West Hampstead Life

Category: Planning & Development

  • Councillors’ concerns over Inglewood Road site

    You may recall the recent consultation from Camden regarding the proposal to sell off small sites in order to raise capital. One of these was behind West Hampstead library on Inglewood Road.

    According to our local councillors, three-quarters of people who commented objected to the proposal to sell it off, but it will go before the cabinet meeting next month with the council recommending approval.

    The councillors have raised four specific issues (although I’m lumping three of them together because they are so interrelated):

    Cumulative Impact / Housing / Alternative uses – the concern here is that this site has not been included on any of the development plans and the constant infill of land with housing “will have an adverse impact on local services”. I wonder whether the challenge here is not one of development but manner of development. We all know that housing is a priority (as is space for employment), but the idea of cramming in apartments that barely conform to building regulations (as I believe has been suggested by one developer) is clearly not the right solution. This plot has an excellent location in the heart of West Hampstead, but is not an ideal site given its narrow shape, hemmed in on all sides. The councillors suggest, and it seems a reasonable idea, that the plot should be given B1 commercial status so it could be used for small businesses. Lets see some imagination on the part of the council in what they’d like to see here, and then encourage the right sort of bidders.

    Parking – a more legitimate concern as the site now has lock-ups, so the people who use those and the outdoor parking spaces will lose them. Apparently, no alternative parking has been offered. Parking is a controversial issue in the area with local businesses wanting more to encourage visitors, while residents generally seem to favour less traffic and insist that the public transport links here are good enough for people to be able to leave their cars at home. Nevertheless, to actively lose a garage or parking space is clearly massively inconvenient.

    Lets see whether the councillors have been persuasive enough or whether the site simply goes to the highest bidder.

  • Police station closure moves closer

    As was widely expected – and reported in these pages back in November – West Hampstead police station is indeed set for closure.

    This week, the draft consultation document was released that outlines which of London’s police stations will be shut. The document originates from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. This body runs the “estate” of the Met, i.e., the bricks and mortar.

    The Estate Strategy (2012-2016) is “To deliver a more efficient and higher quality estate which meets the operational needs of the MPS and is significantly lower in cost to run.” The actual numbers are a 32 percent drop from £205 million in March this year to £140 million by April 2016. You’ll recall that the total cut to the Met’s budget is £500 million, so this £65 million is a relatively small part of that.

    In “financial and space terms” (ie, “this means”) the Met will need to:

    • “Enhance the opportunities for members of the public to meet with the police providing suitable access facilities in buildings that are already within the estate or local civic facilities, whilst also raising the profile of public facing properties through consistent standards of signage and corporate ‘look and feel’. [Yeeush. This is the “coffee shop police counters” bit]
    • Reduce the running costs of the MOPAC estate to £140m each year by 2015/16 – a 30% reduction on 2012 costs. [This is the “sell off the buildings” bit]
    • Reduce the amount of space occupied by 300,000 sq m by 2015/16. [see above]
    • Provide up to 950 modern cells, reducing the cost of the custody estate, and providing suitable facilities to support the reduction in the time it takes for a detainee being taken into custody to be processed. [This is the “centralise detention” bit]
    • To reduce the amount of residential accommodation owned by MOPAC to no more than 200 units whilst working with Residential Providers to provide affordable accommodation to officers and staff close to where they work.“ [This is the “force police officers to spend more time finding affordable accommodation” bit]

    I’ve already discussed some of the broad principles here, but the core of the strategy as it relates to police stations is:

    The Commissioner and the Mayor have committed to providing one 24 hour police station in each Borough and to not shutting any police station until there is a suitable alternative provision where the public can meet the police.

    Camden’s 24hr station will be Holborn, Brent’s will be Wembley. Camden will also keep Kentish Town station open, although it will shift from being a 24hr station to a daytime station. West Hampstead, Albany Street and Hampstead stations will all close. Quite where the “suitable alternative provision” will be is not clear, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

    It is debatable whether the closure of the front counter will have a major impact on most people. It’s not as if police officers are sitting at their desks waiting for someone to call 999 so they can jump in a car and hurtle to the scene of the crime. The impact of the larger cuts is likely to come more in the allocation of police resources across the regular officers, safer neighbourhood teams, and PCSOs rather than to the buildings.

