Brent Terrace Triangles

Gina Emmanuel, Brent Terrace Residents Association

Summary

Brent Terrace – history

Development plans for Brent terrace

Broken promises

Effects of the build on Brent terrace

Loss of quiet green space

The dereliction argument

Effects on Whitefield residents

Consultation issues

Predisposition

2012 Localism Act

Flawed masterplan

My name is Gina Emmanuel. I have been a Brent Terrace resident since July 2007. I am an active

member of the Brent Terrace Residents’ Association, the Cricklewood Forum and a gardener on the

Millennium Green. I have been writing about the effects of the Brent Cross Cricklewood (BXC)

development on the Whitefield and Brent Terrace Communities since around 2008.

The following statement is a summary of some of the main points that concern many of the

residents of Brent Terrace (and others) regarding the development of the Brent Terrace Triangle

green spaces (the Triangles).

The BXC development will have hugely detrimental effects for both the Whitefield and Brent Terrace

communities. The 2 communities are inextricably linked by CPO1 since Barnet Council and the BXC

developers have proposed the use of the Triangles as the site for the re-housing of part of the

Whitefield Estate, when the Estate is demolished under the BXC scheme. Whitefield has told you

how the development will affect them and the many reasons why they urge you to reject this CPO. I

am here to present the case for Brent Terrace and show you how we will be affected.

1. Brent Terrace

Brent Terrace is a long cul de sac, built by the Midland Railway in the 1890s. 105 late Victorian cottages face the railway, separated from it by a communal path down which Midland railway workers used to go to work. Across the path, each cottage has an allotment for growing fruit and veg. Uniquely, alongside the road at the back of the cottages, a hawthorn hedgerow runs nearly the full length of the Terrace. For nearly 40 years Brent Terrace stood alone between the railway and farmland. Then, in 1928, the Clitterhouse Estate was built and two triangular fields (the Brent Terrace Triangles) were created as a buffer between Brent Terrace and the new estate. These two fields were also used as allotments, until one became a playground, 70 years ago.

2. The BXC development plan for Brent Terrace

The BXC development will change Brent Terrace beyond all recognition. Under this development scheme, 7500 new housing units will be built, yet the BXC developers and Barnet Council are insisting on shoe horning 47 flats and houses on to the Triangles, increasing the housing stock in Brent Terrace by nearly 50%, which is not inconsequential. On the other side of Brent Terrace, a new 4-lane road will be built between Brent Terrace and the railway, along with blocks of flats up to 20 storeys high. We will be overlooked on BOTH sides. According to the masterplan, the loss of the quiet, green space Triangles will be compensated for by a long, very narrow, linear park between us and the new 4 lane road. Finally, half of Brent Terrace has recently been the subject of CPO3 and the other half will be the subject of CPO4. Under CPOs 3 & 4, the Council and the developers, Argent, are now proposing to take our allotment gardens on the railway side, despite historical assurances that this would not be the case. The only good news, is that once they have taken all of this, they will no longer be able to bother us since we will have nothing left to give.

Lack of justification and consultation

To date, no justifications for the development of the Triangles have ever been forthcoming. Hence,

at every consultation, Brent Terrace residents have always voiced their disagreement to their

development for the reasons to be discussed in this statement. Our objections to the development

of the triangles go back to 2006, when building on these green spaces was first publically floated and

includes objections in 2009/10, when outline planning consent was given, and again in 2014, when

the outline planning consent was changed, and at the RMA in 2015.

We have been ‘consulted’ many times, if that is what it can be called, when a plan is presented as a

fait accompli, with all objections ignored and all questions unanswered. The concerns of residents

have never been seriously considered, evidenced by the fact that despite all the detrimental changes

that we are destined to undergo (as detailed previously), nothing has been changed by the BXC

developers with respect to Brent Terrace. We only ask for some negotiation & compromise

concerning some of the more extreme elements, but there has NEVER been even a glimmer of such

negotiation or compromise.

3. Broken promises

The BXC developers made certain assurances in their documentation regarding the safeguarding of

the special history and streetscape of our community. This documentation formed the basis on

which the 2010 planning permission was obtained, and formed the guidelines for any building in our

street. This was detailed in various BXC documents including the RDAS & RDG as detailed below.

