Objection to planning application for Grahame Park Estate

November 5, 2019 office

LONDON ASSEMBLY LABOUR

Andrew Dismore AM

London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden

City Hall

The Queen’s Walk

London

SE1 2AA

05/11/2019

Objection to planning application for Grahame Park Estate, Colindale, London, NW9 5XA, Ref: 19/5493/OUT

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to object to the above application in my capacity as London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden.

This application represents the onward march of the notoriously poorly planned Grahame Park “regeneration” scheme, which has already caused chaos and misery to many.

My objections are based on the following grounds:

Firstly, the unacceptable loss of genuinely affordable homes and replacement with homes that are not truly affordable. Barnet Council have used Grahame Park extensively for the provision of temporary accommodation, with some ‘temporary’ residents living there for many years. It is unlikely that these residents will be rehoused locally, as they will not be able to afford the proposed properties. Any planning permission must make it a condition of approval that those living on the estate now should be offered proper and permanent rehousing in the regenerated estate, should they so wish.

Secondly, the design aspects are extremely poor. We see yet more overdevelopment and unsustainable levels of population density. This is not a large site, yet it is being developed on a city centre scale, rather than a local suburb with just one nearby tube station already ram-packed, and one extremely busy Thameslink station.

This leads on to my third objection, which relates to a lack of local services to cope with a vast expansion of the population. There is nowhere near enough GP practice cover, and school spaces are being built mainly on the other side of the borough, where transport links are poor. In addition, there will be a very limited amount of green space available for residents to use and enjoy.

Fourthly, there is a lack of parking. I have objected time and time again to these plans due to the completely unrealistic idea that families who live far away from local amenities and adequate transport will not have cars. The development in this area has already extensively debunked that myth, yet as usual with Barnet regeneration plans, no learning has been done.

Finally, the height of 10/11 storeys is completely unacceptable, and breaks promises made to residents about height. We have seen far too many examples of these taller buildings overlooking nearby residents and there being no privacy for people to enjoy their own homes. There is also an impact of loss of light in habitable rooms.

Therefore I strongly urge officers to reject this scheme and come up with a far more thought-through plan.