    We’re not in Dock Green any more

    Skinny latte and a search warrant please
    Back to those contact points. For those times when someone does want to walk into a police station, where will they go? Much of the press has gone big on the “coffeeshop coppers” angle, but are the police really going to use Starbucks and Costa as temporary front counters? Here’s what the consultation document says:

    Many public sector organisations are now exploring opportunities to share the publicly owned/occupied estate. This not only reduces costs but creates a more engaging and vibrant use of facilities – it creates a more friendly face. 

    Last time I looked, Starbucks in particular was not a “public sector organisation”. The document continues:

    The MPS has recognised the need to enable the public to contact the police through a variety of different channels… The MPS describe this as ‘The Public Access Promise’. Since 2008, there has been a 20% reduction in crime reporting at front counters and a 32% increase in internet and email reporting. The Commissioner, for example, has committed that all victims of crime will be visited by a police officer if they wish rather than having to visit a police station – this benefits victims but also has a consequential effect on the need for police estate.

    There’s no doubt that a Dixon of Dock Green style bobby waiting behind a front desk is both antiquated and probably largely (though not necessarily entirely) redundant. If Caroline Pigeon is right and one in four rapes are reported at front desks, then it would be interesting to know why that is so high. Surely, whatever the reason someone goes to a police station (voluntarily) they should have the right to a private room to explain their situation. That’s hard to find in a Costa, or outside a Sainsbury’s.

    Not that the report appears to rule out completely working with the private sector (my emphasis):

    As part of this estate strategy, MOPAC will further develop our relationships with other public sector bodies as well as private and third sector organisations specifically to find routes for the public to access the police in areas where they could access many other services.

    Where might these places realistically be for us? The library is an obvious option. Perhaps the churches – St James’s is certainly looking to expand its role in the community. The foyer of the O2 centre is a regular spot for the Safer Neighbourhood roadshows, but could that replace a front counter?

    The Public Access Strategy, which is being developed by the MPS, has highlighted that a number of front counters are underused. Once the strategy has been approved, following consultation initiatives, and the list finalised, those front counters will be replaced through the provision of ‘Contact Points’. The Contact Points will be in existing MPS and shared public buildings.

    The pertinent question is then whether “shared public buildings” mean buildings owned by the public sector (libraries, sports centres) or buildings open to the public (shopping malls, cinemas etc.).

    What I can’t understand is why Camden is apparently ruling out using the Safer Neighbourhood Base on West End Lane as a contact point? It’s an existing MPS building, it only needs to be manned whenever another contact point would be manned and the cost of making it accessible to the public would surely be fairly small – officers would have more resources on hand to deal with basic queries, there’s more privacy for members of the public, and even if a flat white was beyond officers’ ability I’m sure they could manage a milky Nescafé.

    Will no-one think of the horses?
    West Hampstead police station also houses some of the Met’s horses. It sounds as if their fate has yet to be decided:

    The primary focus for the estate strategy is for the welfare of the animals and their proximity to where they are likely to be deployed. A review of this portfolio will be undertaken to assess the suitability of each property and location with the aim, if possible, to rationalise the number of buildings. Key Target: Opportunities will be considered for rationalising space into modern efficient facilities – delivering running cost savings of £0.5m each year.  

    That’s from a total budget of £2.4m. Police horses are used at large events of course, so proximity to Wembley might help keep the horses here – perhaps we’ll get more. Having lost the Kings Troop last year, it would be a shame to lose the police horses too, for no other reason than the character they add. And the opportunity for photos like this one taken by Adam Wilson last May.

    “Shocking images in West Hampstead as horse
    eats policewoman’s head as she withdraws cash”

  • Encouraging slower speeds on Sumatra Road

    Are “sinusoidal” speed bumps the way to reduce traffic speed, or should West Hampstead’s Sumatra Road become one-way?

    Last year we had cycle permeability, 20mph zones, and debates over “table humps” to slow traffic. As 2013 hoves into view, Camden is launching a consultation on how to reduce traffic speeds on Sumatra Road by converting the existing speed cushions into sinusoidal road humps.

    A speed cushion

    Sinusoidal speed bump

    Ok, lets get it out of the way: sinusoidal definitely sounds like a medical condition. In fact, a sinusoidal road hump has a less severe profile than old-style speed bumps but apparently is also effective at reducing speeds.

