West Hampstead Life

Category: Planning & Development

  • Gondar Gardens will be developed

    News came in late last night that the Planning Inspector (that’s a national, not a Camden position) had upheld the appeal by Linden Wates. This was after Camden rejected Linden Wates’ original 2011 proposal to develop the reservoir site into 16 houses, largely submerged beneath ground level [full planning application].

    You can read more about the background to the development, the critical role played by the humble slow worm, as well as look at the developers’ second, less flamboyant proposal (also rejected by Camden).

    The planning inspector’s decision draws a line under this contentious development – GARA (the Gondar and Agamemnon Residents Association), which was the driving force behind the “no” campaign, has acknowledged that there is virtually no chance of any counter-appeal and, to its credit, is now looking to the future.

    The inspector’s report is long, but worth reading if you’re interested in such things. It’s a thoughtful and detailed consideration of the merits and drawbacks of the proposal, and explicitly recognises the challenges of balancing housing need and ecological merit, design and environmental impact, and planning policies that do – in their details – sometimes clash. Naturally, the conclusion won’t please everyone, and it’s certainly a shame that a gated community will result.

    Here are the key sections:

    Para 6. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the redevelopment of the existing reservoir structure to provide 16 residential units, associated parking, refuse storage and landscaping, and use of the surrounding land and rear of the site for open space (nature reserve) at Reservoir site, Gondar Gardens, London NW6 1QG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 2011/0395/P, dated 24 January
    2011, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions included in the
    schedule at the end of this decision.

     Para 7. I consider there are 5 main issues in this case. They are:
    (i) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and its surrounding area;
    (ii) the ecological impact of the proposal;
    (iii) the structural condition of the redundant reservoir;
    (iv) the form and content of the proposal in relation to:
     – the provision of affordable housing,
     – the density and mix of the proposed dwellings, and
     – the design of the scheme within its townscape context;
    and, if necessary;
    (v) whether the project justifies the obligations cited above taking account of the contents of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010.

     Character and appearance
    Para 15. …The reservoir structure constituted previously developed land within the
    terms of the definition now included in Annex 2 of the NPPF. The area surrounding the reservoir falls within its curtilage and, as a result of the definition, it too forms previously developed land. Although the presumption in favour of the redevelopment of previously developed land in preference to the development of greenfield land is not now as pervasive, it is nevertheless retained in paragraph 17 of the NPPF as one of the core planning principles. My predecessor referred in this context to the urgent need to find more sites for housing development, but, in accordance with the principle, the preference for redevelopment has to be tempered if the site concerned is of high environmental value.

     Para 16. I am in no doubt that such value can be derived from both the ecological value of a site within its own terms, and/or from the contribution which it might make to amenity in the broadest sense – including residential amenity. In this context my colleague referred to the extensive views into the site from the surrounding houses. Although taken individually these are private views, they amount collectively to a considerable public asset and a ‘green lung’ providing local amenity. I agree with this description and assessment. Having further discussed the ecological interest of the land, he recommended the land should remain in the Schedule to the UDP as private open space (as well as being designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Interest – SINC).

     Para 17. This protection is now expressed in Policy CS15 of the Camden Core Strategy 2010. The plan recognises that open space can fall into 2 categories: that which is open to the public (and which can provide for sport and recreation), and private open space – to which there is no or limited public access (such as, for example, railway embankments). The appeal site falls into the latter category and the first purpose of the policy is that such spaces will be protected.

     Para 21. I saw on my visit that, although from the higher level windows in the Gondar Gardens and Sarre Road houses the proposed development would be clearly visible, this effect would be counter-balanced by the enhanced breadth of the prospect as a whole at this level. I recognise the presence of the proposed development would vary from the many windows overlooking the land, but taking all these matters into account, I conclude in relation to this main issue that the proposed development would have a limited adverse effect on the character and appearance of the site and its surrounding area. It would thus conflict to a degree with the purpose of paragraph (a) in the first component of Policy CS15.

    click for larger view


    Ecology
    Para 24. The site was the subject of 30 ecological surveys in 2008-10, but was found to include only a low number of slow worms. There was agreement between the parties that the reservoir roof itself would not constitute a particularly attractive location for the species, but the south and east sides of the land are considered highly suitable. It was acknowledged at the inquiry that slow worms would readily travel between the site and adjacent gardens where they would be likely to find suitable features for hibernating, foraging and basking opportunities.

     Para 28. …Subject to the implementation of an appropriate scheme and the regulation of access, I am unconvinced that the slow worms would be adversely affected by the scheme as a whole – rather the reverse.

     Para 32. …On the basis of the evidence I have received in this case, for example, the surrounding domestic gardens appear to make a greater contribution to the nature conservation interest of the area than the reservoir roof – even though the former do not fall within the SINC and the latter does.

     Para 33. …I consider the ecological interest of the site as a whole would be enhanced and improved and that in this respect the limited harm identified under the first main issue [character and apperance] would be outweighed.

     Affordable housing
    Para 45. I see little prospect that market housing on the land could ever be used to generate on-site affordable housing. I therefore conclude in relation to this issue that the appellant is justified in seeking to take advantage (by making a payment-in-lieu) of the exception included in Policy DP3 and paragraph 3.74 of The London Plan.

    On the issue of the reservoir structure itself, the inspector says he considers “the debate over the condition of the structure to have been peripheral to the determination of the appeal.”

    Much of the Section 106 agreements had already been settled, but it’s interesting to see the total sum the developers will have to stump up. This is in addition to the payment of £6.8 million in lieu of affordable housing, which the inspector agreed was not feasible on the site (it will now go towards housing elsewhere in the borough). And also in addition to the costs of looking after those slow worms!

