West Hampstead Life

Category: Planning & Development

  • “Aeroplane wing” fails to take off at 163 Iverson Road

    With all the hullabaloo over the other development, my attention has been diverted from what’s happening at 163 Iverson Road – the site of the former garden centre, and right next to the new Thameslink station.

    The plans are now in for 33 flats and 3 houses on the site. When the developers presented their initial proposals at the Camden Development Forum back in early November, there was considerable resistance to the scheme overall, to some of the details, and in particular to the dramatic “wing” roof. 

    Correspondence from the council’s planning department suggests that planners were less reticent about the new look, and deemed it “exciting”. However, when the final plans were submitted in December, the roof design had been watered down.

    In fact, the developers have accommodated quite a lot of the issues raised both by Camden and by residents, including lowering the overall height. Obviously, those locals who objected to the whole concept are probably going to be disappointed.

    The most interesting feature of the building is the southern elevation, where stilts have been used to create a dramatic railway view apartment.

    southern elevation (with original roof design)

    To see all the documents, head to Camden’s planning database and enter 2012/0099/P in the Application number box, and then scroll down to find “View Related Documents”. I recommend looking at the various Design & Access Statements for a good overview, the Appendices document, and the Ecological survey from page 24 onwards. Also, who knew a bat survey would cost £4,000?

    Consultation closes on February 17th, and you can e-mail them to .

  • 187-199 West End Lane “non compliant” with London Plan

    It looks like the proposed 203 unit development, of which more here and here, will have to go before City Hall. Camden has been advised to reject it because it does not comply with certain aspects of the London Plan. Having seen a tweet linking to this Hampstead & Kilburn Conservatives news item saying that “Boris objects” to the scheme, I did a little digging.

    It’s stretching it a bit to say he “objects”. This is based on a report by the GLA’s Development & Environment Directorate. The comments are advisory, and say that Camden must consult City Hall when it makes its decision on the application, at which point the Mayor can accept, refuse, or reassess the application. 

    Before you all get too excited/angry/worked up, it’s worth noting immediately that the scale of the proposed buildings is not the main concern (although the report talks about buildings 5 to 11 storeys high, when in fact the tallest building is 12 storeys high).

    It is also worth noting that the issues raised by the Directorate are also deemed to be addressable. The recommendation is “That Camden Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 108 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 110 of this report could address these deficiencies“.

    If you want to read the whole document, then I’ve highlighted some of the key paragraphs, but paragraphs 108-110 are written out below (emphasis mine).

    108 London Plan policies on noise, vibration, air quality, design, access, heritage, housing, affordable housing, 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:

    • Principle of development (non compliant): Further testing is required regarding the noise, vibration and air quality conditions created across the site, in particular at the western apex which is proposed to accommodate affordable housing.
    • Affordable housing, mix, tenure and density (non compliant): Further testing of the appraisal has been commissioned by Camden Council. The findings will inform further discussion regarding these policy areas.
    • Urban design (non compliant): further testing and analysis is required on the townscape and heritage views. The layout of block G needs further work.
    • Access (compliant): the provision of wheelchair accessible homes, Lifetime Homes and disabled parking should be conditioned by Camden Council.
    • Climate change mitigation (compliant): the energy strategy is broadly supported.
    • Climate change adaptation (compliant): conditions should secure water use targets and green and brown roofs and walls.
    • Noise and vibration (non compliant): the noise impact is a concern and mitigation and design measures need to be secured. The suitability of the site for residential, particularly and the western apex is being considered in further detail.
    • Air quality (non compliant): air quality impact is a concern and is being considered in further detail.
    • Transport (non compliant): a contribution to fund enhancements at West Hampstead station may be required. Clarification of the trip generation methodology and number of trips at West Hampstead station is also required. A more robust and coherent travel plan is needed with associated funding and targets including a monitoring strategy.

    109 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan.

    110 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

    • Principle of development (non compliant): Further testing is required regarding the noise, vibration and air quality conditions created across the site, in particular at the western apex which is proposed to accommodate affordable housing.
    • Affordable housing, mix, tenure and density (non compliant): The findings will inform further discussion regarding these policy areas.
    • Urban design (non compliant): the design team should consider verifying the views from the south and provide commentary on any potential heritage impacts. The layout of block G needs further work.
    • Noise and vibration (non compliant): the noise impact is a concern and mitigation and design measures need to be secured. The suitability of the site for residential, particularly and the western apex is being considered in further detail.
    • Air quality (non compliant): the air quality information is being further considered by the CLA.
    • Transport (non compliant): a contribution to fund enhancements at West Hampstead station may be required. Clarification of the trip generation methodology and number of trips at West Hampstead station is also required. A more robust and coherent travel plan is needed with associated funding and targets including a monitoring strategy. Construction discussions and conditions may be required further to advice from London Underground’s infrastructure Protection Team.