    The speed limit on Sumatra Road was reduced to 20mph last year. A raised junction was also built at the junction with Glenbrook Road. During the consultation for this, some residents told Camden they felt the existing speed cushions were not bringing car speeds down enough, and the idea of turning Sumatra into a one-way street was mooted.

    Indeed, I was cc’d on a chain of e-mail correspondence between one Sumatra resident and the council. The first mail, from Septmeber 2012, was trying to cultivate support for making Sumatra Road one-way to control speeding traffic.

    “There is a children’s playground on our road and the number of speeding cars and large lorries is a danger to children and families that live on this residential street,” went the argument. “There is also only room for one car on Sumatra Road and traffic often builds up as cars refuse to reverse to let others through.”

    The resident reckoned that a one-way sign placed at one end of the road would be a “cheap and common sense solution to this problem of public safety.”

    Back in October I received a similar mail from another local.

    “As someone who drives around [Sumatra Rd and surrounding streets] a couple of times a week they’re certainly narrow and it’s difficult to see round the corners because of all the parked cars. I think if there was a way to make them one-way it would be more useful than a 20mph limit, but I guess that’s also more expensive.”

    Camden’s response to the one-way idea:

    “In general it is against our policy to introduce one way streets as these often lead to increased speeds as vehicles do not have to deal with any opposing traffic and hence can speed up.

    Making the road one way could potentially increase the volume of traffic as more drivers would find it an attractive option given they would not face any opposing traffic. In addition, traffic would potentially be displaced to nearby streets as they would not be allowed to use Sumatra Road in one direction.”

    The change in type of speed bump is partly a reaction to these complaints. The road accident data shows that in the three years to the end of February 2012,there were six accidents along Sumatra Road, of which two resulted in serious injuries.

    The proposal is therefore to convert the speed cushions into these sinusoidal road humps along the full length of Sumatra Road.

    There’s also a plan to convert an existing 15 metre shared use parking bay into a 15 metre pay & display only parking bay outside the Solent Road Health Centre. This follows a request from the clinic to provide short-term parking facilities for visitors. The proposed pay and display parking will operate Mon–Fri 08:30–18:30 and would mean permit holders will not able to park in these three spaces during these hours.

    If agreed, all this will happen in early 2013 and will be funded by TfL.

    To give Camden your views, complete this questionnaire and return it by 25th January 2013 to: London Borough of Camden, Culture and Environment Directorate, Transport Strategy Service, FREEPOST RLZH–UEYC–ACZZ, Argyle Street, London, WC1H 8EQ. Or send a separate response to each question to (you must include your postal address though).

  • Legible London signs aren’t perfectly placed

    I first noticed the Legible London signs in West Hampstead when I almost walked smack into one that is inconviently in the middle of the entrance to the farmers’ market.

    The signs popped up so stealthily that several people wondered if they’d been there all along and they’d just never noticed them.

    The signs are a TfL initiative but are co-branded with Camden’s logo. Camden adopted the scheme back in 2008 and rolls it out across the borough when funding is available. However, the signs in West Hampstead were apparently funded by TfL to help with the interchange.

    One of the ideas behind the signs is to encourage people to walk more. They give estimated walking times to transport links and some other arbitrary destinations (I confess to my shame that I’ve never heard of the Hampstead School of Art, which features prominently on our signs). There is also a wildly inaccurate and crude “5 minutes” circle, which is based on absolute distance from the sign and does not relate to street layout or terrain in any way whatsoever. Still, I’m all for people walking more if they can.

    In central London these signs are extremely useful for visitors. They are oriented in the direction you’re facing rather than automatically north (though personally I find that more confusing).

    But what of their location in West Hampstead. Are they really in the most sensible spots? Do we need so many? Who decides which destinations are highlighted? According to Camden council, it’s ultimately down to the Transport Policy and Design team to decide where the boards go, but there are several standard guidelines that are normally followed:

    • Outside pedestrian entry points – mainly tube and train stations.
    • Along high streets
    • At key decision points – main junctions
    • On footways with high pedestrian footfall
    • Other factors affect where boards are placed such as footways widths and vehicle sight lines (ie. not blocking them)

    I did a recce of the signs and I’m not at all sure they are in the optimum locations. Neither local councillors nor WHAT (West Hampstead Amenties & Transport) were consulted on the location, which seems a gratuitous oversight.

