Thameslink Brent Cross South Station - The risks to Barnet Taxpayers mount

 

Next Monday, we see the Barnet Council Assets, Regeneration and Growth Committee meet to discuss the proposal to build a new Thameslink Station at Brent Cross South. As Hammersons (The developer of the shopping centre scheme) has put the shopping centre on hold, this has created a massive funding black hole as described in Section 1.2 of the Council report. It says

1.2 - It also outlines the work being undertaken by the Council following Hammerson’s

announcement to defer start on site on the Brent Cross Shopping Centre as set out in paragraph 1.4 of this report. Whilst the preferred station funding strategy set out in the Full Business Case approved by Policy & Resources Committee and HM Government is based on the ringfencing of business rates growth from the shopping centre development to date, the FBC also addresses the risk of delay by Hammerson and identifies possible mitigations. The public sector partners have agreed to work together to find an alternative funding solution by end of October 2018 to secure delivery of the station and BXS. The public sector partners agreed to continue to commit MHCLG grant to maintain momentum and in the expectation that a solution will be found as set out in paragraph 1.41 of this report. 

To summarise, it appears from the papers that the public sector are now pulling together a funding package. Later in the report the following statement is made

Impact of Hammerson deferral on the Thameslink Station
1.41 The Committee will recall that the Council’s investment in the station is dependent on the BXL Partners commencing the shopping centre development (which secures the business rates growth that will support the borrowing costs). Following Hammerson’s announcement to defer Brent Cross as set out in paragraph 1.4 of this report, this funding is not expected to be confirmed by December 2018, when the Council needs to enter into contract with Network Rail to maintain May 2022 opening date. Thus, an alternative funding solution needs to be agreed with HM Government and the GLA for the station. This scenario was identified as a risk in the Full Business Case approved by Policy and Resources Committee and HM Government in 2016. On 1 August 2018, the Government Assurance Board, comprising the Council, MHCLG, HM Treasury and GLA:
1. Reaffirmed public sector commitment to delivery of BX South and Thameslink
2. Confirmed commitment to finding a solution to the funding challenge
3. Confirmed that LBB can continue to commit MHCLG grant, to maintain momentum and in the expectation that a solution will be found.

Whilst I am a big fan of rail infrastructure projects, this one is starting to ring alarm bells. What particularly concerns me is that for the project to proceed, funding will have to be secured by December. Once this is done and dusted, what is to stop Hammersons coming back and building the shopping centre with no financial commitments at all. As the station will hugely improve the scheme, they will in effect have secured a massive win.

The big question for me is where will the extra dosh come from. Barnet Council can't put up council tax any higher without a public referendum, as the Tory administration is already committed to the maximum permitted rise without funding Brent Cross. So where else can the council find the dosh? One would have rather hoped that if there were grants and subsidies available, these would have already been tapped up to ensure the project proceeded without the risk of the rates guarantee. The other possible source that comes to mind is stealth taxes. Typically we are talking about parking charges. Barnet Council has fallen foul of the law on this before, but presumably the station can be sold as a transport enhancement.

I have asked two questions of the committee. I await the responses with interest

1. Please can the council explain how the funding for the new station at BXS will be achieved. In particular I am concerned that it appears that alternative funding is being sought, wheras the original business case envisaged a ring fencing of Business Rates from the Brent Cross expansion. Once this funding has been identified, is there a realistic prospect that the developers will be able to reactivate their plans and dodge their previously rig fenced commitments.

2. In light of the current problems facing retailers, there has been talk of a complete review of the system of business rates (a proposal I fully support). What plans are in place to ensure that such a change to legislation would prevent the Barnet Taxpayer having to pick up the bill if Business rates are abolished and another method of business taxation used? I note that this is not mentioned in the risk register.

I will keep you updated with what happens. Just to give some idea of the scale of this scheme the papers state

5.1.9 The current total approved Capital Budget for Thameslink is £70.516m Current spend to date (including expenditure committed but not yet paid) is £30.7m.

What is encouraging in the papers is that there is a firm commitment to improve the West London Orbital Railway Scheme and improve access between the station and the Thameslink Station. Sadly like many schemes, this one seems to have become one where the public sector takes all the risk and the private sector reaps all the rewards.
.