    Some of this is a dotting the i’s exercise, but there are some more fundamental issues at stake such as the suitability of the western apex of the site (the bit furthest from West End Lane) for residential use, and specifically affordable housing (see paras 22-23 and 48-49 in the report). Personally, I’d like to see the methodology that suggests 203 flats will contribute just 42 more rush hour passengers on the tube (see para 83 and 100).

    For those wondering about the height issue, the report seems to be choosing to stay out of that discussion. Here are the relevant paragraphs (original emphasis):

    38 London Plan Policy 7.7 moves away from active encouragement to careful management of tall buildings and covers various tests for the location and design of tall and large-scale buildings. This proposal incorporates a number of large scale buildings rising up to 11 storeys [sic]. Policy 7.7 focuses on the impact on character by scale, mass or built form of a tall and large buildings and that they should relate well to form, proportion, scale and character of surrounding buildings, urban grain and public realm. Part B of the policy seeks that applications for tall or large buildings should include an urban design analysis that demonstrates the proposals form part of a strategy that meets the criteria in Part C and that this is particularly important where the site is not identified as a location for a tall or large building in the borough’s LDF.

    39 Camden Council’s Development Management DPD (paragraph 24.10) notes that “Due to the dense nature of Camden with extensive range and coverage of heritage assets, such as conservation areas, numerous listed buildings and five strategic views and two background views crossing the borough, the Council do not consider that it is practical to identify broad areas either suitable, or not suitable, for tall buildings.” The Council intend to test each case against design policy DP24 which covers the broad considerations of good design, scale, character and access.

    40 Given the above, Part C of London Plan policy 7.7 becomes particularly relevant. Against the context of Part C, the proposal is within an area of intensification and partly within the town centre with good to excellent public transport access and therefore the principle of large scale buildings may be supported subject to other townscape considerations set out below.

  • Consultation on 187-199 ends on Feb 14th

    These plans went into the council before Christmas. If you’ve no idea what I’m talking about then gen up on the background, maps, pictures etc.. In a nutshell: 203 flats to be built on the land between the tube and overground lines to the west of West End Lane, fronted today by the shops from Café Bon to Michael Leonard Estates: 187-199 West End Lane. The image below also misses out the 6-storey longer-block of affordable housing at the back (left) of the site.

    The planning documents are lengthy and incredibly detailed, To access the whole lot, you need to enter ref 2011/6129/P into Camden’s planning search engine, click the application number when it comes up, and then click “View Related Documents”. I’ve linked to a few of the critical ones below, and the main planning document is here – I’ve drawn your attention to some paragraphs with red borders

    If you want to comment on the plans you need to do by February 14th. You can do so via the Camden planning site (it’s easy enough to find). The sort of issues that have exercised people include:

    • Height – at 12 storeys high, the middle tower will dwarf anything else in West Hampstead;
    • Potential loss of daylight for houses close to the development (developer’s report here);
    • Whether the existing local businesses on the site will be allowed to continue operating until demolition is essential, whether they will be offered first option on the new commercial premises included in the proposals, and whether that would be at a reasonable rent (retail floor plans top left here, and see 6.30-6.33 in the main planning document);
    • The impact on traffic and transport in the area, despite being nominally a zero-parking development (developer’s report here).

    There may be other issues you’re concerned about – although do check the documents to see if they’ve already been addressed. It’s probably fair to say that the plans are not going to be summarily dismissed by the planners. There is a need for housing, the land has aleady been identified as suitable for residential development, and it ties in with the London Plan that calls for 800 new homes around the stations in West Hampstead over the next few years. The details – especially the height – are up for debate though.

    Local residents group WHGARA has been most vocal in its opposition to scale of the development, and is exhorting people to “Act now“. Meanwhile, WHAT has posted its letter to Camden, which I’ve added to the comments below.

    Update via Cllr Andrew Marshall (Swiss Cottage): The council’s email address for comments on planning applications is changing. From the end of January, use .

  • Placeshaping – the draft report

    If you’ve been following for a while, or have ever clicked that handy “Latest Planning News” link on the right, you’ll probably have seen me talk about Placeshaping.

