West Hampstead Life

Category: Planning & Development

  • City Hall gives the go ahead for 187-199 West End Lane

    It was the news many residents feared. On Tuesday, City Hall decided not to raise any objections to the proposed development of 198 flats, including a 12-storey tower, in West Hampstead. Here’s the relevant extract from an e-mail sent by the public liaison team:

    “On 27 March 2012, Sir Edward Lister, the Deputy Mayor and Chief of Staff, acting under delegated authority, considered a further report on the matter (PDU/2832/02) and decided that he was content to allow Camden Council to determine the application itself, subject to any action the Secretary of State may wish to take and therefore did not wish to direct refusal.”

    Camden has already approved the plans, so it rather seems as if that is that. The developers had previously stated that work would start in spring 2013 and it’s a two-year build. It will be interesting to see whether the height and scale of this development prompts other developers to be more ambitious with their own plans for other sites as and when they come up. Are we entering an era of high-rise West Hampstead?

  • Do we need more visitor parking?

    Last week, a Twitter debate raged (i.e., a few people commented for about an hour) about whether West End Lane needs more pay & display parking to encourage people from outside the area to come in to West Hampstead to shop/eat/drink, especially during the week. It’s a timely discussion, in light of Camden’s imminent parking review. Here’s how it went – more commentary after the tweets.

    Afterwards, I asked André for some more background on the problem as he sees it.

    “It took me years to recognise the problem, so I do see it from the locals’ point of view: the idea of more traffic, more pollution, harder for locals to park etc. I empathise with and experience that myself.

    But 20 or so extra pay & displays (that exclude residents permits) would make little difference to those issues – in fact, maybe less traffic as people wouldn’t be circling for hours. But it would make a positive difference to retailers.”

    At the recent West Hampstead business forum meetings that have started, it’s been a strongly voiced concern. Weekends in West Hampstead are generally busy and profitable, but weekdays can be a struggle. It’s true that the area has a high number of self-employed and home workers, but they’re not hanging out in cafés all day (unless it’s to have a cappuccino while they use the Wifi) and aside from lunchtime, it’s not that busy around the area, especially at the northern end of West End Lane away from the transport hub.

    Click for full-size. NB: predates new Thameslink station on Iverson Rd

    He says that customers tell him and other local business owners that they hesitate to come during the day because they can’t park. “This is one big fat feedback message that echoes around West Hampstead every day.”

    “I had a meeting last week around midday, the guy called to say he’d been circling for 45 minutes and could we postpone… and he wanted to sell me something! Customers aren’t that determined. In fact, we’ve lost valued suppliers because they decided parking’s too difficult.”

    Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this is that the people who proclaim to support independent businesses are also those who tend to be anti-car. So how do we reconcile that? People want more people to use our local businesses so they stay, but they don’t want more traffic – either locally or even generally. West Hampstead is, of course, amazingly well connected by public transport so the arguments of those who say enough people can come in to the area that way are valid. But are they realistic? If you live further out on the Jubilee or Met lines, or along the Overground routes, do you know much about West Hampstead – would you come in and meet your friends for lunch here, or pop into the bookshop rather than going somewhere else nearer and more convenient?

    Perhaps there’s an argument for targeted marketing. Lets say Camden agreed that footfall was low in some parts of the area, perhaps they could split the relevant budget between pay & display parking and funding marketing for the area in very specific places along the transport corridors so we try and boost footfall but do so using public transport. Certainly any pay & display parking would have to have restrictions that meant it matched the need without encouraging excessive car use when it wasn’t needed – at weekends for example when there’s enough footfall in West End Lane already.

    There is one very different perspective: keep the cars away and footfall low and the large chains will start to lose interest/move out, which could bring rents down and make local busineses more viable. But that’s a long-term game, and at odds with the fact that West Hampstead is destined for a large increase in population over the next 10 years.

    What do you think? Is there a problem at all? Is a small amount of extra parking going to make much difference? Is it worth trying to lure the residents of Elstree & Borehamwood, or Stanmore, or Acton onto the tubes and trains to visit West Hampstead? Perhaps businesses should behave very differently on weekdays and weekends to maintain profitability?

  • Neighbourhood Development Forum moves forward

    Following the first meeting in January, and enthusiasm for a Neighbourhood Development Plan for West Hampstead, a second meeting of the Forum was held at the end of February. The minutes are below.

    Personally (and I haven’t been able to attend the meetings, so can’t blame anyone for this), I think it’s a shame that the southern boundary of West Hampstead ward delineates the edge of the area being considered (see point 6 below). There are pockets of both Swiss Cottage and Kilburn wards that could be considered part of West Hampstead (certainly in comparison to parts of Fortune Green ward, which abut Cricklewood Broadway).

