A post about anything else but the Prime Minister - Some interesting local stories / useless facts

 No, I'm not going to discuss it. Any sane person would be sick of the whole thing. So I thought I'd share a few interesting local stories / useless facts with you to try and take your mind off the sinking ship. 

1. Did you know that the longest scheduled train journey you can do from Mill Hill Broadway Thameslink station is Mill Hill to Brighton. There's an early morning direct services that run, such as the 04.08, which will rather handily get you to Brighton in time fro an early breakfast at 06.10. It is 63 miles. The longest direct Journey I've done was on a Steam Dreams special train, that went from Mill Hill to Bristol, where I had lunch with my brother. That was 101 miles. As the steam engine had broken down, it was hauled by a diesel locomotive. It got in nearly an hour early, which suited me just fine as it meant I could spend longer with my Brother. The more hardened railway buffs were deeply disappointed, myself and my wife thoroughly enjoyed the champagne breakfast and five course dinner. 

2. The longest direct bus journey you can do from Mill Hill is the 113 to Marble Arch, which is 8 miles. This route may change as the Mayor of London wants to divert it to White City. The longest route used to be the 140 bus, which ran to Heathrow Airport, which was around 18 miles long. 

3. The top of Highwood Hill is the highest point with a London Post Code. There are higher places in greater London, but none have a proper London post code. It is also offically the coldest place in London (although many Fulham FC fans may disagree).

4. The oldest tree in London is "The Totteridge Yew" which is over 1,000 years old. 

5. The Airco Factory in Colindale was the worlds largest aircraft factory in 1918. 

6.  Hadley FC are officially the oldest football club playing in the London Borough of Barnet. They gained promotion from  the Spartan South Midlands Premier Division this season and won the League Cup. 

Congratulations to @hadleyfc who won the @SpartanSMFL Gladwish 🏆 with a 3-1 win over @stotfoldfc tonight. Check out Jack Bradshaw's goal for Stotfold, 🟥 card for Sam Nicholls & 🎶 Soloman Ofori Hadley's goal machine 🎶 2nd goal was 🔥! @HadleyBricks RTs always appreciated. pic.twitter.com/zcrFExYmhF

— @thecoldend (@thecoldend) May 9, 2022

7. The Mitre is the oldest Pub in the Borough of Barnet. It is still a wonderful pub and well worth a visit. It is also fourth on the list of most haunted places in Barnet, although knowing the former Landlord who told the story, we are not entirely convinced that drinks hadn't been taken at the time of the visitation. 

8. Hendon Aerodrome (now the Grahame Park Estate), was the site of the first decent by parachute from a Powered plane. 

9. Five Nobel Laureates worked at the National Institute for Medical Research in Mill Hill, before it's move to St Pancras and demolition. 

10. Mill Hill can boast two Formula 1 Championship winners as alumni. Graham Hill and his son Damon both lived in Parkside (just down the road from the location where Friday night dinner was filmed). There is a blue plaque on the wall. 

Graham Hill riding his bike circa 1969 in Parkside, Mill Hill. He lived at No 32, there's a blue plaque there now. Behind him on the left is The Rise. That's of course 2 F1 champions from this household in Mill Hill 🤟@time_nw pic.twitter.com/zOw29KZXBJ

— Lee Limerick (@Lee_Limerick) December 21, 2021

And finally, did you know that The Barnet Eye is the oldest (founded in 2008), the most popular (with over 3 million official blogger views) and has the biggest team, with over 100 guest bloggers since our inception. Whoever the Prime Minister is, we are here to chronicle our local area. 

