West Hampstead Life

Category: Planning & Development

  • Maygrove may grow 100 new flats

    The redevelopment of Handrail House has been on the cards for a while. A proposal last year was refused, but the developers are back with revisions and more ambition – at least in terms of scale.

    No plans have been submitted to Camden yet, but on Wednesday there was an open meeting at Sidings Community Centre where the architects and developers presented their latest thinking. I wasn’t able to go, but James Earl – chair of the Neighbourhood Development Forum – was present along with local councillors.

    Site up for development: click for larger version

    It’s a big project, with approximately 100 flats over five storeys and now covering both Handrail House (65 Maygrove Rd) and No.67 Maygrove Road (flats at the moment). Like all other large housing projects in Camden the intention is for it to be car free (as with the Ballymore development, there is an argument as to how viable this really is), with disabled parking only. Camden is pushing for half the units to be affordable housing, and the developers are offering Section 106 money (the contributions developers have to make to the local community) for Sidings Community Centre, to lay astroturf the football pitch there, and install a café in the Peace Park.

    The issues raised at the meeting included the removal of business/employment space from the site (there are currently offices at Handrail House), concerns about the design (yellow brick and quite modern), the impact on the Peace Park (several of the flats will over look it), traffic and parking on Maygrove Road, and a general concern as to whether the infrastructure in the area can cope with another 300 people.

    As regular readers wil know, West Hampstead has been earmarked for intensification so more people are almost certainly going to be moving to the area – the issue is precisely where and what sort of buildings they’ll be moving into.

    All the pictures were on powerpoint rather than display boards, so I’m afraid I don’t have any pics to show you although apparently the architect firm involved is the same one that designed the Olympic velodrome!

    Velodrome in the Olympic Park

  • Should we pay for our own amenities?

    I came across an article from Fast Company this morning. It’s about a trend in the US to ask local residents to contribute to civic improvements – so-called “crowdfunding”. A Tampa-based organisation called Citizinvestor has been pushing this.

    The recession has left hundreds of parks un-renovated, and hundreds of basketball courts unpaved. Without funds, municipalities have had to delay, or cancel, projects that otherwise would get started…
    … For example, the city of Philadelphia is currently asking for $12,875 so it can plant 15,000 trees. But that’s just the start. The plan is for many more, and bigger, projects than that.

    Unlike Kickstarter, a crowdfunding scheme for creative projects that also operates in the UK, Citizinvestor lets locals “petition for projects as well as contribute to ones municipalities have put forward.”. There are no rewards for contributing (although contributions are tax-deductible in the US).

    It’s an interesting idea and got me wondering whether such a thing would work in an area such as West Hampstead. I suspect it might. But wholehearted adoption would lead to bigger ideological questions. After all, we already pay taxes to both central and local government, and civic space has traditionally been funded by municipal government. Sure, when times are tough I think a lot of people would rather see money spent on nurses, or care for the elderly than on planting new trees or relaying paths in a park, but how likely is it that once an economy rebounds a government would resume responsibility for something its citizens had willingly paid for on top of their existing taxes?

    It’s worth noting that the schemes up for funding are already on the government agenda but aren’t a priority. So, this isn’t entirely about people doing it for themselves – the Citizinvestor model has people contributing to projects that have already been approved and will be then be implemented by local government, although the petition element does introduce a populist angle.

    The co-founder of Citizinvestor, Jordan Rayner, is quoted in the article as saying “There is a place for a service to make government work more like a vending machine, where I get to choose which parks and pools I want to build.” Good soundbite, but surely that runs the risk that the more affluent the area, the more “parks and pools” get funded. It would add complexity (and grumbling) if the council’s pledge was “we’ll pay for a swimming pool in this deprived area, but those of you in the richer areas have to provide your own”. Here we enter into questions of scale – in London this would surely have to work at a borough-wide level, with an understanding that people in Kilburn ward would be unlikely to cough up for civic improvements in Camden Town, and vice-versa.

