|
|
 |
| |
Flats consultation raises questions
• FURTHER to my letter of July 26 and the your story (Flats ‘mean the end of sunsets’, August 2), I wish to raise additional concerns on behalf of the more than 60 people now registering their protest against Camden Council’s decision to grant planning permission to develop a three-storey building of flats at 80 Falkland Road, NW5. I also need to correct a mistake in your report – previous applications to build homes at this address have been rejected four times, not three.
At least five council-owned homes situated directly opposite No 80 have for years suffered serious subsidence. Many tenants endure repeated call-outs for repairs. Another council tenant in Leighton Crescent also reports cracks and bowing in an end-of-terrace wall. As these homes are situated within metres of No 80, surely it would be pure folly to attempt foundation and building work at such close proximity? Indeed, given the generally unstable nature of the ground in the area, would not the planned extension of the existing terrace risk further destabilisation of all nearby homes?
It appears the planning department did not take these problems into consideration when granting permission.
A full and thorough investigation into further potential damage of existing homes is urgently required.
Many residents have also called into question the irregular nature of the council’s consultation process. Two issues require an official response:
First. Close inspection of the council’s approach to neighbour notification clearly illustrates why some residents claim they have never been informed of the application. It is no doubt expedient for planning officers to address letters to ‘owner/occupier’, but it does not take a rocket scientist to deduce that quite a few individual tenants will treat the seemingly anonymous letters as junk mail.
In addition, of the 32 letters sent out, at least five were redundant versions, double copies addressed to blanket numbers, where separate flats had already been covered. This suggestion of consultation would not be quite so alarming if it were not for such blatant disregard of many directly affected residents in flats with their own distinct addresses. This occurred at 16, 17, 22 and 23 Leighton Crescent, 9 Leighton Grove, and 81 Falkland Road, among others.
How can the council claim to have fairly informed all residents when, just for example, four flats at 22 Leighton Crescent and five flats at No 23 were lumped together as one address?
Second. There was no public notice posted at or near the site.
The council’s website states clearly that notices at the site are required. This additional failure does nothing to convey a transparent willingness to inform the public of their rights.
DAVID PRICE
and 60 concerned
residents, NW5
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