    From the south, the first sign is on the corner of Hemstal Road and West End Lane, which seems rather a long way from the interchange. I guess if you’re walking to or from Kilburn then it might be useful, but people who don’t know the area are more likely to go the extra stop on the Jubilee Line or Overground, and if you’re on the Thameslink then you’d use Iverson Road to travel between Kilburn and West Hampstead.

    A beacon of info on Hemstal Rd
    Five minutes as the crow flies not as the pedestrian walks
    Hampstead School of Art??

    Apparently there is supposed to be a sign installed at the top of Blackburn Road, which is the most obvious place to put one although the pavement is already quite narrow and crowded there. There is of course a map just inside the tube station anyway. The sign would hopefully replace this corrugated plastic sign that I suspect most people don’t even notice.

    A basic (and largely redundant) sign high
    on a lampost at the top of Blackburn Road.
    Here’s the other side looking north

    There are two signs on Iverson Road. One on the corner with West End Lane, and one outside the Thameslink station. It seems unnecessary to have two so close together.

    Austrian tourists peruse the Iverson Road map
    The times don’t tally with those from the previous sign
    This Thameslink board is about 20 seconds
    from the Iverson Road/WEL one

    The next one is outside the library, and is in the ultra-thin format.

    The last one is tucked away by the bus stand by West End Green (and not at the junction with Mill Lane as the councillors seem to think). This is perhaps the most bizarrely located sign of all. You can’t get on or off a bus here, it’s just where the 139 waits before starting service. Kate Goodman, from Camden’s placeshaping initiative, told me that as part of the place plan and the need to raise awareness of the Mill Lane shops, she had liaised with the transport officers to get Mill Lane on the signage. This has happened on this northernmost sign, although there’s no mention of shops.

    Handy for, er, no-one?

    While I was looking at this one, I got chatting to a woman. She was in two minds as to whether the whole idea was a waste of money or genuinely useful but was adamant that it would take her more than five minutes to walk up to the junction of Bracknell Gardens and Frognal Lane.

    “Five minutes to the Finchley Road? Not with that hill!”

    It’s true that the pavement is very wide here, so the sign is not impeding anyone. But surely the sign should be either nearer the bus stop or preferably at the West End Lane / Mill Lane junction, where it’s also fairly wide. There could be an argument I suppose about sight lines at this busy junction, but it’s hard to imagine there couldn’t be a solution.

    Wide pavement at the corner of Mill Lane / West End Lane

    Overall, as I guess comes across, I think these signs have been plonked on our streets with not enough consideration given to their purpose or location. Having more streetmaps available is a good thing, although in another five years even more of us will be used to using our smartphones to navigate around unfamiliar areas. One wonders therefore whether the cost of designing and installing them in less touristy areas such as West Hampstead justifies the benefits. No-one seems able to tell me what the cost actually is – at least it’s coming from TfL and not the council’s tightly stretched budget.

  • Are West Hampstead entrepreneurs being short-changed?

    Is Camden council doing enough to help new businesses in West Hampstead? Local Lib Dem councillor Gillian Risso-Gill thinks not, and had a hefty swipe at the council in a letter to the Ham & High this week to say just that:

    “Empty retail and business units have been allowed to stay empty for years, enquiries are rebuffed, premises are not marketed and then put up for auction.”

    I have heard stories like this from local businesses – indeed there was one last month that happened on Twitter:

    Cllr Risso-Gill also writes: “There is a woeful lack of available business premises in the area and units and sites are still being allowed to change from commercial to residential use.” This is also true, although one prominent example, Handrail House on Maygrove Road, has apparently been empty for some time as the landlord simply can’t find businesses to occupy it. From a residents’ perspective, it is important to remember that the local economy is not just about shops and restaurants, but business services and (light) industry too. What are the conditions they need to operate profitably?