    I like the fact, however, that the emphasis is on making this process open to individuals rather than just the residents associations and community groups (see point 7). Although these groups often work tirelessly on various campaigns, they don’t necessarily reflect the area’s true demographics. If you’re interested in being involved with the NDP then do join in – it is early days for the whole concept nationally, so it’s hard to say now whether the impact will be substantive but, in my view, it presents a good opportunity in my view to help shape the area you live in.

    1. Welcome & Introductions:
    James welcomed everyone to the second meeting of the Forum.

    2. Minutes of the last meeting – 25th January:
    There were no corrections.

    3. Further questions on NDPs:
    Michael asked what NDPs would look like. James said it wasn’t clear as there are no final examples to look at; some are being drawn up in pilot areas. Sue said research online can give an idea of what people in different places are aiming at. James said the finalised regulations, which will set out how NDPs work and need to be established, won’t be published until early April.

    4. Initial work – recent developments:
    James said he was aware that some people were keen to start work on the plan; there were complaints that the first meeting focussed too much on process. He said he wanted to take up a suggestion from Mark Stonebanks to start work on an initial project, which will aim to form the basis of the Plan. It will focus on looking at existing and recent developments in WH&FG. James asked for volunteers to come forward and offer to get involved. It’s hoped this work will be reported back to the Forum in March or April.

    John said such a project needed to set out what is/isn’t acceptable and give examples. Sue said the work could reflect the recently published draft Place Shaping document eg the desire to protect the ‘village feel’ of the area.

    5. Place shaping workshop – 8th February:
    This was held to discuss Camden Council’s draft Place Shaping Plan (PSP) for West Hampstead. The PSP aims to reflect the views of local residents in terms of what they want the future shape of WH to be. It will be given to developers planning to build new developments in the area. It was questioned whether developers would pay any attention to the PSP or the NDP – unlike PSPs, NDPs will have a statutory role in the planning process. Cllr Bryant said the PSP would also be used in the development of council owned and private development sites. It was pointed out the PSP is a very generalise document setting out ‘an outline vision’ for the area. There was a feeling that the PSP should mention a future NDP – James said he would feedback this comment. Sue said the final version of the PSP would be useful when it comes to writing the NDP; she said we should aim to make the two documents mutually supportive.

    6. Agreement on area to be covered by the NDP:
    Following on from the discussions at the last meeting, it was agreed to largely stick to the existing ward boundaries of FG&WH. In the east, it was agreed to keep the boundary as Finchley Road. In the north, it was agreed to keep to the northern boundary of Camden borough. In the West, there was discussion about Cricklewood and Kilburn – James said he would find out about any plans for a Cricklewood NDP; John proposed excluding the Kilburn High Road from our area. In the south, it was agreed to stick to the current southern boundary of WH ward. A final decision on the NDP boundaries will need to be made at the next Forum meeting, so that our application can be made to Camden Council in early April.

    7. Constitution:
    A draft constitution had been circulated to members ahead of the meeting. There was discussion about membership of the Forum and whether it should be for individuals and/or groups. A number of speakers said they did not want the Forum to be a federation of associations, arguing it should be open to all residents regardless of whether or not they are members of a local group. The majority view was that membership should be for individuals, with groups invited to support/donate to the Forum. There was also discussion about a membership fee and how this would be imposed, and whether donations should be requested instead. James said money was needed for room hire and printing. There was also discussion about voting and how to prevent one particular group or part of the area dominating the Forum.  There were questions about how meetings would work and whether there was a need for steering committee.

    James said he had noted the views expressed and would rewrite sections of the draft. A second draft will be circulated with the minutes and further comments invited. A final version will be put to a vote and adopted at the next meeting.

    8. Funding:
    A number of residents associations have offered to contribute the £50 suggested at the previous meeting. Funds will be collected once a Treasurer is elected and a bank account opened. One group had asked to see a budget; James said it was too early to be able to draw up a financial plan for the Forum. Nancy suggested bidding for additional funding. Money might also be available from S106 agreements with developers.

    9. Future plans – March/April meetings:
    James said the March meeting would vote to adopt the constitution and elect officers. An officer from Camden Council’s Place Shaping team would be invited. In April, a Planning officer will be invited to discuss the NDP rules and regulations.

