Northwick Park regeneration - key public questions for Monday's Brent Cabinet

I am pleased to see that Gaynor Lyoyd is pressing home her demand for more information on the One Public Estate Plan for Northwick Park.  A year ago I called for more public information LINK

Gaynor's questions following up her earlier post on Wembley Matters LINK

The combination of a Cabinet meeting on August 13th, a meeting held in peak holiday season and one at a time (4pm) inconvenient for people who work, would normally mean a lack of scrutiny so all credit to Gaynor Lloyd for her detailed questions. It should mean that the meeting lasts longer than its normal 45 minutes.

These are the questions:

 

Item 8  “Approval to enter into grant agreements for 2 Housing Infrastructure bids relating to ...Northwick Park Regeneration “ in Cabinet meeting Agenda 13 August 2018.

1  Northwick Park is a much loved local facility - a park, playing fields and sports pitches, a golf course and a Grade 1 Nature conservation site an area much used by locals for open air leisure over many years. As Brent’s policies CP17 & 18 make clear, Brent is deficient in all types of open space and - at any rate in a Sports England survey in 2005-6 - had one of the lowest levels of sports participation in England. Unsurprisingly, policy CP17 para 5.15 states that the council will protect  all open space from inappropriate development.

No plan is attached to the Report showing the extent of the (proposed) area for “Northwick Park Regeneration”. So it is not possible to see if this is restricted to the Northwick park Hospital Site allocation15.

There is  local concern about the possibility of our Park and its margins being designated a “regeneration zone”, allowing for higher density/high rise blocks - even though no-one can recall this potential allocation as having been mentioned in any general Local Plan consultation meetings.  

Question 1: could a plan of the boundaries of the Northwick Park Regeneration area the subject of the grant application be published? 
 

2  According to details on the HM Government website, to qualify for a grant being considered under this Housing Infrastructure  Marginal Viability Fund, evidence has to be given of: 

a) “demonstrable market failure “ (given as per the Technical guidance in https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-infrastructure-); and

b) “local support “  ( as per examples in the same paper -“extensive local consultation” );  and 

c) “alignment with the Local Plan” (ditto) ; and

d) “ imminent” provision of homes 

I have been trying through a FOI /EIA request to get details of the evidence or details of how the first three of these were demonstrated with the grant application. The Cabinet may like to note that the Information Commissioner is now dealing with my request  for that evidence or those details, after the Council failed to comply with a direction of the Commissioner to give me a response. 

So far, only a Sudbury Court Residents Association AGM in April 2017 - at which the presence of officers was requested by the Association - is cited but the Council officers appear to have made no notes of that presentation, and is apparently asking if the Association made any. 

Question 2: if these criteria are required to be satisfied for a grant application under the MVF - is the Cabinet satisfied that there is evidence/ details of the demonstration of demonstrable market failure, local support, alignment with the Local Plan and imminent provision of homes, and if so, could that evidence please be published generally and supplied to me and save the Information Commissioner’s Office time and effort?

3  The grant  application seems to be on the basis that the site is landlocked, although neither the University of Westminster nor the Hospital site is landlocked. The £9.9million grant is for infrastructure, including an access road.

By the same troubled FOIA/EIA request process, I have tried to ascertain where this access road might be. As above, my request is now with the Information Commissioner, having patiently waited since December 2017.

Question 3: please publish a simple indication of the rough alternative routes for the access road to the Northwick Park Regeneration area proposed as options in the viability studies (as these must be known for the MVF grant application) including confirming  if a route/routes  across any part of the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) at Northwick Park is/are  under consideration.
 

4  Since naturally not all Cabinet members may be familiar with the precious asset to Brent that Northwick Park is - or its protective planning designations -  although I am sure they will have been properly briefed before this meeting , I am keen to know that they are aware, and that any public who may attend is aware of the position under planning.

Question 4:   does  item 8 take account of the extent of MOL and Open Space at Northwick Park, and of the other open space planning protection designations (including especially the SINC Grade 1 designation of Northwick Park and the Ducker Pool B103) - and the legal effect of  all those designations? Could the  officer please bring a copy of the Brent GIS plan showing this  with the full MOL/Open Space designations for the site (as I only have a screen shot of the same which is small scale)?

