Since inviting a new enforcement chair to the Bloomsbury CAAC two thorough surveys of buildings on Gray’s Inn Road and Marchmont Street have been conducted to investigate planning breaches, mainly pertaining to shopfronts.

Shopfronts are typically the subject of most planning breaches due to poor levels of awareness about planning and advertisement law among shopkeepers and owners.

It was found that more than 80% of surveyed buildings had been the subject of illegal alterations, with an astonishing 21 consecutive buildings on Gray’s Inn Road having been subject to planning breaches.

A large proportion of these breaches had been committed more than 4 years ago making them ‘legalised’. Their reversal is now almost impossible.

Many businesses with open planning applications had made the requested changes despite not having received any decision. And others, including major corporations like KFC and Currys, had made their alterations before putting in a planning application.

It means that the tens of thousands of hours spent by planners, councillors, and conservationists in formulating and applying planning policy to planning applications over the past decade appears to be largely in vain, as adhering to planning law is increasingly becoming optional.

But despite the new Enforcement Panel having made a total of 42 reports over the past four months, Camden have only officially acknowledged two of those, and have stated they do not have the capacity to take on any ‘enforcement projects’ at the current time.

But beyond the majority of ‘minor’ alterations made to shopfronts and building facades that have gone unnoticed, a number of severe planning breaches relating to Grade II and Grade I listed buildings have been committed with no apparent enforcement action planned.

In 2013 an entire colonnade was illegally demolished opposite the Grade I listed St George’s Bloomsbury before planning permission was granted for redevelopment of the building. Camden’s planning committee subsequently granted permission for the works making their reinstatement impossible.

It was discovered earlier this year that all the historic railings of the Grade I listed 40 Bedford Square had been sawn off at the base. A hoarding had previously been erected to hide the works being undertaken. But despite repeated requests for clarification it appears no enforcement has been taken.

A number of weeks ago the wholesale removal of original Georgian sash windows at Grade II listed 12 Leigh Street was noticed by a Bloomsbury CAAC member. Swift action led to the apparent halting of works but a number of Georgian windows had already been removed from the site.

Last month an emergency report of the substantial demolition of a Georgian terrace at 289 Gray’s Inn Road led to no immediate enforcement action, although it has been promised that ‘a report will be opened’ after a number of emails urging an emergency site visit were ignored.

Members of the community, leading conservation officers and consultants, national amenity societies, and local conservation groups have all lambasted a ‘lazy’ service for consistently ignoring emails instead of acknowledging and processing complaints in accordance with the constitution and wider planning law and policy.

Camden’s Local Enforcement Plan 2020 states all complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and a site visit undertaken within a maximum of 15 working days. But some complaints have still not been acknowledged despite having been made more than a year ago. Subsequent planning applications have been made citing these illegal alterations as precedent.

And while Camden has committed to maintaining a public open register of enforcement notices, the website where these are hosted has not worked for several years.

Glenda Davies from Sandwich Street made repeated reports of illegal alterations to the Lutheran Centre on the same street. But Camden’s enforcement officer ignored several emails and responded making incorrect claims about planning law, eventually closing the case without any action. An enforcement case was reopened after the Bloomsbury CAAC and Twentieth Century Society wrote a joint letter in support of Glenda Davies’ complaints, but subsequently closed again with a planning officer stating the case was ‘not expedient to pursue’.

A breach of planning law is a serious criminal offence. Unauthorised works to a listed building can result in an unlimited fine or up to two years’ imprisonment. This makes it an offence more severe than common assault, which only carries a six month imprisonment sentence and a fine of up to £10,000.

Camden have claimed that they simply do not have the capacity to deal with the volume of enforcement breaches throughout the borough. Enforcement officers have reported having up to 100 cases to investigate at any one time.

But repeated offers from the Bloomsbury CAAC to help shoulder the burden of mundane work such as surveying areas, investigating breaches, writing notices, and liaising with building owners have been ignored.

Camden’s enforcement team has offered a meeting in November to discuss the 42 reports made over the past four months. But whether this will result in any tangible difference to the current state of enforcement inaction remains to be seen.

Two meetings have already been held between the Bloomsbury CAAC and Camden’s Enforcement Team over the past 2 years to report about 15 breaches as a trial. But of those, only one was actioned and the owner subsequently reversed the changes after only a month.

Marianne Jacobs-Lim of the Bloomsbury CAAC stated: ‘Camden is guilty of negligence and is sanctioning crime by inaction. These are serious crimes, yet there is a dreadful feeling that Camden’s internal court has pushed them into a misdemeanour category. Addressing crime, solving crime, and punishing crime must happen regardless of any excuses and needs to become an absolute priority.‘

Catherine Croft, director of the Twentieth Century Society stated: ‘A planning system with no sanctions is worthless. It’s bad enough that building owners and developers know that fines for breaching planning conditions or carrying out works without permission are ludicrously low, throughout the country, but this research is shocking. The detrimental impact of small changes builds up over time, and the quality of buildings is soon lost, making our streets less interesting and inspiring for everyone. A properly resourced planning system makes where we live and work better for everyone.‘

Round-the-clock work by planners and conservationists is becoming increasingly farcical as recent enforcement surveys indicate the majority of buildings in Bloomsbury have been illegally altered over the past ten years.

Since inviting a new enforcement chair to the Bloomsbury CAAC two thorough surveys of buildings on Gray’s Inn Road and Marchmont Street have been conducted to investigate planning breaches, mainly pertaining to shopfronts.

Shopfronts are typically the subject of most planning breaches due to poor levels of awareness about planning and advertisement law among shopkeepers and owners.

It was found that more than 80% of surveyed buildings had been the subject of illegal alterations, with an astonishing 21 consecutive buildings on Gray’s Inn Road having been subject to planning breaches.

A large proportion of these breaches had been committed more than 4 years ago making them ‘legalised’. Their reversal is now almost impossible.

Many businesses with open planning applications had made the requested changes despite not having received any decision. And others, including major corporations like KFC and Currys, had made their alterations before putting in a planning application.

It means that the tens of thousands of hours spent by planners, councillors, and conservationists in formulating and applying planning policy to planning applications over the past decade appears to be largely in vain, as adhering to planning law is increasingly becoming optional.

But despite the new Enforcement Panel having made a total of 42 reports over the past four months, Camden have only officially acknowledged two of those, and have stated they do not have the capacity to take on any ‘enforcement projects’ at the current time.

But beyond the majority of ‘minor’ alterations made to shopfronts and building facades that have gone unnoticed, a number of severe planning breaches relating to Grade II and Grade I listed buildings have been committed with no apparent enforcement action planned.

In 2013 an entire colonnade was illegally demolished opposite the Grade I listed St George’s Bloomsbury before planning permission was granted for redevelopment of the building. Camden’s planning committee subsequently granted permission for the works making their reinstatement impossible.

It was discovered earlier this year that all the historic railings of the Grade I listed 40 Bedford Square had been sawn off at the base. A hoarding had previously been erected to hide the works being undertaken. But despite repeated requests for clarification it appears no enforcement has been taken.

A number of weeks ago the wholesale removal of original Georgian sash windows at Grade II listed 12 Leigh Street was noticed by a Bloomsbury CAAC member. Swift action led to the apparent halting of works but a number of Georgian windows had already been removed from the site.

Last month an emergency report of the substantial demolition of a Georgian terrace at 289 Gray’s Inn Road led to no immediate enforcement action, although it has been promised that ‘a report will be opened’ after a number of emails urging an emergency site visit were ignored.

Members of the community, leading conservation officers and consultants, national amenity societies, and local conservation groups have all lambasted a ‘lazy’ service for consistently ignoring emails instead of acknowledging and processing complaints in accordance with the constitution and wider planning law and policy.

Camden’s Local Enforcement Plan 2020 states all complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and a site visit undertaken within a maximum of 15 working days. But some complaints have still not been acknowledged despite having been made more than a year ago. Subsequent planning applications have been made citing these illegal alterations as precedent.

And while Camden has committed to maintaining a public open register of enforcement notices, the website where these are hosted has not worked for several years.

Glenda Davies from Sandwich Street made repeated reports of illegal alterations to the Lutheran Centre on the same street. But Camden’s enforcement officer ignored several emails and responded making incorrect claims about planning law, eventually closing the case without any action. An enforcement case was reopened after the Bloomsbury CAAC and Twentieth Century Society wrote a joint letter in support of Glenda Davies’ complaints, but subsequently closed again with a planning officer stating the case was ‘not expedient to pursue’.

A breach of planning law is a serious criminal offence. Unauthorised works to a listed building can result in an unlimited fine or up to two years’ imprisonment. This makes it an offence more severe than common assault, which only carries a six month imprisonment sentence and a fine of up to £10,000.

Camden have claimed that they simply do not have the capacity to deal with the volume of enforcement breaches throughout the borough. Enforcement officers have reported having up to 100 cases to investigate at any one time.

But repeated offers from the Bloomsbury CAAC to help shoulder the burden of mundane work such as surveying areas, investigating breaches, writing notices, and liaising with building owners have been ignored.

Camden’s enforcement team has offered a meeting in November to discuss the 42 reports made over the past four months. But whether this will result in any tangible difference to the current state of enforcement inaction remains to be seen.

Two meetings have already been held between the Bloomsbury CAAC and Camden’s Enforcement Team over the past 2 years to report about 15 breaches as a trial. But of those, only one was actioned and the owner subsequently reversed the changes after only a month.

Marianne Jacobs-Lim of the Bloomsbury CAAC stated: ‘Camden is guilty of negligence and is sanctioning crime by inaction. These are serious crimes, yet there is a dreadful feeling that Camden’s internal court has pushed them into a misdemeanour category. Addressing crime, solving crime, and punishing crime must happen regardless of any excuses and needs to become an absolute priority.‘

Catherine Croft, director of the Twentieth Century Society stated: ‘A planning system with no sanctions is worthless. It’s bad enough that building owners and developers know that fines for breaching planning conditions or carrying out works without permission are ludicrously low, throughout the country, but this research is shocking. The detrimental impact of small changes builds up over time, and the quality of buildings is soon lost, making our streets less interesting and inspiring for everyone. A properly resourced planning system makes where we live and work better for everyone.‘

We have invited a new member to join us as an Enforcement Panel Chair to help us crack down on the hundreds of illegal alterations made throughout our conservation areas every year.