    10. Do we continue?:
    It was agreed to continue with the Forum and go ahead with the NDP.

    11. Any other business:
    Camden Council’s Development Control Committee will consider the 187-199 West End Lane proposed development at a meeting on Thursday 1st March.
    Gillian said WH councillors were canvassing views on the proposed development at 163 Iverson Road (the site of the former garden centre).
    There are plans for an 18 day music festival on Kilburn Grange at the same time as the Olympic Games; Camden Council is asking for comments.
    There is a London Civic Forum event to discuss NDPs on Saturday 3rd March.
    Details were circulated about proposals to redevelop the King’s College site on Kidderpore Avenue.

    12. Next meeting:
    The next meeting will be on Monday 26th March at 7.30pm – venue tbc.

  • 187-199: Focus shifts to City Hall

    A group of West Hampstead residents unhappy with Camden council’s decision to approve the plans for 187-199 West End Lane have written to City Hall (and David Cameron!) to express their views. The Mayor’s Office will be deciding the next steps with all outcomes still on the table. The full text of the letter is below.

    I’ve followed up with a couple of the councillors who voted in favour to find out their reasoning in light of the strength of objection to the scale of the development. The response has been much the same as Cllr Hayward’s comment on the night: “given the other benefits I think we should approve it.”

    Cllr Jonathan Simpson said, “There didn’t seem a policy reason to vote against,” while Cllr Andrew Marshall tweeted: “on [a] scheme like this it’s overall balance, but housing volume, the section 106, the square, plus I’m not so anti tall buildings!”.

    Given the complexity of planning decisions, there is a view that if the planning officer who has worked with the developer feels it should get the go ahead, it is hard for the committee to object. 

    The more I dig into all this, the less convinced I am that some of the emotive language in this objection letter, such as “It will have a chilling impact on the local community,” is especially helpful. As someone whose main objections are the height/scale of the development, the siting of the affordable housing, and what I see as a lack of rigor in the analysis of the traffic/parking situation, I’d rather see less “chilling impact” (although such rhetoric might appeal to Boris), and more of the dull sentences like:

    “The height, bulk and density of the development is far above the existing historical, mainly Edwardian and Victorian dwellings and contravenes Camden’s Core strategy CS14.” 

    That is, fewer subjective issues and more policy reasons for a committee to demand some reduction in scale.

    What’s CS14? This refers to the section in the council’s Core Strategy document on “Promoting high quality places and conserving our heritage”

    “The Council will ensure that Camden’s places and buildings are attractive, safe and easy to use by: a) requiring development of the highest standard of design that respects local context and character;”

    Paragraph 14.2 states:

    “Our overall strategy is to sustainably manage growth in Camden so it meets our needs for homes, jobs and services in a way that conserves and enhances the features that make the borough such an attractive place to live, work and visit. Policy CS14 plays a key part in achieving this by setting out our approach to conserving and, where possible, enhancing our heritage and valued places, and to ensuring that development is of the highest standard and reflects, and where possible improves, its local area.”

    When I raised this “context and character” point with one of the councillors, the response was that it didn’t apply to this development because it wasn’t in a conservation area, but conservation areas are dealt with separately; this is a borough wide strategy.

    Clearly it’s possible – indeed correct – to argue that this site is not a “valued place”, but this local context and character is more interesting. This is partly about architecture, and the developers would argue that the choice of colours and building materials does broadly fit in with the local area. But what about the scale? Paragraph 14.8:

    “While tall buildings offer the opportunity for intensive use, their siting and design should be carefully considered in order to not detract from the nature of surrounding places and the quality of life for living and working around them. Applications for tall buildings will be considered against policy CS14, and policies DP24 Securing high quality design and DP25 Conserving Camden’s heritage in Camden Development Policies, along with the full range of policies on mixed use, sustainability, amenity and microclimate. Effect on views and provision of communal and private amenity space will also be important considerations.”

    And what’s DP24? That’s from Camden’s Development Policies document. It says:

    “The Council will require all developments, including alterations and extensions to existing buildings, to be of the highest standard of design and will expect developments to consider: a) character, setting, context and the form and scale of neighbouring buildings;”

    One might argue that being twice the height of existing buildings, is not considering the character or scale of neighbouring buildings. The full text of DP24 is worth reading (the entire DP document is on Camden’s website).

    West Hampstead is mentioned specifically in the Core Strategy docment, under CS7 “Promoting Camden’s centres and shops”. Here are some of the relevant bullet points:

    “The Council… will …

    • seek to improve the street environment south of West End Green, in particular, to enhance the street scene around the transport interchange area between Broadhurst Gardens and the Thameslink station;
    • ensure that development around the interchange provides an appropriate mix of uses and contributes towards improved interchange facilities and a high quality street environment.”

