Charrette Report
Read our Report here
Community-Led Charrette 14th and 16th July
DPNF organised a community-led charrette with Camden Community Makers on 14th and 16th July. The first event was held online followed by an in-person workshop hosted by Cooperation Town in Gospel Oak on 16th July. More details to follow.
Prior to the workshops, Camden Council officers sent a copy of the letter they’d sent to Folgate/Murphys outlining their objections to the scheme. The issues raised ranged from a lack of genuinely affordable housing, community facilities and employment opportunities, a failure to adequately tackle climate change, trying to accommodate too much floor space onto the site and having an unacceptable impact on protected views. You can read this letter here.
MURPHY’S YARD PLANNING APPLICATION
JANUARY 2022
Attached is the DPNF Objection submitted on 20 February 2022
COMMUNITY SUMMARY
This note is a summary of the Murphy’s Yard planning application, which runs to thousands of pages. It has been prepared to inform the community about what is being proposed in a more balanced and accessible format, so that people can make their own comments to Camden Council – details of how to do this are at the end of the note.
WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED?
This is an outline application for a minimum of 750 and maximum of 825 homes and a maximum of 95,000 sqm of other uses, mainly industrial and employment.
The site today has less than 20,000 sqm of floorspace of any description, including the Murphy’s HQ.
Details of unit tenure, sizes and detailed design of buildings and open space will be confirmed through subsequent planning applications.
This application is to lock in the extent and the types of development, including maximum building footprints and heights.
The proposal is for a series of residential towers of up to 19 storeys and a row of very large floorplate industrial buildings of up to 8 storeys.
Vehicular access will be from Sanderson Close for the southern (industrial) part of the site and from a new junction on Gordon House Road. No residents will be allowed to own a car.
Development would take place over a period of approximately 9 years.
WHAT HOUSING MIX IS PROPOSED? WILL THE HOMES BE AFFORDABLE?
88% of the 825 homes will be 1-bed and 2-bed flats. As a proportion, this is twice as many as Camden’s own Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) says is needed throughout the Borough. Just 14 of the 825 homes will be family (4-bed) houses – see table for details.
Need (SHMA) v proposed, all homes
| 1 bed | 2 bed | 3 bed | 4+ bed | |
| Need in LB Camden report | 8% | 37.5% | 37.5% | 16% |
| Proposed development | 38% | 50% | 10% | 1.5% |
| Over (+)/under (-) supply | +30% | +12.5% | -27.5% | -14.5 |
Camden’s policies say that 35% of homes should be ‘affordable’, but the planning application claims that this amount of ‘affordable’ is not viable. So we do not know what proportion will be ‘affordable’, but they are arguing that it must be less than the required 35%. It will be subject to future planning applications.
The developer’s Viability Assessment assumes that a 2-bedroom flat in one of the towers will cost around £950,000 to £1,000,000 at today’s prices.
HOW WILL THE DEVELOPMENT FIT INTO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD? WHAT ABOUT VIEWS?
The proposal is for a high density development. Both the residential and employment components will be much more dense and bulky than anything else in the wider area. It will be characterised by very large buildings linked by ambitious open space.
The development will loom large in views from all directions, including Hampstead Heath and Oak Village. The protected views of St Pauls from Parliament Hill and Kenwood will not be directly affected but the protected view of Parliament Hill from Kentish Town will be largely blocked.
The scheme’s architects say “the masterplan is design-led, sensitively responding to its wider context…The proposed configuration of building typologies and heights responds to the scale of the existing surrounding context and allows the Proposed Development to integrate with the existing built environment.” Their ‘townscape consultants’ say that the proposals “will establish a significant and notable new place with distinctive qualities, delivering a number of benefits and would result in no adverse effects in relation to townscape and visual impact.”
However, Camden’s independent expert Design Review Panel say “the bulk, height and massing of residential blocks is excessive and…have a significant and unacceptable impact on important views from Parliament Hill to the north. The amount of accommodation should be reduced or redistributed, potentially through reduction of other uses on the site.”
Judge for yourself from these images from the planning application:
TRAFFIC AND OTHER IMPACTS
The application claims that the traffic generated by the proposed Development will result in a net reduction in traffic currently generated by the site during both morning and evening peaks. This would be surprising given the low level of activity on site now and the number of homes and businesses that will need servicing.
There are several topics where the impacts will only be really known when subsequent planning applications are submitted and assessed. These include detailed breakdown of uses (e.g. community, retail, food and drink, employment type), ecology, climate emergency, impact on local businesses and services, fire safety, drainage and sustainability.