Section A3 of the RDAS describes in more detail the various places or districts that make up BXC as

shown on Parameter Plan 001. A3.5 states:

“The character of Brent Terrace will be retained and enhanced. On the eastern side of Brent Terrace

two triangles of vacant land will be occupied by a number of new family terrace houses. These new

homes will be set back from the existing street in order to retain the existing hawthorne hedge row

that is an integral part of the existing landscape. The existing streetscape has a unique local

character that will be enhanced with ‘home zone’ landscaping that will reinforce this quality”

(p.106).’

‘4.5 In terms of illustrative street typology the RDG states that Brent Terrace could become:

“…a ‘suburban hamlet’ within the city. Brent Terrace is a unique residential street where the existing

railway terraces have ‘backs’ that face the street. The street will be completed with new terrace

houses occupying the land on the opposite side of the street. The new homes will be set back to

ensure that the existing hedgerow is retained and allowed to flourish as a landscape feature along

with additional street planting. The new homes will acknowledge both the scale and grain of the

existing houses. The street will retain its suburban character while being integrated into the new

urban context (B.2.2.5).’

However, every assurance that was made in this documentation to the Brent Terrace community has

since been broken.

3.1 There were supposed to be 36 new family terrace houses. However, it seems from the

Explanatory Report, that we were misled all these years. Apparently, these units were only

for illustrative purposes and actually referred to apartments & not family terrace houses as

described in the RDAS and RDG.

‘4.3 The RDAS identities this Illustrative Masterplan layout as being 36 terraced units across the two

sites. The ground floor and upper floor uses for these illustrative units are identified as being

“houses/apartments” (p.55). Illustrative Section F (from the West to East through Brent Terrace from

Edgware Road to Brent Terrace) identifies the units on the Plots as being apartments.’

In addition, the BXC developers are now claiming that they always intended to build 60

units, so have done us a favour by reducing the density to 47 units. It would seem that

these shopping centre specialists have used that classic retail sales tactic, of putting up the

cost of the merchandise for 6 weeks prior to a sale and then reducing the price so that it

appears to be a bargain. In this case, they claim for a while prior to consultation that it was

actually 60 units and then ‘agree’ to ‘reduce’ the density to 47 units. In reality between

outline planning permission and the RMA, they have INCREASED the density by 30% (not

reduced it by 20%, as they claim). 3.2 Outline planning permission was given for 36 new family TERRACE houses in keeping with

the street. However, approval was given at the Reserved Matters stage for blocks of flats

and TOWN housing, which overlook both Brent Terrace & Clitterhouse.

‘7.5 The buildings are low rise and as such have been designed to be solid with masonry

architecture prevailing through the use of natural materials such as brick and stone in line

with the RDG. As described in the Design Development Report, the design emphasises the

two storey appearance of the new development along Brent Terrace by introducing a strong

cornice line, thereby ensuring that the suburban character of Brent Terrace is retained.’

BXC developers are claiming that, the new buildings will have a 2 storey appearance.

However, despite any ‘2 storey appearance’, the buildings will still be 3 storeys high with

balconies that overlook both Brent Terrace and Clitterhouse homes.

3.3 The developers have tried to justify their departure from a less dense scheme, which

comprised more appropriate terrace housing, by claiming that it is still within the plan

parameters of the 2014 Permission.

‘4.3 The Illustrative Masterplan described in the RDAS identities one way in which the

scheme could be delivered within the context of the parameters of the 2014 Permission,

and the indicative layout of development on Plots 53 and 54 showed 36 terraced units.

However, the parameters of the 2014 Permission permit varying typologies of development

on the plots – for example a maximum height parameter of 12m (which based on a 3m floor

to floor height, as noted on Parameter Plan 007, would permit 4 storeys) and the broad

scale threshold parameters permit a variety of the residential forms.’

However, the 2 triangles are very awkward spaces in a very awkward street, so building

anything like the maximum amount allowed by the plan parameters is quite frankly,

ridiculous. The developers are simply trying to justify why the end look of the units has

radically departed from their earlier descriptions, where they assured everyone that the

development would be in keeping with the current streetscape.

3.4 Continuing the theme of broken assurances, there is the issue of parking due to the narrow

nature of our street and the already huge pressure on parking spaces. Currently, access for

refuse trucks is denied when cars are parked on both sides of the road. This has grave

implications for emergency vehicle access; it is quite simply an ‘accident’ waiting to happen.

The addition of nearly 50% extra housing, will greatly exacerbate this problem.