    The development does tick these boxes – whether you think it’s the best way of achieving these aims is another matter, but it will help improve the interchange area.

    So, anyway, those of you that want to carry on the fight to make this development more reflective of West Hampstead’s “local context and character”, should get your objections in. Our London Assembly member is Brian Coleman. If you’re a glutton for reading, then here’s the document that explains the Mayor’s role in strategic planning, alternatively, there’s a brief overview. Or you may feel that, given development on this site is inevitable, this proposal could be worse. It’s all the Ocado drivers delivering groceries to 200 flats down one narrow access road that I feel sorry for!

    187-199 Objection Letter

  • Camden approves 187-199 West End Lane plan

    On Thursday night, Camden’s Development Control Committee sat, and the first issue on the agenda was the 187-199 West End Lane development. This was to decide whether to accept or reject the plan. You can watch the proceedings below (it’s long – runs to 1h35), but to cut to the chase the plan was accepted with a condition to look into adding car club spaces (there is provision for two at the moment).

    Loading…

    The session kicked off with a presentation by Max Smith, Camden’s planning officer, which set the context for the plans. (His full written report is referred to in the video) I was surprised at this being very much in favour of the proposals rather than being neutral. Shows what I know about how councils work I guess. There were two interesting bits of this presentation. First, the announcments that the developers had pledged £30,000 to support master planning in the wider West Hampstead area in light of the large number of developments happening (a cynical person might see that as a sop to locals).

    Second, the issue of building height: “Consideration was given to asking the developer to reduce the scale, but losing a floor or two wouldn’t reduce the scale significantly, and there would be a price to pay for that in terms of affordable housing or the other benefits that would be provided by the scheme.” Some photos were shown to reinforce this point, although one suspects that for the nearest of neighbours the impact would acutally be quite noticeable.

    Deputations were made against the development by WHGARA’s Stephen Nathan QC and a resident of Rowntree Close, and in favour of the development by a young local resident, although it wasn’t clear who if anyone he represented. Bit odd.

    The councillors then made lots of comments and asked questions of the planning officers. This all goes on quite a bit. Some councillors, notably Fortune Green councillor Flick Rea, clearly had reservations. West Hampstead ward councillor Gillian Risso-Gill abstained from the vote as she opted to speak against the development (council protocol deems this to be prejudicial, so abstention is expected). Other councillors had specific issues they wanted answers on, especially on how the affordable housing was distributed (this has slightly improved since the last plans), those car club places, and community services such as education.

    There seemed to be a concern that failing to approve the plan would lead to delays, which could have a major financial impact. Let me explain. Plans of this scale that are approved after April 1st will have to pay a Crossrail levy (yes, even those in areas like West Hampstead that won’t be affected or benefit especially from Crossrail). This would amount to some £700,000 for this development. To pay for that, Ballymore and Network Rail have two options: they either try and make more money from the development, or they take the money from somewhere else. Right now, they have allocated £900,000 to improve the area around the Overground station, and indeed there would eventually be access from a new Overground ticket hall into the new development as well as out onto West End Lane. Reducing the proportion of affordable housing on the site would be another option, but one less popular with the council, and building yet more storeys onto the tower blocks is probably also a non-starter.

    Given that there will be development on this site, so the issue is scale not “yes/no” to anything at all, one might conclude that the thought of losing £700,000 to the Mayor’s Crossrail fund sticks in the throat of the council more than the idea that West Hampstead’s much vaunted “village” atmosphere might struggle in the face of a 12-storey tower block flanked by some smaller brethren.

    Cllr Sarah Hayward perhaps captured the mood of other committee members in favour when she pithily said “I don’t think the architecture is up to much, but given the other benefits I think we should approve it”.

    What now? Well, as you’ll know, the plans now have to be sent to City Hall where the Mayor’s office will have 14 days to give the green light, or reject them. Bear in mind that the plans have already been deemed “non-compliant” with the London plan, so it would be odd if City Hall just waved them through. So, here’s a thought – as I understand it, as Camden has passed the plans, money won’t be diverted to Crossrail even if City Hall requires some changes. Had they been rejected by Camden and then resubmitted at a later date, that money would have gone.

    I’ve already been contacted by one local resident asking what can be done to challenge the decision. Anyone (councillors?) who knows what the next steps are, let me know and happy to post.

