It is roughly four years since the current fashion for deep basement excavations first hit the headlines with a serious flooding incident on Christchurch Hill. Since then there have been a substantial number of such planning applications approved, against our advice. Of these we have been made aware of twenty cases where neighbours have complained of substantial damage or flooding during or after excavation. We have now commissioned a first technical Case Study of selected cases to help provide evidence in support of the different legal and policy initiatives summarised below. This is one area where we need immediate support.
We remain very worried about another twenty, where we believe sooner or later major problems will occur. There are also around ten such applications in the pipeline. Any or all of these may need to be monitored later. Two of Camden’s decisions, where we have persuaded the Committee to refuse the application against Officers’ recommendation, have been appealed; both are test cases for us.
Intimidating legal difficulties
In one of these the developer is trying to bury us, by choosing the Public Enquiry appeal method. This requires us to appoint and pay for a legal team and expert witnesses to prove to the Inspector over a number of days that the development should not go ahead. This in particular is where we now need your help. The date is set for mid October.
Bullying tactics: defying and using the law
In the other case the developer has, regardless of the appeal, physically begun what can only be described as a “cowboy” excavation, which has already led to substantial damage next door, exposing an ambiguity in the law, which urgently needs to be clarified either at judicial review or by a statutory revision from the Government. This same “cowboy” approach is being tried at the Garden House, where you will recall we have fought and won a different battle to protect Metropolitan Open Land.
Incidentally, the big developers are making a fashion of trying to bury local protest with money by adopting this type of extremely expensive appeal procedure. They are about to try it on with for Athlone House, where the MOL principle is also at stake. This is another case where the Society will take financial exposure. Bullying can work. The developers of Witanhurst recently successfully appealed for a substantial development including a mega basement, prevailing over a group of private protesters in Highgate, who simply could not afford to match costs for witness cross-examination.
Has the Society acted prudently so far?
It has taken the Society some time to understand fully how these risks should be controlled within the planning system, how to win at the Camden level the test cases we have chosen, and how to guide Camden to write better policies and adopt better practices in future. The process has had some success in recent months and has cost us around £12K so far for the specialist legal, geotechnical and structural engineering advice needed to supplement our very strong in-house team. This has been an appropriate use of our funds, though resulting in a deficit last year. However, it is obvious from the list above that a lot of applications “got away”, either because they occurred pre-2009 and/or we could not afford to join in fighting them all with the necessary level of expensive technical evidence. We are trail-blazing this one, not for the first time in our past 113 years.
Working with Camden
We have spent a great deal of time this year behind the scenes working with senior planning and legal officers in Camden trying to minimise the areas of disagreement on policy and interpretation. We say serious damage prevention is a matter for public planning law; Camden and other local authorities say it is exclusively a matter for civil law, once damage has occurred. The result has been that in the two test case appeals we now confront, we are working alongside Camden against the developers. Camden has also accepted our amendments for their new local policies to control excavation, which are due to be adopted later this year. Camden has consulted us in the preparation of their written request for advice from their outside legal adviser seeking clarification on relevant national policies and statutes. We hope and expect to persuade Camden to work with us to obtain clarification from the Government on the statutory issue, rather than attempt to go down the potentially expensive judicial review route.
We have in all cases asked that resident associations or neighbour groups with whom we work, meet at least 50% of costs jointly incurred. We intend to use the current high level of interest locally in this topic to try to recruit more members to the Society to spread our financial burdens and increase the clout of the Society.
How will any funds raised help meet the Society’s objectives?
The Technical Case Study or Studies (tightly controlling costs) will help the Society to strengthen:
This time it is hard cash that we are calling for in much harder times. There are, however, on this occasion, good personal reasons, as well as altruistic ones, for giving us your support
The next application to dig a large hole may be next door or in your street with all the resulting months of noise, dirt, truck movements and in some cases severe damage.
If this goes on much longer, insurance premiums in Hampstead will soar even higher and property values suffer from fear of widespread subsidence risks.
Three very important applications for development on the fringes of the Heath have been turned down as a result of representations from ourselves and others. The two biggest stand in the area of the Highgate Society: Athlone House (which the Society has been fighting to save for eleven years) and Witanhurst are going to appeal. A second application for Garden House was also turned down on grounds of material increase in size, as before, and a design which is inappropriate for the Vale of Health setting.
Plaques, ponds and restoration plans
In Hampstead, following the taking down and cleaning of the Society’s existing black plaques, a new one has been put up in Heath Street to Sir David Low, the cartoonist. Others have been planned. The exciting renovation project at Whitestone Pond started in December 2009 and is due to be completed in July 2010. After many years of prevarication by Camden and Barnet, across whose boundaries the Toll House lies on Spaniards Road, a restoration plan has been prepared by Camden in consultation with the Society and English Heritage. We must hope that next year’s budget cuts will not intervene. We have worked with two Camden Councillors and, following a generous anonymous gift stimulated through the pages of the Ham & High, a plan is in hand to restore the War Memorial opposite Jack Straw’s.
On the Heath we remain critical of the failure of English Heritage to ensure that the grass in the area below the Henry Moore sculpture was quickly and effectively restored after last summer’s concerts; the problem has only been tackled shortly before the 2010 season begins. We are disappointed also that the general quality of the Kenwood gardens has deteriorated.
Memorial and cycling
We were pleased to be able to assist the City with the original wording to restore the memorial to the distinguished open spaces preservationist, Sir Lawrence Chubb, overlooking the South Meadow on the edge of Kenwood. Work to widen and make the Viaduct Path, up from the Highgate ponds past Tumulus Hill, safer for shared cycling and pedestrian use has gone ahead in keeping with the extensive consultation on Heath cycling conducted last year by the City.
We have been busy on many aspects of planning in addition to the challenges with basements referred to above. We began a campaign in 2000 to persuade Camden to introduce a legal requirement, known as Article 4 Directions, that a wide range of “minor” (but still crucial to the look of our neighbourhood) works, such as parking in front gardens, can in local conservation areas only be carried out with planning permission. This has now received approval following extensive consultation, for which we thank members’ support, in Hampstead Conservation Area - Belsize and Swiss Cottage were also successful pilot areas - and we hope and expect it will be extended to all the other Conservation Areas in Hampstead as soon as possible.
Local Development Framework
Our extensive comments of the draft Local Development Framework received broad support from Camden and have to a large extent been included in the final version, which has gone forward to the Inspectorate for final review in May 2010, before going to the Minister for full enactment later this year. There are some vital policies covering Metropolitan Open Land, Conservation Areas, basement and flood risk, which we are standing by to defend before the Inspector, if necessary.
Planning Ref: 2010/1901/P (New Residential Development) and associated application Planning Ref: 2010/1923/C (part demolition)
This would be a tremendous loss to the community and to Hampstead. The Duke is one of the few remaining traditional pubs and is much loved by its regulars and visitors. It is a perfectly viable establishment which contributes to the character of New End and if it goes, that will be it – another focal point of the Village will be lost.
If you would like to offer comments on the applications you can do so by writing to: Jonathan Markwell, LBC Development Control, Camden Town Hall Extension, Argyle Street, London WC1 8EQ or via the website links:
Relevant grounds for objection include:
1-3 of 3