|
|
 |
| |
The future of historic Athlone House remains uncertain |
Close door on demolition of old mansion
Athlone House’s owner must abide by an agreement that protects the building’s future, argues Jeremy Wright
THE Athlone House Working Group, representing local residents’ organisations, understands that David Cooper, the solicitor acting for the new owner of Athlone House, has reconfirmed his client’s intention to submit an application to demolish this historic mansion and to construct a larger edifice.
We find this astounding!
Perhaps he feels that with a virtually unlimited budget, reputedly £80million, his client can ride roughshod over legal agreements. We beg to differ.
Three years ago, the then owner of Athlone House was granted planning approval to build luxury apartments on the site. As a condition of this advantageous consent, increasing the value of the site, they signed a legal agreement with Camden Council under Section 106 of the Planning Act to restore this historic mansion and three cottages within 42 months.
The apartments are built, but no restoration work has started. In fact, the developer sold on the mansion and two cottages to a new buyer who now wants to bulldoze this building and replace it with a pretentious palace.
But the S106 obligations to restore the buildings remain binding on him and all subsequent owners.
We are therefore encouraged to learn that Camden have reminded the new owners of these obligations and have asked how they will complete restoration works by July 2009. Camden has also asked how they have been implementing the further requirements of the S106 agreement – to repair and maintain the building until it is restored so as to prevent it becoming “a building at risk”.
Has the owner been maintaining the mansion as required? There should have been regular surveys, maintenance and repair of the building fabric, heating and ventilation on a 24-hour/7-days-a-week basis to prevent deterioration, but none of this was visible when we inspected in 2007. Since then, we understand there are holes in the roof, pigeons and damp, and the cottages are neglected.
The state of the building is the responsibility of the owner, and Camden must require all deterioration be repaired.
Camden commissioned a report from the Museum of London, and this emphasised the importance of Athlone House and the desirability of retaining it. Despite this, the owner’s architect Robert Adam and his historical consultant Mervyn Miller both protest that Athlone House is of little value and should be demolished.
These two consultants have other involvements next to the Heath. It was Mr Miller who produced the report that persuaded the Council that Fitzroy Farm in Millfield Lane next to Hampstead Heath was worthless, should be demolished and be replaced with a vast and ugly becolumned palace.
Two plots away from Fitzroy Farm is a proposal to demolish the Water House and replace it with a much larger palatial edifice for which Robert Adam is the architect.
The impact of these insensitive developments on Millfield Lane, the Ladies Swimming Pond, and on Hampstead Heath would be terrible.
These projects met with overwhelming opposition, and have become notorious causes célèbres in the area, as featured in the New Journal.
We have no doubt that Athlone House is an important historic building with significant local connections. It also fits perfectly into the landscape, visible from parts of Hampstead Heath, yet merging unobtrusively into the background because of its mellow red brick and eccentric profile. It could be readily restored into a spectacular modern family home.
The proposed replacement for Athlone House is a huge ostentatious palace in near white stone with green domes that will dominate Hampstead Heath, and could also be seen as an attempt to rival Kenwood House itself.
It will stand on Metropolitan Open Land (urban Green Belt) where a replacement dwelling cannot be permitted if it is “materially larger”. Since plans indicate that it has some two and half times the floor area of Athlone House, it is surprising that this proposal is being contemplated.
Mr Cooper knows this. He was the solicitor representing the owners of the Garden House, which stands in Metropolitan Open Land by the Vale of Health pond. Camden Council granted approval for a replacement dwelling four times larger. However, the Heath and Hampstead Society won a judicial review that overturned Camden’s decision, and won again in the Court of Appeal. This landmark decision, that a replacement dwelling should not be “materially larger” than the existing building, now applies to Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land throughout the country. Our counsel’s opinion is that this decision also applies to the proposed replacement for Athlone House, which is certainly “materially larger”.
We are ready to defend this test case. But this should not be necessary. Camden has a cast-iron legal agreement requiring the restoration of the mansion and cottages. If any applications are submitted to demolish and replace the mansion, these should immediately be sent back.
Camden must ensure all the obligations of their existing and excellent agreement are complied with.
Restoration of the mansion and three cottages was imposed – and willingly accepted – as a binding condition permitting a lavish development of apartments. Now that these have been constructed, it would be an appalling breach of faith by Camden Council if they were to allow their agreement to be flouted.
|
 |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