    We already live in a city where the divide between public space and private space is increasingly blurred; in theory citizen funding would leave no doubt as to who any such projects belonged to. But when does citizen funding bleed into “local business funding”, and in turn “big business funding”. Citizinvestor’s FAQs make no mention of any commercial interest in funding proposals, and it would perhaps be a good starting point to clarify that no branding would be allowed on any project, and no conditions could be imposed by anyone contributing to the cost.

    What do you think? Do you think a few thousand locals would stump up a few quid each to tart up West End Green? Not too controversial. What about speed bumps? Cycle lanes? Increasing litter patrols? What constitutes an essential service, and what’s a “nice to have” when belts are being tightened.

    I’ve included the How It Works section from the Citizinvestor website, which clarifies the mechanics of the scheme quite well:

    Municipalities submit projects to Citizinvestor.com.
    These are projects that have already been scored, department-approved and only lack one thing – funding. Projects range from building a new park to installing speed bumps or adding a few parking spaces to your neighborhood library. The list of these projects for any city is nearly endless. Currently, these projects sit on a long-list behind other budget priorities, especially now when local government budgets are tighter than ever before.

    Citizens invest in the projects they care about most.
    For the first time ever, we are giving citizens the opportunity to tell government exactly where they want their dollars spent. Citizens can find projects that their local government has posted on Citizinvestor.com and pledge to invest any amount they wish towards the project. Not only can citizens invest in projects from their local governments, but Citizinvestor also gives citizens the opportunity to petition for new projects that local government either hasn’t thought of or hasn’t approved.

    Once a project is 100% funded, the project is built!
    This is key – citizens only pay their portion of the project if other citizens step up to the plate and commit to fund 100% of the stated cost. This is a win/win for everyone! Citizens only have to invest money if there is a guarantee that the project of their choice will be built and governments only have to commit to building a project if they receive 100% of the funding they need. Not a dime changes hands unless everyone is happy. This ensures that there is no risk to citizens for pledging to invest and no risk to governments posting projects to Citizinvestor.com.

  • Gondar Gardens – first appeal nears conclusion

    The tale of the proposed development of the Gondar Gardens reservoir site is a lengthy one. In essence, a couple of years ago, developers Linden Wates put forward a plan that would have seen the disused site turned into a series of semi-sunken homes, that became known as the Teletubby development. Planning permission was refused, partly due to the presence of slow worms on the site.

    Computer image of original plans

    A second, less controversial development was then put forward that kept much of the green space intact, but still added new housing on the street. This too was refused.

     

    Artist’s impression of second proposal

    While the second proposal was being considered, Linden Wates was appealing the first decision. That appeal opened in May but was adjourned after three days. The inquiry reconvened last week, and the hearing concluded yesterday.

    Here’s the assessment of how the appeal has gone from the perspective of the Gondar & Agamemnon Residents Association (GARA):

    Back in May, both Camden and GARA gave evidence as to why the refusal should be upheld, and were cross-examined at length. Linden Wates started to give their evidence.

    This week, the inquiry reconvened. Linden Wates gave detailed evidence and were cross-examined by Camden’s barrister and GARA’s barrister.

    On Thursday, there was a lengthy examination of opposing experts’ views about the state of the reservoir structure and its likelihood of partial or total collapse; and a debate about Linden Wates’ approach to affordable housing (i.e., paying for it to be somewhere else).

    Almost all of Friday was spent with Linden Wates’ planning consultant, with arguments about the relative merits of different aspects of planning policy. That might sound interminable but it goes to the heart of the matter – does the protection of being Open Space and a Site of Nature Conservation Interest outweigh the developer’s argument that the structure itself is ‘previously developed land’?

    Add in arguments about whether the new National Planning Policy Framework promotes development, or protects land of high environmental value, and you have the opportunity for some lively debate, some of it rivalling any West End theatre production (OK, only in parts).

    Also on Friday, local resident Mark Stonebanks made an excellent contribution, challenging LW’s competence in areas of traffic and parking, design, and drainage.

    Monday – the final day – started with a visit to houses on all four sides of the site. The inspector seemed to expect the good views from Gondar Gardens and the less good views from Agamemnon Road (obscured by trees); but he appeared surprised at the extent of views from Hillfield and Sarre Roads.

