22.3.21.
Although written in 2008 it remains important today
A living monument to the triumph of people-power over government. Home to the biggest gymnastics club in Britain. And once the site of avant-garde building that influenced some of today's most famous architects. Talacre has a rich and important history that has been determined by ordinary people standing up for themselves and their neighbourhood. By Richard Benson, best selling author of The Farm and The Valley and a local resident. This was written in 2008
The Tale of Talacre
Part One
I
This is a story about three acres of grass which happens to be a story about London’s recent history. It is also a story about people’s dreams, and about the ways in which people use and misuse power.
The story takes place in Kentish Town, a noisy, dense, urban area in north London to the north of Camden Town. Once a village, Kentish Town was absorbed into London in the mid 19th century, and became a grimy working class district carved up by railway lines, full of crowded lodging houses and small factories manufacturing among other things musical instruments, building materials, false teeth and scientific instruments.
The essential character of the area had not changed by the 1960s, when vast stretches of its heartland were combinations of rubble-strewn, bomb-damaged areas and slum terraces. One large tract of such land lay right in the middle of the area, beside a railway viaduct. In 1962 the County of London (Prince of Wales Road, St Pancras) placed a compulsory purchase order on the land for the purpose of "providing public walks or pleasure grounds" in accordance with the Open Spaces Act of 1906.
Nothing happened to the land until the early 1970s, however, when Camden council announced plans to demolish the slums and bombsite that covered the area. At the same time, in 1971, a group of young adults in the area set up a charity called Inter Action, to create a one-off six week “holiday camp” on the bomb site for children in the summer holidays. Adults made barbecues and built play areas among the debris.
The kids – and adults - loved it, and decided to repeat the scheme the following year. And then they began to ask why they couldn’t keep the space open after the demolition. Local people began to ask what would be built there. Many of them asked why they couldn’t have a small open space; the nearest greenery lay to the north in Hampstead Heath, or to the west at Primrose Hill, but these were long walks away; Kentish Town felt smoky and piled-upon.
The council officers, however, refused. They wanted to build again, to put housing right across the site, leaving vast tract of buildings with no green space at all.
And then the actors arrived.
II
In 1972 a group of unemployed actors came to Kentish Town to work as childminders in the summer scheme. Their aim was, over the course of a summer, to create a people’s pageant about life in the area. As they talked to local people, the actors realised that there was a strong desire for the open space among local people, and that no one knew how to make their voice heard. Out of the childminding hours, the actors worked with the people to create a drama the fight for the space, and then put it on. The drama became a rallying point.
A film director heard about it and began making a short film, called The Amazing Story of Talacre, which is still in circulation today. The newspapers and the television came to cover them. The actors and the people marched to Camden Town Hall to demand the space be kept free of development. And in the end, Camden council agreed that the people of Kentish Town could have their open space.
III
The council knocked down the houses in the winter of 1974-5, and gave planning permission to use the site as an open space in 1975. It made Talacre Open Space very unusual – because while most London parks were created by leaving open space and building around it, Talacre came about by knocking down houses, and listening to local people’s wishes.
At first the open space was mostly left as an untidy acreage of rubble and scrubland. Better than a cluster of light-blocking high-rise flats, fun for kids to play on, useful for the walking the dog, but not exactly an icon of innovative urban land use. Local people, organising themselves set about turning it into a children’s adventure playground, which was complete by the late 1970s.
And then the radical architect arrived.
IV
Archigram, set up in the 1960s, was a revolutionary group of London architects who believed that the world needed to rethink everything about buildings – what they looked like, and what they were for. Their designs seemed strange and impossible at the time, but their influence has been so strong that nowadays they look no stranger than an out of town retail park or leisure centre. IN fact, their thinking has had a big influence on retail parks and leisure centres.
Anyway, one member of Archigram was a young man called Cedric Price, a scion of the Price family who own Price Candles. Price has had a huge influence on modern architecture across the world, though, as is often the way with London, most of us have never heard of him.
Price’s biggest idea was the Fun Palace, a project designed with Joan Littlewood for East London in the 1960s. The Fun Palace was to be “a laboratory of fun”, with facilities for dancing, music, drama and the arts. Price believed that new materials and technology meant that people would be able to control their environment, moving floors, walls and screens to allow the building to adaptable.
