Shortly after our last open meeting on March 7th, the Secretary of State for Transport submitted to the House of Commons a Written Ministerial Statement (March 9th) on revisions to a series of Government transport projects.

On HS2, the statement said as below:

In rail, HS2 is making good progress, and we have already spent over £20 billion delivering Phase One between London and the West Midlands, supporting 2,500 businesses and creating over 29,000 jobs. The Government is prioritising HS2’s initial services between Old Oak Common in London and Birmingham Curzon Street to provide delivery of passenger benefits as soon as possible. We remain committed to delivering HS2 services to Euston, and will address affordability pressures to ensure the overall spending profile is manageable. We will therefore take the time to ensure we have an affordable and deliverable station design, delivering Euston alongside high-speed infrastructure to Manchester. We continue to take the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill through Parliament, and the Crewe-to-Manchester section will also form the foundations for improved rail services in the North through Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Subsequent media coverage suggests that ‘prioritising’ the service to Old Oak Common and undertaking a further redesign at Euston means that the Euston terminus will not open until the 204os.

Leader of Camden Council Georgins Gould has said :

The community around Euston have lost homes, schools and businesses to HS2. They’ve already lived through years of disruption with no end in sight. If there is a delay, HS2 must not forget the promises they made to our community and must continue to deliver on them.

What we can’t have is a partially abandoned building site, with huge areas fenced off creating a barrier between our communities, and a general stagnation which leads to opportunities being lost. Instead, HS2 Ltd. need to make sure they open up the site where it is safe to do so and work with our communities on how they can be used during any delay.

There is as yet no press statement from OPDC on the implications of Old Oak Common station remaining the London terminus for the Birmingham/London stretch of HS2.   The Mayor of London has commented having trains going to Old Oak Common for a longer period is not a viable option.   Passenger numbers on the Elizabeth Line are already forecast to become unmanageable, without having to cope with all HS2 passengers  changing trains at Old Oak Common.

“Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent regenerating the Euston area, and homes and businesses have been demolished to make way for HS2, causing huge disruption for zero reward.

As yet there seems to be no clarity on the impact of this Government announcement on the timetable for the release by HS2 of the four key sites at Old Oak West,  in use at present as construction compounds.  Last autumn HS2 were saying that The Atlas Road site is currently anticipated to be released in Q2 2032, which is later than the other three sites as it is a key part of the delivery of the HS2 Euston station.  (We think that HS2 refer to the whole construction compound at Channel Gate/Atlas Road as ‘the Atlas Road site’).

This slide bellow, which we have been using at our recent open meetings, may now be out of date.

What are the implications of these latest Government announcements for the Old Oak West Supplementary Planning Document, and for the planning and development of a ‘major new town centre’ at this location?

The OPDC Place Lab sessions, organised by consultants Soundings, will be the first opportunity for local people to find out more and to discuss the consequences of Old Oak Common station remaining the HS2 terminus for what is now an indefinite period?   While the present Government has given a commitment to extend Phase 1 of HS2 as far as Euston, who knows what the position will after a General Election or in 5-10 years time?

The dates and locations for the three Place Lab sessions are below:

 

In November 2022 we sent to London Assembly Members a detailed submission, arguing the case for a full review of OPDC.   This document was included in a previous post on this website and can be downloaded here OONF Submission to Budget and Performance Committee. November 18th 2022

The submission was referred to in the discussion at the Assembly’s Policy and Resources Committee on December 7th 2022 Supplement Minutes – Appendix 2 – Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 07122022 1000.   Len Duvall AM, as chair of that meeting asked David Lunts (OPDC CEO) to provide a written response to the points that we made.

This OPDC response was provided in the form of a letter to the Chair of the Committee (see at David Lunts to Chair Budget and Policy Cttee 31.0123).

Our open meeting on March 7th will be discussing this response and whether our members feel that it addresses the points made in our submission.   The letter makes no comment on the need for a review of OPDC.