    We returned to the inquiry and heard an impassioned, yet controlled statement from Hugh McCormick [Ed: I don’t know who he is]. Linden Wates’ barrister declined to cross-examine. There followed some haggling over conditions / Section 106 matters to be imposed “should the appeal be successful”. Linden Wates and Camden had pre-agreed most of this, and it was GARA that raised some issues although it made very limited headway.

    Then it was onto the showpiece summing-up from each barrister. This is a curious affair in which each party submits a written statement (typically 20 close-typed A4 pages) and then proceeds to read the entire document aloud.

    GARA’s barrister covered all the key points: ecological value; open space; and traffic, parking and other matters – all of which are supported by both planning policy and real local importance. Camden defended its multiple reasons for refusing planning permission, even to the extent of appearing to promote the second (frontage) scheme in order to demonstrate that alternatives to the appeal scheme could exist.

    Linden Wates’ barrister was very professional in putting its case. We expect a decision by the end of November, which is just after the deadline for Linden Wates to appeal against refusal of the second scheme.

    I’ll keep you posted on what happens next!

  • Dispersal zone could be extended

    Tuesday’s meeting about the proposed West Hampstead dispersal zone was less “drop-in” and more “sit around a table” than I’d been led to believe. As a result, and because the door was locked when I arrived, I missed the start and thus (presumbaly) the set-up and the police’s perspective.

    Nevertheless, I was there to hear local residents voice a wide range of disgruntlements with both the council and the police.There was a strong sense that “something had to be done”, with anecdotes of long-standing anti-social behaviour. There was also a recognition that the underlying problems wouldn’t be solved by simply moving people on, but the idea of this short-term measure was broadly welcomed with caveats around appropriate resourcing.

    The main problem the police want to deal with is gang activity on the Lithos Road estate, and they see the dispersal zone as a useful tool to help them. The challenge is that dispersal zones often just shift the problem across the border, wherever that border might be. They are also extremely subjective – any group of young people can be dispersed at the whim of the police and are not allowed to return within 24 hours.

    Lets take Broadhurst Gardens as an example – the whole road is included in the proposed zone. A group of 22-year-old bankers drinking outside The Gallery could be very noisy, and potentially anti-social. Down the other end of the road by the Broadfield Estate, a group of 18-year-olds could be hanging out one evening with not much else to do, just chatting and with no intention of causing trouble. Which group is more likely to be dispersed?

    There appeared to be a strong push to extend the zone across West End Lane to include the Thameslink station – this ended up being stretched to the Maygrove Road/Iverson Road junction including Medley Road.

    The blue lines mark the proposed extension

    Ultimately, most people seemed to say they supported the zone only if it was extended as described above. Camden’s Michael Hrycak (a Senior Community Safety Officer) explained that extending the zone would delay the process as people living in that area would then need to be consulted. Cllr John Bryant pointed out that there wasn’t much point having a consultation meeting if the input was going to be ignored. It’s not entirely clear how this will proceed – quite possibly by the original zone being put in force and the extension being considered when the zone is reviewed after six weeks or so.

    Such reviews are mandatory for dispersal zones. They can lead to prolonged periods of enforcement (a few years for example), or the review might conclude that the impact is negligible or that the problem has been solved. There’s also an issue in that anti-social behaviour tends to be worse in the summer when longer days and warmer nights encourages people to be out later. So, a reduction in ASB may be ascribed to a successful dispersal zone, when it could just be a function of rainy weather and chilly nights.

    As soon as I hear more about the implementation of the zone, I’ll report back.

  • Move along please – nothing to see here

    Early Tuesday evening, there’s a drop-in consultation meeting about whether a dispersal zone should be implemented in part of West Hampstead. Whether you’re an arch libertarian or in the hang ’em and flog ’em brigade (or perhaps somewhere inbetween), this is your chance to get your views across.

    The idea is to “specifically target the problem of Anti Social Behaviour by youths and related incidents including large scale fights involving weapons, assaults, robbery, drinking alcohol and the use of drugs within the areas highlighted above. It is further aimed at targeting Anti Social Behaviour by groups associated with controlled drug offences on the West Hampstead Ward”

    What’s a dispersal zone? Here’s the definition from Local Government.