A complete Friday Joke - Barnet Council's enforcement of planning conditions at Barretts NIMR site

 I generally try and avoid local issues on a Friday. It is the start of the weekend. However, this week I have to break this rule. I received the most nonsensical response to an email that I've ever received from anyone at Barnet Council. Ever since Barratts started redeveloping the National Institute for Medical Research site on the Ridgeway, there has been a ongoing issue with mud and dirt on the road. The planning permission compells Barnet Council to ensure Barratts are washing the wheels of vehicles before they leave the site, so that mud and mess is not left on the pavement and carriageway. There are three reasons why this is important. The first is that dangerous pathogens, asbestos and radioactive materials were identified on the site, and this was deemed necessary to prevent the risk, however small, of these being dispersed beyond the site. The second is that the mud and spoil washes into the gulleys etc, blocking them and increasing the risk of flooding as drains block. The third is that the mud is slippery when wet. There is a primary school within 50 yards of the site. The mud increase the risks of car accidents, people slipping over and also it creates mess on cars.

I have been writing to Barnet Council for three years, providing evidence that the wheel washing is insufficient. Earlier this week, I send two photographs and a video of evidence showing this.

Here is the first picture. As you can see, there are large lumps of clay on the truck wheels. The truck should have had it's wheels jet washed (and also mud spilling from the uncovered top. The trucks are meant to cover the mud, to stop contamination.  Do you think this has been done effectively? 

The second image shows another truck which clearly has wheels covered in dust and soil. It is blurry, but it is quite clear that the wheels have not been washed. Would you agree?

Finally, we have a video. This was taken on the Bank Holiday weekend Monday morning. This shows that the carriageway was covered in mud for the whole of the weekend. There was clearly no washing done.

You would think that this is fairly compelling evidence and that the Council would be up for a site visit and taking enforcement action, wouldn't you? Well here is the reply I got from Barnet Council. 

From: "F*****, R*****" 
To: "ROGER TICHBORNE" <roger.tichborne@btinternet.com>
Cc: "H*****, R****" ;  "Hooton, John" <John.Hooton@Barnet.gov.uk>; "Duschinsky, Cllr Val" <Cllr.V.Duschinsky@Barnet.gov.uk>; "Zinkin, Cllr Peter" <Cllr.P.Zinkin@Barnet.gov.uk>; "Rozenberg, Cllr Gabriel" <Cllr.G.Rozenberg@Barnet.gov.uk>
Sent: Thursday, 2 Sep, 21 At 11:22
Subject: RE: Enforcement Acknowledgement Letter ENF/0925/21

Dear Mr Tichborne,

Thank you for your response.

The wheels shown in your photos appear to be sufficiently clean.

The planning enforcement team are satisfied that, at this time, the developer is complying with their planning obligations with regard to measures to prevent debris being transferred onto the public highway.

A jet wash for wheel washing has been provided at the site and it being utilised as per the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

The road sweeper is also in operation to address any overflow, as per the approved CEMP.

In light of the above, there are no grounds for further planning enforcement action in relation to this matter at this time.

Kind regards,

R***** F*****

Senior Compliance Officer

Planning Enforcement Team

London Borough of Barnet, 2 Bristol Avenue, Colindale, NW9 4EW

Tel: 020 8359 **** | Web: barnet.gov.uk

Please note that the comments are provisional and represent an informal view by an officer; the views contained within this email do not constitute an official determination, are not legally binding and do not bind the council to a particular course of action.

RE (Regional Enterprise) Limited is a joint venture between Capita plc and London Borough of Barnet. Registered in England 08615172. Registered Office: 65 Gresham Street, London, EC2V 7NQ.

I have redacted the officers name, as I do not wish to hound the workers for the council, but can you imagine a more ridiculous response?

As you can see, I've copied one of Mill Hill's Conservative Councillors. I've had no response. I copied the CEO, no reply. 

It is clear that no one is properly taking the interests of local residents seriously at the Council. There can be no doubt about this now. I have no idea why Barratts have a free pass to break the rules. Can anyone offer an explanation?

Barnet Council claim their own planning requirements cause "environmental concerns"

If you have ever wondered how seriously Barnet Council take enforcement of planning conditions, this blog may be of interest.

The National Institutue for Medical Research site in Mill Hill is being redeveloped by Barratts PLC. 