    £62,720 community facilities contribution
    £261,184 education contribution
    £68,610 public open space contribution
    £38,777 highways contribution

    In an e-mail to GARA memebers, chairman David Yass, who campaigned vigorously against the development, said “This comes as a huge disappointment”, while another member summed it up with “gutted.” GARA has undoubtedly helped improve the plan, and helped secure some significant conditions that should help minimise the impact of the development on local residents and wildlife, during and after construction.

    Inside the reservoir

  • 65-67 Maygrove Road: investing in Sidings

    Last month Camden held a development forum public meeting to discuss the revised proposals for 65-67 Maygrove Road, commonly known as “Handrail House”.

    The developer had withdrawn its previous application for the 1930s Handrail House office building because, it seemed, it was hard to make it economically viable while still having a chance of getting planning permission and the developers and Camden could not agree on the level of affordable housing. Since then, it has been able to acquire the residential building (No.67) next door the offices, and that extra space had made this a feasible project, although the precise level of affordable housing has not been settled on. As with the original plan, the proposals include imrpovements to the Sidings Community Centre facilities and sports pitch.

    Handrail House and No.67 border the Peace Park

    The new proposal is not just broader in scope, it’s also slightly higher, with a set-back top-floor. This makes a five storey residential terrace fronting Maygrove Road. The building would be set back from street by 4m with an evergreen hedge to the footpath along Maygrove Road. To the rear a terraced communal garden would act as a boundary between the Peace Park and the development. The architects are trying to recreate a terrace-feel with the ground floor different to the upper floors “to create variety”. The family units would have private roof terraces, while the communal garden would be for ground and lower ground floor units. Height, as always, is a contentious issue. The developers pointed out that the building will be the same height as 59 Maygrove Road (which locals objected to), although less “bulky”.

    The grey building is No.59
    Maygrove Road frontage
    Artist’s impression

    At the meeting, Gavin Sexton of Camden’s planning team laid out the considerations that would have to be taken into account if a planning application is submitted. These are: loss of employment floorspace, permanent housing as a priority use, affordable housing, sesign & impact on open space, amenity, transport, sustainable design and construction/energy, and basement development. His full presentation is at the end of this article.

    Paul Eden from Regal Homes, the developer, outlined the contributions to the local community, including upgrading the community centre and Peace Park. Here you can see some of their proposals, the sports pitch is off to the right of this diagram, and the main building you see top-right is Sidings Community Centre.

    Whether these investments are primarily because the developers are community minded, or whether they think that getting the Sidings estate on board with the overall plan is going to make life a lot easier, these are still good investments.

    Andrew Barnett from Hopkins Architects gave an overview of his firm (which designed the Olympic velodrome and the Wellcome Trust HQ in Euston), before discussing the site in more detail [see below for full presentation]. He explained that Numbers 65 and 67 are not considered of architectural merit and are rather an odd combination with dual frontage onto Maygrove Road and the Peace Park.

    There were plenty of questions, a short selection of which are outlined below.

    Someone asked about the loss of business use, and there was a supplementary comment about the need for small workshops. Handrail House has been vacant for more than year despite, apparently, the best efforts of the previous owner to lease the space as both offices and workshops. Camden’s own planning policies allow for re-use of sites where there is no demand, and thus the developers see no requirement to incorporate business space. In addition, the office tenant in No.67 has already relocated to a modern office in Finchley Road. Revised marketing evidence and a planning statement would be submitted with the new application. Camden polices supports the provision of new houses.

    Another question was around the proposal for yellow bricks and timber in an area that is red-brick dominated. The architect said that they hadn’t made up their minds yet and that there are many types of bricks used in the area. The use of timber, he explained, is for sustainability reasons and to address energy efficiency and improve insulation. It is also elegant and would contribute to the appearance of the building. Modern window frames (not uPVC) which would be openable for natural ventilation would be incorporated.

    There was a question about basement excavation and whether the development was car free. The proposal does include a basement, which would include the 10 disabled parking spaces, bicycle storage, plant equipment and the lower floors of duplex accommodation.

    Expect a proposal to become a formal planning application in the next couple of months, at which point there’ll be a full consultation process.

  • Residents’ weekend parking in Fortune Green?

    Earlier in the summer, Camden held a consultation about parking in the borough, specifically around the Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs). The findings have been published, so what changes should we expect in West Hampstead and neighbouring areas?

    The scope of the consultation was to “gauge opinion on issues relating to the size, days and hours of control of controlled parking zones (CPZs) as well as on the maximum hours of stay in pay and display bays.” It was not a consultation exercise asking for views about specific proposed changes, which will be dealt separately, it was more to test the water.

    First up, size. Most respondents generally thought the CPZs were the right size so there are no plans to review this further.

    Residents in zone CA-P, which covers a large part of West Hampstead and Fortune Green, generally believed the weekday hours were too short and there was some interest in extending/introducing Saturday and Sunday controls, particularly in CA-P(c) )(the north-western reaches of Fortune Green

    Opinion was equally split on whether the existing pay and display arrangements were suitable borough-wide. Camden’s conclusion is that there is scope to look at specific arrangements in some areas with a view to simplifying arrangements, such as changing bays with a 3-hour maximum stay to 2 or 4 hours).

    Any changes to parking arrangements in Fortune Green would not happen until 2013/14.

  • Neighbourhood Plan gets nearer

    There was a great turnout last Monday for the West Hampstead Neighbourhood Development Forum meeting, chaired by WHAT. There were slides, there were speeches, there was a bit of heckling – but was there any fruitful outcome?

