[Note from IARA: Not everyone is familiar with the existence and role of the Camden Design Review Panel For genetral inmformationm about Desgn Review Panels: About Design Review Panels
“It comprises a group of independent, multi-disciplinary construction professionals working in the field of the built environment.
The Design Review Panel arranges impartial and independent Panels of volunteer built environment professionals who give their comments and suggestions to applicants and local authorities on design issues in relation to important new development schemes and proposals for important public spaces, including both significant minor applications, major planning applications and pre-application development proposals.”
For Camden’s DRP: Look at https://www.camden.gov.uk/camden-design-review-panel2 which states:
“Improving the quality of buildings and places
The Panel aims to improve the quality of buildings and places for the benefit of the public. It is made up of 26 independent and impartial leading professionals in the following fields of architecture:
- landscape architecture
- urban design
- environmental sustainability
- inclusive design
- development economics and delivery.
The Panel is provided by Frame Projects and is funded independently of the Council. Applicants are referred to the Panel by the Council as an external service and fees are paid to Frame projects. If we refer an application to the Panel, the design of a proposal is assessed and the Panel provides advice.
see also: https://www.frame-projects.co.uk/camden“
———————————————— 0 —————————————–
As regards the Regis Road / Camden Film Quarter they have prepared a report: ]
– 10 October 2025 CDRP140_Regis Road (Parcel A2)
Attendees [Details redacted]
– London Borough of Camden (multiple representatives)
– Frame Projects
1. Project name and site address
Camden Film Quarter, Regis Road, Kentish Town
2. Presenting team
– SPPARC
– Yoo Capital Camden Film Quarter Limited
– Broadway Malyan
– Montagu Evans
– Spacehub
– Atelier 10
– Oxygen Studios
– Places for People
– Momentum
– Joseph Homes
– Savillis
– Hawkins Brown
3. Planning authority briefing
Regis Road Growth Area is a seven-and-a-half-hectare area, designated for an employment-led, mixed-use development. A masterplan adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to the Kentish Town Planning Framework was agreed as the best approach to delivering the comprehensive development required. The SPD addendum has now been adopted, and pre-application advice has commenced on two of the parcels of land: one by Joseph Homes (Parcel A1) and one by Yoo Capital (Parcel A2).
This review relates to Parcel A2 only, which proposes a new creative, mixed-use neighbourhood in Kentish Town. Inkerman Gardens, to the south, will deliver new homes, with studio, commercial and community spaces at ground and first floor level. Heathgate, to the north, will provide two residential buildings, and an energy centre and retail pavilion. The Camden Film Quarter will include the London Screen Academy, a Museum of Film and TV, retail and other complementary uses.
Planning officers noted the Council’s support for a new film quarter in Camden, alongside housing including affordable homes. However, given the scale and complexity of the scheme it is essential that high quality design is demonstrated in the planning submission, and this may require more time than the current programme allows. The panel’s views were requested on the way the scheme has evolved since its previous review, in particular its integration with existing neighbourhoods around the site. The heights proposed are challenging, and the panel was asked for its views on whether the proposals justify these heights, and the extent to which they will be read as a wall of development in views. They were also asked to comment on design quality, and the extent to which this can mitigate impacts.
4. Design Review Panel’s views
The Camden Design Review Panel shares the Council’s enthusiasm for a new film quarter at Regis Road, as part of a vibrant mixed-use neighbourhood. However, it recommends further work before a planning application is submitted, to resolve the design challenges of this ambitious brief.
It also repeats its previous recommendation that a more coordinated architectural approach is needed for the whole Regis Road masterplan, including the Joseph Homes site. By its nature, the multi-storey film studio will have a huge visual and social impact on Kentish Town and Camden. This challenge is exacerbated by the scale and massing of the housing proposed, which together with the film studios create a ‘wall’ of development. In the panel’s view this will have a negative impact on the London Views Management Framework (LVMF) protected view of St Pauls from Parliament Hill. It also thinks this density of development will compromise quality of life for residents.
