To: Whom it may concern
From: A resident of Little Green Street, London NW5

Open Letter on the proposed Construction Methodology Statement (CMS) to develop the Railway Club, college Lane NW5 (Relating to Appeal Decision APP/X5210/A/02/1097183)

First principles

At the very heart of this open letter is a simple question: is the scale and nature of Little Green Street (a single track cobbled residential street) suitable for use as a construction route for four years?  

Soon it will be eight years since the purchase of a parcel of land (the site) between the Ingestre Estate and College Lane, NW5.

During this time the site has not been developed because proposals to do so have failed to satisfy the planning and associated requirements and these are required before any works can begin. None of these substantive issues have ‘gone away’ and over time, others have emerged.

After two previous planning applications were rejected by Camden Council, in granting planning permission in May 2003, the Inspector added five conditions. Condition 5 is concerned with providing a construction methodology statement (CMS) that “…shall include the measures to be taken to protect existing properties, the access arrangements for demolition, excavation and construction vehicles, the hours of work, parking of vehicles and the delivery of vehicles and plant to the site”.

Condition 6, which the specific document provided does not specifically, but appears to partially address  states that “Development shall not commence until details of the proposed vehicular access and the highway and the turning facilities within the site have been approved in writing by the local planning authority”.

Both need to be approved in writing by the local authority (Camden) and then “implemented within the approved details”.

Just because developers want to use LGS as their access route, does not mean per se that they can. This submission, together with a range of supporting documents provided by expert witnesses, establishes that these conditions are not be met by the developers and indeed, challenges whether they ever could be fulfilled.

Much of the proof of this lies within Camden’s own internal Forward Planning and Projects Transport Planning report of 2002 (appended), which remains relevant to the arguments raised in this letter and elsewhere.

In this, using data from the year 2000, it is concluded by Camden that even the fifty visits per day that a completed development would result in would be too much for Highgate Road to absorb. In the intervening years, the traffic loading has without doubt increased. It is remarkable that this document has apparently been ignored in the deliberations of Highways Department in reviewing the proposed CMS.

A detailed deconstruction of flaws, factual errors, omissions and misleading representations in the CMS is made elsewhere (c.f. Alan Baxter report, and others). This letter reprises the basic elements of why this is a bad proposal, how and why it can be prevented and suggests a possible way forward.

What did the Inspector intend?

Four years after his decision, we can not know. We do know, however,  that he did not in his observations specify or even assume that demolition, excavation and construction should be via Little Green Street, although he does note increased pedestrian use, post-construction as being 'in keeping'.

“Whilst the wording of the condition is such that Little Green Street is not specifically referred to, the applicant has chosen to pursue access to the development site via these means…” (Letter from Development Control Manager to Cllr. deSouza, July 2006).

Both the Inspector, and the developers “acknowledged the problem [of restricted access… and the physical limitations that would be imposed by the width of Little Green Street”. Elsewhere in the same letter of March 2007 from the Planning Inspectorate, furnished on being asked to review the decision, they confirmed that “ultimately only the Courts could make a definitive judgement as to his reasoning” despite the lapse in the formal challenge period, an opportunity not taken up by the defendants, Camden Council.

Camden’s legal power to act

Much is made by Camden of its 'legal duty' to the developers, (Cllr Green’s letter in The Times of 7 September 2007) but no reference has ever been made by them of its duty of care to its existing residents, not only those of Little Green Street, but others in the local community and beyond.

It is clear that under section 97(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990), Camden has the legal authority to modify planning permission, even on any permission granted on an application made under section 78. (See letter from SJ Berwins for residents to Camden of 13 November 2006). I am aware that Camden disputes this.

But why should Camden act?

Little Green Street and traffic use today

LGS is simply not used by vehicles, except occasionally and then often in error. This has been the case since the closure of the former Railway Club and is borne out by the developers own (but otherwise dubious) survey figures. As such, it’s uneven cobbled’ surface is entirely suitable and indeed, part of its charm. “Leaving [LGS] as it is not an option we are pursuing” Fatish (sic) Patel for the developers, Camden New Journal June 2006.

Nevertheless, in the CMS, the developers are arguing that at Camden’s expense, the road is upgraded to facilitate construction traffic. It is without doubt that this access will lead to further damage (even routine garbage collection damages the kerbs).

The street is for the most part comprised of Grade II listed houses,
English Heritage, in a report of 13 December describe LGS and its street furniture and surfaces, together with the Grade II listed terraced houses as making “a significant contribution to the Dartmouth Park conservation area and is one of the few intact C18 streets in an area dominated by Victorian and post war buildings”.

Early imagery provided by the developers suggested that cars would pass each other in the street, an impossibility made slightly more credible by the erroneous measurements that appear to this day (letter to the author from Deputy Head of Planning 11 September 2007). Camden has perpetuated the error (Camden Transport Planning’s report of September 2002 reports LGS as between 3.0m and 3.6m) throughout.

At its narrowest point, the carriageway of LGS is only 2.5m wide. The inspector uses Camden’s figures and DB32 to determine that the width of the road was acceptable access.




Little Green Street is not the only route into the site.

It is, however, the easiest for the developer. Worryingly, it is Camden who has declared it to be the only access (Letter from Camden to SJ Berwins, acting for residents on 28 February 2007 “The Council has assessed the situation and does not consider that there are suitable alternative access solutions available” and “alternatives… have been considered but were found to be unsuitable”) a position reinforced in copied emails from Camden housing to the developer furnished in the CMS.