You may also be interested in the Ducker Pool SINC review of 2014 LINK

-->

Standing up for suburbia in Heather Park Drive

I have written before about the gradual encroachment of tall buildings on Brent's suburbia and another example is going before the next Planning Committee on August 15th. LINK

Heather Park Drive in Wembley-Alperton is suburban in character with industrial/office units on the railway sidings of the road.

Two 5 story blocks of flats (36 dwellings in all) are planned for Transputec House at 19 Heather Park Drive, HA0 1SS replacing the current 2 storey block.  The comparative size can be seen from the illustration above.

One resident (there are only two comments) writes on Brent's Planning Portal:

My main objection is to the height of the buildings which will be 5 stories instead of 2 as they are at present and will face & block out the light of the 2 storey maisonettes opposite them in Heather Park Drive. It will distort "air & light"& make ugly the essentially RESIDENTIAL street where great care was taken on the original 1930 maisonettes, including mine, to give SEPARATE own front door access to ALL dwellings incl.1st Floor (2nd Storey) maisonettes AS WELL as a small garden for each. This ensured both privacy and "green/garden like" suburban living for the Street's residents and decent space for the "flat" dwellers. I feel the developers, to maximise profit at the sacrifice of space & light for the old and new "flat" dwellers have pushed for ugly tower blocks where the new dwellers will be shoehorned into shared access boxes. The developers shd. should be limited to 2 storey maisonette high quality builds, each with own entrance from the street and a small garden in keeping with the surrounding residential buildings. This would CONTINUE down the road the 2 storey "upper & lower" maisonettes that at present end at the Transputec Car Park, i.e. 29-21 HPD embouching on to 19 HPD, Transputec Car Park & get rid of those ugly "sheds" of office buildings. Don't replace them with more "sheds" of poky flats!

A further issue is possible contamination of the land at Transputec House next to the railway sidings. LINK

Preston Library Family Funday Sunday August 12th

Petition supporting Rastafarian bus driver forbidden to wear her colours

From Brent Trade Union Council,

Willesden Trades and Labour Hall,

375 High Road, Willesden,

London NW10 2JR

Marcia, a Metroline driver at the Perivale garage has been told that she is not allowed to wear a head covering in the colours of her Rastafarian belief (red, gold and green). 

We think this is discrimination- in the same way that we would if a Muslim woman driver was told she could not wear a head scarf. 

Marcia feels that for her to practice her religion, she needs to wear her colours-we support her in this choice. 

Multiculturalism is something to be celebrated, not hidden.

Marcia had to face a grievance meeting with the company, which she sadly lost. It is time for drivers who support her to take a stand. 

We call on London Mayor Sadiq Khan to intervene to help Marcia.

Marcia should not be forced to choose between her religious beliefs and her job-that's discrimination. We support her and call for her immediate return to work. 

Marcia Carty needs the full support of all bus workers, trade unionists and progressive people in London and beyond. She is being victimised as a black Rastafarian woman whose only crime is to wear her colours.  She has worn them for years, but now she is being prevented from starting work each day with her colours. 

Download this petition and get it filled in by as many of your friends, union members or not, as possible. This clearly contravenes Unite’s Equalities policy and is possibly illegal.  Unite needs to take firm action here.

The petition text reads:

• No to discrimination: Defend driver's right to wear her colours
•  Marcia, a Metroline driver at the Perivale garage has been told that she is not allowed to wear a head covering in the colours of her. Rastafarian belief (red, gold and green). 
• We think this is discrimination- in the same way that we would if a Muslim woman driver was told she could not wear a head scarf. 
• Marcia feels that for her to practice her religion, she needs to wear her colours-we support her in this choice. 
• Multiculturalism is something to be celebrated, not hidden.
• Marcia had to face a grievance meeting with the company, which she sadly lost. It is time for drivers who support her to take a stand. 
• We call on London Mayor Sadiq Khan to intervene to help Marcia.
• Marcia should not be forced to choose between her religious beliefs and her job-that's discrimination. We support her and call for her immediate return to work.

This is the petition CLICK HERE TO SIGN ON-LINE:

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)