I am sure that two weeks ago we were all pleased to hear that the Development Control Committee members had all, with the exception of the Chairman, rejected the planning application to develop the old Government offices site at Tolworth The chairman, Councillor Scantlebury, abstained. I wonder if he gave a reason for abstaining and if so what it was. Vicky Harris, when a Councillor, once commented on such actions. She famously said that members of planning committees should not have the option of abstaining. They should be restricted to a simple yes or no. Quite right!
Now that we have had an evening of happiness it is time to get back to the grim reality. You should be aware of a recent event in North London, which has certain similarities. The Camden New Journal is the main weekly newspaper that circulates in Camden and Islington. It offers news coverage which is far better than the Surrey Comet, better local event coverage and at least four full pages of letters each week! The reporting is fair and objective but it does reflect the concerns and pressures of their inner city readership. The newspaper has extensively reported the following story story as it has unfolded.
On Thursday the 25th of February the front page had a headline, ‘The death of democracy, thousands who opposed the two major developments that would change the face of Camden were told this week that their views would count for nothing’. This was printed alongside an artist’s impression of a 24 storey tower block which will hold luxury flats. There is also an associated 7 storey block of luxury flats. They are proposed to be built at Swiss Cottage, one of the highest points in North London. The block will overwhelm local suburbs and be visible from miles around. It will compromise a local conservation area and require the demolition of the famous library, which is a listed building. There is to be no affordable housing in the development of 184 luxury flats.
Camden Council and their Development Control Committee received a petition of over 900 names against the project. The DC committee voted unanimously against the application. The opposition to the project was cross party and Zac Goldsmith gave his support. It does not seem that anyone in the community supported the project. Lots of famous people who live in that part of London have expressed their opposition, including Simon Jenkins.
After the councillors rejected the planning application the developer appealed to the planning inspectorate. The inspectors report was called in by the government’s ‘Local Government Secretary’. He is a political non entity that I had never heard of called Gregg Clark. After deliberating for four weeks he gave planning permission. This has caused public outrage and residents are writing that it is a black day for democracy and the end of the government’s shambolic and insincere attempts to promote ‘localism’. There was also a lot of criticism of the role played by Camden Planning Officers, who for a long time worked closely with the developer and recommended the acceptance of the planning application. Sounds familiar! Now a legal fund has been set up to oppose the decision.
The use of the word thousands in the newspaper headline refers to a second unpopular planning application for which the objectors were also over ruled. However, it is the application for the flats that is relevant to us.
There was another page of letters commenting on this issue in the Camden New Journal’ following issue, the 3rd of March. One writer begins by berating the planning officers and ends this part of his letter, “They should have at least tried to protect the community which pays their wages, but failed us utterly, at every step of the way. And your headline highlights the deeper truth: if a well connected, well organised and, yes, mostly prosperous community cannot stop such an inappropriate development there truly is no hope for democracy.Fortunately, as we now plough into the planning inspector’s report of the public enquiry last summer, we are finding that he has completely ignored several key points made by groups opposing the development. In other areas he has wilfully misinterpreted the evidence, and some points he has completely misunderstood, perversely it seems to us.”
The letter continues in this vein and berates the Secretary of State. It concludes by announcing details of the people organising the legal action that will be undertaken. They are listed below.They are soliciting contributions of £50, which is more than the Tolworth group are asking for. I expect that as the residents are richer they will have more contributions than Councillor Richard Hudson will receive for his proposed legal action concerning the four tower blocks of flats on Tolworth Broadway.
Are we also on this slippery slope with the proposed tower blocks on the old Government offices site at Tolworth? Although the Tolworth scheme has an ultimate gross sales figure less than the Swiss Cottage scheme, the sums of money to be realised at Tolworth are still mind boggling. The sums of money will doubtless spur on the developer to go as far as is possible to get planning permission. It is likely that the developer will appeal. This will be encouraged by the Swiss Cottage decision, which will act as a precedent. If the developer does not appeal there is likelihood that another proposal for mass housing would be submitted. So far, each of the four proposals that have been submitted has been worse than the previous ones.
