|
|
 |
| |
They’re giving the family silver away
• CAMDEN Council seems to have acted like generous benefactors bestowing favours to private developers at the expense of Camden tax payers (A sinister obsession in the Town Hall, December 14). The Dalby Street scheme being the latest shameful example of such practice.
On closer analysis of Celine La Frenier’s letter (Ignore Dalby Street anger at your peril, December 7) it figures that a significant chunk of the Talacre Open Space and a public highway may be going for a song if the Dalby Street closure is granted to the developer involved.
Camden Council, under Labour, not so much sold the family silver as mostly gave it away.
Yet, when conscientious councillors like Brian Woodrow tried to do their job and protect the public, they have been treated by their own Labour peers with contempt and put through torturous, humiliating and expensive legal process.
Planning under Labour has been a shambles and in their aftermath it will undoubtedly continue to cause misery for Camden residents.
STEVEN SIMPSON
Priory Road
NW6
• RAN Merkazi claims that the encroachment of Talacre Gardens by a private developer is a mere detail in the Dalby Street scheme and that is no reason to halt the project (Shutting the door after the horse has bolted, December 21).
We the public were not asked to comment on such encroachment on our local park when the application for a road closure at Dalby Street was announced earlier this year.
In fact, a totally different temporary access was then proposed.
Had we been appraised of a vehicular road crossing the park at any time either during the initial planning application or at the road closure application stage, then I van guarantee that today’s angry reaction against it would have been expressed during the consultation period and with similar passion.
I understand that the initial opposition to the scheme was some 40. Only some three were for it.
Mr Merkazi’s claim that most residents want to see this scheme go ahead is, therefore, perhaps a bit exaggerated.
S T SCOTT
Harmood Street
NW1
• RAN Merkazi misses the point. True, the development at Dalby Street was granted planning permission in the early part of 2006. But that was not the end of the affair. This permission was conditional on at least two important factors.
These were elements the planning committee were not equipped professionally to assess.
The first condition related to the closure of Dalby Street involving a ‘stopping up’ order.
This turns out to entail the narrowing of Prince of Wales Road and the creation of a New Dalby Street of very substandard width.
The second condition was that the developer would provide what is called a Traffic Management Plan.
This is an independent engineering exercise which would assess the validity of the developer’s proposals regarding road access, traffic impact, etc.
The public was not provided with a Traffic Management Plan at the time of the consultation.
Until the developer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the council and the public that the road alternative he is proposing works (without stealing land from the park), then the developer should certainly not be allowed to go ahead.
So you see, the horse has not bolted yet – it’s just grazing.
EHRENFRIED LIEBICH
Parliament Hill
NW3
|
 |
|
|
|
