newsforum Winter 2019 1

With the election season in fullswing, amenity and civicsocieties are anxious to know

whether Brexit and the NHS will continueto crowd out all other issues, or whetherthe parties’ manifestos will make cleartheir intentions about the planning system.A year ago, Labour launched its PlanningCommission, promising a “root and branchrethink”. The final report was due to havebeen published in October, but where is it?Meanwhile the Conservatives havereinforced their commitment to the“permission in principle” regime, heedlessof the problems this causes for local communities and theirelected representatives.

Against this background, Civic Voice, the national organisationfor the civic movement has launched its Manifesto 2020-2023.Addressing the widespread distrust of a system largely playedout between developers and local authorities, the manifestocalls for a profound change in the timing, intensity and style ofcommunity engagement. Its three main goals are to:• Create a more ‘accessible, balanced and collaborative’ (ABC)

planning system with communities at the heart• Move towards a citizen-led, participative model of

governance for our towns, cities and villages• Ensure local authorities have the appropriate resources and

proper powers to enhance the historic environment and tomake better places

Specifically, Civic Voice is calling on the next Government to:• Introduce a ‘pre-application community consultation stage’

and a ‘limited community right of appeal’ into the planningsystem.

• Strengthen Statements of CommunityInvolvement (SCIs) so that the statementsset out, in accessible Plain English, how thelocal authority and developers will beexpected to engage meaningfully with localcommunities on planning.• Introduce an ‘Office for PublicParticipation’ to oversee standards andconsistency in public consultations. Formajor developments it would be anindependent honest broker to carry out thepre-application consultation with the localcommunity, removing any perceivedconflict of interest for the developer.• Utilise planning technology in decision

making so that we go from talking to the ‘already engaged’to having ‘everyone engaged’ in shaping our towns, citiesand villages

London Forum strongly supports this initiative by Civic Voicewhich follows hard on the heels of a number of similarly-intentioned moves including the Centre for London’ssymposium on Strengthening Public Participation in London’sPlanning System, and TCPA’s Planning for a Just City. Let’s hopethat we can unite these straws in the wind to create a tide ofpublic and expert opinion in favour of a dramatically enhancedrole for communities in the planning system – a tide that willcause the next Government to sit up and take notice, despitethe immediate pressures of Brexit and the NHS.

Full details can be found at http://www.civicvoice.org.uk/uploads/files/Manifesto_

FINAL_Screen_version.pdf w

1 Civic Voice Launches Manifesto

2020-2023

2 Small Sites Policy the NLP

Inspectors’ report

3 The London Forum AGM

4 New threat to London's Green

Belt

5 London Forum News; PE& T

report

6 London Forum Open Meeting -

Improving the Public Realm 7 Wimbledon to Hainault

8 Spotlight on Belgravia Residents

Association

10 A View from the Suburbs: the

New London Plan

13 News briefs

14 Round the Societies

16 Events and meetings

In this issue

Spotlight onBelgravia ResidentsAssociation, Page 8

Civic Voice Manifesto 2020-2023

Civic Voice Launches Manifesto 2020-2023As campaigning for the coming General Election gets under way, London Forum's vicechair, Paul Thornton welcomes the Civic Voice Manifesto launch.

Issue 83 Winter 2019

newsforumThe London Forum - working to protect and improve the quality of life in London

The London Forum of

Amenity and Civic Societies

Founded 1988www.londonforum.org.ukw

Let’s hope that we can unite... to create a tide of opinionin favour of a dramaticallyenhanced role forcommunities in theplanning system

newsforum Winter 20192

Sadiq Khan’s New London Plan(NLP) was published in draft inDecember 2017, consulted upon in

2018 and examined by three Inspectorsin 2019 at hearings on over ninetysubjects, with London Forum invited toparticipate in most of them. With thepublication of the Inspectors’ report atthe end of October, another milestonetowards the adoption of the NewLondon Plan has been passed.

The Mayor has six weeks to considertheir recommendations and tell theSecretary of State the final plan versionhe intends to publish. The Mayor is notbound to follow the Inspectors’recommendations, but he has to saywhich he proposes to reject and why,and the Secretary of State has the power to overrule him. Thefinal NLP could be effective from March 2020.

The Inspectors addressed only those NLP policies whichcould affect its soundness. That is, they expressed no views onthe many improvements which the Forum and others hadsought. Fortunately, the Mayor incorporated many of those in anew draft version of the NLP in July 2019. The Inspectors haveapproved all of these.

Those recommendations of the Inspectors that are mostsignificant for London Forum member societies aresummarised below:

Housing targets

The overall housing targets for boroughs over the next ten yearsshould be reduced by 20% from 649,350 to 522,850. This iswholly a consequence of the recommended deletion of theMayor’s policy H2A on a presumption in favour of developmentfor small sites. The Inspectors consider that H2A isproblematical in principle and unlikely to achieve the desiredoutcome. The general policy for use of small sites Policy H2remains.

Deletion of policy H12

Deletion of Policy H12 Part C is recommended. This would haveprevented boroughs from setting prescriptive area- wide dwellingsize mix requirements for market and intermediate housing.

Modification of viability assessments

The requirements relating to site-specific viability assessmentsshould be modified to make it clear that they apply only ifrelevant policies in the local plan are up to date,

Modification of Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land

Policies

Policies G2 and G3 (Green Belt land in London and Metropolitan

Open Land) should be modified to bringthem into line with national policy. TheMayor’s proposed blanket ban ondevelopment on such land would bereplaced by an “only in very specialcircumstances” condition. This isparticularly serious for Metropolitan OpenLand, where there is no prospect oftrading MOL lost to development for landnewly designated as MOL.

Policy opposing Heathrow third

runway recommended for deletion

Mayoral policy T8 which opposes theHeathrow third runway delivery unlesscertain demanding criteria are met isconsidered to be contrary to nationalpolicy and is recommended to be deleted.

The default assumption should be that Heathrow developmentwill go ahead.

Additional land for industrial uses

The draft London Plan may need to allocate "many hundreds ofhectares" of additional land for industrial, storage anddistribution uses, including, potentially, green belt land. Thereport concludes that storage and distribution uses (B8) "areexpected to require more land amounting to between 280 and400 hectares".

Compatibility with 2019 NPPF

In a letter to the Mayor, the Secretary of State had set anexpectation that the Plan should be reviewed immediately afterpublication, so that it can have regard to new national policies inthe 2019 NPPF. However, the NLP Inspectors agree that thiscannot be completed before 2023. They are concerned that anyearlier, partial review would deter boroughs from taking actionto implement the NLP and would divert GLA staff away fromtheir primary task.

Intensification of land use

Despite the probable (and especially for the outer boroughs,welcome) relaxation in housing targets (see article by GordonMassey elsewhere in this edition of Newsforum), the NLP is stillpredominantly a charter for intensification of land use across theCapital. NLP policies on ‘Good Growth’, design and densificationwill require up-to-date Local Plans. London Forum urges itsmembers to press their borough councils to get ahead of thegame with site allocations, context and character analyses anddesign codes; otherwise there will be little protection againstunacceptable development.

More detailed information, including a non-technical summary can be seenat: http://tinyurl.com/rjblv54

Will Small Sites Policy H2A survive?London Forum Chairman, Peter Eversden comments on the report of the NLPInspectors

The new London Plan

Despite the probablerelaxation in housing targetsthe NLP is stillpredominantly a charter forintensification of land use ...for some boroughs there will belittle protection againstunacceptable development.

newsforum Winter 2019 3

London Forum AGM

Present

Peter Eversden (Chairman) andrepresentatives of 27 Societies.Apologies for absence were receivedfrom 5 societies.

