Barnet Council are making up the rules for air quality by major construction sites as they go along

 I was intrigued to read the section on air quality in the Council papers for the Brent Cross regeneration scheme, which is being debated next week  - Read page 51 of the report.

"Air Quality

The outline permission is subject to pre commencement conditions that aim to secure an acceptable air quality environment during the construction phase and for the lifetime of the development. Condition 30.6 requires that no less than 3 months prior to the commencement of construction works south of the A406, details of the type and location of equipment to monitor the levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM10) need to be agreed with the Councils Scientific Services. 

This has taken place and the necessary monitoring stations are in place. Further, Condition 30.1 requires a scheme for pollutant and dust management to be submitted to the LPA prior to the commencement of works within a sub-phase identifying the arrangements for monitoring dust and pollutants over the construction period in relation to the nearest sensitive premises. These obligations are required to be fulfilled for the duration of construction works for the regeneration and so is a long-term objective. In addition, these activities are required to be in accordance with the approved Code of Construction Practice (COCP) (LPA ref:18/2380/CON). 

Further to assessing air quality for the Plot 14 proposals specifically, it should be noted that Condition 30.4 of the S73 Permission requires details of all extraction and ventilation equipment to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to commencement of any building. This will include details of any flues and odour filtration systems for the A3 units to ensure that odour can be adequately controlled. "

Air quality issues are perhaps the greatest health risk in our city. The current development by Barratts on the Ridgeway has seen numerous complaints by various residents about air quality issues. After speaking to residents in 2019, a meeting was arranged with the Council, which I was invited to. I wrote here about this here and there is a video documenting the dust pollution etc. There has not been the slightest recognition from the council that their monitoring of the dust and health impacts of the NIMR development on local schools, houses and businesses are. Interestingly, one of the attendees of the meeting, Mr Laurence Bard, who runs an aquaitic business at Finchley Nurseries, found that the planning permission had not listed his business, describing it as "open fields to the north". 

If you follow the above link, you will see that planners can hire planning officers from the Council to assist them. I flagged this up as a conflict of interest. I am of the opinion that Barnet Council should have a 'clean air policy' and that no planning permission should be approved without the developer proving that they can meet stringent guidelines. The paragrpahs above show that this is not the case and the rules are there to be flexible and to be bent to suit developers. Monitorings station locations should not only be agreed with the council (ie council officers paid for by the developer), but also by the local community. They should be placed where they can monitor the real life impact on residents, school children and local businesses, and these stakeholders should have a say in where they are placed. Sites where there are breaches should be closed down until the builders and developments are complaint.

Please take a look at this video from 2018 filmed at the NIMR site and tell me whether you think adequate care was taken with regards to dust and particle suppression.  I would urge all residents to lobby the council strongly to ensure they don't suffer the same fate with dust as Mill Hill. Sadly, I can see this scenario being repeated again at Brent Cross.

.

New Brent Cross Station - nailing the lie

There is an interesting press release on the Barnet Council website

https://www.barnet.gov.uk/citizen-home/news/Budget-confirms-new-overground-station-for-Brent-Cross.html

Richard Cornelius also made this lovely video.



This says

Leader of Barnet Council, Councillor Richard Cornelius has welcomed the Chancellor’s Budget commitment to support a new overground station at Brent Cross.

The station will be funded by a combination of a £97m government grant and ring fencing business rate growth from the expanded shopping centre to pay for the remainder. The new station will provide a 12 minute fast link into Kings Cross station.
Councillor Richard Cornelius said: “This is the final piece of the Brent Cross jigsaw after confirming Argent Related as key developers for Brent Cross south. We have been working very closely with the Treasury and the Mayor’s Office to make this happen.
“The Chancellor’s decision today unlocks the potential for the Brent Cross development to create up to 27,000 jobs and 7,500 new homes.
“It is very difficult to overstate the importance of this redevelopment to Barnet. The council is committed to playing an active role in the development of the south side of the site to get the best financial deal for the taxpayer and to play our part in creating a thriving London neighbourhood.”

Sadly there is plenty that this press release doesn't clarify. In fact it raises more questions than it answers.

First the station is not in Brent Cross shopping centre. It is over 1/4 of a mile from it (as the Crow flies). What provision will there be for shoppers to travers the A406 & M1 entrance to get from the shops to the station?