“Choose what you want to do – or watch someone else doing it.” Went the marketing material. “Learn how to handle tools, paint, babies, machinery, or just listen to your favourite tune. Dance, talk or be lifted up to where you can see how other people make things work. Sit out over space with a drink and tune in to what’s happening elsewhere in the city. Try starting a riot or beginning a painting – or just lie back and stare at the sky.”
Of course such buildings are fairly commonplace today, but a few decades ago the idea seemed fantastical and impossible. The East London project fell through. Yet a few years later, heavily influenced by Price’s ideas, Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers built the Plateau Beauborg (later the Pompidou Centre) in Paris, but London seemed to have no place for one of its native sons’ own ideas.
But then Cedric Price heard about Kentish Town.
V
Cedric Price’s InterChange Studios, like a smaller version of the Fun Palace, and looking like a futuristic cross of warehouse and space-station docking area, was built on part of the new space. Princess Anne came to open it and it quickly became a local institution. Local people came to practise sports and arts, and there was a licensed social club where the community rubbed along together.
Around it on the Talacre Open Space, Camden council laid out a park, with grass and paths. As the 1980s turned to the 1990s, as more money flowed into London, the rest of the space was still unfenced and sometimes used for dumping, but there were now signs of what could be achieved in it.
VI
While this was happening, across the borough another little beacon of endeavour was being lit and stoked.
Camden Gymnastics Club began in the late 1980s a small group of dedicated teenage girls practising in a small community hall with the founder, a young sports instructor working for Camden Council.
The instructor was good. The girls loved it. More, including many kids who had never previously shown any interest in gymnastics signed up on word of mouth. Soon the Camden Gymnastics Club had enough members to enter its first London competition, pitched against the wealthy private gymnastics clubs and the other local authority clubs who had the big gyms and modern equipment. A couple of the girls surprised the regulars by getting good places, and that gave them the confidence to go enter more tournaments.
By the mid 1990s, ten years after starting, the club’s coach had a membership in the hundreds. Not just from Camden either; word about the coach’s ability with kids was spreading to other boroughs, and boys and girls from Islington and Harringey and Westminster were applying. In terms of recruiting kids to a sport and developing their ability at grass roots level, it was becoming an unprecedented success; people at British Gymnastics, the sports ruling body, and at Sport England (the old Sports Council) began to take notice.
VII
Meanwhile, by the end of the 1990s the Interaction Centre was looking rusty and decayed. Worse, there had been a boom in drug use during the decade, and users had begun to congregate in the space. This situation was exacerbated by the gentrification of Kings Cross, in anticipation of the new Eurostar terminal. The police had driven the drug culture and prostitution long embedded in the area northwards into Camden, and a pocket had settled around Talacre. There was violence, prostitution and drug-traffic in the homes, and inevitably this spilled into the open space.
The salvation came from an unlikely source. At the end of the 1990s a utility company was digging a large tunnel to take huge power cables from St Johns Wood to Hackney. The company asked if it could dig a shaft in a corner of the space, if it agreed it fill it in later. The company offered one and a half million pounds in compensation. Camden Council agreed.
With the money, under pressure from local people who supported the space, Camden set about developing Talacre Open Space to its full potential. Workmen came to put up perimeter railings with gates. Gardeners arrived to plant flowerbeds ands re-landscape the open areas. There was a new children’s play area, and floodlit sports pitches. At local residents request the name was changed to Talacre Gardens.
VIII
But the final glory was yet to come. In the intervening years Camden Gymnastics Club had been growing and growing. Members were now winning medals in regional and national competitions, and some whom the coach had trained from infancy had gone on to represent Great Britain in international tournaments.
Noting this success, Camden and Sport England – the old Sports Council, ie the Government agency for encouraging people to take up sport – devised a plan to build a large new sports centre with state of the art equipment and multi-use facilities for play and recreation, with the Camden Gymnastics Club as its anchor. The centre would cost £6m. Sport England paid £3.46m of that, Camden covering the rest.
Cedric Price’s old building was demolished, and by 2003 a glittering new sports centre, surrounded by floodlit sports pitches and flower beds and wide green lawns stood on the north east corner of the park. It was particularly popular with parents and disabled uses because the road at the eastern edge of the park, Dalby Street, ran up to the centre, with room to turn around and drop off and make deliveries. Next to the road, between it and the railway viaduct was a travellers site housing three families.