Welcome and Introduction

The Chairman recorded the Forum’sappreciation of Alan Baxter and his staffin the provision of office and meetingspace, facilities and valuable networkingopportunities with so many otherorganisations in their building. AlanBaxter had asked the Chairman to pass on how much he andmany others appreciate the work that London Forum membersdo: “London would be seriously damaged without you all, sokeep it up!”Minutes of the AGM 31st October 2018 were agreed unanimously.

Chairman’s report

The Chairman described the lengthy process which shouldeventually lead to an approved New London Plan, and LondonForum’s critical part in that process. Publication of theInspectors’ report following the Examination in Public wasimminent (Editor’s note – this is covered elsewhere in thisissue of Newsforum). London Forum had recently written tothe Mayor about the Small Sites policy, and had advisedmembers to contact their borough councils.

London Forum had been involved in a number of transportmatters, including aviation and Heathrow expansion. LondonForum objected to shortening of bus routes and reducedfrequency of buses but TfL implemented most of thoseproposals.

London Forum had contributed to many consultations, asreported in the Annual Report and in ‘What We’ve Said’ pages ofour web site, but the GLA and the Assembly had been occupiedwith the New London Plan and the Government had made littleprogress on legislation as it grappled with one major issue.

London Forum had supported an Assembly scrutiny on theMayor’s call-in of planning applications, giving evidence aboutrecent cases. The outcome of the Mayor’s interventions wasrarely satisfactory and London Forum was seeking strongerGLA support for decisions of the boroughs.

The Chairman hoped members had someone keeping aneye on the web site for new items and following Twitterpostings from @London_Forum, which were also reproducedon each page of the London Forum website. Updates could beevery few days and our e-bulletins could not be that frequent.

London Forum had held an open meeting on broadeningsocieties’ membership and would be holding another event topursue that subject further.

Other open meetings had covered Town Centres, BetterUrban Design, Development Viability and Improving the Public

Realm. London Forum had been fortunate tohave had some very experienced speakersincluding the immediate past President ofthe RIBA.

The Chair expressed his hope thatmembers shared his sense of pride in whatthe London Forum has achieved and heextended his thanks and, he hoped,members’ appreciation to the members ofthe Executive and the Planning,Environment & Transport committees fortheir hard work.

Approval of Annual Report and Accounts for 2018/19

The Treasurer noted that the London Forum had adoptedFinancial Reporting Standard FRS 102, a requirement of theCharities Commission. The relevant Statement ofRecommended Practice (SORP) and FRS 102 required that,where practical, charities record the benefit of donationsreceived in kind, such as the value of the officeaccommodation kindly provided by Alan Baxter Ltd. Thisincreased both the income and the expense columns withoffsetting amounts, but the restatement did not change theoverall surplus previously reported for the prior year.

The annual surplus of £2,275 had been added to the Forum’sgeneral reserve. The Trustees had a plan to commission a newwebsite and new databases, which was expected to consumea proportion of the reserves.

A motion to approve the Annual Report and Accounts wasapproved nem con.

Appointment of Honorary Independent Examiner

Mr Egan was willing to continue and a motion to reappoint himwas agreed nem con.

Election of Trustees

The Officers were willing to continue. Messrs Hammerson,Bach, Eversden and Pickering were retiring by rotation andwere also willing to continue. A motion to re-elect Officers andTrustees en bloc was carried nem con.

The Chairman noted that the number of trustees was at theminimum permitted by the Constitution. He appealed torepresentatives either to put themselves forward or toconsider nominating one of their Society’s officers to theLondon Forum's Executive Committee, or to its committeedealing with planning, housing, environment and transport.

Helen Marcus and Diane Burridge explained how interestingand rewarding they had found their role as London Forumtrustees.

As noted elsewhere, five participants subsequently offeredthemselves for consideration as trustees.

The London Forum Annual General MeetingSummary of the Minutes of the 2019 AGM of the London Forum Of Amenity And CivicSocieties held 6.30pm, 3rd October 2019, at 77 Cowcross Street, London EC1 John Myers reports The full minutes can be found on the Forum website: www.londonforum.org.uk

The Chair expressed his hopethat members shared his senseof pride in what the LondonForum has achieved

continued on next page

London Forum News

newsforum Winter 201944

Other Business

In response to a question about how many underlyingmembers the member societies had in total, Mr Thorntonresponded that the best estimate was of the order of 100,000individuals. The Chairman noted that many member societiesalso had affiliated residents’ associations and their totalmembership would be considerable.

Following the AGM, the Deputy Mayor for Housing, JamesMurray, was to have addressed the meeting but he wasunfortunately indisposed. His office had sent through somespeaker’s notes, and the Chairman, Peter Eversden used theseas a basis for a talk about Housing. A lively discussion ensued.

London Forum new trustees 2019-20Following the Chairman’s impassioned plea at the 2019 AGM,London Forum is delighted to welcome the following newtrustees, each of whom was co-opted to the London ForumExecutive Committee at its meeting on 29th October

Clare Birks

Chair, Bermondsey Street.London Committee member of SPAB LondonVice Chair, Trustees, Making MusicSpeaker at November Open Meeting, Broadening theMembership Base

Mary Hogben

Finchley Society Planning CommitteeArchitect; member Urban Design GroupGreen Register of Construction Professionals; Association for Project ManagementInterested in community engagement

Darian Mitchell

Past Chair, Amwell Society Participated in October PE&T meetingInterested in community engagement In planning

John Rushton

Friends of Jubilee Gardens and Trustee of theTrustCo-founded ‘Small Back Room’ in 1977 Former Chair of the Waterloo BusinessImprovement District TrustDirector of Build Studios co-working space

Helen Warner

Westcombe SocietyBackground in policy and practice, strategic andbusiness planning, performance management,social media, web design and marketingOpposes Silvertown Tunnel; concerned re airpollution; seeks more diversity in societies

The London ForumAGM (continued)

A major new threatto London's GreenBelt Helen Marcus comments

The Campaign to Protect Rural England is advising all itsmembers to write to the London Mayor Sadiq Khan toask him to stand firm on protecting Green Belt and

Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) following the Inspectors’proposed modification of Green Belt and MOL Policies in thereport on the Mayor's draft London Plan. (see page 2). There iswidespread dismay that the report proposes a watering downof the Plan's strict policies to protect the Metropolitan GreenBelt and London's unique Metropolitan Open Land, despitegrowing awareness of the value of green spaces in the face ofpublic health, climate and nature emergencies.

This comes just as recent research at Newcastle andWarwick Universities provides evidence confirming that theproximity of greenspace to an individual's home has asignificant association with improved mental wellbeing. Thestudy, one of the largest ever conducted on this subject,surveyed more than 25,000 people.

One is moved to ask whether government ever looksbeyond narrow ideology when policy is formulated. Is anyproper, wide ranging audit conducted of what unintendedconsequences and costs of these policies might be? Or is it allintentional? - Policy dictated, as we have reported here onseveral occasions, behind the scenes to satisfy commercialinterests, without any concern for wider public well-being?

More information can be found by googling A spatial analysis of proximate greenspace and mentalwellbeing in London.Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies,Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear. Centre for Doctoral Training in Urban Science, hosted at theUniversity of Warwick.

