| |
Give us a mix of affordable, private and social housing
• IN the light of concerns about decision-making on planning applications and the squeeze on public consultation (Richard Simpson, April 9), your letter columns provide a vital forum for making local views known.
The message from residents in the Bonny Street neighbourhood is coming through loud and clear.
Initially sold a glossy view of ecologically and socially responsible plans for the redevelopment of Twyman House by the property developers, we are now discovering the reality of these plans. In order to meet requirements to get the
go-ahead on grand accommodation with lavish recreational facilities at Primrose Hill, the developers propose a separate complex of 72 affordable, social and private flats, along with offices and retail outlets, to be crowded into the small triangle between Camden Road, the Regent’s Canal, and Bonny Street, without the necessary infrastructure to support the dense population and range of activities, and with barely enough space behind the properties to store and collect refuse, let alone provide for greenery or play.
A truly responsible plan for the Twyman House site would be conversion of the existing building into environmentally sound residential units.
These, as well as the Primrose Hill accommodation, would mix affordable, social and private ownership.
They would be supported by sufficient space between the Camden Road and Bonny Street residences for services to all properties and leisure activities.
Such a plan may be less profitable for the developers but it would pay off for the immediate and wider community who would otherwise have to foot the bill for the socially disastrous scheme currently proposed.
SHULA CHIAT
Bonny Street, NW1
Plans and democracy
• RICHARD Simpson’s concern (Forum, April 9) about speed in planning decisions at least sees the challenge the council faces to consult local people and still meet government requirements to provide a timely service to applicants – who are most often Camden residents too.
But I do not accept all of his conclusions.
For example, over 3,200 pages of government guidance on planning in the last few years doesn’t sound like deregulation to me.
More fundamentally, it is clearly wrong to suggest the Camden Council ignores the policies which have been carefully crafted and discussed with local people. That’s not an option, and when developers ask for a
pre-application meeting, they expect and receive the advice on how these policies apply.
It is normal practice in councils across London, saves time all round, and usually results in a better application later on. Such meetings do not guarantee an outcome or prejudge consultation responses, nor in any way restrict the democratic ability of elected councillors to turn schemes away.
From his regular discussions with us, Mr Simpson also knows that the council is constantly trying to improve advance consultation, and our development control forums are proving popular as one way in which larger schemes can get an early airing.
In addition, applicants are regularly advised to talk to their neighbours and amenity groups at an early stage.
The planning process has become swifter and busier – and the years sometimes taken in the past over applications served no one – but I am confident that we can combine an efficient process with effective consultation and local democratic control, within the overall framework of planning legislation.
Cllr Andrew Marshall
Executive Member for Community Development and Planning
|
 |
|
|
| |
| |
