“We support the proposals in the MTS to improve orbital links between town centres but we are concerned that the emphasis is primarily on better journey planner information and improved integration between transport modes rather than new infrastructure or services. We believe that improved high quality bus links should be provided where it is not possible to provide rail links. This should include limited stop ‘express buses’ for journeys that can not easily be made by rail.”
Question No: 2452 / 2010
Allowances rise reflects changing role of councillors, claims Barnet Council leader Lynne Hillan 
To bring [regeneration] about, the Council and the Greater London Authority adopted a unique partnership approach with the key stakeholders to devise this Development Framework.Maybe he was unaware of the very high density, the waste incinerator, the huge road congestion, the destruction of stable communities, the loss of local parkland, the dubious housing specification and quantity, the inability of the Council to manage the planning application, and, especially, the overwhelming arrogance of the developers.
The heart of this urban area will be a new town centre, with major new shopping and leisure developments. Up to 10,000 new homes will provide high quality accommodation for the future population. A commercial district set within the public realm will provide places of employment. The area will be accessible, and will benefit from community initiatives, including new schools and primary health care facilities.
Significant improvements to transport infrastructure are proposed, including a new [Thameslink] station, a new bridge over the A406 North Circular Road, and better connections to Brent Cross Underground station.
Barnet Council’s decision to rubberstamp plans for the Brent Cross Cricklewood redevelopment at the end of an ordinary planning meeting this week is suspicious, but not surprising.
The scheme has been inadequately negotiated between the Council and developers, and reneges on conditions applied in November. Given that section 106 documents have largely been rewritten, it is completely unclear what the Council is being asked to approve at this week’s meeting.
We would like to know why Barnet have brought the Brent Cross report to committee this week, with barely a week’s notice and at the end of July, when it could have been more fully considered in October. We believe that documents sneaked through without proper scrutiny now will become more difficult to challenge at the October meeting - or at least, that is the Council's intention.
"Incineration is a dead technology that has been overtaken by safer, cheaper and better approaches to waste management. The way forward is through sustainable methods that do not put the public's health at risk.
Why press ahead with this ill-considered proposal that faces so much well-informed opposition, when we can go down a more sustainable route?"
As reported by 'The Barnet Bugle' and 'Broken Barnet' blogs...
"I have written to the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles about his decision not to call in the application. 
