Author: henryp

OPDC has prepared a Compulsory Purchase Order covering 31 hectares of land at Old Oak West. Many of the properties and sites involved have been acquired by OPDC by agreement with owners during 2o24 and 2025. But OPDC see a CPO process as necessary to demonstrate that they have control of remaining sites (some 10% of the area) as part of their efforts to secure a ‘Master Development Partner’.

The development partner (or possibly partners) would enter into a joint venture or development agreement with OPDC, to develop individual sites with schemes in line with the Illustrative Masterplan that OPDC has been working on with its team of consultants led by architects/planners Gort Scott.

The ‘CPO Order’ was ‘made’ (meaning adopted) by OPDC on September 12th, Full details are available from the OPDC website at this link Old Oak Land Assembly Update. Objections have to be submitted the MHCLG Planning Decisions Unit by midnight October 8th (and can be emailed to pcu@communities.gov.uk). All our members have been alerted to this deadline.

Meetings of OONF and GUA members at our monthly Zoom sessions have discussed the CPO proposals. For several reasons, we think that the timing is wrong and that CPO powers should not be used by OPDC until the outcome of the HS2 ‘reset’ is known, sometime in 2026.

We don’t agree with OPDC’s insistence on proceeding ‘at pace’ with its Masterplan and partnering with a master developer. Their masterplan varies from the 2022 adopted Local Plan, shifting the proposed ‘major town centre’ from Atlas Wharf/Channel Gate to Acton Wells. The development sites near the Grand Union Canal now owned by OPDC are seen as the ‘first phase’ of housing development, with around 1,500 new homes.

Our fear is that these sites will be built out as very high density car-free blocks, comparable to Oaklands Rise. Planning consents will be granted on the assumption that Old Oak Common station will improve the existing low levels of access to public transport. But this will not be until 10-15 years hence and might not even happen if the HS2 reset proves to be unviable or unaffordable compared with other high priority UK infrastructure projects.

Our detailed objection to the CPO Order is below. Several property owners are thought to have objected also. If agreement is not reached with these parties, a Public Inquiry on the CPO will take place – possibly in Spring 2026.

As part of our objection we have referred to the proposals worked by OONF along with the Grand Union Alliance, Harlesden Neighbourhood Forum, and StQW Neighbourhood Forum in North Kensington. These were for medium density housing at the Atlas Road/Channel Gate triangle with a 10-15 year lifespan – so that the impact of HS2 and Old Oak Common station could be tested in real life.

These proposals were presented to a session of OPDC’s Planning Committee on September 8th 2021, but dismissed out of hand. Our related application to OPDC to extend the boundary of the Old Oak neighbourhood area was also ‘refused’. Given current efforts by the GLA to deliver modular housing on available sites to ease the homelessness crisis, we think that our 2021 suggestions merit another look. The presentation is below.

The OPDC Board meets on July 10th to make important decisions on its next steps. On June 18th Secretary of State Heidi Alexander made a statement in the Commons, commenting that the HS2 project was ‘an appalling mess’.

The full outcome of the current ‘reset’ of the HS2 project is unlikely to be known until early 2026. There is no known date for completion of the Birmingham to Old Oak Common stretch of high speed rail line, which is the only surviving part of the original project.

With no known date for the opening of Old Old Common station (including its Elizabeth Line platforms) levels of public transport connectivity for the ‘Old Oak project area’ will remain poor for many years to come. Decisions on plans for a West London Orbital Line and for a new Overground station at Old Oak Common Lane have yet to be made, with both projects unfunded at present.

OPDC’s response to this new scenario is due to be discussed at the July 10th Board meeting. OPDC’s delivery team and its planning team are urging that the Development Corporation should proceed ‘at pace’ with its latest masterplan proposals, including compulsory purchase of certain pieces of land.

