovered that their own council, Brent Council, had lobbied to have the vent moved to the estate, already suffering from disruptive regeneration, from the original site on council owned land next to Queens Park station.

Years of noise, dust and stress have followed so residents were even more distressed to have a warning from HS2  LINK of worse to come.  South Kilburn resident Pete Firmin told Wembley Matters:

HS2 seems to be able to work whenever it likes, doing whatever it wants, with the blessing of Brent Council. The Council itself never communicates with local residents about the works, and as far as anyone can tell, doesn't monitor whether HS2 keeps to even the few restrictions on its working hours etc. Neighbours of the vent shaft have given up complaining, because nothing happens. How inadequate protection from noise and dust really is may be indicated by the fact that HS2 lists further work on the retaining wall they already erected between the site and Carlton House as one of its next jobs. 

 

Since persuading HS2 that the vent shaft should be in the middle of the estate rather than on the empty Queens Park station car park, Brent, for all intents and purposes, has washed its hands of any responsibility. And HS2 is no longer willing to meet residents together, insisting all "consultation" is one to one.


No recognition by either Brent or HS2 of the stress and exposure to noise and dust caused by living in the South Kilburn building site for 20+ years

This is part of the communication from HS2 to residents:

Extended working hours within the Canterbury Works site

 
We wrote to you previously regarding extended hours while we build the ventilation shaft. The sprayed concrete lining (SCL) works were due to start on the 7 March 2022 and continue until September 2022.due to ongoing reviews of our working methods, these works work will now start in late March or early April and will continue until September 2022. The exact date remains subject to confirmation.

The SCL and shaft excavation works will take place throughout the day and night. This must be carried out as a continuous process to avoid collapses and ensure the safety of the workforce within the ventilation shaft during construction. This means that from late March / early April we will be permitted to carry out works 24 hours a day, 5 days a week. We will only carry out works agreed with Brent Council and will adhere to the agreed working hours, noise and vibration limits.

The diagram below shows a cut section of the shaft and how it will be constructed.

Enhancement works within the Network Rail Yard

 
Works are ongoing within the site, near the Network Rail tracks, to prepare for installation of a new site access point via Albert Road. These works will involve the construction of a new access ramp for vehicles to enter the site. As part of these works, we will be carrying out works to strengthen the retaining wall between our site and back gardens at Carlton House. These works are currently planned from May to July but remain subject to confirmation. The works will be agreed with Brent Council and we will write to Carlton House resident with more information.


Whilst we continue the works to prepare for the new ramp and vehicle access point, we will continue using the site access on Canterbury Road for vehicle entry and exit from site.

What to expect during our works

 
During the works outlined in this update you may notice the following within the site:
• Heavy good vehicles – entering and exiting site
• Excavators / excavating activities
• Cranes / lifting operations
• Lighting towers
• Concreting equipment
• Temporary traffic management and signage during work on the public highway

 

 

Tuesday 25 May 2021

Millennium Business Centre application deferred. South Kilburn vent approved.

 Brent Planning Committee last night deferred a decision on a planning application for a new warehouse building at the rear of the Millennium Business Centre site in Humber Road NW2.

Alison Hopkins representing local people described the Centre as 'bad neighbours' and shared a number of examples of their detrimental impact on the area and fears that the new facility would worsen the situation. 

A speaker from Henfield who presently run a warehouse on the site opposed the application and described the state of the premises and the problems of parking and the blocking of fire exits if the plans went ahead. He thought it might be better to demolish the lot and rebuild or re-develop.

The agent for Millennium Business Centre said that they recognised that the 'type of tenant'  they'd had was 'not conducive' to the area and that they had 'got rid of them.' He accused Henfield of wanting to purchase the site themselves.

Challenged on the traffic survey Brent Highways said that it had been conducted before the introduction of LTNs and to some incredulou social media comments suggested that overall traffic on Humber Road would be reduced.

It was revealed that the applicant had not submitted a compliant D012 Fire Report and that this was still required.  Cllr Dixon was not reassured that traffic issues that had led to previous applications being rejected had been addressed and was concerned that vehicles would get stuck in the narrow road. The Highways officer remarked that the road was 'not ideal' for an industrial site but 'It is what it is.'