    Here’s the recap: Camden council is conducting “placeshaping” exercises in many areas of the borough in order to identify the concerns of locals and try and guide the planning and development of these areas to the extent they can. I have been fortunate enough to have been asked to participate in some of the meetings, and some of you have contributed with thoughts via this blog, which I assure you are read by the team drawing up the report.

    Developing a unified place plan is not a quick process. The first meeting I attended was back at the end of June and now we’re at the draft report stage. Kate Goodman from Camden, who is our Placeshaping officer, has given me permission to post this draft report, which is currently in two parts but will evenutally be merged.

    As you read this, please do note that it is only a draft. Your comments though (perhaps not on any typos) are actively welcomed, especially on the second part which outlines the vision and action plan. Reference copies are also available for viewing at West Hampstead Library.

    I’ve ringed in red some of the more interesting bits (you may disagree with what’s “interesting”) for those of you who just want to get the basic idea. The major issues covered are planning, and especially the large developments in the pipeline, the local retail environment, public services , green spaces, and movement between stations. Although parking is discussed, it’s notable that no mention is made of whether parking for the local shops might be addressed, despite it being raised regularly by local businesses as a key issue in boosting visitor numbers to the town centre (as it’s called). It’s also a shame that The Winch doesn’t get a mention in the youth services discussion despite being relatively close by, especially for people living the Swiss Cottage side of West Hampstead.

    Click the little cloud icon to download the document, or the document title above the slides to go to the web version.

    West Hampstead Place Plan Pt 1 – DRAFT

    West Hampstead Place Plan Pt 2 – DRAFT

    If you’re interested in being involved in the next meeting, which is planned for the next couple of weeks, please contact Kate.

  • Are new Gondar Gardens plan a-go-go?

    The Gondar Gardens reservoir is back on the planning agenda. Here’s the story so far. Gondar Gardens is a large patch of green land that sits over a disused Victorian reservoir.

    The land is owned by Linden Homes and Wates, who submitted plans to build a series of homes on the site in what was generally described as “Teletubbies style”. These semi-subterranean homes were deemed to be out of keeping with the area, and the threat to local biodiversity – most notably the local slow worm population – was enough to see the plan rejected after a vociferous campaign.

    The developers are appealing the decision, but one would assume that they’re not especially confident of winning as they have invested in an entirely new and completely different plan for the site, which they were exhibiting at the library last Wednesday.The new plan take up much less of the site and instead just front onto the west side of Gondar Gardens road.

    The previous plans took up the space marked by the inner red rectangle

    There would be 19 private homes and 9 affordable housing units. To keep the environmentalists happy, the development goes big on managing the remaining open space (which is far greater under this proposal than the previous one), and once complete the land would be handed over to a trust with covenants restricting any future development.

    Architecturally, the designs so far apparently try to reflect the neighbouring buildings but in a modern style.

    At the exhibition there was some debate as to whether this had been successful yet – the current design being very boxy and angular compared to the bay windows and pitched roofs of the houses around. The developer suggested that the design was a work in progress. At least, unlike some other developments locally, this one would not rise above existing buildings.

    On Wedensday December 14th, there is a Camden Development Management Forum at the synagogue hall on Dennington Park Road. This is a chance for the public to hear more about the proposals and ask questions. Registration will be at 6.15pm for a 6.30pm start and the meeting shouldn’t last more than two hours. This is not a formal consultation meeting as no plans have yet been submitted.

    The exhibition boards are visible below, or you can download them from www.gondargardens.co.uk.

    At the West Hampstead and Fortune Green Area Action group meeting a couple of days earlier, Fortune Green councillor Russell Eagling seemed to imply that this development was much more in keeping with the sort of thing the council would look favourably on. It is also worth noting that these units would not count towards the 800 new homes required under the intensification plan that emanates from City Hall – that is focused entirely on the land around the three railways lines.
    Gondar Gardens exhibition boards

  • Parking and planning dominate December’s AAG

    The turnout for this week’s West Hampstead & Fortune Green Area Action Group was higher than usual, with parking, planning, and local business on the agenda.

    For those of you not familiar with the AAGs, they are an opportunity to meet local councillors, hear about the latest developments in the area, and for the public to share their views and ask questions.

    Parking changes in Camden
    The council is reviewing its parking policies. We had a quick rundown of changes over the past few years: fewer parking tickets, no clamping, allowing taxis to park on yellow lines for ATM access.

    The borough is introducing cashless parking via mobile phones (meters will still accept coins), and is reviewing how its permit system will work with auto-renewal systems, e-permits and simplifying the visitor permit system with half-hour visitor permits being abolished. It was also made clear that the parking zones won’t be extended as that encourages short journeys and more parking pressure around stations.