A more robust sustainability strategy is needed, with firm commitments made as part of the planning process. Insufficient information on microclimate was presented to give confidence that good daylight and sunlight will be achieved in open spaces, as well as comfortable wind conditions. The Inkerman Gardens housing has developed in a positive way since the previous review, although its scale remains challenging. Clearer illustrations are needed to show how it will appear in the context of neighbouring streets, to test and refine its design.
The panel is less convinced by the Heathgate housing, and raises concerns about its scale, and the quality of life it will create for residents. The panel is not convinced that the scheme provides sufficient open space for the amount of housing and non-residential development proposed. However, it finds the green link through the site compelling as a primary movement route, accommodating a range of activities including play. This makes delivery of the bridge essential, and the planning application should secure its delivery.
Whilst continuing to support the principle of the film studios, the panel asks the design team to reconsider the additional height added since the previous review. It recommends further work to develop its architecture, which must be of outstanding quality, commensurate with its significance and visual impact. These points are expanded below, and comments made at the previous review that remain relevant are repeated for clarity.
4.1 Masterplan
Site wide masterplan
– The panel repeats its previous recommendation that more coordination is needed for the whole Regis Road masterplan, including the Joseph Homes site.
– Cohesive proposals are essential to allow Camden to assess the scheme’s townscape, sustainability, movement and servicing, public realm, microclimate or quality of life.
– In terms of their masterplan layout, the panel does not support the 3 to 4m gap between the Heathgate blocks. This will create a wind tunnel effect, as well as compromising daylight and views.
– As noted above, the panel feels that the cumulative impact of the large residential blocks together with the film studios creates a negative ‘wall’ of development in local and longer distance views.
– More detailed comments on the housing are provided below.
Townscape and visual impact
– The nature of the multi-storey film studio makes it inevitable that this will be highly visible in local and longer distance views.
– The panel continues to think that if Camden accepts that the film studios should have a civic scale and presence, the buildings around them should be subordinate.
– It is concerned that the height of the residential tall buildings, and the proximity of the Heathgate blocks to each other and the studios, creates a ‘wall’ of development.
– As a result, in the panel’s view, the proposals will have a negative impact on the London Views Management Framework (LVMF) protected view of St Pauls from Parliament Hill.
– Fully rendered views analysis was not presented, and the panel continues to think more views of the scheme are needed to fully assess its townscape impact, including from streets to the north and east of the site.
– The panel offers comments on the design quality of the film studios and residential buildings in separate sections of the report below. Outstanding design is needed to justify the scale of development, and further work is needed to demonstrate this will be achieved.
Sustainability strategy
– Firm targets for environmental sustainability and low carbon design should be set through the planning process. The panel is surprised that these have not yet been fixed so that they can be integral to the designs.
– Embodied and operational carbon targets should be set for both the residential and non-residential elements of the scheme.
– The film studio will be an energy intensive use, and the panel is not convinced this will be able to achieve net-zero carbon. Clarity is needed about how the energy strategy, and other buildings, contribute to the scheme’s overall carbon efficiency.
– The scale and significance of the development means that the panel would expect an exemplary approach to sustainability, going beyond regulatory minimums.
– A key element of the sustainability story for the development is the idea of using clay excavated on site to make bricks for its construction. Whilst compelling, the panel questions if this is feasible?
– Both the studios and the residential blocks will be ‘higher-risk buildings’ as defined by the Building Safety Act 2022. The applicant should demonstrate that bricks made on site could meet these requirements, or suggest alternatives that contribute to the scheme’s sustainability commitments.
– The panel welcomes the inclusion of an energy centre, but would like to know more about its design and operation. For example, it highlights that this may eject a lot of heat at a bottleneck in the public realm.
Landscape and microclimate –
The scale and density of the development is much higher than was envisaged in the Regis Road Supplementary Planning Document. This risks eroding the quality of open spaces within the masterplan, creating canyon-like spaces, which are dark and windy.
– Whilst the panel understands that microclimate analysis has been carried out, this was not presented in detail at the review.