    This was a chance for the NDF to present its progress to the public, and for the public to get a better understanding from not just the NDF but also Camden and Urban Design London, a training and networking organisation, about what all this might mean. There was plenty of time for questions, and plenty of questions were asked!

    I’m not going to recap the genesis of the NDF, as I’ve covered it at length before. The group has spent the past few months trying to find out what locals think about the area, and how they’d like to see it develop. It is perhaps worth reiterating that the resulting plans from NDFs cannot be anti-development per se.

    There has been a survey into people’s views on architecture in the area, and a much more involved survey of locals’ thoughts, which is worth looking at to get a sense of the mood of the population.

    All these findings, together with issues highlighted at meetings such as this one, will go into the draft plan. James Earl, chairman, wouldn’t be drawn on when that first plan might be ready – but we’re talking months rather than weeks down the track. Even then, there are plenty of hurdles to jump through, not least a referendum in which everyone living in the affected area can vote. A majority is needed for the plan to become a proper planning document.

    The presentation from Urban Design London‘s Paul Lavelle was, for me, the most interesting of the night (it’s at the end of this article). Paul explained how NDPs could work. They are very new and although there are many plans being drafted throughout the country, none has yet come to fruition. He showed a few case studies of those that were relatively advanced to demonstrate their variety in scope. Some plans are effectively mini local plans, that cover everything a council would consider. Others are single-issue plans designed with one objective in mind.

    It will be interesting to see where the scope of the West Hampstead & Fortune Green plan ends up. The major issues that people raise are the interchange area between the three stations (the streetscape, the development plans, and the physical interchange of people), and the preservation of West Hampstead’s “village feel”, along with the desire for more green spaces. Architecture also looms large in people’s consciousness. So, the plan could decide to focus very heavily on architecture and far less on service provision, for example. Perhaps at its heart this idea comes down to whether it’s a plan focusing on issues, or on sites. Or, ambitiously, both.

    The final speaker was Virginia Berridge, chair of WHAT, who made a couple of excellent points. The first was that the plan had to look ahead – this is a plan that may well not be ready in time to tackle the immediate wave of development proposals for the area. She pointed out that demographic projections suggested that the area would see an increase in the proportion of over-65s and in the number of parents with teenage children. Ensuring that these groups were adequately catered for could, therefore, be a key part of a plan. This might take the form of guiding how Section 106 money (the money developers pay to the council to help offset the cost of more residents) was spent – e.g., on sheltered housing or youth centres.

    Virginia also raised the question of whether West Hampstead wanted to be a “posh suburb” or a “mixed community”, and that the answer to this question might also guide the direction the plan took.

    With that the floor was open. I won’t attempt to capture all the questions / statements that came up. Many of them were issues that have been voiced before and won’t be resolved by a plan like this. Perhaps the most predictable, and understandable, reaction was from those who questioned whether such a plan would have any impact whatsoever. “Wouldn’t Camden just carry on doing what it wanted”, was the gist of a few people’s arguments. Certainly, some of those who’ve been around the block a few times are somewhat cynical about what this plan could achieve.

    James took the angle that it was better to be positive and try and have some influence than just sit back and say that everything was Camden’s fault. Not surprisngly, the councillors present (most of the WH and FG councillors seemed to be there), agreed. Flick Rea even saying that this if we didn’t take this step now we might look back in 10 years time and wonder why on earth we didn’t as West Hamsptead changed irrevocably around us.

    Sue Measures, who runs Sidings Community Centre, and who’s certainly been involved in enough of these initiatives to be cynical, also argued passionately that this was an opportunity to build a “shared social vision”. I forget now whether it was Sue at a later point, or someone else, who said that we should “protect what made people come here in the first place”, which seems to me a good sentiment that does not have to be at odds with the inevitable intensification that the area is undergoing.

    The issue of the borders came up (raised partly by me), notably the southern border, which is the contentious one. To briefly recap: the NDF is proposing that the southern West Hampstead ward boundary should be the southern boundary of the plan area. WHGARA, the residents assocation for the streets south of the tube line and west of West End Lane, which are within West Hampstead ward, has been saying that its members will have to vote on whether they want to be included or not. This vote was supposed to take place earlier this month, but didn’t. I had originally understood that Camden strongly encouraged NDFs to bring the residents associations on board. At the meeting however, the representative from Camden planning told us that the borders were up to residents to decide. So, it’s not entirely clear to me why a residents association gets to decide on this, unless it can genuinely claim to represent a majority of households within its area.

    James pointed out, when he wasn’t being heckled, that no two people he’d spoken to could agree on where the southern boundary of the plan should lie. I can well believe that. My view is that the members of the forum should forget the ward boundaries, which do change over time, and simply agree on what to them seems a logical boundary based on the input they’ve received from all relevant groups. For me, the ward boundary is peculiarly arbitrary – based I assume on balancing ward populations rather than on any sense of where people identify with or any particular planning considerations.

    The southern border of West Hampstead ward

    In what became a slightly farcical attempt to gauge the mood of the room, we were first asked whether we felt that this area south-west of the tube lines was part of West Hampstead – overwhelmingly people thought it was – and then whether we thought it should be part of the local plan – a slightly smaller majority thought it should be.

    Given that the interchange is perhaps the number one planning issue in the area it seems perverse for the area of the plan to be centred so far north. Those living immediately to the south (yes, that includes me), will be at least if not more affected by changes here as the good people of Fortune Green. We already know that the “area for intensification” is not “West Hampstead” as we tend to think of it, but specifically the land along the railway lines. This area has, to be blunt, been sacrificed by Camden to preserve the red brick houses and land to the north. Not that people living outside the plan area are disenfranchised in terms of having their say when planning applications are made that would still affect them, but they would not be given a vote in the referendum on the plan. 