His words did not appear to persuade councillors who rejected the application with only two for the application. Initially they were ready to reject it outright but were persuaded by their chair, Cllr Kelcher, and intervention by officers , who cautioned againt going against officers; recommendation, to defer the decision to allow the applicants to come back with further information. Cllr Dixon was initially not happy to defer rather than reject.

Councillors cited traffic generation, highway safety, HGV problems, parking problems, inmpact on the wider local road network and lack of information as reasons to defer. In  addition there was the lack of a compliant Fire Report.  

The chair suggested a site visit and the Highways officer said he would request a Travel Plan from the applicant.

The HS2 South Kilburn vent application was dealt with quickly as there was little the Committee could do about it. A suggested that the block should have green growing walls was not possible because the vent had a slatted exterior. HS2 made much of the triangle of green space they were providing between the site and St Mary's Primary School and the 'learning opportunities' it would offer pupils. They would offer road safety and skills training to the school to ensure safety during construction. A Schedule 17 lorry route would be in place during construction and traffic, once the vent was in operation, would be minimal.



Sunday 23 May 2021

HS2 vent next to South Kilburn primary school at Planning Committee tomorrow but its powers are limited

 

The development site outlined in red, school grounds in green and Canterbury House and Carlton House

A battle started about 6 years ago when Brent Council asked HS2 to site a proposed vent site for the high speed rail running underground at this point at a site next to a primary school in South Kilburn rather than one adjacent to Queens Park station.

In a  message to constituents, March 23rd 2016,  Tulip Siddiq MP said:

Today in Parliament, I voted against the High Speed Rail 2 (HS2) Bill that will devastate areas of Camden and Brent.

I have campaigned against HS2 for the past seven years as I believe it is an ill-thought out scheme that will lead to bedlam on our roads, disruption to the education of school children and a compromised local environment. (my emphasis)

Further, these plans will cost taxpayers billions of pounds. I believe this money could instead be spent on projects that will actually bring real improvements to living standards across the country.

Having spoken against this Bill at the Select Committee, and again in today’s debate, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank residents who engaged with the lengthy and costly petition process. Though the Bill received support from across Parliament, it is your voice that will force HS2 to fulfil its assurances to compensate and mitigate the worst of the impacts.

My first priority as the MP for Hampstead and Kilburn is to protect residents in Camden and Brent. Therefore, I am proud to have voted against High Speed Rail 2 today in Parliament.

The scheme have now been granted permission by parliament, but I will keep fighting for mitigation for constituents.

Of course HS2 has gone ahead costing billions of pounds more than first suggested but for South Kilburn residents the question is still whether on South Kilburn the proposed vent will 'lead to bedlam on our roads, disruption to the education of school children and a compromised local environment.'

Unfortunately as officers note the legislation gives HS2 enormous powers and limits that of the Planning Committee:

The above mentioned approvals have been carefully defined to provide an appropriate level of local planning control over the works while not unduly delaying or adding cost to the project. As such the legislation states that planning authorities should not through the exercise of the Schedule seek to revisit matters settled through the parliamentary process, seek to extend or alter the scope of the project, modify or replicate controls already in place, either specific to HS2 Phase One such as the EnvironmentalMinimum Requirements, or existing legislation such as the Control of Pollution Act or the regulatory requirements that apply to railways.

 

For residents the immediate issue will be noise from the site and associated vehicle movements with extensive ground works required. These issues are not the subject of the report:


Mitigation includes a small strip of grass to be made available to St Mary's Primary School, walls and fencing around the perimeter of the site and  the widening of the cross-over with Canterbury Road from 3 metres to 6 metres.

There is only one objection recorded on the Brent Council Planning Portal froma resident of Canterbury House:

The current design is radically different from the original proposal. There are more buildings and the design height is much greater; the original proposal included the extraction fans installed underground but the revised plans are far more intrusive on residents neighbouring the development. The current proposed height of the headhouse building will have a major impact on natural light and views available to the properties at the rear of Canterbury House. Residents of Canterbury House bought their properties with knowledge of the original plans but there are deep concerns that the revised plans could significantly deter potential future buyers. If the first plan to construct the vents at Queens Park was withdrawn due to resident objections, why has the design at Canterbury Works revised in such a way that the impact on nearby residents will be significant and possibly more so than what was proposed at Queens Park. 