    A dispersal order will provide the police with additional powers to disperse groups of two or more people where the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that their presence or behaviour has resulted, or is likely to result, in a member of the public being harassed, intimidated, alarmed or distressed. Once asked to disperse, it will be a criminal offence for that person to return to the dispersal area for a 24-hour period.
    If a young person under the age of 16 is stopped in the area after 9.00 pm and is not accompanied by an adult, the police can escort them to their home address, if they are either:

    • at risk or vulnerable from anti-social behaviour or crime
    • causing, or at risk of causing, anti-social behaviour.

    A dispersal zone can be as small as the area surrounding a cash point or as large as an entire open area of a housing estate or row of shops. Once a dispersal order is in place, the escort power can be used against any under-16, but it does not necessarily have to be used at all.

    Camden police’s West Hampstead crime map for July 2012 isn’t online yet, but I’ve taken a look back over the past few months to see how many anti-social behaviour crimes have been recorded within the proposed dispersal zone. I also looked back at June 2011.

    June 2012 – 35 ASB offences
    May 2012 – 27 ASB offences
    April 2012 – 42 ASB offences
    March 2012 – 28 ASB offences
    June 2011 – 16 ASB offences

    Such a short time series isn’t that meaningful, although the fact that of these five months, June 2011 was the quietest might suggest that the problem is indeed getting worse although as you can see from both March and April these stats can be skewed by a couple of larger incidents. A dispersal zone was recently put in place the Brent side of Kilburn, and there was one around Swiss Cottage that was renewed several times.

    Not everyone agrees with the principle of dispersal zones. Aside from the fact that they can simply push the problem elsewhere, their detractors also argue that they infringe people’s rights. A group of young people hanging out on a street corner are not necessarily intent on causing trouble they may just be hanging out, and perhaps have nowhere else to go. The police of course argue that it makes their job easier.

    If you’re interested in learning more about why this dispersal zone is being proposed, or want to have your say, then the meeting is Tuesday 28th August 17.45-19.00 at Hampstead District Housing Office, 156 West End Lane.

  • Choosing West Hampstead’s unheralded gems

    Camden council is trying to determine what elements of the built environment make the borough distinctive. These will form a “local list”, defined as “a collection of the features of Camden’s local areas that are valued by the local community and that help give Camden its distinctive identity… These features make a place special for local people, they carry history, traditions, stories and memories into the present day and add depth of meaning to a modern place.”

    The council is keen to point out that we’re not necessarily talking about the obvious:

    “Often it is the commonplace things around us that give this character, but they may be overlooked because of their very ordinariness. Pubs, shops, places of meeting, places of worship, benches, statues: subtle or idiosyncratic elements; all contribute to the particular character of a place. These things make a place special for local people, and help it to express a ‘personality’ that carries history, traditions, stories and memories into the present day and adds depth of meaning to a modern place.”

    However, before deciding what will be on this “local list”, Camden is consulting resident on what the selection criteria should be. This is what any nominations will be judged against – so if you’re interested in this whole idea, then now is a good time to get involved. This is part of a broader government initiative that encourages councils to set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment.

    The draft selection criteria, which are below, have been drawn up in line with English Heritage’s guidance. But Camden wants to know whether the criteria meet the aim of being broad enough to allow for the recognition of a wide range of buildings features and places, but also specific enough so that it allows for rigorous and consistent assessment of any nominated assets.

    “Assets” that are accepted onto the list will be parts of the environment that are not already designated, so no listed buildings for example, but which still contribute to a sense of place, local distinctiveness and civic pride. These are known as “non-designated heritage assets”. Sexy.

    A non-designated heritage asset may be a

    • building,
    • monument,
    • site,
    • place,
    • area or a landscape
    • street furniture or other structures such as boundary markers, post boxes, memorials, lamp posts, and statues.

    It can be important for a whole range of reasons which may include the location of a historical event or being home to an important local artist, a particularly good quality example of a recognised architectural tradition, or it may have strong cultural significance for certain parts of the local community (either now or in the past).