    Here’s how they voted
    For: Cllrs Apak, Gimson, Hayward, Marshall, Nuti, Sanders, Simpson
    Against: Cllrs Braithwaite, Freeman, Rea

  • The Thameslink station: Love it or loathe it

    When the new West Hampstead Thameslink station opened in December last year, the broad consensus seemed to be positive.

    Photo: Peter Cook

    The “modest yet thoughtfully designed” (according to Architecture Today) modern glass structure made a statement but there weren’t too many objections, despite the plans having been scaled down from something more interesting due to budget constraints. It also was more or less on time – and the site constraints had given rise to some construction challenges (again, the Architecture Today article has a lot more detail). Here’s a timelapse video of the project.

    Mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone came along to the opening, and said a few words.

    The large open boulevard along Iverson Road also seemed like a refreshing change although it was predictable that the green tiling wouldn’t be to everyone’s taste.

    Fast forward a couple of months, with the northern entrance now open again so people aren’t missing their trains because they can’t leave the house one minute earlier, and murmurs of dissent are appearing on Twitter. Last week there was a brief flurry of messages on the topic.

    Personally, I quite like the station building, but there is an undeniable mismatch between the station and the footbridge that leads to the platforms. This, as most of you will know, was in place long before the station building work began – they were sadly not an integrated design and it shows. What’s your view? Is this a landmark building West Hampstead should be proud of, or a harbinger of the architectural doom that lies ahead in the next wave of development in the area. Or do you simply not care?

  • WHGARA’s objection to 187-199 West End Lane

    Local residents association WHGARA has perhaps been the most vocal opponent of the proposals to redevelop 187-199 West End Lane. Here is a copy of its submission to the Camden Development Control Committee, which it will make on March 1st.

    187-199 WEST END LANE APPLICATION No 2011/6129/P
    DEPUTATION SUBMISSION DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF WEST HAMPSTEAD GARDENS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION (WHGARA) IN OPPOSITION TO GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION TO THE ABOVE SCHEME
    FROM STEPHEN NATHAN Q.C., Chairman

    1. WHGARA represents the residents of the area of West Hampstead, immediately next to and south of the proposed development. This application directly affects every one who lives in this Association’s area and who will see – and experience the consequences of – these overbearing tower blocks every day of every year.

    We speak also for the interests of the wider number of residents of this part of West Hampstead who come and visit our area who have no one to speak for them. Many individuals, groups and businesses in this community will be disadvantaged for no good reason other than the profits to be made by the developers.

    2. We support and agree with all that has been said by all three of our West Hampstead Councillors, Keith Moffitt, John Bryant and Gillian Risso-Gill. They speak with one voice in opposing this development in its present form with convincing reasons. We ask you to accept what they say. West Hampstead is primarily a residential area of low-rise housing – none more than 4 or 5 storeys high. Our Victorian and Edwardian forefathers recognised that low levels in a suburban environment are a necessary and attractive feature of town planning. As a result, even the tallest existing buildings are within a human scale. Blocks along West End Lane’s going towards Abbey Road are only 4- 5 storeys high. There are no tall buildings away from West End Lane itself. In the last 40 years, there has been no permission in West Hampstead, Hampstead, Swiss Cottage, St John Wood or Child’s Hill for a developer to build a 12 storey residential tower block – a skyscraper – let alone two more blocks which are10 storeys high. We have a heritage of a built-environment with a rich social mix of residents and many small businesses. Many other developers are waiting to see what the outcome of this application is going to be.

    3. We are at a defining moment. This joint development by a public body – Network Rail – and its private enterprise partner, Ballymore is totally out of keeping with anything that has gone before and is closer to the ghastly tower blocks which planners allowed to be built in the 1960s. It represents a massive overdevelopment of a small, narrow and tapering site. The site may be ripe for development, but not like this. It defies Camden Core Development policy CS 5 and is detrimental in great measure to the amenity of all local residents. It goes against Core Policy CS 14, because it is completely at odds with the context and character of the area. It has few saving graces and nil charm.

    4. Much emphasis has, for instance, been laid on payback in the form of a small public square, just by the railway station. In reality, it is just about twice the size of the fire-station forecourt in West End Lane. It will contribute little to our community and the reality is that any developer of the site is going to do much the same kind of thing, because a small open space is needed there nowadays to allow for the current, very large number of daily commuters who use the 3 stations which lie next to each other.