3.5 Further, access for refuse trucks under the new development has changed a number of

times. One idea included removing nearly 10% of on-street parking. Quite clearly, this was

not tenable. The current plan includes a turning point in the driveway of the northern

triangle. However, the tracking diagram (in the Explanatory Report, Appendix 3) shows that

when cars and trucks pull in and out of the new development, they will SIDE SWIPE parked

cars on the opposite side of the road.

8.3 The northern Triangle includes an access designed to allow refuse vehicles to undertake a three point turn. This provides a turning point which will significantly improve the accessibility of Brent Terrace to refuse and other long vehicles. (Tom Wyld’s rebuttal)

3.6 With regards to our very important, green corridor hedgerow, that runs nearly the full

length of our street, Brent Terrace was assured that it would be retained. This promise has

also been broken. Our unique hedgerow will be ripped up by the developers, over the full

length of both triangles, for the 2 years of the build. This will then be replaced with 1.5

metre trees when the build is complete. Since the hedgerow will be very close to windows

of the new build and so will reduce light, it is likely that these new trees will be regularly cut

back and kept relatively short. There will be more breaks in the hedgerow than currently,

for vehicle access to the new build area. These driveways will need to be wide for the safety

of vehicles pulling off the sites. Our green corridor hedgerow will no longer be a safe haven

for wildlife or protect residents from being overlooked.

3.7 Finally, the ‘regeneration’ of the parks and green spaces was supposed to occur before the

loss of the green space Triangles. However, a change in phasing occurred without

consultation and under the latest schedule, the development of homes on Brent Terrace &

the regeneration of Clitterhouse Playing Fields & Claremont Open Space will coincide, so we

will lose access to all these public green spaces at the same time.

4. Effects of the build

The Triangles are very poor building sites due to their small, awkward shape and difficult access. The

build will take place over 18 months to 2 years - a very long timeline for a build of only 47 housing

units. We have been told by Barnet Officers that this is due to the inability to store materials on this

small, awkward site.

This means approximately 2 years of disruption for the residents of Brent Terrace: 75 heavy

goods vehicles will use our narrow, residential street daily; huge quantities of dust and air

pollution will be generated; high levels of noise pollution will be created; we will suffer road

closures when water pipes, telephone lines, broadband lines, gas pipes and electricity lines

are laid; our gas, water and electricity amenities will be cut whenever necessary; we will

have to fight with the heavy goods vehicles for access to our street and homes; our children

will be in more danger of being run over.

At the end, we will have 50% more housing, 50% more cars, a loss of our green space, and

the loss of our hedgerow and green wildlife corridor. In short, a total change in the

character of our street.

5. Loss of quiet, green space

The Brent Terrace Triangles are green spaces that historically have NEVER been anything other than

green spaces – they were always either allotments or a playground, & prior to that, farmland. The

green spaces were created in their current form, when Clitterhouse Estate was built in the late

1920s. These green spaces served as a buffer between the 2 housing areas.

The BXC developers & Barnet Council have tried to claim otherwise on several occasions,

citing this area as brownfield, since there is tarmac on the south triangle. In addition, they

have tried to claim that the triangles were only INFORMAL green spaces. In fact, the tarmac

is all that is left of our 70 year old playground – a playground that is designated on many

maps, including those of the BXC developers – hardly an INFORMAL green space then.

Confusion over the precise designation of this space seems to have occurred due to this

playground having dropped off the Council’s Asset Register.

Around 2005/6, the playground equipment was removed (and not replaced), after the plans

for the proposed BXC development changed to include the demolition of Whitefield and the

development of the Triangle green spaces. So a generation of Brent Terrace & Clitterhouse

children has grown up in the street with no playground, although they continue to use the

space regularly for football and cricket.

Brent Terrace has always objected to the loss of the green space. We have been assured

that under the BXC development, there will be an increase in green space to compensate for

the various losses over the development area. Constant questions have been asked

regarding the amount and quality of green space that will be provided under the BXC

development, all of which have gone unanswered. Much of the new space will run alongside

main roads such as the A406 or are pocket handkerchief size spaces on road corners or are

paved spaces with no greenery. In addition, there have been inconsistencies in the green

space count, with hectares and acres being added together. So any claim to increased green

space under the BXC development would need to be examined with a magnifying glass.