    Around half of the borough is already protected by conservation area designation, but the rest of the borough is less well understood in terms of the significance or quality of buildings that may have local architectural, historic or townscape importance. The focus of this local list will therefore be primarily on those areas not covered by conservation area designation, but we will not rule out the inclusion of buildings of local importance within conservation areas if these are nominated.

    West Hampstead has two large conservation areas already. South Hampstead is roughly bordered by West End Lane, Belsize Road, Finchley Road and the tube tracks. West End Green conservation area includes the northern half of West End Lane up towards Fortune Green. This still leaves large swathes of our area undesignated.

    Have a read of the draft selection criteria below, and if you have any comments you can submit them via the consultation form. I’ll let you know when it’s time to nominate the “non-designated heritage assets” themselves, but start having a think about what makes our bit of Camden distinctive.

    Draft selection criteria

    To be considered for inclusion on the Local List nominations should satisfy at least two of the following criteria:

    Architectural significance/interest this includes assets that
    a) are good examples of a style of building that is particular to the local area, and/or
    b) are good surviving examples of an historic architectural style, and/or
    c) are good examples of the work of a notable local or national builder, architect, engineer or designer and/or
    d) are good examples of a particular technological innovation or craftsmanship in building type, material or technique.

    Historical significance this includes assets that
    a) represent a significant period in the area’s history, and/or
    b) are associated with a locally important historic figure, and/or
    c) are associated with notable local historic events

    Townscape Value this includes assets which play a key part in supporting the distinctive character of the local area, either as a landmark of by being examples of prevailing good quality built form of the area.

    Social value this includes assets that have local community, cultural, religious, political educational or economic significance.

    In addition, nominations to the list should retain the majority of the original features that contribute to their significance.

  • Driving’s hard enough, says CRASH

    Driving’s hard enough, says CRASH

    Back in October last year, Camden asked locals what they thought of some changes to our streets. The most controversial was the provision of “cycle permeability“. In other words, allowing cyclists to pedal the wrong way up one-way streets. Not all one-way streets were included; some, such as Broadhurst Gardens, were considered unsuitable. But many of the quieter residential streets, especially around the Gardens area of South Hampstead were part of the plans.

    There were 76 replies to the consultation [pdf], 21 positive, 37 netural and 18 objections. Camden made a couple of tweaks to the plans, but otherwise decided to go ahead. Fairhazel Gardens has had such a system in place for more than 10 years, so one assumes that both the council and cycling lobby groups have sufficient data to make meaningful recommendations. Indeed, looking at a map of pedestrian and cyclist accidents in London from 2000-2010, there wasn’t a single reported bike accident (or pedestrian accident) on Fairhazel Gardens during that period.

    Fairhazel Gardens has had contraflow cycling for years

    However, South Hampstead Residents’ Association (appropriately, in this case, named CRASH) is not happy. At this late stage, it is appealing for people to write to Camden expressing their horror at this scheme. Their argument is that it is unsafe for cyclists and other road users (the scheme was initially proposed [pdf] by Camden Cyclists). Crash’s argument includes this gem of a debating point (original emphasis):

    “You will not only have to keep an eye on your rear mirror and side mirror for cyclists on your left, as usual, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, look forwards and in your right hand mirror for a cyclist on your right”

    Imagine having to look forward when driving!

    In other words, drivers would have to behave as they would on a normal road – checking both side mirrors and their rear-view mirror, as well as keeping an eye on the road ahead. Or as they have been doing on one-way stretches of Fairhazel Gardens for many years already.

    Is there a safety risk? Well, cars should be driving slowly anyway on these residential streets. It’s also up to cyclists to ride responsibly and err on the side of caution (and use lights when it’s dark). But to my mind it doesn’t seem to be beyond the wit of man to accommdate such a thing, even if drivers do occasionally have to look in the direction they’re going.

  • Love it or loathe it?

    At the Jester Festival a couple of weeks back arguably the most interesting stall was a rather low-key affair. When I walked past it was manned by James Earl, chair of the Neighbourhood Development Forum. On his table were a set of photos of local building and spaces and a sheet against each one for a “love it” “hate it ” or “no comment” tick. West Hampstead being West Hampstead, some people of course wanted to write a few words as well – even in the “no comment” box.