    Gillian Risso-Gill at the opening of the first Farmers’ Market

    Many of you will be aware that Rock Mens’ Salon has moved from its premises in the death-row strip of shops from 187-199 West End Lane. John, the owner, was able to move fast and take the Broadhurst Gardens site that had been the Millennium Café. Yet he was also able to strike a deal with Network Rail, which still owns those premises, and open the new coffee shop Wired thereby taking advantage of the empty space. Yet, the car hire premises next door remain empty and the leases on all the units there expire in the spring. It is far from clear that building work on that site will start then however, so will the sites remain empty? Cllr Risso-Gill again:

    I have asked the council for help to secure temporary tenants in the retail units currently being vacated on the 187-199 West End Lane site, to prevent the area becoming blighted prior to development, but resources are not available.

    Of course, Camden’s resources are stretched under the current budgetary regime, yet there is an argument that lack of attention here is depriving the council of revenue from business rates. Lib Dem Risso-Gill finishes her letter with a direct attack on the Labour-led council:

    We have a Labour administration that cannot be bothered to manage its assets to generate income and… takes the easy option of mothballing and then selling off every available site [while] the local business community and entrepreneurial spirit that could boost the local economy and create jobs, is being neglected.

    Camden’s finance chief Cllr Theo Blackwell responded on Twitter:

    What do you think? Should this be a priority at a time when public services are being cut back? Is the money that would come from renting out small premises sufficient to justify the extra cost?

  • Gondar Gardens appeal saga drags on

    Planning law is a strange beast.

    Let me refresh your memory. Linden Wates recently won an appeal to build very low-impact homes on the resevoir site in Gondar Gardens. In a considered review of the application, the Planning Inspector believed that any negative impact on the open space would be offset by the benefits of this development.

    GARA – the local residents association – which has long campaigned against developing this site, was naturally disappointed.

    It seemed as if that was the end of the story. But there was a rumbling subplot. After Camden had initially rejected this plan, the developer submitted a second plan. This was arguably less controversial than the first – it was a street-frontage plan rather than one that would develop the green space itself. Camden rejected this one too.

    Now, despite having won the first appeal, the developer is appealing against this second decision too. This has thrown everyone for a loop. What is Linden Wates objective? They can’t build both developments, and surely if the first one had passed first time they’d have moved forward with it.

    Street-view of second plan – now being appealed

    Either they think the first scheme is less profitable than the second, and having won the first appeal are confident in the second. Or perhaps they hope that a successful appeal with this second plan would give them the leeway to propose an even more ambitious third scheme.

    Strikes me that this is a waste of public money – if a developer has a plan approved for one site through appeal to the national inspector, that should be the end of it for at least the amount of time that planning permission lasts.

  • Royal status for Fortune Green?

    Fortune Green is on the up. QEII status beckons. Which could mean some funding and additional planning protection. The Friends of Fortune Green are excited.

    Phase one of the major improvements to the green took place two years ago: resurfacing paths, expanding the dog-free area, improving the entrance by the bus stop and new planting. Phase two will include excavating the remains of a WW2 air raid shelter (in the quadrant near the playground) and returfing that area, adding new noticeboards, creating a small children’s landscaped area and a running/exercise trail starting at the green, winding through the surrounding streets and finishing back on the Green. These improvements will involve fencing off part of the park over the winter.

    All this has led Camden to nominate Fortune Green as a “QEII field”, all part of the Jubilee celebrations. Fields in Trust (formerly the National Playing Fields Association), a charity dedicated to protecting and improving outdoor space for sport, play and recreation, has set up the Queen Elizabeth II Challenge to add protection to community recreational facilities.

    Consultation is imminent, but naturally the FoFG are strongly in favour.

  • School to move in to Alfred Court?

    School to move in to Alfred Court?

    Abercorn School is a three-site private school based in St John’s Wood and Marylebone that takes children from 2 1/2 to 13. Each site takes a different age group.

    Now, the school is seeking to open a school for 7-13 year-olds in the vacant unit of Alfred Court (also known locally as the Sager Building) on Fortune Green Road. It’s always been an oddity that this unit hasn’t been sold, but I don’t think many people would have predicted a school to try and move in.

    Alfred Court from across Fortune Green
    Photo via CZWG architects

    The school would need to apply for a change of use from Camden and it’s likely that residents in the area will have questions about the implications for traffic, parking, and noise.

    The High Mistress (which sounds more a title you’d find at Hogwarts rather than Grange Hill) Andrea Greystoke has already been in touch with the Neighbourhood Development Forum, and there will be a public exhibition on the site on December 17th and 18th that locals will be able to attend.