Brent Cross Redevelopment - Barnet Council exposed for having no plans for future transport improvements

As with many things in Barnet Council, the devil is in the detail. You have to read reports and responses very carefully to get to the bottom of what the council are planning and how they view the future of our Borough and our environment.

At present there is a plan for an absolutely humungous development in Brent Cross. This will see a massive increase in density of housing on the site. It will see more shops and more traffic. As with all developments, these create problems, but they also present opportunities. Developers can be compelled to improve transport as part of any plan and a massive plan such as Brent Cross there is the chance for a big improvement through Section 105 payment.

Anyone who has the misfortune to travel by car near Brent Cross on the A41 or the A406 at rush hour near Brent Cross will attest to just how congested this is. Local residents and campaigners have long been suggesting that Barnet and Brent Cross and would benefit greatly from a light rail system. There have been many proposals, not least The Brent Cross Light rail scheme. There have been other proposals for more modest rapid transport schemes, linking the shopping centre with the Tube and BR stations. Sadly the council doesn't seem interested. This was raised at a recent council meeting by Labour Member Geof Cooke. Sadly, it appears that the Tory administration didn't even seem capable of understanding the question. Page 7 of the latest copy of the minutes of the Assets, Regeneration and Growth Committee shows that a perfectly reasonable and sensible question got a complete non answer.

"Councillor Cooke asked whether a transport route is being safeguarded for a potential rapid transport system and what the projection is for shoppers by car in 2021. The response was that modal shift will change constantly over time and people will begin to change the way they plan their journeys in response to Brent Cross developments for example in line with new work and leisure patterns."

Translated into English, this roughly means "We haven't a clue how people will be travelling to and from Brent Cross and so we have decided to bury our head in the sand.

For the record, here is a list of the members present. Members Present:- Councillor Daniel Thomas (Chairman), Councillor Gabriel Rozenberg (Vice-Chairman), Councillor Richard Cornelius,  Councillor Philip Cohen, Councillor Geof Cooke, Councillor Rohit, Councillor Nagus Narenthira, Councillor Peter Zinkin.

If you were wondering just how massive this scheme is, the accompanying report gives a few clues as you can see there is a huge number of people moving in

2.19 T he Council submitted the Full Regeneration Business Case to HM Government on 22 January 2016. The Business Case was reviewed by the Department of Communities and Local Government Finance Sub-Committee on 25 February 2016, following which the Chancellor again reconfirmed the funding commitment in the Budget Statement on 16 March 2016, which confirmed that “ The government has approved the full business case for a new Thameslink station at Brent Cross Cricklewood, unlocking 7,500 new homes. This follows the Government’s previous commitment to provide £97 million of grant funding and ringfence the local share of business rates ”.

Not only that, have a look at the commercial aspects of the site.

3.7 The Council’s purpose in seeking to acquire the land and new rights shown on the CPO Plans is to facilitate the development, re-development and improvement of the land by way of a mixed use scheme, comprising commercial, retail, residential, hotel, conference and leisure development; community facilities; car parking, infrastructure and highway works; new rail station, station buildings, railway sidings, rail stabling facilities and associated rail infrastructure; rail freight facilities; a waste transfer facility; public realm and environmental improvement works (“the CPO3 Development”).

We will have all the traffic for commercial, retail, hotels, conference centres. Strangely the council makes no mention of the aspect of the proposed Brent Cross Light Rail scheme, which would link the site to Heathrow, using existing lightly used freight only rail lines via Dudden Hill. It would seem to me that a huge opportunity is being missed, as surely patrons of Hotels and Conference centres, would find a direct link highly attractive. Much mention is made of the convenience of St Pancras, but none of relief of the crowded East-West flows.

There is also plans for "rail freight facilities". In other words a depot, where goods are transferred between large lorries and trains. They are also planning a new "waste transfer station". This is where the refuse collections are transferred to rail containers to be dumped into landfills. There is an existing facility at Cricklewood currently. It would make sense to beef this up significantly, given the issues elsewhere in the Borough with the site for a waste depot. Whilst I am very supportive of transferring traffic from road to rail, it seems to me to be a massive folly to do this in a traffic hotspot, as part of a plan to add even more traffic.