IX
Now the gymnastics club really took off. Within three years it had 1500 members, and had become the biggest club in the entire country. Its fame spread so far that on enrolment days, hundreds of parents from all the neighbouring boroughs would queue overnight to get their sons and daughters in. Kids from all areas and backgrounds, many of whom would never have thought of taking up gymnastics before this club existed, mixed together; the children of rich and famous folk like Jude Law, Sadie Frost, David Miliband, Suggs, and Esther Freud swung and leaped and vaulted alongside kids from…everywhere else.
The club ran recreational classes for very young children right up to serious training for international class athletes, and its alumni were representing their countries at European Championships and Commonwealth Games. A member of the 2008 paralympic team would use the gym for training, and its coach would soon be receiving a special merit award from the British Gymnastics Association.
Thirty years ago, a small group of people had watched their kids playing in the rubble, and decided to say “no”. Now, on that very same land, there was a facility that, with talk of London bidding for the Olympics, seemed the very epitome of modern London.
But that was about to change.
Part Two
I
The second part of the story begins with a tumbledown house and a professor.
Running down the eastern side of Talacre Gardens is a Victorian railway viaduct, atop which sit the platforms of Kentish Town West Railway station. Squeezed between the viaduct and Talacre Gardens at number 52 is an old, derelict two-storey Victorian house. Behind the garden of the house, ie between it and the sports centre, is a travellers site.
In 2001, the house, which has a large back garden also running parallel to the gardens, has been empty for about 20 years. It was owned by the rail authorities, and was forgotten and decaying. The travellers site, owned by Camden borough, was home to three families.
Then, in the spring of 2001, a local professor Ken Fulford and his son, Charlie, operating under a company name of Trac Properties, bought the house. After that purchase, he began discussions with council officers about a scheme for buying the travellers site, and developing the land on which it and the house stood.
Camden Council began working to move the travellers off the site and into housing, with a view to selling the site. And Trac soon applied for planning permission to build on the travellers site a seven-storey building containing 55 flats. Nineteen of the flats would be low-cost social housing.
The scheme then went through many committees and council meetings, but finally, in December 2005, the scheme came before Camden’s planning committee. In the documents before them, there was no mention that the new road did not have pavements, nor that the scheme would need marshals.
II
There were – and still are - nine strange facts about the building.
1 It would be built on the only road leading to the sports centre, and take part of its forecourt. A new, narrow, pavement-less private road would be built against the railway side of the development
For pedestrians, there would be a covered alleyway on the other side of the building with pillars preventing clear vision along it – this in an area with high street crime, for an establishment with high usage among young women.
2 At the head of the road, there is a mini roundabout to allow vehicles to turn. The mini roundabout is between the alley and the sports centre; thus, to get to the sports centre, people on foot will have to walk directly through traffic.
3 Camden Council would hand ownership of the road to the developer and then the owners of the flats.
4 The junction where drivers turn off the main road to the sports centre has been identified as a major problem by the council’s own Road Safety Audit.
5 The pedestrian alley has high railings down one side, and the building on the other. It is also covered, and the roof is supported by several Y-shaped pillars measuring 50cm across which hold up the six floors above the mezzanine floor, with the fork of the Y being about 1.8 metres above the ground.
Now, the plans for the development promise that any path to the centre would be free from obstructions so they offer a clear view from end to end. This would stop attackers hiding so they jump out and attack walkers halfway along the tunnel. Kentish Town has a high incidence of street crime.
The Council and the Greater London Authority says that the pillars allow for a clear line of sight between the end of the alley and the centre. This is not true. It would be possible to hide behind the pillars, or in the Y-sections, and be unseen.
6 One marshal will be employed to control the cars, buses, lorries, pedestrians and emergency vehicles, using the alley and road. These vehicles’ drivers will be visiting the flats, doctor’s surgery, sports centre, or making deliveries; remember too that the sports centre has many disabled visitors who come by bus, and often requires several attendances by ambulances each week.