The Mayor of London has a statutory duty to review both of the two Mayoral Development Corporations ‘from time to time’ (OPDC and the London Legacy Development Corporations).  Given that the last review of the OPDC was in 2016, we feel that a further review is overdue.

As set out in our submission, local residents at Old Oak are increasingly worried that OPDC’s ‘change of direction’ in November 2019 is not going to plan, and cannot now go to plan.   The choice of ‘Old Oak West’ as the focus for new development and a ‘major new town centre’ has locked OPDC into waiting until the key development sites are released by HS2.

Delayed release dates by HS2 have not been reported to, or discussed by the OPDC Board or by the OPDC Planning Committee.  We do not understand why, other than a desire by the Corporation to show that ‘all is well’.  The implications for the ongoing grant of planning consents at Old Oak West, for high density/high rise housing, are significant.

Promises made by developers in marketing materials, of the arrival of new shops, amenities, open space and a ‘major town centre’ at Old Oak West have become fictional.  The same applies to the forecast opening date of Old Oak Common Station (originally 2026 and now 2032, if then).

It is true that almost every major regeneration initiative in London (Canary Wharf, Kings Cross, Vauxhall/Nine Elms Battersea) has seen delays, revised timescales, and new housing left stranded without surrounding amenities and social infrastructure.   We understand and accept that regeneration projects in the UK extend over decades, while cities such as Paris achieve much faster progress under different planning systems.

But this is no excuse for keeping the public in the dark on delays, or pitching over-optimistic versions of ‘momentum’ and ‘delivery’ to London’s development industry and to the public.   We will be continuing to argue the case for a second review of OPDC and its proposed approach for the period 2023-2030.

 

Ealing Council is carrying out consultation on a first draft of its new Local Plan.   The existing local plan for the Borough is made up of a 2012 Core Strategy and a 2013 Development Sites DPD.

It is one of the most outdated local plans of any London Borough.  Hence a source of regular concern from local people that the Council’s Planning Committee takes a very cavalier approach to deciding whether applications conform with ‘planning policy’.

Details of the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan are here on the LBE website. The consultation was originally due to close on January 25th 2023 but we hear that it will be extended for a further two weeks.

The new Local Plan for Ealing will not cover that part of the Borough which lies within the OPDC boundary.  The OPDC Local Plan, with its policies and site allocations, will continue to apply in this part of Ealing.

This Regulation 18 version should be followed by a further Regulation 19 version in autumn 2023 – once comments and feedback from residents, landowners, developers, and interested public agencies are taken on board.

You can comment directly to the Council by emailing to localplan@ealing.gov.uk .   Or if you prefer to send any thoughts to us at the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum, you can send them to oonforum@gmail.com and we will incorporate them in our response.

We will be commenting mainly on the part of the Draft Local Plan which covers ‘Acton’.  This is one of the seven ‘Towns’ around which the new Local Plan is being structured as shown in the map above.   Note that this ‘Town’ does not include the increasingly notorious ‘North Acton Cluster’ of very tall buildings.  This lies within the OPDC boundary.

We are working with Ealing Matters in putting together our response.  Following discussion at the OONF and Grand Union Alliance meeting on January 3rd 2023, they have provided us with several working documents to assist in preparing a response to the Draft Plan.   This includes a helpful set of slides as well as other more detailed material:

Ealing Matters Local PLan slides

Ealing Matters High Level notes

LBE not fulfilling statutory duty

Critique of Shaping Ealing reports (final)

The London Assembly’s Planning and Regeneration Committee is the body which scrutinises the decisions of the Mayor of London.  The Committee has been looking at the progress in London’s Opportunity areas, and (more recently) the work of the two Mayoral Development Coporations.

These are the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) and the OPDC.  The LLDC has been overseseeing regeneration at the Olympic Park (created for 2012 Olympics) and the immediately surrounding area.  This Mayoral Development Corporation is now ‘in transition’ and in 2024 will be handing back its planning powers to the 5 London Boroughs, parts of which lie in the LLDC boundary.