Plus ça change By kind permission of Ken Pyne; originally published in the RICS Journal c. 1970.

Consultations

The Committee goes regularly andcarefully through the lists ofconsultations issued by theGovernment, the Mayor and Transportfor London, giving one of its members aremit to study carefully all that seem tobe within the Forum’s remit, and draft aresponse. The Government’s almostexclusive concentration on Brexit mayhave reduced the number ofconsultations since the last NewsForum.

A consultation by TfL on 20mphspeed limits in central London closedon 10th July, only five weeks after opening. Some of thecommittee were concerned that it would make for worsedriving.

The Committee responded to consultations on the busroute changes necessitated by the closure of HammersmithBridge for repairs. The diversions of all motorised traffic arecausing serious pollution and congestion. The Committee hastherefore pressed for very early action to commence repairs,giving them priority for funding over any new river crossing (forinstance the Silvertown tunnel).

The Committee responded to the Green Paper ‘The future ofUK aviation - Aviation 2050’ and to further consultations aboutHeathrow, rather unsatisfactory since they were conducted byHeathrow (and therefore, for instance, had very littleinformation about flight paths) rather than the Government.

Monitoring

Committee members shadow the various scrutiny committeesof the Greater London Assembly and keep abreast of the workof Select Committees of Parliament. There are many inquiriesby Select Committees of significance for the Forum (delivery ofsocial and affordable rented housing; implications of the WasteStrategy; review of the building regulations; the funding andgovernance of local roads; road safety and mobile phones) butnone where a Forum input was required, and of course allSelect Committees will fall with any election. The committeesof the Greater London Assembly have great potential forscrutinising what the Mayor is doing, but do not seem to be aseffective as they could be. Among the most significant arethose into the delivery and progress of the GLA Housing ZonesProgramme, the growth in the number of planned tall buildingsand the effects of Crossrail delay on small businesses.

London Plan and the Mayor’s actions

The Committee has been waiting for the publication of theInspectors’ Report of the Examination-in-Public of the draftnew London Plan, and will now be assessing its implicationsand deciding whether to make representations to the Mayorand/or to the Secretary of State. The Small Sites Policy in the

Plan as originally drafted caused muchconcern, because it could give rise tolarge numbers of planning applications forwhich there has been little or nocommunity engagement, which if turneddown by boroughs, could be allowed onappeal despite fierce opposition withinthe affected communities.

The Committee has on severaloccasions discussed with someexasperation planning applicationsallowed by the Mayor despite having beenrefused on valid grounds by boroughcouncils.

Actions by Boroughs

There are great variations amongst boroughs in the way inwhich they encourage or allow public participation in planningcommittee deliberations. The Committee has discussed this,and the related question of the publication of notes of pre-application discussions, and is considering the possibility asurvey, asking member societies to report on boroughs’practices.

Local authorities allowing parts of public parks to be closedoff for private events has caused concern. This has been aparticular worry to members around Finsbury Park.

Other organisations

The Committee attempts to keep abreast of the work of themany organisations whose field of responsibilities is similar to,or overlaps with, that of the Forum. Important among these areJust Space, Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Campaignfor Better Transport, Civic Voice, the Heritage Alliance, Centrefor London, Urban Design London, and London First.Committee members, where possible, attend events arrangedby these organisations.

Members of the Committee have been associated withwork by the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission,and have also sought to make the Labour Party’s review ofplanning policy aware of the importance of community bodies.

Housekeeping

The Committee had a full and constructive discussion of apaper by Paul Thornton about Associate membership of theForum. Its implementation is ongoing, but it bodes fair toproduce a more coherent and structured arrangement for therelationship between the Forum and its disparate partners (forsome of which see ‘Other Organisations’ above).

The Committee has taken the lead role in overseeing theForum’s programme of Open Meetings, making them astopical and interesting as possible, and publicising them widely- the use of Eventbrite for some of these has proved asuccessful innovation.

5

London Forum News

newsforum Winter 2019 5

Planning, Environment & TransportCommittee MattersPeter Pickering reports

The Committee’s lead role inoverseeing the Forum’sprogramme of Open Meetings,making them as topical andinteresting as possible hasproved successful

newsforum Winter 20196

Improving the Public RealmOpen Meeting 19th June 2019: improving the environment for pedestriansPeter Pickering reports

Transport: London Forum Open Meeting

The Guest speakers were AdamHarrison (Cabinet Member forTransport and the Environment at

Camden Council), David Harrison,(Islington, and London Living Streets) andMaria Curro, (Project Manager at theDepartment of the Built Environment,City of London Corporation), and therewas a lively discussion.

Transforming Tottenham Court Road

and Gower Street

Adam described the West End Project,making Tottenham Court Road andGower Street two-way and transformingthe area, refurbishing Whitfield Gardens,making Princes Circus a unified space,and the War Memorial accessible.

David said that motorised traffic had waged a hundred-yearswar against pedestrians and residents. The public realm shouldbe where people could enjoy, linger and walk. All councils saidthat pedestrians should have priority; only Camden and theCity put that into practice. Electric vehicles, helpful for airpollution, might increase traffic. Street trees were wonderful,but could obstruct the view of fine buildings.

Improvements in the City

Maria said that 90% of the trips in the City started or finishedwith walking. The coach park in St Paul’s Churchyard wouldbecome a park for people; excluding all traffic but buses andpedal cycles from Bank Junction during weekdays had greatlyimproved air quality, as had removing the 1960s Aldgategyratory and the uninviting subways and introducing two newpublic open spaces. The City were looking ahead to a 15 mphspeed limit, and specific road user charging; this would beadditional to the congestion charge and Ultra Low EmissionZone (ULEZ).

Concerns at pavement clutter

Adam described the problem of negotiating with BT andprivate owners about telephone boxes (and InLink). David was

concerned at the clutter caused by the roll-out of electric vehicle charging pointswhich could be outdated by technologicaladvance. Maria said that the City wasworking on a better system of way-marking signs.Most street lighting was ugly; cities wherelighting was fixed to buildings were nicer;Maria said that fixing street lighting tobuildings was widespread in the City.Wheelie bins were ugly; Adam said that asresidents’ experience of wheelie binsgrew they discovered ways of mitigatingtheir ugliness.

Overcrowding

Overcrowding on public transport and two-way working on streets were serious for safety. David said thatif walking were more pleasant people would prefer it to shortbus trips, thus easing overcrowding. Adam said that the busessection was the hardest part of TfL to deal with. Maria said thatthe changes in the City speeded up buses.

Cycle lanes

Dangerous congestion was caused in Islington when a narrowcycle lane pushed cyclists close to the white line. David agreedthat there were problems; perhaps some provision for on-street car-parking could be reduced. Maria would encourageQuiet Ways; there was a difficulty with shared space - the Citywere looking at the structure of junctions. Cycle-lane standardshad changed recently.

Adam admitted that the beautiful resurfacing of TottenhamCourt Road could be undone by multiple digging up by utilities -it was hard to get competing cable providers etc to worktogether.

7% of travel was by cycle, but cycle superhighways madethings difficult for pedestrians. 80% of travel was by bus, but

buses were third in Greenwich transport planners’ hierarchy.Bidirectional cycleways on one-way streets or in the middleof pavements were dangerous. Some cycleways slowedtraffic to 6 mph, increasing pollution.