This means the marshals will have not only to oversee the deliveries, and sort out any clashes if two delivery vehicles turn up at once, but also to ensure:
• “That access for service vehicles currently servicing the Sports Centre shall only be permitted between 8am and 2pm on weekdays
• “That deliveries shall be scheduled at 30-minute intervals thus allowing for a total of 12 deliveries during this time period”
• that vehicles dropping off pedestrians do not wait too long
At the same time he must oversee the junction of the road and the main Prince of Wales road, and deal with any clashes between pedestrians and cars at the point where the pedestrian alley crosses the road
This situation – privatising a road that is the only access to a major public amenity, and using marshals - is unique. The plans do not explain what happens if these duties clash; if there is an emergency with a child hurt on the crossing, as seems likely; where the they would be accommodated, and able to store paperwork, use toilet facilities, and keep first aid supplies.
Protestors write requesting an explanation. None is received.
7 Access to the Sports Centre and development for larger vehicles is complicated. For the Sports Centre, a hinged bollard will prevent large vehicles, including emergency vehicles, using the road unless and until the marshals is there to lower it. There are then pneumatic bollards around the turning circle, which he must operate. Meanwhile, drivers making deliveries to the residential flats and unscheduled deliveries to the doctor’s surgery and sports centre will have to park their vehicles in a newly-built lay-by on the main road – if no one else is using it, and transport the goods to the destination via pavement and alley.
8 Many coaches use the sports centre, dropping off dozens of children at a time. If they were to drop off under the new system, they would hold up the rest of the traffic. The answer would be for them to park in the delivery-vehicle lay-by, but the lay-by is too small for coaches to use. It is unclear what coach drivers are supposed to do.
9 There are no extra disabled parking bays, despite the fact that the new building will contain a doctor’s surgery as well as new residential flats.
This glaring omission, particularly relevant as the 55 flats are car-capped so disabled residents would have an extra incentive to use the 3 disabled bays, was noticed by Council officers only when it was pointed out to them in December 2008 ie three years after conditional planning permission had been given.
III
So obviously, planning permission was refused, right? Wrong. The plans were approved by Camden’s planners on 10th January 2006.
The chief justification for the consent was the developer’s provision of affordable homes in the building. Camden’s target for affordable homes in new properties is 50%. The number in this development would be 39%.
However, there was a proviso; permission would be granted on the condition that the developers came up with a service management plan – essentially plans for pedestrian and vehicle access to the sports centre and the new development. Any plan the developer came up with had to be satisfactory to the council
IV
Consent acquired, including for the conditional purchase of adjacent council owned land ie the travellers site Trac sold the building and planning consent to a subsidiary called Cornwall Overseas Developments for £3.5m on 12.5.06 according to the Land Registry. It then sold Cornwall to Findon Urban Lofts Ltd on 17.8.06.
Cornwall Overseas Developments is a company registered in the British Virgin Islands. It is owned by owned by Findon Urban Lofts Plc, a property developer with stock traded on the Tel-Aviv stock exchange. Its beneficial owners are two 30 something brothers, Assaf and Yonathan Laznik.
Findon Urban Lofts is part of a group called Union Developments – a coalition of London property developers. Union Developments includes the high profile Manhattan Loft Corporation.
It is this branded group that would market the development
V
The local objections began immediately.
Some councillors opposed the scheme, others were swayed by the promise of a doctors surgery in the lower floor. Objectors pointed out that a doctors surgery would be closed in the evenings, thus making the enclosed walk to the sports centre, more intimidating.
At the time, the locals assumed that the road and path situation would be so unworkable, and would mean that the sports centre access was ruined, that it the bit of the council that had to sort the roads out would reject it.
In March, as part of familiar process, the Environment Sub Group – the bit of the council in charge of sorting out the road – met to consider the plans for people getting into and out of the new flats and the sports centre. The council officers make it clear that they only seek comments; the actual decision will rest with the planners.
The developer employs a political public relations company, Weber Shandwick, represent them. The Weber Shandwick employee is Luke Akehurst, former Labour Party agent for the constituency
It will be discovered 12 months later that the plans that are shown to councillors have crucial pages missing from them. Camden Council later acknowledges this, attributing the mistake to a “printing error”. None of the people on the committee notice that pages are missing. Moreover, the plans are not posted on the Camden website for public inspection, as per usual procedure because, according to Camden, “the file is too large”.
Failing to notice on the missing pages, the ESG passes the plans with minimal comment, merely requesting that humps on the new road be removed and that parking places be found locally to replace any lost as a result of the development and say that the process should be continued. This means referring the matter to the Greater London Authority, the body run by the Mayor of London, as only it has the power to allow a public highway to be handed over or sold to a private developer.