– It is essential that the application demonstrates good daylight and sunlight in open spaces, comfortable wind conditions, and a landscape design that makes the most of, and responds to microclimate.
– The landscape strategy should also clarify how the ecological green corridor is maintained at the narrow point between the film studios and Joseph homes site. Sections may be needed to show, for example, how green roofs contribute to this.
Movement and access strategy
Whilst the mix of residential and film quarter uses is supported in principle, it will mean streets and spaces need to accommodate movement ranging from articulated lorries to families with pushchairs.
– The application should clarify how different types of movement are accommodated within the masterplan, to avoid conflict, and create an attractive place to live and work.
– The panel thinks the north south green link should be thought of as the primary cycle and pedestrian route. Regis Road is not a historic street, and is circuitous, so could be downplayed.
Quality of residential accommodation
– The panel has concerns about the scale, massing and quality of life that will be created by the residential accommodation.
4.2 Housing
General comments on residential quality
– The panel welcomes the provision of 50% affordable housing, meeting Camden’s target for Council owned sites.
– It is equally positive that affordable homes are provided in both the Inkerman Gardens and Heathgate sites.
– This housing mix will mean that a high proportion of the new homes are occupied by families, including in 2 bed units. Ensuring adequate amenity space on their doorstep will be essential.
– The aim should be for affordable homes to match the quality of those for market sale. The panel highlights they currently have a higher proportion of single aspect units, which should be reconsidered.
– More clarity is needed about how the ground floor of the housing relates to level changes, landscape and servicing, as well as ensuring entrances are easy to find.
– The panel would also encourage further exploration of the character of the housing, responding to the context, and balancing variety and coherence across the masterplan.
– More drawings are needed to show how the development sits in the surrounding streetscape, and how the ground floor layout of buildings relates to the landscape.
Inkerman Gardens
– The Inkerman Gardens housing has developed in a positive way since the previous review, although its scale remains challenging.
– More drawings to show how the blocks fit with neighbouring streets would be helpful to refine and clarify this relationship. Rendered views showing new and existing buildings, and street sections and elevations would be helpful.
– The block with studio space at its lower levels has a plinth, expressed with white bricks. The panel does not think it is necessary to apply this material to the lower levels of the other residential blocks.
– Bringing the community space to a location fronting Holmes Road would make it feel more welcoming to people living nearby.
– Analysis is needed to ensure that homes at lower levels, particularly those in the ‘knuckle’ of Block B will receive adequate daylight.
– The panel asks if the Block C could be more L-shaped to better frame the courtyard.
– More information is needed on the landscape design of the courtyard, and the way this relates to the ground floor layout of the blocks around it. This should include greater clarity about what is public, and what is shared private space.
– The panel thinks there should be a clearly defined threshold to the courtyard, making it clear that it is for residents. This could allow for future introduction of a gate, if this proves necessary.
Heathgate
– The panel is not yet convinced by the residential proposals for Heathgate. It thinks the density of development on this plot should be reduced to give more breathing space between blocks, reducing its visual impact, and improving its microclimate and residential quality.
– The panel reiterates its earlier comment that the residential buildings should be subordinate to the film studios in scale and architectural expression.
– In the short term, the panel is concerned homes in this location will feel isolated, until the Joseph Homes site is complete. It will also be a difficult place to live during construction of the film studios.
– The promise of a bridge link over the railway line is fundamental to the masterplan concept, and the naming of this residential site. However, there is a lack of clarity about when and by whom this will be delivered.
– The panel asks if one of the Heathgate blocks could swap location with the energy centre, to create more separation between the buildings.
– There are 15 north facing single aspect flats in the affordable housing Block B (first to 15th floor) and the panel asks for this to be reconsidered.
– Wintergardens were mentioned in the presentation as a potential way of dealing with noise from the railway, but these were not shown on the drawings. Clarity is needed about how More information is needed on the landscape design around the Heathgate blocks, and the way this relates to their ground floor layout.