    Parking turned out to be an issue that people got quite exercised by. There was a question about all the proposed housing developments and the impact on parking in the area. All new developments are encouraged to be car free and residents will not be allowed to apply for permits on nearby streets. The view was expressed that new residents would find a way around the rules. There was also a suggestion that if there was basement parking in new developments it could then be used as public parking during the day.

    There was grumbling about changes to visitor permit system and the common complaint councils face up and down the country: that they are “using motorists as cash cows”.

    Parking wardens came in for flak for being too picky over permits. The representative from Camden explained that the appeals process will look at such issues. The masses weren’t impressed and the view was expressed that the permits were too complicated yet there was no process by which the public could look at getting them changed.

    The parking review will also look at the details for each controlled parking zone, including on Fortune Green Road where parking for the 24hr gym is causing some local residents a degree of angst.

    Planning
    Next up, James Earl from the Fordwych Residents Association explained the concept of the Neighbourhood Development Plan, which you can read more about here. One local development was being displayed at the meeting – Handrail House on Maygrove Road is likely to be turned into flats. The developer is throwing money at local community centre Sidings, including astroturfing the pitch, in order to ease any objections. If plans are cleared by April then the developer will avoid the Crossrail levy that all larger residential developments in London will have to pay.

    I asked whether there was any way in which we could get the Mayor’s London plan to enlarge the area designated for intensification (800 homes over the next few years) so that all the homes wouldn’t have to be clustered so tightly along the railway lines. Almost certainly a futile notion, but local councillor Flick Rea suggested that if there was ever a time to lobby politicians it was in the run up to an election and we were about to prepare for another Ken v Boris battle (and lets remember Ken lives locally so would at least be au fait with the particularities of the area). This would not be about reducing the number of new homes in West Hampstead, just spreading them out a little more. Developers themselves might not be so keen, under current planning frameworks, it’s much harder for councils to reject developments that flank railways.

    Flick also mentioned that it was possible that the council offices on West End Lane (better known as the Wickes/Travis Perkins building), which are also destined to be flats, could end up as being entirely affordable housing as part of a deal with a (hypothetical) developer. So much for integrated housing projects.

    Someone asked what our councillors’ own view was about the future of West Hampstead; I think suggesting that there was too much of a “our hands are tied” attitude. Councillor Keith Moffitt said that they had a clear vision, which was to preserve the villagey feel of the area, while recognising the need for new homes. One can imagine that this will translate into planners insisting that some of the larger developments lop a couple of floors off their proposals, or tone down any architectural oddities, but that any wholesale rejection of housing developments is unlikely.

    I bumped into James later in the week and asked if there had been a good response after the meeting in terms of helping set up a steering group for the NDP – and it seemed like there had been. This will be a lengthy process though, and is very much going to focus on the developments that aren’t even on the table yet rather than those already under discussion.

    There was a brief discussion on the new proposals for Gondar Gardens, which I’ve tackled in a separate blog. Questions were also raised as to whether there really was a need for new housing in the area, and weren’t there already too many houses on the market (the idea was firmly rebuffed by the estate agent contingent who said demand outstripped supply at the moment). And someone asked whether ownership of new flats could be restricted to Londoners or “people who need them”. You can imagine the answer.

    Councillor Gillian Risso-Gill spoke briefly about the fledgling West Hampstead Business Forum and introduced David Matthews from Dutch & Dutch estate agents who has offered to chair the group. It will be interesting to see what comes out of that in the coming months.

    The meeting concluded with short presentations / plugs for the financially challenged West Hampstead Community Association by Geoff Berridge, and for the financially more secure Sidings Community Centre by Sue Measures. Both run all manner of classes, so do check them out.

    There were two off-agenda items that came up in final questions. The first concerned the cycle permeability scheme (allowing two-way cycle traffic on many of our one-way streets), which some locals think is a recipe for disaster. The consultation period for this has passed, but the councillors suggested that comments even now might well be considered.

    The second was an impassioned plea regarding Netherwood Day Centre. This specialist Alzheimers unit just off the Kilburn High Road is teetering on the precipice again after an initial stay of execution following a high profile campaign involving local celebrities such as Ricky Gervais.

    And that was that

  • West Hampstead schools – what’s the future?

    Next Tuesday there’s a public meeting about education in general and local schooling in particular at the library. It’s organised by the West Hampstead Labour party but anyone is welcome to attend.

