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.

Children's holiday activities at Welsh Harp Centre

Join us at the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre woodland for:

9th Aug     Natural jewellery & art creation
16th Aug   Bushcraft tool use
23rd Aug   Fire making & outdoor cooking
30th Aug   Bow & arrow firing range
10am – 12pm each date

Address: Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre, Birchen Grove, NW9 8RY
Suitable for children aged 8 – 12yrs
Costs £3.50 per child
Booking essential – contact Edel on welshharpcentre@thames21.org.uk / 07734 871 728

Children and adults should wear comfortable outdoor clothing that may get dirty.
• Visits must only be cancelled in extenuating circumstances and Thames21 must be notified in advance.
• Thames21 reserves the right to cancel a visit if weather conditions are deemed unsafe or if adult to child ratio is not met.
An adult must attend & supervise participating children throughout all activities making sure that:
• Supervise children at all times and are responsible for their behaviour.
• Minimum ratio of 1 adult to 5 children
• Will need to provide any specific medication for children or have the child’s parent attend the visit.

OK, it's August -Silly Season - time to see what Brent Council's Cabinet is tabling for their get together on the 13th

Guest post by Gaynor Lloyd
 

If you live in Northwick Park area - or South Kilburn for that matter - it’s worth having a quick look at the  Cabinet papers  about Brent’s  “Regeneration Zones”. LINK 

Yes, some of us lucky residents of leafy Northwick Park were just a bit startled to see ourselves in a “Regeneration Zone”. Some of us weren’t  too shocked, however - though still very , very upset. This is just the latest stage in the story of the plans for what we residents call “the Park”. A fantastic piece of Brent open space, including formal much used sports and  playing fields, a nature conservation area and a golf course. 

And it seems  the Leader of the Council is in charge of this; South Kilburn get the Cabinet Member for Regeneration. I expect we should be flattered. 

This is all about one element of the One Public Estate (OPE)  scheme which has come home to roost in Northwick Park. [More about OPE for those interested at the bottom of this piece **- and see also the linked news stories in Brent & Kilburn Times LINK  

and my letter on Page 13 on the earlier story LINK 

The scheme involves Network Housing, Northwick Park Hospital, Brent Council, University of Westminster and potentially TfL. It’s quite hard to get the detail  but the idea is that there will be 3700 homes  by 2035 somewhere on the margins of the Park. Tower blocks will be built on the land near to the Tube station - a “landmark residential development”.

Sure, as some  papers have emerged, there have been references to key worker housing, and affordable homes  - gosh, do we need key worker housing, and social housing - truly affordable homes - but these proposals  are all very vague. I’ve been trying for more transparency - a couple of Freedom of Information (FOI)  requests over the last 2 years - but not much joy. 

Even though  Brent got a grant of  £530k to do viability research on all this. Including transport research, my current  huge concern - and the reason for asking Martin to post this blog. 

My latest FOI request of Brent  from last December has been so sat on for a very long time -  despite  numerous charming assurances that the sifting process of 100’s of emails was being done  and that the release of  all or some would be opined on “soon” by Brent’s Legal Team . Well, after a last chance given to Brent by the Information Commissioner just to reply at all,  it’s now been accepted by her  as a complaint . I await hearing if the Information Commissioner accepts my argument that the plans should be out in the public domain. 

I was particularly incensed by  the secrecy for the transportation reports/ surveys, and the plans being hatched for  “infrastructure works”  . Principally an access road for this huge re-development. Our very own Regeneration Zone.

Clearly the access road can’t  go across the railway/Tube lines. OK, University of Westminster might be decamping for pastures new; maybe it could go that way. But the University’s plans  seem to be a more recent possible development. 

So where could this road  possibly go? And where might it be considered for going - a location of such commercial confidentiality and sensitivity that Brent can’t possibly release any professional transport reports or plans on it into the public domain? 

Oh, let me think...