In section 6.2 Barnet Council make it clear that the already congested A5 is seen as the key transport route for the 7,500 new households. As someone who avoids the A5 like the plague due to the congestion, I am quite nonplussed by this report. One has to wonder whether Councillors Thomas, Cornelius and Rozenburg ever venture over from their leafy residences elsewhere in the Borough.

BXC is one of Barnet’s priority regeneration areas, and will provide approximately 7,500 new homes over the next 20 years. It is a key part of the wider revitalisation of the A5 corridor, linking BXC with developments at West Hendon, Colindale and Edgware and improvements to Cricklewood Town Centre, to create a series of high quality modern suburbs.

I did a search on this report for the word "congestion" to see what thought had been given to the issue. To my amazement, there was not a single occurrance of the word in the report.

In summary, our Conservative Council administration is burying its collective head in the sand. They are planning an absolute monster of a scheme and the only significant public transport improvement is to relocate a station on one of the busiest railways in the country. Another aspect of the scheme which hasn't been mentioned is the knock on effect on Hendon and the existing Cricklewood stations. There is a significant risk that one or both station will close to facilitate the new station. Neither of these stations has been upgraded to accomodate the new 12 carriage trains. There is also the possibility of a lower frequency of service to Mill Hill Broadway. Thameslink semi fast services will need to sacrifice a stop to preserve journey times and many have suggested that Mill Hill is the "logical victim" of such a cut. It seems possible that commuters from three different existing and popular stations will suffer to keep the Brent Cross developers happy. All in all the whole scheme seems like a horribly wasted opportunity. I suspect that in 50 years, the next generation will be completely nonplussed by the stupidty of the council allowing the Borough to be wecked in this way. 

I seriously wonder if our councillors, who get a minimum of £10K of taxpayers money ever bother to read these reports. If they do, we can only wonder what induces them to take so little account of the existing residents and the future generations, who will be well and truly lumbered.

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

I've cracked the One Barnet puzzle !!!!

After months of trying to work out what OneBarnet meant, when the plan is all about taking a single entity council and smashing it into lots of tiny little privatised bits, all glued together by highly expensive legal contracts and overseen by armies of private consultants on £1,500 - £2,000 a day. Why is a project to shatter a service into smithereens called "One Barnet"?

Well it suddenly became clear when I saw this website - http://www.spanglefish.com/campaignforcathill/index.asp?pageid=313686. Regular readers of this blog will know that Barnet Council is currently presiding over huge developments, build massive tower blocks all over Barnet. The jewel in the crown of this plan is the Brent Cross/Cricklewood redevelopment, building massive cell block flats in an area already overrun with traffic on the North Circular.

You see on this website we have Barnet Councillor and Cabinet Member Robert Rams commenting on a development in Enfield, that will affect his ward adversely with overdevelopment

This development will have a huge impact on our residents in East Barnet. These proposed tower blocks are not in keeping with our community and will put a huge strain on our services and roads.

Rams doesn't care about Barnet residents in the West of the Borough having to put up with overdevelopments, tower blocks not in keeping with the area or the huge strain on services and roads. As a cabinet member he voted for it. It is clear however that different rules apply when the development affects his patch. I have realised that One Barnet is an abbreviation for

ONE rule in BARNET for us and another for everyone else !

#LondonRiots #Londontalksbollocks #Barnet #Brentcross

It's always someone else's fault isn't it. It's always someone elses children. It's all the fault of the parents. It's all the fault of society. It's always the fault of the Police for not "getting stuck in". It's always the fault of David Cameron for not coming home from holiday. There's only one person who is totally exhonourated of all blame for the #Londonriots. Can you guess who that is?

Round this neck of the woods there's a pretty cool blog called "Broken Barnet". Strangely enough, Barnet appears to be one of the less broken parts of London right now. Far less Broken than Tottenham or Clapham. I'm just waiting for the first local Tory to say that this is because they've done a marvellous job. Luckily for us, the demographics of our Borough, are such that we are not well set up for rioting. Our biggest shopping centre, Brent Cross is not really close enough to any of the usual hotbeds of rioters that cause such problems elsewhere. The big Council Estates, such as Burnt Oak and Grahame Park are not particularly close to easily robbable shopping centres full of large chains selling designer goods. I heard a couple of likely lads on the 302 bus saying that Burnt Oak had been spared the rampage "because there's nothing worth nicking down there"(I suspect they were only semi joking).