Vision, strategy and long-term planning

To achieve change authorities needed vision, to beconsistent and not waver. Camden had a 20-year strategyand the City a long-term programme. Since all schemesrequired finance only those, relatively few, councils with alarge car parking reserve account could be ambitious.How could retail and commercial businesses, with premisesthat needed servicing with deliveries, cope? Timing

deliveries was the key; experience was that businesses likedwhat was happening, with its improved environment forpedestrians.

Motorised traffic had waged a hundred-years war againstpedestrians and residents.The public realm should bewhere people could enjoy,linger and walk. All councilssaid that pedestrians shouldhave priority.

AldgateSquare

Transport

newsforum Winter 2019 7

Wimbledon to HainaultFollowing Tony Michael’s feature article on Wimbledon town centre in the last issue ofNewsforum, Andrew Bosi discusses the rail options

In the early 1990s there were threeschemes for enhancing rail servicesacross London. The Jubilee line

extension was very much a late-comer tothis list and secured the go ahead onlybecause it was claimed that Olympia &York would contribute to the cost.

Crossrail was promoted by thegovernment although it fell foul ofinternal Tory Party politics. The Majorgovernment decided to punish therecalcitrant members by putting them onthe Crossrail committee and theyretaliated by blocking its progress.

By far the best value for money was offered by the Chelsea-Hackney line. Unlike Crossrail, it had the “Heineken factor” – itreached the parts other lines did not reach. It was only thelikelihood that Crossrail’s costs would rise more rapidly onaccount of the terrain through which it passed that gave itpriority. One wonders if anyone then realised just how rapidly.

Historical background

Most of the deep tubes in central London were built between1890 and World War I. There was some extension into thesuburbs before the next war, but by the time the Victoria linecame to be built there had been a long period of urban sprawlfor which long distance buses were increasingly consideredwith disdain, and there was consequently growth in privatemotoring. Once the population of London began to rise again,the inadequacy of the rail infrastructure was impossible toignore. Existing lines were grossly overcrowded.

The Chelsea-Hackney line, later extended to become theWimbledon-Hainault line, was designed to addressovercrowding on existing lines as well as the need for newones. Stations like Leytonstone, Essex Road and those of theGospel Oak-Barking line see few passengers alight on themorning journey into London (or Barking) and consequentlythere is no room for their passengers to board. So manypeople fill the trains at Hainault and Wimbledon that there isinsufficient capacity at intermediate stations.

The overcrowding on the Gospel Oak-Barking line in partresults from the fact that it crosses eight other lines withoutany decent interchange. The Wimbledon-Hainault linerecognised the importance of interchange.

Unfortunately, as time passed and with the governmentcommitted to Crossrail ahead of the north-east to south-westline, construction costs rose outstripping general inflation. Thecollective memory of Olympia & York was allowed to fade andthe ideology of private good public bad took hold. The idea thatdevelopers would pay for the line if it served potentialdevelopment sites held sway, even though those sites arefurther from the employment centre of London. This hasresulted in a project that no longer serves the areas that were

developed in the period when railinfrastructure was being neglected orignored. It also increases costs, both ofconstruction and ultimately to theenvironment as commuters areencouraged to travel ever greaterdistances to achieve the same end.

Prior to the major consultation onCrossrail2, which aroused widespreadobjections to some of the details, therewas a low key consultation on whether topursue a Metro option or a Regional option.

The wrong question and the wrong issues

Like the tram versus trolleybus consultation over the WestLondon scheme, it asked the wrong question and posed thewrong issues. (In West London, it was the articulated nature ofthe tram or trolleybus that provoked opposition, a double-decker tram or trolleybus would not have been as hostile topedestrians and cyclists). The consultation highlighted theperceived benefits of a Regional option – more peoplebenefitting – and ignored the loss of interchange stations whileplaying down the additional cost. There was no mention of theadditional impact above ground. It was only when the majorconsultation was opened that the altered impact on the Angelarea, the area between King’s Cross and Euston andWimbledon came to light.

The original concept involved providing new direct linksbetween existing stations, reducing the distance travelled tomake the same journey. The change to include Euston, madein the belief that the construction of HS2 would compel afuture government to provide Crossrail2 as a means ofdispersing its passengers, undermined that concept. Shiftingthe station west had the effect of duplicating some existinglinks, albeit with a rather circuitous walk underground, andresulted in the switch from Essex Road to Angel. Sir PeterHendy, the then Transport Commissioner for London, believedthe case for extra capacity at Euston would be unanswerable.In fact, it is being seriously challenged by the Taxpayers Alliancebecause firstly the number of trains using HS2 seems likely tobe reduced (or eliminated if HS2 stops at Old Oak Common)and secondly the majority of its passengers are not arriving inthe peak periods, they will be more evenly spread.

Continuing beyond Wimbledon using existing lines requiresconsiderably more land take at Wimbledon. The alternative ofchanging trains, though less attractive for passengers wouldstill represent an improvement in public transport provision andwould significantly reduce the cost.

The Government is asking for a review of the route ofCrossrail2, but is still attracted to the idea of sending it toplaces which yield the greatest private sector contributionrather than driving down the cost of the scheme. A return tothe Metro option would be a far better way forward.

The Chelsea-Hackney line,unlike Crossrail, had the“Heineken factor” – it reachedthe parts other lines did notreach.

The Belgravia Residents Association, or the BRA as it iscommonly known, was formed in 1972 after a group of localresidents had joined together to campaign for changes to the

Leasehold Reform Act. After a successful campaign, the residentsdecided that rather than disband, the experience should be put togood use for the benefit of local residents and the area. TheBelgravia Residents Association was born.

The founder of the BRA and the first Chairman was LordEzra, a former chairman of the then National Coal Board. Therehave been only three Chairmen - Lord Ezra, Arthur Shannon, anarchitect, and the current Chairman, hotelier James Wright.The BRA represents a small central London area with transientpopulation and residents with second homes across thecountry and overseas. This poses significant challenges for theAssociation. We have been incredibly lucky to have had a widevariety of members in the BRA and on the Committee, frommembers of the House of Lords to retired professionals. Theirexperience, devotion to local matters and energy has beeninstrumental in the success of our organisation and has madeus what we are today.

Difficulties in recruiting members

However, in common with most local amenity societies in thecountry, we have been facing difficulties in recruiting andretaining members. This is partly a consequence of our transientpopulation. To engage with all residents and businesses in thearea, we conduct surveys, organise events and assist residentsand businesses on a one to one basis. This hard, unpaid work hasborne fruit, and we have been rewarded with a recent surge inthe membership. Our membership and committee reflect thecomposition of the area today. Furthermore, each committeemember either has a business to run or is in employment. Whilethis is encouraging, it also puts a constraint on the ability todevote time and energy to matters “local”.

As an example, one of the most laborious tasks is vettingevery planning application that is made and on which we areasked to comment. Most of Belgravia is a conservation area andthe number of listed buildings is high. Therefore, we have nochoice but to devote less time to smaller, less contentiousitems such as change of windows or air conditioning plantrequests, unless of course they were to cause detrimentalvisual impact, or residents highlight potential issues with theplans. We dedicate more time and energy to review andcomment on larger scale developments and, of course, thedreaded basement issue. We work in close contact withGrosvenor, the local land owner, and in the case of basementswe have a common approach.

That said, we do cross swords with Grosvenor from time totime where they are pursuing a more aggressive developmentto maximise profit, sometimes forgetting that buildings aredeveloped in an existing community. Our residents and mostof the businesses in Belgravia want to keep the “village” feel ofBelgravia at the forefront, with a retail mix to suit locals andLondoners rather than international needs.