    The idea of all this was to get a sense of what sort of developments people felt were appropriate for the area as James and the rest of the NDF begin to draw up the Neighbourhood Development Plan.

    The results are interesting, not least because they don’t always show a consensus, which is both encouraging (diversity of opinions is generally good) and worrying (how will locals ever agree on what we want). I’ve ranked them below are in descending order of “love” votes (which does not correlate exactly with the number of “hate” votes – Emmanuel School’s new building in particular was vehemently despised by many, but still attracted a fair number of “love” votes).

    I’ve included most of the comments. I’m not sure how I feel about the vitriol with which some people want to pull down buildings in which other people live. Overall, there’s a clear sense that everyone likes the traditional architecture of the area, while the rather monolithic structures such as the Travis Perkins building are almost universally loathed. This building is owned by Camden and is up for redevelopment in the not too distant future, so you shouldn’t have to look at it for too much longer – nevertheless, I await the outcry over the proposed redevelopment.

    People are much more divided over the smaller-scale modern buildings – some appreciating their design aesthetic, others seeming to claim that anything with a more bauhaus feel is automatically ugly. Of course many modern buildings, although offering less living space, are often far more environmentally friendly than the large high-ceilinged Victorian and Edwardian mansion blocks and homes that dominate the area.

    James decided not to include the artist’s impressions of the 187-199 West End Lane development, with its set of tower blocks or the student accommodation that’s under construction down Blackburn Road at the moment. I think everyone who cared has probably expressed their view on the former, while the latter seemed to pass relatively unnoticed, despite being of a similar height.

    There are still a couple of days left to fill in James’s survey about the local area, and it’s well worth doing as this will help inform the Development Plan, which is being drafted as we speak.

    Ok, on with the results…. I’m sure you’ll have your own comments to add at the end.

