RECENT WHAT CAMPAIGNS
West End Square (187/199 West End Lane) DevelopmentThe text of a letter sent to Camden Council by WHAT:
Dear Max Smith,
I am writing on behalf of West Hampstead Amenity & Transport to object to application number 2011/6129/P to redevelop the site at 187/199 West End Lane to create among other things seven new buildings between five and twelve storeys high. We consider that the proposed development should:
- have a maximum of six storeys;
- have a greater proportion of affordable housing mixed with the private housing;
- contribute section 106 funds towards rebuilding the adjacent London Overground Station.
We strongly object to the proposed height of the taller buildings. This site is located at the interchange between the three West Hampstead stations and on West Hampstead's main street. As such, it is part of the gateway for residents returning to and visitors coming to West Hampstead by rail and by road. The proposed development will therefore have a very high profile and will impact not only on those living close to the site but more generally on West Hampstead's residents and visitors.
We recognise that this site is in one of the areas designated for intensification in the 2011 London Plan with significant potential for development. We also recognise that within this context it is designated in Camden's Local Development Framework as a growth area predominantly for housing and is listed in the Council's draft Site Allocation document.
We do not believe however that any of these planning designations support building anything approaching 12 storeys on this site. Such a height would have a detrimental effect on the village feel of West Hampstead which is described in the Council's draft Place Shaping document as one of the key attributes of the area.
The surrounding buildings reach a maximum of five storeys on West End Lane except for one small part of 156 West End Lane which is six storeys high. With this in mind and given that
this is an area of intensification we would accept a height of an absolute maximum of six storeys. We note that a reference in the 2009 draft of the Site Allocations document to the site being suitable for180 units has been deleted in the latest draft of that document. We believe that this recognises that 180 units, let alone the 203 proposed by the developer, would amount to over-development.
Greater proportion of affordable housing
We believe there should be a greater proportion of affordable housing units, much closer to the Council's target of 50%. The percentage referred to in the developer's application relates moreover only to floor space and not to units. The affordable housing should be mixed with private housing and not located in what could be a ghetto at the western end of the site. The developer's proposal is at variance with the provision in the latest draft of the Site Allocation document which suggested that at least some of the affordable housing should be at the eastern end.
We urge the Council to check that there are no safety issues with access to social housing right at the back of the site e.g. that the emergency services could have reasonable
access. We understand that there would be an emphasis on housing for the disabled
and we believe it is bad practice to have such units in a relatively inaccessible location.
Contribute section 106 funds towards rebuilding the adjacent London Overground station
We welcome the proposed square bordering on West End Lane. The current proposal leaves space for the eventual redevelopment of the London Overground station. However, in the interim, the installation of lifts in this station has been agreed by TfL and funding for them
is available. We believe that the opportunity should be taken to put additional section 106 money towards rebuilding the station is liaison with London Overground. The lifts are being funded with disability access funds and this would dovetail well with the disability focus of the redevelopment.
WHAT AGM
The WHAT AGM was held on 24th January, followed by a public meeting with speaker Sam Monck, Camden's Assistant Director Environment and Transport.
His subject was the relationship of the Council and citizens in the light of public sector funding cuts and how to generate greater discussion on a wide range of issues. An example he gave was the Council's admission last winter that they were unable to clear all streets of snow. As an alternative, they issued community groups with shovels so snow could be cleared in their area.One successful initiative has been Camden's work with the Climate Change Alliance where they have worked with local business to achieve reductions in CO2 emissions and now have a policy on solar panel installation which will help residents applying under a forthcoming national "green deal" initiative.
Sam's remit also covers recycling and street cleaning. He would like to make the recycling process simpler and clearer to persuade more people to participate. The street cleaning budget is projected to decrease by 40%, so there is to be a campaign to encourage a social and behavioural change so that people do not drop so much litter, and businesses on local high streets will be informed of exact collection times, so their rubbish will only be on the street for a short time.
The audience commented on a number of issues:
- lack of response from the Council when they are asked why parking restrictions are not lifted when street work is postponed
- How Section 106 money from developers can be used more effectively
- Publicity for the national "green deal" on the Camden website and making the website clearer so that the public know who is accountable for various services
- Recycling for some of the older houses without sufficient frontage for the various bins, and lack of collection on Estates
- Tesco deliveries in West End Lane
- the Place Shaping plans for West End Lane and Mill Lane
The text of a letter sent to the Boundary Commission for England:
Boundary Commission for England 64 Hillfield Rd.
35 Great Smith Street London NW6 1QA
London SW11P 3BQ
29th November 2011
Dear Sir/Madam,
Separation of West Hampstead and Fortune Green Wards
I am writing as chair of West Hampstead Amenity and Transport, a long-established (1973) membership organisation in the area of West Hampstead (which covers both West Hampstead and Fortune Green wards). We are a non political organisation.
My committee has discussed the proposed boundary changes which would place Fortune Green within a different constituency to West Hampstead, and would like to express our strong opposition. These areas are currently two wards, but together they cover an area known as West Hampstead, which functions, historically and currently as a whole. We, and other local groups, cover the whole area and there is no distinction between the two. To have them separate would go against all local feeling, which sees the two wards as a unified area.
To give some examples:
1. Our organisation is called West Hampstead Amenity and Transport and we cover both West Hampstead and Fortune Green wards.
2. Many other local groups also do this, including the Safer Neighbourhood Team.
3. The proposed boundary changes would mean that local streets would be cut in half, with half in one constituency and half in another - for example Mill Lane, Broomsleigh Street.