The most recent planning permission is available here, it has rigorous conditions attached to ensure minimal impact on residents and the local environment

(Details at https://publicaccess.barnet.gov.uk/online-applications/files/3A36E26C7F69DBFBED310F97AD95AD86/pdf/20_1893_FUL-DN__APPROVE_FOLLOWING_LEGAL_AGREEMENT-4971642.pdf )

This states

9 The development shall be implemented in accordance with details approved within the Air Quality and Dust Management Plan approved under condition reference 17/8152/CON of the extant consent (Planning Ref 16/4545/FUL), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Within any amendment to the approved details, reference shall be made to the Mayor of London's SPG, "The Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition". The plan shall confirm: a. which air quality emission and dust control measures are to be implemented; b. which monitoring methods are to be implemented; and c. that construction machinery will meet NRMM standards Reason: To comply with the London Plan's SPG on Sustainable Design and Construction (2014) and Policy 7.14 of the London Plan (2016).

The guidance that covers dust suppression is as follows (links on GLA site at https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london-plan/london-plan-guidance-and-spgs/control-dust-and )

5.39 Vehicles – in particular wheels – should be washed or cleaned before leaving the site. At low risk sites, this might be by means of hosing, but at most sites wheel wash facilities should be installed, preferably with the application of rumble grids to dislodge accumulated dust and mud. Ideally the route from the wheel wash to the public road should be a paved. Where layout permits, the site access gates should

be located at least 10m from receptors

It could not be clearer. The site must have a proper system for washing and cleaning vehicles in place to proceed. So what is happening in reality? Well here are a few tweets posted over the last year, tell me if you think this condition is being adhered to?

Dear @BarnetCouncil, @BarrattHomes are compelled to wash vehicle wheels on leaving the NIMR site. This was the Ridgeway on Sunday. Please explain why this is not being enforced pic.twitter.com/yJIaEsv5LR

— Roger Tichborne/RogT🔸 (@Barneteye) July 20, 2021

Dear @BarnetCouncil, @BarrattHomes are compelled to wash vehicle wheels on leaving the NIMR site. This was the Ridgeway on Sunday. Please explain why this is not being enforced pic.twitter.com/yJIaEsv5LR

— Roger Tichborne/RogT🔸 (@Barneteye) July 20, 2021

Dear @BarnetCouncil @CouncillorsMill the CEMP for Barratts NIMR development states vehicle wheels must be power washed before leaving the site. Despite repeated reports to you, this is still not being done properly. This was the Ridgeway at 9.30 this morning. What will you do? pic.twitter.com/CbS8v7RqJS

— A Better Mill Hill 🔸🌈🇬🇧🇪🇺 (@ABetterMillHill) May 29, 2021

And just to show that this has been going on for a couple of years

As you can see from this dashcam video shot today, The Ridgeway by NIMR/Barratts site is covered in mud from lorries. So much for washing down the wheels @ValDuschinsky @golnarb what is happening re enforcement pic.twitter.com/E90ANaciEt

— A Better Mill Hill 🔸🌈🇬🇧🇪🇺 (@ABetterMillHill) March 6, 2019

It is pretty clear that the requirements of the GLA regulations are not being adhered to. You may ask why this has not been reported to Barnet Council, who are legally obliged to enforce these rules. The answer is, they have. Myself and other residents and business owners have repeatedly, all to no avail. Today, after repeated emails etc, I finally received an email from the manager of Scientific Services for Barnet, who is allegedly dealing with the issues raised by the NIMR development. I won't name him, to spare his blushes, but he stated

Mr Tichborne,

Thank you for the photos.                   

 

Unfortunately wheel washes recycle water and so they never leave muddy wheels 100% clean, it is possible to jet wash wheels as they leave sites but this also creates debris in the run off on the road and this uses a lot of water – which is an environmental concern in itself.

 

The site uses road sweepers so the most recent photo and twitter photo 29^th May ( I cant access twitter on this computer)show a thin fine layer of the dust in the tarmacadam but no significant debris. Road sweepers are reasonably efficient in removing larger debris and grit, but the brushes do get stained with fine mud so they never leave roads completely clean hence the pictures. This is similar to what we usually witness when we visit, no significant amounts of mud grit and debris but some fine staining of the tarmacadam.