WHAT DOES PLANNING POLICY SAY?
Planning applications are judged against planning policy. Camden and London planning policy is that the existing amount of industrial floorspace should be re-provided [c.20,000sqm], alongside “in the region of 750 homes” that is “seamlessly integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods”, built up to a general height of eight storeys with some buildings going above this in appropriate locations. The view of Parliament Hill from outside Kentish Town station is protected.
WHATEVER YOUR VIEWS – PLEASE RESPOND
Some positives:
- Some local people may agree with the developer that this addresses local need for housing and employment space in a highly efficient way.
- They may find new residential towers to be alluring, or at least put up with them.
- They may be excited by the opening up of an underused site and the promise of new facilities and set piece open spaces.
Some negatives:
- The expert Design Review Panel states that the impacts of squeezing too much development into a limited space is damaging to the character of the area will ruin treasured and protected views and result in a development with a poor quality of life.
- The resulting towers will lead to too many small flats and not enough housing for families, which the Council’s own housing need study concludes are needed.
- The development will not provide enough affordable housing, as stated in the developer’s own reports.
- The proposal provides limited services for young people, according to the developer’s reports.
- With its massive structures, the development has a very high level of embodied carbon and is expected to have high energy use due to lack of ambitious insulation requirements. They have not followed good practice for environmental building design, including for natural ventilation and cooling, and will contribute to the heat island effect.
- There are better ways to provide housing, jobs and facilities, using low-rise, high-density models.
What do you think? Let the Council know by 21 February via this link: https://planningrecords.camden.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/PLComments.aspx?pk=567580
See all the related planning application documents here: http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/HPRMWebDrawer/PlanRec?q=recContainer:%222021/3225/P%22
Application number: 2021/3225/P
| This community briefing note has been prepared by Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum (DPNF). You can download a copy of this report here. Most of the site lies with the DPNF area. Contact: planning@dpnf.org.uk Follow the Murphy’s Yard Community Plan campaign on Twitter: @MurphyNw5 www.dpnf.org.uk |
Views of Parliament Hill from Kentish Town should not be obstructed.
There should be affordable housing provision for families as well as single people ( which should include accessible housing for elderly with direct access to open space.)
There should be provision for super-efficient transport links throughout the site.( also suitable for elderly)
The current proposals have too much dense development in the space allowed.
There are too many single bed dwellings when more family dwellings are required.
It is also not clear what facilities will be available for the elderly.
The 13-17 story and 19 storey buildings are too high , visually intrusive and inappropriate for this site.
They will block all views of Parliament Hill from Kentish Town. These views must be preserved.
Likewise, views of the city from Parliament Hill will be largely obscured.
This level of high rise development must NOT be allowed to happen.
It is a historical fact that high rise dwellings often create more social problems than they are intended to solve.
The developers and their designers are missing an real opportunity here to create well designed, lower rise dwellings surrounded by more pleasant garden space around the buildings in their drive to create more housing than the borough actually needs.
There must be a re-think for a better design solution instead of this greedy plan.
Completely agree with the above comments.
Disappointing that the developers are rowing back on their original promises.
I completely agree with Jill Lawrence (comment above). The view from Parliament hill must be protected and there are not enough family homes being built.
I can’t believe that developers aren’t following good environmental design practice. The height of the proposed housing. Development will have a negative impact on light that neighbouring buildings receive. This area also needs affordable housing for families. Anyone who has tried to buy a family home here will tell you that. The development seems extremely dense, an attempt to squeeze as much profit from the site as possible rather than an attempt to add anything of cultural or civic value to the area.
Daylight and sunlight to the Lido and Hampstead Heath should not be diminished.
Parliament hill lido will have obstructed sun in the summer and an unpleasant atmosphere of noise and cranes over the next 9 years. This will reduce the number of customers and worsen the experience the swimmers that do come.
NO more big buildings – let us breathe
This Building is overpowering will cut out light and sunlight with a dark shadows to this beautiful spot. Overshadowing Gardens allotments and peoples homes why do they have to be so tall? I totally disagree .
Also how are any of our children ever going to get to buy property when these homes will be out of most peoples reach.
I object to the scale and height of this proposed development. The view from Parliament hill must absolutely be protected and there are not enough family homes being built.
The current proposals have too much dense development in the space allowed.
There are too many single bed dwellings when more family dwellings are required.