    What now? The NDF will press ahead with the application to Camden to recognise the Forum and the area (with an agreed boundary), and then start drafting the plan. Hopefully, to echo several voices in the room last week, quibbles over boundaries do not delay the overall process.

    West Hampstead & Fortune Green Neighbourhood Development Forum presentation

  • Speed limit plans prove emotive

    A couple of days ago I wrote about Camden’s proposal to introduce a 20mph speed limit on all roads in the borough.

    Here’s a presentation Camden prepared on the subject, which is laden with stats.

    Camden 20mph Limit Presentation

    On Twitter and in the comments section, there were plenty of people wanting to express their point of view, so I thought I’d collate them for you here:

  • Misty-eyed or hungry for change? West Hampstead speaks

    Are West Hampstead locals “misty-eyed” about the past, or driving for progressive change?

    Depends who you ask. A few months ago, the Neighbourhood Development Forum ran a survey1 to gauge people’s views on development in West Hampstead. It is interesting to see what common themes emerged, and where there were areas of discord. Interesting, and relevant, because it is responses to these surveys that will help inform the development plan that the Forum will draft.

    First up, the tickbox questions (just the most interesting ones). Two answers stand out: the relative popularity of today’s mix of chains and independent shops (which shows a healthy streak of realism among whampers), and the fairly even split between housing, employment and shops when it comes to development priorities in the area. There seems to be an understanding of the need for housing, as long as it doesn’t involve high-rise.

    Do you think West Hampstead has a “village feel”? Yes: 85%
    No: 15%
    Do you think West Hampstead has the right balance
    of shops, restaurants and cafés?     		Yes: 42%
    No: 58%
    Which are the most valuable on the high street? Independent shops: 56%
    Chains: 1%
    Both: 43%
    Do you think that West Hampstead has the right balance
    between old and new buildings?     		Yes: 75%
    No: 25%
    What do you think should have the greatest priority
    in developing our area?     		Housing: 36%
    Employment: 31%
    Shops: 31%
    Are you willing to accept more high-rise buildings to increase
    the amount of housing in the area?     		Yes: 25%
    No: 75%

    Why is housing such a big deal? The housing crisis is fairly well understood,but behind all the statistics are real people such as the person who wrote this in the survey:

    I am renting. In the future I will likely move out of London as I can’t afford to buy here. Local and city-wide population is growing. More well designed mid-rises make sense! If you look at the area – it is dominated by beautiful mid-high density housing – the Edwardian mansion flats. Lets have our version of these now. That might be high rise but well done tower blocks, it might be something along the lines of modern mansion flats but on new pieces of land. There is a reasonable block on Kingdon road like this. New housing would not spoil the village atmosphere.

    The qualitative research is also enlightening. There’s a lot of emphasis on preserving green space, but the reactions to housing are mixed with some dead against, some seeking infill, and others who argue that change is a good thing, even if that means high-rises. The divide is perhaps strongest between those who are against all development (which is like trying to stop the tide), and those who have a more realistic outlook to how development should proceed:

    Organically in conjunction with local residents, but with an emphasis on progress and not a misty-eyed past.

    Overall, responses to the six open-ended questions ranged from the insightful to the banal to the hilarious. And one person just wasn’t sure about anything at all. Some people listed the types of shops they wanted, others used the opportunity to rant at the council.

    Someone very kindly said that they really liked what I did for the community, while someone else alluded to the “prejudices and hobby-horses of self-appointed busybodies and bloggers”, which I guess refers at least in part to me, though I’m not quite sure which prejudices I’m guilty of spreading.

    I’ve included an edited selection of answers below to try and give you a sense of the issues raised. These aren’t all the responses, and even those that are included have sometimes been edited for brevity, clarity and to avoid too much repetition. Nor have I included answers that reference things that have since happened, such as the farmers’ market.

    As always, your comments overall would be interesting to hear. I’ll be writing more in the next day or so about the progress of the NDF and the recent public meeting about it.

    Q1. What would you like to see included in a Neighbourhood Development Plan for Fortune Green & West Hampstead?

    • More parks and green space (e.g. pocket parks, access to the land with trees along the railway lines along the O2 Centre) or improving existing spaces. More employment space (to support the weekday economy). Small rise office/workshop/studios.
    • Education re: litter, manners and neighbourliness.
    • New buildings are a good thing, as they reflect the changing nature of the area. They need to be sympathetic and well designed though.
    • Ideally, plan for building more houses owned by co-operatives / Peabody [Peabody Trust] etc../ shared ownership / as well as standard private buyers.
    • More trees and grass.
    • Width restriction for large articulated lorries that use west end lane like a motorway.
    • Building in keeping in colour of visible materials. Buildings not to exceed current height in area. New buildings not to encroach on busy pavements that are narrow. Not to obscure light and pedestrian space near train stations. Not to increase density any MORE – turning the village into urban sprawl.
    • Better community facilities such as a hall for meetings that does not cost a lot.
    • Maintaining and improving the area as a good place to do business, improve quality of life for residents but also ensure the area plays its part in providing more housing for the borough and London as a whole. In particular this means a progressive approach to promoting good-quality developments (including ‘high rise’ buildings); a more mainstream high street with a better mix of shops, restaurants and other business space – accessible by car as well as public transport;
    • The provision of allotments – ideally on Gondar Gardens reservoir site.
    • More shops – mostly idependent but a Boots would be great.
    • Restictions on refurbishment of Victorian houses including the introduction of new basements, loft extensions and paving over front gardens. Prioritize the building of affordable housing on existing brownfield sites. Stopping people selling off their back gardens to developers. Retaining Gondar Gardens reservoir as a protected open space.
    • More flexible short–term parking to allow small local shopkeepers to be more successful. Daytime parking restrictions affect shops but not restaurants whose main business is in the evenings. Traffic controls through West Hampstead to slow down traffic and to encourage them to consider pedestrians. (20mph?) More play facilities for over 5s. Better street cleaning. Our side streets are filthy and much of it comes from overflowing bins outside properties. (Enforcement?).
    • Reduction in street signage.
    • High quality modern design and architecture should be promoted but should be in sympathy with neighbouring buildings. The promotion of public transport and pedestrian movement is important.
    • A coherent plan for street trees.
    • Allow more people to convert their front gardens to driveways. Create more parking spaces. Develop underground car parks. Reduce the parking limitation zones. Make it easier for people to drive to our area to support our shops without fear of parking limits or fines.
    • A small pond.
    • A limit to the height of buildings. A higher proportion of social housing than is usually offered currently by developers. Linked Section 106 agreements which would contribute towards extra school places.
    • Space/units for small businesses and start-ups. there are no spaces like this anywhere this side of London. especially for people who want to create/make; carpenters, mechanics, crafts etc. building plans for housing around West Hampstead are too large. If you accommodate these people, where do you think they will park cars – even if its just for unloading/taxis, etc. west end lane will be grid-locked. school: another school on the c11 route is not a good idea. have any of you ever tried to get on a c11 when children need to get to school? bigger bus and more of them pls.
    • More youth clubs, or whatever the modern equivalent is.
    • Not sure.

