The second in our series of Guest blogs by Concerned Resident (read episode one here - https://barneteye.blogspot.com/2025/02/guest-blog-first-there-was-capita-then.html)
Part 2: WCP - It’s all about the money, honey!
What does Watling Car Park (WCP) have to do with the ousting of Naqvi, the Council Finances and the incredulity of a Labour safe seat while WCP motors ahead?
Bear with me! I’m just getting to that!
Point 1: Naqvi sat, believe it or not (because I barely can), on the Strategic Planning Committee for about 8 or 9 years. So, he should have been best placed to raise concerns about the unsuitability of Site 6 when the Local Plan was consulted on. Similarly, when the H&G Committee agenda item arose 18 months later, he again would have been best placed to tell our other Councillor (Sara Conway), what needed telling. She was one of the three Labour Councillors on that Committee who ‘Abstained’ when the time came to vote on the disposal (when one would hope and expect the them to vote ‘Against’ it, given all that we now know they should have known).
Point 2: the Council-owned land disposal is arranged as a ‘Sale and Leaseback’ transaction. Happy to be corrected, but from what I can see, if the planning application is approved, the Council will receive a whole lot of wonga in an instant. What is not clear to me, is how much of the money stays with the Council, and how much goes to the developer to commence the build. Naqvi should have known the details, but alas, residents can’t quiz him on that any more and even if he had refused to resign and then decided to tell the truth (ha ha ha!), then who on earth would ever believe him?
Point 3: If the source of the ‘wonga’ comes from outside the public sector (i.e. NOT the PWLB), then the development will sit OUTSIDE of the ‘Housing Revenue Account’ (“HRA”). The HRA is a ringfenced area of the accounts which contains income and expenditure relating to the Council’s housing portfolio. If a development is outside the HRA, this means that the Council can spend any of the rental income from tenants on anything it likes – it could, if it chose, neglect to spend it on housing maintenance. But who cares about the quality of housing when the party’s reputation for financial management hangs in the balance? To be hailed as financial equivalent of Einstein or Merlin ain’t no bad thing. Did Naqvi know this? If so, was he OK with this and intend that the money be used in this way? And what of the other Councillors?
Point 4: The Labour Party’s 2022 manifesto strongly argued against “No Tower Block Blight”. Indeed, less than a year earlier, the Labour Group’s response to the (then) Tory draft Local Plan stated, “The document does not go far enough to protect the Borough from over‐intensification, inappropriate density and inappropriate height of new buildings ‐ especially in town centres which in Barnet are suburban in nature.” It’s worth mentioning at this point that WCP is within the Watling Estate Conservation Area (which is a low-rise Garden Suburb development)! At the time of writing, live planning applications for two other Council-owned car park redevelopments contain proposals for residential buildings of no higher than 6 storeys (while WCP STARTS at 6 storeys!). This is the case, despite neither of the other two sites being in a Conservation Area (let alone on a floodplain nor removed from the Local Plan!). The illogicality and unreasonableness of these contradictions presumably seems perfectly fine and dandy to Naqvi et al…
Point 5: Strictly speaking, the current administration did not “inherit” the WCP regeneration proposals. They themselves converted the previous administration’s “Preferred Developer” into the official developer (in January 2023). They did so in full knowledge of the fact that the main site was due to be removed from the Local Plan on the grounds that it “has been found to be not developable due to constraints arising from the extent and magnitude of flood risk affecting the site…”. Quite apart from the draft Local Plan, long-standing Councillors would have been in full knowledge of the fact that the Car Park is a flood risk because of the Silk Stream (part of the Brent River Catchment), is responsible for flooding houses in Colindale. Their flooding will be made even worse if the functional floodplain is undermined upstream should people see fit to pile buildings on top of it!
If like me, you know that Labour councillors and MPs consistently support residents elsewhere in the borough who object to oversized, inappropriate and downright reckless redevelopment proposals, you have to wonder why, those same Councillors / MPs won’t do the same for this locality. Indeed, you would also wonder why they are in favour Tall Buildings in hazardous places for which there are conservation ‘planning constraints’ yet they object to buildings that aren’t even Tall which have no conservation planning constraints and aren’t in hazardous locations!
Burnt Oak Ward is still a “Safe” for Labour, probably because the Party is confident that a lot of the Burnt Oak electorate have been blissfully unaware of the WCP proposals (which is true); possibly believe that the decision has already been made (ditto); and don’t tend to understand how to engage in the planning system as confidently as residents in other localities (ditto).
-------------------
Concerned resident is a Barnet Resident. Guest blogs are always welcome at The Barnet Eye
No comments:
Post a Comment