Dear Members

Regis Road and the Camden Film Quarter

On 15 July Camden’s Planning Committee met to consider the two planning applications for the Yoo Capital project.  Although they raised different issues, the Chair decided to treat them as one application.  It’s a new committee, following the local government election and eleven members attended, plus the Chair.  There was a lengthy presentation by a planning officer, then deputations, which included IARA and other local groups who had to share 10 minutes, pointing out a range of major problems with the applications.  Some local councillors also spoke against the plans. Our local councillors did not commit themselves. one resident spoke in favour. After more than 3 hours it moved to a vote.  The 6 Labour councillors voted to approve the plans, despite some of them having expressed reservations.  All five opposition councillors (Green, Lib Dem, Conservative) voted against.  The Chair did not need to use his casting vote.  We can only hope that the points raised have been heard and will be considered as the plans progress.

This is the article on this website https://www.inkermanresidents.org.uk/news/camden-planning-committee-approve-yoo-capitals-regis-road-application

It ends saying “Next stop Murphy’s Yard…..” so…   

New ideas for the Murphy site

Most of you are aware that later this year there is likely to be a planning application for the very large area of land that lies between the railway lines, Gordonhouse Road and Highgate Road – just across the railway lines from the newly approved Regis Road site.

The land is owned by Murphy’s, the construction company.  A previous application to develop the land was withdrawn in 2022, following what was probably an unprecedented number of objections, many about the overdevelopment and the excessive height of the proposed building.

Some of us have recently attended sessions where new ideas for the site were on display, with the new design team available to answer questions.  They wanted to emphasise the reduced scale of the buildings proposed.  

They are now offering a further meeting with members of IARA to explain the latest plans, and possibly to show a group around the site.  They say:

“It would be great to hear feedback from as many members as possible, and we’d also be grateful if you could encourage people to complete our online survey too, which remains open until Tuesday 21 July: https://murphysyard.com/survey/

This is the best way for us to capture a broad range of views at this stage.

In terms of a meeting and site tour, we would of course be happy to look at dates over the coming weeks once you have canvassed your members. We will just need to be mindful of numbers, as Murphys Yard remains a working site and we want to make sure any visit is safe, manageable, and allows enough time for a proper discussion. With that in mind, it may work best for a smaller number of nominated representatives to attend on behalf of the group.

There will also be further opportunities for members to engage, including through our focused workshops this month, as well as later stages of consultation as the proposals develop.” 

Please let us know if you would like to be part of a visit for an introduction to the plans, and we can then get back to them with an idea of numbers and possible dates.

Inkerman Street Party

A lot of people came out to enjoy the Street Party on 21 June.  Huge thanks to Jonathan, the main organiser for IARA, for a very successful day.  He sent this report to Camden, with thanks for their support:

“The Inkerman Street Party took place on Sunday 21st June 2026. It took place on a small stretch of road between Grafton and Willes Road under the shade of a large oak and in the open space, free of traffic and cars. With the approval of a temporary event notice an outdoor music stage was erected and six performances were heard along with a low vibe DJ set to maintain the conviviality between sets.” 

MAP cafe

IARA ran the Street Party in co-operation with MAP, now closed at least for now.  Discussions continue with Camden about the future of MAP – see below for Cllr. Meric Apak’s letter to the CNJ

That’s a bit blurry and Lora kindly got Gemini to sharpen it up:

Council does not want to close MAP café

I am concerned your readers may be left with an inaccurate impression of what is actually at stake in relation to MAP Café Studio.

The issue is not that Camden Council wishes to close a grassroots music venue. I have consistently supported cultural venues and have worked with MAP in the hope that compliance could be achieved without formal enforcement.

My recent meeting with MAP representatives was held precisely to explore a constructive way forward, and I have another meeting scheduled with them as I write this.

Nor is this simply a dispute over a late alcohol licence. The concerns raised over the past three years relate to repeated alleged breaches of the existing premises licence, some of which I have witnessed personally.

Seeking to vary a licence is entirely legitimate, but the starting point must always be compliance with the licence already in force.

It is also important to correct any impression that this is a dispute between a long-established venue and a single resident who moved nearby.

Complaints have come from a number of neighbouring households over several years. Many have made clear they do not want MAP to close; they simply want the licence conditions, which MAP accepted when its licence was granted, to be observed so that a valued cultural venue can coexist with those living nearby.

There are also separate planning matters. An outstanding retrospective planning application will determine whether, and if so on what terms, the current use is acceptable in planning terms.

Finally, I want to be equally clear with both residents and MAP: I remain hopeful the venue can continue to operate successfully. However, if there are continued substantiated breaches despite repeated opportunities to comply, I believe I would have to give serious consideration to requesting a review of the premises licence. That could ultimately result in a range of outcomes, including revocation, and of course any decision would rest with the licensing panel after considering all the evidence.

The next chapter is therefore largely in MAP’s hands. If it demonstrates sustained compliance with its existing licence conditions, I sincerely hope formal enforcement can be avoided. That remains my preferred outcome.

Cllr MERIC APAK

Labour ward councillor for Kentish Town South

Local events

Yesterday at the Kentish Town Connects meeting we heard about some good things happening in the area, including art for older kids

D & D

Dear Members

Anybody who has been receiving our emails over the last few weeks or following this website will be very aware that the main focus of attention for a lot of us has been the application for the enormous development proposed on Regis Road.Crucial hearing of Camden’s Planning Committee on Monday – trying to keep this posting small enough to be readable…

This has been covered in detail there and elsewhere including the many serious objections and concerns members had – so the recent email to members and this subsequent posting of it here is simply to report on the outcome of the hearing of the planning application which took place on Monday 15 June.

You may therefore ask yourself why it’s taking so long to put this report out by email and on the website.