    5. The size and bulk of the development is hostile to our environment and will have a chilling impact on our community. This is not central, inner London, but a lovely village, close to the centre. Queen Victoria used to go riding along West End Lane because it was a pleasant place to come. These tower blocks are going to be directly visible from a great number of places – not least from West End. They overshadow (from the south) the nearest street –Iverson Road- robbing it of light. To allow the construction of 1 x 12 storeys, 2 x 10 storeys and 2 x 8 storeys anywhere, let alone on this small site of less than 1 hectare would be unforgivable. These tower blocks will be there, long after our lifetimes. The Members of this Committee must not bestow such a ghastly legacy on this generation and the many generations to come. Get it into perspective: the height of the 12 storey block is more than twice as high as St Pancras. There is an almost complete absence of a proper analysis of this impact in the Officers’ report.

    6. Although the Mayor’s Intensification Plan may envisage 800 new homes in the area, it does not mean that 25% of that plan needs to be stuffed onto one small site. The designation as a growth area does not mean that just one developer partnership should be allowed by our elected representatives to rob our community of its pleasant environment and to set a chilling precedent that other developers will eagerly follow. This development represents over-ambition and a thirst for unjustified profits by Network Rail and its partners at our environmental and social expense. The size of the buildings is driven by the commercial decision to cram in 200 or so apartments – as if this was in the heart of the West End or the City. We ask the committee members, as our elected representatives, to moderate this scheme to not more than 6-8 storeys and send the message to the developers to go back to the drawing board. The development as proposed will devastate the infrastructure and village feel of West Hampstead, which the draft Place Shaping document describes as the KEY ATTRIBUTE of this area.

    7. Some of the statistics deployed by the developers are highly suspect and, as the Councillors point out, out of date. For instance, these 200 homes will produce some 700 – 800 new residents, given the mix of flats. The developers claim only 363 residents on the basis that no bedroom would be occupied by more than one person! That is obviously nonsense. They suggest that there will be only 72 children needing new school places, whereas the true number will be many more. There are just 2 doctors’ surgeries within or on the fringe of the West Hampstead Ward – So the developers used a one mile radius instead, and included any surgery in Kilburn, St John’s Wood, Swiss Cottage and so on. The calculations concerning increased pressure on public transport and traffic generally are also unusually low.

    8. The impact on local parking is unpredictable because of car-capping. “Let them use car clubs” -you may say, but the Application provides for a tiny number of car club parking spaces and completely ignores the impact of residents and their visitors who will want to park – outside controlled hours. 14% of residents in West Hampstead, according to the Council, commute by car. For this development alone, that equates to well over 100 new residents’ cars, which will be searching the surrounding streets for spaces at night and weekends. And that does not take into account the delivery vans servicing the number of shops in the proposed scheme, for whom almost no special provision has been made.

    SUMMARY
    9. This is an Application for a completely overwhelming and undistinguished piece of architecture, involving a huge overdevelopment of a small site and one which is going to impact adversely on all our lives and the future generations to come. If built, this is not going to win any prizes – only universal condemnation for the developers and the town planners who allowed it, contrary to the local community’s strong objections and in the face of broad local protest.

    We, therefore, ask the Committee to refuse the application.
    Stephen Nathan QC, Chairman, WHGARA. 27.ii.2012

  • Abbey Area Development will go to City Hall

    Those of you living at the southern end of the neighbourhood are probably already up to speed with the extensive plans to redevelop the Abbey area estate at the Belsize Road/Abbey Road junction. There has already been a public consultation on this.

    If you’re not sure what this is, The Abbey Area Redevelopment Project is a part of Camden’s estate regeneration programme approved in December 2007. The proposals involve the demolition and replacement of 70 homes at Emminster and Hinstock, a community centre health centre and some shops along with the existing Belsize Road multi-storey car park. Casterbridge and Snowman House tower blocks (the two big ones the east side of Abbey Road) would be retained with alterations proposed at the base of the buildings.

    The new scheme will provide up to 299 homes including provision for larger family accommodation for affordable rent, some new homes for shared ownership and private sale.

    Click for full-size version

    The proposals also allow for the delivery of new community and health facilities at the base of the retained Casterbridge and Snowman House tower blocks along with new retail and business space to support the existing and new community. Here’s what the plans look like.

    As you can see, it’s a large-scale development. Just for a bit of historical context, here’s what the site looked like in 1940.

    I can’t immediately find evidence that this site was bombed, but it seems highly likely given that railways were targeted. The area was redeveloped in the 1960s and 1970s, including the Grade II listed Alexandra & Ainsworth estate (aka Rowley Way), which is outside the scope of this plan. The site also is adjacent to the proposed HS2 line out of Euston, however, HS2 shouldn’t affect these current plans, which would be underway well before HS2 construction starts in earnest. (There is an issue down the other end of Rowley Way with an access shaft for HS2, but that’s for another post.)