  • 187-199 West End Lane: The Ballymore proposals

    “We actually live here, it’s not just a ‘place with great transport links’, it’s our home”

    Last week, quite a large group of locals turned up at Sidings Community Centre to hear a presentation from the developers and architects of the 187-199 West End Lane site. It was chaired by Frances Wheat, Head of Development Control at Camden’s planning department.

    Full minutes will be written up, and I’m not going to try and cover everything that was discussed in the session which ran for two hours. I’ve already covered the basics elsewhere, so I’ll try to shed some light on some other issues that arose and set the context very briefly.

    The area around the three stations (known as “The Interchange”) has been designated as an area for intensification in the Mayor’s London Plan. That’s a done deal – the expectation is for 800 new homes by 2015. Therefore, land such as this strip which runs between the underground and the overground lines will be developed for housing, but the scale and type are not set in stone.

    The site is ~450m long

    The boards that were exhibited beforehand are now accessible on the architect’s website (see these for issues I haven’t covered here, for example the parks, gardens and environmental issues, or site constraints). Some changes have been made since the last designs were discussed – the “public” square (presumably private space) has been made bigger to accommodate potentially the fillip that is a farmers’ market, and more smaller retail units have been added.

    West End Square

    Scale
    First up, perhaps the most controversial of the issues: the height. There was quite a lot of confusion and, I have to say it, obfuscation, on the part of the architects here. At the exhibition the previous weekend I’d been told point blank that the highest building would be 11 storeys. Yet, JamesEarl from Fortune Green Residents Association had been told it would be 12 storeys. It’s a fairly basic fact without much room for error. You’d think. As Eric Holding, architect at John Thompson Partners ran through his presentation he rather hurriedly said that the highest building would be 11 storeys “from West End Lane”.

    When it came to audience questions, the first was: “how high are the buildings?”. No clear answer was forthcoming, with talk about the top floor being set back from the sides of the buildings, and the land sloping away, and no flats on the ground floor. The audience was getting a little irate, and it took someone (me) to shout rather loudly “how many metres tall is the highest building from the ground to the roof and how many storeys is that?” before we finally got an answer: 36m high, 12 storeys. So there we have it. That’s the height of the highest building, which would sit in the middle of the site. “From West End Lane”, it will have a relative height of 11 storeys because (presumably) the plot is about 3 metres lower than the road level.

    Equal size blocks on the left, proposed layout on right

    Everyone clear now? Why the developers would think that evading the question (or giving the wrong facts) would be helpful or win sceptics over when we’ll find out eventually is beyond me. The heights are also notable by their absence on the exhibition boards. The building heights running east to west (away from West End Lane) are 15m (5 storeys), 24m (8), 30m (10), 36m (12), 30m (10), 24m (8) and then a longer block that looks to be 6 or 7 storeys high at the back of the site.

    They explained in more detail why they had decided to go for this ‘rise and fall’ design rather than having the buildings rise steadily with the tallest block at the back or have a uniform height across all the blocks. Some of this was aesthetic, and I agree that their design is more pleasing this way. This also means that the 30% of affordable housing that the scheme proposes can be in family home-size dwellings at the back of the lot rather than somewhere in the middle dwarfed by blocks around them (more on this issue later).

    There was also the issue that if the tallest building was at the back it would block the light (think of those lovely whampsunsets) from the rest of the site. They also argued that the trees that flank the site (none of which are actually on the site and thus their long-term future cannot be guaranteed) give adequate screening for the larger buildings, although the photographs that tried to prove this were taken before the leaves began to come off the trees – they said they would be taking pictures again in winter.

    Click for larger view: red outline shows building behind trees

    There was understandable concern from residents in streets that are closest to the site about the effect on their light. The developers explained that they had tried to take natural breaks in existing housing into consideration – but it feels like this issue could run and run as it may well have a big impact on some houses.

    From Iverson Road

    Big change to view looking north

    In total, the development will have around 200 units (roughly equal to 540 people). I asked what was driving the total number of units – i.e., why 200 not 230 or 170, and what the minimum number of units would be that would still give the developers a reasonable return.

    Naturally the second part of the question was ignored, as I expected (and having asked a question (and heckled to get a straight answer over height) I was subsequently passed over for more questions, which was frustrating as both my other questions were very straightforward). The answer to my first about driver of total size was a bit vague, but talked about the need for housing in the area, balancing the affordable housing requirements, the need to make a profit (absolutely valid) etc. It also pointed out that the density (594 habitable rooms/ha.) was below the legal limit of 700 that the site could take. This didn’t convince everyone in the audience and there were mumblings of “why are you doubling the height of West Hampstead’s buildings”.