Planning officers say:

The committee report states at paragraph 16 that there would be no breach of the 30 degree rule when considered in relation to Canterbury Terrace. However, there would be a slight breach of the 30-degree rule from two of the ground floor units due to the greater height of the ventilation stacks which sit adjacent these homes. However, given the separation distance (approximately 18 m) and the fact that a daylight/sunlight report has been submitted to demonstrate that there would be no harmful loss of light, the breach is considered acceptable in this instance. It is also important to note that the Design and Access Statement confirms that the vertical ventilation stacks have been reduced in size to the minimum required in both plan dimensions and height. Therefore when having regard to the fact that the LPA are required to given consideration to whether the works 'ought to or could reasonably' be modified to protect local amenity, given the information provided the arrangement is considered acceptable.

A supplementary report responds to a late comment:

Since the publication of the agenda one further comment has been received in relation to the application. This comment raises concerns about a lack of mitigation or compensation for protecting or safeguarding South Kilburn's residents' quality of life. It also makes reference to the new tree planting HS2 are doing in the Chilterns and the lack of any similar mitigation for Brent. The potential impacts on surrounding properties is discussed within the committee report.

Firstly, it is important to note that HS2 works in South Kilburn and the Chilterns are very different. It is also important to note that the character of the areas differ greatly with South Kilburn being a far more urban environment. As this is not a planning application, the Local Planning Authority are unable to seek obligations to secure funding for tree planting in the area.

However, whilst the committee report focuses on the works for approval, the submission does include a number of 'For information' drawings to show future intentions of the site. As stated in the committee report a follow up application for 'Bringing into use' is required to be submitted, whereby HS2 are required to demonstrate that the impact of the development has been mitigated as far as possible. This is expected to include a detailed landscaping and tree planting scheme on site and the provision of a 'pocket park' to provide educational opportunities to neighbouring St Mary's PrimarySchool. However, it important to note that these works are not for approval under this application.

 


 

 

Wednesday 21 August 2019

HS2 Review Terms of Reference and names of Review Panel members



From the Government announcement. The Chair of the Review is the former Chair of HS2 Ltd...
The Prime Minister has stated his wish to review “whether and how we proceed” with HS2 ahead of the ‘Notice to Proceed’ decision for Phase 1 (London-West Midlands) due by the end of 2019. The review will assemble and test all the existing evidence in order to allow the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Transport and the government to make properly-informed decisions on the future of Phases 1 and 2 of the project, including the estimated cost and schedule position.
For the whole HS2 project, the review should rigorously examine and state its view on:

  • whether HS2 Ltd is in a position to deliver the project effectively, taking account of its performance to date and any other relevant information
  • the full range of benefits from the project, including but not limited to:
    • capacity changes both for services to cities and towns on HS2 and which will not be on HS2
    • connectivity
    • economic transformation including whether the scheme will promote inclusive growth and regional rebalancing
    • environmental benefits, in particular for carbon reduction in line with net zero commitments
    • the risk of delivery of these and other benefits, and whether there are alternative strategic transport schemes which could achieve comparable benefits in similar timescales
  • the full range of costs of the project, including but not limited to:
    • whether HS2 Ltd’s latest estimates of costs and schedule are realistic and are comparable to other UK infrastructure
    • why any cost estimates or schedules have changed since the most recent previous baselines
    • whether there are opportunities for efficiencies
    • the cost of disruption to rail users during construction
    • whether there are trade-offs between cost and schedule; and whether there are opportunities for additional commercial returns for the taxpayer through, for example, developments around stations, to offset costs
    • what proceeding with Phase 1 means in terms of overall affordability, and what this means in terms of what would be required to deliver the project within the current funding envelope for the project as a whole
  • whether the assumptions behind the business case, for instance on passenger numbers and train frequencies, are realistic, including the location and interconnectivity of the stations with other transport systems, and the implications of potential changes in services to cities and towns which are on the existing main lines but will not be on HS2
  • for the project as a whole, how much realistic potential there is for cost reductions in the scheme as currently planned through changes to its scope, planned phasing or specification, including but not limited to:
    • reductions in speed
    • making Old Oak Common the London terminus, at least for a period
    • building only Phase 1
    • combining Phases 1 and 2a
    • different choices or phasing of Phase 2b, taking account of the interfaces with Northern Powerhouse Rail
  • the direct cost of reprioritising, cancelling or de-scoping the project, including but not limited to: contractual penalties; the risk of legal action; sunk costs; remediation costs; supply chain impact; and an estimate of how much of the money already spent, for instance on the purchase of land and property, could be recouped
  • whether and how the project could be reprioritised; in particular, whether and, if so how, Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) (including the common sections with HS2 Phase 2b) could be prioritised over delivering the southern sections of HS2
  • whether any improvements would benefit the integration of HS2, NPR and other rail projects in the north of England or Midlands
  • any lessons from the project for other major projects