VI
The GLA is usually a rubber-stamp kind of organisation, but in this case, Ken Livingston intervened and ordered a public enquiry, to take place in January 2008, on the grounds that the scheme, has “insufficient clarity”.
The inquiry takes place at the Barbican, miles away from Camden, and is a farce.
* Camden and Findon each employ Q Cs, and say they are “joint proponents”. None of the objectors have personal interests, and all are seeking merely to protect the park and sports centre; they do not have legal advice. Thus the spectacle is one of a council teaming up with a property developer to fight its own residents.
* A key issue is access to the Sports Centre. Camden Council refuse a request for someone from the Sports Centre to attend to answer questions on the impact of the scheme. Workers at the sports centre are also forbidden to talk to anyone about the scheme on paid of dismissal
* No planners attend the enquiry. Only two traffic engineers and the legal department attend
* Council officers take the agreement covering all aspects of the development, rewrite it with substantial changes, and send it out to all parties the day before the enquiry begins. Then, at the end of the first day, officers produce ANOTHER rewrite. No time is allowed for attendees to consider the changes, and no indications are made as to what the changes are.
* To pay for the marshals, the service charges of the purchasers of the flats have to increase. Objectors are curious to know what they are likely to amount to. The developers say that all 55 flats will share the costs, making the ground rent/service charge of £90 a week for an “affordable” three bedroom flat and £150 for a private one. In the following four months, objectors point out that no housing association will accept that rent. Eventually, the developer then changes his story, saying that only the private flats will pay, which increases the amount for the private flats to an estimated £200 a week.
To justify the security he has to provide for the future costs of the marshals, the developer quotes expected prices of £400,000, £665,000 and £1m, for 1,2 and 3 bedrooms. Even £1.25m for the best – this for a car-capped development standing nine metres from a railway line. These figures are nearly double those paid at the height of the property boom for flats in a luxury development standing 200 metres away, and not adjacent to a railway line.
Many people at the enquiry laugh at the figures. The inspector does not. The inspector is the only person present who does not live in London. The inspector assumes the figures are endorsed by Camden. In fact the objective source for them is a West Hampstead estate agent, Paramount. By strange coincidence, Paramount is two doors away from Greene & Co estate agents – which is owned by David Pollock, a member of the Union Developments group.
VII
And yet, in March 2008, the inspector’s report from the enquiry recommends progressing with the stopping up of Dalby Street, and the building of the development.
The inspector said he could not revisit the planning permission, only look at the access and how it might work.
He was impressed by the impact the objectors had had in getting changes made (as if their objections had even been addressed). Interestingly, one of these “changes” accepted by the council was a promise by the Council to carry out a Road Safety Audit on the access routes.
They later simply reneged on the promise.
VIII
In June, in line with usual process, there is another ESG meeting. Now local politicians know more about the scheme, and opposition is cross-party: Conservative, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and the local Labour MP Frank Dobson, and the prospective Lib Dem parliamentary candidate Jo Shaw. All three ward councillors ask to speak. The chair allows only one to speak.
However, he allows three people to speak in favour: one of the Laznik brothers, another member of the developer’s team, and then another man who, bizarrely, is introduced by the Chair not by name, but as someone “known to everyone”, despite the fact that many attendees do not know who he is. He is Chris Shaw, a local estate agent.
IX
In July came a blow for Camden council.
As one of the major central London boroughs, it was preparing documents about planning for the Olympics and its Olympic legacy – and making ample references to the success of Talacre Sports centre and its important gymnastics club.
As this was going on, Sport England wrote an official letter to the council condemning the proposed development as “detrimental to sport and sports provision”. The Camden New Journal claims that Sport England has made a veiled threat to withhold funding. However, Sport England will later decline to take any action.
This sits awkwardly with Camden’s claims for its Olympic strategy. Take, for example, this excerpt from Camden’s Sustainable Community Strategy document “Benefiting from cultural and leisure opportunities, including the London Olympics”:
“Camden is committed to using the London Olympics as a catalyst to increase leisure and cultural activity in the borough, to make it available to people of all ages and to make sure local residents benefit from the Games…Sports facilities are being developed and refurbished across the borough. The new Swiss Cottage Leisure Centre attracts 50,000 visitors a month, Talacre Community Sports Centre remains an important sport development centre in London and Kentish Town Sports Centre is being refurbished.”
