|
|
 |
| |
I had every
right to vote for tower plan
• Your front page story appears to us to be wilfully
misleading in relation to both the nature of the West Euston
Partnership (WEP) and the conduct of Councillor Heather Johnson
as Chairwoman of the Camden Planning Committee (Towering row
for ex-mayor, February 16).
The WEP is one of 10 neighbourhood partnerships in Camden
and was set up to address the needs of people in disadvantaged
areas.
The partners include councillors, community and voluntary groups,
the police, the primary care trust, schools and businesses.
It is seen to be an excellent model of neighbourhood working.
In terms of the Regent’s Place planning application the
Wep has worked to ensure that this major development benefits
people from the Regent’s Park estate.
This was done by the Wep planning working group, set up in 2004,
currently chaired by Councillor Nasim Ali, which includes residents
but does not include Cllr Heather Johnson or any representative
from British Land. It was the working group which agreed to
support the new planning application from British Land.
Wep objected to the first planning application made by British
Land and the Crown Estate in July 2004. As you mention in your
article both British Land and the Crown Estate, as local landlords,
are partners on the Wep Board. We did not let this influence
our decision to object when we objected nor to influence us
when we supported the revised application in November 2005.
The Wep supported the application because we are convinced that
it will benefit the local community.
Specifically, £250,000 will go to improve the youth centre
(Samuel Lithgow), £137,00 towards improvements to open
spaces (Munster Square), improvements to sports areas, new CCTV
cameras, and £30,000 for public art on the estate.
Community groups will have the use of a new arts theatre facility
within the development, at cost. This is to say nothing of employment
and training opportunities, the affordable housing with larger
much sought after units and facilities for the community arts
charity Diorama to continue their work in the area.
The issues which arise where private developments are built
next to local authority housing estates with high levels of
social deprivation will always be sensitive and difficult. Making
a positive contribution to ways in which young people can be
constructively engaged in West Euston will provide clear and
identifiable benefits for current residents, new business and
for new tenants. Unfortunately your article did not look at
these issues and we welcome the opportunity to draw your readers’
attention to this.
Mohammed Joynal Uddin
Chairman of WEP
Cllr Nasim Ali
Chairman of WEP Planning working group
Prof Alan Lord
Chairman of WEP strategy subcommittee
Albany Street, NW1
• I would like to respond to your article about the
decision on the planning application for a development on Osnaburgh
Street and Euston Road.
As I explained at the start of the development control meeting
on February 9, I am a board member of the West Euston Partnership
holding that position as a ward councillor. It is important
to emphasise that I was not involved in the consultation or
negotiations around this development, and so had no prejudicial
interest in the matter. To be absolutely sure, I sought advice
from the council’s legal department before the meeting
and ensured my position was in line with the council’s
code of conduct.
Councillors are not precluded from taking part in decisions
simply because a proposed development is in their ward.
Wep was not making the planning application in this case, its
role was as one of the channels for consulting the community
on the development proposals and the organisation set up a sub-group
to do this.
I was not a member of the sub-group and have not been involved
in any of these discussions. I also ensured that I left Wep
meetings at anytime a report was made from the sub-group. Therefore
their board’s decision to support the application did not
bind me to that view.
As I was not involved in any of the discussions, I did not know
what changes the sub-group and residents negotiated.
I made my decision based on what I read in the officers’
report, the deputations made and the discussion at the development
control meeting.
It was clear from the report that the majority of objections
had been overcome and there was support for the scheme locally.
My view was that the scheme in itself was of good architectural
design and any shortcomings were outweighed by the provision
of good quality, large unit affordable housing in the scheme,
the huge improvements planned for the public realm and the contributions
to employment and youth facilities. I voted to go with the officers’
recommendation to approve the application and would consider
that this would be the correct way for a chairwoman use a casting
vote.
Cllr Heather Johnson
Chairwoman, Development Control Sub Committee
Camden Council
Judd Street
WC1 |
|
|
|