  • Assessing the cycling contraflow scheme

    Assessing the cycling contraflow scheme

    A little over a year ago proposals came forward to allow more contraflow cycling in South Hampstead. Some people thought this was madness, but it went ahead anyway.

    One thing that seemed clear was that for it to work safely, the signage both in terms of road signs and on-road markings, would have to be exemplary.

    With this in mind, Camden Cyclists, a lobby group, set out to explore the streets in immense detail and document their findings in order to suggest improvements.

    Their full report is incredibly detailed but as with so many things, this is where its value lies. I hope Camden reads it carefully as some of the recommendations could help prevent road accidents and they are by and large easy to implement.

    Perhaps a quick recap of where cyclists can now cycle on one-way streets would be helpful.

    Camden Cyclists’ map of contraflows (accepted and rejected)
    Click for larger version

    Priory Road and Fairhazel Gardens are now both two-way cycling throughout. Fairhazel Gardens is now fully two-directional for cyclists (some sections were changed a few years ago). Greencroft Gardens has been made two-way for cyclists as has Messina Avenue, which gives a link through to Kilburn High Road.

    Looking back up Greencroft Gardens from Fairhazel Gardens
    “The contraflow facility is useful, but does require some confidence to use.
    Note the contraflow cycle logo half-way up the road –
    this is barely visible/legible to road users.”
    Photo: Camden Cyclists
    Looking west down Greencroft Gardens towards Fairhazel Gardens
    The ‘No Entry’ on the road is misleading and the ‘No Entry’ sign on the left
    is hidden in a tree; the sign on the right is unhelpfully placed.
    An entry lane should be marked and the little cycle logo could be bigger!
    Photo: Camden Cyclists

    Camden Cyclists are still pushing for some additions to the contraflow system.

    Compayne Gardens, which is two-way, is preferred by cyclists and is marked with cycle logos. But it fails as an eastbound route because it joins the one way Canfield Gardens before reaching the junction with Finchley Road. We very much regret that LB Camden has so far been unable to provide this link.

    These contraflow routes are called “light”, which means they don’t require marked contraflow lanes but use signs and road markings. The Camden Cyclists page explains that last year the Dept. for Transport allowed the use of No Entry signs with “Except Cycles” subplates. “Other relaxations in regulations now allow contraflow cycling without lanes provided that traffic speeds and volumes are low.”

    Camden Cyclists’ overall conclusion is that the scheme generally works well: “For the most part, the signage at the end of the roads is of a high standard.” The group does, of course, have some suggestions for improving legibility, especially so drivers are aware of the scheme. You can see all of the recommendations on its website.

  • NDP: Tall buildings and affordable business premises

    It was a relatively small group that assembled in the creche room of Emmanuel Church last night. Thankfully a heater was blasting away (the church is apparently investing in underfloor heating at some point – very fancy), keeping the cold at bay.

    Under discussion was the second draft of the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP), and I was pleasantly surprised that progress through the agenda points was relatively brisk.

    In light of the overwhelming vote from WHGARA residents to be part of the NDP area, it was quickly decided that the boundary would match the West Hampstead and Fortune Green ward boundaries. Having cleared this hurdle, the application for formal recognition of the NDP can be submitted to Camden. There is unlikely to be any objection from Camden – planning officers have been involved with the process from the outset – so once accepted there will then be a six-week consultation process. This is all before the plan itself is finalised.

    James Earl, chair of the Neighbourhood Development Forum, threw the discussion open to the floor (all 9 of us) regarding the core policies (recapped below) for comment.

    Building height
    One topic dominated the discussion. At the moment, the draft plan has blanks for the proposed maximum building height inside and outside the intensification area (roughly the area around the three stations).

    John Eastwood, from WHGARA, put forward the idea that the maximum height should be the same across both wards, with no differentiation for the intensification area. He mooted four or five stories as the limit. This would seem to be too low to be enforceable. West End Lane already has plenty of five storey buildings and given the housing demands we face, it’s impossible to imagine that a sympathetically designed six-storey building wouldn’t be looked at favourably.

    A couple of us also pointed out that developments such as the student block on Blackburn Road and indeed the Ballymore 187-199 West End Lane proposals were using the fact that the ground slopes away from the road to increase building height with less impact on the roofline. In other words, site context is an important component of determining maximum heights.