Could it be an access road across our Park - designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) - put simplistically, the London equivalent of Green Belt? (The Mayor recently refused an application by Harrow School for a major long planned sports centre on its MOL  land just cross the road from Northwick Park - because it was inappropriate development on MOL) 

It’s not “just” the effect on the environment, or the open air sports facilities; it’s the madness of adding to the roads here, which also serve Northwick Park hospital - a major hospital with (as we all know) a busy A&E. 

But hang on - to finance all this - Brent has a £9.9 million grant from HM Government from the Marginal Viability  Fund bit of its  Housing Infrastructure Fund. To get  this “marginal viability funding”, according to the HMG website , there is supposed to be “market failure”, and  “extensive local consultation” and      “alignment with the Local plan”. Well, these are  a bit news to me but obviously I don’t know everything.

So another reason for my FOI request - which sought evidence of  any of those factors. So far all I have got is a bit of alleged consultation.  Sudbury Court Residents’ Association AGM in April 2017, to which Brent officers did come after a bit of persuading. They brought  a very rum set of slides, including one of rather a scruffy park bench by Northwick Park Tube station, mentioning   litter. The officers did do a bit of question answering by local residents - and promised to revert on some stuff (but didn’t).

If that was consultation, it seems odd  the FOI officer says they have to ask the Chair of the SCRA for her notes of the meeting! Anyway, it wasn’t “consultation” in any normal sense of the word.(NO comments please on Brent’s consultations)

Oh -  and that aligning with Local Plan point. Well, maybe that can be retrospective. The Cabinet paper says “ members may be aware that Brent’s planning department is engaged in consultation on the local plan for which Northwick Park has an allocation “. I’d hope all members (especially on the Cabinet) would be aware we’ve had a bit of Local plan consultation in Brent. 

However, speaking as a local resident (and married to a Ward Councillor) and  having gone to a local meeting  on this Local Plan business   - though I admit I am getting on a bit , so I might have forgotten  - I was completely unaware of any Planning Officer referring to Northwick Park at all. Let alone in terms of revising Northwick Park’s  Local Plan “allocation” or Northwick Park becoming a “Regeneration Zone”.

It seems that the Local Plan “Preferred Options” will be out in November - when “it is proposed to run public consultation specific to Northwick Park in parallel”.

I hope we residents will be having a little pre-consultation consultation amongst ourselves rather more quickly than that. I also hope others in the Borough interested in open space, the environment,  good use of NHS land, pollution, key worker housing and good social housing provision will join us. WATCH THIS SPACE.

[**NOTE on OPE if you’ve got this far!

HM Government OPE is a plan to dispose of “surplus public land”. A particularly infamous issue is the disposal of NHS land in London - based on a couple of reports by Sir Robert Naylor. Generally Sir Robert in his openly available  Report says  to NHS bodies “Identify your surplus land” (that can include unused/empty space like corridors and open walkways, by the way). If your percentages of unused/empty or underused space to your overall site are too high, oh dear, inefficiency - using a carrot & stick approach - the message  is “sell, sell, sell”. Sir Robert’s second, confidential report -  “Naylor 2” - identifies some prime value London NHS sites for disposal  and  is so sensitive NHS England has been fighting a Freedom of Information request I have in on it for around 2 years. 

So clearly a sensitive area generally. Naylor’s reports IS useful in one respect though; Deloittes accountants did a background research report for him - which said sensibly that we ought to be looking strategically at the need for land for NHS use, in light of London’s growing population - and reminding of high land values here if we need to reprovide. Gosh how sensible - how ignored! ]

Tenure split at Old Oak development does not reflect local housing need

Sian Berry. Green Party Assembly Member for London has submitted her response to the  second Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation's revised draft Local  Plan consultation.

The Mayor’s draft London Plan identified that the Old Oak and Park Royal Opportunity Area has the capacity to deliver at least 25,500 homes with around 20,000 of these to be built over the OPDC local plan period (2017 – 2037).