Mediating planning disputes

We work very closely with Westminster Council, but like mostcouncils in the country, their coffers seem to be under greatstrain. This affects the area and our work directly. We have seena surge in planning disputes where the BRA has had to step inand mediate, sometimes pointing the parties to an appropriateroute to resolve issues. We are always happy to help ourmembers, but as a voluntary organisation, we don't alwayshave the resources to do so. Normally, this would be a matterfor Council's planning and building control. This reinforces theneed for more resources for local government.

So why are we doing all this? To give you an example:Cundy Street flats - private and social housing. The plan was todemolish and build new flats. As a result of discussions withdevelopers we have been instrumental in winning the right toreturn for all residents, and changes in the design including aspace for the community open for all, which we desperatelyneed in our area. Consultations are ongoing; we are hoping formore positive changes to come.

Often threats that arise from time to time are not merelylocal issues but have an impact on the wider built environment.In these cases, we can be more effective by liaising with otherbodies (and ensure we are not seen as merely a bunch ofNIMBY’s). Examples are:

• We lobbied to keep the red route out of Belgravia to ensuresensible traffic arrangements for local residents andbusinesses

• We worked with other local amenity societies to stopKensington & Chelsea changing Sloane Square from itscurrent roundabout to a crossroads, threatening to destroythe Square and create traffic chaos and increased pollution.

• Working with the Qatari royal family on the Chelsea Barracksdevelopment resulted in changes to the Lord Rogers' andCandy brothers’ plans, making it a more inclusive scheme.In this case it is not strictly Belgravia, but local residents insurrounding streets called on our help.

• We were instrumental in bringing in traffic calming schemesto Belgravia in parallel with the congestion charge. Thisinvolved closing a rat run through Ebury St from theEmbankment, and changing Buckingham Palace Road fromone-way flow to two-way.

All of the above take an inordinate amount of time and effort forBRA committee members, and we do not always win. We failedin our attempt to stop Grosvenor closing down the historicNewsyon's timber yard in Pimlico Road. This was a purposebuilt timber yard still operating as one 150 years on, and wellused locally. This is where Travis Perkins company started off.

The value of membership

To meet the cost of running the association our membershipfee is £30 a year. We get involved and support all members whoask for advice - whether it be on planning or local traffic issues,or for a way through the morass of dealing with the council or

8

Spotlight on the Belgravia Residents Association

newsforum Winter 2019

Spotlight on the Belgravia ResidentsAssociationChair James Wright and committee member Mike Parts on the changing face ofBelgravia Residents Association

The Belgravia ResidentsAssociationContact: James Wright Chair

email: info@belgraviaresidents.org.uk

website: www.belgraviaresidents.org.ukw

newsforum Winter 2019 9

other services. Our membership also gains access to our Partnershipscheme which was started a few years ago. We feel very stronglythat bringing local residents and businesses together will help tobuild a strong community. Our scheme offers exclusive discounts inlocal businesses, and provides them with a free promotion channel.

In our area with its transient population, it is hard to build acommunity. Many people don’t want to get engaged until someadverse change is affecting them directly. Like most civic andamenity societies, we receive no funding from either local or centralgovernment so we need to be creative with our limited funds andresources in order to reach out to our residents, many of whom haveno internet access. We areconstantlyseekinginnovativeideas forcommunityengagement.

Age: almost 50

Circumstances of Birth: Campaign group for reformof Leasehold tenure.

Biggest Successes: Changes to the Chelsea Barracksdevelopment, stopping the Sloane Square trafficchanges.

Biggest Disappointments/Frustrations: Attractingand retaining members.

Present Preoccupations: Belgravia is a small, mostlyresidential, area in central London. As well as 4,500residents, it is also a home to a number of Embassiesand multinational companies. We work tirelessly withlocal residents, businesses, developers, local counciland landowners to ensure all developments aresympathetic to the area and acceptable to the localcommunity.

Working Details: The BRA Committee of 11members meets monthly. We receive an average of55 planning applications for comment every month.

Special Characteristics: Belgravia was developed inthe early 19th century by Richard Grosvenor, 2ndMarquess of Westminster under the direction ofThomas Cubitt. It has a number of terraces centred onBelgrave Square and Eaton Square. Much of Belgraviais still owned by the Grosvenor family propertycompany. Owing to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967,the estate has been forced to sell many freeholds toits former tenants.

Belgravia takes its name from one of the Duke ofWestminster's titles - Viscount Belgrave, derived fromBelgrave, Cheshire, a village on land belonging to theDuke of Westminster.

Most of Belgravia is a conservation area, with manyGrade I and II listed buildings which helps to preservethe historic feel of the area. A location to many a filmand TV series and an inspiration to several books,Julian Fellowes' "Belgravia" among them.

Last Word: Working for a better Belgravia for all.

Profile

Cundy Street flats

Chair James Wright

Right:Example ofrecently restoredsign.

Below: EatonSquare

A View From The Suburbs

newsforum Winter 201910

A View from the Suburbs: the New LondonPlan By Gordon Massey, Chairman, Federation of Residents Associations in Barnet;Planning Officer, Barnet Residents Association

High Barnet has undergone a long transition from a self-contained Hertfordshire town with its own local industryto a predominantly dormitory suburb of London. By the

beginning of this century the transition was largely complete,with little industry left and far fewer residents engaged in thelocal economy. Most remaining local employment is now inthe service sector. Despite these significant changes the areahas continued to maintain its appeal as a place to live,especially for families. But the social structure of the area hasbeen underpinned by the archetypal suburban home – themodest terrace or semi-detached house, and it is this that maynow be under threat.

The changing demographic

In recent years many relatively higher-income families and evensingle people with jobs in central London, who in the pastwould have found a home in more fashionable inner boroughs,have been forced by higher house prices to look much furtherafield. In High Barnet this trend is best illustrated by thegrowth in passenger numbers at the tube station which haveincreased by over 50% since 2011. Whilst the population hascontinued to grow the extra homes that are needed now rarelyinclude houses. In addition to limited new build, we have hadoffices, floors above shops and industrial buildings convertedto flats in substantial numbers. Thus we have an everincreasing supply of small flats but more intense competitionfor the largely static house market. These problems are nowlikely to be exacerbated by the expectations in the NewLondon Plan which will increase the drive to yet more smallflats and may even diminish the supply of houses.

Failure to deliver homes for

families

Barnet’s current Local Planenvisaged some 2,200 new homes a year overa ten-year period, which initself was a step change thatjust about doubled previouslevels of provision. It has beenno surprise, in common withmany other Boroughs, thatdelivering such numbers hasproved to be way too difficult,and indeed last year was thefirst time that the Boroughdelivered more than 2,000homes. And yet, the draftNew London Plan wasseeking another step-changeby asking the Borough todeliver over 3,100 new homesa year over the next ten years.

Apart from doubts whether such a target would be anywherenear achievable, the Council’s own future Housing Strategyreveals the fatal flaw in the whole enterprise. The assessmentof need has identified a requirement for 62% of properties tobe three-bedroom or more, with a requirement for just 38% tobe one or two-bedroom homes. But over 90% of new homescreated in the Borough in recent years have been flats.Developers are shy of building three-bedroom flats for thesimple reason that families do not want them, so they findthem hard to sell. Thus the majority of those built have beenstudios, one or two bedroom properties.

