Although the item on the Cricklewood Green Space will no longer be heard By Barnet Council the whole  controversion Brent Cross Cricklewood Regeneration scheme will be discussed on Thursday. (Planning Committee, 6.30pm, Hendon Town Hall,  The Burroughs, NW4 4BQ Items 7, 8, 9, 10 AGENDA)

On August 14th Aktar Choudhary,  Operational Director of Planning and Regeneration
 for Brent Council, wrote to Barnet reiterating Brent's objections which appear to have been ignored by Barnet. The full four page letter is posted below but here is a summary of Brent's objections:

In summary, we maintain our objection as the following still have not been addressed:

·      Lack of mitigation measure proposed for the junctions within Brent

The methodology used provided very limited opportunity for mitigation to be required. As such no reasonable mitigation is proposed for junctions within Brent. The development partners are suggesting that as junctions are already operating over capacity the traffic generated from the development will not further negatively impact performance. This is not acceptable, as existing queues will be extended through the development traffic generated.

  Lack of mitigation proposed for the A5 itself
 There is an assumption that everyone near to the shopping canter will walk and cycle. This is not realistic and the proposed modal shift from private car to other sustainable modes is not evidenced a achievable.

·      Parking pressure in the Dollis Hill Area


We have received a verbal agreement to address this through provision, including funding for consultation and implementation, of a CPZ. This offer is not reflected in the current study and therefore a written undertaking is required which also includes the level of funding to be provided specifically for the CPZ to remove this specific objection.

·      Measures proposed within the AWWACS will not increase walking and cycling


Two proposed cycle routes in Brent were submitted to the developers which Brent believes will provide an increase in cycling to the shopping centre. However, these proposals have not been referenced in the main text of the AWWCS study or indication as to how they have been taken into account to gain increased modal shift to cycling. In addition, the level of funding/funding mechanism to deliver one or both routes is not clarified.

I would again stress that the above objections are supported by both officers and members within Brent and have been our objections from the outset. We look forward to Barnet initiating positive actions to provide satisfactory responses to our objections and to be kept up to date regarding timescales for presenting the applications to Planning Committee. In the event that Brent’s view/requirements are not satisfactorily addressed, we will be considering appropriate recourse.