Marianne Jacobs-Lim, who has worked for community groups including Bloomsbury Residents’ Action Group, the Mount Pleasant Forum, and Friends of St Andrew’s Gardens, has been involved in enforcement cases near where she lives on Calthorpe Street, and in wider planning and conservation issues relating to the notorious Mount Pleasant Development.

We previously walked around the area with Camden’s Enforcement Team Leader Elizabeth Beaumont and Deputy Team Leader Gary Bakall to point out specific enforcement cases to see what action is likely to be successful.

But knowledge of the technical aspects of enforcement action is unlikely to be the greatest obstacle to ‘cleaning up’ our conservation areas and getting them back in proper order. The challenge will no doubt prove to be the sheer magnitude of illegal alterations requiring enforcement, which we estimate to be in the region of 200-300 cases relating to shopfronts alone.

Shopfronts are proving to be the main offenders, particularly convenience stores, most of which seem to have no concept of planning law whatsoever.

Some shop-owners have been hit with enforcement action more than five times in the past ten years, but continue to make illegal alterations in the hope that nobody will notice.

The main problem is that the practice of making illegal alterations is now so widespread that most shop-owners probably don’t even realise what they are doing is illegal. Camden entirely relies upon residents, or groups like our own, to report essentially every enforcement issue that arises.

But even reporting enforcement cases and checking on their progress is a mammoth task. Camden’s enforcement team still do everything by paper (or PDF), meaning there’s no way to file a report or check up on it digitally, except to manually write out an enforcement complaint, email it, and then send emails to check on their progress.

It has led to the need for a dedicated team to report enforcement issues, to clear the enormous backlog of unreported cases, and to pressure Camden to enforce where necessary and keep us updated on their progress.

Bloomsbury Conservation has been left in absolute disbelief as Camden have recommended approval for an all-glass conservatory on world-renowned Bedford Square, just weeks after refusing a simple lift nearby as causing ‘too much harm’ to the historic building.

Couple Lucy and Andrew had been waiting years to have their application for a lift at the rear of their Grade II terrace determined, but after being ‘confined to the basement’ for three years were told that their application would be refused due to it causing too much ‘harm’ to their terrace.

They are now appealing to the Planning Inspectorate, but will be forced to sell and move away if they lose their appeal.

Part of the officer report made the point that ‘lifts were not a common feature of Georgian terraces.’

But just weeks later Camden have decided that all-glass extensions are in fact common features of Georgian terraces, and have recommended one for approval at the world-renowned Bedford Square.

Camden’s planners defied detailed objections from ourselves and the Bloomsbury Association to claim that ‘no harm’ was done by the extension.

The ‘Grade I’ designation is saved for only the most historically and architecturally significant buildings and places in the country. Only a World Heritage Site carries more weight.

Accordingly, planning law and policy means that ‘harm’ can only be done to these heritage assets in ‘wholly exceptional’ circumstances.

But Camden’s planners have departed from heritage guidance, policy, our advice, and their own established precedent to simply claim that ‘no harm’ is done whatsoever to the Grade I listed terrace or its neighbours by the erection of an all-glass extension and partial demolition of the rear courtyard structures.

The historic ground floor rear elevation would be totally obscured if approved.

During a Bloomsbury Conservation meeting it was joked that a formal objection hardly needed to be written, as the application was so outrageously inappropriate there was no chance that it would be approved.

But luckily the formal objection that was eventually written has saved the application from being privately approved by Camden’s officers due to the special weight attached to our objections.

It means the Members’ Briefing Panel, a committee of three cross-party councillors, will now meet to decide what to do with the application. There is a reasonable chance it will now be sent to the full planning committee for consideration, adding significant delays and opening the application up to refusal.

The Georgian Group have also been contacted to file an urgent objection.

A formal complaint has already been lodged with the request that the recommendation for approval is withdrawn, due to the judgment of ‘no harm’ as being ‘irrational’ and ‘irregular’.

In an horrific act of urban vandalism, the former Royal Free Hospital on Gray’s Inn Road has been almost entirely demolished, as part of an application granted by Camden Council last year.

The approval for the demolition of the hospital was granted in the face of huge opposition from local groups and Historic England, who usually reserve objections for the most severe of cases.

Thanks to an error in Camden’s appraisal and local listing of the area, the hospital was afforded no historic protection whatsoever.

It allowed developers to argue that the beautiful Victorian courtyard had ‘no historic significance’, which gives it the equivalent protection of one of Camden’s plastic bins.

The building, which was arranged around a beautiful courtyard and listed monument, is being reduced to a mere facade to face the front of a new major research centre.

Earlier plans had proposed retaining the courtyard and installing a glass rooftop in order to make it into a viable research space. These plans were supported by the BCAAC and Historic England.

But very typically the developer argued that they needed a ‘critical mass’ of floorspace to make the project ‘viable’, resulting in an enormous monolith of a building completely alien to this historic area.

It shows how little Camden are willing to attach to heritage concerns, and the enormity of the task in bringing errant planners and councillors back into line.

How Did This Happen?

One of the key considerations for planners in when to allow ‘heritage harm’ is in whether that ‘harm’ is ‘outweighed’ by ‘public benefit’.

This is a national policy as part of the NPPF set up by the government about ten years ago, which overarches all planning decisions and must be afforded the greatest importance.

‘Public benefit’ is not comprehensively defined, but broadly encompasses anything that brings something beneficial to the local or wider public, including nationally and globally.

The more ‘public benefit’ that there is attached to an application, the more ‘harm’ that can be justified to historic buildings and places. For planners, it’s all about balancing things up, and seeing whether the public benefit is greater than any harm caused.

One of the greatest sources of public benefit is medical and research uses. As such, proposals for hospitals, laboratories, and research centres pose the most immense risk to historic places, being given almost a ‘blank cheque’ to cause harm to historic areas. This is why the developers of Belgrove House went to such an effort to advertise their building as a laboratory despite it containing no labs.

The demolition of the Royal Free Hospital was permitted due to the new building being a research centre into neurological diseases, therefore bringing major public benefit.

But how exactly to attach ‘weight’ to heritage harm and public benefit is up to planners, with the balancing process being largely subjective and a grey area in policy and law. Camden is particularly liberal in how much harm it allows developers to permit in return for only small amounts of public benefit.

And the fact that Camden refuses to update its appraisals and local list further compounds the situation.

The Bloomsbury CAAC will be liaising with local groups to lodge a formal complaint about planning decisions being based upon incorrect and outdated heritage documents. The Bloomsbury CA appraisal has now almost gone the longest time in history without being updated, despite the past decade arguably seeing the most change to its historic fabric. Much of the appraisal is now entirely outdated.

We were consulted in late 2019 for a major redevelopment proposal in the heart of the West End, variously called Selkirk House, Travelodge, and ‘One Museum Street’ by the developers LabTech and DSDHA.

After we raised concerns about the potential scale of the scheme, the developers subsequently misrepresented our advice as ‘enthusiasm’ for the tower to Camden’s top planners, despite not even sharing any details of the tower with us whatsoever.

The site is situated between the Bloomsbury and Seven Dials Conservation Areas, which we act as an advisory committee for.

The scheme is evidently entirely out of context in both scale and design considering the surrounding historic townscape. But given Camden’s appalling record in approving the ‘Post Building’ just nextdoor, a precedent has perhaps been set for ‘big and ugly’ development in this sensitive area.

The height of the tower means it is likely visible from a number of historic locations, with views being requested from as far afield as Trafalgar Square and Parliament Hill. Despite requests, the developers have refused to fly a blimp.

We are also particularly concerned about proposed changes to neighbouring historic Georgian and Victorian buildings, apparently meant to integrate the design of these buildings with the tower, something we find to be completely inappropriate.

We have alerted the Victorian Society and Georgian Group officers to this proposal and will be liaising with them in coming to an objection. We have also been in close contact with local amenity societies and ward councillors about the scheme.

It is clear that the developer are completely uninterested in listening to the concerns of both the community and local councillors, and are adopting the increasingly common brute force approach.

Whether Camden’s planners and councillors will be bullied into submission remains to be seen. If minded for approval by the committee in the coming months, we will apply to the Secretary of State for a call-in.

We have today submitted a formal request for the Secretary of State to intervene in the decision making process for Belgrove House, opposite King’s Cross and St Pancras Stations.

Camden Council resolved to approve the application last night after a fiery committee meeting.

The Secretary of State can use his ‘call-in’ powers to determine a planning application himself when an application is of more than local significance, and it satisfies one of the Caborn Principles.

One of these principles states that a call-in is appropriate when there are significant architectural or urban design issues. As Camden’s own Design Review Panel raised significant and detailed architectural concerns on all three occasions of being consulted, and every single relevant consultee raised significant design concerns, this principle is satisfied.

And the site’s prominent location at an international transport hub, while being surrounded by some of the most significant historic buildings in the world makes it of far more than local importance.

We also don’t believe that Camden properly considered the effects that this application will have nationally, only focusing on whether the application was acceptable in local terms. Camden also made dubious assessments on the impact upon King’s Cross Station, forgetting to assess the views from within the train shed and platforms.

Our letter was co-signed by the Victorian Society, Georgian Group, Camden Railways Heritage Trust, Camden Civic Society, and the King’s Cross Conservation Area Advisory Committee, demonstrating both local and national interest.

We have also written to our MP Keir Starmer to support our application, due to it being within his constituency and a matter of national relevance.

We await the outcome of the call-in request, which could take a number of weeks. Meanwhile Camden Council will be scurrying to get approval from the GLA before the Secretary of State can intervene.

If the Secretary of State does decide to call it in, which is reasonably likely, there will be a long and gruelling inquiry held by the Planning Inspectorate, at which Camden will have to defend their stance and attempt to patch up the glaring holes in their assessment. We will likely have to represent ourselves and other heritage societies at the hearing, which may take a number of days or even weeks.

The Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, would then make a decision himself, not necessarily following the recommendation of the inspector.

If he refuses to call it in, there is little to stand in the way of Belgrove being built, bar a legal challenge from the community or any other interest group.