    Architecturally, the buildings seem reasonable. Unlike the initial proposals for the Iverson Rd garden centre site with its bizarre aeroplane wing roof, these are fairly simple blocks, and are a modern attempt to reflect the traditional red brick and white render of much of the area’s long-standing architecture. Given the noise from the trainlines, the apartments will have internal cooling systems so windows can remain closed, although lots of flats will have balconies, for those who really like to hear the trundling of trains. Corner balconies also reduce the visual boxyness of the buildings.

    Tallest building would be 2 storeys higher than left/centre image here

    Affordable housing
    Thirty percent of floorspace is designated as affordable housing, split into 25 “intermediate” units and 20 “social housing” units. Note that Camden’s guidelines are for 50 percent affordable housing (by floorspace not no. of units) in mixed-use developments, which this falls well short of. As I understand it (and happy for someone to correct me as I’ve not had time to wade through the reams of planning docs.), developers who fall short of the guidelines may be/are? asked to pay the council a set amount based on a formula that is put towards building affordable housing elsewhere in the area.

    Cllr Mike Katz pushed for more details on the decision to keep all the affordable housing at the far end of the site, suggesting this might not aid what he termed “community cohesion”, ie., the integration and mix of people that generally leads to more harmonious social outcomes.

    To the developers’ credit they had quite a full answer to this, and referred largely to the specifics of the site: the end location would allow for gardens attached to properties rather than the communal gardens and “pocket park” that sit between the other blocks. This relates to the elevation relative to the railway lines and at ground level this would be the quieter end of the site (note that an “acoustic wall” will flank the southern side of the site using foliage as sound proofing against the noise of the trains). This is clearly seen more as family housing than single occupancy housing. It would be interesting to know, however, whether the developers have looked at integrating the non-family affordable units into the other blocks rather than forcing all the less affluent residents into the far end of the site.

    Traffic
    The development is classified as “zero parking”. It won’t surprise you to know that this doesn’t mean no parking. There was will be 20 disabled parking bays, five car club spots (enlightened), and five commercial parking spaces. Residents will not be allowed to apply for parking permits on nearby streets. The developers argued that given the site’s current use as a car wash and repair yard there would actually be less traffic once the development was finished than there is today – suggesting an 85-90% reduction.

    It’s true that there is a steady flow of traffic into the site today, but hard to believe that lots of the residents won’t be ordering their parcels from Amazon, or their shopping from Ocado, Tesco and the like. Not to mention service vehicles, refuse collection etc.. It may not be a increase in traffic, but I would like to see the evidence that leads to the conclusion that there would be such a large drop in traffic. In addition the single road that would run the length of the development will also be the pedestrian access for the whole site, but I wasn’t able to ask whether it would be a single track or a two-way road.

    A question was raised about whether residents who needed vehicles for work – e.g., tradesmen, would therefore effectively be excluded from moving to the development if they couldn’t park. There seemed no clear answer to this.

    Part of the scheme involves changing some of the West End Lane streetscape around the interchange. The zebra crossing by the Overground would be replaced by one more or less where Rock hair salon is now, and the newish southbound bus stop (long fought for by WHAT) outside the post office would be moved further north to roughly where Greene & Co. is. The idea of moving the bus stop prompted outrage from some in the audience, given the battle they’d had to get the new stop put in in the first place and there was a rapid assertion from Camden and the developers that these proposals were in their very early stages. The zebra crossing makes sense, but I didn’t understand the rationale for moving the bus stop.

    red zebra crossing/bus stop = existing; blue = proposed

    Retail
    As we know, right now there are six businesses with West End Lane frontage on that site, from Café Bon to M.L.Estates, as well as the auto-related businesses behind including the motorbike shop and the repair business. The buildings they inhabit would be replaced by “West End Square”. There will be seven smaller retail units in the new development as well as a large 600m2, which is metro format supermarket size – and, if I understood correctly, one of them will be let only temporarily because it will need to be demolished at a later date because of something to do with the Overground station infrastructure. Apologies for the lack of clarity here, this was the second question I wanted to ask but wasn’t allowed to. I have followed up with JTP and am waiting for them to get back to me.

    The architect argued that the number of units on the site was rising from five to seven (they are counting Rock and the car hire place as one unit I presume), but this clearly doesn’t translate into seven similar permanent small units for these or similar busineses to occupy. The exhibition boards say “There could be scope for some of the existing retailers and businesses to take new premises in the scheme and the developers would be happy to discuss potential tenant requirements at the appropriate time“. I find the plan for the shops baffling in terms of the first floor and ground floor plans. I look forward to being enlightened on this.