X
Meanwhile, on 5.9.08, Camden Council, Trac and Findon completed the sales process for the land. It is likely that Camden agreed the deal with Trac, who then passed the deal on to Findon as part of a package comprising all the land, with planning permission obtained. For this whole package, Findon paid Trac £3.5m. For the land, Camden Council seems to have received just £325,000.
Objectors are curious about the precise nature of the land deal. Who exactly sold what to whom, and for how much? As this was publicly owned land, local council tax payers have a right to know. In 2008, Information was requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Initially Camden’s replies did not answer the question. Then in January 2009, the Council refused the Freedom of Information request on the grounds that it concerned an “ongoing commercial dealing”. The FIA request does not concern an “ongoing commercial dealing”, because the property has been sold and registered with the Land Registry.
XI
In September concerned local people and sports centre users were alarmed and confused by changes to the development plans. Original plans had shown vehicles being allowed to cut across the middle of the park, on a roadway running alongside a children’s playground, during the construction period. Later the developer and council boasted that they had accepted local objections and that wouldn’t be permitted.
However, an agreement signed on 30.9.08 went back to the original plan. When challenged, the Council claimed that they were only “re-executing the original agreement” so it was not appropriate to change anything, and that no traffic would be allowed over the park – even though the plans allowed for this.
Protestors found that the new agreement actually contained several changes, including one of major significance. The old agreement stated that the developer could not begin work until Dalby Street had been stopped up, which would mean paying the £1.1m deposit as security for the marshal scheme. The new one allowed him to begin work before the stopping up and, therefore, without paying the deposit.
XII
On September 12 2008, objectors discovered that Findon had put in a revised application (technically known as a CLOPUD) under a rule that allows a council officer to accept minor changes. Objectors were surprised to find that, although clause 7 of the pedestrian access plan stated that
“visibility along the pedestrian access way shall be such that there shall be no areas that cannot be seen by a pedestrian walking along the footpath”
the plans showed Y-shaped columns, supporting the overhanging roof, standing in the pedestrian alley. The columns were half a metre wide.
Protestors pointed out that the pillars indisputably do create areas that cannot be seen. The architects drawings even show people walking on either side of them.
Council officers reply that the columns were there from the beginning, and are needed to hold up the building. They also deny that someone could hide behind a pillar half a metre wide and almost two metres tall. An officer also admits that there has been “an unfortunate oversight in the drafting of the pedestrian access plans” - only for the acting head of planning to hurriedly intervene with a terse email stating that "the columns have been an unchanged feature of the scheme throughout. The 4 columns are narrow and well spaced apart... The pedestrian plan identifies and sets criteria for detailed community safety to meet the objective of pedestrian safety. My considered view is that the columns do not prejudice reaching this outcome, and meet the test in... this respect."
This and other exchanges between protestors and council officers expose a breathtaking Catch-22 in the planning/enquiry process.
The ensuing exchanges between protestors and council officers expose a breathtaking Catch-22 in the planning/enquiry process. Officers say the pillars are to do with the building not the alley, and that therefore they should have been considered at the planning stage. But the planning stage did not allow any discussion of access, because it granted permission on the condition that the developers could draw up access plans that satisfied the planners.
Remember too that at the council meeting at which the plans for the alley were considered, pages describing it were missing from the report “considered” by councilors. Similarly, the plans were not posted on the council’s website for public inspection as per usual procedure.
XIII
To further complicate the issue, it then transpires that the developer has asked the council if he can add an extra column, because the developer’s structural engineer has said such a column was needed to support the building. The council officer said this was too large a change to come within his authority. The developer then withdrew his request for the extra, necessary column.
XIV
While this CLOPUD application was being considered, the council at last signed the agreement with the developer that includes all the access plans. This agreement states that there should be no areas of the pedestrian walkway that cannot be seen.
In November, despite repeated letters pointing that the columns are illegal, the council officer approved the so-called “minor” changes in the application, but added “informatives” which include the following reminder: “You are reminded of the need to comply with all the conditions of the associated…legal agreements.”
Thus the building will stand up only if the council allows the developer to break legally-binding agreements. And even then, if it has only four columns, the developer’s own structural engineer says it may collapse.