This current pattern of new construction may well fulfil theneeds of the expanding population of singles and couples, butdoes not meet the long-term aspirations of families where,perhaps other than those on low incomes who may have littlechoice, the expectation for a long-term home remains a strongdesire for a house. With few houses being built, and littleindication that older people are willing to leave their familyhomes after the children have moved on, no wonder that300,000 people a year are leaving London to settle elsewhere.Certainly anecdotal evidence suggests that even at theextreme edge of the outer suburbs where we are, largenumbers of children of local families are obliged to move out toHertfordshire or beyond to be able to achieve their aspiration tolive in a house. And the many incoming singles and couplesmoving into the flats here will similarly look elsewhere whenthey want a house, creating a large transient population withno incentive to put roots down here.

Green and pleasant land.

newsforum Winter 2019 11

Perverse policies

So what we have been seeing is anemerging strain on the previousdemographic pattern where thehousing and social fabric of the area hasbeen geared to settled families. Andwhat can we expect next? Fortunatelythe recent report of the PlanningInspectorate following the ExaminationIn Public (EIP) of the draft New LondonPlan has advised substantially reducedhousing targets across London, withBarnet now expecting a figure of23,640 over the next ten years, some8,000 fewer than anticipated and now little more than thetarget for earlier years. How will this pan out? What we doknow is that the all the large brownfield sites have gone or haveschemes in the pipeline, so the low hanging fruit has all beenplucked. Nor indeed are there many small brownfield sitesremaining as developers have trawled and trawled again forevery tiny plot of land where a couple of houses or a smallblock of flats might be squeezed in. Many of thesedevelopments, large and small, have been controversial withstrong opposition from residents. And it does seemsomewhat perverse that the system allows the conversion ofhouses to flats in areas where there is a shortage of familyhomes.

A gamble in social engineering

The revision of Barnet’s Local Plan has yet to appear forconsultation, so I can only make an informed guess as to whatwe might expect. I do anticipate that, though substantial, thetarget of some 19,000 homes on large sites could well be met.There are eight large sites in the Borough with planningapproval or with schemes in the pipeline that could deliver upto 15,000 homes, provided the enormous redevelopment atCricklewood is delivered. But these numbers will come at aprice. A predominance of small flats in high rise blocks will bethe order of the day at several locations where transport andother facilities are minimal. Diane Burridge wrote verygraphically in the February Newsforum about the negativeimpact of living in high rise flats on the well-being of individualsand the conflict with the expectations of families, so I need notdwell on this. If these flats are primarily going to be homes forsingles and couples only, they will engender an enormouschange in the social fabric of the suburbs as the needs of theyoung and childless are very different from those of families.But there has to be an assumption that these flats will indeedbe occupied by substantial numbers of families. Pastexperience of families in high rise blocks does not engenderconfidence that this gamble in social engineering will besuccessful, and the unwillingness of middle and upper incomefamilies to live in flats is unlikely to change.

A further expectation in the draftPlan was that in the suburbs over 40% ofthe new homes would come from smallsites - defined as those that are less than0.25 hectares. In Barnet this would haveequated to some 12,000 homes over thenext ten years. But we know theexpectation that many of these homesshould come from brownfield sites is anillusion, so the search would have to turnto the other measures identified in thenow somewhat notorious Policy H2A,which was demanding ‘intensification’ inareas close to town centres and

transport hubs. Measures proposed included conversion ofhouses to flats, additional floors to houses, back landdevelopment, and demolition of larger houses to be replacedwith blocks of flats. We recognised the potentially catastrophicconsequences when the draft New London Plan first went outto consultation, and our comments back in February 2018 werelargely focused on this one policy.

This policy would embody our worst fears of a majorrestructuring of suburban housing, with the outcome thatmany suburban streets of family houses could be changed outof all recognition. And we had no doubt that it would happen.Whenever relaxations to planning controls are introduced therecan be a deluge of developers who are more than ready to takeadvantage. The most recent experience is the PermittedDevelopment Order 2015 allowing the conversion of officesand small industrial buildings to residential. The Governmentexpected a handful of redundant offices to be converted, but averitable stampede has resulted in some new 200,000 homesso far, with many providing sub-standard accommodation,some of which have attracted notoriety. It is also the case nowthat we get numbers of planning applications for the kinds ofdevelopments envisaged in Policy H2A, but Barnet’s currentLocal Plan includes policies that have a presumption againstmany such developments. But in conforming to the demandsof policy H2A these defences could be substantiallyweakened.

There has always been a paradox to the ‘intensification’policy, which envisages this will occur around transport hubsand within 800 metres of town centres. But it is preciselythese areas that are already most intensely developed. It isfurther out where we have large swathes of detached housesand houses with generous gardens, which offer the greatestopportunities for additional floors, infill or demolition andreplacement with blocks of flats. But then, if they generatemore car traffic, as inevitably they would, that would clash withthe major objective in the New London Plan to reduce carjourneys.

It does seem somewhat perversethat the system allows theconversion of houses to flats inareas where there is a shortage offamily homes.

continued on next page

A View From The Suburbs

newsforum Winter 201912

A View from the Suburbs (continued)

A reversal of policy

Our comments back in February 2018 were ignored. And whenwe learned of a Greater London Authority official saying at theEiP that ‘one house plot could support over twenty flats on it’we concluded the political momentum behind policy H2A wasunstoppable. But we have been amazed by Inspectors’recommendation following the EiP that this policy be deleted inits entirety. Moreover, the whole of the reduction in thehousing target for Barnet should be applied to the small sitesten-year target, bringing the number down to 4340, whichmight even be manageable. The implications of a withdrawalor major changes to H2A are explored in the article by PeterEversden elsewhere in this Newsforum. We have not yetpopped the champagne corks as some of the threateningmeasures in H2A could well remain or reappear in anotherform, but we are keeping our fingers crossed that good sensemight prevail.

Apprehension about the future

Though the immediate threat to the suburbs would bediminished with the reduction in target numbers for smallsites, our sense of unease with enormous developments ofsmall flats remains. And we may find in ten years there is arenewal of the demand for yet more intensification. And afurther major concern is the growing awareness locally of thepressures from more development on transport andinfrastructure such as schools and especially healthcare. A

step-change in population can only exacerbate this, with nomajor transport expansion envisaged for Barnet and the nearimpossibility of funding or locating expanded acute carefacilities. So we still have good reason to be apprehensive.

And finally, I still find it difficult to believe that the wholesalesocial re-engineering that would be needed to transform thecharacter of the suburbs from ‘suburban’ to ‘urban’ will actuallyhappen. Such a transformation needs to have the will of thepeople on its side, and I am quite certain that will not be thecase. Families will protest, but if they find their environmentbecoming less and less congenial they will just leave. Ourouter suburbs would then lose the benefit of a stable multi-generational, socially and economically mixed population thatin the past has been their very essence.

Wholesale social re-engineeringwould be needed to transform thecharacter of the suburbs from‘suburban’ to ‘urban’... Such atransformation needs to have thewill of the people on its side.

Do we really want moreof this?

newsforum Winter 2019 13

newsbriefsNews and issues of interest and concern to note.