We think that there is a strong case for OPDC to do the same.  OPDC’s efforts to deliver ‘regeneration’ at Old Oak have fallen out of sync with the timescale for completion of Old Oak Common Station (originally planned for 2026).

The transfer of public land, as envisaged in a 2016 Memorandum of Understanding between the Department for Transport and the Mayor of London in 2016 has not happened.  It is not certain that this will ever happen.   OPDC has no other assets or funds for insfrastructure (unlike the LLDC which took over the land used for the Olympic Park).

Our Forum was invited early in 2022 to submit evidence to the Assembly’s Planning and Regeneration Committee.  We had expected to be invited as ‘guests’ to a session of the committee to be held in June, and then postponed to November.

In the event this session was held on November 23rd.  Neither OONF nor the Grand Union Alliance were invited to attend.  Representatives from Just Space, involved in the LLDC area rather than at Old Oak, were able to be present and to answer questions from committee members.   You can watch the recording of the session.

After this November 23rd meeting, we sent a further letter to the committee members.  See at OONF to P and R Cttee 25.11.2022.  This set out points we had not had the opportunity to make at the session.

The 2023/4 proposed budget for the OPDC is £10.4m, up from £7.8m in the current year.   We have prepared a detailed submission to the Assembly Members on this committee.  See at OONF Submission to Budget and Performance Committee. November 18th 2022.

This submission sets out our perceptions of the track record of the Development Corporation.  We assess this against a set of ‘objectives and expectations’ set by the then Mayor of London in 2014/15. Our conclusions are that outcomes over the past 7 years have fallen well short of these benchmarks, particularly in the period when the plans for the Cargiant land unravelled in 2018/19,

The Budget and Performance Committee will meet on December 7th to discuss the budget proposals form LLDC and from OPDC.  We hope that the Committee will give serious consideration to the option of a full review of OPDC.

The Mayor has a statutory obligation to review both MDCs from time to time, and we think that now is a moment when OPDC’s aspirations need a reality check.   The context and timeline for the HS2 project, and viability for new housing and commercial development at Old Oak, have changed a lot since 2015.

A further decade of allowing a series of scattered high density/high rise developments to take place, with no surrounding amenities and no public transport improvements, is not (in our view) how to create a new and successful part of a global city

 

The OPDC Local Plan was finally adopted by the Development Corporation’s Board on June 22nd.  This is five years later that the original timetable of Spring 2017.

The Local Plan has had a difficult time in reaching adoption.  Previous posts on the website record the history.  The ‘examination’ of the Plan by Planning Inspector Paul Clark ran from October 2018 to April 2022 and involved 464 ‘major modifications’ (a very high number for a London local plan).   We have long argued that

• OPDC should not have submitted its Regulation 19.2 Draft Plan in the first place, back in October 2018.  Cargiant had by then written to withdraw their co-operation (in a letter the existence of which was made public only in January 2020, in a report from the London Assembly).
• OPDC should have withdrawn its ‘submission version’ and started on a fresh plan once the Inspector had issued his interim findings in September 2019.  The Inspector ruled that the Cargiant sites must be removed as development landf as an unviable way forward.  This prompted wholesale changes to the local plan, made via a ‘modidfication’ process the scope and duration of which is arguably open to challenge.

In the final stages of decisions by OPDC to proceed to adopt the Plan, OONF has continued to raise issues and ask questions of the OPDC.  Recent correspondence is listed below for those who want to see the detail.

OONF to Liz Peace April 2022.final.2 questioning why a key document of January 26th 2022 (OPDC-51 on tall buildings) had not been considered by the OPDC Planning Committee or the Board.  These very late ‘modifications’ to the Local Plan did not form part of the 2021 public consultation, and were not consulted on subsequently prior to adoption of the local plan.

Liz Peace to OONF May 2022 is the response from Liz Peace saying that Planning Committee members were ‘fully aware’ of the content of OPDC-51. But how was this the case, as the committee did not meet between a meeting held on January 17th 2022 and its meeting of June 16th which recommended adoption of the Local Plan?

