This page is intended to contain correspondence with the Planning officers. In practice there is some crossover with the officers and depts covered in the other sub pages
There was a considerable amount of correspondence with the planning dept or similar so what is below may not be complete. It will be increased as time permits.
Dear Nick Harding
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF ENQUIRY
Enquiry Reference CA\2008\ENQ\23485
Location Telacre/Dalby Street
Thank you for your enquiry which we received on 13/03/2008 It has been passed on to Stuart Minty to deal with, and you will receive a response by 31/03/2008 .
If you have any further queries please contact Stuart Minty, whose details are given at the top of this letter. To assist us please quote the Enquiry Reference given in this letter.
Yours,
Customer Service Team
Development Control
Confirmation he was working for Ipswich Council
Charles
There seems to be part of the application for the above missing on the planning site. Could you let me have it or confirm when it is all on the site?
Regards, Nick
I can confirm that all the plans that have been issued are on the website; the most relevant ones are in the document titled 52 Prince of Wales Road Basement application 23/05/05. However I agree it appears that all but the last page of the actual application form are missing from the web and I will arrange for these to be put on asap.
Charles Thuaire
Senior Planning Officer
Dear Charles
Following your conversation with Peter Cuming this morning, he suggests I forward you the scanned version I have of the document handed out at the recent meeting in Findon’s offices.
I initially missed the existence of the 5th column as it is overshadowed by a tree though how you can have both is a mystery.
Regards, Nick
Thank you for alerting me to this and passing over the scanned document. This is the same one that my colleague in Highway engineering has.
I note that this plan shows 5 columns; however it is important to note that this plan was only being used to act as baseplan on which to illustrate other issues relating to access etc and was not intended to show definitively the final design or layout of the building itself. It should not be read in any other way except for the purposes it was designed for, ie. showing residents how access and servicing would operate during construction. However I agree that it is confusing and slack that they are referring to outdated plans in their publicity documents.
I have double-checked the approved plan and can confirm that the final scheme approved by the Certificate of Lawfulness dated 5.11.08 ref 2008/3688/P only show 4 columns, NOT 5. Any change from this will require an application for an amendment to the approved scheme and will require further public consultation.
I will be writing to the agents to emphasise this point and to remind them that the scheme should only have 4 columns and any change will require our further approval. I will let you know what their reply is, ie. whether they can reassure us on this point or whether there are any further changes planned.
I hope that this clarifies matters.
Charles Thuaire
Senior Planning Officer
Following your concerns regarding the 5th column, I emailed the agents last week about this issue and have today received a reply as follows:
I have spoken with both the client and architect on this. They have both confirmed that 4 columns will be built as per the Certificate of Lawfulness.
I hope that this satisfies your concerns and concludes the matter for the time being.
Charles Thuaire
Senior Planning Officer
Dear Charles,
You may recall we discussed some the issues relating to the Dalby Street proposed structure. Upon passing the site of the New Dalby Street today, I noticed the line of recently augur driven piles did not follow the line of the perimeter of the main superstructure as the drawings recently supplied to you might imply. Of course the contractor might be planning a second line of piles although the absence of the pile driving machine might suggest otherwise. It seemed to me that a basement larger than that approved is about to be under construction. I hope I am wrong. Would it be prudent for enforcement to inspect?
Regards
Peter Cuming
Subject: RE: Dalby Street works
Gary- can you open an enforcement file on this please.
Address- 52 Prince of Wales Rd/Dalby St.
Refs- planning permission granted 10/01/2006 (ref: 2005/4187/P) as later
revised by certificate of lawfulness granted 05/11/2008 (ref:
2008/3688/P) for redevelopment of site.
thanks
https://picasaweb.google.com/107252400404135319974/July192011 [12.1.2022 No longer easily available]
Peter
Following your comment that you thought the work being carried out is inconsistent with the planning approval, I took these pictures this afternoon. All but one from the overground platform.
The other was from PoW Road where, for the record, there was no one on duty anywhere near the opening to the site. However, unlike when I took the clip the other day, they had one of the gates closed so that the metal barrier this time covered nearly all the gap. The presentation to councillors and council officers the other day, of course, said there would be 2 marshals on duty at each of the new road ie this site and old Dalby St. I noticed that on Old Dalby St, all but one parking places were blocked off so having marshals would make sense there as well as the site. So out of 4 required, there were none.