    Q2. What are the things you like about the area?

    • Good transport links. Proximity to central London
    • The location – and community feel.
    • The trees. The cafés (even though there isn’t one that is truly great). The green. How you can walk down the street at 9pm any night and it feels relaxed, with people sitting outside, it feels safe and it feels authentic… The sense that it could change and new, interesting, friendly shops/cafés/bars/art places or anything could open at anytime.
    • The openness with few high rise buildings, the safety, the numerous facilities for children.
    • Village feel, transport, not pretentious, good mix of people.
    • The traditional architecture.
    • I like the fact that there is a good balance between long, mid and short term locals and age groups. It provides a balanced feel to the area and maintains the village-y feel without it becoming too cliquey.
    • I like the village feel which is rapidly disappearing. It used to be an area of artisans and that feeling has gone.
    • The self-contained village feel – the wonderful local police – good community relations – huge effort made by existing residents to welcome new residents. The little bits of green space – the good rail connections. The family homes and the fact that families and young children still come to this area to make a home and keep it vibrant. Our good schools.
    • The transport facilities. The village feel of Mill Lane, independent shops, diversity of people in the area.
    • I love the feel of West Hampstead (apart from the West End Lane ‘parking lot’).
    • People used to be friendly and neighbours used to know one another. This has changed with property being rented and the resulting moving population.  West Hampstead still has a village atmosphere but, parking is a problem here. Travel is excellent with the new and attractive station.
    • It has a quieter feel, not busy like Kilburn.

    Q3. What are the things you like about your street?

    • It’s a main road with continuous traffic and a bus route, frequently snarled up with jams so there is not much to like.
    • People are friendly and helpful.
    • The trees The mansion blocks – high density housing done well! The synagogue building (though I’ve never been inside – would like to). Its proximity to West End Lane, but relative quiet. The style of houses. Its safety – I can walk along it and feel safe mostly.
    • It is very quiet and I can nearly always find a parking space.
    • I don’t as I live on Fortune Green Road and it’s like a motorway for huge lorries. I suppose I love the large trees the most as they so beautiful.
    • The cemetery, Nautilus.
    • A lot of people I have known for 45 years +
    • It is changing for the better.
    • I like a) the attractive and symmetric architecture and the relative absence of front dormers; b) the lack of people parking in their front gardens.
    • In my humble opinion one of the most attractive streets in London – and I love that it is a street you would be hard pushed to find outside of the capital!
    • The people. I hate the narrow, old and tatty pavements. There should NOT be any trees on Weech Road. Fortune Green is moments away and provides ample trees. The pavements are too narrow. REMOVE the trees. They’re not wanted and not needed.
    • Having a park and a Tescos!

    Q4. What things would like to protect in your area?

    • Parks and open spaces. Independent shops. Employment.small businesses
    • Trees. A few years ago new trees were planted. Unfortunately they were the wrong type and some have now been replaced others have disappeared and the spaced filled with a concrete slab.
    • The independent shops/cafés/bars that are left… The trees / the green. Cafés and bars that allow people to sit on the street. The public transport.
    • Trees, fewer pointless duplicate lampposts.
    • Architecture and the property frontage, stopping estate agents signs, extend conservation areas. Improve and maintain green spaces including West End Green and Kilburn Grange.
    • Green spaces, such as they are.
    • The 2 red old BT phone boxes by fortune green and have them freshly painted.
    • The look and feel of the streets. Not allowing houses to lose their original design integrity.
    • Change is part of growth and development. Parks and open spaces should be protected.
    • More police.
    • I’m happy for some development but a more open discussion about the costs and benefits.
    • The tree lined roads. No more housing.
    • The park and all nearby beautiful architecture. Replace the cheap shoddy lamps with traditional lighting fitting for the Hampstead area, Repair/replace all pavements. This is not trivial. It makes walking for the elderly more dangerous. It also makes it dangerous for walking with babies in a pushchair. The uneven surfaces cause people to trip and hurt themselves.
    • Views. There are too many big trees. I’d like to see them pruned more strongly, and more often. I’m talking both Council street trees and huge trees at the bottoms of virtually all adjoining gardens in Parsifal Road. (It’s a problem now we’re in the West End Green conservation area.). And light, again the trees’ fault. I’d pass a law saying no tree branch should ever obscure the light from a street lamp.
    • Not sure.