A substantial set of development sites has been assembled by OPDC, and agreement reached with Government that OPDC should act as the lead delivery agency. Discussions with potential development partners are said to have shown ‘strong interest’. But is there a clear rationale for proceeding ‘at pace’ if the original rationale of OOC station as a ‘catalyst’ for high-density regeneration has receded yet further into the future (the late 2030s/early 2040’s). Will developer interest remain ‘strong’?

Will the planned high-density/high rise developments get built in the next few years? And it they do, how will incoming residents live their lives in car-free housing while waiting for public transport infrastructure to catch up?

OONF has recently submitted evidence to the GLA, as part of the consultation on the next London Plan. This suggests that an independent review of OPDC’s latest plans should be undertaken. London has 46 other Opportunity Areas, some of which may now be better placed to see early development of the new homes that the capital needs.

Our evidence argues that that the levels of expectation and hype around ‘Old Oak as a new part of London’ (as promoted by both HS2 and OPDC for a decade since 2015) has proved counter-productive in some respects. Land values have risen, along with developer aspirations for the extreme housing densities needed to repay land and construction costs.

A copy of our submission to the GLA’s London Plan consultation can be read or downloaded below. It is a 35 page document which includes a case study of the North Acton Cluster as an example of urban renewal which many Londoners see as conspicuously unsuccessful.

The first few pages include an executive summary of why we believe that proceeding ‘at pace’ could prove a mistake and why the reassurance of a focused independent review of OPDC’s next steps would be timely.

The Planning and Regeneration Committee of the London Assembly is carrying out a piece of work on on Tall Buildings in London.

This ‘investigation’ will consider the current stock of homes in London’s tall buildings and how they impact residents. It will examine:

• the current demographics of residents of tall buildings (who is being served by this building typology).
  • the attitudes and experiences of residents in tall buildings.
    • how tall building policy should be considered in the future London Plan.

The committee issued a ‘call for evidence’ with a deadline of March 4th. OONF has submitted a paper which can be read/downloaded below. This focuses on North Acton as an example of how a major new cluster of tall buildings can emerge in London in relatively unplanned way.

From 2015 onwards the OPDC became the planning authority for North Acton. But decisions on major planning applications were delegated back to Ealing Council. Until the OPDC Local Plan was adopted in 2022 there was something of a vacuum in relation to up to date planning polices applying to North Acton. ‘Developer-led’ proposals have had a huge impact.

The location has seen a major expansion in numbers of student bedspaces granted planning consent. Two more major schemes involving towers of 54 storeys and above have yet to start construction (the Imperial College proposals for One Portal Way and the ‘twin towers’ from Aldau Development at 4 Portal Way.

North Acton now has an unusual demographic and a physical environment that many feel is far from a successful example or urban renewal.

The organisation Ealing Matters has also submitted evidence, on the spate of tall buildings developed across the Borough in the past decade.

At its September 2024 meeting, the OPDC Board commissioned an external review of its own ‘effectiveness’.   The Board is responsible for leadership, setting strategic direction, and overall policy for the Corporation.

The review has been carried out by consultants Campbell Tickell.  Their report will be discussed at the December 5th meeting of the Board. 

As covered in a previous post  we have been making the case for two years for an independent review of the track record and achievements to date of the OPDC.  We welcome this latest exercise, and asked if the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum and Grand Union Alliance could provide the consultants with a note on the background to ‘community input’ to the work of the OPDC.

It is now almost a decade since OONF and the GUA formed to join up the work of local residents groups across the Boroughs impacted on by OPDC and HS2 plans and activities.  We feel that our experience in our dealings with both bodies is very relevant at this time. 

A third Mayoral Development Corporation is to be established in London, to oversee plans for Oxford Street.   Some form of development corporation has been proposed for Euston, by the former Prime Minister last October and by the current Secretary of State for Transport Louise Haigh. 

The extent to which local people will have any opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the work of these boards, and to influence outcomes, is an important topic for Londoners.   We have had serious reservations about the way in which the OPDC has operated since 2017, and some doubts about the inherent tensions of a model which combines the role of ‘delivery agency’ with that of a planning authority. 

