Category: Uncategorized

The third meeting of the Panel took place on February 12th. The agenda circulated in advance (which will be on the OPDC web pages for the Panel) did not include all the items which we had asked in advance to be discussed. But OPDC relented and we were able to raise these topics.

HS2’s Peter Gow attended the meeting, which was very welcome. Peter is project manager for Old Oak Common station. His important news was that the outcome of the ‘comprehensive reset’ of the HS2 project should be announced before the end of February.

The timeline for the opening of the Birmingham to Old Oak HS2 line will still not be be a firm date, but as a range of years (as was the previous 2029-33 forecast). The announcement will probably include new governance arrangements for HS2, and without giving final revised costs. But local residents at Old Oak may at least gain a better idea of how much longer the disruption to their lives will continue (2026 was the original date for completion of the project).

The recent start of the tunnelling between OOC station and Euston is seen by HS2 and OPDC as a vote of confidence in what remains of the HS2 project. Plans for a Euston terminus are still not finalised, nor funded. This part of the overall project is now handled by the Department for Transport and not by HS2 Ltd.

The Panel meeting discussed the continining difference of view between the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum and OPDC, on the ‘material weight’ and importance of OPDC’s new Masterplan Framework. While OONF agrees that this 200 page document can be a ‘material consideration’ in future planning decisions, we don’t accept that its proposals should override the adopted 2022 OPDC Local Plan. The Local Plan is the statutory context for deciding all applications, consulted on and ‘examined’ by a Planning Inspector.

The Masterplan Framework is described as ‘illustrative’ but the published version also includes a paragraph saying that all applications for development must take account of its contents. Our view is that the document has only limited material weight, as compared with an adopted local plan. This lack of certainty may trouble the prospective ‘master developers’ with whom OPDC hope to enter into joint ventures to deliver their new Masterplan.

The position will change over time, once OPDC’s promised review of the 2022 Local Plan gets underway. In the meantime we have had to agree to disagree with OPDC on this subject. The background is covered in a separate post on this website, updated to include our most recent letter to OPDC.

We also raised at the Panel what we see as misleading claims by OPDC that the Masterplan area is ‘well connected‘ to public transport. While this may be true for those living close to Willesden Junction or North Acton station, the areas inbetween have poor connectivity (using existing standarsd measures). Our members at Old Oak see local bus services as worse now than a decade ago.

The situation will of course change once Elizabeth Line platforms are operational at OOC station. But HS2 say that early opening of these lines would only be shortly in advance of the remainder of the rail interchange. Government support and funding for the West London Orbital, with a new rail station in Old Oak Common Lane would be another game changer. But for the time being the Government has given priority for investment to the DLR Extension in east London.

We feel that we have to keep reminding OPDC that improvements to the transport network at Old Oak remain a future prospect and not a present reality. Until new infrastructure is in place, much of the Masterplan area remains unsuitable for high density/high rise/car free housing of the kind envisaged in the Masterplan.

Image from OPDC’s 2025 Masterplan Framework

OONF slide set questioning OPDC’s current approach to their delivery plans

At the last OONF/GUA Zoom session we looked at a set of slides intended to provide some challenge and critique to OPDC’s insistence on proceeding ‘at pace’ with its delivery ambitions. Until new transport infrastructure has arrived, building ‘more of the same’ high rise/car free apartments as shown in the Old Oak Masterplan area does not seem to us to be exemplary urban renewal

‘Part 1’ of this slide set is below. As explained to OPDC at the Panel meeting, we wanted the Chair Dame Karen Buck and chief executive Matthew Carpen to be aware of their content – as we will be using some of these slides when approaching London Assembly members, Borough Leaders and officers, and other local groups about our proposed 2026 Draft Old Oak Neighbourhood Plan.

As discussed at recent monthly Zoom sessions, we are reviving the idea of submitting to OPDC a Draft Neighbourhood Plan. OPDC would then need to publish and consult on this for 6 weeks, before ‘examination’ of the Draft Plan by an independent examiner.

Such a neighborhood plan would offer an alternative way forward for OPDC, should they find that investment interest from the major developers being sought as delivery partners turns out to be not as strong as OPDC hope.

As has been widely resported, there is limited interest in new housing construction in London at present given lack of financial viability. It remains to be seen if the MHCLG/Mayoral ’emergency package’, reducing affordable housing requirements (along with CIL charges) has much impact.

We are suggesting the neighbourhood plan route as a contingency option, should OPDC’s plans come unstuck at a difficult time in the London development market. This alternative route would involve lower density mid-rise housing on the sites which OPDC has purchased, perhaps with the GLA working more directly with housing associations and contractors using Modern Modular Construction techniques – at scale and at speed.

No sign of any enthusiasm from OPDC as yet. Before the end of February we will discuss with officers the feasibility of a ‘co-operative’ neighbourhood plan. This would include the scope for extending the 2021 neighborhood boundary to cover most of the Masterplan area. A neighbourhood plan, if successful at a local referendum, has the full statutory weight of the Local Plan. Once next steps become more clear, the earlier draft neighbourhood plan which has sat on this website since 2021 will be replaced with a new version. Local consultation would then get underway.