    As would be expected for a development of this size, City Hall has already responded to the plans. There are a few areas where they are non-compliant with the London plan, and the final application will have to go before City Hall and cannot just be passed by Camden. The devil here is largely in the detail. Here’s the relevant extract from the report:

    “London Plan policies on land use, housing, estate renewal, affordable housing, housing choice, density, child playspace, tall buildings, design, inclusive access, noise, climate change and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

    • Land use: The principle of this residential led estate renewal scheme is supported
    • Housing, estate renewal, affordable housing and housing choice: Further discussion is needed on viability, tenure mix and minimum levels of affordable family housing
    • Density: the density should be calculated using the indicative scheme and in line with London plan guidance.
    • Child playspace: a playspace strategy should be submitted and off-site improvements committed to
    • Tall buildings and design: the design principles are generally supported however further discussions is needed on materials and the appearance of the tall building in particular
    • Inclusive access: Further information and commitments are needed.
    • Noise: Further information and commitments are needed.
    • Climate change: Further information and commitments are needed.
    • Transport: Further information and commitments are needed.”

    Some of these issues sound a bit like dotting the i’s, but others – the child playspace and the tenure mix of units – present more of a challenge to the developers. You can read the full report here.

    Camden’s planning site has all the documents related to the plan, including the reports on the retail situation – will Oscar’s Den be given first option on a new retail space? We can but hope.

    Meanwhile, here’s an annotated copy of the full proposals (look out for the pages with the big green ticks, and the red outlines). Click on the title for access to the full-size version.

    Abbey Area Redevelopment Project

  • First meeting for West Hampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan

    Under the Localism Act, communities can form a Neighbourhood Development Plan. Given the extent of potential development in West Hampstead, James Earl from Fordwych Residents Association has proposed that we form one. The first meeting to get the ball rolling on this took place on January 25th. James forwarded me the minutes.

    1. Welcome & Introductions:
    James thanked everyone for coming & thanked the Sidings Community Centre for hosting the first meeting of the Forum.

    2. Election of interim chair:
    James was elected with no objections; there were no other candidates.

    3. Membership, future elections & constitution:
    It was agreed to keep the Forum as inclusive as possible. Anyone living or working in the area should be able to attend meetings and contribute to the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

    James said a future meeting would elect a chair, vice-chair, secretary & treasurer. There was a discussion about sharing or revolving posts and the Forum not being hierarchical, but it was agreed that permanent officers would be needed to lead the work of the Forum.

    As part of the requirements set down for NDPs any group drawing up a plan needs a constitution. A group in Kentish Town has already drawn up a document for their group. James said he would draft a constitution for the next meeting & circulate to those interested beforehand.

    4. Introduction to Neighbourhood Development Plans:
    James outlined the basic idea behind NDPs, which are set out in the Localism Act, which comes into force in April 2012. A number of points were raised:

    • It was pointed that it was a resident led process, not a council-led or top down process.
    • Any NDP needs to fit in with the Camden Council Local Development Framework (LDF) & the Mayor of London’s London Plan (LP).
    • An NDP can’t propose less development – but can set out where future development should be located.
    • Residents can list things they don’t want – eg very high buildings.
    • There was concern that an NDP wouldn’t carry much weight & would not affect new developments.
    • An NDP is a chance to be more locally focussed than the LDF.
    • An NDP could link in with the Camden Council ‘Place Shaping Plan’ for WH & the Area Action forums.
    • If we don’t draw up a plan, someone else (eg a developer) could.
    • The area around the railway stations marked as an area of intensification in the LP can’t be overturned.
    • The NDP could be an opportunity for developers to give more back to the community – there were complaints that the current Section 106 agreements are a closed process.
    • The NDP will not stop current developments but will be able to shape future developments.
    • The NDP needs to be a forward thinking document that considers infrastructure too – such as transport, schools, health services etc.
    • The Forum has the chance to create a positive document that has a strong and lasting effect on our area.
    • The Forum can usefully bring together people and RAs from different parts of the local area and give residents a stronger and unified voice.

    5. Camden Council workshop – 24th January:
    Those who attended said there were both positive and negative voices about NDPs – there is a need to be realistic about what a NDP can achieve. People should go into the process with their eyes open.

    When NDPs come into force they will have a formal role in the planning process and can be referred to when commenting on/objecting to planning applications. The Council are keen for Forums to work with them and engage in a dialogue. Forums need to be clear about what they want to achieve and be aware of the other changes to the planning system. The Council will have to approve the proposed NDP area; there can’t be overlapping plans. The Plan will need to be approved in a referendum, so will need to attract wide support.