It is also not clear what facilities will be available for the elderly.
The 13-17 story and 19 storey buildings are too high , visually intrusive and inappropriate for this site.
They will block all views of Parliament Hill from Kentish Town. These views must be preserved.
Likewise, views of the city from Parliament Hill will be largely obscured.
This level of high rise development must NOT be allowed to happen.
It is a historical fact that high rise dwellings often create more social problems than they are intended to solve.
The developers and their designers are missing an real opportunity here to create well designed, lower rise dwellings surrounded by more pleasant garden space around the buildings in their drive to create more housing than the borough actually needs.
This is terrible. It doesn’t meet the needs of the community. The worst part is the awful effect on the view from the heath and Parliament hill, which is one of my favourite places to go. One of the few breathing spaces in this incredibly crowded city, gone. Please think again before taking that away.
If Hampstead Heath is in any way impacted then I am wholeheartedly against this development.
I object to the this proposed development. There are not enough family homes being built. The view from Parliament hill must absolutely be protected and the sunlight must be allowed to shine on the park and lido
The view from Kentish Town to the Heath is hugely important. It needs to be better protected. The view from the Heath to the City and Canary Wharf is a major draw – despite the St Pauls view being partially obscured by the Shard. It’s not clear why the height is needed. High density for single accommodation flats at such high costs is not meeting any locally driven community demand. Far better to have more social housing and extend the sense of community which is pretty strong in this area by having more family friendly accommodation – which also appears to be the greater need. I also think a proper traffic impact assessment is needed. The roads in the area are impassable at various points of the day and while this site has very good access to public transport inevitably servicing any number of new homes will increase the traffic flow. But was is a sustainable impact?
I am against the development if it’s going to affect the neighbourhood in a negatively.
This proposal is entirely the wrong scale for the area. A ‘Kings Cross’ corporate estate style development will destroy the unique character of our neighbourhood and seems unlikely to benefit the existing community, either through ( affordable or appropriate) housing provision or increased employment opportunities.
The high-rise element of some of the proposed buildings is of particular concern. Erecting 19 story buildings in a dense corridor will not only obstruct protected views from both Parliament Hill and Kentish Town, it will fundamentally, irreversibly and detrimentally effect the entire surrounding area. Increased traffic, particularly during the construction period is of huge concern given that there are congestion issues already due to the large number of schools in the immediate area. As it stands this proposal is entirely unacceptable, and I hope that the planning authority will recognise this.
I object to this development. It seems to be more about profit for Folgate estates over such a long time period and less about affordable housing for families and single people. To obscure the winter sun over the lido is tantamount to criminal damage. Reconsider please!
I 100% object to this development and how it will negatively impact the environment and the surrounding residential community areas. There seems to be know consciousness about considered planning, just about profit! Please do not allow this to go ahead.
I strongly object to this development on all of the grounds people have already outlined. I’m just filing an email response to Camden.
I agree that the current views should not be obstructed and, while it is true that more social housing is needed, 2-bed flats for £1m each will only benefit a tiny portion of the population. This really is an opportunity to think outside the box and produce something which works for everyone.
The current proposals are very frightening considering Camden is a supposedly labour council
The tower blocks will be mainly small flats with available affordable housing not what’s needed
The development will be far too dense changing the whole character of the area
The council must be persuaded to reconsider
As a resident in Mansfield Cons Area, concerned about the impact of this development on our shared environment and communities, I agree and support the views expressed. In addition, access by road and on foot to and from the egdes of the site needs to be considered fully at this Outline stage. We should not accept the developer’s assertion that traffic generated will result in a net reduction(!) at rush hour peak times, which frankly is not credible. And how would the proposals deal with increased pedestrian access needed at Gospel Oak Station, with concomitant overcrowding of narrow pavements? This developer should be required to contribute or even bear the cost of infrastructure improvements, such as the plan proposed. (https://dpnf.org.uk/index.php/gospel-oak-station-hampstead-heath/).
Surely there are enough high rise buildings already disfiguring the London skyline as it is without adding even more in the proposed plans for Murphy’s Yard. Surely smaller and less imposing developments would be the right and proper way of respecting the surrounding area and the natural beauty of Parliament Hill so close by?