Our letter of  11th June to OPDC Planning Committee members, and an summary of the discussion at the 16th June Planning Committee were reported to the OPDC Board in an addendum report at the Board meeting on 22nd June.  This addendum also includes a ‘briefing note’ sent by OPDC Director of Planning to Planning Committee members, respnding to the OONF letter before the committee meeting took place.

After the Planning Committee discussion, OONF wrote to all OPDC Board members in a final effort to bring to their attention the flaws in the content of the Local Plan, and in the process of its long period of examination by a planning inspector.   As yet there has been no reply to this letter.  OONF to Liz Peace for June 22nd Board.V2 final.

OONF will be discussing at it next regular meeting the implications of adoption of the local plan and the extent to which the process leading up to adoption is open to legal challenge.

 

 

As explained in a previous post, the Planning Inspector dealing with the examination of the OPDC Draft Local Plan agreed to hold four further public hearing sessions on 11th and 12th January.

At a hearing on the 11th January 2022 OONF had some success in persuading the Inspector (Paul Clark) that OPDC need to be more upfront and specific about ‘suitable locations’ and ‘appropriate heights’ of tall buildings, in a final version of its ‘Post Submission Modified Draft Local Plan’.

We have been making the point for five years that the current draft refers frequently to ‘varying building heights’.  The document includes maps with large areas deemed as ‘appropriate’ for tall buildings.

On each of the three successive versions of the Draft Plan we have asked for more honesty from OPDC, in the form of the housing density figures assumed for each ‘site allocation’ and the likely implications for building heights.

In a Local Plan which sets site allocations with specific housing numbers, it is not rocket science to forecast the building typologies and heights likely to result, within a range.  These heights might be ‘mansion blocks’ of 10-14 storeys up to towers of 40 storeys and more, depending on how many housing units are to be fitted into the site.

OPDC planning officers have always remained very coy on this subject.  Vague answers have been given at public meetings.   We pointed out to the Planning Inspector that the maps and text in the ‘Place’ sections of the Draft Local Plan are similary vague.

Nowhere in the many hundred pages of Draft Local Plan documents is there any acknowledgement of a specific building height above 12 storeys.  Yet local people know very well that buildings of 20-30 storeys have been granted planning consent at ‘Oaklands Rise’ and along Scrubs Lane.  And that LB Ealing has approved towers of 50 storeys plus at North Acton, on applications ‘delegated’ by OPDC.

Now there is a new policy D9 on Tall Buildings included in the 2021 London Plan.  This applies to all new local plans being prepared by Boroughs, the OPDC and the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC).

At the hearing on January 11th, the Planning Inspector accepted our case that more honesty and transparency is needed in the final ‘modifications’ of the OPDC Local Plan.  He has told OPDC officers to come up with further amendments which will identify ‘suitable locations’ and ‘appropriate heights’ for tall buildings, in text and on maps.  These changes are needed  for the adopted Plan to ‘generally conform’ with the London Plan and to be deemed ‘sound’ in this respect.

We have yet to see how OPDC responds to this new requirement for more modifications to be made.  There has been silence on the subject from OPDC, since the conclusion of the public hearing.

Imperial College proposal for One Portal Way, North Acton

This application was submitted by Imperial in November 2021.  OPDC say it will not be put to the OPDC Planning Committee until mid 2022.  The ‘end date’ published by OPDC for responses to public consultation was 8th January, but OONF and GUA were given an extended deadline of 28th January.  OPDC are anyway legally required to take account of all representations up until the application is decided.

The OPDC Planning Committee considered an initial report on the proposals at it meeting on 20th January.  It appears that the Imperial team and their architects have made (or will be making) a presentation to the OPDC ‘Planning Advisory Panel’ anytime now.

We have asked about this ‘Advisory Panel’ and whether the public will be allowed to view or attend such a session.  If not, this seems a one-sided opportunity for a developer.