4. One local primary school, Emmanuel School, which is on both sides of Mill Lane, would be cut in half, with one side in one constituency and one in another.
5. Our transport networks are in West Hampstead but serve residents of both wards - Jubilee Line, Overground, Thameslink, buses starting from West End Green.
6. Likewise our shops are concentrated in West Hampstead ward and are used by residents of both wards.
As an organisation which deals with the local council and also with our local MP, we know how important it is to have a single focus for the area and to be able to speak to an MP who is committed to the interests of the whole area and knows it well.
To have two MPs involved would complicate matters; one can surmise that for both the MPs the areas would become peripheral, in particular Fortune Green which has nothing historically in common with the proposed new constituency, from which it will be separated by the Hendon Way.
We want to maintain the historic entity of West Hampstead (West Hampstead and Fortune Green wards) and to improve it. We have no doubt that this improvement would not happen under the proposed changes.
We hope you can reconsider this proposal.
Yours faithfully,
Virginia Berridge (Chair, WHAT)
on the proposed changesto the NHS was held on Monday, 4th July. The meeting took the form of a discussion on the issues by FrankDobson (Labour MP for Holborn & St. Pancras) and former Minister of Health), Chris Philp (Conservative and former parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn) andJohn Bryant (Liberal Democrat and chair of Camden's health scrutiny committee).
Frank Dobsonspoke about the improvements made to the NHS by the last Labour Government - better survival rates, shorter waiting lists and waiting times and increased medical staff. He was against proposed competition in the health service and favoured
collaborative work between primary care and hospital clinicians. The dismantling of
PCTs was unnecessary.
Chris Philp, defending the proposed changes, wanted a more effective use of resources,
limiting of targets, and local control of the NHS. The aims of the Bill were to cut
bureaucracy and improve outcomes. The 'pause' in the legislation will give more time
for the changes, and all clinicians (not only GPs) will be involved in commissioning.
John Bryant said that creeping privatisation had already started under the Labour
Government. The Liberal Democrat election manifesto called for elected local
health boards and their Spring Conference had passed a motion to request some
changes - no cherry-picking of standard operations by private providers and more
collaboration between all local clinicians.
Questions from the public included:
- Why the stroke unit at the Royal Free Hospital had moved to UCLH.
Emergency treatment is now provided at UCLH and the Royal Free
concentrates on rehabilitation with an increased number of beds.
- Provisions in the Bill for the health of older people.
- There is no mention in the Bill of prevention and health education.
- GP Commissioning means that practices will have to employ a financial director
and administrative staff. The reductions in admin staff at hospitals will be
thus replaced by an increase in those staff by the commissioners.
- Problems of some doctors not referring patients, unless they could afford private
treatment
- The new rules of Disability Benefits.
Street Seating:
Members of the WHAT Committee, together with John Futcher (Camden Council) and members of KOVE recently did a "walkabout" in West End Lane to discuss street seating - especially replacing the seat outside the Library.
TESCO
WHAT Committee member Carol Klemera has been working with Tesco to make their
deliveries more acceptable to local residents. Tesco have promised to have a quicker
turn around on deliveries and to try our suggestion of parking the vans further up West
End Lane, where there is more room.
GONDAR GARDENS DEVELOPMENT
WHAT has opposed the current plans.It would like to see social housing on the site with more access for the public. West Hampstead is very deficient in open space and it's important to use what we have as effectively as possible.
NHS REORGANISATION
We have been investigating what this will mean for the local area and recently had Cllr John Bryant, Chair of the Area Health Committee, to talk to us. Many of the changes filled him with anxiety. We hope to have our Jester Festival meeting on this subject.
STREET BOXES
WHAT is trying to find out more about how these telecommunication boxes are placed on our streets and why they are proliferating without much control.
WHAT recently sent this submission to the Transport Committee enquiry into London Underground:
WHAT is a transport and amenity campaigning group in West Hampstead. It was established in 1973 and so has been in existence for nearly 40 years.
Our submission focuses on:
- The continuing breakdowns and malfunctioning on the Jubilee Line after the upgrade has been completed
- The difficulty of communication with TfL.
We have particular concerns about the Jubilee Line and its performance after the upgrade.
In West Hampstead we have put up with vast numbers of closures due to the upgrade
of the Jubilee Line. We appreciate that this work had to be done, but the work took
much longer than predicted with many shutdowns affecting local businesses and residents.
Now, although the work on part of the line has been completed, the situation is almost
worse than it was during the upgrade. Virtually every day there are problems - signal
failures, non-communicating trains with problems at Baker Street. There are long
delays and even several unplanned closures of the line. It has got to the point that one
has to build into a planned journey at least 30 extra minutes to avoid being late due to delays.
Given the severe problems recently when trains were stuck in tunnels and doors not able to
open, we are very concerned about safety on this line. This is not an acceptable situation. We have been told that the upgrade means that trains can run more frequently, and therefore make journey times less - our experience is the complete opposite of this with
journeys often taking much, much longer than before.
In addition, as a local group concerned about such issues, we have found Transport for
London to be an impenetrable organisation. There is an annual transport liaison meeting
organised with TfL by Camden Council. But this is insufficient to develop an ongoing
dialogue. Contact with officers is difficult. TfL has tried to improve its information
for the public in recent months but we feel it must do more to develop workable systems which genuinely interact with those representing local passenger interests. Recently
an approach to Peter Hendy's office resulted in a senior staff member attending a WHAT
meeting. This could be built on, with a regular contact point within the organisation. We
understand that London Travelwatch (with whom we have liaised) have encountered similar
problems.