    The sloping land means the Ballymore 12-storey tower block won’t have
    quite as much impact as it would on West End Lane

    I know that there are readers of this site who look more favourably on high rise than others. The NDF’s survey on this did, however, show a sizeable majority of residents are opposed to high-rise. Finding the right balance between housing need and height will take some careful wording of the plan. The view was put forward that the “errors of planning” that led to Ballymore’s 12-storey block, or the much older Ellerton building on Mill Lane, should not be taken as a new benchmark height for the area.

    There is a secondary point here in that the NDP also takes a stance on the type of housing that is needed – specifically recommending a housing mix that includes more 3- and 4-bed flats. For developers to deliver that sort of housing profitably, they will need to build high. The plan needs to ensure it’s not pushing contradictory agendas that would allow developers to exploit loopholes.

    The issue of uniformity across the ward is a more interesting debate – again, I can’t see that this would be workable. However, there is a sense among some in the south that the north of the area will feel very little of the direct impact of the growth in population and housing density, even though the rhetoric is one of a larger community that spans the two wards. It is too late to change the growth area, but those in the northern reaches may need to accept that there will be development across the wards that requires an increase in housing density along some of the side streets as well as around the stations and railway tracks. Otherwise the sense of divide between the south and north of West Hampstead is only going to intensify.

    Affordable business premises
    The council beats the housing drum very loudly, but economic development is also a vital part of a successful community. However, it feels as if West Hampstead is losing jobs rather than creating them – especially if the Liddell Road school is built, which will mean the loss of several businesses on that industrial estate.

    One of the NDP’s draft core policies is that development should also be focused on providing new jobs and attracting new businesses. Existing businesses, and the land they occupy, should be protected and encouraged. Sounds very laudable but, as Brigid Shaughnessy pointed out in the meeting, the council has no provision for “affordable business” in the same way it does for “affordable housing.” This struck everyone as rather a good point. Planning officers can encourage developers of mixed-use developments to have smaller retail or office units, which encourages independent businesses but there’s not a lot it can do about the rents charged, even if it can offer rates holidays. It seems like a point worth exploring – if a development needs to have a certain share of affordable housing to be approved by Camden, then why not also insist on a share of affordable business premises. These would clearly need some covenants to ensure that they didn’t just mean that a national chain could operate with an even bigger profit margin.

    Any other business
    Aside from these two issues, a few other topics came up. Basement excavations was one (apparently there are eight happening in Kylemore Road alone), although it’s not clear what sway the NDP might have here as the issue seems to be one of Camden enforcement.

    Clarity is also needed on what exactly Camden’s West Hampstead Interchange Planning Framework is going to involve. This catchy sounding concept popped up out of nowhere recently, but no-one seems to have a sense of what it is trying to achieve, how it will fit in with the NDP, or indeed whether it’s necessary in the first place given all the other planning frameworks that apply to the area.

    Recap of core policies (draft)

    1. New development should be focused on providing a range of housing and housing types, including social and affordable housing and 3-4 bedroom homes for families. The vast majority of new housing and development should be located in the ‘West Hampstead growth area’.
    2. Outside the growth area, new development should be on a much smaller scale.
    3. New buildings in the growth area should be no higher than xx storeys; outside this area new buildings should be no higher than xx storeys.
    4. New developments should promote high quality design which fit in with their surroundings, especially in terms of height, appearance and design.
    5. Conservation areas should promote high design standards and have policies which are strongly enforced.
    6. Development in the Area should also be focused on providing new jobs and attracting new businesses to the Area. Existing businesses, and the land they occupy, should be protected and encouraged.
    7. There is an urgent need for ongoing improvements to public transport in the Area, particularly the three rail stations.
    8. Future development should protect, preserve and enhance existing green/open space and provide new green/open space in new developments.
    9. Provide as much space as possible for pedestrians and promote ease of movement through the Area.
    10. Protect the existing public services and community facilities in the Area and provide new services/facilities as the population of the Area grows.
    11. Provide an environment that is suitable for a mixed community, including young people, old people, families and those from a range of social backgrounds.
    12. In all developments, there should be a presumption in favour of preserving the look, feel and views of the Area.