Camden New Journal
Publications by New Journal Enterprises
spacer
  Home Archive Competition Jobs Tickets Accommodation Dating Contact us
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
Your Letters
 
I had every right to vote for tower plan

• Your front page story appears to us to be wilfully misleading in relation to both the nature of the West Euston Partnership (WEP) and the conduct of Councillor Heather Johnson as Chairwoman of the Camden Planning Committee (Towering row for ex-mayor, February 16).
The WEP is one of 10 neighbourhood partnerships in Camden and was set up to address the needs of people in disadvantaged areas.
The partners include councillors, community and voluntary groups, the police, the primary care trust, schools and businesses. It is seen to be an excellent model of neighbourhood working.
In terms of the Regent’s Place planning application the Wep has worked to ensure that this major development benefits people from the Regent’s Park estate.
This was done by the Wep planning working group, set up in 2004, currently chaired by Councillor Nasim Ali, which includes residents but does not include Cllr Heather Johnson or any representative from British Land. It was the working group which agreed to support the new planning application from British Land.
Wep objected to the first planning application made by British Land and the Crown Estate in July 2004. As you mention in your article both British Land and the Crown Estate, as local landlords, are partners on the Wep Board. We did not let this influence our decision to object when we objected nor to influence us when we supported the revised application in November 2005.
The Wep supported the application because we are convinced that it will benefit the local community.
Specifically, £250,000 will go to improve the youth centre (Samuel Lithgow), £137,00 towards improvements to open spaces (Munster Square), improvements to sports areas, new CCTV cameras, and £30,000 for public art on the estate.
Community groups will have the use of a new arts theatre facility within the development, at cost. This is to say nothing of employment and training opportunities, the affordable housing with larger much sought after units and facilities for the community arts charity Diorama to continue their work in the area.
The issues which arise where private developments are built next to local authority housing estates with high levels of social deprivation will always be sensitive and difficult. Making a positive contribution to ways in which young people can be constructively engaged in West Euston will provide clear and identifiable benefits for current residents, new business and for new tenants. Unfortunately your article did not look at these issues and we welcome the opportunity to draw your readers’ attention to this.
Mohammed Joynal Uddin
Chairman of WEP
Cllr Nasim Ali
Chairman of WEP Planning working group
Prof Alan Lord
Chairman of WEP strategy subcommittee
Albany Street, NW1


• I would like to respond to your article about the decision on the planning application for a development on Osnaburgh Street and Euston Road.
As I explained at the start of the development control meeting on February 9, I am a board member of the West Euston Partnership holding that position as a ward councillor. It is important to emphasise that I was not involved in the consultation or negotiations around this development, and so had no prejudicial interest in the matter. To be absolutely sure, I sought advice from the council’s legal department before the meeting and ensured my position was in line with the council’s code of conduct.
Councillors are not precluded from taking part in decisions simply because a proposed development is in their ward.
Wep was not making the planning application in this case, its role was as one of the channels for consulting the community on the development proposals and the organisation set up a sub-group to do this.
I was not a member of the sub-group and have not been involved in any of these discussions. I also ensured that I left Wep meetings at anytime a report was made from the sub-group. Therefore their board’s decision to support the application did not bind me to that view.
As I was not involved in any of the discussions, I did not know what changes the sub-group and residents negotiated.
I made my decision based on what I read in the officers’ report, the deputations made and the discussion at the development control meeting.
It was clear from the report that the majority of objections had been overcome and there was support for the scheme locally. My view was that the scheme in itself was of good architectural design and any shortcomings were outweighed by the provision of good quality, large unit affordable housing in the scheme, the huge improvements planned for the public realm and the contributions to employment and youth facilities. I voted to go with the officers’ recommendation to approve the application and would consider that this would be the correct way for a chairwoman use a casting vote.
Cllr Heather Johnson
Chairwoman, Development Control Sub Committee
Camden Council
Judd Street
WC1
spacer
» A-Z of Theatre
» Local Reviews
» Local Listings
» West End Reviews
» West End Listings
» Theatre Tickets
» Theatre & Hotel Packages













spacer


Theatre Music
Arts & Events Attractions
spacer
 
 


  up