Review team and support

The review will be chaired by Doug Oakervee. The deputy chair will be Lord Berkeley. There will also be a panel consisting of Michele Dix, Stephen Glaister, Patrick Harley, Sir Peter Hendy, Andrew Sentance, Andy Street, John Cridland and Tony Travers. Each will focus on a specific area of interest; they will feed in to and be consulted on the report’s conclusions, without having a right of veto in the event that consensus cannot be reached.

Support will be provided by the Department for Transport. Sufficient support will be needed to allow a searching and rigorous review in a relatively short time. The review team will be provided with any papers and persons they request. Undertakings of confidentiality will be entered into with the Chair, Deputy Chair, panel, and others as necessary.

Reporting and publication

The review will report to the Secretary of State for Transport with oversight from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It should produce a written report suitable for publication.

Timing

The review should submit its final report in autumn 2019.

Thursday 23 May 2019

Future of HS2 project uncertain amidst Tory turmoil

Construction News often sends me well informed articles and I think this one, received yesterday, is of particular interest:

The government confirmed earlier this week that HS2 would continue, despite a damning House of Lords economic committee report.

However, as I write this, rumours abound that the prime minister's position is uncertain once again, in the wake of another attempt to sell her EU withdrawal deal to MPs.
Unfavourable results for the Conservatives in tomorrow's European Union parliamentary elections, where the party is polling fourth according to some surveys, will just add to the pressure.

And the implications on construction could be profound.

A YouGov poll for The Times found that 57 per cent of Conservative Party members believed HS2 should be scrapped, with 32 per cent believing it should continue.
Given that these voters will likely choose the next prime minister, the future for the largest infrastructure scheme in Europe doesn’t look positive.

At least £5.5bn has already been spent on the project and firms involved have lined up workers and equipment for the works.

Bookies' favourite Boris Johnson, who announced last week he would put his name in the hat for a Tory leadership vote, is openly against HS2.

Last year Mr Johnson told The Times: “There are transport projects we should have in the north of the country that ought to take precedence over HS2.

“It’s crazy how long it takes to get east-west across the country.”

Another potential Tory leader, Andrea Leadsom, told the cabinet last year that HS2 presented poor value for money and the funding would be better spent elsewhere.
But not all leadership front-runners are opposed to the £56bn scheme.

Secretary of state for health and social care Matt Hancock is understood to have given his backing to the delivery of HS2 on the condition that there is investment in east-west transport links in addition to high-speed line.

Former Brexit minister Dominic Raab, whilst not clearly for or against HS2, is believed to want to assess if the project is value for money for the taxpayer.

And with the rumours swirling against the prime minister, the prospect of another Tory leadership contest is rising. What's certain is that the next inhabitant of Number 10 will have immense power over HS2's future.

Last week, Balfour Beatty said the workforce they had setup for its Old Oak Common station contract would be redeployed or made redundant if works didn't start soon.
If the next leader re-establishes confidence in the project, support should be parallel with a clear start date to the main civil works. 

If it were cancelled, it would be a huge blow for this industry but the money set aside for HS2 must be used on alternative infrastructure projects, which would allow the firms investing time into HS2 the ability to win work elsewhere.
Caroline Wadham, reporter, Construction News

Friday 29 March 2019

Is more accountability to Brent residents and councillors needed from our OPDC representative?