    Q5. How do you think the area should develop in the future?

    • It would be good if the area could be developed to encourage settling rather than transience by strengthening the sense of community, identity and belonging. There will always be movement but the loss of family homes in favour of studios/bedsits, cafés/ low quality food outlets replacing shops selling quality products is turning the area into a dormitory town with a clone high street.
    • West Hampstead is great, but shows its heritage. It needs to develop infrastructure and shops/restaurants: – a couple more pubs (better quality than the current dives) – why not a Wetherspoons? – decent sit-down ociali/thai restaurants – a proper fish and chip shop more central than Nautilus.
    • More houses / flats (not just for buy to let). I am renting. In the future I will likely move out of London as I can’t afford to buy here. Local and city-wide population is growing. More well designed mid–rises make sense! If you look at the area – it is dominated by beautiful mid-high density housing – the Edwardian mansion flats. Lets have our version of these now. That might be high rise but well done tower blocks, it might be something along the lines of modern mansion flats but on new pieces of land. There is a reasonable block on Kingdon road like this. New housing would not spoil the village atmosphere.
    • It should be more cycling friendly.
    • I think there should be a focus on developing small businesses within the area, both so that the immediate community is better served and feels less need to go outside of the area and also so that people from other areas are encouraged to visit and spend their money. Currently parking is a problem for visitors though and any removal of resident’s parking to facilitate visitor parking would be unwelcome as it would cause issues for the residents.
    • Tricky, it feels fairly dense already.
    • I think the area should look to develop and preserve its past and not rush into putting in more and more dwellings in every spare space. I’m not unaware of the problems of housing generally. However, if we increase dwellings and developments in the future, I believe we are building in social problems for the future.
    • A big notice board in the high street to keep everyone up to date.
    • Stop cramming thousands around the station. Have a thought for quality of life and safely of those using station.
    • It should evolve from the present with the emphasis on small scale housing renewal.
    • Better use needs to be made of the commercial areas we have in the area – parts of Fortune Green, Mill Lane and Broadhurst Gardens are having a difficult time sustaining local businesses.
    • Mixed developments including housing, shops, bars and public spaces. Better interchange between stations.
    • Very very slowly and not at all until all the isuess with schoosls, water, transport, cars, noise, power and healthcare have been resolved with the council.
    • Stop too many expensive private housing projects, introduce rent controls for private landlords, stop the selling off of the few remaining council owned properties and make the location accessible to ordinary people – we are being overwhelmed by rich people from the City who have no commitment to the area or social services.
    • There should be sensitive development to ensure that intensification of accommodation does not exacerbate problems with rubbish, parking and noise. The existing style of building should be maintained.
    • Give more prominence to the needs of children and young people who are not well provided for.
    • Organically in conjunction with local residents, but with an emphasis on progress and not a misty-eyed past.
    • I don’t think West Hampstead should be a museum. It has to make a contribution towards providing additonal housing but the focus should be on affordable housing not on pied–à–terres for the rich. I would like something about improving the traffic flow through the areas around the West Hampstead stations and would support a major development there provided the quality was appropriate.
    • I think we need to put housing on the agenda as it is only if more housing is built that prices will come down relatively and young people will have a chance to get their feet on the housing ladder.
    • The interchange area should be a gateway to the area that we could be proud of. That area provides an opportunity for high quality, high density housing which could take West Hampstead as a whole up a level. Planners should be relaxed about the possible amalgamation of retail units to attract more A1 multiples.
    • Yes, new housing but not so high to overwhelm present buildings. More space for short term parking for shops and more space for pedestrians. Awareness on how much sign/street furniture there is in the main streets.
    • Put railings in front of the West Hampstead Thameslink, People come off the train mobile in hand and walk straight out in front of cars and cyclist.
    • Less crime (robberies).
    • More emphasis on people’s gardens, some are left trashy.
    • Less cars – the pollution, dirt and smell from them is very off-putting and very un-villagey.
    • The area, especially along the high street has started to look run down over the past 4 years. Investment needs to be concentrated into reviving the high streets of West End Lane and Mill lane and creating a vibrant community for shopping, socialising and relaxing.

    Q6. Where should new development in the area be located?

    • Wherever there is space. Its a pity that one-fifth of West Hampstead ward is currently a car park (O2 Centre). Maybe development could be built over the railway lines so they are all underground!
    • The area around the stations should be tidied up and redeveloped with commercial units. The triangular area between the railway lines should be conservatively redeveloped.
    • I don’t know if i’m honest, i’m not a town planner / have access to all the data. Depends what the new development is too but: Possibly… by the transport hubs. In South Hampstead as walking up to the tube seems less busy than down West End Lane. The overground there is dead, but its a great line. Wherever there is land that is not being loved. Not just new – how about using properties that are empty? There are a lot of them. Iverson road? Back of Homebase?
    • There are patches of poorly maintained housing, especially in Sumatra Road that could be redeveloped in an appealing way.
    • In Cricklewood!
    • I don’t know where or if any new development should be permitted.
    • Around the train tracks and on Blackburn Road perhaps, but I really don’t know where they will find the space for new development…
    • In car park of O2 centre or possibly in Barnet where they have more space.
    • Where there is poorly used space such as along Maygrove Road.
    • The areas around the railway lines are obviously underutilized and should be the focus of sensible development. The whole of Blackburn road could be better utilized with a redevelopment incorporating both residential and commercial facilities. I don’t think there should be too many restrictions in terms of redevelopment. The example of the new Emmanuel school and residential development on Fortune Green are good examples of what can be achieved on existing sites.
    • It shouldn’t. Unless rundown properties need to be pulled down. You have to be realistic when the best thing is no more major development otherwise the area becomes soulless and loses appeal.
    • That manky area near the station.
    • Somewhere in London that has the space and infrastructure.
    • Renovation and conversion of old buildings should be prioritised instead of new build. One exception is that I would love to see the Sagar Building [Alfred Court on Fortune Green] demolished as it has ruined everyone’s view and looks like a prison. It could be replaced with an attractive building that was in tune with the surroundings.
    • I think encouragement, possibly financial, could be given to home-owners under-occupying their own property to release part of their homes for letting/conversion.
    • The reservoir is the last remaining undeveloped green site and would be an ideal place for open space for children but has sat empty for years. There was a small play area there in the early 80s which was closed down. If agreement is given to residential development there then the planning gain needs to be better open space facilities for local people. Please no more gated communities.
    • The development area should be constrained to the interchange.
    • High quality architecture should be welcomed all over the area.
    • Spaced evenly – everywhere. Society develops. That’s life!
    • Not sure.

