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.

Disappointment as London Mayor decides not to intervene in the Cricklewood Aggregate Hub

Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, yesterday decided not to intervene in the construction of an aggregate Superhub in Cricklewood. It was open to him to directly refuse the application approved by Barnet Council or take it over himself.

The GLA report (see below) concludes that initial concerns have been addressed and that the application now conforms with the London Plan and the draft London Plan.

Intervention by the Secretary of State is now very unlikely and campaigners will be considering their next moves.

The Superhub was opposed by Fordych, Dollis Hill, Mapesbury and NorthWestTwo residents' associations.  Brent Council objected on highways and environmental grounds but 'noted that some concerns had been addressed following the submission of revised details.' Camden Council supported the application in principle but objected on amenity grounds.

There was cross-party opposition from GLA members:

Caroline Russell  (Green) – Objected to the proposals on the following grounds: committee voted in favour by a majority of one vote; transparency and objectivity; neighbouring boroughs of Brent and Camden have both objected to the proposals; the change in nature of the facility, from intermodal to aggregates / construction waste, was undertaken without public consultation; impact on well-being of residents in Barnet, Brent and Camden; air quality impacts; and traffic impacts. 

Caroline Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)  – Objected on the following grounds: slim majority, with councillors voting along ‘party lines’; transparency; objections raised from Brent and Camden Councils; scheme will impact the well-being and amenity of residents in Barnet, Brent and Camden; air quality impacts; and traffic impacts. 


Navin Shah  (Labour) – Objected to the proposals due to the impact upon noise, dust, traffic, pollution and quality of life. 


Following the Mayour announcement Caroline Russell, Green Party Assembly Member for London, said:

I share the disappointment of Brent residents at the Mayor’s decision not to intervene in the granting of planning permission by Barnet Council for the Cricklewood Superhub in the Edgware Road. Although the Superhub is in Barnet it is nearby Brent residents who will pay the social cost in terms of extra heavy lorry danger noise and pollution. The decision is particularly disappointing because there was united, well-informed opposition  from local residents’ associations as well as from Green, Labour and Liberal Democrat London Assembly Members

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.

Give your views on Cricklewood HGV Superhub today at the Crown 4pm-8.30pm

From Barnet Council
 

Wednesday 31 January 4pm to 8.30pm
Clayton Crown Hotel, Cricklewood, NW2 3ED

The Brent Cross Cricklewood development is Barnet Council’s most significant growth and regeneration programme.

There will be an opportunity to hear about the scheme in more detail and to view the plans for the replacement waste transfer station and the modernised rail freight facility.

It will be an open drop-in session between 4pm and 8.30pm with opportunities to hear a short presentation with more detail at 5pm and 7pm.

The invite is extended to interested residents who wish to hear more about what the scheme will bring and to discuss issues and concerns they may have with members of the delivery team.

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.

Cricklewood Super Hub - 2 days left to object to dirt, dust and devastation

Timely reminder to object to the aggregate superhub by 18th October.

Noise, dust and traffic is not what we need in Cricklewood.

If you’ve already objected, have your neighbours and the rest of your household?

It’s a huge deal, don’t just assume others will object.
https://www.northwesttwo.org.uk/superhub-how-much-dust/

The effect on air quality and traffic on the A5 and surrounding roads will be horrendous, dangerous even, and it is going to impact our health and quality of life.

This kind of thing doesn't belong in a residential area, especially one with two schools.

You can email the case officer to object using he case reference below.
Chloe.Thomson@barnet.gov.uk 

Background information for submissions from Alison Hopkins via Facebook

PLANNING APPLICATION FOR RAIL FREIGHT FACILITY FOR THE TRANSFER OF AGGREGATES (London Borough of Barnet)

This Application is for the development of a permanent facility for transfer of aggregate and waste between freight trains and HGVs on a patch of Railway land close to the A5 and just within the North Circular Road.

Trains would serve the terminal (initially at least) from the north- most of the stone and sand coming from Derbyshire for distribution by road across London- and construction waste would come in by road and leave by train to Bedford.

Numbers of HGVs

450 per day equates to nearly 1 per minute

If in and out that’s approximately1 per minute in each direction (is this right?) all day every day, including morning and afternoon peaks.]

These heavily laden diesel engined HGVs will be travelling along the already congested A5, with frequent stopping and starting- effectively maximising their potential for airborne pollution.
The HGV stream travelling in the out-of-town direction wouldl reach the already congested access to the North Circular road after about 500m. The other HGV stream, travelling towards central London would, within 500m, arrive in at the already heavily congested intersection with Cricklewood Lane and Chichelle Road-Walm Lane.

Cricklewood is extraordinarily well served with bus services- some radial along the A5, some orbital. But these services are all subject to uncertain delay at peak times. The HGV stream would significantly disrupt these services throughout the day.

The residents of Railway Terrace- an attractive Victorian development of terraced cottages- which immediately adjoins the site- are, very reasonably, alarmed at the prospect of excessive noise, vibration, and pollution. But the wider communities of Cricklewood, North West London, and London generally should also be concerned about the airborne pollution generated by a continuous stream, throughout each day, of heavily laden HGVs onto the A5.

If London needs such a freight facility, then evidently it should be located with direct access to a major radial road with sufficient capacity to absorb the stream of HGVs without their continual stopping and starting and hence maximising pollution.

Has Barnet sought an independent and authoritative report on the potential consequences for pollution and road congestion of the proposals?

From the viewpoints of Airborne Pollution minimisation (in this heavily populated residential area of NW London in particular), reliability of Public Transport (numerous bus services will be adversely affected), and the principles set out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (endorsed by Barnet Council incidentally), the proposed development is abhorrent and should not go ahead

  The planning application reference number is 17/5761/EIA. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 18 October. LINK

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