Camden’s planning department recommends the demolition of two Victorian terraces before an investigation into whether they should be legally protected is concluded.

Camden’s planning department is at the centre of a continuing controversy, as it recommends the demolition of two Victorian terraces before an investigation into whether they should be legally protected is concluded.

The two Victorian terraces are visible from the world-renowned Bedford Square in Bloomsbury, and were recommended for protection by our advisory committee in October 2020.

Camden’s planners initially attempted to fob us off, including two other local associations, until an independent planner branded Camden’s response as ‘ludicrously bureaucratic’.

Two of Camden’s councillors then ordered planners to investigate the application, concerning 2-3 Morwell Street, behind Bedford Square.

The application recommended the immediate amendment of the conservation area boundary to include the two terraces, claiming that the omission of the buildings was a glaring error in the decade-old appraisal.

The application document contained numerous photographs of similar buildings within the Bloomsbury Conservation Area, including many which were in worse condition. All were considered to ‘contribute positively’, a special status for buildings within a conservation area.

It also included a number of photographs of much poorer buildings, thereby demonstrating that 2-3 Morwell Street exceeded the threshold for inclusion within the conservation area.

Heads in the Sand

But inexplicably, Camden’s planners only assessed whether 2-3 Morwell Street contained well preserved Victorian shopfronts. When it was discovered they didn’t, the application was refused.

All of the other grounds for inclusion within the conservation area were not addressed.

We then immediately appealed with the support of local community groups, but the appeal was again not fully investigated, with Camden’s Planning Chief Danny Beales simply stating in response: ‘I agree with the planners’.

A full complaint was made to Camden’s director for planning, but no response has been received as of today.

A number of other complaints were also raised by local associations, including concerns that the renowned Bedford Square is scheduled to be used exclusively for construction traffic for a number of years. But Camden has not responded to these concerns and intends to approve all details before they can be investigated further.

Demolish First, ask Questions Later

Camden then released notification that the application for demolition will be approved bar a rebellion from the planning committee, despite the appeal and complaint process not being concluded.

It means that Camden will not be able to investigate whether they breached procedure until after the terraces have been demolished.

This has led to claims that Camden are adopting a: ‘demolish first, ask questions later’ approach to planning.

Regardless of whether Camden followed procedure or not, if the application is approved on Thursday the outcome of the complaint will be meaningless to the protection of the terraces, bar a legal challenge. It means that Camden can ensure the application is approved and have the terraces demolished, even if wrongdoing is found by their own complaints investigation or the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO).

An urgent complaint has already been made to the LGO.

The leader of the opposition, Conservative councillor Oliver Cooper, has been notified of the complaint and is currently making preliminary investigations. Cllr Cooper is also on the Labour-controlled planning committee.

The BCAAC has welcomed a new member, got a new website, given feedback on an unprecedented number of applications, and much more this year.

Many thought that the coronavirus pandemic would bring a halt to the intensity of development and consultation going on in the Central London area. But far from it, developers have rather seized the opportunity to table seemingly each and every proposal they have been considering for a decade. At the time of writing, there are over 150 open planning applications within our remit.

But while consultation with developers and Camden is our main raison-d’être, we have also been active in other departments. Two new members, Owen Ward and Sam Reed, have joined our ranks, while our website has been regenerated and expanded. We have created a new interactive map of our conservation areas, recently adding a live planning applications feature which is considerably faster than Camden’s own software.

Planning Applications

We have chosen a few of 2020’s most significant applications.

Belgrove House

An unacceptably monstrous behemoth

By far the most controversial application this year has been the infamous Belgrove House, an incredible development opposite King’s Cross and St Pancras.

Despite the developers having intentions to develop this site for over a decade, proposals were conveniently tabled and rapidly progressed starting with the emergence of the pandemic.

Belgrove House is exceptional in that it ticks all three boxes guaranteed to make a development vastly unpopular. It sits in a uniquely sensitive and beloved setting, it is simply far too big, and worst of all, it’s absurdly ugly.

The token consultation process only served to further aggravate residents of Bloomsbury and wider London. A concerted effort has been made by the developers to sell the public benefit of the proposal, while every criticism has been invalidated, waved away, or simply ignored.

We even saw that those behind the application were playing silly buggers with Camden’s planners on heritage matters.

We hold out hope that Camden will refuse this application. With the high pressure for development and magnitude of proposals currently coming forward, Camden do have the luxury of refusing some applications this year. And of all developments to be fought throughout the borough, this surely has to be the prime contender.

But being refused would not be the end of the story. Expect Belgrove House to continue to be a hot topic for years to come.

Lethaby Building and Red Lion Square

Responsible development, if not slightly too big

We were consulted regarding comprehensive redevelopment proposals to the west of Red Lion square, including alterations to the Grade II* Lethaby Building on Southampton Row.

We were satisfied with the proposals, which quite evidently reflected local architectural vernacular and style, while respecting and restoring the Lethaby Building. Of course the developer sought to reach the upper ceiling and beyond when it came to sheer scale. But it just goes to show that when a big building is architecturally sound, it meets with much less opposition, and even elicits support in some quarters.

The development opens up a new walking route, reinstating an old street between Red Lion Square and Southampton Row. Given the oppressive nature of modern development in this area, the added permeability was sorely needed and a welcome addition.

North Crescent and Alfred Mews

A pleasant consultation experience and a responsible approach to redevelopment

The BCAAC have been engaged in thorough pre-application discussions with a developer of North Crescent and Alfred Mews to the rear, in Fitzrovia / west Bloomsbury.

We have been positively refreshed by the approach taken by these developers, to consult early and thoroughly with us on their proposals before fully approaching Camden.

While in our view the proposals increase height to slightly too great a degree, and the design of the proposals could do with some refinement, we are overall supportive of the development and approach taken to consultation.

We will continue to consult on this in 2021, likely seeing an application being made early next year.

Selkirk House (Travelodge)

A veritable skyscraper, and a devious approach to consultation

Incredible plans for a veritable skyscraper have recently been revealed at the old Travelodge site, on High Holborn and just to the south of the British Museum.

The devious developers of this site chose to withhold details of the tower from us for a very long time, instead waxing eloquent on the contribution made to the street environment. And now they have refused to release details of the street environment contribution, instead releasing images of the tower.

This is another one we hope Camden will likely be refusing. Earlier in the year, it was indicated to us that this building was too tall. We also heard that the developers had falsely represented our views as supporting their scheme before they had even revealed it to us.

Opposition bordering on outrage has been shown by communities in this area. Compounded with perhaps the worst development in recent times – the ‘Post Building’ – this development would forever change the character of the area, and set a very real grave precedent for future development.

247 Tottenham Court Road

A very poor showing from Camden officers, spoiling a development that could have been overwhelmingly positive

An excellent opportunity for responsible redevelopment at 247 Tottenham Court Road has unnecessarily caused backlash from the community, while incomprehensible actions from Camden officers have left a very sour taste in the mouths of all those concerned.

The proposals for this site we initially thought to be positive, only requiring some small refinements in terms of design, materials, and massing. But we were then concerned to hear that there were plans to demolish a number of interesting and very characterful buildings just behind Bedford Square, on Morwell Street.

Among these was 2-3 Morwell Street, a Victorian terrace exemplary of the kind of development common in this area, and reflective of many full terraces throughout the Bloomsbury CA, while also directly related to the buildings opposite and on Bayley Street.

We then found that the building had been left outside the Bloomsbury CA, triggering us to request an urgent review of the CA boundary.

The very point of a CAAC is to utilise the knowledge of enthusiasts and professionals living in a conservation area, which often is so comprehensive that it cannot be surpassed by any number of expensive consultants.

With this knowledge in hand, there was no doubt that this building should be included within the Bloomsbury CA, and also considered a ‘positive contributor’. Indeed, an application could even have been made for inclusion of the entire block. We put forward our case strongly.

But from the beginning it was clear Camden’s officers were only interested in fobbing us off and ignoring our claims, steamrolling the application through pre-application. They only bothered to investigate our request once councillors put significant pressure on them to do so.

But then incomprehensibly, officers decided to concentrate only on whether the building contained ‘shopfronts of merit’, and when it was discovered that they did not, their inclusion was refused on these grounds, while all our other grounds were simply ignored.

As a CAAC it is our job to properly advocate the views of residents and amenity societies, so we have been left with little choice but to submit a full complaint to the Executive Director for Supporting Communities, and will take this to the Ombudsman if necessary. It is a prime example of how the planning process can be irrevocably spoiled by a complacent and rather ignorant attitude shown by Camden officers on occasion, who sometimes don’t take their responsibilities quite seriously enough in favour of ‘just getting the job done’. Hopefully this approach to planning will continue to die out and remain the exception rather than the rule in 2021.

52 Tottenham Street

A ‘fake’ Georgian terrace and a bookcase to replace it

We were notified about a concerning proposal to demolish a single Georgian terrace on Tottenham Street and replace it with a totally uncharacteristic building, which one of our members believes represents a scaled version of his grandmother’s bookcase.

The developer claimed that they had ‘established’ the Georgian terrace on the site was ‘a largely inaccurate rebuild‘, and thus demolition was acceptable.

Four of our members went out to visit the site to verify the claims. We eventually agreed that it was a rebuild, and that not much could be done to save it.

But significant concerns were raised about the replacement, its immediate effect upon the local area, and a new precedent set for this block and the surrounding area. Evidently, if a building like this is permitted to breach the accepted limit on height, many other developments in the area will take the same line of attack.

We await to see whether the Fitzrovia ‘bookcase’ will be approved, following our objection on behalf of the Charlotte Street CAAC.

Other Activities

The BCAAC were also involved in a number of other activities and consultation exercises concerning the Bloomsbury Conservation Areas.

Area Allocation Policy Consultation

The BCAAC gave a thorough consultation response for Camden’s 2019 area allocation brief, a policy document which goes through development sites one-by-one and specifies an outline for future proposals.

We suggested quite a number of policies, hoping to ensure that future development will largely respect the prevailing scale and vernacular of our conservation areas.