    Mill Lane Shops
    		Love: 118 Need more; Hooray, lovely, more like this on Fortune Green Rd please
    No comment: 3
    Hate: 0
    Library seating
    		Love: 101 Good but should have been 3 or 4 separate benches; nice; very nice; excellent
    No comment: 9 No cleaning provided, now a rubbish dump, but an improvement; waste of money during a recession; Money donated by private donor; waste of money improvement
    Hate: 1 Should have spent it on books
    New Thameslink station
    		Love: 86 Very nice; great design; modern – nice; great new street scene; need benches please; longer to get to but looks nice; we should use the space for a weekly market
    No comment: 3Could have been more creative in using the space inside and outside; how about some seats; looks ok; need benches
    Hate: 4 Lighting not good at night
    View down Hillfield Road
    		Love: 79 Gorgeous
    No comment: 8 Beautiful; shame about the estate agent’s board; ok
    Hate: 2
    West End Green area
    		Love: 76 Gorgeous
    No comment: 3 A mess, should be improved for the community; dull paving; too much dog poo; the green needs doing up
    Hate: 4 pigeons
    Leafy Solent Road
    		Love: 73 Gorgeous
    No comment: 2 OK
    Hate: 3 too many cars
    New houses on Mill Lane
    		Love: 66 Very nice; sustainable
    No comment: 10 Ok; great; clean design; nice design but extortionate for the size of the houses; very small, very expensive
    Hate: 37 Should have had front gardens not drives; ugly; does not fit in with environment
    Extra floor added to mansion block
    		Love: 51 Blends; ok; well done; very good
    No comment: 21 Didn’t know it had been done; didn’t notice; it goes with existing building
    Hate: 3
    Mill Apartments (under construction)
    		Love: 39 Blends in well
    No comment: 13 Ok; not sure; average
    Hate: 11 too tall
    Infill house on Ravenshaw St.
    		Love: 36 Love it; great; lovely; very good
    No comment: 17 not bad; half-good half-bad; brick fits in, windows ok, maybe juts out too much; why white?
    Hate: 18 poor; not in keeping; too modern for the street
    Zero-carbon house on Ranulf Rd
    		Love: 25
    No comment: 18 Nice, but how sustainable is the wood? Interesting
    Hate: 24 ugly; took up too much road and pavement on a blind corner
    Emmanuel School
    		Love: 35 Colour of bricks will stand test of time; needed regardless of appearance; well proportioned, well detailed; not bad; not love but it’s pretty good; very good; great design
    No comment: 16 Not sure about purple bricks; brickwork rather dark; brickwork wrong, design ok; why were red bricks not used; great it’s extended but bad design
    Hate: 51 Don’t like dismal grey brick; no red bricks; too near street; ugly; grey; frontage too far out, too high; out of character; disgusting brickwork; looks like architect’s office in Berlin; shame on you Camden; industrial building
    Flats on Kingdon Rd
    		Love: 19
    No comment: 17 Does not go with red brick
    Hate: 57 Too high
    New houses on Gondar Gardens
    		Love: 16 Ok here; quite nice look and good-sized windows; successful infill
    No comment: 11Ok some issues with brick; wrong design does not match the surroundings
    Hate: 64 looks like an industrial building not a home; ugly; too much grey
    New house on Mill Lane
    		Love: 10
    No comment: 8
    Hate: 54 Awful; ugly; not in keeping; poor; urgh; terrible eyesore
    Office conversion on Sumatra Rd
    		Love: 9
    No comment: 18 Ok
    Hate: 29 ugly; more trees; shockingly ugly and cheap looking
    Ellerton Tower on Mill Lane
    		Love: 7 Classic Sydney Cook era architecture; looks like a giant snail but it is monumental; love it, from the inside top floor
    No comment: 7 Don’t like it; monster ugly
    Hate: 78 Hideous knock it down please; vile; demolish now!
    Paved-over gardens
    		Love: 6 who cares; none of our business
    No comment: 28 Ok; nice garden to sit in
    Hate: 34 environmentally unsound; shame!; ok; bad for foundations; awful; nasty; too much run off
    New building in Maygrove Rd
    		Love: 5 
    No comment: 8 good functionality; very poor exterior design; low brick wall is security risk for residents
    Hate: 33 needs trees; front looks life office building
    Buldings on Maygrove Rd
    		Love: 2
    No comment: 13 Ok
    Hate: 32
    Travis Perkins building
    		Love: 2
    No comment: 8 Rather indifferent
    Hate: 74 Demolish; horrible desing; height

  • Have your say on local planning

    If youv’e been following the birth of the Neighbourhood Development Forum, then you’ll know that the next step is to start putting together the actual plan. This is a document that will, unlike Camden’s Place Shaping document, have actual statutory powers. It must, however, be coherent will all other planning frameworks, which is basically a posh way of saying that it can’t be anti-development.

    If you were at the Jester Festival, you may have seen the NDF stall, where chair James Earl was asking people to say what they thought of various developments and buildings. When I swung by on Sunday afternoon it was noticeable that views were very mixed. Such diversity is good, I would argue, but it also means that if you don’t take an active role in helping to shape West Hampstead’s future, then you risk leaving it to people with diametrically opposed views to your own.

    To this end, can I suggest you fill in this survey https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BQNWN5B about the area, and have a think about what to say in the open questions section so that when the plan is being devised it can truly reflect the viewpoints of the community and not just the few people who always fill in such forms.

  • Place plan published – actions for West Hampstead

    West Hampstead will be a place where local communities experience real benefits from the opportunities that come with redevelopment and people feel that they have influenced and shaped how investment is made in the area. Support for local business will be a key part of enhancing the distinctive village character and more local jobs will contribute to a successful local economy. Local services, housing, open spaces and facilities will meet the needs of local communities as will the quality of experience that people have moving around the area. Cooperation with local people, voluntary sector organisations, developers, businesses and the council will make this happen.

    This is the vision for West Hampstead, as laid out by the place plan finally published by Camden council. From this extract it feels a bit like “local shops for local people”, but this document really isn’t that parochial. It has been quite some time in the making, and I’ve reported on its progress over the past 12 months.

    You can access the original, or view a version where I’ve ringed the passages that I think are particularly worth reading (also embedded below).