Francis Brannan, Secretary to the Association
CHESSINGTON DISTRICT RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION
Save Swiss Cottage Action Group contact details. The Treasurer, David Reed, Flat 2, 56 Eton Avenue, NW3 3HN.
Now that we have had an evening of happiness it is time to get back to the grim reality. You should be aware of a recent event in North London, which has certain similarities. The Camden New Journal is the main weekly newspaper that circulates in Camden and Islington. It offers news coverage which is far better than the Surrey Comet, better local event coverage and at least four full pages of letters each week! The reporting is fair and objective but it does reflect the concerns and pressures of their inner city readership. The newspaper has extensively reported the following story story as it has unfolded.
On Thursday the 25th of February the front page had a headline, ‘The death of democracy, thousands who opposed the two major developments that would change the face of Camden were told this week that their views would count for nothing’. This was printed alongside an artist’s impression of a 24 storey tower block which will hold luxury flats. There is also an associated 7 storey block of luxury flats. They are proposed to be built at Swiss Cottage, one of the highest points in North London. The block will overwhelm local suburbs and be visible from miles around. It will compromise a local conservation area and require the demolition of the famous library, which is a listed building. There is to be no affordable housing in the development of 184 luxury flats.
Camden Council and their Development Control Committee received a petition of over 900 names against the project. The DC committee voted unanimously against the application. The opposition to the project was cross party and Zac Goldsmith gave his support. It does not seem that anyone in the community supported the project. Lots of famous people who live in that part of London have expressed their opposition, including Simon Jenkins.
After the councillors rejected the planning application the developer appealed to the planning inspectorate. The inspectors report was called in by the government’s ‘Local Government Secretary’. He is a political non entity that I had never heard of called Gregg Clark. After deliberating for four weeks he gave planning permission. This has caused public outrage and residents are writing that it is a black day for democracy and the end of the government’s shambolic and insincere attempts to promote ‘localism’. There was also a lot of criticism of the role played by Camden Planning Officers, who for a long time worked closely with the developer and recommended the acceptance of the planning application. Sounds familiar! Now a legal fund has been set up to oppose the decision.
The use of the word thousands in the newspaper headline refers to a second unpopular planning application for which the objectors were also over ruled. However, it is the application for the flats that is relevant to us.
There was another page of letters commenting on this issue in the Camden New Journal’ following issue, the 3rd of March. One writer begins by berating the planning officers and ends this part of his letter, “They should have at least tried to protect the community which pays their wages, but failed us utterly, at every step of the way. And your headline highlights the deeper truth: if a well connected, well organised and, yes, mostly prosperous community cannot stop such an inappropriate development there truly is no hope for democracy.Fortunately, as we now plough into the planning inspector’s report of the public enquiry last summer, we are finding that he has completely ignored several key points made by groups opposing the development. In other areas he has wilfully misinterpreted the evidence, and some points he has completely misunderstood, perversely it seems to us.”
The letter continues in this vein and berates the Secretary of State. It concludes by announcing details of the people organising the legal action that will be undertaken. They are listed below.They are soliciting contributions of £50, which is more than the Tolworth group are asking for. I expect that as the residents are richer they will have more contributions than Councillor Richard Hudson will receive for his proposed legal action concerning the four tower blocks of flats on Tolworth Broadway.
Are we also on this slippery slope with the proposed tower blocks on the old Government offices site at Tolworth? Although the Tolworth scheme has an ultimate gross sales figure less than the Swiss Cottage scheme, the sums of money to be realised at Tolworth are still mind boggling. The sums of money will doubtless spur on the developer to go as far as is possible to get planning permission. It is likely that the developer will appeal. This will be encouraged by the Swiss Cottage decision, which will act as a precedent. If the developer does not appeal there is likelihood that another proposal for mass housing would be submitted. So far, each of the four proposals that have been submitted has been worse than the previous ones.
Francis Brannan, Secretary to the Association
CHESSINGTON DISTRICT RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION
Save Swiss Cottage Action Group contact details. The Treasurer, David Reed, Flat 2, 56 Eton Avenue, NW3 3HN.