    1There were 180 responses from people spread across the area, with a slight bias to the northern half. Some basic demographic questions helped assess how representative the sample was, and it turned out to be moderately in line with the data from the 2001 census 2001, although with a strong bias towards responses from owner-occupiers, older people and long-term residents, who probably are largely the same group.

    Each dot marks approximate address of a respondent.
    The border is that of West Hampstead and Fortune Green wards

  • 20mph in Camden: Slower, safer, sensible?

    Camden’s proposed 20mph speed limit on all its roads certainly got ample press coverage when it was announced a couple of weeks ago. [update: you can see Camden’s presentation on the issue]

    It’s not a new idea, it was actually being mooted back in 2004. Nor is Camden the first place to make such a move. Neighbouring borough Islington has just implemented such a scheme.

    It’s predominantly a safety issue, and some of the borough’s side streets already have a 20mph limit after the last Camden administration voted to expand the go-slow zone. The new rules would not apply to roads in the borough run by TfL (such as Finchley Road), although there could be some lobbying to have the limit applied borough-wide.

    Cllr Phil Jones, cabinet member for sustainability, explained the thinking behind the proposal to the Ham & High: “Introducing a 20mph borough-wide limit in Camden would prevent road casualties and make our streets safer for all. We want to give greater confidence to the pedestrians and cyclists who use our roads and encourage more people to switch to sustainable forms of transport.”

    There’s a school of thought that says it’s unusual to travel at more than 20mph anyway on Camden’s generally congested roads – at least during the daytime – so would imposing a limit have any impact on accidents? As a couple of people mention in this BBC report, drivers are having accidents and close shaves with cyclists at 20mph already. However, in the CNJ, the council cites TfL statistics that there has been a more than 20 percent fall in accidents in Belsize Park, which has been under a 20mph zone since 2006.

    Naturally, not everyone is keen. Keith Peat, the regional co-ordinating manager for campaigning non-profit group, the Association of British Drivers, was reported in the CNJ as saying the move was “counter productive”. He continued, “In congested areas, 20mph zones often have drivers more focused on the speedometer so they don’t get a fine than, say, keeping an eye out if a child runs across their path.”

    Away from the busier southern reaches of the borough, however, there are plenty of stretches of road where 20mph is more than feasible (even if it sometimes feels as if West End Lane is at a permanent standstill), so perhaps it is around West Hampstead and Hampstead that the greatest impact might be felt, rather than in Camden Town or Kings Cross.

    Enforcement, of course, is a crucial part of such a scheme’s success. Cllr Jones explains the ‘big picture’ approach he’s taking: “This is not about introducing more road humps,” he stresses, “it is about beginning to change the culture on our roads in favour of lower speeds. We will continue with small local schemes where they are supported by residents, but this is a more comprehensive proposal that would be implemented without major traffic calming measures.”

    Swiss Cottage councillor Andrew Marshall wrote to the Camden New Journal with his views on the issue (he’s in favour). He recognises that not everyone will share his perspective: “The fact that 20mph zones are always going to be contentious with some should not be an excuse for inaction by the council.”

    There’ll be a consultation of course, and no doubt strong views on both sides of the argument. What do you think? Is a 20mph limit enforceable on the busier roads? Will it actually have an impact on accidents?

  • A Queensbury Rules trade-off

    I know there’s a Willesden Green contingent among readers, so although this is outside my normal patch (and because The Queensbury featured in the Sunday Lunch periphery round-up), this seemed worth covering. As I’m no expert in all things NW2, I’ve handed this post over to local resident Esther Foreman (@estherforeman), who finds herself in a predicament but has a – perhaps controversial – solution.

    “I have woken up every morning for the past eight years and gazed out of my window to look at the tree-covered hills, vales and rooftops of Hendon, Hampstead and Kilburn, dotted with the odd high rise.

    The Fairview New Homes development of 110 Walm Lane seeks to completely destroy my world view, quite literally. It proposes to knock down the Queensbury Pub and the Willesden Green Conservative Club, and build 56 high-rise homes. Ten of these would be affordable housing. There would be 700 m2 of communal space and 23 car parking spaces.

    Impression of the new flats
    (click for the full Design Statement document)

    This has put me into a difficult position. Brent needs new homes, badly. The council has set a minimum target of 2,050 new homes by 2016. We have high levels of families living in temporary accommodation, and high levels of homelessness. As someone who has grown up in the area, no longer surrounded by friends and family who have been forced out due to housing shortages and high private rents, I should be welcoming this development with open arms. New homes means new money in the area and each local development is a notch up the community bootstrap and one less fried chicken shop.