News briefs

Secretary of State allows Harrow School to

build on MOLThe complexity and thoroughness of the planning system hasbeen illustrated by the recent decision on Harrow School’sproposal for a new sports building on land which was designatedMetropolitan Open Land (MOL). The original application wasmade in April 2016. In November 2016 Harrow Council decidedto defer a decision for more consideration and information. InJune 2017 they decided, on the Chairman’s casting vote, toapprove the proposal. This decision had to be referred to theMayor of London because it was of potential strategicimportance in that it involved the development of a large buildingon MOL. The Mayor decided in January 2018 to direct HarrowCouncil to refuse the application because it was inappropriatedevelopment on MOL. Harrow School appealed to the Secretaryof State against this refusal. There was a Public Inquiry in May2019. Unusually, the decision was not delegated to theInspector, but recovered (the technical term) for the Secretary ofState’s decision. The Inspector’s recommendation in July wasthat the appeal should be allowed because though the proposeddevelopment would result in harm to MOL there were veryspecial circumstances (including educational need, communityneed, heritage, landscaping and biodiversity benefits, etc.)which would clearly outweigh this harm. On 31st October theSecretary of State accepted these recommendations. Costswere awarded against the Mayor. There is a period of six weeksfor the decision to be challenged in court.

A new book of interestHow Hampstead Heath was saved

Helen Lawrence’s new book has been published to coincidewith the latest twist in the history of the Heath – the return of

sheep grazing.She charts in greatdetail the longstruggle overownership of theheath and therights andeasementsgranted or with-held. There is acritique of earlierpublications andthis book bringstogether the fullstory to date,acknowledgingthat it will continueto evolve andurging vigilance onreaders whomight be faced

with challenges in the future.Hampstead has always been inhabited by more than its

share of the great and the good and it is interesting tospeculate, as you read the book, how Epping Forest mighthave fared if it had fallen into the same ownership. The book issub-titled a Story of People Power and although legislation haschanged out of all recognition there are echoes of thepetitioning of Parliament over the Channel Tunnel Rail Link inthe account of how successive Bills in Parliament designed topermit unwanted development were rebuffed.

Surprisingly, the coming of the Railways did not pose athreat to the heath and the Hampstead Junction railwayskirting the southern edge of the heath strengthened theargument that this is a London wide resource. None of theradial routes to the north come anywhere near.

Changes to local government on the other hand posed moredifficulties. Within the living memory of most readers, theabolition of the Greater London Council and the long drawn outdebate about how its functions were to be administeredinvolved twists and turns that are faithfully recorded here.

In places the left justification of the text results in someconfusing spacing: one or two errors have escaped the proofreaders. The book is copiously illustrated and very reasonablypriced. A rather limited print run may mean first editions becomea much sought after investment in years to come. Anyone withan interest in the history of the Heath, or needing to fight foropen space elsewhere, will want to make that investment now.

Andrew BosiHow Hampstead Heath was Saved, published by the CamdenHistory Society at £14.95, ISB Number 978-1-913213-00-8. Canbe ordered online through the Camden History Society website.

The retimed 2020 to Paddington is delayed.Please listen for further announcements.

Less than six months after announcing an opening date forCrossrail of between September 2020 and March 2021, thechief executive of Crossrail has acknowledged that thisdeadline will not be met. The announcement of the range ofdates previously given had itself been delayed to ensure arealistic target. No new date has been given, but "sometime in2021" would seem to be in the last nine months of that year,and quite probably three years after the original date of 9thDecember 2018.

The cause of the delay is the difficulty of linking a newsignalling system over the central section with those of theHeathrow spur, the Great Western lines and the Great Eastern.It would not have been practical to convert the whole line tothe new system, but Heathrow has been a particularly toughnut to crack and with hindsight it might have been cheaper andquicker to convert its signalling. This would however havedisrupted the Heathrow Express service during installation.

Round the Societies

newsforum Winter 201914

Round the SocietiesA round-up of news from our member societies. By Michael Hammerson

Please ensure that we receive your newsletters - digitally toour new RTS editor at Michael@hammerson.me.uk, or hardcopy to 70 Cowcross Street. With many newsletters, full of important items to review andlimited space, we try to select items which we think will be ofinterest and relevance to the wider membership. However,please let us know directly if you would like us to highlightanything which you consider of particular importance.

The Finchley Society The Society reveal that Joseph Dunham’s Statue of Peace inFriary Park is of Queen Victoria. Approved by Prince Albert tobe erected behind the Royal Albert Hall, it was replaced with astatue of Albert after his death in 1861, the original finding itsway to Friary Park in 1911. The Society reports Barnet’s newdraft Domestic Crossover Policy, replacing non-compulsoryGuidance Notes under which crossovers proliferated, coveringfront gardens with hard standing and vehicles projecting overthe pavement. The new policy relaxes space requirements, butobliges residents to observe better design and ecologicalstandards, and the Society adds that it will still be down to thepublic to report contraventions. They also comment on a recentcomplaint: almost unbearable noise on the Northern Linebetween Kentish Town and Euston. The cause is unclear; TfLsay that they will be taking alternative measures in late 2019..The Putney SocietyThe Society announce the start of works to enhance PutneyHigh Street. They are concerned that the rebuilding of the centreof the Alton Estate at Roehampton by Redrow and WandsworthCouncil may not provide value for money, since the Council arecontributing £108 million plus land to get 30 extra council homesand 160 replacements. They learn that the closure ofHammersmith Bridge has led to an additional 4,000 vehicles aday crossing Putney Bridge. Of the 25,000 that used to crossHammersmith Bridge daily, 6,500 use Chiswick, 2,000 Kew,2000 Wandsworth and 1000 Battersea Bridges. 9000 seem tohave disappeared.

The Highgate SocietyThe Society express concern over poor planning decisions byHaringey which are accelerating the deterioration of theConservation Area. More developers are trying to regularisebreaches of Planning Control by applying for Certificates ofLawfulness, although National Guidance makes clear that“Lawful development certificates are not relevant to situationswhere breaches of listed building or conservation area controlsmay be alleged” and “the grant of a certificate applies only tothe lawfulness of development… It does not remove the needto comply with other legal requirements such as… the 1990Planning Act”. In addition, major alterations to permissions arebeing submitted as non-material amendments, with no publicconsultation.

The Peckham Society The Society report the sensitive restoration of the 1935 ArtDeco Holdrons’ department store, by the freeholders, theWilson Family, and the tenants, Khan’s Bargains, who receiveda Historic England Angels Award.

The Isleworth SocietyThe Society are concerned at Council proposals to develop theSyon Lane Tesco site with 1,600 units in blocks from 3 to 16stories high, with another 450 units on the new Tesco site onthe Great West Road. However, the Council have madesignificant additions to the Local List.

Ealing Civic Society The Society consider two development proposals for the WestEaling station area are a threat to their environment. Despitepublic exhibitions within days of each other, the developers hadno knowledge of each other’s applications, though both haddiscussions with Ealing Council. They involve two 25/26 storeyresidential towers, completely out of keeping with the localVictorian and Edwardian architecture, and a local action grouphas been set up. There has been a proliferation of applicationsfor tower blocks across Ealing, and the Society has reviewed14. Local heritage assets are also threatened by the newdevelopments, including an Art Deco former ‘Woolworths’building. Six have already been granted and, so far, nonerefused, while two further proposed blocks would overwhelmthe setting of the art deco Hoover building.

The Knightsbridge Association The Society note with dismay that the Native Landdevelopment proposals at South Kensington Station bear norelation to the brief produced by TfL in 2016 after two years’local consultation. The conservation-led approach theyadvocated has been ignored: “it is not surprising that localgroups feel betrayed and now regard TfL’s consultation exerciseas a sham… Since Native Land became involved consultationhas been minimal and the good relationship which had beenestablished by TfL with local groups has evaporated.”

