Who the Camden Goods Yard Working Group Are

1. The CGYWG comprises every key third party stakeholder, save for the Primrose Hill CAAC.

Its members include representatives of:

· All the surrounding landowners: Market Tech, One Housing Group, The Roundhouse.

· Local businesses and business groups: Camden Town Unlimited, Viacom International Media Networks.

· The most significant local community group: Castlehaven Community Association.

· All the impacted tenant and resident associations: Gilbeys Yard TRA, Juniper Crescent TRA, 30 Oval Road Estate, Harmood, Clarence, Hartland Residents Association

· All relevant heritage groups (save for the Primrose Hill CAAC): Regents Canal CAAC, Camden Railway Heritage Trust, Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society, The Regents Network.

· North Camden Neighbourhood Forum (in embryo).

2. The CGYWG strongly supports the principle of development of the Camden Goods Yard in a manner which maximises its amount whilst achieving the high quality and connectivity objectives enshrined in the adopted CGY Planning Framework.

3. The support of all the tenant groups to this principle of development is unprecedented and illustrates the mature approach of the CGYWG: these members are willing to sacrifice their current homes and shown a maturity in embracing a vision for a better future that benefits the whole neighbourhood.

4. The CGYWG has formed its collective opinions on the planning issues after informed debate on the planning merits, formed in over 20 meetings and by reference to that which would be justifiable to sustain before a planning inspector at appeal.

Quality of Public Consultation

1. CGYWG has sought to influence the CGY Planning Framework SPD and the Morrisons site scheme through a mature and informed debate with officers and the developer, rather than acting as an opposition campaigning group.

2. Regretfully, the Barratt public consultation - although extensive - has in fact been characterised by their making presentations characterised: by spin, contrived and selected images; and justifications that seek to obscure the true impact and lack of quality of the development; and paying lip service only to meaningful and properly informed interaction. As a result, nothing of substance has changed in the scheme resulting from the so-called consultation with any third-party stakeholders.

3. Notwithstanding that the CGYWG have met with Barratt on 5 occasions, the first meeting being in February 2017 shortly after the first Development Management Forum at which Barratt first laid out to the general public their very preliminary images and conceptual ideas, the developer has misrepresented its ability to properly consult with the CGYWG in its application Consultation Statement by stating: “the group was constituted at a late stage in the developer’s ten months of pre-application engagement with the first opportunity to present and receive feedback being in the closing fortnight of the consultation period”. The concerns that the CGYWG issued as final list in July 2017 were those same concerns that it had been raising throughout their meetings. The issue of the list of concerns was accompanied by a request meeting with Barratt for it to respond; despite email encouragement, the CGYWG has waited 4 months for that response to come.

4. However, the CGYWG would like to applaud the officers who developed the CGY Planning Framework SPD with whom there was an excellent quality of mature, sophisticated and informed interaction that shaped the adopted version, which is an excellent set of guidance and aspirations for the whole of the Camden Goods Yard.

5. The CGYWG also appreciates the Morrison scheme planning team’s openness to discuss the issues: unfortunately, it has not managed to persuade officers that the planning detriments of the scheme outweighs the merits so that officers are now preparing to recommend approval to the scheme to the committee.

6. As a result, the CGYWG is now considering whether it will now need to move from an influencing group to formally opposing the approval of scheme at the committee, in the hope that a better scheme will then come forward, as happened with the Hawley Wharf development. The CGYWG will be holding a public meeting on the Thursday 16th November after leaflet drops to every affected household in the neighbourhood as part of this consideration.

Opportunity and Challenge in the Camden Goods Yard.

This is a once in a generation opportunity to re-connect this huge segment of Camden into the surrounding neighbourhoods, open spaces and pedestrian / cycle / public transport links, and to create a new neighbourhood that provides high quality public places and a fabulous linear park.

Key Concerns on the Planning Issues to the Current Morrisons Scheme.

The key benchmark against which we consider all the issues of concern should be judged is the adopted Camden Goods Yard Planning Framework SPD. We have concerns that in respect of most of these issues, the scheme does not meet the guidance in this document. The key concerns are the failure to produce:

1. A Strategic Site Layout complying with the SPD, that results in Inadequate connectivity to the rest of the CGY and inadequate pedestrian / cycles linkages to neighbouring streets and transport links, particularly missing the opportunity to make a level connection with Camden Lock Place.

2. Adequate Protection of Heritage Assets, particularly of the Horse Hospital and Primrose Hill Conservation Area: the harm caused is of such degree that it is not outweighed by economic benefit.

3. Public Realm Quality: sunlight failure to BRE standards and oppressive height proportion.

4. Housing Quality: widespread failure of sunlight, daylight and privacy to meet BRE and Camden guidance.

5. Protection of Neighbouring Residential Amenity: increased taxi drop-off on Oval Road, route through Gilbeys Yard, bus stands adjacent to residential windows

6. Adequate Transport & Highways Strategy that results in inadequate capacity of the road junction, cycle and pedestrian safety, failure in measurement of capacity to account for the potential of the rest of the CGY being developed.

7. A new green landscaped linear public park of adequate quality, size, and connectivity as called for by the Planning Framework SPD. A development of an area of this size has the potential to transform the quality of its interaction with its surroundings and to be visionary in its public benefit, the opportunity for which this scheme misses.

The CGYWG has produced a detailed analysis of these issues that explains and justifies its concerns. In summary, the development proposal over-reaches the density potential for the site at the expense of a high quality of design and amenity, and of the protection of heritage assets and vehicular, cycle and pedestrian safety. This is a missed once-in-a-generation opportunity to get a new neighbourhood that Camden residents and workers deserve.