    However, the cost is high. We will lose the Queensbury Pub, which is the only decent pub in the neighbourhood and provides a great local community meeting point, space for mums and babies during the week, quiz nights and Sunday roasts. This is where I have bumped into Sarah Teather, our local MP, exchanged conversation with celebrities, garnished support for petitions, and argued over the best local curry house with strangers. We held our first Erin Court residents association meeting in there eight years ago. If this goes, where do we go?

    I think that the plans for the Willesden Green Library development should be put into the mix here. I actually like the plans for the redevelopment and think the area badly needs a cultural centre and the new housing (92 units altogether) that will come with it. The plans are being blocked by a lot of people who seem to prioritise the car park in the back over the much-needed homes for our sons and daughters .

    So here’s what I propose. We have more support for the library centre development as it provides housing, community space, books and so on – and offset this with keeping the Queensbury as is. At the start of the year there were 3,000 families waiting for housing in Brent. People have to live somewhere, and not everyone can afford a Mapsebury Avenue, 6-bedroom house. But once those people move in, they have to have somewhere to meet up in the evening and it’s better for the local economy if they spend their pound in Willesden. If the Queensbury goes, there is no other place for us to do this.

    If you decide to support those plucky bar staff at the Queensbury by signing their petition on change.org or by responding directly to Brent Council, remember to give some support for the Library Development at the same time. I say Yes to Homes and Yes to Communities.”

    110WalmLane Design Statement

  • Fortune Green stays in Hampstead & Kilburn

    It always sounded improbable. How could Fortune Green ward disappear off into the clutches of a Barnet-dominated parliamentary constituency, leaving behind its southern neighbours? There was lobbying from all three parties; there was wailing; I heard a rumour that some Liberal Democrats actually gnashed their teeth. The end result: the Boundary Commission’s revised proposals have kyboshed the idea.

    The Commission proposed a Hampstead and Kilburn constituency, comprising two Brent wards and eight Camden wards, that would be similar, but not identical, to the existing Hampstead and Kilburn constituency. The Commission did not include the Camden ward of Fortune Green in this constituency, but rather in a Finchley and Golders Green constituency. It also did not include the Camden ward of Belsize, which it proposed should be included in the Camden and Regent’s Park constituency. Both these wards are in the existing Hampstead and Kilburn constituency.

     In light of the many representations, such as from Camden Borough Council, that the Commission’s proposals in relation to both Fortune Green and Belsize wards would break existing ties, we have decided that these wards should be in a Hampstead and Kilburn constituency. To satisfy the electorate range, we have decided that two other Camden wards, Gospel Oak and Kentish Town, which the Commission included in its Hampstead and Kilburn constituency, should instead be included in a Camden Town and Regent’s Park constituency. Our proposed Hampstead and Kilburn constituency (which is the same as that proposed by the Conservative Party) comprises wards from two boroughs, as in the Commission’s proposals. Since this constituency would be largely similar to the existing constituency, we have decided that the name should be retained.

    In the near term this is all a bit of an irrelevance, but it may not be in the longer term. We all know that the Lib Dems said they wouldn’t back the Conservatives over changes to constituency boundaries as the Tories failed to move forward on an elected House of Lords. In practice, this means that any changes have a Lib Dem’s chance in Tower Hamlets of getting through before the next election. Nevertheless, the revised proposals from the Boundary Commission may carry some weight should the Conservatives win an outright majority next time around (Labour’s already said it would scrap the proposals).

    The revised proposal returns Fortune Green to its rightful home as part of Hampstead & Kilburn. There are other changes to the 2011 plans, but the upshot compared to the situation as it stands today is simple: H&K gains Highgate but loses Brondesbury Park. Everything else is as you were. You can view all the revisions across London on this gigantic map.

    To recap:
    Existing wards in H&K:  Belsize, Fortune Green, Frognal and Fitzjohns, Hampstead Town, Kilburn, Swiss Cottage, West Hampstead, Brondesbury Park, Kilburn, Queens Park

    Proposed revision: Belsize, Fortune Green, Frognal and Fitzjohns, Hampstead Town, Highgate, Kilburn, Swiss Cottage, West Hampstead, Kilburn Park, Queens Park

    Here’s the 2011 proposal from the Boundary Commission
    Here’s the 2012 revision

    As I say, this will not happen before the next election (at the very earliest), so it’s a bit premature to start predicting the political ramifications of any such changes.

  • Public meeting Oct 22nd

    I know normally I’m exhorting you to go to Kilburn for comedy on a Monday night, but on October 22nd I suggest you head down a bit later. Why? Because there’s a public meeting that is really worth turning up to if you want to understand and contribute to the shaping of West Hampstead over the years to come.

    WHAT (the local action group) in conjunction with the West Hampsead Neighbourhood Development Forum, is holding a public meeting to bring everyone up to speed with how the NDF is evolving and, more crucially, to set the boundaries of the area to be covered.

    This is a subject I’ve touched on recently (read the comments on that link to get up to speed with the latest), and nothing has yet been finalised, especially in terms of where the southern boundary of the Neighbourhood Development Plan should be. You might believe, as I do, that as the area around the stations is likely to see the greatest development pressures the people who live both north and south of the train lines should very much be included. However, as things stand, the cutoff point for the plan could well be the tube line itself, so those living within spitting distance of the O2 car park, for example, may have little influence on plans to redevelop it, while people living the best part of a mile to the north may be far more involved.

    You don’t need to do any background reading to come along – all will be explained. Help me lower the average age of attendees, find out what’s happening in West Hampstead, and have your say.The “other speakers” mentioned below are from Urban Design, Planning Aid and Camden’s planning department.