We also raised concerns in the brief about the state of UCL’s Bloomsbury campus and their aggressive expansion into wider Bloomsbury. We supported the apparent attempt to confine UCL’s development enterprises to their historic campus area, while also supporting development that properly reinstated Woburn and Torrington Squares. Torrington Square in particular has reached a terrible state of repair, while once being a full Georgian square, is now little more than a mix between a disused car park and a dumping ground for university clutter. We suggested that this space be reinstated as a full Georgian garden square, with historic railings and a garden following the boundary of the original.

A Former Foreign Secretary in Tavistock Square

We were involved with a consultation on the addition of a sculpture to Tavistock Square. Backed by Jack Straw, the former Foreign Secretary, we discussed with his organisation the addition of a sculpture commemorating the suffering of Vietnamese war victims.

Jo Hurford expressed concerns about the loss of green space to accommodate the statue, while members also expressed concerns about Tavistock Square becoming over-cluttered with monuments. This point was particularly pertinent given the recent loss of an entire square at Euston and further loss of green space and trees around the HS2 development site.

We also failed to find any connection between the statue and the character and history of Bloomsbury. While Tavistock Square has a clear connection with international conflict, every monument currently there also has a connection with Bloomsbury.

Concerns were also raised about the funding behind the project. When local residents of Vietnamese heritage enquired about whether funding for the project came from communist sources ultimately behind the atrocities being commemorated, the organisation was unable to give a clear answer.

We thus opposed the addition of this statue, and await to see whether an application is lodged.

Filth, Clutter, and Ignorant Councillors

Not so much of an activity as a lack thereof, the Bloomsbury Conservation Areas are suffering the continuing affliction of almost complete ignorance from many of those charged with protecting its world-famous heritage and environment.

In particular, Councillor Adam Harrison, Bloomsbury Ward Councillor and ‘Environment Chief’, has imposed a number of absurd schemes throughout the area that have done nothing except clutter the conservation areas and contribute further to a gradual degradation of its environment. Not only being hit with the scourge of dockless bicycles this year, we have had docks for dockless bicycles, along with a great many empty bicycle racks, un-consulted bicycle shelters, and a great deal more. The man is clearly obsessed with bicycles.

Litter, fly-tipping, vandalism, and other filth-related activities are seemingly at an all time high, but Cllr Harrison has batted away longstanding calls for a review of Veolia’s contract.

We have been involved in attempting to remedy individual cases of greatest concern while supporting others in their campaigns against the local authority rapidly gaining a reputation for being the filthiest in the country.

New Members

We have also welcomed a new member this year Sam Reed.

He is a member of the Friends of Argyle Square, works for a development company, and has lived in Bloomsbury his entire life.

We have also sought the membership of a number of experts working and living throughout the Bloomsbury Conservation Areas and may welcome them in 2021, in an effort to increase our activities and depth of consultation.

Clean up Woburn Walk!

The BCAAC have been involved in trying to remedy a perennial problem, relating to the infamous shopkeeper of 4 Woburn Walk.

Woburn Walk is an exceptional street of complete Georgian shopfronts, being the only planned Georgian high street in Camden, and one of only two in all of London. But despite this, and all the buildings being Grade II* listed, the notoriously antisocial shop-owner of 4 Woburn Walk has been cluttering her own shopfront – and those of others! – to an increasingly unacceptable degree.

This problem has been going on for as long as anyone can remember – but officers and members have to tread carefully when trying to address this problem. The shopkeeper has been known to call 999 and complain of racial harassment when confronted – and even had our former chairman arrested on such spurious charges.

Despite illegally using the public realm for private ends while also fly-tipping her business waste in community recycling bins, officers have been unwilling to confront the shop-owner – through a mix of fear and complacency.

We have been trying to get Camden to take action against this shop-owner this year, arguing the clutter of the shopfront causes an unacceptable degree of harm to the historic environment and that her actions are clearly having an effect upon other shop-owners, who are starting to follow suit. Our case has been aided by the shop-owner actually placing her wares on other shops’ premises while lockdown has meant they cannot open.

However very typically of Camden’s approach, they claimed that photos of the shop-owner’s stands on another’s private land was not sufficient evidence to prove that the shop-owner’s stands were placed on that private land… by the shop-owner herself.

Evidently 4 Woburn Walk is on a quest to eventually dominate all of Bloomsbury with items of internationally significant tackiness.

We are going to continue trying to clamp down on this unacceptable behaviour through 2021.

A Georgian Terrace Saved

The usefulness of a locally-based conservation committee was demonstrated when a Georgian terrace on Leigh Street was saved from irreparable harm, when a member passing by noticed it was being jet-washed illegally. Notifying Camden immediately, officers were sent out to halt the work within hours, saving the facade from being damaged beyond repair.

Camden officers are now assessing whether action should be taken to ‘re-dirty’ some of the bricks worst-affected, to preserve the uniform character of the street.

Web Activities

Over 2020 the web presence of the BCAAC has been steadily increasing, and the reach of our news and campaigns has had rather an unprecedented impact as a result. While our activities have been thoroughly covered locally in the Camden New Journal, statements released on Belgrove House were covered and quoted in Architects’ Journal, the Financial Times, and The Times, among a number of other specialist news outlets.

This has perhaps been due to our new optimised website, which now scores so highly on Google’s search rankings that searching about Belgrove House returns a number of BCAAC articles, outperforming the developers’ own website and sites such as The Times’.

The website has also greatly expanded in terms of material and functionality, along with sheer speed – increasing from a score of 24% to 98% on Google’s assessment. Most of this is thanks to a complete rebuild of the website from the ground up, while still preserving the essential aspects and appearance of the original website, which was some ten years old – a lifetime in website terms.

We have also created a new interactive map, integrating the appraisals of our conservation areas with it, and adding a live planning application feature which is far faster and easier to use than Camden’s own planning map.

It is however not near finished and doesn’t work properly on mobile devices. Work will continue on both the main website and the map throughout 2021.

Recent events at St George’s Gardens show how planning should and does work when there isn’t a great deal of money involved.

The BCAAC has recently been involved in an exemplary piece of work of collaboration between ourselves, Camden, a developer, and another community group at St George’s Gardens, in the Bloomsbury CA.

It demonstrates exactly how planning should work at all times. It is unfortunate that planning only works this well for small applications across our CAs, while larger applications adopt more of a ‘brute force’ approach. Some of the reasons for this are touched on in the following article, written by one of our members, Owen Ward.

The original article can be found on Save Bloomsbury.

Usually the word ‘planning’ in Camden is associated with the demolition of Victorian and Georgian buildings, consultation responses being ignored, residents being belittled as ‘Nimbys’, and utterly disgusting buildings being erected in the name of ‘progress’. And this week there is a new story involving the usual suspects: planners, developers, conservationists, and community groups, but rather than being pitted against one another, surprisingly enough they have been working together.

Once upon a time during the sleepy summer of 2020, in a BCAAC meeting I was tasked with investigating and formulating a response to a new planning application on the Coram campus, overlooking St George’s Gardens.

St George’s Gardens in recent years has managed to cultivate fairly good development around it. The Old Dairy to the north is quite an inoffensive development, not exactly ‘Bloomsbury’ but domestically sized, easy on the eye, and respecting the setting of the gardens and the listed properties to the north of it. To the east a new development on ‘Westking Place’ is quite appropriate, a sort-of modern take on Georgian terraces, not exactly awe-inspiring but again respecting St George’s Gardens and the wider CA.

The new application was to redevelop an old modern building overlooking the gardens, itself quite an ugly building and in poor repair, more appropriate to run-down Birmingham than Bloomsbury. It was the last frontier of redevelopment facing onto the square – every other site earmarked for redevelopment had been completed.

The proposal was to completely redevelop in two phases. Rather than demolish the existing building, it would see an extension to the front and then a further rooftop extension overlooking the gardens. So for the BCAAC, the priorities were twofold – to ensure the development as a whole enhanced (or at least preserved) the Bloomsbury CA, and that the redevelopment opportunity was grasped to ensure a much improved rear elevation onto St George’s Gardens.

Unfortunately the planning application left much to be desired as it stood. The front elevation, while in itself not offensive, was unbalanced by the use of a range of different materials, some quite strange and certainly not drawn from the CA. Then the rooftop extension overlooking the gardens appeared to pay no regard to the existing building whatsoever, not doing anything to alter the existing elevation, and even introducing a steel staircase. Oh dear, I thought, what a shame.

I contacted the planner, Kristina Smith, to raise my concerns, but she indicated that she preferred it if I did not raise an objection on the BCAAC’s behalf as this would introduce potentially significant time delays. A BCAAC objection automatically ‘escalates’ any small planning application like this one, potentially putting it to full committee hearing and delaying determination of the application for months. Instead I offered to liaise with the developers on the design to see if some alterations could be made to the main facade and especially rear elevation.

Eventually I got in touch with the architect Phil Meadowcroft, from Phil Meadowcroft Architects, and talked with him on the phone while in the gardens about potential changes that could be made. I expressed that refacing the rear elevation in brick would be preferable given that every other building facing the gardens was in London stock. He said that as Coram were a charity, however, it would be difficult to justify the extra expense simply for aesthetic reasons. I suggested whether instead the rear elevation could be ‘greened’, which seemed to be a preferred option. We also talked about ‘rationalising’ the front elevation to only use white render and London stock, similar to many of the Georgian terraces in the area, whose ground floor is white render with upper storeys London stock.

We agreed to meet in the gardens to discuss at a future date, and to involve the Friends of St George’s Gardens.

A week or so later the BCAAC chairman Hugh Cullum and Ian Brown from the Friends of St George’s Gardens met with architect Phil Meadowcroft in the gardens (socially distanced, of course) to discuss the proposals.

It was agreed that the rear elevation would be greened by means of trellises and climbing plants, while the elevation overlooking St George’s Gardens would also be ‘cleaned up’, with the existing render being repaired and painted white, and some defunct wiring and pipework being removed. This would certainly greatly improve the setting of St George’s Gardens.

The architect went away and had a number of conversations with Coram with the aim of revising the front elevation in light of BCAAC comments, and eventually came back with a far better design, constructed in only white render and London stock as previously requested.

Although London stock on ground floor and white render on upper floors is ‘upside down’ compared to the Georgian heritage of the area, it certainly represents an improvement and the facade appears much more ordered and architecturally linked to the surrounding area.