The proposed development involves 7 buildings.  Full planning consent is sought for the first two, including a 56 storey residential tower.  Outline consent is sought for a second phase, including two further buildings of up to 50 storeys.

OONF has submitted a detailed objection One Portal Way objection No.1  We will be submitting a further objection, including serious concerns on fire safety, in early February.

Our campaign website on this development is at  http://imperialfolly.org.uk/ and gives more background.   This includes a set of 12 reasons for objecting to the proposals, drawn up with our colleagues at Ealing Matters.  The CGI below is what the ‘North Acton Cluster will be like if this and other consented schemes are built.

We have been corresponding with Imperial College on why a university with a global reputation for work climate change should be pursuing a speculative development with buildings of 50 storeys plus.  This building typology is known to be both energy intensive and with high levels of embedded carbon at the construction stage.

The College claim that this massive project (which has nil academic or university related content) is an ‘investment’ by the College Endowment. See more at http://imperialfolly.org.uk/?page_id=25.

If you have not already submitted comments on the application, it would be great if you could send an email to planningapplications@opdc.london.gov.uk.  You need to give your name and address (which will be redacted when your representation is published online) plus the reference number 21/0181/OUTOPDC

Pocket Living application at Atlas Wharf, Old Oak Lane  

A less extreme example, but one with unwelcome building heights for residents of the Old Oak Conservation Area (island triangle/TITRA/railway cottages) is an application from developers Pocket Living.  This is for a scheme of 436 housing units at ‘Atlas Wharf’.  This is the site behind the Collective building and beside the Grand Union Canal, off Old Oak Lane.

The development involves three buildings ranging from 9 to 29 storeys. This application has a reference number 21/0214/FUMOPDC and a ‘publicity end date’ of 8th February.  OONF will be submitting an objection, on the basis that the OPDC Draft Local Plan is not yet adopted and this application is premature.

The site is not designated for housing in the 2012 Ealing Core Strategy.  The Draft OPDC Local Plan refers to building heights of generally, 6 to 8 storeys fronting the Grand Union Canal.   The CGI image below is from the Planning Statement submitted with the application.

OPDC may delay a decision on this application in the hope that their Draft Local Plan will be supported by the Inspector and can be adopted shortly.  But the examination of this draft plan is not yet over (see separate post).

If you feel that 29 storeys is not the same outcome as 6-8 storeys, comments on this application can be sent to planningapplications@opdc.london.gov.uk with your name and address and reference 21/0214/FUMOPDC.   The development offers housing units aimed at ‘mid-income’ renters and has plus points (if the ground floor spaces can be ‘activated’ with the type of users that Pocket Living hopes to attract).

This area of Atlas Road/Channel Gate is where we had hoped to extend the boundary of the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum.  But our ‘designation application’ was refused by OPDC in November 2021.   Had we succeeded, we would have had a chance to negotiate with Pocket Living (and their co-applicants the current landowners) on a scheme with a lower density and more modest building heights.

Other parts of London are seeing good quality developments that the Forum would support.  The land values at Channel Gate/Atlas Road have in the past been at levels for industrial land, rather than residential so could have supported lower densities.

The gap between industrial and residential values will have narrowed since OPDC chose to allocate these sites (potentially) for 3,200 new homes.   But has the public gained any benefit from this change in planning designation?

These proposals are once again proving to be ‘developer led’ rather than ‘plan led’ as aspired to in the National Planning Policy Framework.  This is a repeat of the Scrubs Lane scenario in the east of the OPDC area.  So far this has not gone well from anyone’s perspective – developer or local community.  Developers overpaid for sites in the expectation of Cargiant’s ‘Old Oak Park’ scheme next door, for which plans were abandoned in 2018.

Planning Inspector Paul Clark originally decided that he did not need to hold further public hearings, as part of his ‘examination’ of OPDC’s Draft Local Plan.