– Both landscape and massing should be informed by microclimate analysis, to ensure the large number of residents benefit from sunny, comfortable outside spaces – especially where play is proposed.
More information is needed on the landscape design around the Heathgate blocks, and the way this relates to their ground floor layout.
– Both landscape and massing should be informed by microclimate analysis, to ensure the large number of residents benefit from sunny, comfortable outside spaces – especially where play is proposed.
– If tall buildings continue to be proposed on the Heathgate site, further work will be needed to achieve outstanding architecture, that justifies their scale and impact.
4.3 Public realm
Quantum of open space
– The panel is not convinced that the scheme provides sufficient open space for the amount of housing and non-residential development proposed.
– A figure ground drawing would be helpful to clarify accessible open space across the site.
– In the panel’s view, the quantum of open space would be appropriate if the buildings heights were between 6 and 8 storeys – rather than between 14 and 22 storeys.
– High density development requires the best possible open space to succeed. Testing of daylight, sunlight wind should contribute to decision making about the quantum that is achievable.
– The panel notes that shared private roof terraces provide some additional outdoor space. The depth of soil that these are designed for will determine whether they can contribute to the scheme’s Urban Greening Factor and Biodiversity Net Gain.
– The panel continues to think the development should make a strong public offer, to help offset its scale. The panel thinks that the site feels cramped, and there is not enough public space on the site to provide a convincing public offer.
– The panel asks for evidence of how the public realm can accommodate use by existing residents, as well as residents of around 1,000 new homes, in addition to people working in or visiting the film studios and academy?
Landscape story
– The panel supports the idea of a green armature connecting public spaces within the masterplan, and onward across a new bridge to Hampstead Heath.
– This green armature mediates between the residential component of the masterplan to the west and the non-residential elements to the east. The panel thinks this makes sense.
– This story makes delivery of the bridge essential, and the connection to the Heath is core to the masterplan concept. The planning application should secure its delivery.
– The way the bridge lands as part of the Heathgate area of the masterplan will therefore also be critically important, and this should be clarified in the planning submission.
– The panel recommends that the high line proposed to the north of the site should be omitted. This would add unnecessary complexity to the scheme, and it encourages simpler ways to resolve the level change.
– The panel supports the approach to sustainable urban drainage, including playable elements that help children to understand the water cycle and changing seasons.
Drawings and visualisations of the landscape
– The housing and non-residential buildings are not yet illustrated in the context of the landscape designs that were presented. It is important that this is done, for example to show how the film studio relates to the green armature.
– Illustrating the pedestrian level experience of public spaces in the masterplan will also be essential to convey the quality and character of the development.
Landscape phasing
– Clarity is needed about the day-one landscape that will be delivered, and how it will work until the Joseph Homes site comes forward.
– Similarly, the landscape submission should show how integration with later development will be achieved.
Microclimate
– Analysis of daylight, sunlight and wind conditions is essential to inform masterplan decisions, and the landscape designs. Although the applicant assured the panel this has been done, the evidence was not available at the review.
– The panel notes that any areas which are assessed as being comfortable for ‘standing only’ would not be acceptable in play spaces or key public spaces.
Detailed and technical resolution of the landscape
– The panel asks if rainwater harvesting is part of the landscape approach to sustainability? The large areas of basement will be impermeable, and this will need to be mitigated.
– Large utility corridors will be required below ground for a development of this nature, and these should be mapped and coordinated with tree planting.
– Street trees with substantial canopies will be important to mitigate the scale of buildings proposed. The application should be clear about tree species and where they can be planted.
– There is not enough information on play facilities to allow the panel to comment on this fully. Clarity on the type of play, where it is located, and how it integrates with planting should be provided.
– This should include details of how play can be accommodated safely for early phases, during construction on neighbouring sites.
– The panel highlights that an area of land to the north-east of the site which is allocated for play is on a long lease rather than being part of the core land ownership. It is not convinced this is an acceptable way to secure play provision long term.
– Urban Greening Factor and Biodiversity Net Gain should also be clarified.