The Clapham Society The Society are assured that council proposals for rejuvenatingthe grassed events site on the Common are not aimed atreintroducing a heavy programme of events, but remain alert asthe council has a sizeable revenue target from commercial eventsthere; the Society’s legal advice, which Lambeth seem to haveaccepted, argues that such events are illegal without ministerialconsent. They are working with Lambeth to introduce winter litterpicking across the Common; there was none at weekends lastwinter. They are pleased that proposals for the Vauxhall islandsite, including the redevelopment of Vauxhall Bus Station and twotall towers, have been called in by the Secretary of State.

Round the Societies

newsforum Winter 2019 15

The St. Marylebone Society The Society consider that the Baker Street Two-Way project byWestminster and TfL is improving a vital neighbourhood withmore welcoming and safer streets, new road crossings andcycle lanes, reduced street clutter, new trees, a simpler busnetwork and shorter, more direct car journeys. It included therestoration of the 1903 Allsop Place Water Fountain.

The Streatham SocietyThe Society report the official reopening of the restored 1933Woodfield Pavilion as a community hub and conservationcentre, and the restoration of its grounds through grants fromNational Heritage Funding, Veolia Environmental Trust, WesternRiverside Environmental Fund and Wandsworth Council.

The Sydenham Society The Society major on the consultation for the Bell Green UrbanRenewal masterplan. Short-term aims include streetscape andpedestrian improvements, and historic building enhancements;medium-term include improved bus interchange, a linear park,trees and greening; and longer-term include relocating LowerSydenham Station, replacing surface car-parks withmultistoreys which can eventually be converted to housing; anda new primary school. They report on how the local authority areaddressing fly-tipping, a problem locally, and new trial measuresto reduce air pollution from rat-running traffic.

The Enfield Society The Society highlights the dilemma of protecting Green Beltwhile creating sites for new homes, and notes a number of newhigh-rise office and residential developments proposed forEnfield and Southgate, all near transport hubs. The Society willhowever press for new developments to be appropriate to thearea, provide good quality homes with access to open space,and accord with the local plan. They have considerableconcerns about a 17-storey block proposed on a hill near theGrade II* Southgate tube station.

The Greenwich SocietyThe Society consider new “Mini-Manhattan” proposals for thePeninsula will be extremely dense, with social housing betweenthe motorway slip roads and no additional green space. Thedevelopers, Knight Dragon, would not reveal how much ofthe next phase would be marketed only outside the UK.

The Blackheath Society The Society report that Greenwich now require aBasement Impact Assessment for any residentialdevelopment involving a new or enlarged basement orconverted cellar. It must state how problems will beovercome and show that the structural stability of thebuilding or neighbours will not be affected.

The Heath And Hampstead Society report success in persuading an Inspector to dismiss an appealagainst Camden’s order to demolish a new house built illegallyon the South Fairground site overlooking Hampstead Heath,and awarding partial costs against the developer forunreasonable behaviour at the appeal. They also report that,following strong objections, the site for a proposed memorial toHumanitarian Aid Workers at Kenwood, which would have beenvisible across Hampstead Heath, has been dropped.

The Barnet Society are battling the scale of proposals for 700 homes on BarnetTube Station car park as significant overdevelopment whichwould be visible from Green Belt, result in substantial tree loss,and lack of infrastructure. They are also involved in promoting anew Act of Parliament to improve the protection of HadleyCommon by creating a new charity to run it; this was due to bedeposited in Parliament on November 27, but will presumablyfall victim to the sudden election call. Like many other Societies,including Finchley and Highgate, they are working closely withthe local authority on a badly-needed update of the Local List.

House of Illustration acquires New River HeadThe Islington Society and Amwell Society report the purchaseof a long lease on the heritage assets at the New River Head sitein Islington by the House of Illustration, Europe’s leading galleryand resource centre for Illustrators. This closes a chapter on a 30-year campaign to secure an appropriate use for this importantsite where just over 400 years ago, a 44-mile aqueduct (the NewRiver) was completed to bring fresh water into London fromHertfordshire. New River Head served as the headquarters ofthe Metropolitan Water Board, and subsequently Thames Wateruntil a decision was made in 1989 to relocate the offices toReading and most operational activities to other sites. Much ofthe site was converted to apartments in the 1990s. The 1999Planning Brief called for the complex of 18th century buildings onthe site to be preserved for heritage and education purposes.Despite this, the site was sold to a property developer whosubmitted several applications to convert the buildings forresidential use. These were rejected by Islington Council, andrefused again on appeal on each occasion.

The local civic associationswere instrumental in bringing thedeveloper, Thames Water and theHouse of Illustration together at atime when the latter, currentlybased at Kings Cross, was lookingfor a new home for their expandingactivities. We are all looking forwardto the presence of a major newcultural institution in the heart of theformer borough of Finsbury.

Former Engine House, Boiler Roomand Coal Store at New River Head

Events for your diary

newsforum Winter 201916

Dates for your diary London Forum events

www.londonforum.org.uk

Peter Eversden ChairmanLondon Forum, 70 Cowcross Street, London EC1M 6EJTelephone: 020 7993 5754 email chairman@londonforum.org.uk

Registered Charity Number 1093134

w

For information about the London Forum contact:

Editorial team: Paul Thornton, Chair; Andrew Bosi, MichaelHammerson, Peter Pickering, Production: Helen MarcusOriginal design Ross ShawOriginal Spotlight concept Tony AldousPrint Express Printing. Telephone 01733 230 800Published by the London Forum, 70 Cowcross Street, London EC1M 6EJ. Telephone 020 7993 5754

Member societies are encouraged to use London Forum

news in their own newsletters.While the London Forum is concerned that the views written in articles are relevant andhonestly held by the contributor, the opinions stated by individuals may not necessarily be heldby the London Forum Executive, who are not in a position to vouch for their factual accuracy.

newsforum

London Forum news and events

London Forum on Twitter

Don’t forget the London Forum Twitter site.

Stories; updates on the latest news as it comes in; useful webaddresses.Do pass on the address to all your amenity society contacts. Twitter can reach far beyond London Forum's e-bulletin list of contacts.

http://twitter.com/London_Forum NB - note the underscore: _ in the name w

The Newsforum team would be delighted to

hear from members

Please send us your newsletters so that anyitems of interest can be featured in

Round the Societies:

Michael@hammerson.me.uk.

London Forum Open Meetings 2019

Save the Dates

2019

Wednesday 4th December

Be ready for the new London Plan

2020

Tuesday 14th January

Wednesday 25th March

Watch out for emails and consult the website nearer the

time for more information

Meetings are held at The Gallery,

75 Cowcross Street, EC1M 6EJ, (Farringdon station)

All meetings begin with refreshments at 6pm

for a 6:30pm start, unless stated otherwise,

and finish at 8:45 p.m.

Membership renewal

Please keep London Forum's membership system up todate for your society by using the new membership

renewal facility on the web site:

http://www.londonforum.org.uk/member_login.php

Do make sure to amend your data so that the rightpeople are receiving post and email bulletins, otherwisesocieties might not be kept informed. The way in whichmembers can amend their details is secure, as is the

information we hold. Queries can be sent toadmin@londonforum.org.uk

w

Delivering Newsforum by email

The Newsforum in PDF form sent by email can bewidely distributed at no cost. If you do not keep yourhard copy and feel you could do without it, please let usknow via one of the email addresses below, giving yourSociety name as well as email address, so that wecould reduce our postal mailing list and save printingand postage costs.