|
|
 |
| |
Shutting the door after the horse has bolted
• THE kafuffle about the Dalby Street development is a classic case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
The development was agreed overwhelmingly by Camden’s planning committee nearly a year ago. This was because of the obvious benefits the new building would bring to a derelict site.
Most local residents want to see this go ahead and get a run-down site which is an eyesore smartened up.
The details about temporary access to the site for a few months are important but they shouldn’t be allowed to stop this from going ahead.
RAN MERKAZI
Fortress Road, NW5
• CELINE La Freniere seems to have got it right. Sometimes the truth just stares you in the face (Dec. 07, “Ignore Dalby Street anger at your peril”).
The developer at Dalby Street does indeed appear to be paying very little for the privilege of taking over valuable pieces of Open Spaces land and busy public highway. Less than £500,000 according to Ms La Freniere’s assessment.
This apparently entitles him to bring disruption to the facilities at the Talacre Sports Centre and destruction at Talacre Gardens.
It will also reduce road service at Prince of Wales Road and access to the Sports Centre. He gets to keep 36 private flats and a number of commercial units, which he will be free to let or sell at whatever price he can get. 19 other units will be used for affordable housing.
Consider the Lyndhurst Hall, also just a stone’s throw away from Camden. It went for £6.2 million for land surrounded by social housing estates and Camden received a £30,000 contribution to a community project. It is providing 51 affordable housing units.
As a retired developer, I am full of admiration for the Dalby Street developer’s ability to persuade the powers-that-be into acquiring a prime piece of land overlooking a mature park for such a trivial amount of money.
What is less admirable, however, is the developer’s shocking lack of wisdom. Having such a wonderful offer on the table, he has now made so many mistakes that he certainly deserves to come a cropper.
His first mistake, in my view, was to design a project that was too large for the land available.
His second mistake was to sell the derelict house at 52 Prince of Wales Road (a small but crucial part of the scheme) to an overseas developer for £3.5 million before a brick was laid.
That was bound to raise suspicions. John Gulliver has got it right; in the circumstances, a £20 million profit for the developer might be out of line (Nov. 30, “Father and son developers break their silence”)
Then lastly, is the one catastrophic deed that would ruin everything. Trying to now encroach on Talacre Gardens by claiming he needs such land for temporary access is not the way to win hearts and minds about a project locally nobody wants. It is obvious to anyone who understands development that the scheme the developer wishes to build needs more land to be accommodated. The temporary access to the sports centre through Talacre Gardens will have to become permanent if the Dalby Street closure is given the go-ahead.
This is not in the public’s interest. No decent forward thinking Council could possibly agree to such a concession.
This spells trouble for the developer. Had he stuck to the confines of the land practically handed him on a plate (ie. the traveller’s site and Dalby Street), he might possibly have shmoozed his friends at the Town Hall into accepting his duff scheme. However, he is now possibly facing a public inquiry.
Mr Fulford, I wish you good luck. You are going to need a lot of it.
D V FELIX
Southampton Road, NW5
• THERE is no need whatsoever for the Council to approve the “Stopping Up” of Dalby Street (Dec. 07, “Ignore Dalby Street anger at your peril”).
Agreements between the developers and Camden Council made it clear that the planning permission granted on January 10 of this year was conditional on providing a suitable Traffic Management Plan and compliance with a 106 agreement (ie. the closure of Dalby Street). No mention of a temporary access through the park was mentioned in their application. In fact, the developers proposed a completely different temporary access.
It is my opinion that a good Traffic Management Plan would reveal the flaws in the developers’ application. That is itself would be enough of a reason to turn down the application and force the developers to go back to the drawing board.
This is not being unfair to the developers. The law must be followed by everyone, including these particular developers. The public’s interest must be protected.
For the good of the whole community, if the Fulford’s plans do not comply with the Unitary Development Plan and are likely to cause concerns in the future, then new plans drawn within the boundaries allocated to the developers must be re-submitted together with a Traffic Management Plan. This would necessitate a new application and public consultation.
This is too important for our community to fudge it. It is as simple as that.
PETER CUMING
Talacre Road, NW5
• THE only conclusion one can intelligently draw from reading Celine La Frenier’s letter (Dec. 07, “Ignore Dalby Street anger at your peril”) is as follows:
Our Council is disposing of scarce Open Space land which could be better used enhancing an increasingly popular sports centre and is destroying a beautiful and much frequented park along with it.
Meanwhile, a private developer is set to scoop up to £20 million by building his flats on land sold off by Camden Council for a pittance.
Is this what they a call a government for the people?
MILDRED THOMAS
Denning Road, NW3
• CELINE La Freniere’s letter (Dec. 07, “Ignore Dalby Street anger at your peril”) will make everyone consider what meagre benefits Camden is getting out of this incredibly stupid deal.
If her assessment of the agreement between Camden Council and the developers is correct (and I have a nasty feeling that it is), then the Dalby Street developers will pay less than £500,000 to acquire the land. Most of those payments relate to works they would need to carry out for their development, in any event.
A figure in the region of £500,000 for prime land overlooking a park to build 54 flats is practically giving it away.
But that is not the only consideration. If the project made sense and promised to enhance the neighbourhood there might not be such a vehement reaction against it.
This project, however, is likely to cause considerable harm locally, some permanent. Should Prince of Wales Road be narrowed to satisfy the developers, this would bring about traffic jams forever after. The removal of parking spaces at Dalby Street and at Talacre and congested traffic at the Sports Centre in the future will impair the activities of this successful local amenity.
As for the encroachment of Talacre Gardens, it is totally unacceptable. No one wants that. Not even for one day.
If the road closure at Dalby Street is granted, then be warned, a rebellion is certain.
SID BENNETT
Rhyl Street
NW5
• I ENCOUNTERED last week a very long queue of parents waiting to sign up their kids at the triumphantly popular Talacre Sport Centre (Dec. 07, “Ten hour queue to join a kid’s gym”).
What many wanted to know was what is our local government thinking getting rid of Dalby Street and adjoining Open Space land to a private developer when the Centre is thriving and desperately needing more space to accommodate its users.
This is stealing defeat from the jaws of victory.
PATRICE TAVERES
Weedington Road, NW1
• BEVERLY Gardner issues a terrifying warning following the Dalby Street’s developers’ confirmation that Talacre Gardens will be “sliced in two” (CNJ December 7, Ignore Dalby Street anger at your peril.)
Miss Gardner fears the Council will grant the stopping up of Dalby Street in circumstances where the developers are proposing a substandard alternative road access to the Talacre Sports Centre in the future. If the Council allows temporary access to the Sports Centre through a road crossing Talacre Gardens, then this would become permanent and a precious small park would be destroyed. It does not take great insight to agree with her assessment.
I looked up the Open Spaces Society’s advice on the matter and discovered that under the title of “Improper Park Management and Planning Control” the following warning was issued:
“Councillors can be particularly weak when requested to allow temporary uses of parts of existing parks. They start accordingly but can continue indefinitely.”
The permanent threat to Talacre Gardens is real. Our new Council should be alerted to this fact and act accordingly to preserve this important amenity.
What angers my family and me about all this is how our previous Council under Labour allowed this situation to develop to the point where the public now has to fight tooth and nail to protect their local amenities. Why didn’t the Parks Department simply turn down outright any idea by the Fulford father and son tam about using the forecourt to the Sports Centre and/or the park? These greedy intruders seemed to have been encouraged to push the boundaries unreasonably and to the detriment of the public.
Aren’t we more important than business men trying to swindle land they should not be entitled to?
MRS S ROBINSON
Gilden Crescent
NW5
|
 |
|
|
|