4.4 Non-residential buildings
Film studio
– The proposal to bring film studios to Camden is an extraordinary opportunity, with economic and cultural value. The panel recognises the efforts made to resolve the challenges of this brief.
– However, it thinks more time is needed to continue this work, to demonstrate outstanding architecture, refine its massing, sustainability, and integration with landscape and public realm.
– The panel asks the design team to reconsider the additional height added since the previous review. In addition to the townscape impact, there will be a substantial carbon cost in placing two more storeys on top of wide span studio spaces.
– Cantilevering the studio volumes above the museum spaces will also have a carbon cost, and the panel asks if this could be avoided, or columns used instead?
– Façades that draw inspiration from industrial architecture seem the right approach, with further refinement.
– It does not think that the arches at lower levels are necessary.
– The film studios will be an energy intensive use, and more information is needed about how renewable energy generation is integrated into its design.
– Roof gardens shown at upper levels, whether external or enclosed by glazing, will create significant structural loading. The application should demonstrate whether the structure of the film studio building can support this.
– More drawings that show the building in its context would be helpful to explore and refine the architecture, including street views with existing and proposed buildings.
– In terms of architectural character, the film studios need to be considered as part of a sophisticated approach to variety and coherence across the masterplan.
– The panel recommends omission of the high line walkway, which has limited connections into the wider movement network, and adds unnecessary complexity.
– Whilst the concept of using bricks from clay excavated on site is interesting, more evidence is needed to demonstrate whether this can be achieved. This would need to include compliance with the Building Safety Act requirements for ‘higher-risk buildings’.
– The panel would encourage more articulation of the roof form, to create an attractive skyline, for example in views from Kentish Town Station.
London Screen Academy
– It is an exciting prospect for Camden to become home to, the London Screen Academy, and the panel thinks this would deserve a design review in its own right.
– The provision of a community pavilion, and use of the academy screening room as a public cinema in the holidays is welcomed.
– Architecturally, the academy building feels very different in character from the rest of the development. The level of information presented at the review did not allow for a detailed discussion, but the panel offers some preliminary comments.
– It thinks the rooftop garden / outdoor screening space on the community pavilion may not be well enough used to feel safe.
– Given the scale of buildings elsewhere in the masterplan, the panel asks if it is necessary to have basements in the London Screen Academy buildings, given the carbon cost?
Energy centre and community glasshouse
– As noted above, the panel asks the design team to consider if one of the Heathgate buildings could swap sites with the energy center, to allow greater separation between the residential blocks.
Recycling centre
– The panel understands that the recycling centre will form part of the planning application, but no information on this has been presented for review.
– It sits on one of the main access routes to the site, opposite an existing terrace of houses and St Patrick’s Primary School on Holmes Road.
– The panel requests an opportunity to comment on this at a future review, to understand how this challenging land use can be successfully accommodated in this context.
4.5 Next steps
Masterplan
The panel remains concerned about the density of development, its impact on quality of life for residents, and visual impact in local and long-distance views. It encourages collaborative working with Camden officers, to explore how the quantum of development could be reduced to ensure the scheme’s extraordinary brief results in a successful new neighbourhood.
Housing
The panel asks the design team to consider its comments on the residential buildings, including the potential to reduce their scale to be subordinate to the film studio. It would welcome a further opportunity to comment on the layout and architectural expression, potentially at a chair’s review.
Public realm
The panel is broadly supportive of the landscape and public realm strategy, with the exception of the high line, which it recommends should be omitted. It notes that greater certainty is needed that the bridge link to Hampstead Heath will be delivered. It looks forward to seeing more information on microclimate testing, and resolution of detailed designs including how tree planting will be coordinated with utility corridors.
Non-residential buildings
The panel recommends further work to refine the design of the film studios, to achieve outstanding quality commensurate with its scale and significance. This should include reconsidering the additional height added since the previous review, omission of the high line, and providing rendered views clarifying how it will be seen in the context of Kentish Town and from Parliament Hill.