Considering the enormous scale of the Old Oak and Park Royal Development we herelittle in Brent about progress from our representative on the board Cllr Muhammed Butt.  After Cargiant threw a spanner in the works over its site LINK the London Mayor announced with a fanfare that the Corporation had been given a £250m award by the government:
Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC), has today welcomed the government’s decision to award £250m to kick-start development on the West London site.
The investment, from the government’s Housing Infrastructure Fund, will be used to assemble land, design and build vital roads and utilities infrastructure. This will allow development of homes and businesses to begin at Old Oak North, close to the new transport ‘Superhub’ where the HS2 and the Elizabeth Line will meet.
Old Oak North is the first of six new neighbourhoods planned for the 650-hectare site. When complete, it is predicted that the entire redevelopment of Old Oak and Park Royal will deliver 25,500 new homes and 65,000 new jobs.
Old Oak and Park Royal is one of London’s largest Opportunity Areas with a new High Speed 2 (HS2) and Elizabeth line (formerly Crossrail) station due to be constructed at Old Oak by 2026. Redevelopment of the area has the potential to deliver 24,000 new homes and 55,000 jobs in Old Oak, as well as 1,500 new homes and 10,000 jobs on the adjoining Park Royal industrial estate.
Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) is the body tasked by the Mayor with driving forward future development plans for the area. OPDC has full planning powers within the 650-hectare site, which includes land in the boroughs of Hammer smith & Fulham, Ealing and Brent.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said:
Old Oak and Park Royal is one of the capital’s most important regeneration projects with the capacity to deliver tens of thousands of new, genuinely affordable homes and jobs.
Therefore, I’m pleased that government have shown its support for our vision through this funding grant. This money will let us enter a new stage in the development of Old Oak, delivering the essential infrastructure to make the Old Oak dream a reality.
 Anyone wanting further information on the activities of the Board discover that the Minutes of the meetings are published a long time after the meetings. The last meeting for which Minutes have been published was November 28th at which Muhammed Butt was replaced by Cllr Shama Tatler with just observer status.

The leaders of the three London Boroughs involved, Brent, Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham are all on the broad for which they receive an allowance of £15,000. LINK  Cllr Butt is also on the Appointments and Remuneration Committee along with Brent's Head of Planning Amar Dave.

It is difficult to find how Cllr Butt reports back to Brent councillors on the OPDC and how its decisions are scrutinised. There were 5 Board meetings in 2018 and 1 Appointments and Remuneration Committee meeting. This is a pretty good rate per meeting and I am sure Muhammed Butt would argue that he does far more work on the OPDC than just attend meetings - it would be good have some detail.

The Brent Council website shows just how many other outside committees he is on:

A life spent in committee rooms looks rather dreary but Cllr Butt's role does bring him some pleasure:


There are some consultation meetings on OPDC plans coming up soon - details HERE

Friday 27 July 2018

Butt's crocodile tears on South Kilburn

The Brent and Kilburn Times has a story about the recent public meeting on South Kilburn and the impact of regeneration and HS2. LINK  One resident has said disruption was so bad that he wanted to move away. The Kilburn Times reports:


Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, felt he “had to step in” on hearing residents wanted to move away.

He said: “I’m edging on the side of residents. 

“There’s a lot of regeneration taking place for the next 15 years or more and we must do all we can to safeguard the residents. “If he’s talking about moving out the area, we need to have a serious conversation.”

However, he was later challenged on why he petitioned HS2 to move the vent shaft from its original spot in a Queen’s Park car park in Salusbury Road

Cllr Butt has absoutely no excuse for not being aware of the issues as this blog has brought it to attention several times in posts from Pete Firmin, a resident and tenants represenative and a member of Kilburn Labour Party.  This is one blog that Pete wrote on May 26th 2015  LINK about the HS2 shaft that Brent Council asked HS2 to put next to Canterbury Works and a primary school on the estate, rather than the  council owened site next to Queens Park station which at the time was away from any residences. Brent Council has now given planning permission for flats on that site. Pete Firmin's post received 53 comments which are worth reading.




Guest blog by Pete Firmin, South Kilburn resident
 
On Friday 22nd May, pupils, parents teachers and local residents held a protest at the gates of St. Mary’s Catholic Primary School in South Kilburn against the proposal from Brent Council that the ventilation shaft’ for HS2 be sited right next to the school and close to flats.

Apparently such ventilation shafts are necessary at certain distances along the line in order to get rid of the air pushed in front of the speeding trains, otherwise they would slow the trains down. Such vent shafts are not a small thing, being usually about 25 m by 25 m and 2 storeys high – the size of a small block of flats. Such an enterprise is calculated to take up to 6 years building work, involving movement of over a hundred lorries a day to and from the affected area at peak times, with the association noise, disruption and dust...