The masterplan shows a replacement for our green space Triangles on the other side of

Brent Terrace between us and the new 4 lane spine road and the railway. Most of the other

local green spaces have predicted noise levels of 55dB, but this new park will be ‘relatively

noisy, with predicted noise levels of 70dB’. This park will be next to a busy 4 lane road and

overlooked by many pedestrians and drivers…much less safe and much more noisy than our

current quiet, green space triangles.

In addition, this replacement park is so long and narrow that the developers, Argent, are

desperate to obtain the Brent Terrace allotment gardens under CPOs 3 & 4, in order to

widen the area to make it a more viable public green space.

6. The effects on Whitefield residents

Many Whitefield residents eligible to move to the new development on Brent Terrace, do not want

to move to our street. In many respects, Whitefield residents will not receive a like-for-like

exchange of properties.

The Triangles are situated several hundred metres to the nearest bus stop, which is too far

for some ELDERLY people to walk. Currently, Whitefield residents live next to a bus stop.

Brent Terrace is an extremely long cul de sac, with a number of pedestrian alleyways along

it, which serve as short cuts. These alleys are usually well lit at night, but they are narrow &

the lights don’t always work. Some ELDERLY people do not feel comfortable using these

alleys at night, so the alternative is a very long walk. Without using these lanes, the walk is

doubled in length.

Whitefield residents with 60ft gardens will have very little garden space in the replacement

homes. The gardens will be overlooked by Clitterhouse residents. Due to the very narrow

nature of the road, the replacement homes will be overlooked by Brent Terrace residents on

the other side. So after having much space, some Whitefield residents will feel hemmed in.

The replacement homes will have management fees, maintenance fees, service charges, etc

attached to them. Some of the Whitefield residents (leaseholders & freeholders) do not

currently have all these fees attached to their homes. The setting of these fees is open to

abuse and has been abused on other ‘regenerated’ estates, for example, West Hendon.

Some of the Whitefield residents own their own homes & want to stay in the area, but don’t

want to take shared equity. Although, they may have a 3 bedroom home and a 60ft garden

in good order, the current compulsory purchase price is not enough for them to by a similar

property in the area, without shared equity.

85 homes will be demolished in the 1st CPO. 25 of these were the sheltered accommodation

of the Rosa Freedman Centre. These will not be replaced under BXC so this diversity in our

community has disappeared. It would appear from correspondence in March and April

2015, between a Brent Terrace resident and a Barnet Information Management Officer, that

protecting diversity in our community was not an important priority and that compliance

with the legal expectation of ‘due regard’ as required by the Equality Act may not have

occurred, since a separate Equalities Impact Assessment had not been completed for the

Section 73 application or the 2010 master plan. In fact, only a 1-2 page outline was written

in the report to the January 2014 Planning and Environment Committee (as detailed below).

Of the 85 homes to be demolished, only 47 homes will be replaced; it has already been

agreed that 1 of those homes will be for developer profit and sold on the open market. So in

truth only 46 homes will be replaced. Approximately, 13 homeowners were originally ruled

ineligible for a replacement home. Further homeowners or tenants may subsequently be

ruled ineligible for a replacement home. In addition, the developers are already anticipating

that very few if any Whitefield residents will actually move to Brent Terrace. (As detailed

below in a non-material amendment application 15/04734/NMA dated July 2015,) So

housing will be built on green space & sold for profit for no reason.

7. Consultation issues

Barnet Council and the BXC developers have always claimed that they consulted extensively with the

public. However, Ben Littman of Hammerson recently stated at a public meeting that perhaps they

hadn’t consulted as well as was expected. Furthermore, damning evidence was presented at a

London Assembly inquiry regarding public consultation and planning. This inquiry used the BXC

development public consultation as a specific case study. My experience of public consultation (and

that of others) is as follows:

Plans were presented as a fait accompli; we were never offered any option.

Whitefield residents were consulted a number of times regarding the Brent Terrace

development, as should be the case. However, Brent Terrace residents were only

‘consulted’ once, at a meeting where we were TOLD what was going to be built.

Questions never answered.

Timescales on planning applications were always very short considering that there were

scores of documents for each application.

Documents were often incomplete, inaccurate, contradictory, inconsistent, missing or

inaccessible to the public. Documents were not available on the web in time & access to the

web documents was often unavailable.

Almost every public consultations was postponed or re-run due to the above issues with

documentation or too short timelines. In addition, many residents were NOT informed of

any subsequent consultation.

Major objections are never discussed.