Removal of these powers from a local council is one issue, and the fact that MDCs do not have responsibility or powers to deal  with highways, transport and social infrastructure is another,

OPDC’s David Lunts agreed to pass on our views on ‘community input’ to the consultants undertaking the effectiveness of the OPDC Board.   These are taken account (to a limited extent) is the Campbell Tickell report.  There remain concerns which we feel the Board should consider when it discusses the review, and a follow up letter will be posted here shortly.  

The Government has been consulting on a set of changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).   This document is the core set of guidance for local planning authorities, first published in 2012 and revised several times since then.

These latest revisions are linked to Government proposals to reinstate mandatory housing targets for each planning authority in England.  The figures for these targets, derived from a new algorithm or ‘standard formula’ have features widely in the media as they involve significant uplifts – particularly for Boroughs in central London.

In reality, housing targets for London Boroughs are set by the Mayor of London in the London Plan.  The 2021 London Plan is at the early stages of a revision.   The OPDC area does not feature in the list of theoretical London targets, as the data used in the formula is not available for an area that crosses parts of three local authorities.

There are other aspects of the NPPF consultation which have implications for the OPDC area.  We have submitted a response, a copy of which can be downloaded below.

NPPF consultation 2024 response from OONF.V2

A new application at this site was submitted to OPDC by applicants Aldau Development.  The application is in the name of Gypsy Corner Portal Co. Ltd.   Aldau are an Egypt based real estate company active in the global hotel and leisure industry.

OPDC has convened a briefing session on the proposals for Monday 13th May at the Holiday Inn on Western Avenue (6.30pm).  Some OONF and GUA members will attend.

The content of a draft objection letter to the proposals was also discussed at our session.   A copy can be downloaded here 4 PORTAL WAY OONF OBJECTION.Draft

Apart from objecting on the grounds of excessive height, density, and lack of provision of public open space, this OONF objection also argued that the applicants cannot rely on the existence of an ‘extant’ planning permission for similar twin towers at 4 Portal Way.

This previous application was granted consent by LB Ealing’s Planning Committee in February (with the decision delegated by OPDC).  At that time Ealing Council had failed to make a formal decision to enter into the Scheme of Delegation put forward by OPDC.   It has since been argued that this and a number of other ‘delegated’ planning decisions made by Ealing are void for want of proper authority.

OPDC, as the body which initiated the delegation scheme, needs to satisfy the public that this previous planning consent at 4 Portal Way should be treated as a ‘material consideration of considerable weight’ (as claimed by the applicants in their Planning Statement).

The Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum is currently looking back at a critical period in the history of the OPDC and its plans for regeneration at Old Oak.

This period was the second half of 2018.  At this time Cargiant and their development partner London and Regional Properties had been consulting on a fourth iteration of their masterplan for ‘Old Oak Park’.   This proposed  development had been worked up over the preceding years, for the 46 acre landholding at Hythe Road W10 on which Cargiant has built its business.

This was the the ‘Place’ which OPDC badged as Old Oak North in its first Draft Local Plan. The area was destined to include a new Overground station, connecting to the planned Old Oak Common rail interchange.  A new ‘high street’ with retail and commercial floorspace was to bridge across the Grand Union canal, and east west road connections were to improve connectivity in the Old Oak part of the Opportunity Area.

In 2017 OPDC engaged a consortium of consultants led by AECOM to prepare its own masterplan for Old Oak North.  Relationships between OPDC  and Cargiaant became difficult.  In September 2018 Cargiant’s owner wrote to OPDC to say that the company was withdrawing its support for OPDC’s bid for Housing Infrastructure Funding, abandoning its plans for ‘Old Oak Park’ and wished to stay on its existing 45 acre site.

Lack of transparency by OPDC about the existence of this letter from Cargiant led to a year in which OPDC continued with its plans for Old Oak North.  Only at a session of the Local Plan Examination in July 2019 did the extent of the gulf in the thinking of OPDC and Cargiant become fully clear.

