OLD OAK AND PARK ROYAL MAYORAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CONSULTATION RESPONSE FROM ANDY SLAUGHTER MP FOR HAMMERSMITH

The planned redevelopment at Old Oak and Park Royal presents West London with an excellent opportunity to bring much needed, large-scale regeneration to a neglected part of inner London. The proposed redevelopment is estimated to bring 25,000 new homes to the area with around 60,000 jobs being created.

The area could house Britains best connected railway, with a modern station that could potentially service, HS2, the Great West mainline, Crossrail, and the London Overground. A new transport hub would be created in West London with all the attendant benefits that would bring.

The area around Old Oak is one of the most deprived parts of my constituency, with high unemployment and a lack of prospects for local people. Around half of working age adults within 1.2 miles of the station are unemployed with some parts of the area in the bottom 1% most deprived nationally. I am fully supportive of regeneration in this area as it has the potential to transform the north of the Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.

However, any such development must be to the benefit of local people. Residents need to be fully involved in this development from the beginning of the project through to its completion.

Housing

Hammersmith & Fulham, and London in general, is in the middle of a housing crisis. There is a serious lack of affordable housing in H&F, and families on low to middle incomes are simply unable to afford to live in the Borough. Obviously, the potential to build up to 25,000 new homes is to be welcomed.

I am concerned that the MDC as it is currently proposed will not build the affordable housing necessary in the Borough. The Mayor has not met his affordable housing targets in other large-scale projects, and I am worried that again such targets for Old Oak will be paid only lip service before being ignored or circumvented by developers looking to make large profits.

This development must include a high proportion of decent and genuinely affordable housing with a mix of tenures. This must include a high proportion of socially-rented housing.

If developers are simply allowed to construct expensive, luxury housing that is totally beyond the means of local residents then this whole project will be deemed to be a failure. All the more so as it is on land, much of which is already in public ownership.

Over the last few years many new properties built in H&F as part of large developments have been bought up en-masse by overseas investors looking to profit from the London housing boom. This cannot be allowed to happen in Old Oak. I do not want this new development to become a vacant ghost town, full of empty investment properties.

Jobs

This development could bring 60,000 jobs to an area of London with very high unemployment, and that is to be celebrated. There will be thousands of new jobs created during the construction phase, and opportunities for people to train and develop new skills.

There must be mechanisms to make sure that these employment opportunities benefit the local people. Jobs must be advertised locally, and the companies that stand to profit from this development must be encouraged to employ local residents. This development must be required to employ a percentage of local residents.

We need to create a local jobs covenant, to clearly set out our mission to provide decent employment for local people and must work with local schools to encourage school leavers into apprenticeships and training.

Planning

I am very worried that LBHF and other Boroughs will cede control of major planning applications to the GLA under the proposal. Local people will see this as a way of imposing unwanted development on the area and will feel that their views are not being properly represented.

I believe whatever option is chosen for deciding planning consents, the Boroughs must have a majority of votes on the relevant committee or committees.

Board Membership

Of the area of brown-field development, 80% will take place in LBHF. Because of this, I believe LBHF should have more representation on the Board than other interests.

The Board must be seen to be accountable to local people, and it is not appropriate for unelected members to have such influence over decisions that will affect so many people. The Board must be seen to be acting on behalf of local people. A majority of Board members should represent either the Boroughs or local residents.

Development Boundary

I object to the inclusion of Wormwood Scrubs within the proposed boundaries. Wormwood Scrubs is a vital green space in west London, which is currently managed by the Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust. The Trust must have final say over any decisions made about the scrubs with relationship to the wider Old Oak redevelopment. While the regeneration agency and the Trust should work together, the Trust must have final say over any decisions made about the Scrubs.

If the Scrubs were to be part of the development area, I would be concerned that the Trust would be unable to properly exercise its duty with regards to stewardship of the Scrubs. Given the Mayors plans for a mini Manhattan in the Old Oak area, I believe the Scrubs may simply be annexed to the development as amenity space.

Liaison with local residents groups

A number of established residents organisations in the 3 Boroughs as the Grand Union Alliance, and are meeting regularly to discuss the scheme. I believe that both individually and collectively, these representative bodies should be both a formal a consultee and an active participant in the development.

The proposed MDC

Of course the Boroughs and other interested parties, which include commercial interests, HS2, Crossrail and other public sector bodies will want to work closely with the Mayor and the GLA as the scheme progresses. However, the proposed MDC gives far too much power to the Mayor, which he may not exercise either to the benefit of my constituents and other residents of west London, nor the important strategic aims of the transport infrastructure development. Therefore, I am unable to support the MDC as currently envisaged and believe it may be the worst of both worlds in terms of the development, which is of great importance to the national economy but will also have a significant impact on the Old Oak and wider area for many decades to come.

Given the complexity of the development and the variety of competing interests, there is an argument for appointing an impartial individual to coordinate and arbitrate between the various interested parties but I believe that the best course in determining both a strategic, democratic and sustainable development for the area is to leave the final decision making in the hands of the Local Authorities who are more than capable of exercising this.