    Do the ground and first floor plans on the left match those on the right?

    There will also be 650m2 of commercial office space. It seems that this could be used for all manner of purposes and would not necessarily be let to one business but might be shared use (in theory this could be a great idea for shared office space for local independent sole traders – a business hub sort of thing, but I’m getting ahead of myself).

    Construction
    There were inevitably questions about the construction itself, which would take place in two phases and if all went to Ballymore’s plan would start in spring 2013 and take two years. The idea of both the Blackburn Road development and this overlapping should alarm anyone who already finds West End Lane traffic a problem.

    The site’s location between rail lines limits the access points, and cunning ideas like adding a tunnel from Iverson Road were rapidly ruled out on cost grounds.

    Summary (and “my two cents”)
    Overall, the audience was initially respectful, with a few exceptions. As the meeting went on, things became a little more confrontational, and some frustration was directed at the chair who some thought was moving things on a little too quickly, not allowing all questions to be asked or pursuing answers adequately. Of course some people just wanted a good old rant and were inexplicably permitted to do this on more than one occasion, which meant other people’s legitimate questions were missed out (I’m not just talking about me here by the way).

    Sadly, not all the members of the panel looked as engaged as they might have done when not speaking. As one woman in the audience pointed out “We actually live here, it’s not just a ‘place with great transport links’, it’s our home“, and it does feel insulting if the people planning large-scale changes don’t at least pretend to be interested, even though I’m sure there are plenty of things they’d rather be doing on a chilly Wednesday night in November than dealing with a bunch of disgruntled locals. Credit to David Laycock, from Ballymore, who did in fact make an effort to engage throughout.

    What do I think? As longer-term readers know, I tend to try and be reasonably balanced on such matters, especially those where emotions can run high. I don’t oppose development on the site, and I think that there are some good ideas within these proposals.

    I think the height is a major concern, as it is out of keeping with the character of the area (reference to the 8-storey student accommodation being built is fair, but that is on lower ground still, so “relative to West End Lane” it won’t be as dramatic), and has the potential to affect some properties’ light quite considerably. I also hope that existing businesses are given first option to take over the retail premises and that the inevitable and justifiable increase in their rent is realistic.

    I do wonder whether in shooting for such high buildings, the developer is prepared for a challenge and will be happy to “compromise” at e.g., 10 storeys, which might have been just as hard for people to swallow had it been the initial proposal. But then I can be very cynical. I also hope that if the height IS a problem, the retail spaces aren’t sacrificed for extra flats in an attempt to recoup any lost profit.

    I think that West End Square has the potential to be an asset to West Hampstead. It will vastly improve the image of the area for those arriving by tube and, together with the large open space by the new Thameslink station, it gives the community more flexibility for events, markets etc. I’m also acutely aware that given that this area is earmarked for intensification, the developers have a trump card up their sleeves. Should Camden refuse the plans that will be submitted later this month, an appeal to City Hall could see them passed anyway with fairly minimal concessions, which was what happened to the Blackburn Road student residences.

    (all photos taken from the JTP exhibition boards)

  • The only way is up…. it seems.

    A market square; bustly shops and cafés; new influx of residents; 12-storey building… wait, what now?

    On Saturday, architects John Thomson & Partners held an exhibition in the church hall on Sherriff Road to show their latest proposals for the strip of land that slopes west from West End Lane between the tube lines and the Overground lines and is currently fronted by the parade of shops including Café Bon, Rock, and Peppercorns.

    The amended proposal will house 200 flats, with a mix of 1- 2- and 3-bed apartments (the majority being 2-bed), along with some affordable housing, giving a total population of around 500 people. The affordable housing (all tucked away at the far end of the site away from West End Lane) comprises 30% of the total floorspace, although I understand that the council stipulates 50% of floorspace should be affordable housing.

    The proposal is for six blocks of flats, each separated by green space – some of which will be accessible to residents only, and some of which will be small park space. The block facing onto West End Lane, behind the “market square” (remember this would be private space masquerading as public space) would be 5-storeys high. The next one back 7, then 9, then 12, then 9 then 7. To give some context, the highest buildings along West End Lane at the moment are 6-storeys high – most are four or five. [update: i was initially told by an architect from JTP to my face that the tallest building would be 11 storeys. It was only under some pressure at the public meeting the following week that they admitted that from the ground level, it would be 12. Such disingenuousness does nothing to win residents over]

    We heard a few technical things, such as that that buildings would be on springs – as used in earthquake zones – to absorb the vibrations from the passing trains and that ventilation would be provided so windows wouldn’t need to be opened. The buildings would be predominantly brick. But I think for most people, the materials and technical specifications weren’t the issue – the size was. Some artists impressions of what the site would look like from West End Lane made good use of tree cover to minimize the impact – trees, for example, owned by Network Rail and that could be chopped down at any time.