Q&A sessions of the London Assembly and its Budget and Performance Committee at this time also began to expose the problems ahead, in respect of OPDC’s Local Plan proposals for Old Oak North.

After a highly critical report from the London Assembly Budget and Performance Committee published in January 2021, OPDC posted in its website much of the documentation relating to its failed bid for HIF funding.

What did not appear on the OPDC website were the letters, press releases and briefing notes from Cargiant, setting out its own position in that critical period.   OONF has gathered these together, as they throw light on a period in the history of the OPDC when (in our view) things began to go wrong for OPDC.

We are preparing a paper on this subject which will be sent to London Assembly Members in due course and after the May 2nd 2024 Mayoral and GLA elections.

Meanwhile the Cargiant material is available at the links below.  This includes the letter from Cargiant’s Geoff Warren to OPDC interim chief executive Mick Mulhern of 18th September 2018.  This has been obtained recently by OONF in response to a FoI request and has not previously been available to the public (to our knowledge).

OPDC letter March 2024 releasing Sept 2018 Cargiant letter

Cargiant Geoff Warren to OPDC Mick Mulhern 18 Sept 2018 on HIF bid

4th consultation by Cargiant on Old Oak Park masterplan 2016

Cargiant.BriefingSheet.Feb2019

Cargiant to OPDC Board re HIF bid 7 Feb 2019

Letter from Cargiant to OPDC Board May 30th 2019

Letter from Cargiant to London Assembly Budget and Performance Committee June 14th 2019

Essential Questions for the London Assembly to ask the OPDC July 2019

PressStatement from Cargiant 19 July 2019

Cargiant press release Sept 2019

Cargiant to Mayor of London Feb 2020

Letter-from-Cargiant-to-Secretary-of-State-5-May-2020 redacted

 

The Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum has sent a letter to the Chair and all members of the OPDC Board, setting out the growing concerns of local residents on recent news from HS2 and TfL.

• problems identified by Transport for London (TfL) on the design and layout of the Old Oak Common rail interchange
• continued lack of any workable solution to provide road access at the eastern end of the interchange, increasing reliance on the western entrance/exit on Old Oak Common Lane
• announcements from HS2 that this section of Old Oak Common Lane could be closed to vehicles for as long as 4 years, for works to lower the road and install utilities.

We continue to believe there is lack of dialogue between the key agencies involved and the ‘host’ Boroughs.   It is the Boroughs which are the Highway Authorities for the interchange and the area now badged as ‘Old Oak West’.

Our letter to the Board can be downloaded here: OONF to Liz Peace on HS2 and OPDC plans Feb 2024.V4.1OONF to Liz Peace on HS2 and OPDC plans Feb 2024.V4.1

The TfL slides from October 2023 can be downloaded here: OOC DfT Surface Oct23 v3.0 (002)

This time last year, our Forum made submissions to two committees at the London Assembly.  We asked these committees to request the Mayor of London to commission a second review of the track record of the OPDC and its future plans.

The Mayor has a statutory duty to review the work of the OPDC ‘from time to time’.  The first and only review took place in 2016 and was carried out internally by an Executive Director at the GLA.  We believe that an independent review is needed this time round.

Last month, our November 2023 submission to the Assembly’s Budget and Performance Committee was available via a link on the front page of this website.  That front page has since been updated.  The document can now be found at this link  OONF submission to Band P committee Nov 2023 final

The OPDC Board met on November 23rd.  Unusually there is no webcast recording of this meeting on the London Mayor website, as it was held at a one-off venue at Oaklands Rise.  OONF and GUA representatives attended as members of the public.

The meeting included a presentation from HS2 on the position at Old Oak Common station, following the Government announcements on October 4th.  This was followed by Board members asking questions of HS2.  Slides from our last OONF/GUA meeting on December 5th give more detail.

Put simply, we do not believe the claims from HS2 and OPDC that little or nothing has changed for the prospects of ‘strategic transformation’ of the area surrounding Old Oak Common station, as a consequence of cancellation of the HS2 project north of Birmingham.