Following these revisions I agreed to withdraw the BCAAC’s informal objection so that the application could be approved.

While a simple and unexciting story, it shows how planning consultation can and should be done in Bloomsbury. The development proposal affected the Bloomsbury CA and St George’s Gardens, so the Bloomsbury CAAC and Friends of St George’s Gardens raised their concerns, and the developers went away with the express purpose of resolving these concerns. The developer then came back with a different proposal and even showed evidence of considering multiple different proposals in these efforts. The new proposals were judged an improvement and to enhance the Bloomsbury CA and so the BCAAC rescinded their objection, and all was well.

Two things aligned correctly for this to happen.

Firstly, it being a ‘small’ application, a BCAAC objection carries quite some weight as it takes a planning application out the hands of the planner delegated to determine the application. This introduces possibly unnecessary and unwanted scrutiny, lengthy time delays, and possibly even a refusal at committee. The fact that a BCAAC objection carries weight means that once an objection was floated, the planner wanted to work to resolve the objection.

Secondly, the desire shown by the planner to resolve the objection, coupled with the respect of the developer for planner and BCAAC alike meant that they were willing to go away and work to come back with an improved proposal.

For larger applications, neither of these things are the case.

Firstly, a large application automatically goes to planning committee, and so while a BCAAC objection technically does carry weight, it doesn’t actually do anything to make the planner’s life more difficult. So it is easy enough for planners to simply ignore our objections.

Secondly, the fact that planners don’t respect our objections means that developers tend not to care either, and certainly don’t go away looking to resolve the objection. And while large developers tend not to respect the BCAAC, it is not necessarily the case that they even respect Camden – so even a planner wishing to resolve our objections may not have the power to get a developer to consider a redesign.

Should the BCAAC’s objections carry greater weight in the face of large development? Probably. But as things currently stand, even Historic England are routinely ignored by Camden’s planners. Yet fairly often the BCAAC actually gives more detailed and informed feedback than Historic England, while knowing Camden and Bloomsbury far better – perhaps we should be taken more seriously than HE. Certainly a desire to resolve BCAAC objections would lead to an all round healthier planning system, one more mindful of Central London’s heritage and wellbeing as a whole. But actually getting big shot planners and councillors to take CAAC comments seriously is a tall order.

The only way to really make an impact is to campaign well enough to get applications refused regardless of planner recommendation, as the BCAAC did with the British Museum.

But beyond all the abstract theorising, the community involvement of this story in the planning system has led to a development which will now enhance St George’s Gardens and Bloomsbury when before it would have damaged both – and that is a success. It shows that when the community are properly engaged in planning matters, it does lead to better outcomes for all involved.

Conservationists face off with Camden in a battle to preserve Victorian terraces and views from Bedford Square. But planners are happy to ignore protest and approve the application.

One of Bloomsbury’s least known streets has become the site of a face-off between the usual suspects: the community and conservationists on one side, with Camden’s planners and a development company on the other.

While community associations including ourselves, the Charlotte Street Association (CSA), Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association (FNA), and the Bloomsbury Association (BA) are striving to protect two Victorian terraces on the adjacent street and historic views, planners and the developer are attempting to demolish the Victorian terraces and permit a large uplift in floorspace which will be visible from Bedford Square.

And unsurprisingly, it has again fallen to us to notify both the Georgian Group and the Victorian Society about these changes, with developer and planner happy to keep them under the radar.

Morwell Street, the site of the confrontation, lies directly to the west of the world-renowned Bedford Square, London’s only fully preserved Georgian square. Its status is reflected in the fact that every terrace facing the square is Grade I listed.

While one would assume that Camden might show some reverence to perhaps the single most architecturally significant place in the whole borough, it was only a matter of years ago that we faced off with Camden and the British Museum over an extension which would have truly ‘wrecked’ views from Bedford Square eastwards. Luckily in that battle, we were victorious and the BM were forced to return with a scheme invisible from Bedford Square.

The site of the current development comprises a block facing onto Tottenham Court Road, along with a number of varied buildings facing onto Morwell Street, two of which are Victorian, but all of which are planned to be demolished.

In what can only be described as an ‘accident’, over successive boundary reviews Camden have omitted to include the two Victorian terraces within the Bloomsbury Conservation Area. They are accordingly without a shred of protection, making them easy targets for demolition and redevelopment. And targets they have become.

While the initial designation of the Bloomsbury CA in 1968 saw only its well preserved Georgian areas included, over successive reviews Bloomsbury’s Victorian, Edwardian, and even Twentieth Century buildings have been included, so that now the Bloomsbury CA is both Camden’s largest Central London CA and by far its most ‘diverse’ and ‘inclusive’ in terms of building style and age.

Accordingly, the threshold for admission into the Bloomsbury CA is now very low. Medway Court, a very uninspired flat block on Judd Street is not only included in the Bloomsbury CA, but is even listed as a positive contributor, putting it on a par with many of Bloomsbury’s Victorian buildings.

As such, it came as a surprise when requests for Camden to include 2-3 Morwell Street within the Bloomsbury CA were met with a flat ‘No’.

Initial enquiries led by myself and Cllr Sue Vincent were rebuffed by Principal Planner Alan Wito, who simply stated that it would not be possible to include any new buildings within the Bloomsbury CA without conducting a thorough review of the entirety of the Bloomsbury Conservation Area and its boundaries, something which would take up to a year and for which there is a year’s waiting list.

But a former Islington planning officer working in conservation called the response ‘ludicrously bureaucratic,’ saying: ‘it is a perfectly easy and straightforward procedure to amend an existing boundary’.

Presented with this evidence, Cllr Sue Vincent and Planning Chief Cllr Danny Beales requested that Camden’s planners do a full investigation into whether 2-3 Morwell Street should be added to the Bloomsbury CA. But despite the investigations commencing, the developers simply put in their application regardless of any possible outcome. Inclusion of the terraces within the Bloomsbury CA would render their heritage statement largely inaccurate and would force greater scrutiny into the public benefits of their scheme while increasing risk of refusal significantly, but the developer seemed entirely unconcerned by this.

Meanwhile the BA, BCAAC, FNA, and CSA were forced to put in their objections to the scheme as it stood, raising numerous points of concern. We were particularly aggrieved by the impact that would be had upon Bedford Square, in many ways the jewel in the crown of Bloomsbury. The development, along with its rooftop plant, would be visible from Bedford Square, and visible from the Grade I listed terraces on its western side.

Concerns were also raised that Morwell Street is currently home to a variety of different architectural styles but of a consistent plot-width, something characteristic of Central London as a whole. Demolition of the entire of the block to be replaced with a bland ‘monolith’ would do harm to Central London’s varied character, and negatively impact upon the remaining mews-style buildings on the eastern side.

Comments were also made upon the ‘missed opportunity’ that the redevelopment of this site afforded, with the design being called ‘bland‘ and ‘with a defined bottom, middle, but no top’ by the BA. While the development certainly improves upon the existing TCR frontage in terms of appearance, the prominent location facing onto Tottenham Court Road should see architecture both more impressive and more inspired. The materials used for the facade are also uncharacteristic of Tottenham Court Road and Bloomsbury a a whole.

That being said, at least the design obeys the basic principles of symmetry and proportion, and avoids excessive glazing. The Bloomsbury Conservation Area has seen worse.

Linus Rees from the Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association, also a journalist for Fitzrovia News, supplied some old photographs of 2-3 Morwell Street revealing some original shopfronts, something which would make the buildings of especial interest, as very few buildings of this type remain with anything near to ‘original’ shopfronts in Central London.

Accordingly conservation officers visited the site in late September to investigate whether the shopfronts remained at all intact. The developers were asked to remove the boards which had been attached for their protection.

But their investigations revealed that much of the shopfronts had been destroyed and butchered.

But despite the loss of the shopfronts, 2-3 Morwell Street still easily exceeds the threshold for inclusion into the Bloomsbury CA. Our application for their inclusion cited about 20 different examples of architecturally similar buildings throughout the Bloomsbury CA, almost none of which had any kind of original shopfront intact whatsoever. It therefore could not be argued that inclusion would not enhance the Bloomsbury CA’s special character.

In simple terms, local authorities like Camden also have a legal ‘duty’ to designate areas as conservation areas which ‘should be’ conservation areas. So failure to include 2-3 Morwell St in the CA when it was both under threat and clearly a candidate for inclusion could be legally interpreted as a failure to fulfil that duty, making any eventual permission for demolition easily challenged in the courts.

But a Camden planner working in conservation, Nick Baxter, dealt a blow to the conservation of the terraces, stating: ‘Had [the shopfronts] both survived intact, I would have looked into retaining them in the proposed scheme but, as things stand, sadly, I cannot justify this.’

Soon after, Alan Wito rejected the application for inclusion, stating: ‘the exposure of two historic shopfronts of merit might have been significant but … these have been heavily altered.  Therefore I do not think that the buildings should be included within the conservation area.’

But refusing to include 2-3 Morwell Street in the CA because their shopfronts have been damaged is simply absurd. Clearly Camden’s planners are in favour of approving the demolition of these buildings regardless of their historic value, and are simply finding excuses to not include them within the CA. An impartial and objective assessment of the Bloomsbury CA and the historic value of these terraces would clearly rule in favour of their inclusion – indeed, the very fact that these terraces are not already in the CA is a failure on Camden’s behalf. It is just the latest example of Camden’s planners seeking to bend the rules and shun responsibility just to get a planning application across the line.

And perhaps even more galling is that this is the third time over the past year in which developers have identified and exploited an error in Camden’s appraisal of their conservation areas, and Camden’s planners have been happy to ignore these errors and allow the developer to turn it to their advantage. Earlier this year, the department permitted the partial demolition of the former Royal Free Hospital, following an error in the Bloomsbury CA appraisal which left three sides of the historic quadrangle without protection. During the Belgrove House preconsultation it emerged Camden had made a significant error in the King’s Cross CA appraisal, which left Belgrove House with very little protection. Now we are seeing yet another error in the Bloomsbury CA appraisal which has left two Victorian buildings without any protection at all. In all three examples, Camden have done very little to admit to or remedy their errors.

The BCAAC, along with other local groups, will be seeking to appeal the decision to not include 2-3 Morwell Street within the CA by writing a joint letter to Camden’s planning chief, Danny Beales.