    The idea of the Place Plan is to set some context for local development – of which much is planned over the next 5-10 years. It has no statutory power, but the council are supposed to take it into account when assessing planning applications, and budget allocation. It is very strongly informed by local residents – even by readers of this website (as it mentions on page 10) – and I can imagine that lobbying groups are likely to refer to it heavily when responding to proposed changes.

    One of the underlying objectives is to make people feel (hopefully justifiably) that they have some input into what happens around them. In this regard, the Place Plan should dovetail with the Neighbourhood Development Plan.

    To quote the report:

    “This ‘placeshaping’ approach is about taking the opportunity to think and act strategically about how to address these needs in terms of investment decisions, service delivery and physical changes. Understanding local concerns and priorities is at the heart of this approach which is all the more important against a backdrop of reduced Council resources arising from reductions in central government funding.”

    Although it has no legal bearing on anything at all, it does purport to enable locals to hold the council to account over the concrete measures that it says it will undertake (starting from page 46). It is also a dynamic document and action plans can (and hopefully will) be updated as the situation evolves.

    The plan is broken down into five sections, and each has a series of objectives.

    1. Development. To secure real local benefit from development opportunities. Key objectives: Work with the community to develop more detailed area planning guidance; involve the local community (where possible) in identifying priorities for how developer contributions are used.
    2. Economy. To support a successful local economy with a thriving neighbourhood. Key objectives: protect and promote the village character of the area; support West End Lane and Mill Lane shops and businesses; meet the needs of the people who live, work and visit the area.
    3. Environment. To provide new open space and improve the local environment. Key objectives: provide new accessible open space to benefit the area; continue to improve open spaces, food growing, biodiversity and sustainability; maintain the valued quality and historic character of the area.
    4. Services. To deliver improved local services. Key objectives: continue to monitor the demand for school places and nursery provision; continue to support local voluntary sector organisations and investigate innovative delivery of services; negotiate with developers for ‘affordable’ provision of community space for local groups.
    5. Transport. To make it easier and more pleasant for people to move around the area. Key objective: Continue to improve how people move around and between the three stations.

    Generally there’s not much that’s controversial here. I’ve been at two of the group consultation sessions and these were the main topics that emerged – naturally with different people placing different emphases on them. I know some people think the idea of West Hampstead as any sort of village is risible, but it’s certainly a focal point both for transport and shopping/entertainment (more of the latter than the former these days). I’m pleased to see such specific recognition of the challenges facing Mill Lane, and a statement of intent to work on improving the street without sacrificing its character.

    Amid all the bullet points and action plans, there are a few interesting comments in the overall vision and background section. Despite generally high levels of satisfaction among residents the plan recognises that different segments of the local population do not necessarily interact. Is this unusual, and does it matter? I would argue no it’s not unusual, but yes, it does matter. It matters because if we take one cut – age – 20-34 year-olds account for roughly half West Hampstead’s population, yet barely figure when it comes to deliberating local issues.

    Although younger people here may not be long-term residents (largely, anecdotally, because they can’t afford to stay rather than because they don’t want to), it would be a mistake to think they don’t care. They also, inevitably, have some different priorities and sometimes a more forward looking outlook. It is to the council’s credit that one of the reasons they have involved me in this placeshaping process is because it gave them access to the views of younger people.

    Although not explicitly discussed in the Place Plan, there is also something of an affluence divide. I heard at a recent local event that some of West Hampstead less well-off residents sometimes feel that they don’t fit in at lots of these community activities. Meanwhile, I wonder how many people in the “young professional” category avail themselves of the services offered by, for example, Sidings Community Centre. Just a thought. I hope that everyone feels welcome to attend #whampevents.

    Do have a read of the document. There was plenty of cynicism at the first meeting I attended about the real impact such an initiative could have. At least by setting out clear actions, the council is saying “judge us on progress”, even if you think that many of them are a little vague, with a focus on “identifying”, “facilitating”, “monitoring”, “supporting” and “exploring” rather than more concrete words like “investing”, “building”, “changing”, or “upgrading”.

    West Hampstead Place Plan_annotated