HS2’s current proposal is that this be sited close to Queen’s Park station, but Brent Council is pressing that it be on the Canterbury Works site next to St Mary’s school instead. Some studies suggest a ventilation shaft is not essential at either site.

Brent Council’s proposal ignores the pleas from local residents and school staff and users and is putting its regeneration scheme above any concern for the health and wellbeing of students and residents. They have the support of Queens Park residents in this, who feel the vent shaft would be a “blight” on their community, despite the disruption and siting being much further from their homes and schools than is proposed for South Kilburn. As so often, South Kilburn is seen as the dumping ground for things that Brent and its middle classes regard as undesirable’.

The issue of Brent and HS2 has a background. The local Tenants and Residents Association has been asking Brent Council about HS2 and how it will affect us for years, ever since we discovered it is due to run underneath (or very close to) our flats. Unfortunately, unlike Camden, Brent Council didn’t seem to be looking at this at all, its only comments being that HS2 offered great business opportunities’ for Old Oak Common. Even when we got letters from HS2 saying they may want to Compulsorily Purchase our properties we got no support from Brent. We’ve all had at least 2 such letters now, and, despite our urging, Brent Council appears to have done nothing to get proper answers from HS2 on this. Some people have been told verbally that this is just something that HS2 has to do and they will not be wanting to CPO our properties, but we have never had such a commitment from HS2 in writing.

Then, despite us asking for years that Brent take up our concerns and nothing happening, we discovered from a third party that a report on HS2 was due to go to Brent Council  in March last year. This was the first we knew about proposals about the siting of the vent shaft, when the report argued for its siting in South Kilburn rather than next to Queens Park station. We asked that we be allowed to address the Council when it discussed the report, but this was refused. Instead we were given a commitment that our concerns would be taken on board. Given our concerns included opposition to the Council’s push for the vent shaft site to be adjacent to the school and our flats, this was clearly not the case.

Then this year we saw by chance an email from a Council officer to one of our Councillors which said “HS2,  we continue to lobby for this to be relocated from the Council owned site at Salusbury Road car park to the rear of Canterbury Works. Various professional studies have been commissioned which support this Full Council approved stance and have been recently submitted to HS2 for their consideration.”

Around the same time the headteacher of St Marys school came away from a meeting with HS2 and Council officers convinced the vent shaft was going to be put next to the school. Soon after leaflets were put through our doors campaigning against the vent shaft being sited there. This came from people associated with the school, and since then they have had a meeting for all parents, produced petitions and initiated the protest outside the school. 

Local residents support the opposition from school users to the siting of the shaft here, but there is an added complication. The leaflets put through every door and the drive behind the school campaign come from a PR company employed by the property developers building luxury flats (no social housing) at Canterbury House (also next to the school and a block of flats) and property developers hoping to build a ten-storey block of flats on the Canterbury Works site (currently a vehicle repair site, and the site where Brent wants the vent shaft site to be). 

Many of us are opposed to both the siting of the vent shaft next to the school and our flats and ANY further development of the site. We think that having been living on the middle of a regeneration building site for the last 3 years (with the myriad of complaints that has involved, about which Brent has done nothing), we should have respite from any further development and the disruption, noise and dirt involved. Added to which, the Canterbury House development is luxury flats only (advertised as in Queens Park, even though in the middle of South Kilburn), and development on the Canterbury Works would probably be similar, or at the very least the low proportion of social housing we are now seeing in SK regeneration’), this would only add to what we have called the social cleansing’ taking place with regeneration. SK is also already one of the most densely populated parts of Brent. 

We have lost some our little green space through regeneration, we would like to get some back rather than further development. So, as well as opposing the siting of the vent shaft here, we would oppose planning permission for further flats on the site too. Some of us joined the protest outside the school with placards opposing both the HS2 vent shaft and the property developers.

Just to be clear, the PR company’s employee working with the school put on the “No to HS2 at Canterbury Works” Facebook page “We do not want to see a ventilation shaft at Canterbury Works, we are protecting the interests of Canterbury House and a ventilation shaft would be detrimental to this development and to its future residents who will be part of the South Kilburn community.” 

Protecting the interests of Canterbury House means the property developers, it couldn’t be more explicit. Future residents seem to take precedence over current ones too. When they started work on Canterbury House (the building has been empty for years, even though planning permission was obtained some time ago), they knew that HS2 was going through the area and people had been served with potential CPO orders. Our belief was that they were hoping for maximum compensation (unlike us!) and that was why they pressed ahead.