As such the OPDC site has the potential to make an important contribution to meeting London’s housing need in the next two decades.

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) that underpins the draft London Plan found that 47 per cent of new homes delivered in London up to 2041 should be at low cost rent – social rent. And that accounts for about 70 per cent of the ‘affordable’ homes in general.

The Mayor’s draft London plan also says he wants to see a minimum of 30 per cent social rent and 30 per cent intermediate homes at each development with the other 40 per cent left for the local authority – in this case the OPDC – to decide, based on local need.

However in Sian Berry’s response to Response to second Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) revised draft Local Plan consultation she has identified two key problems.

1. Tenure split of affordable homes does not reflect local housing need
2. London Development Database is not an up-to-date record of planning permissions granted at OPDC site 

Full response below (click bottom right corner for page view)

Willesden Green Library re-opens

From Brent Culture Twitter account

I'm pleased to report that the Library at Willesden Green will reopen to the public this afternoon from 1pm.

Brent Council starts voluntary redundancy process for its employees

The General Purposes Committee on Thursday will be asked to approve a voluntary redundancy process for its staff which will be implemented from the next day Friday August 3^rd.

The supporting paper states:

It is proposed that a voluntary redundancy scheme be implemented across the council, with applications during August and September 2018, to enable managers to have information about potential volunteers in advance of planning and implementing restructures to achieve council savings requirements over the next period.

The council has made a commitment in its Change Management policy to seek to avoid compulsory redundancies by using voluntary redundancy where appropriate. A voluntary redundancy scheme is advantageous for both management and employees. It enables employees to come forward and initiate a discussion about their future without fear of committing themselves until all the paperwork has been agreed after exit figures have been finalised. For managers, it means that they can plan reorganisations more effectively, knowing in advance which staff are willing to leave. Implementing compulsory redundancies is a significant drain on management time and is very disruptive for the wider workforce.

All final decisions will be made in one place (CMT) which will ensure consistency and will also enable the council to ensure that implementation of the scheme is affordable in the context of the council’s savings requirements.

Each individual case will be assessed on the basis of the efficiency of the service and longer term financial considerations. A payback period of not more than 2 years is proposed. 

Applications can only be accepted where it is appropriate to delete the employee’s post (or the post of another member of staff who is suitable for the employee’s post) as there must be a redundancy situation. Where an employee’s post is not suitable for deletion, they may be placed on a central register of employees willing to take voluntary redundancy should another employee facing compulsorily redundancy in the future be a suitable candidate for their post.

The proposal is made against the background of further budget cuts outlined previously on Wembley Matters.  The paper does not state how many job cuts are required and figures will depend on the cost to the council of the required pay-outs to staff who opt for redundancy.

The Equality Impact Assessment states:

Staff 55 years of age or over represent 21% of the workforce eligible for the scheme.
 Any possible discrimination arising from the expectation of a payback period not exceeding 2 years can be materially justified by the policy objectives to contribute to the council’s savings requirements and to the avoidance/minimising of compulsory redundancies in the whole workforce. If costs are not recovered over the required period, this does not contribute to the council’s savings requirements over this period and may mean additional redundancies are required to meet the additional costs of the severance.

57% of the workforce aged less than 55 yrs are female and 50.65% of the workforce aged 55 yrs and over are female so it does not appear likely that there will be any disparate impact in terms of the gender make up of the work force.

Unknown impacts – until applications are received and considered it cannot be predicted with any degree of accuracy whether a disproportionate number of applications will be received and/or approved from any particular group. In view of the higher benefits, it is likely that older employees may be more likely to apply.

Unfortunately 713 of our 2139 staff have not specified their ethnicity so a meaningful analysis of the ethnicity of the 55 yrs and over age group compared to those under 55 yrs. is not possible.