Last chance to object to the Belgrove House Monstrosity. Official consultation closes on the 9th October 2020.

After months of ‘consultation’ with ‘local stakeholders’, and a PR war with Save Bloomsbury, the development team behind the infamous Belgrove House Monstrosity have taken the hundreds of comments and pointers ‘on board’, and have come back with a design in no way different from that initially presented in May.

The application has been put in, and you have until the 9th October to express your opinion on the development.

Comments can be emailed to gavin.sexton@camden.gov.uk, or can be submitted directly by clicking here.

A PR Battle

Since the Monstrosity being revealed in May this year, an unusual level of public interest has been shown in the proposals, with up to 500 people a day reading about them on this website alone.

Comments made on this website and by the BCAAC have been covered by the Camden New Journal, the Financial Times, the Architects Journal, and The Times among other prominent news outlets, acting as an effective counterbalance to the vacuous rhetoric surrounding public benefit consistently spewed out by the development team. And despite a number of paid promotional adverts and articles, and their own website, a search of ‘Belgrove House news’ on Google returns two Save Bloomsbury articles as top results.

And an SB tweet condemning the Monstrosity on Twitter was seen by 70,000 people, gained 8,500 engagements, 26 retweets and 66 likes. ‘Looks like the kids have got hold of the pencil tin again’ said David, while Jacqueline Prooth said: ‘Too big, tall, out of character and very boring. Looks like a cheap construction and a 4 year old could do better’. Chris Boot tweeted: ‘The phrase “vile monstrosity” springs to mind’.

Over the months, a number of inspired emails have also been coming through the SB and BCAAC inboxes expressing in very clear terms the selfishness of this development, and the grave threat it poses to the historic environment.

And our FOI request revealed how Camden’s planners had been battling the development team on heritage matters, describing the developer’s approach as ‘high risk’. The team had been asked to ‘come back with a scaled-down proposal’ and to ‘explain exactly how the surrounding townscape has influenced the design.’ The response also revealed a brief moment of panic when Camden and the developers realised their assessment of the historic origins of the site were entirely incorrect, revealed by BCAAC research and posted on this website.

Now what?

The fundamental issue is that the planning system as it stands does not give much weight to public opposition, even when it is as ferocious and widespread as that shown towards Belgrove House. Harm done to the historic environment can be ‘outweighed’ by other ‘considerations’, meaning Belgrove House still stands a chance of being rightfully approved. The team behind the Monstrosity know this well, which is why they have fully ignored public opposition and undermined the importance of the historic environment.

The card which ‘trumps’ all other considerations is called public benefit, which is why the team have spent all their resource trying to play up the public benefit behind Belgrove House. Cue the wafflings about ‘whole life carbon approach‘, ‘life-saving vaccines’, ‘1000 new jobs’, and all the rest of it. This is the sort of stuff that can justify a development as absurdly inappropriate as Belgrove House. The consultation website even openly stated the developers would pay a substantial sum to Camden if approved, through Section 106.

This is also why the team are building affordable housing on Gray’s Inn Road. There is nothing Camden love more than affordable housing provision – it is after all what the ruling Labour party used as a platform for election, and no doubt will use for reelection.

But it is no secret that Camden rely heavily upon income generated through Section 106, payments made in return for granting a planning application. And increasingly it seems, the income offered through Section 106 outweighs every single other material consideration.

And approval for Belgrove House would truly be the last nail in the coffin for conservationists and local engagement in planning matters in the Bloomsbury and King’s Cross areas. Belgrove House has become something on an icon of exactly how not to go about development in this area. It is quite simply a massive ten-storey middle finger sticking up at St Pancras, King’s Cross, Argyle Square, and the local residents and businesses in the area – and the development team are proud of it. If Camden give the go ahead with this development, it will all but prove that heritage and residential amenity are entirely irrelevant in the face of large scale development, and that any sort of development can be permitted given enough money and PR behind it.

But the views of the public are indeed afforded weight in the planning process, which is why you need to make your own views known about this development as soon as possible.

Comments can be emailed to gavin.sexton@camden.gov.uk, or can be submitted directly by clicking here.

Royal National Throat, Nose, and Ear Hospital set for comprehensive redevelopment. Online Q&A to be held on Tuesday 25th August 2020.

You can register for the Q&A here, and see the developer’s website here.

The Q&A comprises a 1-hour video presentation made by the development team, followed by 1 hour of questions asked by the public. You must sign up to ask questions, but it is is easy to do so, and one only needs to type questions in a question box to have them answered.

A large expanse of land between Gray’s Inn Road, Swinton Street, and Wicklow Street is set for comprehensive redevelopment, with a planning application to be put in within a few months. Camden will be holding an online Development Management Forum on 25th August 2020, and are encouraging any and all interested parties to take part.

The development will see almost the total demolition of all buildings on site, excepting the historic building facing onto Gray’s Inn Road.

The site will be mixed use, including a hotel, restaurant, gym, offices, and housing, 35% of which is expected to be affordable.

The developer’s website is as usual, infuriatingly sparse on the details that people really care about. In particular, what is this development actually going to look like? And to what extent is historic fabric going to be damaged or lost?

Being so far along in the development proposals, the developer will certainly have almost all details fixed with plans, elevations, and sections all drawn up, with views impact assessments already submitted to Camden, probably on a number of occasions.

Yet the website only includes a few artistic impressions of the development.

The BCAAC’s Take

The development falls within the Bloomsbury CA and borders the King’s Cross CA, much like the Belgrove House development. In fact it is the same architect behind each proposal, AHMM.

As always, the key question for such developments is whether the scale is appropriate for the surrounding environment. Developers are always keen to push the boundaries, and with the enormous Eastman Dental Hospital redevelopment being approved earlier this year, a precedent has been set for tall-ish buildings in this area.

However the EDH decision brought with it substantial public benefit with a research centre, whereas this development is a fairly standard mixed use development. Expect fewer concessions to be made on things like height and design from Camden.

As is usual with such ‘consultation’ websites, there are very few views which put the proposals in perspective with the surrounding development, and no indication at all in the total increase in height.

There is absolutely no information on the historic significance of buildings on-site, and what is going to be lost. No doubt the developers are hoping to conceal this information until the application is put in, to minimise opposition.

But despite AHMM’s inglorious record for ugly development in the Bloomsbury CA, from what can be gleaned of the artistic impressions the development doesn’t look too bad in terms of appearance.

The development’s appearance is pretty clearly rooted in the ‘vernacular’ of the area, with appropriate relationship to street, materials, solid-to-void ratio, and massing.

But the proposed hotel seems to be a significant blot upon the historic landscape, evidently pushing the boundaries in terms of height, and appearance.

Evidently the developer will be making the argument that given the public benefit of bringing the site back into use and providing affordable housing, this tall building should be permitted. No doubt viability arguments have already been presented, along the lines of such a tall building is required to make the scheme profitable.

The BCAAC are likely to take a dim view of such arguments. The tower will be visible from the nearby Gough-Calthorpe and Swinton estates within the Bloomsbury CA, one of the most excellently preserved examples of late Georgian early Victorian residential development in central London.

The Gough-Calthorpe Estate is especially significant given historic links to other developments by the same aristocratic family throughout the country, including in Edgbaston, Birmingham.

Permission granted for a tall building on this site would certainly set a precedent for tall buildings all along Gray’s Inn Road, transforming this area from one of low density, and generally residential use into a mis-match of small historic development and tall modern development.

The BCAAC are likely to focus on this tower, its height, massing and appearance.

You can register for the Q&A here, and see the developer’s website here.

Camden’s planning department are working with the developer to promote the development, and neither give a toss about heritage.

Camden’s Development Management Forum for Belgrove House was held online from 19:00 – 21:00 on 25th June.

The format of the forum differed from the usual in many ways, not least because it was held online. Most significantly of all, it was made impossible to know the questions that other people were asking or their reactions to the ongoing dialogue, making it more difficult to understand the feeling in the room towards the development.

While conventional online Q&A sessions allow for participants to make comments and questions in a shared chat space, Camden set up their online environment so that the questions and comments of others could not be seen. This allowed for Head of Development Management, Bethany Cullen, to choose questions and comments from a pool of those asked by the audience, directing the focus of the session as she saw fit.

Questioners were also unable to follow up their questions if they were not satisfied with the answer, a crucial element of Q&A.

But one thing is clear from the questions asked and answers given: there is significant concern about Belgrove House, its inappropriate scale, and lack of regard to heritage, but neither Camden’s planners nor the developer give a toss about these concerns.

While the hour-long Q&A session was provided for both Belgrove and Acorn House, almost all of the questions pertained exclusively to the Belgrove House development.

Presentations about the site and the proposed development from both Camden and the developer occupied the first hour. Camden’s Principal Planner, Gavin Sexton, described the policies pertaining to the site, but conveniently omitted the crucial policy which had implied the building should respond to the predominantly three to six storeys of the surrounding development.

The most significant piece of news was that the developers had secured a major pharmaceutical tenant for the building, Merck. While the building had previously been largely a speculative office development, with this tenant secured it is now a significant force to be reckoned with, and introduces great weight in favour of the application being approved regardless of harm to heritage.

The developer’s presentation made a brief mention of the enormous wealth of heritage surrounding the site and its ‘highly sensitive setting’, before presenting visuals of the block of glass and steel that has come to be known as the Belgrove House Monstrosity.

The justification for the building’s monstrous appearance seems to be that the development seeks to ‘represent the twenty-first century revolution, the tech revolution, just as the train stations represented the nineteenth century revolution, the industrial revolution‘, while the design also harmonises with the area’s history by representing ‘bold, industrial engineering’.

A number of similarly absurd comments were made demonstrating ignorance of the heritage of the site and how to properly relate to it.

Camden and the developer alike were instead particularly concerned with peddling the newfangled Knowledge Quarter, which seems to be something of a new antithesis to conservation areas.

The so-called ‘Knowledge Quarter’ is an area designated by Camden earlier this year, stretching from Covent Garden in the south to Camden Town in the north, and is apparently home to Camden’s ‘growing knowledge economy‘, despite this area being overwhelmingly residential.