Camden average earnings are £32k so it is hard to believe this will benefit local people. I agree the project is far too ambitious for 16 acres and will negatively impact an already densely populated borough of 32,000 people per square mile. This is twice the density of Tokyo. We must consider the quality of life and the social consequences of overcrowding. The consequences are largely negative. Two bed flats can be purchased in Barnet for 400k – with garden space. This is more realistic. Camden is only 8.5 square miles. It received half a million tourists per week and has a student population churn of 20000 per year. Camden has a lot of social problems already. We do not need to keep adding to these problems with ambitious and unrealistic developments like we’ve seen in Kings Cross which has taken already 15 years to build. And what for? To increase the overcrowding problems further and to create luxury flats that local people cannot afford. If our labour run council care at all about maintaining family stability in Camden and to stop this constant overseas investment and gentrification, they must think seriously about the data.
This development will have a negative impact on many of the positive features in this area. Winter bathers at the lido appreciate the morning sun and there are wonderful views. London needs these attractions for resident and visitor wellbeing.
There are major disadvantages with this proposal:
high-rise, when environmental low-rise dense housing design is so obviously better. The whole area is low-rise anyway; the development would be completely out of place and character
small flats, when there is urgent need for more family-sized flats
loss of view – really damaging to the neighbourhood
affordable homes – desperately needed and not to be avoided by developers
For the residents living in the shadow of this proposed development, it will be cold, dark & depressing as they will be deprived of sunshine and natural light. They will also have to suffer years of building work and noise pollution.
The much loved & valued assets of the City Farm & Lido will also be affected.
The views from Parliament Hill will be ruined and blocked out in part by this monstrous development and from Kentish Town the heath will no longer be visible.
Where is all the sewage going to go? What plans have been put into place for this with the additional 750 to 825 dwellings? Already water companies can’t cope and are dumping sewage into rivers and canals on a regular basis.
Camden is being over developed & ruined by these developments. Along the camel side, next to train lines and the St. Pancras view development.
There is a need for more social housing but this development is weighed far too heavy on the private sector and is purely for profit. Local people won’t be able to afford the prices & will ultimately be forced to move outside the area.
Why should the local community suffer and have the area they live in ruined by a greedy developer, who will walk away and move onto the next project.
This commercially driven development fails to meet the priority social needs of the people of Camden namely low rise affordable healthy homes for families which are environmentally sustainable. It ticks none of these boxes and therefore should be rejected categorically, emphatically and without delay.
Kentish Town is not the place for high rise blocks. Make the buildings smaller and increase the amount of family housing. That’s the way to help a community come into existence. Better still if it allows for a few small shops, a cafe and maybe even a pub! Doesn’t Camden Council want to create communities? It is a Labour Council (I think?)
I whole-heartedly object to the proposed size and location of the towers. I believe they would be overly tall and bulky and detrimental to the local area in respect to the city farm, the heath and the local community. I do recognize that the site has great potential but i think the plans need to be re-appraised and a more thoughtful and sensitive design produced.
I’ve just posted this on the the Planning Application page on Camden’s website:
The redevelopment of Murphy’s Yard offers an exciting opportunity to create wonderful affordable homes and vibrant work spaces for our local community built in context and enhancing its surroundings and views.
The current proposal is an overdevelopment that does not even meet affordable homes requirements, fails to meet the needs of families and contradicts the planning policy already set out by Camden Planning on almost every point. It also blocks the precious view of the Heath from Kentish Town and casts a shadow over the Lido – both loved by so many and should be protected for perputuity.
I urge Camden Planning to decline this proposal and for the Developers to come up with alternative scheme that reflects the strong arguments and feelings of our local community.
Please decline this project. High buildings will spoil the surrounding environment and view from the heath. There is a lack of affordable housing a lack of green space and it is for too many people.
I agree with all of these comments . This whole area is densely populated already and with this development the impact on Hampstead Heath will be a big negative with overcrowded paths and damage to the whole park area .
This kind of development is of an industrial scale and has no place in a grown community in which it is proposed to land. It is totally out of proportion for a project supporting local residents and businesses and is not suited to bring new residents and business at a scale that can be integrated into the current local social and infrastructure fabric. It will stick out like a sore thumb. Please do not grant permission to the project at this scale. Profitability for developers should not a deciding argument for our council!
I completely agree with Phil Power’s comments.
In spite of the developer’s vaunted claim of half a century’s involvement in the area, this is a blatant and insensitive for profit exercise.
Here was an opportunity for a transformational eco development in keeping with the surroundings and what is proposed is overdevelopment and outdated monolithic postwar style tower blocks.
Agree with another design to reduce tall towers and provide affordable houses as described by others which is environmental friendly.