-->

UPDATE Barnet Council tonight debates banning those calling for Israel boycott on grounds of ‘antisemitism’ as defined by the IHRA examples

From Palestine Solidarity Campaign

UPDATE via Barnet Momentum The motion was not taken last night. It has been referred to Barnet  Policy and Resources Committee which next meets on October 23rd.

Barnet Councillor Brian Gordon is to propose a motion effectively outlawing organisations that support Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. The motion [below] cites the hotly disputed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) document on antisemitism as justification for the move. The meeting is at Hendon Town Hall, 7pm tonight.

The motion calls for the London Borough of Barnet to ‘consider the legality of ensuring’ it does ‘not to provide or rent any space’ to individuals and groups supporting the BDS movement – effectively seeking a ban on events promoting sanctions against Israel for its violations of international law.
Councillor Gordon’s motion specifically quotes the contentious guidance notes to the IHRA document in order to claim that BDS is antisemitic, because other countries are not similarly targeted. 

However no other country that the UK treats as an ally has been in illegal occupation of another country for over 50 years, suppressing the human rights of its inhabitants.

The motion has national significance because the Labour Party – which has adopted the 38-word IHRA definition of antisemitism – has been criticised for not fully adopting the guidanceattached to it, including the two examples cited in the motion.

Jonathan Rosenhead, Vice Chair of Free Speech on Israel, said:

Those criticising Labour for failing to adopt the full IHRA guidance claim the document poses no threat to freedom of expression. This motion being put forward in Barnet clearly demonstrates that they are wrong and vindicates the adjustments made by Labour’s National Executive Committee.

Ben Jamal, Director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said:

Palestinians have a right to describe their history and the continuing racist injustices that deny them their rights, whether as unequal citizens of the State of Israel, living under military occupation in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, under siege in Gaza, or as refugees denied the right of return. Others have a right to hear this information and, in line with a commitment to fighting racism in all its forms, to respond to the Palestinian call for global action via Boycott Divestment and Sanctions.

Despite the clear warning from distinguished lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC in his legal opinion on the IHRA document, groups lobbying for Israel have continued to press public bodies both to adopt the IHRA definition and to use it to suppress both legitimate criticism of Israel, and calls for action on behalf of the Palestinian people. In March, a delegation including Joan Ryan MP, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel , Matthew Offord MP of Conservative Friends of Israel petitioned Theresa May at 10 Downing Street, calling for action to  prevent events on UK campuses that describe Israel as an apartheid state, citing the IHRA document as justification.

Campaigners for Palestinian rights including Free Speech on Israel, Jewish Voice for Labour and Palestine Solidarity Campaign are calling for the motion to be withdrawn. They have also called for the UK government to issue a clear statement that no public body should use the IHRA definition to prevent legitimate criticism of the state of Israel (which includes describing its laws and policies as “racist” and meeting the legal definition of “apartheid”). Nor should they use it to prevent calls for peaceful actions including boycott divestment and sanctions in response to Israel’s continuing violations of Palestinian human rights.

Administration motion in the name of Cllr Brian Gordon Boycott the antisemitic BDS movement 

On 31^st January 2017, Barnet became the first local authority to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s definition of antisemitism and its corresponding guidance, which recognises that antisemitism takes many forms including, in certain circumstances, targeting of the State of Israel. 

The IHRA’s guidance rightly points out that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled [sic] against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. However, Council believes the aims, methods, and rhetoric of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and believes its go well beyond this, and are consistent with the IHRA’s guidance on the definition of antisemitism. Specifically: 

·      A completely disproportionate focus on the State of Israel to the exclusion of all other territorial disputes and ethnic conflicts in the world, e.g. the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, or the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus; 

·      “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour [sic]”; 

·      Frequently reported incidents of BDS activists “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” and “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism to characterize Israel or Israelis.” 