To date, Barnet Officers have always recommended to approve every BXC planning

application.

Under the BXC development, Barnet Council is acting as developer and approver of planning

applications. So, who is looking after the interests of the residents of Cricklewood?

With specific regard to the Triangles, apparently, 2 RMAs ran concurrently on the Triangles and Whitefield replacement units, causing intentional confusion and not fully consulting on all those who should have been consulted. Brent Terrace residents received information about the first RMA but were not sent information about the second RMA, which was about the same space. Neither did we receive the later amendment, where the BXC developers sought to commute the social and affordable units for Whitefield residents on the basis of a payment. So, the consultation was not in line with the requirements of either the Barnet Statement of Community Involvement or the London Plan. No notices were posted and not all who were living within the area were notified.

Whenever we found faults with the masterplan and asked for changes prior to the 2009/10

Permission, we were told that any problems could be solved at the Reserved Matters stage.

However, when we objected to these problems at the Reserved Matters stage, we are told that it

was in the outline planning permission…all hugely cynical and devised to remove the democratic

rights of the residents.

To date, every BXC planning application presented to the Barnet Council planning committee has

been approved. I have been left wondering on what they are basing their approval, since there are

always many objections. At the planning committee meetings, very few questions are ever asked,

committee members often look tired & bored. On occasion, they have even talked through a speech

by a member of the public presenting arguments. It is unlikely that planning committee members

really read the scores of documents for each BXC planning application, or the 100s of pages of the

Barnet Officers’ summary reports. At one committee meeting, it took much longer to debate the

addition of some extra sound proofing requested by 3 residents who live next to an expanding

school, than it did to debate a complex BXC RMA. Approval is recommended for all BXC planning

applications and approval is granted, regardless of the merits, or lack thereof, of each application.

This follows a long and continuing history of Cricklewood residents being ignored regarding planning

applications in the area, and planning & housing licencing law not being enforced by Barnet Council.

8. 2012 Localism Act

The planning application for the Living Bridge was approved in 2014. This forms the basis for the

demolition of the Whitefield Estate. However, this new application was completed after the 2012

Localism Act, which means that options have to be offered to residents and reasons have to be given

for and against all options. Although, the living bridge is ostensibly an infrastructure development

project which falls outside the 2012 Act, there are several compelling reasons for this project NOT to

be considered an infrastructure project.

The previous mayor who was sent the documentation at the time of the application and has been

since asked numerous questions during mayoral question time, stated that the living bridge held no

transport value whatsoever.

It will not be used for public transport - It is way to the east of the proposed new station and

is nowhere near the tube station. It is not near bus stops and will not serve the bus station.

It will not be used for private or commercial vehicles.

It holds no cycling value, since you cannot cycle north from it.

It holds little pedestrian value, since there will be other pedestrian bridges extremely close

by. It merely leads pedestrians straight into the 2nd floor of the expanded shopping centre.

In addition, it holds no green space value since it will span the A406, a red pollution route, and will

be subject to high noise pollution, which will make its use as a relaxing, quiet, green space open to

question. So, what exactly is its value? The living bridge seems to serve no useful purpose FOR THE

PUBLIC, but is purely a grandiose, vanity project for Hammerson & its shopping centre.

Finally, there have always been some major flaws in the original masterplan (see diagram below)

BXC developers and Barnet Council are constantly tinkering with it…but not for the better. Usually

the changes relate to some cost cutting exercise so many of the pedestrian and cycle routes are no

longer fit for purpose and the number of housing units in the first phase has been drastically

reduced. However, they intend to build 3 bridges with pedestrian access all in very close proximity.

To which we must ask, WHY?

9. FINAL

The public are powerless to stop this juggernaut, now that it has started. We cannot propose

changes to the BXC development plan…that can only be done by the BXC developers. The public

have no one protecting their interests since Barnet Council are acting as both developer and

approver of the plans.

Under the pressure for housing, commercial interests are being allowed to prevail over the public

interest. There are solutions to many of the issues raised…but no one is interested or listening

because they don’t have to listen…and they may make a little less money if changes are made.

We are not advocating no change….just REASONED change.

7500 housing units will be built under the BXC development and yet BXC developers and Barnet

Council are insisting on building 47 units on the Brent Terrace green space triangles, without any

reasoned justification for this loss of green space. Cricklewood green spaces should not be

developed for housing so that Hammerson can double the size of the Brent Cross Shopping Centre.