We are hoping we can have one united campaign involving both school and local residents against the siting of the vent shaft here. There does seem to be an attempt to keep us at arms length from the school campaign, given our critical stance.

As so often, Brent Council has spent years ignoring the concerns of local residents and is now intent on pressing HS2 to trample on the interests of both school pupils and residents.

This letter from Pete Firmin to Scrutiny Committee provides detail on residents concerns about the South Kilburn redevelopment in general as well as the shaft: LINK


Monday 15 January 2018

Greens call for cancellation of HS2 in the wake of the Carillion collapse

The Green Party has called on the Government to cancel HS2 after the collapse of Carillion, the company building the high speed rail link.

Jonathan Bartley, Green Party co-leader, also urged the Government to reverse privatisation, bring contracts back in house and launch a full-scale inquiry into the decisions made about the company, and the wider “privatisation experiment”.

Bartley said:
The collapse of Carillion should be the final nail in HS2’s coffin. Cancelling this vanity project would save tens of billions of pounds, and stop the environmental vandalism which would see miles of countryside and ancient woodland covered in concrete. Instead, Britain's rail network has the opportunity to rise like a phoenix from Carillion’s flames. Thousands of jobs could be created by investing instead in the upgrades local rail networks desperately need.

Carillion's demise should be seen as an opportunity to reverse privatisation, and protect jobs and pensions by bringing contracts back in house. It should also be the trigger for a full-scale inquiry, not just into the reckless decisions this Government has made over Carillion but also the whole privatisation experiment, which has been tried and found consistently wanting.

Wednesday 25 October 2017

Consultation on new Overground stations at Old Oak Lane and Hythe Road

Transport for London is consulting on new transport connections as a result of the building of HS2 and the Elizabeth line. There would be new Overground stations at Old Oak Common Lane and Hythe Road. Details from TfL below.

CONSULTATION EVENTS

The Nadi Park Royal, 260 Old Oak Common Lane, White City, London NW10 6DX

Monday 30 October 12:30 – 19:30
Saturday 4 November 10:30 – 16:00
Monday 6 November 12:30 – 19:30

Overview

Old Oak and Park Royal is one of London’s largest Opportunity Areas and one of the largest development sites in the country, with the ambition to deliver a whole new centre and community for west London which includes 25,500 new homes and 65,000 jobs.
Old Oak is the only place where High Speed 2 (HS2), the new high speed railway between London, the Midlands and the North, meets the Elizabeth line, London’s new East-West railway. A new station at Old Oak Common will open in 2026, providing both connections to the Elizabeth line, HS2 and National Rail services and a hub for regeneration.
In 2014 we consulted on the idea of providing further transport connections to the London Overground network at Old Oak with three options proposed. Over 83 per cent of respondents either supported or strongly supported this idea. There was also a clear preference for Option C which suggested two new Overground stations; one at Hythe Road on the West London line and one at Old Oak Common Lane on the North London line.
Following on from the 2014 consultation, working closely with Network Rail and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC), and co-funded by the European Commission, we have undertaken work to develop an initial design for the potential stations at Hythe Road and Old Oak Common Lane. We would now like your views on these designs.
In 2016 the Mayor of London carried out a review of the overall direction and work programme of the OPDC. The review recommended that additional work should be undertaken to support the case for the potential London Overground stations at Old Oak. Further work on the business case is currently underway and your views from this consultation will form an important part of the wider business case work.

Background

From 2026 HS2, the Elizabeth line and National Rail services are expected to call at a new Old Oak Common station and the area will benefit from excellent east – west rail connections, including to central London and Heathrow Airport.
Passengers wishing to travel by rail to Old Oak from the north or south would need to go by London Overground to Willesden Junction. Although Willesden Junction station is 1.5km away from the new Old Oak Common Station, there is no convenient link between the stations which would make it difficult for passengers to interchange between HS2, Elizabeth line or London Overground services.  
Providing good public transport connectivity at Old Oak would also support the regeneration proposed in the OPDC’s draft Local Plan (2017), the Old Oak and Park Royal Opportunity Area Planning Framework (2015) and the Mayor’s London Plan (2016).

What are the benefits of the new London Overground stations?