·      “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” 
Following similar action taken by the City of Frankfurt am Main, Germany, on 25^th August 2017, Council instructs the Policy & Resources Committee to produce a Use of Council Premises policy and to consider the legality of ensuring:
·      The London Borough of Barnet does not provide any space or areas for clubs, organizations or even individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet instructs its companies not to provide or rent any space for affiliates, organizations or individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet appeals to landlords of event venues in the borough not to provide or rent any space for clubs, organizations or even individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet does not make any donations or grants to associations, organisations or other groups which support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

Council also reaffirms its commitment to fight all forms of prejudice, whether against religion, race, sex, gender, or age. 


--> -->
-->

Green Party leadership candidates on ecosocialism

On-line voting opened today in elections for the Green Party leaders and executive. Green Left asked candidates about ecosocialism. 

What do you understand by the term “Ecosocialist”? ‘Would you see yourself as being an ecosocialist and what does that mean to you?

LEADER CANDIDATES

Shahrar Ali

Green socialists, and I count myself as one, frame and explain policies in terms of their impact on social justice and environmental well-being. Climate justice would put an end to those least responsible for the climate change impacts having to most suffer their horrendous consequences. See my Ted Talk https://bit.ly/2NVbi6J.

Sian Berry (Joint candidate with Bartley)

I joined the Greens in 2001 precisely because we were the only party making the links between social justice and the need for a healthy planet, while all the other parties saw these as either/or. This link is at the core of ecosocialism, while I also admire the focus of most ecosocialists on local empowerment and action that builds resilience within communities as well as ‘traditional’ socialist principles like democratic public control of essential services and industries.

Jonathan Bartley (joint candidate with Berry)

I don’t see how the need to tackle climate change and the ravaging of the planet can be separated from the economic system that drives it and the rampant inequality that results. For me this is what being an ecosocialist is about and right now is the moment to be shouting loudly about it. People need more than a choice between Monetarism and Keynesianism. What Labour is offering is neither radical nor ecosocialist. What we offer should be clearly different and mean systemic change.

Leslie Rowe

Ecosocialism is Green socialism. Capitalism is the cause of social exclusion, poverty, war and environmental degradation through globalisation and imperialism, under repressive states and transnational structures, such as the EU. That is why I am campaigning for a sustainable de-growth economic policy and actively oppose neo-liberal economic policies.

DEPUITY LEADER CANDIDATES

Aimee Challenor

For me, Ecosocialist is someone who supports people and planet through challenging big business and capitalism, making sure that we can live Free and Equal whilst also having a planet to live on.

Jonathan Chilvers

My understanding: The problems of environmental degradation and poverty having the common root cause of an exploitative capitalist system. My comment: I identify more strongly with the cooperative socialism of the earliest 20thC rather than the top down models that have come to be synonymous with the word ‘socialist’. Marx still offers the most devastating critique we have of capitalism, but he’s not that helpful for the Green Party in setting out a realistic, relevant and radical programme for how we move towards an economics for a finite planet.

Andrew Cooper

Ecosocialism is a vision of a transformed society in harmony with nature, and the development of practices that can attain it. It is directed toward alternatives to all socially and ecologically destructive systems, such as patriarchy, racism, homophobia and the fossil-fuel based economy. 

I’ve never called myself an ‘Ecosocialist’ though in conversation with people who do we come to similar conclusions on many occasions

Rashid Nix

I don’t like jargon. Avoid it like the plague. I am a Green Party spokesperson who talks the language of everyday people. We must develop language that includes not excludes. Ecosocialist is more exclusive language we should avoid. Mankind is in trouble, we need Simple Solutions a 10 year old understands.

Amelia Womack

I am a proud ecosocialist, which has been evidenced by my work opposing austerity and championing green alternatives that have social justice at their core. We need to be championing eco-socialist policies not just in the UK, but on a global basis, working to dismantle capitalism and challenging globalisation from the perspective that it’s built on the backs of the working class around the works, destroying our planet, and the effects of all this feedback with climate change and ecological destruction destroying the poorest countries and communities first.