As I heard the conversation, it became pretty apparent that there is a perception that "robbing shops" is OK. That all shopkeepers are rich, so it doesn't matter. There seems to be a perception that if you can nick stuff and get away with it, that is OK. Is this attitude reflective of youth today generally? I happen to believe that it's not. I don't even believe that it is reflective of the majority of the young people who are looting. Sadly, I believe that many young people feel incredible peer pressure to "belong" to the groups that are causing the problems.

Over the last year, I've been involved in a youth project at our studios, where we've got some of the most troubled young people in Barnet (NEET kids, to use the lovely Council term) involved in music making. The 10 week courses has resulted in a massive change in the attitudes of those taking part. just developing some self confidence has massively changed their perspective on life. I happen to believe that EVERY rioter has been failed by the last 30 years worth of political leadership. I am one of those namby pamby doo gooders who believe that nearly all of us are basically good, some of us just never have the chance to show it. I've had my doubts, but the sound school project reinforced this belief.

One of my daughters was telling me that someone she knows has been excluded from school. What for? Smoking Pot in the woods. Has the school done the right thing? Expelling someone for indulging in a form of self harm? I don't think so. Who is a 14 year old, who goes to the woods to smoke pot in school time harmed? As I see it, they've only harmed themselves. They are damaging their education. How has the school responded? By damaging it even more. By stigmatising the young person what have they done? This scenario is repeated all over the country. A results obsessed educational system has thrown such kids to the wolves. Once you have been turfed out, where do you go? What are your prospects? What happens next?

Sadly many young people decide that drugs are the solution to a bad situation. These days kids are given education about the subject, but what exactly are they being told? Take cannabis for example and it's preferred current form - Skunk weed. Why should a 14 year old steer clear of it? It might make you suffer from mental illness? Well most 14 year olds know people who are smoking it who clearly are perfectly sane. As a result they don't believe the literature. For some formerly high achieving pupils, skunk starts a rapid decline in marks, but what do you tell the kid who was low achieving already? When they find they can make decent money dealing to classmates, how do you discourage them? I don't pretend to know the answers, but we'd better start trying to find them, because if we don't the situation will only get worse. One thing is clear to me. The cuts in funding for youth projects is sending all of the wrong messages. The devil makes work for idle hands. Every teenager who can no longer go to whatever scheme they were participating in, is potentially bored, bitter and disaffected. The last thing I'd ever do is condone vandalism and robbery, but we need to support our youth, otherwise the dark voices which seduce them into such activities have free reign.

So who do I blame for the #Londonriots -  I blame the whole f***ing lot of us. Those who do it, because they know it's wrong, no matter what they say, those who have let the situation develop and yes, you and me brother for not doing everything we possibly could to stop elitism in schools, destruction of youth schemes, closure of libraries, marginalisation of those on the edge of society.

And I will leave all you smug Barnet Councillors with this thought. I believe that the reason Brent Cross Shopping Centre wasn't trashed and burnt to the ground on Sunday was because there wasn't a huge number of disaffected people in awful "social housing" living on top of it. Anyone who has seen the plans for the Brent Cross redevelopment, will not need a crystal ball to see what will happen, if we have riots in 10 year time once the rabbit hutch flats have been built next door to it. It is a disaster waiting to happen and if you can't see that after this last week, you ain't fit to hold public office.

24/7 - The blog that never sleeps

Today is the 24th July - 24/7 - a date that has another meaning. We talk about 24 by 7 services, but how many things really are. If I want a meal in Mill Hill, the latest one I can buy is a 3AM Kebab at the Mill Hill Kebab house at the Green Man. If I want to have a drink, the pubs would have long since shut. I can get a Thameslink Train to St Pancras more or less every hour, where you can drink and eat to your hearts content.

The days are gone when the Telly went off at midnight. We all sit up all night tweeting, blogging and all manner of other things granny wouldn't have dreamed of (you have a filthy mind, I mean downloading videos of the Clash !).