We have questioned many times in recent years the claims made made by HS2 that Old Oak will become the ‘best connected location in the UK’.  And also the (continued) claim from OPDC that Old Oak will have ‘unparalleled connectivity’.

If ever true, these claims ceased to reflect reality once it became clear that a new Hythe Road Overground station fell off the agenda, a new Old Oak Common Lane Overground station remains unfunded, and no new east/west road connections are provided for in the OPDC Local Plan.

We are therefore submitting a further note to the London Assembly Budget and Performance Committee, following the November 23rd OPDC Board meeting.  Impact of HS2 cancellation on OPDC plans for Old Oak.draft.  This committee will be reviewing the OPDC 2024/5 budget of £11.8m at its meeting on December 12th.

This further note repeats our request for an independent review of OPDC and highlights issues on which we see OPDC (and HS2) as continuing with a fixed and over-ambitious vision of the impact of the rail interchange at Old Oak on the surrounding area.

As local people, eight years into the life of the OPDC and after many changes to the 2015 ‘vision’, we longer see OPDC plans as credible.  A new iteration of the London Plan will provide an opportunity for revised and more realistic proposals.

 

 

 

 

 

OPDC’s Planning Committee on October 12th agreed to grant planning permission to the application from Imperial College.   Details of these proposals are covered in previous posts.  Below is a reminder of their scale and their impact as an addition to the ‘North Acton Cluster’.

The application was originally submitted to OPDC in November 2021.  Changes since then (including the addition of a second staircase to the three residential towers (all above 50 storeys) have contributed to delays in a  decision.

At the committee meeting OONF (Henry Peterson) was given ten minutes to speak as an objector.  Imperial and architects Pilbrow & Partners had a similar time to respond.  OONF had submitted six objections over the past two years.  The most recent argued that the timing of a decision was wrong, given that the whole planning context for ‘Old Oak West’ has been impacted on by the Government’s October 4th decision to reduce the scope of the HS2 project.

We also questioned how Imperial intend to finance an 11 year build project, when construction and borrowing costs have increased dramatically since the application was submitted.   Imperial gave no answers on this subject.

It emerged at the meeting that construction cannot start until late 2025.  Imperial College have a lease arrangement with Currys/Carphone Warehouse and the project has been hit by the problem affecting many in the area – the lack of electricity capacity from Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks (SSEN) and the National Grid.

The same committee meeting also approved a consultation version of the long awaited Supplementary Planning Document for ‘Old Oak West’.  Quite why a decision on One Portal Way had to be made before the start of this six week public consultation remains a mystery.  While the site is just outside the boundary defined for this SPD, it is very close.

The Draft SPD designates a ‘North Acton Cluster’ north of Victoria Road, in the following planning speak:

P7C1 North Acton town centre Cluster
A vibrant high density neighbourhood town centre, focused on an enhanced North Acton Station and new station squares. Active throughout the day, a range of town centre uses will strengthen the area’s identity. High quality and coordinated public realm, framed by active frontages will guide people to their
destinations. 

One major benefit of the proposals at One Portal Way is the planned central public open space – provided that this materialises as shown in the plans and CGIs. Revised phasing of the project and intended ‘meanwhile’ use of the Carphone Warehouse building (see earlier post) have reduced the size of this space, and we may see hoardings surrounding it for many years yet.

The six objections submitted by OONF can be downloaded below:

OONF 1st objection

OONF 2nd objection OONF_

objection_3

One4 Portal Way OONF objection No 4

One Portal Way. 5th objection from OONF

One Portal Way. 6th objection from OONF.final

It will be well into the 2030’s before conclusions can be reached on whether OPDC and Imperial are making the right decisions on the future of North Acton.   What has been built there since OPDC came into existence in April 2015 (much of it the result of applications delegated to LB Ealing) is seen by many local people as an example of the worst aspects of urban renewal in UK cities.