    (it’s behind the trees, look closely)

    (think you can see it here quite clearly)

    In all honesty, it seems very hard to imagine that the council is going to pass an 12-storey building, or even a 9-storey one. One option would be to have all the buildings at, say, 7 storeys. This might look even more monolithic though. I wondered whether the developers (Ballymore) and architects have already built this into their equation – a reduction in the number of private flats would increase the proportion of affordable housing to the statutory requirement.

    There will be more retail space than the site has presently, although some will be on a first floor level, rather than directly on the street. There is also a space large enough for a small supermarket, and apparently Partridges has expressed an interest – although this is all very early days.

    There is a public meeting on Wednesday about this, where the architects will present their proposals and take questions. I strongly suggest that if you are interested/concerned/delighted/offended about the idea then go along. Two things to bear in mind: a) no plans have officially been submitted yet; b) this land will be used for housing. You may also want to come the local Area Action Group meeting where the issue of a Neighbourhood Development Plan will be raised.

    One thing that would be nice (if you’re reading this Camden) is for the consultation area to extend to Broadhurst Gardens area. A woman I was speaking to at the event lives on that road and had no idea about this exhibition until a friend mentioned it to her, despite the fact that she lives much closer to the site than many other people in the consultation area.

    (What would be REALLY fun is if the student accommodation building on Blackburn Road, and whatever ends up being built on this site, are being thrown up at the same time. You think the traffic is bad on West End Lane now?)

  • Planning for the future of West Hampstead

    We are entering a new phase in the evolution of West Hampstead. Does that sound like hyperbole? Well, there are so many large-scale plans waiting to be submitted that if they were all to be implemented as they stand, the look and feel of the area would change substantially.

    On Monday there was a meeting chaired by Cllrs Keith Moffitt (West Hampstead) and Flick Rea (Fortune Green) at the behest of James Earl from the Fordwych Road Residents Association. James’s idea is to bring together all the local RAs, and other community groups such as WHAT, to form a Neighbourhood Development Plan.

    I’m not going to go into all the details of what an NDP is here, partly because there are many issues still to be clarified (there’s a bit more here), but it’s part of the Localism Bill that’s going through parliament at the moment. The general idea is to give people more power over local developments, although almost certainly not as much as many people would like: the plan must fit in with the borough’s plan, the London plan (which has already earmarked West Hampstead for intensification and 800 new homes) and national planning strategy, and it cannot propose less development, only more or a redistribution of sites.

    Nor is this going to happen overnight – it will be spring 2012 before NDPs can be submitted. Which is a problem in terms of mobilising to address the more imminent plans for the 187-199 West End Lane site (see next blog).

    The meeting was reasonably productive, although inevitably people have differing views about development, which might make it hard producing a plan that pleases everyone. The idea of RAs joining forces was broadly welcomed, and the topic will be discussed at the next West Hampstead & Fortune Green Area Action Group, which is provisionally scheduled for December 6th.

    There was some criticism about the lack of impact the place shaping workshops had seemed to have, although the outcomes of those will more guide what happens to council-owned sites that will be developed, such as the Wickes/Travis Perkins building.

    Even if the NDP may not have much impact on sites where plans are being drawn up now, it could be very influential on land that might come up for development over the next few years – such as the O2 car park (long talked about as ripe for development), or swathes of Iverson Road.

    There are some issues to resolve about the boundaries of any plan, and who should be involved. People living on the western fringes of Swiss Cottage ward, for example, are very much part of West Hampstead and would certainly be affected by developments around the tube/Overground interchange area (yet bizarrely aren’t included in the consulation area for the 187-199 West End Lane site).

    Anne Heymann, chair of the Local Consultation Group (set up some years ago to address the large-scale interchange project that would have merged all three stations and was then shelved) argued that sitting down with architects and developers and putting in the legwork was what really made a difference to  plans.

    It’ll be interesting to see what the perspective from the broader community is when the idea is discussed at the AAG, but it’s encouraging that groups from across the area want to come together to discuss proposals that might not have an impact on their immediate street.