XV In spite of all of this, the scheme was referred back to the GLA for approval. This time of course, it was Boris Johnson’s decision.
With the Olympics so high a priority, it seemed unfeasible that he would approve a scheme that Sport England itself said would be detrimental to sports provision in London.
Incredibly, in December 2008, Boris Johnson refused to veto the scheme and just before Christmas, Camden council announced that it would be prepared to make the stopping up order when asked to by the developer, subject to his fulfilling the terms of the agreements.
XVI During that month, despite not having fulfilled all the obligations laid down in the agreement, Findon began demolishing the house at 52 Prince of Wales. Under pressure from objectors, and to the anger of the demolition team, Camden Council intervened to halt the demolition.
XVII The story does not end here. Objectors are still pursuing numerous demands including:
1 The conditions imposed on the developer must be enforced by Camden Council. Objectors believe that in attempting to demolish 52 Prince of Wales Road illegally, the developer has shown that he is capable of trying to circumvent the conditions.
Objectors believe that the development is not financially viable with special conditions like the provision of marshals with the resulting very high service charges, and that therefore Findon will try to avoid such conditions.
2 The FIA request must be met, and Camden must reveal who benefited from the land deal.
3 The plans for the pedestrian alley must be altered to meet the conditions set out in the agreement.
4 Disabled drivers must be left in no worse position if the development is built than at present.
Part 3
The Town Green
There is another dimension to the story, which may have national significance in terms of allowing people to preserve green spaces against property developers in the future. Don’t assume, by the way, that because property has slumped, this doesn’t matter; this is exactly the time when developers will be looking to by cheap land and acquire planning permission.
I
In 2006, the Government passed a law that allowed people who lived near green spaces to ask their council to class the spaces as Town Greens. Town Greens are protected by law forever, and cannot be altered without approval from the Secretary of State.
This was actually a modern redrafting of the second-oldest piece of law in England. The oldest is that set out in the Magna Carta. The second oldest protects commons from privatisation.
II
In 2007 (yes, while the scheme was being fought over), Camden Council asked people in the Talacre area to set up an organisation called the Friends of Talacre, to help look after the Gardens.
The Friends are an enterprising group, which includes local politicians, artists, activists – and, it should be noted, representatives of people who live in hundreds of small flats nearby for whom Talacre is their only green space.
The Friends thought a good way to look after the gardens would be to have them made a Town Green. They applied to Camden Council, and at first several councillors, including the council leader, publicly supported the idea.
III
However, council officers, the full-time employees who advise councillors, stepped in and told them it was a bad idea. The councillors duly voted against it – and then, having made their decision, announced that officers would ask Talacre people whether they wanted Town Green status for Talacre Gardens or not.
If it sounds bizarre and confusing, it’s because it is. But it gets worse.
IV
This autumn, Camden Council appointed outside consultants to distribute questionnaires to locals. The questionnaires were so complex that when one resident rang for an explanation of a phrase, a council officer said he did not understand it either. The parts that did make sense were ludicrously biased against idea of a Town Green: the description of what a Town Green would be like listed problems, while the case for keeping things as they are listed only advantages.
Worst of all, the questionnaire announced that council lawyers had said that if the Gardens were made into a Town Green, they would have to be open 24 hours – adding that this “could have implications for the control of anti-social behaviour”. In fact, the Friends of Talacre’s lawyers say that Town Greens do NOT have to be open 24 hours at all.
V
Why are council officers so hostile to an idea that locals love? Well, in the last five years, Camden Council has drawn up at least four plans to develop the park; a café seating area, a car park, a new road, and a swimming baths, have all been mooted and rejected after public outcry.
Then, of course, there is the new development, for which the council and developers have already tried to claim part of the Gardens.
Town Green status would stop all that.
But perhaps there is another issue. Talacre Gardens was created in the 1970s following a campaign by local people, many of whom had no gardens. This is one reason it remains so meaningful to the community now. Could council officers fear that if Talacre wins Town Green status, then people all over Camden might try the same thing with their small, beloved patches of grass?
VI
The Town Green consultation process is ongoing. At recent focus groups, the person from the company brought in to conduct the consultation conceded that the questionnaire was flawed, and that trust had broken down between the council and residents. One resident said he felt human rights legislation could be invoked. Another suggested a judicial review.
A decision is expected in March 2009.