There is also talk that the existing station at Cricklewood may have to shut as part of the scheme. This would be a major blow to the existing shops and High Street businesses. 

Mr Cornelius talks about 27,000 jobs and 7,500 new homes. Even if every one of the new homes contributed a new member of staff to the shopping centre, that would be nearly 20,000 extra people arriving and departing at the centre every day, simply to work. This will create huge congestion on roads and already overcrowded Thameslink and Northern Line tube services. It will also drian more economic activity out of struggling High Street centres (such as Cricklewood).

As ever with developments in Barnet, little thought is given to the infrastructure needed to support these extra people. Local hospitals are already at capacity. I am under treatment for cancer at the Royal Free. They cannot currently see me as they do not have enough consultants and meeting rooms. How will they cope with thousands more people in their catchment area. As one in three people are estimated to require cancer treatment during their lifetime, where will they put these extra people, if they can't cope now?

Then there are schools. Where will the children of these "households" go? Not very far on grdilocked roads as the extra 27,000 people turn up for work?

There has been no expansion of tube lines in the Borough since the 1930's and no new rail lines since Queen Victoria reigned. We have a Victorian rail network and an Edwardian tube network in the London Borough of Barnet. In fact the network has contracted, losing a rail link from Mill Hill East to Edgware in the 1960's. No one can argue that we don't desperately need more capacity. We are building a massive new shopping centre, but the council gives not a stuff about how people will get there.

The new Brent Cross Station will only serve to make already overcrowded Thameslink trains even busier. It will do nothing to address the transport and infrastructure problems in the Borough and will hit the Cricklewood shopping centre hard.

I am also intrigued at the time Mr Cornelius quotes as the "fast train time" from Brent Cross. This implies that it will be on the semi fast stopping pattern. Currently trains from Mill Hill are incorporated onto this pattern. Will Mill Hill lose a semi fast service to accomodate the Brent Cross developers? If this is the case, then Mill Hill will become hellishly overcrowded, as it was when First Capital Connect removed these trains in 2005. A hard campaign was fought to restore some of the services. It seems that Mr Cornelius doesn't care for his Mill Hill residents in his plans. It is clear to anyone who knows the stopping patterns that if Brent Cross is to be served, another station will lose out. It is clear which one this will be.

As I said, this news station raises more questions than it answers. And none of the Tory hierarchy in Barnet will want to answer these questions before the election in May.

Cricklewood regeneration - The new city on our doorstep approved by Barnet Council

The papers detailing the approval of the Cricklewood "regeneration" scheme are on the Council website. You can view them here.

http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s12505/Brent%20Cross%20Cricklewood%20Regeneration%20-%20Public%20Report.pdf

Interesting highlights -

A new Brent Cross Thameslink station. oddly this is not actually guaranteed as part of the scheme. It seems that the Barnet Taxpayer, rather than the developers are bearing the financial risk. The report says "A bid for capital funding is being considered by Cabinet on 25 February 2014 to fund this work. Should the station go ahead, this funding will form part of the overall project cost and will be recouped by the Council as a development cost. However, this funding will not be recouped should the station not go ahead as proposed.
Consequently, the budget and programme will be managed throughout 2014 to ensure that only the necessary work is undertaken in advance of securing a funding strategy. " Seems to me that yet again, the taxpayers is being taken for a ride.

Council to subsidise developers by  bearing risk for funding land. The report says "It is currently envisaged that the Council will need to bear the CPO costs for land required for the Brent Cross Cricklewood South proposals. It is also envisaged that these acquisition costs will be recoverable from the Brent Cross Cricklewood South development in due course."

Why is it that in Barnet, it is always the taxpayer that takes the hit?

Brent Cross redevelopment exposed - Barnet Council - stripped to the bone and unable to do its job

Here's a question you may wish  to ponder. Do you think that your local council should have the staff and resources to be able to deal with local planning issues? As far as I'm concerned such matters are fundamental to the local community and should be fully controlled by the democratically elected officials. Such issues are important and as far as I am concerned, the expertise necessary to control planning issues needs to be built up over years, if not decades. It is all very well for experts to be shipped in from elsewhere, but how can experience in the area be bought? Barnet is a unique place. We have a mix of rural areas and large industrial and commercial areas. How many other London Boroughs boast both farms, factories, council estates and millionaire mansions.We have unusually diverse religious and ethnic communities, unlike anywhere else in London. Each of these issues brings special considerations for planners. Perhaps the most important hub in the Borough is Brent Cross Shopping Centre. I was shocked to see a paper on the Council website which said

To authorise undertaking a procurement exercise to engage an external, multi disciplinary planning practice to undertake all planning work in respect of the proposed re-phasing of the Brent Cross Cricklewood (BXC) scheme.