The answer is partly that it was fully reported and then exhaustively discussed by WhatsApp. That reaches almost 300 people who live in the area but we are aware that quite a number of people receiving our emails are not on the WhatsApp Group – so this has been a mistake on our part.

Probably the real reason is that the outcome was so negative and disappointing that we have been somewhat demoralised and demotivated.

In addition as you will see below, as soon as one planning battle is “sort of over”, the next one appears over the hill – the Murphy‘s Yard development.

That will be the subject of the next email and the next posting on the website.

In the meantime, the brief report is that the application was approved without any required amendments. Although officially planning committees are not “whipped” i.e. party members obliged to follow the party line – that was clearly the outcome and one can reasonably assume considerable pressure was applied to back benchers. At least one of them expressed real concerns but she eventually voted on the party line.

If you like audiovisual aids, you can see the recording of the meeting which can be accessed at:

https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.civico.net%2Fcamden%2F23948-Planning-Committee&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ca91338e7c05b4c60ea5908dedcf395f1%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C639191135901796089%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5nIgbif28W4x7l8iWfR1v3W81naY5dl0sZvq7oQOF7M%3D&reserved=0

You can watch the whole three hours 25 minutes. Which we sat through, with very much appreciated support from members in the public galleries.

The first hour or more is given to the planning officer who explain their views, which is that the negatives, which are in fact properly acknowledged, are to be set aside because of the alleged benefits in terms of promises of jobs and affordable housing. Or any concerns raised “will be dealt with by section 106 Agreements.” Of which more later.

The summary of some of the negatives and the harm to be done for example to heritage aspects can be found at 1.07.39.

All the speeches of the delegations are from 1.42.49. That starts with Dee Searle speaking for KTNF – Kentish Town neighbourhood forum followed at 1.3 6.4 by myself.

At 1.37.38 is the rather striking image to illustrate the size of the project – with the studio block looming over Buckingham Palace.  We should say that on closer scrutiny, the scale is not in fact accurate. 

Alice Brown from Queens Crescent CA  spoke at 1.38.43. 

At 1.40.20 there is Judith who was speaking for herself and neighbours also quoting Dawn who has recently posted on the WhatsApp group . 

Finally at 1.42.48 is Arnaud who had raised a petition local people and is very connected with the French school. He summarised the negatives and the doubtfulness of the offsetting positives.

At 1.4 5.26 Green councillor Lorna Russell spoke against the proposal and at 1.49.00 Councilor Adams, Conservative, also objected largely on conservation grounds.

At 1.56.07 the developers had their say with the main developer, the architect and Oxygen studios.

At 2.04.52 Martin Plaut, of Ryland Road, spoke in favour of the proposal.

At 1.52.10 Our local councillors spoke – Joseph Ball speaking for all three.

From 2.07.30 The committee could ask questions and thereby express views and it got quite lively in places with some very good points being made including by Labour members who ultimately still voted in favour.

We don’t think that there is an official transcript and maybe nobody really wants one, but we are preparing one anyway using basic technology – Apple’s own Voice Memo and can post on the website a transcript of local views against and in favour.

Our subsequent further posting on the WhatsApp group was:

“ As IARA we have been scrupulous in representing a balanced view for the neighbourhood. This has sometimes caused irritation from others who have wanted a more combative tone.

The reason that we carried out a survey of local views about the Regis Road site was precisely to make sure that we were representing residents’ views. The overwhelming majority of responses that we got showed deep concern with the size and scale of the Film Quarter building, the height of the towers, the depth of basements, the environmental impact and the location of local authority flats above an enclosed recycling centre.

These were the views that were made in a formal response to the council and in our representations to the planning committee.

Our concern about the process is firstly that, effectively, local community organisations representation was allowed 10 minutes.

By contrast, not only was the presenting officer given well over one hour to explain the council’s support for the project but questions from the committee were repeatedly referred back to the applicant developers to give them a further opportunity to expand on their position.

Some of the committee, including Labour members, asked quite probing questions which clearly indicated concerns. When those concerns were raised they were met with the promise that it will be dealt with under section 106 agreements – which are negotiated without public input or scrutiny and are often unenforced. 

There are other issues regarding the legitimacy of the proceedings which are being researched and will be publicised when ready.”

The outcome was that all six Labour Councillors voted in favour and all five opposition councillors – Green, Lib Dem and Conservative – voted against.   The report in the CNJ that it was a tie with the deciding vote of the chair is not accurate. 

The only stages at which this could be stopped is firstly referral to the Mayor.

In the same week as the meeting took place, there was a picture of the Mayor arm in arm with the developers at the opening of their Olympia project. We know that he is very pro growth and we do not have any illusions about the possibility that he will call in the application.

The final fallback position is a Judicial Review. We have drafted brief to counsel for advice and we believe there are several serious challenges to how the application was dealt with. However we are familiar with this process as some of us have bitter experience of it.  We know it’s a very high threshold and we would in practice be taking on the combined Legal departments of Yoo Capital, Camden Council and The Mayor.  

Since the decision we see increasing information that there is simply no need for increased studio space – and that includes comments from a senior member of the British Film Institute.  The suspicions of many members including those professionally involved in the film industry is that this will never be studios with the promised job opportunities but probably a data centre – with minimal jobs, huge demands on power and huge profits for Yoo Capital and anyone who stands to benefit from those. 

So we end this email on a very downbeat tone. When the promised jobs fail to materialise and the promised affordable housing is reduced by the developers with agreement of Camden or the Inspector – like at The Goods Yard development – then saying “we told you so” will be sour compensation.    

Next stop Murphy’s Yard….. 

D&D  

Inkerman Area Residents Association Limited
Registered in England No. 10075818 Registered Office: 31 Alma Street, London, NW5 3DH