Sadly there are other things going on. Last weeks murder at 3am in a brothel in Burnt Oak, showed that Barnet is not quite the sleepy suburb the Council would like you to believe. Anyway on this auspicious date, just consider this.  Most of us live in Barnet because it's not a 24/7 urban jungle.

When I look at the redevelopment plans for Brent Cross, with its huge towers and high density flats (sorry you can't call them that, but there will be Thousands more people per square mile), I wonder exactly what we are sleepwalking towards. Sweet Dreams

Brent Cross Redevelopment Alert : Find out just how marvellous the extra 27,000 cars will be

Register NOW for FREE! Don't miss the opportunity to hear from speakers focussing on central and suburban London by registering for this FREE to attend digital event, broadcast live to your computer! speakers confirmed to for London Live are: Richard Akers Land Securities Ian Mason Schroders  Paul Clark, The Crown Estate Tony McCurley, GM Real Estate David Kenningham, CB Richard Ellis  Paul White, Frogmore Property Company Nick Maltby, Bircham Dyson Bell Keith Berryman, Crossrail Alistair Subba Row, Farebrother Tim Roberts, British Land Jonathan Joseph, Brent Cross Cricklewood partnership  Tony Westbrook, Barnet Council  Register today for FREE to hear from all these speakers discussing the London Property Market! Webinars confirmed for London Live! include:  9.30am live debate - London 2011: Recovery or    relapse?   11.00am Webinar - Capital investment: what lies    ahead for development, transport and Crossrail?   12.30pm Webinar - The outlook for Offices: kick    starting development and tackling the supply shortage  2pm Webinar - Retail therapy: the evolution of London    retail via pioneering new developments  3.30pm Webinar - A revolution in the suburbs: a closer    look at the outer boroughs

Webinar – A revolution in the suburbs: a closer look at the outer boroughs

The 20 London boroughs which comprise outer London have been hit particularly hard by the economic downturn of the last few years. However, with 60% of the capitals population, several major regeneration schemes already underway and a plethora of untapped resources – the suburbs will be fundamental to the recovery of the London economy. In this session find out why commercial developers, investors and occupiers should be looking to the suburbs as the way forward. Learn more about  the main growth sectors which are set to bolster the outer London economy and gain deeper insight on some of the most innovative regeneration schemes in London, including: 

• Examining the key growth sectors for the outer London economy: office based sectors, public sector, retail, leisure and culture

Speakers include:

• Ian Mason, head of UK property fund management, Schroders
• Jonathan Joseph, development director, Brent Cross Cricklewood partnership
• Tony Westbrook, Principal Planner, Barnet Council 

A must for everyone interested in Brent Cross

Barnet Eye Exclusive : Mobile wardens costs £175,000 more than keeping them on site - Hillan hides the facts

One of the key foundations of the Future Shape project is the abolition of On Site Wardens. Evidence has reached The Barnet Eye that a detailed investigation by Barnet Council has found that moving to a system of mobile wardens (the Councils preferred option) may cost up to £175,000 than retaining on site wardens. Now a sensible council would see the light and drop the proposal. What do you think Barnet Council did? They hushed this fact up. Councillor Maureen Braun presented a report which completely neglected to mention this. Lets just hope that some kind person serves an FOI on Barnet Council to get them to reveal this.

The only question which the Barnet Eye is currently unable to answer is whether Braun knowingly conspired to hide this fact or whether Leader Lynne Hillan specifically selected Braun for the job because she knew Braun was too dim to realise she was playing the stooge.

Editors note : Councillor Maureen Braun was chair of the planning committee responsible for approving the multi billion pound Brent X/ Cricklewood redevelopment. Was she up to the job? Well she didn't even know she needed planning permission for her own shed -

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/932954.No_permission_for____stealth____shed/

It just fills me with such confidence in the whole of Barnet Council

Brent Cross - They don't give a toss

Have a look at this picture, mocked up by the architects to demonstrate just how lovely the new Brent Cross is. Look really carefully at the "riverside scene". What do you see? Can you see the toddlers playing by the River Brent. Can you see that there is drop of a couple of feet into the river? Are they really promoting picnics in such dangerous spots? The use of perspective in the picture intrigues me. By clever angles a river which is 25ft wide appears the same size as a huge block of flats six stories high. The backside of a young mum is larger than the top three stories of the tower at the back of the picture. There is another view of this idylic development. Try this