 

I note in the U tube video one car was very dusty but not outside a house, it was probably  parked near the site entrances  probably on Burtonhole lane.

Judges have ruled that dust on cars is not a formal nuisance, it has to affect habitable parts of premises, so if there are photos of that amount of dust affecting the facades of residential houses please show this.

We are visiting this later this week to check around Wentworth Hall one of the nearest premises to the site entrances where works are happening, and we will look at the current state of the site.

So there you have it. According to the manager in charge of scientific services, washing wheels, a GLA requirement is an 'environmental concern'.  This response is, to be quite frank, completely ridiculous. It took me five minutes to google a suitable washing system. Given the GLA recommend that this should be located 10 metres from the highway, it is absolutely clear that if this was properly installed, the issues raised by the Barnet Manager would simply not exist.  

There are only two possible explanations for what has been written above. The first is that the planning department and the GLA are recommending mitigations that are not environmentally sound. If this is the case, it should be a matter of urgent public concern and should be resolved as quickly as possible. The other alternative is that the manager of Scientific Services think that the public should be treated with disdain and that it really is none of their business what the council are doing with regards to enforcement. 

I am very annoyed. This manager has repeatedly asked for photos I have stopped on several occasions to take them. I've sent them to the council, as have many other residents. I have now been told that all of this effort was pointless, because wheel washing would create environmental concerns. 

I am not going to leave this here. Firstly it is the GLA's guidance that states wheel washing must be done. I will be contacting our local GLA representative to clarify whether the GLA are recommending planning conditions that raise environmental concerns. I will also be escalating this to the CEO of Barnet Council, the Leader, and the chair of both planning and Environment committees, as well as opposition leaders. 

Barnet Council are not taking enforcement seriously. This results in shoddy practice. I want this to stop. I hope you do too.  Does this really look like a 'fine coat of dust' to you?

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.

.

Barnet Council - Why do I bother attending meetings?

Last night I dialled into the Barnet Council planning committee. Due to the Covid regulations, virtual meetings are being held. I have to say that I found the process to be deeply unsatisfactory for members of the public. I had asked to make a submission on the planning application made by Barratts for the National Institute for Medical Research site. An associate of mine was also speaking and contacted me yesterday in a panic because he couldn't understand the process of connecting to the meetings. He is someone who has had medical issues and initially he was deeply concerned by the prospect of having any assistance with the technology, as he's been social distancing. In my previous incarnation as a freelance IT consultant, I've attended hundreds, if not thousands of conference calls, but he had never had the pleasure so didn't understand the technology. I had assumed that the council would have a Zoom like facility, but this being Barnet, this was only for councillors and officers. The public had to dial in on audio only. In the end, my associate came to my house for assistance. As the Barratts site has badly affected both his health and his business, he felt obligated to speak. So I set him up on the call in my front room in a socially distanced manner.

He feels (and I agree) that Barnet Council has badly let down both him and his business, in not taking enforcement seriously. He has been noting problems with the site for two years and has had no satisfactory service from the council in dealing with his issues. As for my submission, I wanted the councillors to look at the the guidance officers had given, which I believe had not adequately conveyed the nature of the objections or the problems with the application.

Our case was the third on the agenda. Listening to the preceding two cases was quite demoralising. There were clearly major issues with both applications, but the committee passed both anyway. From what I heard, I was quite staggered that the first was passed. Ellliot Simberg, one of the better Tory Hale councillors made a good case for rejection, but he was summarily ignored. For the second application, I felt that the councillors on the committee did not really bother to explore whether objectors had a valid case. The committee chair, a Conservative attempted to prevent a Labour councillor for asking a perfectly reasonable question of the developers spokesperson. As a lay person, I could see no reason for this intervention. The application was passed easily.