Nick
Dear Nick,
Try as I will, nothing shows other than earlier images. Peter
Subject: RE: Dalby Street works
https://picasaweb.google.com/savetalacre/July192011?authkey=Gv1sRgCPaz7cCZ8MToLQ [12.1.2022 No longer easily available]
Sorry, try this
Nick
21.7.2011 10.30 NJH to Charles Thuaire
Charles
Peter Cuming asked me to forward mine to him of yesterday which gives the correct link to pictures taken on Tuesday. Also, mine of Tuesday describing those pictures.
Let me know if you have any problem downloading
From: Nick Harding [mailto:Nick@hpf.org.uk]
Sent: 20 July 2011 10:14
21.7.2011 Charles Thuaire to NJH cc Gary Bakall
thanks, I have passed these onto Gary Bakall who is handling the enforcement investigation.
Charles Thuaire
Senior Planning Officer
Dear Mr Thuaire,
Further to our conversation this Wednesday, may I draw to your attention
issues of Development Control too significant to disregard or treat as 'de
minimis'.
I am fully appreciative of most planners in your position being reluctant
to revisit a proposed development once planning permission has been given.
Dalby Street has for too long been a 'moveable feast' with details being
changed without evidence of the correct people being notified.
In my view, this has reached a point where the developer needs checking.
Camden commissioned (delivered October 2011)what they call a "Stage 2 Road
Safety Audit Report" with an Appendix B showing plans of 'General
Arrangements'(DRWG No: 14592-200) which shows 'inter alia' that details of
pedestrian access and other access have been modified.
At the Public Inquiry considerable interest in access positions was shown to give reassurance about public safety and surveillance and the convenience of use of the building.
Since then the design has evolved and some understandable changes have arisen. Originally, the building (now underway) had an apartheid character with separate entrances and rubbish stores for the occupants of the 17 affordable flats and the 38 'other' flats. It would appear that the last drawing the planners approved still referred to such separate development (Chassy and Last drawing). Chassy and Last have recently expressed their doubts as to whether or not the scheme is physically buildable - an unsurprising sentiment for a consultant no longer retained on the project.
DRWG No. 14592-200 illustrates the fact that the luxury of independent access for different classes of occupants appears to be forfeited and you will observe the labelling has changed and the Prince of Wales Road entrance has gone.
Furthermore the space originally allocated for 17 depositors of "affordable refuse" has become the only ground level refuse collection point for all 55 flats and a health centre in a borough with at least 2 collections (normal and recyclable) each week.
Additionally a new vehicle length restriction of 21'8" (hitherto undisclosed) means that refuse vehicle visits will have increased beyond the original projections. It has also not been made plain how the occupants of the 'posh' flats will proceed to the single refuse collection point. I draw you attention to the fact that this island building is surrounded by rights of way and has no scope for a multiplicity of individual rubbish bins to be placed on its margin. At the northwest margin of the building close by the mini-roundabout safety dictates that a guardrail be placed to protect vulnerable pedestrians by a blind corner. Unfortunately this totally obstructs reversing vehicles needing to approach the refuse room where 'paladins' or their modern equivalent are placed - which will give first?
A Veolia driver has already indicated the facility is deeply flawed in prospect. It seems that Street Environment need to make an input.
As you will appreciate this 'quart in a pint pot' approach to planning means that attention to these details is all the more important, particularly as there are no overspill areas to make good the project's deficiencies.
In short, many now want to know how this proposed building will function with its attenuated facilities. The provision of the drawing to which I refer offers scope for seeking a full explanation as to how these aspects of the building will function - locally, there is more than a little anxiety that by allowing this project to proceed unmodified will lead to hard to resist pressure upon Talacre Town Green whose friends would prefer to avoid that battle.
Thank you for your interest.
Chair of the Friends of Talacre Town Green
Peter Cuming
Dear Charles
Should there not be some documents on the planning site by now for 2012/3138/P?
Nick
Thanks for alerting me to this. I am informed that the plans are now on the website.
Charles Thuaire
Thanks, they are.
Dear Charles,
Further to earlier exchanges in which you unequivocally confirmed the location of the 'Y' columns in this development, in response to a FOI request, it is now possible to observe where they have ended up.
The importance of this information is that the columns are located significantly differently from their position in the approved plan. You indicated they would be some 0.2m from the Town Green metal fence line. Some 3 columns are 0.9m (900mm) from the fence and one column is 800mm in.