You can see the document on the council website here:
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s8647/DPR%202012%20-%20BXC%20Procurment%20of%20planning%20consultant%20Public.pdf

Reading through the document I was even more shocked to read paragraph 8.7 of the document. This say

The Council does not have sufficient resources in terms of staff numbers or specialist skills to commit to this timescale and is therefore seeking to procure the services of a multi disciplinary planning consultancy in order to meet the planning timetable.

This exposes the fact that Barnet Council is no longer able to do its job. They have to buy in services to manage the planning for the most important development in the history of the London Borough of Barnet.

According to the paper the Council wards affected are Childs Hill, Golders Green West Hendon. This is complete nonsense. The Brent Cross regeneration scheme affects every person in Barnet and every ward in Barnet in some way. Every high street in the Borough has been affected by Brent Cross. When Brent Cross opened in 1973, every High St had clothes shops, shoe shops, electrical retailers and hardware shops. Mill Hill Broadway had a great shoe shop called Freeman, Hardy and Willis, three greengrocers, Mill Hill Televison selling electrical goods and records, a great little record shop on the site which is now the Bridge Tavern. We had Woolworths as a general retailer. We had Kentfields Toy shop. We had  H.A. Blunt and Sons (aka The Model Shop) selling train sets, Scalextrix, Airfix models and other boys toys. If anyone thinks that the demise of such shops is anything other than a direct result of the advent of Brent Cross, they are deluded. Now I am not arguing against progress, merely pointing out the fact that Brent Cross does not simply affect the three wards mentioned.

The planners in Barnet Council, for all their faults, know the area. How can it be wise to hand over such an important scheme to people who are coming in on a fat fee and once they've gone don't have to live with consequences?

The document states in section 3.2

It has been considered whether the procurement of a planning consultancy is likely to raise significant levels of public concern or give rise to policy considerations and it is not considered that the issue will raise significant levels of public concern.

 I would suggest that the only reason that they can make such a statement is because they believe no one will know what is going on until it is too late.

Like many Barnet Council documents, there are significant untruths in the document. It states in paragraph 5.4.1

There are no Staffing, IT, Property, Sustainability implications.

This could not be more dishonest. It contradicts what is said in section 8.7. The only reason they are outsurcing it is precisely because of staffing issues. Are you happy that your council is prepared to make such misleading statements in its official literature.

Section 8.2 gives the whole game away. It says

The Brent Cross Development Partners have indicated that they wish to revise the masterplan to, amongst other things, improve the linkages between the northern and southern elements of the site and to change the phasing to produce a scheme that is viable in the current economic circumstances. It is intended that these changes will be within the parameters and principles (and timescales) of the existing outline consent and that they should therefore be considered as a S73 change to the existing consent.

 It appears to me that the whole things is a shoddy attempt to knobble the planning process . The developers are moving all of the aspects of the scheme which will make them pots of money into the early phase of the scheme and moving many of the things that will cost them money and be socially desirable towards the end of the scheme, when doubtless they can be convienently "modified due to current economic circumstances". Now I ask you this. Do you really believe that such an attempt to "re-phase" the plan should be done by a bunch of outsiders, hired in, no doubt at huge expense, who have no historical links with Barnet and who don't fully appreciate the history of the development or even the effect of the development on the rest of the Borough.

The most shocking thing of all about this truly horrendous decision is that it has not been democratically made. It has been simply signed off by a senior Council Officer, Pam Wharfe. The Delegated authority process she used was designed for minor decisions that with negligible effect. They were not designed to manage decisions which affect every citizen in the Borough. This is a complete scandal. It is proof, if proof were needed that there is no democratic control or accountability in the London Borough of Barnet. It appears to me that One Barnet is misnamed. It should be called "No Barnet".

I will be writing to every Councillor and to the local Papers because I believe that this is scandalous.

   DPR 2012 - BXC Procurment of Planning Consultant Public