For the application we spoke about, my associate read out his long list of issues. The committee did not bother to ask him any questions. One member, in an act of extraordinary bad manners, did not mute themselves and started loudly clearing their throat during his submission. I was quite shocked that the chair did not reprimand the culprit or give my associate extra time. As someone who is registered deaf, the format that was being used was less than ideal. I could hardly hear what was being said. When it came to my submission, I found I had a loud echo ringing in my ears, making it extremely difficult to concentrate on the text I was reading. I am used to public speaking and performance so I got through, but it was extremely difficult. At the end of my submission, again there were no questions. The application was passed 12-0 by the committee. The officers made some observations that I strongly disagree with. Amongst these they stated that the Mill Hill Preservation Society had not objected. This surprised me as I'd been advised by a member of the committee that they had objected. No comment from the MHPS appears on the Council site. It may well be that due to Covid19, the MHPS had been unable to meet to formulate a response. It strikes me as worrying that such organisations will be excluded because their committee are isolating?  Given the format of the meeting, we had no opportunity to query this.

I have been to hundreds of Barnet Council meetings over the last ten years. Few have been satisfactory, but last nights was the worst. Given my hearing issues, I felt excluded and I felt the complete lack of interest by the committee in what members of the public had to say to be high handed and rude. Not for the first time, I asked myself why I bother attending these meetings. The simple answer is because I find it quite repulsive that councillors, who we elect, can treat the public with such disdain and someone has to call them out. There is no reason why we should not have the same access to the Zoom style meetings as councillors, so that at least we can see their faces and see who is blowing their nose so rudely. In council, we can see when councillors role their eyes at the public. Now it is anonymous. I hadn't expected the council to reject the developers plans. That's not what happens in Barnet these days. I had a faint hope that they might at least enquire why I'd chosen to give up an evening making the points I'd raised. I said that I felt the officers had not properly represented objections by the public in their report. Given that I was limited to three minutes in my submission, I at least expected someone to ask what had lead me to that conclusion, but not one of the 12 councillors on the committee could be bothered to enquire.

People ask why I bother writing a blog. It is so there is a public record of what happened, should anyone be interested.I hope, probably in vain, that one day the electorate of Barnet will wake up to how badly their elected representatives are doing their job. Councillors get an allowance of over £10,000 a year. One would expect them to at least read the paper work and engage with the public. Sadly that is something they have no interest in doing (in my experience). I spent a long time reading the paperwork, I believe there was a serious problem in the presentation of the report. I gave up my Wednesday night to share this. And what did I get for my trouble? Totally ignored.

I stopped hoping that these councillors might feel the slightest need to do their job and represent the general public a long time ago. I just hope that at some point, the voters decide that they want people who will listen to them and at least give them a fair hearing.

Why you should oppose the latest application to change to the Barretts NIMR development

Barretts homes have submitted an application to increase the number of dwellings at the NIMR site on The Ridgeway. The details are here - https://publicaccess.barnet.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=Q9728TJI0DC00
Click on the comments tab to object (or support if you think I'm talking nonsense).

Whilst the change will sadly not make the development any less of an eyesore (see this tweet with pictures taken last week), it will make more, smaller flats, at the expense of large flats designed for family groups (something which does not conform with Barnets local plan, see extracts) and will add even more traffic to the already congested Ridgeway.

It is so disappointing to see what a blot on the Totteridge Valley the Barrett’s NIMR development is becoming. In design, every expense is spared, taking no account of the surround. This is the view from the Orange Tree side of the Valley.

It is so disappointing to see what a blot on the Totteridge Valley the Barrett’s NIMR development is becoming. In design, every expense is spared. This is the view from the Orange Tree side of the Valley. pic.twitter.com/MwcnGjToza

— Roger Tichborne/RogT #CTID 🏴‍☠️🇬🇧 (@Barneteye) June 4, 2020

Just to be clear, the Barnet Council local plan recognises the need for more family housing. Here are a few excerpts from the  Barnet Council local plan

'Barnet’s Local Plan | Core Strategy | September 2012285.1.10In order to protect the suburban distinctiveness of the borough we have to make more efficient use of previously developed land. We are faced with an imbalanced housing stock with one household in three considered to under-occupy, while the demands for increased housing choice, affordable housing, and family homes to meet aspirations of home ownership are increasing'

'Our Housing Strategy emphasises that to improve choice we need to increase housing supply, including family sized homes.'