In this picture, you can see just how big the blocks are. Nope they are not the same size as a young mum's Bum. They dwarf the London Bus in the bottom right hand corner. The Leader of Barnet Council proudly boasted that the Brent Cross Development would give the Borough an exciting new Town Centre. What sort of a Town will it be? It will be one with the largest road junction in London, an eleven lane highway, clogged with traffic dividing it in half. It is bounded by the Brent Cross flyover to the East, and the M1/Staples Corner flyover to the West. As to being a safe environment to raise children, well I'd guess that there wouldn't be anywhere in London with more cars spouting out pollution than this. Is there a larger conglomeration of roads anywhere? Of course the planners of this feel that this already polluted air quality is not polluted enough and are planning an incinerator. It is no secret that there are all sorts of cancer hotspots in the vicinity of such installations. Where is the "green space" for children to play? Down by the ungarded banks of the River Brent where there is no fencing to prevent them falling in? A river prone to flash flooding. There is also the railway passing by to the East. I guess if the kids get bored with the river, they could play on the tracks, maybe a nice game of chicken in front of the Freight Trains carrying nuclear waste to Sellafield, which rumble through.

At  a hurriedly convened meeting of the Hendon planning committee last week, the plans for this monstrosity received approval. For some strange reason, the whole process was suddenly speeded up just as the holiday season started.

I attended  the Hendon & District residents Forum where Barnet Council Official, Martin Cowie informed us that the meeting was only discussing the extension of the time limits, as a legal requirement, which seemed reasonable enough. This week the Times tells us that the extension will give stakeholders a chance to give extra input- They said "These controls will ensure Barnet Council and the other stakeholders and in particular TfL will continue to have real control and input into how the Brent Cross Cricklewood regeneration is taken forward - and that public transport, infrastructure and community investment keeps pace with development." So who thinks this is a good idea? Well it seems that the chair of the planning committee does. Her name Wendy Prentice.


Wendy Prentice thinks that children who grow up in an extremely polluted environment, with no green spaces to play, bounded by dangerous roads, railways and rivers will grow up into happy, healthy children. So what sort of a road does Ms Prentice live in.  Well I googled her road and looked at the streetview? What does Ms Greenspan see when she walks down her road? Well she sees something like this :-

Make no mistake, if you live in the London Borough of Barnet, you are a stakeholder. How many people of the board of TFL live in Barnet. It is telling that the most important stakeholder mentioned in the Times article is TFL, who are responsible for the roads which run through it. Their remit is not the well being of the children of Barnet. If like me you think that this whole scheme is scandalous and we are building a future slum city, with huge urban problems, which will blight Barnet forever, please don't sit on your hands. Send an email to Ms Prentice, who is the councillor responsible for the decision and tell her that you think Barnet should put the wellbeing of children before the profits of developers and that you think multi story tower blocks, roads, dangerous rivers, railway sidings and gas incinerators are no environment to raise your family - cllr.w.prentice@barnet.gov.uk|

Brent Cross Redevelopment - If it's so great, why does the picture look like this?

This is one of the pictures from the architects prosepectus for the Brent Cross redevelopment. The area within the black boundry is the area to be redeveloped. Usually architects are proud to display their work, but in this picture, it takes less than 1/4 of the picture. Odd really

The campaign opposing the development have released this close up image, which gives you some idea of the scale. If you look closely, you'll see a London bus dwarfed by the buildings

Now ask yourself this question (I've helpfully added three potential answers). Why do you think that the developers are keen to build these monstrosities?

a) Because they have a deeply held belief that people enjoy living in concrete jungles?
b) Because they want to live there themselves?
c) Because they'll make tens of millions of quid?

