Tag Archives: planning

Cricklewood Tower Block?

Our sister organisation, NorthWestTWO, has drawn our attention to a proposal to build a 15-storey tower block in Cricklewood. The deadline for comments is 7 December.

The full details can be found at https://www.northwesttwo.org.uk/1-13/ where you will also find a link to Barnet’s planning site if you would like to comment.

Ben Tansley from NorthWestTWO writes …

The plan is to tear down the rather sad 3-storey block at 1-13 Cricklewood Lane (where the Co-op, Lucky 7 and others are) and the one behind it where the health centre is. They’ll be replaced by two 6-storey blocks and one 15-storey tower block.

Obviously this block would tower over everything around it and be totally out of keeping with the rest of Cricklewood. The developers’ answer is that the B&Q site and a lot more besides will all be redeveloped with about 20 new buildings! All that will hide their tower block and make it look small.

But they don’t own the B&Q site or the rest, nobody’s put in planning applications for it and Barnet council haven’t produced any master-plan for it. This is something the developers have dreamt up to justify their tower block. Of course, if this building’s approved, it will blight the land around it and limit the options for anyone thinking of building on it. Extreme-density, high-rise development will be that much more likely.

There’s a lot more wrong with this application – we haven’t even mentioned the transport issues, the lack of affordable housing, or so much else. You’ll find some of it on our website.

We don’t know yet when the planning committee will meet. They’ll only be able to accept or reject the application; they can’t strike a deal. If they reject it, the developers can appeal and then come back with a better plan. So if you want the Co-op building redeveloped but you don’t want a tower-block, do object to this application.

It’s worth remembering that this isn’t part of Brent Cross Cricklewood. The waste transfer station and the rail freight facility that were approved this year already had outline approval. A lot depended on them. This is different. The committee can reject it without endangering anything else; indeed, it’s the other way round. Local councillors Zinkin and Clarke have sat side-by-side and confirmed it has cross-party opposition. Six local residents associations stand together in opposing it.

To show to the committee how unacceptable this is, more voices are needed.