The OPDC Delivery team has been working over 2024/5 in preparing proposals which have now been published as a Masterplan Framework. The version of the document as endorsed by OPDC Board on Novermber 20th 2025 can be downloaded from the OPDC website. This is not yet the final version, and OPDC officers have delegated authority to make final amendments.

The area covered by the Masterplan Framework runs from Willesden Junction to North Acton station.

The OPDC’s proposed Complulsory Order covers this same area. This Order was approved (‘made’ by the OPDC on September 12th and those affected had the chance to submit objections by October 8th 2025. The OPDC team are currently trying to reach agreement with objectors, before submitting the final draft Order to the Secretary of State of State. A public inquiry is now expected in the autumn, rather than the earlier part of 2026.

The Masterplan Framework will be a key document in discussions and negotiations between OPDC and prospective ‘master developer’ partners during 2026. It defines OPDC’s aspirations for high-density high- rise development delivering around 8,000 housing units and 150,000-200,000m sqm of employment space. A CGI of the potential outcome of such development is below:

In recent months, our neighbourhood forum has been questioning OPDC about the status of this Framework document in relation to the OPDC’s 2022 adopted Local Plan. OPDC consulted on a set of ‘Spatial Principles’ and an ‘Illustrative Masterplan’ during 2024 and 2025. At this stage, the maps and images presented to the public were described as one way in which the area might be developed.

The November 2025 Planning Committee was advised that the Framework will enable OPDC (as delivery agent) to inform, guide and coordinate future planning applications across the Old Oak area. In relation to the 2022 Local Plan, the committee report explained that While the Masterplan and Framework are capable of being material considerations for planning decision-making purposes, the judgment as to the weight they should be given will be for the Local Planning Authority to make when considering particular applications, in accordance with usual practice.

This wording of ‘capable of being material considerations‘ prompted OONF to query with OPDC the status and significance of the Masterplan in relation to the Local Plan. Our first letter on this subject is below:

No reply was received to this letter, so we wrote again on 1st December objecting specifically to the wording in the Framework stating that All detailed development proposals within the Old Oak area are expected to take account of the vision, principles and guidance set out in the Masterplan Framework. We questioned why OPDC had not chosen to prepare the Framework as a development plan document, thereby updating and replacing policies and site allocations in the 2022 Local Plan.

We also objected to a section of the document on ‘The Place Today‘ claiming that Old Oak is an exceptionally well connected with the new HS2 and Elizabeth Line station at Old Oak Common, Willesden Junction providing Overground and Bakerloo line services, and North Acton linking to the Central Line. This scenario of ‘connectivity’ remains 10-15 years into the future.

A response to this second letter was provided by Claire O’Brien at OPDC, and is below:

This did not answer all our questions, but confirmed that OPDC was taking ‘extensive legal advice’ on the way in which the Development Corporation is proceeding on its Masterplan Framework. The email used wording similar to that used by OPDC’s Director of Planning at the November OPDC Board that It would be irresponsible for me to make predictions as to the weight of the masterplan framework at the time of making a planning decision as this would fetter our discretion.

As we see the position, there remains insuffient clarity on whether OPDC see the Masterplan Framework effectively as a replacement for policies and site allocations in the 2022 Local Plan, with these new 2025 proposals taking precedence. While the email gave an explanation of why OPDC has not chosen to update its Local Plan via a Partial Review, or one or more Area Action Plans (which are development plan documents), we have so far found their reasoning to be unconvincing. Hence our third letter sent on 9th December 2025:

This time we did receive a reply, in an email from OPDC Director of Planning dated 4th February. This is below

We continue to feel that for OPDC to proceed with their delivery programme on the basis of a non-statutory masterplan remains a risk. As compared with other major regeneration projects that have taken place in London, this situation creates a level of uncertainty for all parties involved. Developers will not know whether their proposals should meet all the policy requirements in the 2022 Local Plan (and the London Plan)? Or should they pay more heed to the content (mainly maps, diagrams, and drawings) in the Framework document. How will Planning Inspectors interpret the ‘material weight’ of the Masterplan in the event of a refusal and appeal?

Our latest letter to OPDC is below. We think that this correspondence may resurface at a later date, should legal issues arise on how the Masterplan is used by OPDC’s Planning Committee in making future decisions on planning applications.

For the time being we have ‘agreed to disagree’ with OPDC planning officers on this subject. OPDC have confirmed that there will be no single outline planning application for the masterplan, consent to which would give developers greater certainty in framing their own subsequent applications. This was the route used in 2006 to underpin regeneration at Kings Cross. Nor will there be any Area Action Plans or Supplementary Plans prepared by OPDC (both of which have ‘developent plan’ status) in advance of the full revision of the OPDC Local Plan. OPDC’s timeline for adoption of an updated Local Plan is autumn 2028.

We await a final published version of the Framework document, to see if any of the wording to which we have objected is reframed or removed.

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)