'Over 50% of residential conversions generate one bedroom units. Family homes such as those containing three bedrooms or more are likely to be generated via new-build developments.'

'Our dwelling size priorities are for family accommodation across all tenures :•For social rented housing – homes with 3 bedrooms are the highest priority•For intermediate affordable housing – homes with 4 bedrooms are the highest priority•For market housing – homes with 4 bedrooms are the highest priority, homes with 3 bedrooms are a medium priority'

'Barnet’s Core Strategy has to address the demands for family accommodation at lower densities while meeting the demands for higher densities driven by the planned growth as part of our development pipeline and housing targets in the London Plan.'

'The North London SHMA bed size requirement model, based on housing affordability according to London Plan definitions, in general supports our prioritisation of family accommodation. It shows that in the market sector there is the need for family homes of at least 2 bedrooms, in particular 4+ bedrooms. This supports our stated levels of priority. In the intermediate and social sector there is also a marked need for 4+ bedrooms as well as 2 and 3 bedrooms.'  

The new Barratts planning application states

Since planning permission was granted a number of changes have taken place,which are material to the deliverability of the approved plans for the final phase. Principally this comprises of a shift in market demand away from larger (oversized) units towards more modest sized homes, more closely aligned with Mayoral standards. In order to avoid the risk of a slowdown in the rate of housing delivery on the site (or at worst the scheme stalling), the applicant wishes to revise the scheme to make it fit for market

 This translates to "we want to build more, smaller flats on the space, rather than family spaces". I wasn't aware of the huge demographic change that meant all of a sudden, the families that needed space in 2018, when the permission was granted have magically disappeared. Where have they gone?

Whilst the planning application makes repeated references to the Mayoral plan, this is a London wide document. The Barnet plan reflects the needs in our local community. It is interesting that Barratts are much keener to refer to the Mayors plan. It says much about their commitment to our local community. Those of us who live locally and have raised families locally, want a community locally and this means provision for families.

Whilst housing is a priority, the council has a policy. We believe that there is still a responsibility to make buildings look attractive and fit in. The Totteridge Valley is one area we can all enjoy for free. During the lockdown, many young families have discovered Darlands Lake and the surrounding fields. Allowing such blocks to blot the landscape is, in my opinion, an act of cultural vandalism and a reason why I will not be voting for Sadiq Khan.
One of the small areas of solace from the development was that there were spaces for families, who would have easy access to the local schools and the local green space. Removing this will add to the traffic on the Ridgeway. Had the new plan been part of the existing submission it would have been rejected. It is simply not on for developers to submit one set of plans to get a scheme passed and then put a series of supposedly 'minor amendments' so that they end up getting what they were hoping for (bigger profits).

For me, the Barratts scheme has failed the local community in three ways. The first is that it is incredibly ugly and has not been a good addition to the Ridgeway. The second is that Barratts have taken no account of the principle of being good neighbours and have shown no consideration for the people who live and work nearby. The third is that they are trying to transform the scheme into one which does not meet the needs of the local community. Family dwellings near schools are clearly desireable.

I note, with a degree of despair that none of the local groups have bothered to comment on this plan. Do the Residents Association and the Preservation Society really have no opinion? As a community, we have a responsibility to keep fighting for what is best for our community. I will happily publish a guest blog from any local group who supports the scheme and can detail why ( so long as they have not been in receipt of funds from the developers). If there is some positive aspect of this monstrosity that I've missed, I'll be more than happy to admit I'm wrong. Sadly it seems to me that the only people who support it are people who have been on the receiving end of funds to help their pet schemes.

I'll finish with a little video filmed by my band, The False Dots, which will remind you of the sad demolition of a famous Mill Hill Landmark.