However, it does not appear to have always been considered the case. “Little Green Street is the only access to the site that is currently available” Statement to London Tonight, broadcast July 2006.

Were Little Green Street an unremarkable residential street, constructed to current standards, the issues of safety and environmental impact, traffic management and more would remain, but LGS is far from modern or current standard. Most of its 18c buildings are fragile, grade II listed (one of which: no. 3 is ironically featured in Camden’s own material on protecting listed properties) and densely populated. There are no pavements to speak of, the street is cobbled and, before 1980 or so, the road was not even adopted as a highway.

Although the developers prefer the ‘biggest trucks we can  use down the shortest road’ route (cf. earlier versions of the CMS) other, more imaginative (but expensive for the developer) options including temporary partial demolition, heavy lift cranes, overhead gantries are not even considered, despite being successfully used elsewhere in London.

Camden (Housing), the owners of Ingestre Estate and Road have explicitly rejected the use of Ingestre Road for several reasons including;

•    Damage to newly laid modern road surfaces
•    The road being as narrow as Little Green Street at one point
•    It is “being designated a private road”
•    Disturbance to residents
•    The playgrounds, community centre and elderly persons home
•    Its use as a ‘cut through’
•    The H&S of residents

Additionally “…the turning circle from Ingestre Road would be impossible”. (Highways Response to Alan Baxter report, undated, recovered under FOI request).
I agree. However, I fail to understand how a road half the width (or the same as Ingestre Road as above, but one of considerably poorer condition) could be considered acceptable instead, especially as the conditions cited above apply equally to Little Green Street which to all intents and purposes (but clearly not ownership) is an extension of Ingestre Road.

Moreover, even if the ‘inconvenience for fewest people’ justification is argued by Camden, the knock-on effect onto Highgate Road (and by extrapolation onto other arterial roads) of approving the use of Little Green Street undermines this argument.

It is not the responsibility of anyone other than the developer to identify the means by which they can safely and otherwise access their site. Caveat emptor.  It is, however, the duty of Camden to ensure that a wide range of interests, including environment, safety, heritage and others are protected. If it is not possible to do so, then it is in Camden’s authority (and duty) to withhold consent.

What about the people who already live here?

The developers do not consider residents and their access to the houses. I have four children, each of whom return from school or day care during the hours of site access. How is this to happen?

The developers have never spoken, nor written to the people who live in LGS or elsewhere. In March 2006, they even wrote to Camden lobbying that Camden should no longer consult local residents. This suggests that there is unlikely to be constructive dialogue if the consent is given.

It is ominous to note that the attention (in both quality and detail) to the requirement of the developers’ requirement to demonstrate in their CMS attention to protecting the houses (and by inference, the residents) in Little Green Street has actually diminished over the various planning applications (August 2001, December 2001, August 2002), appeal (May 2003) and three (June 2003, February 2004, or perhaps four versions if a draft received by Camden but not formally consulted on in April 2007 is included).

Far more detailed consultation (and indeed, it would arguably be prudent to negotiate) with residents and others by the proposed methodology to mitigate the undisputed disruption that would be caused as part of the CMS.

These might include (but are not limited to) physical barrier, active monitoring (including CCTV and stress gauges), full structural surveys (the CMS states that vibration damage from construction vehicles is ‘unlikely’. However, the houses lining LGS and the site along College Lane are all, over 150 years old, underpinned only partially), escrow or other bond arrangements as security against damage, named contact with planning authority authorised to act on breaches of consent.

Public objection

•    More than 16,000 unique visitors have visited www.littlegreenstreet.com since July 2006.
•    Approaching 2,000 online petitioners, many making heart-felt pleas and including dozens from America, Australia and many European countries, have been reinforced by approximately 200 further signatures from local people.
•    We know of dozens of letters and emails submitted directly into planning.
•    Extensive celebrity visibility with many of Camden’s famous adding their support to the campaign
•    Wide media coverage, including all London broadcast media (LBC, BBC Radio London, ITV London Tonight, The Times, The Sunday Times, Guardian, BBC News online and extensive and repeated coverage in the Ham& High, Camden New Journal, Camden Gazette and other free London titles.

It should be noted that the universal and wide-spread ‘self-evidently bad decision’ that using LGS presents suggests that Camden is out of step with public opinion. It might also be noted from the unalloyed comment added by many petitioners that the perception of the role and motivation of the authority is questioned. In the face of evidence such as provided in submissions like this, a failure to act decisively would not reduce any such inappropriate misconceptions, but the converse is equally true.


 
What next?

Given all the above, I request that the fullest and most visible and transparent consideration is given to the review of the CMS and that experts and residents are invited to challenge the very factual basis on which Camden are being invited to consider accepting the proposals.

I commend detailed submissions made on other aspects offering a critique of the provided CMS including those from the Dartmouth Park Conservation Society, The Georgian Society, Michael Coombes of Alan Baxter on the many deep and misleading flaws and omissions in the CMS, and of course, those of my neighbours, each of whom has spent enormous effort in seeking to help the authority make an informed and wise decision.

In conclusion

The saga of this speculative development remains vexing for the simple reason that it is clearly not reasonable to anyone who looks at it with even a cursory glance. Those who see the site and the proposed access are only ever hardened in their bewilderment and often, resolve to act to prevent it.

It is possible that the site can be developed but only with a radical re-think of the objectives and the means by which they will be achieved. My objection is limited only to the unreasonable and I welcome a truly collaborative partnership between putative developer, local authority and residents.

Yours faithfully,...