What is the Inkerman Area Residents Association?

Posted

To remind established residents and to introduce us to new residents…

The Inkerman Area Residents Association (IARA)  is our local residents’ association. We cover the area bounded to the east by Kentish Town Road, to the south by Prince of Wales Road and to the west and north by the railway lines.

That’s about 10 streets. Prince of Wales, Anglers Lane, Alma, Cathcart, Raglan, Inkerman, Willes, Grafton, Ryland, Holmes and then tiny Perren St and Athlone St.

We started about 50 years ago. We are all volunteers. Anyone who lives here is automatically a member, and you can be involved in the association by coming to our occasional meetings – the last AGM had 70+ members attending, and/or joining our ever-growing WhatsApp group which now has over 276 members and is very lively. Just email us on inkermanara@hotmail.com with your name, address and phone number to join.

It is extremely active about local planning and traffic matters as well as too many offers to list:  eg some very good quality furniture, tickets for events, cat food! etc. and requests for help and recommendations for resources and tradespeople as well as answers and offers of help.

And you can also join one or more of the other WhatsApp groups:  The Local History Group has 27 members and we are responsible for the Local History section on the IARA website. Introduction to the history pages. The Theatre Goers group has 41 members and they have very successful evenings out together of theatre and sometimes supper. The Dog lovers group has 16 members and is a great exchange of information network. The SustainIARA has 22 members and is working on sharing knowledge of climate mitigation and resilience. Ideas about Green Issues and practical ideas about greening our homes Sustain IARA –  the Inkerman Area Residents Association sustainability group. Information sheet on some local houses.  The Trees and Gardening group of 23 members cares for the street trees and has recently broadened its remit to be an exchange of information and resources for all gardening including window boxes etc.

We play an active part in representing our interests to Camden Council, helping to make this an attractive neighbourhood and a good place to live.

We’ve been involved in major planning and environmental issues, (helping to head off some truly awful planning applications), in 2024 we successfully opposed the hugely noisy and objectionable Beer Garden and also successfully opposed the application by Segro for a warehouse in Grafton Rd.  See some of the recent updates.

A huge triumph was joining with other local groups to defeat the application by Murphy’s at the top of the High St for a massive over-development – including 19 story tower blocks – blocking the view of the Heath.

This year and last has seen a massive amount our attention and work about the proposed application for developments on Regis Road, the area that lies just to our north and includes our north-most street Homes Road. It is very complicated and you am like to look here: IARA’s submission to Camden regarding the application for developments on Regis Road. Submitted 10.3.26

and RESULTS OF THE IARA SURVEY OF LOCAL OPINION ABOUT REGIS ROAD / CAMDEN FILM QUARTER. [Please note: 10.3.26 This has now been adapted and filed on Camden’s Planning Portal as IARA’s submission on the development]

In the past we have also dealt with endless licensing applications, and with the Kentish Town Baths redevelopment, the French School, gardening schemes. Street parties and IARA meetings and events are a chance to meet neighbours and work out which issues are important for the area.

Past meetings have usually been well attended by residents, local councillors and – when there are particular issues to discuss – relevant council officers.

We have organised the Alma Street Fair most years which is quite a major event. See on this website and if you Google Alma St Fair you can see reports. In 2026 we are having a break from such large events and aiming for smaller, more community based street parties.

Newsletters. We also have an email list of residents and others who are interested, including our local councillors, and we send out newsletters monthly or six weekly where issues can be dealt with more slowly and deeply than on the quickfire WhatsApp group. Many previous newsletters are on this website under “Archives” – back to January 2007! Again let us know if you want to get those.

As of March 2016 we are now Inkerman Area Residents Association Limited.  ie we have limited liability so that the officers, Chair, Secretary and Treasurer, do not have unlimited liability if we go bust.  Registered office 31 Alma St NW5 3DH  Registered in England No. 10075818.

Welcome to our website

Posted

This is the website of the Inkerman Area Residents Association. 

See this for information about the Association What is the Inkerman Area Residents Association?   

See also the articles reporting local events as well as links to other information about the area.

If you are interested in the history of the area, click on Local History in the column on the right for a series of maps through the years showing how the area was built up on fields. Introduction to the history pages

In Local history there is also a link to the excellent Conservation Area Statement which has a description of all the streets and buildings in the Conservation Area which cover much of The Inkerman Area.

Any comments or suggestions: inkermanara@hotmail.com

Very significant news about plans for Murphy’s Yard.

Posted


Paul Seviour our Treasurer writes:

I went to Murphy’s Yard last Saturday to see their exhibition. I gleaned the following from the architect which is important and people may not be aware.  

Firstly, Murphy’s Yard has been redesignated from an “industrial led scheme” to a “residential led scheme”. 

Previously there was to be huge amounts of employment space with circa 750 homes. The  new proposed master plan is 1,750 homes. The new employment space will be equivalent to what is already there, so no additional employment space. 

The planning application is for “outline planning” only. This will set out only general principles of height, location, building type etc. The detailed stuff on design and the look of the blocks will come later. 

I was told that Murphy will take on the responsibility for building the employment space. They will enter into construction contracts and they will be the landlord and let the units. I assume that Murphy will also take on the responsibility for building out the infrastructure across the site – the sewers, drains, utilities, roads etc. 

When it comes to the residential homes, this is where it gets interesting. Murphy, generally, will not be a “developer” of the blocks of homes. These blocks will be built by outside developers. The likes of Berkeley, Barratt etc. Or any overseas developers who are active in the London market (there are lots). Or it could be hedge funds or venture capitalists who have money to invest and set up new companies to act as developer. 

The way it would work is that Murphy, as landowner, would transfer a plot of land to a developer to build a specific block. That developer could buy one plot or multiple plots. That developer would put in a “detailed” planning application for the blocks it will build on the plot or plots it is to acquire.  I imagine that they would only actually buy the plot after planning consent has been given. When submitting the planning application, each developer will hire their own architects to design what each block will look like. So, there could be many types of design and appearance if numerous different developers get involved. It might lead to a very incoherent scheme. 

It is possible Murphy may want to build out some residential plots too but their main focus is the employment space. 

There are other implications. Each developer might have a different vision. E.g. I wonder if some may decide they want to build to rent, rather than build to sell.

Different developers may have different views about how much affordable housing to provide using viability as a stick. 

Some may wish to not provide any affordable on the site but give Camden Council a cash amount as compensation. This becomes more likely if a developer buys a single plot for a single block as these tend not to like mixing affordable and non affordable in the same block. 

One other thought came to mind with this structure of individual plot sales. Some parts of the site may be more attractive to a developer e.g. those very near transport such as Gospel Oak overground and Kentish Town underground whilst others less so. One could end up with a site which is partly built on with other parts left empty for years.  A kind of pepper potted development.

If the scheme goes ahead in the way proposed, we can look forward to many new detailed planning applications from potentially numerous developers who will have their own agendas. These developers will not have been part of previous or the current “consultations” and have no “skin in the game” with people or organisations in Kentish Town. Murphy can, quite correctly, say that its a matter between the plot owner and Camden Council planners. 

Regards

Paul. 

This is a link to Murphy’s own document about this proposal.

 https://murphysyard.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/MurphysYard.Boards.pdf

This is a link to what our sister organisation north of us has published: Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum 

Murphy’s Yard Update Scoping Planning Application

Camden Planning Committee approve Yoo Capital’s Regis Road Application

Posted

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

July Newsletter. What is the next planning issue? Answer: Murphy’s Yard. Plus MAP and local events

Posted

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… Read more »