King’s Cross Square is apparently the centre of the Knowledge Quarter.

The developer stated that the development has been ‘carefully designed to sit as a sort-of pair with the Standard Hotel‘, making no mention of the Georgian terraces immediately to the east and west, Argyle Square to the south, nor even the Victorian stations to the north.

The building is apparently constructed mainly of brick, while the upper levels comprise ‘floating terraces‘, which ‘provide a unique twenty-first century backdrop, in the sky’.

The Q&A session kicked off with a number of questions that had been piling up about the building’s inappropriate size and lack of regard to heritage.

Questions were rightly raised from the outset about the appropriateness of demolishing a building which was judged to make a positive contribution to the conservation area, and replacing it with a monolith entirely ignorant of its context.

But the developer justified demolishing the current building by stating that they were ‘looking to reuse as much of the current building as possible… as part of the demolition plan we are looking to reuse some of the brickwork… and to crush down the concrete to use it as part of the aggregates’. They added: ‘from a sustainability perspective, taking a building at the end of its economic life at 100 years old, and recycling that… is definitely the way to take it forward‘.

And while further questions were answered with developers banging on about the so-called Knowledge Quarter, one participant stated ‘the Knowledge Quarter is just a buzzword. Nobody local has heard about it’.

In response to any question about heritage the developer continued to insist the current building is somehow out-of-date, stating ‘it’s simply a building from another time’, and referred to the high tech requirements of the Knowledge Quarter which seemed to somehow always trump the requirements of the conservation areas.

I raised the question directly that it is surely absurd to put an expiry date on buildings in a conservation area when the ‘point’ of a conservation area is to conserve those buildings which are particularly old, especially those that are ‘simply from another time’.

But the developer retorted that: ‘the principle of conservation areas is not to stop development, but to carefully manage development… buildings that don’t contribute positively to the conservation area are more likely to be replaced… Camden’s own appraisal assesses the building as making a neutral contribution… that is also our view.’

It later transpired that Camden were aware of the mistake in their appraisal which had been discovered, and now consider the building to contribute positively. The misidentification of the building was described by Principal Planner Gavin Sexton as ‘a couple of inaccuracies… an error made in a document almost twenty years ago, and we’re, erm, correcting it’.

But the developer stated: ‘any positive contribution made by the building can be equally made, or better made, by a replacement building… the current building is simply not making a positive contribution, and there is the potential to make one’.

This contrast in views between the developer and planners on whether Belgrove House makes a positive contribution was significant as the only point which they did not both agree upon.

And while questions were repeatedly asked about the inappropriate height of the building and unsympathetic design given the sensitive historic context, the developer eventually pulled up a picture of the Euston Road highlighting all its post-war tall buildings, stating that ‘the Euston Road is very much about a number of large scale marker buildings… and this [building] is one of those… it completes the setting of the two stations’.

A number of concerns were raised about poor consultation, and I had to ask whether the developers had consulted with the Victorian Society and Georgian Group three times before it was answered. The developer confirmed that they had failed to consult with these key groups, who both have raised concerns about the development after I had to notify them directly myself.

I asked the last question of the Q&A by enquiring whether the large Section 106 payment, likely to be in the millions, could slant the planning process in favour of approval regardless of harm to heritage. Mr Sexton spent some time explaining what Section 106 was, and after taking a while to find his words, stated: ‘generally speaking, there isn’t a great deal of money, as such, that exchanges hands as part of a 106 agreement‘. He went on to say: ‘the harm that would be caused to the conservation area, from the loss of the existing building, would be… is required to be, balanced against public benefits…‘ He added: ‘there’s no chance that that will slant the planning process‘.

It is interesting that Mr Sexton claimed that there isn’t much money exchanged hands as part of a Section 106 agreement, considering that the last major development in the area, the Eastman Dental Hospital development, brought a £3M payment with it. It also openly states on the developer’s website that a financial contribution would be made through Section 106, listing this as one of the associated public benefits.

So we find that the planning department and the developer disagree upon whether Belgrove House makes a positive contribution to the conservation area, and whether money exchanged through Section 106 is a public benefit. But the disagreements end there. It is clear from the DMF that the planners and developers are far too comfortable with each other, both working towards the common goal of having this application approved, and steamrolling all opposition in its path.

And while the developers failed to consult with the Victorian Society and Georgian Group, it was also up to Camden’s planners to notify these groups at an early stage of development proposals, which they failed to do.

The last answer given by Camden’s planners came perilously close to admitting that heritage considerations were no longer relevant. While Mr Sexton refuted my claims about Section 106 money influencing development proposals, he almost stated that the harm caused to heritage by the development would be outweighed by the public benefit that the proposal brings, before changing his words to make the statement into a hypothetical situation.

Such a statement refers to the ultimate test which permits harmful development such as that posed by Belgrove House under Paragraph 196 of the NPPF, where public benefit is considered to outweigh harm to heritage. And while we have been trying to reinforce the gravity of the harm caused to heritage by the development, the planner has had a full eight years to hark on about public benefit to Camden’s planners, and with Merck secured as a tenant this may well be the nail in the coffin for further opposition.

Camden’s planners are not permitted to express such opinions at a Development Management Forum, explaining the sudden change in grammar to imply a hypothetical. The implication is that minds should not yet be made up, with community and interest group views having a role to play in influencing planning decisions. That’s the ‘whole point’ of the DMFs – to get community views out in the open, so that they can influence the development proposals. But it is clear that this was simply not the case at this DMF. The entire Q&A felt like Camden’s planners and the developer working as a team to refute any claims that the development might be inappropriate. Minds are made up, and as usual, the community is wrong.

While appealing to Camden’s planning department is now hopeless, we still have important interest groups on side, and can appeal directly to Camden’s planning committee where the application will inevitably end up, this year or the next. The BCAAC have been known to have success at this stage.

But the situation should raise wider questions about Camden’s planning department. Who is in control? While the planning department of a local authority is supposed to serve an advisory function to the Council’s members, with some literature even stating that planning officers are ‘community champions‘, ‘fighting for the interests of the community‘, it’s not clear who Camden’s planners serve. Themselves? The developers?

This can of worms was opened earlier this year by the controversy surrounding the members briefing panel, leading to some councillors reaching out to provide statements on the affair directly contradicting those of the planning department. It couldn’t be clearer that the planning department functions largely independently of the Council, and is perhaps even more powerful than it. As one councillor aptly put it: ‘some planners think the councillors serve an advisory function to themselves’.

Who does Camden serve?

After hiding their intentions for more than eight years, the owners of Belgrove House have begun the application process during the height of the Coronavirus pandemic.

The proposal is to entirely demolish Belgrove House and to replace it with a ten-storey office block. The development would occupy an entire street block and be of a similar scale to the Standard Hotel, completely dwarfing the surrounding Georgian terraces and competing for height with St Pancras.

Despite attempts at engagement with the developer, it is clear that they currently intend to ignore heritage concerns and to play up the public benefit of the development.

Our immediate demand is simple: that the scale of the development should be reduced to accord with the predominantly three to six storey context to the south of Euston Road.

This would accord with Camden’s original draft policy for the site.

In order to achieve this the BCAAC are working in a coalition with Friends of Argyle Square, the King’s Cross CAAC, Bloomsbury Residents’ Action Group, and the Bloomsbury Association.

We will continue coordinating resistance until this demand is met.

The Site

The site occupies an entire street block, facing onto King’s Cross St Pancras and backing onto Argyle Square.

It is entirely surrounded by listed buildings. To the east and west are Grade II listed Georgian terraces, and to the south lies the designated Argyle Square with entirely intact Georgian terraces on all sides, all listed Grade II. To the north lies one of the most architecturally significant places in the country, and certainly in Camden: King’s Cross Square, with the Grade I listed King’s Cross and St Pancras Stations.

The site is surrounded to the south by the Bloomsbury Conservation Area, and lies within the King’s Cross St Pancras Conservation Area, both conservation areas of national significance.

A particularly important feature of the historic environment in this location is the dramatic step up in scale from the south of Euston Road to the north. Historically the south of Euston Road has been of a small scale, predominantly three to four storeys, reflecting the Georgian origins of the area. The stations to the north were designed to be deliberately grandiose and dominant, reflecting Victorian confidence and enthusiasm for the steam age and steam travel.

The BCAAC explored this theme and warned against development which harmed this character in an article in 2013.

The way in which St Pancras towers over the landscape provides important historical views for miles around, and a world-class historic environment for King’s Cross Square and for travellers from around the country and the continent. This domination of the skyline is not unlike the way in which St Paul’s once dominated the skyline in the City, and like St Paul’s views towards St Pancras should ideally have some level of protection.

The main negative contributor towards this historic landscape is the Standard Hotel. While this building has arguably become an established part of the landscape in recent years, it certainly cannot be said to contribute towards the historic environment, and by means of its inappropriate scale diminishes its special character. It blocks numerous important views towards St Pancras and King’s Cross, and is overly dominant in the predominantly small-scale landscape of development to the south of Euston Road.

The current Belgrove House itself is of a small scale, sitting comfortably within its surroundings. It is a 1930s coach house, built in a restrained classical style with Art Deco influences. Constructed of appropriate materials, it has a somewhat notable facade facing onto King’s Cross Square which reflects the facade of King’s Cross Station. Admittedly its side and rear elevations are bleak due to modifications in the 1950s, but do not detract from the historic environment.

The Proposal

The proposal is to demolish Belgrove House and to construct a ten-storey office-building, of a similar scale to the Standard Hotel.

Appearance

The design is an entirely inappropriate monolithic block, predominantly of steel and glass. Its appearance fails to take any cues whatsoever from any aspect of the environment, even less that of the historic environment. In our view, it entirely lacks any sort of architectural quality, and is simply a fairly ugly mish-mash of horizontal and vertical lines interspersed with an unhealthy quantity of glass.

It is apparent that the developer wishes to take precedent from the monolithic Standard Hotel to the west and to ignore all other precedent in the area. As the Standard Hotel detracts from the historic environment by means of its inappropriate scale, to take precedent from such a building would quite obviously lead to a building which itself detracts from the historic environment. In particular, the departure from the accepted scale of buildings to the south of Euston Road would further diminish the intended architectural effect of the stations to the north, by reducing the step-up in scale from the south to the north and blocking important views. The scale of this building alone would therefore cause a diminishment of the area’s special character and would impact negatively upon the setting of the numerous surrounding heritage assets.

