|
|
 |
| |
We found out about flats decision four months late
• TRUST in all forms of government is at an all-time low.
So Camden Council’s decision to overturn no less than four previous rejections to develop a three-storey building of flats at 80 Falkland Road comes as a shock to dozens of directly affected people who have objected, once again, to the proposal.
The plans have been modified only superficially over the years, and still amount to a three-storey building containing three flats, ‘tacked on’ to the end of the existing terrace.
This lovely part of Kentish Town was laid out in the 19th century with due care and consideration for intended residents. The design of the existing terrace in Falkland Road deliberately left enough space to permit sufficient natural light to reach the gardens and residences of Leighton Crescent and Leighton Grove.
The precious elements of privacy, natural light, security, and peace and quiet will be lost or severely undermined for many people whose homes are overlooked by the site. A mature oak, growing perilously close to No 80’s wall, and subject to a council preservation order, also faces serious threat.
It will be a miracle if it manages to survive the foundation work. A fig and an ash are also at risk. At least six or seven gardens will struggle to survive in the reduced light.
Many residents had believed, naively as it happens, that the unqualified support of the three councillors for Kentish Town, combined with the four previous, strongly-worded rejections of the plans, guaranteed in any worst case scenario that nothing less than a full meeting of councillors and affected residents would occur. So to learn in the past week from the planning officer in charge that a sub-committee of only three councillors approved the plans on March 23, and that citizens do not even have the right of appeal against the decision, comes as a great blow. If applicants are guaranteed the right of appeal, then surely citizens deserve the same right?
In an extraordinary set of circumstances, it fell on me to (inadvertently) inform local councillors of the decision to grant full planning permission. The councillors were appalled to learn that the planning department had failed to notify them at all of the decision, despite their clear expressions of interest in the outcome. Are we to assume that their objections, along with the dozens of others sent in, have not been properly considered? Can we be certain that the neighbourhood petition, containing 47 signatures, was actually taken into account? And why is it that the council deems it appropriate to notify the applicant and architect of the decision on March 28, but fails to inform the other interested parties for almost four months?
The planning department’s letter that landed on objectors’ doorsteps last Monday, the 16th (dated July 6), fails to list a single reason or condition as to why or how such a massive u-turn occurred. The letter goes on to suggest that “Full details of planning decisions can be viewed on the council’s website”.
But several neighbours have tried in vain to find the relevant file.
On my third attempt I managed to gain access, but was astonished to see that all of page two (of a five-page letter) had not been posted. Can we assume, in the bizarre absence of a number of key points, that the council prefers that concerned parties turn a blind-eye to this inexplicable omission?
Several of the worst-affected residents are long-term council tenants living with disabilities and/or life-threatening conditions. Are we also to assume in this instance that the council’s duty of care to vulnerable citizens is somehow not applicable?
We have several other issues about the way this process was handled.
Will the council have the decency to own up to a catalogue of very serious mistakes? Local residents deserve nothing less than an official investigation into the matter.
DAVID PRICE
for and on behalf of 26 concerned residents of Leighton Crescent, Leighton Grove and Falkland Road, NW5
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