The position of the columns was discussed at length at the Public Inquiry, a full Council Meeting and with the Local Government Ombudsman. Their location is an important factor in the promotion of pedestrian safety and security. This failure is serious as is the unauthorised creation of a bench width flanking wall on the fence line that has no place in any published plans approved or otherwise.
It would seem to be imperative the LB of Camden alert the builder to his error and set about addressing the matter before it is more widely publicised.
You are thought to be the first officer to be made aware of this from the public standpoint. I look forward to hearing you views on this matter.
Regards
Peter Cuming BSc MCD MRTPI
Former Senior Enforcement Panel Inspector DOE and Welsh Office
The developer has been asked to submit an application for a Minor Material Amendment to regularise the discrepancy in siting to Y-columns etc on what has previously been requested and will happen when application received.
Hi Gary,
I heard that a contravention notice was served in Dalby Street last Monday regarding the positioning of Y columns. This is good news - but could you confirm what the next steps are if the developer continues to refuse to comply or to submit an application for an amendment? Presumably there is a process to follow now, leading to potential enforcement action?
Also, could you tell me what action we are taking in the width of the access road, which is also more narrow than as shown on the approved plans? This also seems a serious breach to me.
Thanks,
Matt
Dear Councillor Sanders,
I still consider that the best option would be for the developer to submit an application for a minor material amendment but if the developer refuses the Council will consider formal enforcement action. The developers have twenty one days to respond to the planning contravention notice, ending on the 8th April. The Council will obviously have to consider the information received before deciding on the best course of action.
My colleague Dave Jenkins has looked at the issue of the width of the service road; I attach part of an e-mail he has already sent out;
scaffolding adjacent to the new building has reduced the width of the access road, to approximately 3.3m at its narrowest. The marshals have been actively managing traffic using the road, shuttling cars in one direction at a time along the narrowed section.
This narrowing of the access road was anticipated by the Section 106 Agreement, albeit it was expected to be “circa 4.6m”. However, the shuttling of traffic was originally thought to be needed from when the access road first opened until the main construction was complete, which has not proven to be the case. The Temporary Access Plan set out how the developer would manage traffic using the access road when the road is narrowed, which is being complied with.
The narrowed road has been tested for fire access and, although the fire engine was too large to negotiate the 90 degree bend in the road, it was able to drive right to that bend, which is close to the sports centre entrance. The Fire Brigade was satisfied that the engine could be driven close enough to the centre in order to tackle an emergency if required. They were also aware of the alternative access routes via Talacre Gardens and via Wilkin Street to the rear.
I hope this answers your query, if you require anything else please let me know.
Best regards
Dear Gary,
I want to flag to you that I regard the non-compliance of the "Prince's Park" developer WRT the built positioning of the "Y" support columns extremely seriously.
At the Public Enquiry much attention was focussed on public safety and clear lines of sight, unimpeded. This has been flouted. I believe this warrants an application for revising the existing Planning Approval, and re-consultation.
As has been built the approved plan has been ignored. I walked along the grubby pedestrian access this morning (where workers were impeding flow) and noted I had to stand back to allow a double buggy to pass because of the width restriction through the pillars having been located 30 inches further into the walkway.
I trust you will prosecute this with vigour?
I am extremely concerned that our Enforcement in Camden could be harmed by such try-ons as this and, by way of another example, the unilateral building of basement parking at Dumpton Place.
Kind regards,
Cllr Paul Braithwaite
Dear Mr Bakall
Further to our conversation, I have endeavoured to set out the main facts as we see them on the Y columns page (currently the landing page) of the website below my address below
I am sure there is lots of other evidence backing up what it says but in case we are misrepresenting the situation, I thought I would give you the opportunity to say so!
Regards
Nick Harding
www.savetalacre.co.uk
3.12.2021 now
https://sites.google.com/view/talacrefacts/y-columns
Subject: 2013/6789/P
Hi Charles
Should the application and other related documents for 2013/6789/P not be on the planning site by now?
Regards
Nick
I’ve checked and all the plans are on the web- there may have been an earlier technical hitch but I’m advised that this has now been sorted out.
Charles Thuaire
Senior Planning Officer
Thanks, I see they have just this morning appeared although they show the date published as being 31.10.13!