    It was pointed out that NDPs were originally designed for villages wanting more development.

    There is a surprising amount of land in our area that could be developed in the future – although new developments can also take place when existing buildings are knocked down.

    6. Issues to be covered by the Plan:
    James set out a range of different issues that could be covered by the NDP. As well as future development, it could include – traffic/street issues; businesses; green space; community facilities; local services etc.

    Residents are keen to focus on the ‘village feel’ of the area and in particular the shops & businesses on West End Lane & Mill Lane.

    The Forum will need to identify the priorities for the area and its residents/businesses.

    It was suggested that the Forum could look at recent development in the area and what does & doesn’t work.

    It was agreed to ask a Camden Council planning officer to a future meeting to ask questions.

    7. Area to be covered by the Plan:
    James said the original proposal for the area used the current ward boundaries for Fortune Green and West Hampstead. In the East, this is Finchley Road; in the North, the northern boundary of Camden Council; in West, Cricklewood Broadway/Shoot-up Hill/Kllburn High Road; & in the South, part railway line, part streets in South Hampstead.

    There was a discussion about excluding Cricklewood/Kilburn areas, in case they wanted to come up with their own NDP for the high streets.

    In the NW, some of the streets might want to tie in with Barnet.

    It was suggested consulting with CRASH on the southern boundary.

    There was a suggestion to keep the Plan focussed on the area around the interchange, as this is the area affected by big developments. Others felt it would be more useful to bring the wider community together, and people living away from the interchange area were affected by it.

    On a show of hands, a clear majority agreed to proceed by including the full area covered by the two wards.

    8. Proposed timescale:
    James said that because of the number of developments being proposed in the area, it was best to get on with the Plan as soon as possible. He said he thought it was realistic to have the Plan drawn up within the next year, with a referendum in spring 2013. Those present agreed that it would be wise to move quickly and start work on the Plan sooner rather than later.

    9. Funding:
    The Forum will need money to pay for meeting venues, printing, administration etc. There might also be a need to employ professional help with the plan. There is no money at present and no money from the Council. It was suggested local RAs could each contribute £50 to get the Forum going. S106 funding could be sought from the current developments. Local businesses could be asked to contribute.

    10. Other issues:
    There is a Camden Council West Hampstead Place Shaping workshop on February 8th. Those attending can report back to the next Forum meeting. [Ed: my report on that workshop]

    There was a call to continue to oppose the current proposed developments in the area; if they are rejected, the sites could be covered by the Plan when it comes into force.

    11. Future meetings:
    James said he would like to have monthly meetings to help get the Forum and the process established.

    The next meeting will look to agree on the area & constitution – plus initial work on the Plan.

    The next meeting will be on Tuesday 28th February at 7.30pm – venue tbc.

  • Place shaping update

    Last Wednesday, the usual suspects along with a few welcome newcomers gathered in a chilly hall in Dennington Park Road to discuss the draft vision and action plan for West Hampstead’s place shaping programme.

    In small groups we discussed whether we agreed with the broad vision statements. There was some disagreement about the need to “attract visitors”, with the more business-focused people arguing that West Hampstead very much should encourage more visitors to help support the local businesses here, while some of the longer-standing residents felt that we had visitors aplenty thanks to the stations and the congestion on the roads was already too much.

    The meeting focused on what some of the concrete actions were that would help realise the vision and, in true Big Society fashion, who the groups or people were who might be able to help – including the council of course. Stimulating local business and encouraging local shops proved popular topics again, with the proviso that seems to be need to be repeated ad nauseum that the council can’t control specific companies moving in to the area. There was some interest in the community supermarket idea, especially if the Transition West Hampstead movement gets going and produce can be grown locally.

    One area where the council can have influence, and that some of us have been suggesting for some time, is in the guidance to new retail developments – or residential developments that have retail components, such as the Ballymore 187-199 West End Lane site. Encouraging/forcing developers to focus on small format stores rather than large retail spaces would inevitably encourage smaller retailers who could afford the rents, and discourage the chains who thrive on economies of scale. It’s not a sure-fire way to keep local businesses, but it’s a good start. Certainly for developments that take place on council owned sites, such as the existing Travis Perkins/Wickes site, which is likely to be sold off, the council would be able to set such terms.

    I’ll publish the full report as soon as it’s available. In the meantime, the draft reports are available here. And if you have any contributions, please do contact Kate Goodman, our place shaping officer, before February 20th with any concrete suggestions – the more practical the better.