| |
Ask Sport England!
• THE letter from Anne Doherty, Camden’s assistant director planning (The sports centre’s future is safe, July 24) contains statements that may surprise some readers.
First she refers to consultation “with all the necessary parties”. At no time, it seems, has there been any consultation that includes users or representatives of the sports centre. Perhaps they are not “necessary parties”. At the public inquiry, I asked for someone from the sports centre to be present. That was refused. In response, a letter was presented from Nigel Robinson, head of sport and physical activity, saying “the development is acceptable to the culture and environment department of Camden Council in so far as the impact on Talacre sports centre of the construction and post construction phases is manageable”. To be fair on this council officer perhaps one should stress the last two words “is manageable”.
Perhaps Ms Doherty regards as consultation the exhibition, put on for the developers by Shandwick Public Affairs at the sports centre in February 2007. This was a month before the executive (environment) sub-group meeting that originally considered the access arrangements.
An exhibition feedback form was provided with three questions and boxes to tick Yes or No. “Do you approve of the proposed new temporary access route (that is, no crossing Talacre Park)?” “Do you approve of the proposal to include social housing in the new development?” And “Do you approve of the proposal to include a doctors’ surgery in the new development?”
In the accompanying flyer there was no mention of marshals or of lack of pavements on the road access. Even the number of flats was omitted with only the 19 affordable ones (out of 55) mentioned.
Secondly, she says that the “independently appointed highways inspector also agreed the new proposed access would be an improvement and would better serve the visitors to the centre”. I have reread the inspector’s report. The nearest I can get to that assertion is this under the section overall conclusion.
“The development has been granted planning permission and could not be constructed if the highway use remains… In my opinion the disadvantages likely to arise as a result of the stopping-up do not outweigh the advantages to be conferred by the proposed orders”.
The starting point for the inspector was that the development had been approved, subject to access being possible.
He does not (and presumably should not) live locally. He made two visits to the site, once when it was quiet (morning) and once when it was busy (after school on a weekday).
Massaging the facts in this way does the council no credit. The claim that consultation has taken place would be convincing if we knew that it had included those who work at the sports centre. It now seems that Sport England, who would have understood the issues, were never consulted.
That surely can’t be true?
In the six months since the public inquiry, campaigning virtually non-stop, I have only found two instances where the development has support.
Try asking a councillor and he or she will always say they never supported it. The two exceptions? First the councillor from a ward adjacent to Haverstock (the ward on whose edge Talacre stands). He said that although he had always been against the development it should go ahead since the Haverstock councillors had failed to oppose it. He urged other councillors in his party to support that line.
Secondly, the four councillors on the executive (environment) sub-group meeting on June 19, who are minuted as “concluding that the proposed arrangements were an improvement over the current situation”.
Curiously, the only two members of that sub-group I have spoken to, have both gone out of their way to say that they don’t and never did approve of the scheme. Presumably they can find some theological way of squaring the circle, but should the future of the sport centre be dependent upon such craven behaviour?
Council officers have said that they (and not councillors) have the authority to agree the acceptability of the new access routes so it is to be hoped that they will take responsibility and stop the scheme on the grounds that these routes are unsafe and the public amenity (sports centre) is not safeguarded.
NICK HARDING
St Anne’s Gardens, NW5
|
 |
|
| |