An even more interesting question is why our local politicians are so keen. It is interesting that most of the Tory leaders of the Council live on the other side of the Borough.I have my own views on the matter, but then I'm a bit of a cynic. I once asked an architect friend how a certain well known development would look when it was completed, compared with the architects drawings. His answer? Good design looks ten times better and bad design looks a hundred times worse. Can you see any architectural merit in the rows of horrible square concrete block buildings

The Barnet Eye is nothing, if not fair. Here is an open invitation to ANY BARNET COUNCILLOR, to write a blog for the readers of the Barnet Eye, to explain the architectural merit of these awful blocks of flats. As to the marvellous embelishments, such as the incinerator and the 27,000 extra cars in Barnet? It seems that our Barnet Councillors think all of this is life enhancing. Personally I'm not sure whether the our local politicians are blind, stupid or corrupt.

Maybe Lynne Hillan, Leader of Barnet Council would be good enough to explain why this is actually a marvellous plan from an aesthetic perspective.

Guest Blog - Open letter to Lynne Hillan, Leader of Barnet Council

By David Howard,

Dear Councillor Hillan,

As members of the Coalition FOR a Sustainable Brent Cross and Cricklewood the Federation of Residents Associations in Barnet (FORAB) is most concerned that politicians elected to represent residents at Borough, London and National level should have totally disregarded the interests and views of Barnet residents, as well as those of the wider communities in the surrounding Boroughs. The scheme for redeveloping Brent Cross and Cricklewood as currently proposed is planned to take 20 plus years to implement:-

They will lead to the destruction of a stable existing community in Cricklewood and replacement with high density, high- rise “hutches for hobbits”. There will be few family or affordable units
We question the need for another new town centre, as well as doubling the size of Brent Cross. What studies have been done on the impact of Westfields in White City and Westfields Stratford, both of which will be more accessible from tubes and railways? Why are Hammersons (the landlord at Brent Cross) saying that they are proposing to concentrate their investment in France for the next five years? Will only phase one with the doubling in size of the shopping centre (and cars but no additional car parking) plus the incinerator be built and the rest deferred , possibly indefinitely?

The proposals will have a serious impact on the 22 existing town centres in Barnet, as well others in Brent, Camden and further afield. No impartial studies have been carried out on the impact on surrounding town centres. There has not been enough money in shopper’s pockets to keep them all alive in the past, let alone in future if the scheme goes ahead.

There will be 29,000 extra cars a day on the already congested roads. We do not accept the spin doctor’s solution of mode shift. We do not believe that 70% of existing shoppers as well as 70% of new future shoppers will leave their cars at home and travel to Brent Cross on buses. There is no new TfL or Dept for Transport money for upgrading the Northern line which will have to cater for 30,000 more people from the new Colindale developments further up the line. There is no future - proofing built in for an alternative light - rail transport system to serve north west London, including Wembley, Brent Cross, Colindale and Mill Hill.. The new railway station is designed to meet the needs of workers in the new office blocks in phase 5 some 20 years away. Will the offices be built? Will the new jobs be created? Will the new station ever materialize?

We are in favour of more recycling but do not accept that the proposed gasification incinerator is safe, as it will produce harmful nanoparticles which are not covered by current regulations.

The area would benefit from investment, and we regret that there has been no real consultation carried out with the wider community by Barnet Council, which has been blinded by the financial benefits the development will bring to it as the significant land owner in the area. This appears to have led to bias in the planning process. The proposals are contrary to both the Conservative party manifesto for the last election and the joint manifesto with the Lib Dems – “Coalition: our programme for government” which promise a bottom - up approach to planning and redevelopment in future.

The community has much to offer in making the regeneration of Brent Cross and Cricklewood a beacon for sustainable regeneration fit for the 21st century. Why won’t the Council engage in dialogue with the community? What has it to lose? This could be a win - win development, but as proposed at present it is going to be a lose - lose disaster.

The approvals to date are only in outline. There is still time to rethink the proposals at detailed planning stage. Barnet Council, you have a second chance. The community is willing to engage in true partnership. Are you willing to engage with the community?

I am sending this open letter to Councillor Richard Cornelius and the local press as well.

Yours sincerely

David Howard

Chair of FORAB

(Picture at top - Developers image of the Brent Cross Concrete Jungle)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Howard is the Chair of FORAB and an active campaigner for a better quality of life for Barnet Residents. Guest blogs are always welcome at the Barnet Eye. Email me via the link in my profile