The previous round of hearings ended in July 2019.  The Inspector subsequently issued in September 2019 his ‘interim findings’.  These rejected as unviable OPDC’s proposals for compulsory purchase of the 46 acres of  Cargiant land as the first major stage of regeneration at Old Oak.

We are now in 2022, and the examination continues.  The Draft Plan remains that submitted by OPDC in October 2018 – as ‘modified’ by a series of new site allocations and a shift to a new strategy for the ‘Western Lands’ in East and North Acton.

We have long argued that these changes to OPDC’s proposals are more than ‘modifications’.  They rely on a very different spatial solution for Old Oak.  We think this solution makes little sense as a new part of London.

We welcome the fact the Planning Inspector has proved willing to change his mind, and to agree to further examination hearings on 11th and 12th January.  These will be held online.  We will publicise the link as soon as we are given it.

The January 11th examination hearings will look at two important questions:

1. The session at 10 am on Tuesday 11th January will hear evidence on PTAL levels at Old Oak.  PTAL is the measure of levels of Public Transport Accessibility which have long been used in London to assess the suitability of locations for high density housing.

The nearer to good public transport (on a range of 0-6) the more appropriate a site for high density living.   We think that the final version of the OPDC Local Plan has gone backwards in this respect,as compared with the 2018 version.  Our draft evidence for this session as at this link OONF and StQW on PTAL for Jan 11th V4

2.  The session at 2pm on Tuesday 11th June will consider whether the final version of the OPDFC Local Plan ‘generally conforms’ with the 2021 Policy D9 in the London Plan.  This policy was varied and strengthened by the intervention of Secretary of State Robert Jenrick in December 2020.

We will be seeking to persuade the Inspector that the Local Plan has avoided specifying locations for tall buildings, and makes no mention of the likelihood of buildings over 12 storeys.  Given that OPDC are currently considering an application at North Acton with one building at 56 storeys and two more at ‘up to 50’ this reality on the ground does not square with the content of the Local Plan.  Our draft evidence on this point can be downloaded here StQW and OONF rep on D9.V4

Our OONF/GUA meeting on January 4th at 6.30pm will discuss and finalise these to submissions to the Planning Inspector.  Any comments welcome at oonforum@gmail.com 

 

The ‘delivery arm’ of OPDC has been preparing a ‘Strategic Business Case’ for submission to Government.  This will argue that the Development Corporation needs either a large chunk of infrastructure funding, or a free/subsidised transfer of public land from Network Rail and other bodies.

Such financial support from Government is needed if OPDC’s ambitious plans for a ‘transformed’ Old Oak are to make further headway.

The scenario is reminiscent of when OPDC bid for, and received conditional approval, for £250m of Housing Infrastructure Funding in September 2018. In the event, OPDC had later to relinquish these funds.  Cargiant had opposed the OPDC plans for ‘Old Oak North’ and the Corporation was unable to meet the conditions set by Government.

This unhappy saga (which cost Londoners some £6-8m in abortive work) has been covered in previous posts.

This time round, we are asking for full transparency on OPDC’s new ‘business case’ from the moment it is submitted to Government.  See our letter to David Lunts, CEO of OPDC, at this link OONF to OPDC DL 23rd December.

We think it essential that the Planning Inspector examining the Modified OPDC Draft Local Plan is fully aware of this document.  Back in 2018/19 OPDC refused to publish information on their bid for Housing Infrastructure Funding, until forced to by a legal summons from the London Assembly.

 

To no great surprise, the OPDC Board at its November 30th meeting decided to reject our application to extend the boundary of the Old Oak neighbourhood area to include the the current HS2 construction sites at Channel Gate and Atlas Road.

In doing so the Development Corporation places itself firmly in the camp of those London planning authorities which will go out of its way to find reasons to say ‘no’ to one of the few opportunities that local people can pursue in their efforts to shape future development in their area.

Our letter to OPDC Chief Executive David Lunts is at the link below.  We will post any response from OPDC, should we receive one.     OONF to David Lunts 23rd Dec 2021