·      Better access to public transport across west London.
·      Enable more journeys to be made without going into central London, in turn reducing pressure on trains and stations in central London 
·      Improve access to HS2, Elizabeth line and National Rail services from areas of London connected to the London Overground network.
·      Enhance the regeneration benefits that HS2 and the Elizabeth line will bring to the Old Oak and Park Royal area.
·      Support the wider, OPCD-led development of Old Oak and Park Royal
·      Increase the number of destinations that can be accessed directly from Old Oak.

Working with our partners

Following on from the 2014 consultation, and supported with funding from the European Commission, we have worked up an initial design for both stations. Working closely with Network Rail and OPDC the designs have developed, leading to a single preferred option for each station. We have also worked closely with OPDC to ensure these designs would integrate with the proposals set out in its draft Local Plan.

What we are consulting on?

Hythe Road
Hythe Road station would be situated on the West London line about 700 metres from the Old Oak Common station and in one of the largest development sites within the OPDC area. This development site is owned by the company Car Giant and known as Old Oak Park. Car Giant, supported by the property development company London and Regional, is independently proposing a large-scale redevelopment of its land.

Hythe Road station

What options have been considered?

·      1A - a new London Overground station on the existing railway embankment, including embankment widening where required
·      1B - a new station and railway viaduct to the north of the existing embankment. This option would mean the removal of the existing embankment
·      1C - a new station and railway viaduct to the south of the existing embankment. This option would also mean the removal of the embankment

Which option is TfL consulting on?

Option 1B is the preferred option as it provides greater opportunity for regeneration and the creation of new spaces that support the wider development. In addition, this option reduces the severance caused by the embankment, making it easier for people to move around the area. 
Old Oak Common Lane
Old Oak Common Lane station would be situated about 350 metres to the west of the HS2 and Elizabeth line station, sitting on the North London line between Old Oak Common Lane and Midland Terrace. This station would provide the most convenient interchange between London Overground, HS2, the Elizabeth line and National Rail services. The location of this station is constrained by other railway lines, roads and residential properties.
To the west of Old Oak Common Lane station, there is an aspiration to provide a pedestrian and cycle link, connecting Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road. This link would make it easier for people to move around the area as currently the patchwork of railway lines act as a barrier. While a pedestrian / cycle link crossing the railway lines is not essential for the new station, we have included possible provision for such a link in each option as we believe it would be important for opening up the wider area.

Old Oak Lane station

What options have been considered?

·      2A - a new station with a sub-surface ticket hall and concourse. This option would include potential for an underpass between Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road
·      2B - a new station with an elevated ticket hall and concourse. This option would include potential for a bridge, linking pedestrians and cyclists between Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road

Which option is TfL consulting on?

Option 2B is the preferred option as it reduces the level of disruption to the railway during construction and provides better value for money.
Although the provision of an overpass to Victoria Road is not a requirement of the potential station, the design would allow for this to be provided, either at the same time as the station or at a later date. The decision to proceed with such a link is not confirmed and would be subject to further review and discussion with local stakeholders including residents, landowners and OPDC.

What happens next?

The business case work for the stations is being undertaken at present and further work is required to determine the future operational requirements. In addition, the work is only funded up to the end of the current stage, and investigations are under way to consider how the stations could be fully funded. The outcome of this consultation will inform the business case work, and ultimately will help us determine next steps.
If there is support to build the two stations, and funding is confirmed, powers to build and operate them would need to be secured through a Transport & Works Act Order. As part of this process it is likely the proposals would be examined at a public inquiry before being determined by the Secretary of State for Transport.
Further consultation on the proposals would be carried out before we submit a Transport & Works Act Order.

Public events

We are holding public events to give people the chance to ask questions and meet the project team. These events are taking place at;

The Nadi Park Royal, 260 Old Oak Common Lane, White City, London NW10 6DX

Monday 30 October 12:30 – 19:30
Saturday 4 November 10:30 – 16:00
Monday 6 November 12:30 – 19:30

Have your say

We would like to know what you think about our proposals.
Please give us your views by completing the online survey below by
Alternatively, you can:
·       Email us at consultations@tfl.gov.uk
·      or write to us at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS
You can also request paper copies of all the consultation materials and a response form by emailing consultations@tfl.gov.uk, or writing to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS.
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

Have your say


-->