The proposed scale would dwarf all immediate neighbours, block views of the stations from Argyle Square, and impact negatively upon the significance of the stations to the north and King’s Cross Square.

While the building steps down in scale to the south, its solid-to-void ratio, horizontal emphasis, and odious use of glass would provide an unwelcome addition to Argyle Square and would significantly disrupt the Georgian uniformity of this highly significant area, something which is specifically mentioned in the Bloomsbury Conservation Area Appraisal as being of importance.

Despite Camden’s planning brief stating that the frontage onto Argyle Square should provide affordable housing, the developer has branded this as ‘inappropriate‘ and instead deems it appropriate to face an office block onto the square.

The square is entirely occupied by Georgian houses in hospitality and residential uses. The proposal therefore again fails to take any cues from the context of the site.

Use

The proposed use is that of an office block.

The developer is attempting to market the block as being ‘laboratory-enabled‘ and likely to attract a ‘world-leader in the discovery, development, and delivery of life-saving vaccines‘. It is clear however that ultimately, this is simply another office block, and there being no tenant yet secured this is essentially a speculative statement to match a speculative development, which any kind of tenant may eventually occupy.

We wonder whether the developer is using the Coronavirus pandemic as a further vehicle for marketing this block as delivering on ‘life-saving vaccines’ when it is clear that any such work will be conducted in a research institute rather than an office block on Euston Road.

In our view, a new office block of this scale is not required in the area and fails to take any cues from the historic context of uses. To the north lie national termini, and on all sides there lies a mixture of predominantly commercial, hospitality, and residential uses, as has historically been the case since the mid Victorian era. The hospitality industry is particularly important serving a recognised need for the travellers using the stations to the north and visiting our conservation areas and London as a whole. There is no such recognised need for a new office block in the area, and on the contrary the recent economic downturn suggests that there will be a surplus of office space.

To contrast, the current warehouse use represents a fairly unique use in the area and serves a genuinely useful function for the local community and economy, supporting small independent businesses who would otherwise struggle to secure adequate storage space.

A variety of uses is something which the local authority has pledged to protect in the area.

Our approach

It is clear to us that this development would do a great deal of harm to one of the most significant historic environments in London, and certainly in Camden. In all aspects it fails to take into account any context, and fails every test which should usually be applied to any development in a conservation area. The fact that the site lies within two of the most significant conservation areas in the country and is surrounded by some of the country’s most significant listed buildings makes the failure of this development even more spectacular.

Rather than take any considerations of heritage into account, the developer wishes to instead play up the public benefit of the proposal. Under the NPPF, if a development is to do harm to the historic environment it must be demonstrated by the applicant that the development brings significant public benefit which outweighs that harm to heritage.

The harm which this development does to the historic environment cannot be overstated, and nor can the high significance of this particular context.

It therefore falls to the developer to prove that this development brings substantial public benefit which outweighs that harm.

Yet ultimately, the development in itself does little to bring any real public benefit, and in our view certainly not enough to outweigh the harm caused to our heritage.

The developer’s website has a whole section devoted to the public benefits that the development is purported to bring, but it is rather naive and childlike, at one point claiming that the glass which the building uses is ‘innovative’ because it can be seen through.

While there are certainly real public benefits that would be brought by the proposal, one should not be blinded by the superfluous and excessive lists of supposed public benefits peppered with obscure acronyms and terms that the website is littered with. The proposal is simply a large office block, and this intensification of use may provide more jobs and therefore a boost to the local economy. Yet during the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic and associated social distancing measures, office spaces have been made all but redundant, and it is difficult to see when that will change.

Perhaps this could also be described as a failure to take context into account.

And while an office block may eventually provide more jobs boosting the local economy, it will also do harm to the small independent businesses which currently use the storage space afforded by Belgrove House. These small businesses form the backbone of the special commercial character of Bloomsbury, King’s Cross, and Central London, but will have been hit hardest by the Coronavirus pandemic. To remove this invaluable resource is therefore inevitably to do further harm to the special character of the area.

One of the public benefits is the provision of step-free access to the underground station to aid accessibility, but this must surely be judged to be marginal considering the station has been step-free for almost a decade already.

And while the provision of affordable housing nearby is certainly a public benefit, this site is in no way linked to Belgrove House except through ownership, and should not be used to grant a blank canvas for harmful development at Belgrove House, or else an unwelcome and dangerous precedent for harmful development will be set.

One part of the website even resorts to stating that a significant financial contribution through Section 106 will be made, despite the consideration of such a contribution as being a ‘public benefit’ being entirely inappropriate and verging on the illegal.

But this is perhaps what Camden’s consideration of the development will really hinge on.

Camden are keen to bring in as much income as possible through Section 106 obligations, with one Freedom of Information request revealing that more than £60M in such funds had been raised from our conservation areas alone. It is no secret that the rules of the game change for large development, and we can only wonder if Section 106 income is one of the aspects which tilts the balancing process in favour of large and inappropriate developments such as this.

Whether or not this is the case, we will oppose this development until our demands are met. We are already working with local associations, including Bloomsbury Residents’ Action Group, Friends of Argyle Square, the Bloomsbury Association, and the King’s Cross CAAC to effectively resist this development.

While Camden have not yet revealed their stance on the proposals, we have proven that effective campaigning and resistance can overrule the recommendation of even Camden’s own planning officers, as was shown during the British Museum northwest extension saga.

That case was not too dissimilar to this one, except the public benefit brought by the development was significantly greater and the weight of the British Museum much more substantial. Yet we still managed to have their application defeated.

The British Museum intended to build an extension whose scale was entirely inappropriate, impacting upon views from Bedford Square and the surrounding area. We led a campaign and deputation against that development, and despite officer recommendation for approval, it was refused at committee stage. The British Museum was forced to come back with a redesigned proposal which reduced the height to our recommended levels, but if they had heeded our advice in the first place it would have saved a great deal of time, money, and effort on all sides.

Perhaps there is a lesson to learn in this for the developers of Belgrove House.

Torrington Place to Tavistock Place Public Inquiry

BCAAC recently took part in a Public Inquiry, which was held at Camden Town Hall for four weeks, between 10 October and 2 November 2017. An Experimental Traffic Order, signed off in July 2015, heralded significant changes to the layout and flow of traffic along Torrington Place and Tavistock Place (between Judd Street and Tottenham Court Road), a corridor that runs through the heart of the Bloomsbury Conservation Area. The Public Inquiry was conducted by an independent Inspector, Martin Elliott, and it gave people affected by the proposed changes the opportunity to make representations – either for or against.

BCAAC’s Statement of case

The townscape and historic value of Bloomsbury as an example of urban planning is of outstanding national, if not international value and repute. BCAAC’s participation in the Inquiry was to ensure that proper consideration and weight be given to the impact the proposed scheme would have on recognised heritage assets that lie within the Conservation Area.

The Advisory Committee felt that it was important the Inspector considered the potential visual and physical impacts in accordance with relevant legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 132 of the latter states that “when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.”

In its submission to the Inspector, BCAAC also referred to the statutory duties under Section 72(1) of the Listed Building Act 1990 and the requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

Camden Council is under a clear obligation or duty to take heritage matters into account, whether acting as planning or highway authority. Reference was made to Historic England guidance and specifically Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management Historic England Advice, Note 1, published by Historic England February 2016.

Managing Change in Conservation Areas

Para 26

“It is also important that utility companies, statutory undertakers and the highway authority are engaged from designation through to drawing up and implementing management proposals, as the character and appearance of conservation areas is often related to the treatment and condition of roads, pavements and public spaces and traffic management generally.”

Para 29

“Protecting the character or appearance of an area will often be more effective if a flexible approach is taken to the requirements of the Building Regulations (Historic England advice on energy efficiency and historic buildings). Similar flexibility is needed in compliance with the Equalities Act 2010 and the Fire Precautions Act 1971, and highway policies where they would be in conflict with the preservation or enhancement of the area’s character or appearance.”

Despite the fact that BCAAC advises the council on major proposals affecting the character and appearance of this unique area and its setting, officers and members had failed to show any regard to the impact the proposed changes to the street layout might have on the Bloomsbury Conservation Area.

BCAAC’s closing submission

On the final day of the Inquiry each party presenting evidence to the Inspector provided a closing statement.

The Advisory Committee concluded that BCAAC was neutral so far as expressing a view on cycling per se, but was not neutral in opposing harmful impacts on the area resulting from physical measures to facilitate this activity. It strongly endorsed the Historic England approach, as set out in its guidance, Heritage at Risk in Conservation Areas, specifically under the section Identifying local distinctiveness, which identifies three vital ingredients: good design, quality materials and respect for the past.

Under cross-examination on 11 October a Camden witness admitted that they had not considered the impact of the scheme on the conservation area or the settings of numerous listed buildings lining the route.

Had Camden included the Advisory Committee in the Council’s early deliberations about possible changes to the Torrington/Tavistock corridor, then it is quite possible that BCAAC would have been in support of the proposals. But in the current circumstances, and mindful of the duty to preserve or enhance, the Advisory Committee was obliged to be in opposition to the scheme in its current form as the proposed treatment of road surfaces, signage etc. is not sympathetic to the character of the Conservation Area.

The Inspector is now in the process of writing his report to Camden Council. This should be available to read on the Council’s website in January or February 2018.

Camden’s Euston Area Plan and all the changes proposed for Euston Square and the area around it cause considerable concern. Proposals for Euston Station include rumours of a possible attempt to reorientate Euston Square Gardens or build on them for commercial development. All these discussions seem to ignore that the adjacent listed buildings are in the Bloomsbury Conservation Area. For example the building which is now the Royal College of GPs is listed II* and its setting would very much be affected by any development at the western end of Euston Square Gardens. The square and gardens must be seen as part of Bloomsbury’s Georgian plan and street pattern. Any reorientation of the square or high rise development would cause huge damage to that and also to the whole Georgian context of Bloomsbury. Planning law requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. Bloomsbury Conservation Area is not only of national, but international importance.

Euston Square Gardens