Please note that this is not the official minutes of the meeting which will be created and filed shortly but, for reasons that will become clear, this is an urgent report of the main issue of the evening – IARA’s response to the proposed developments on Regis Road.
Anybody who has followed the WhatsApp exchanges over the last few days will be very aware of a major division within the membership between those who want IARA to make a clear general unified response to the development and those who do not.
The first position was crystallised by Mike Eberhardt of Willes Road who had drafted a very full and critical response which he circulated fairly shortly before the meeting and which he wanted the AGM to adopt or support.
That document is attached and it is obvious that it is extremely detailed and thoroughly researched – and extremely critical – urging a rejection of the scheme in its present form.
In opposition to the proposal that the AGM produce a clear endorsement of this document it was argued that there were two obstacles.
Firstly the scheme contains so many different aspects that people may be supportive of some of those aspects whilst critical of others. It was argued that a blanket statement was not appropriate.
Secondly, and connected with this, is the fact that there is a lack of consensus in the membership and it has been the traditional approach of IARA only to comment as an organisation when there is a consensus and this policy has been publicly announced and accepted by membership and has worked for many years.
One member, Robbie Gibbons, has been the most outspoken, although he is not alone, in promoting what some have described as a “pro growth and pro intensivisation model“ asserting that the economic benefits of creating jobs as a consequence of the Film Quarter aspect was to be welcomed and the creation of flats, even if extremely tall ones, was also to be welcomed.
The executive – ie us, Debby and David with support from Paul on the evening, in the weeks of the WhatsApp discussions, have argued that IARA should maintain its policy that it only comments as an organisation when there is a consensus of views and we do not operate on the basis of majority decision-making.
We also raised the question of how voting could be undertaken since, outside of a meeting, there is no current mechanism for that.
It was also argued that, although the WhatsApp Group is now 268 strong, it still cannot claim to be representative of the whole membership. Our email list is over 400 but that includes many of the WhatsApp members so we cannot simply add the two numbers together. What is relevant is that notices are hand delivered to most homes in the area inviting people to meetings, to look at the website and to join the WhatsApp group.
And in particular, last night, at the AGM itself, although it was extremely well attended with over 70 people, there were many apologies and we were aware that other others who did not formally send apologies were also unable to attend.
Connected with that was the fact that there was no clear motion placed before the meeting on which to vote save for the strongly implied one that the meeting should simply adopt Mike’s letter and position.
That led to the point being made repeatedly that this document that it was proposed to be adopted had not been seen by many people in IARA and at the meeting and certainly not digested in its full complexity.
The meeting was therefore conducted on the basis that there would initially be a vote on whether or not IARA should that evening adopt a simple, single position or not.
If the vote had been that it should, then there would be a second vote on whether that should be carried out by simply adopting Mike’s document.
After about an hour’s very civilised and constructive contributions from over a dozen members, the first vote was called. In the event by that time, there was not a single vote in favour of moving to a vote on the document.
That needs to be seen in the context the it was agreed that IARA does need to make some statement as a body about the proposal while also emphasising the importance that each individual person goes onto the planning portal and registers their personal views.
The point was made and confirmed by the councillors who were present, that there is some degree of simple counting of objections and that 200 people voting in a block, which is evident from the portal, counts as one vote and so would IARA’s.
It is more nuanced than that and the point was made that members of the planning committee who need to decide this issue will pay extra attention to contributions from bodies, especially a respected and established one like IARA.
A key fact which was clarified during the meeting was about the deadline for comments. This was originally set for 28 December. Largely as a result of strong submissions and protests from IARA and others, that was extended but the new deadline is 2 February. Accordingly, if IARA wishes to enter an objection, there is considerable time pressure – hence the urgent nature of this report.
The point was made, however that it will be open to organisations and people to make protests and objections by email later and outside of the portal and they will be considered by councillors on the planning committee which will apparently be making this decision in the spring.
In order for there to be a response which reflects both the complexity of the scheme and the diversity of opinion, it is now proposed that elements of the scheme are identified and people are invited effectively to vote on each aspect.
This could be done, preferably by adding an emoji to a message that will be put on the WhatsApp Group as the quickest and easiest way of counting votes but also by email or separate comment.
But this immediately raises the fact that the responses that people may wish to make are not black and white, for and against and it may be that we could invite people either to indicate that IARA should support an element of the plan 👍, oppose it 👎🏻or express serious concern about it ❓– these could be put forward in totals for each element of the development plan.
It would seem to be a good starting point – and this is very much open to discussion – to list the various aspects of the scheme as follows:
And this picks up the numbered objections in Mike‘s document while reforming that and simplifying it. It also respects the objection which is far longer and more detailed, filed by KTNF – Kentish Town Neighbourhood Forum – which is also attached and available on the WhatsApp Group.
Since both those documents will inevitably be buried beneath subsequent postings, they are attached to this report.
But is must be added here very clearly that both documents give details of the objections made with the factual background as understood and argued by the authors. There is not shortcut and they need to be read alongside any voting system we put in place.
Firstly the plan to move the recycling centre from its present open site in the middle of the whole area to a contained site abutting Holmes Rd but with entrance from Regis Road with a block of flats to be created on top of it.
Secondly, an issue which attracts a diversity of opinions is the plan for the studio block to be a very substantial building indeed with five floors of studio space, each of them the size of a traditional film studio.
The third aspect of the plan is the height of the proposed flats which breaches many of the guidance and rules that Camden had previously accepted and announced as policy.
The fourth relates to the nature of the planned housing with the loss of 50% affordable housing promise. No provision for housing for the elderly and no provision for necessary enhanced healthcare.
Fifth aspect which relates to the environmental impact with a destruction of half of the tree cover on the site contrary to Camden’s own guidelines.
A sixth aspect which may be logically prior to the others but is more general, procedural and abstract refers to the whole procedure relating to the consultation. For example from KTNF: The incomplete and inaccurate information coming too late to allow for sufficiently detailed and inclusive responses. Lack of thorough transport analysis.
The lack of a Masterplan and impossibility of considering the scheme without Joseph Homes development being included, noting the disagreement between these developers. The effect of cumulative developments. Objections on the grounds of contravention of the Kentish Town Neighbourhood Plan. Doubts about the economic viability.
We are working with others to create a neat and simple technical solution to this suggested voting system.
Even with the 2 February deadline, we do have the rest of this week and the weekend to process this.
—————————————— 0————————————–
Objection circulated by Mike Elberhardt – also labelled CFQ
To: Development Management
Camden Council
[Your Address]
Date: 2 January 2026
Reference: 2025/4861/P & 2025/5084/L
Subject: Objection to Planning Applications 2025/4861/P and 2025/5084/L – Proposed
Redevelopment at Regis Road (Camden Film Quarter)
Dear Case Officer,
We are writing to formally object to the above planning applications for the demolition
of existing buildings and redevelopment of land at Regis Road, Kentish Town, to provide
film studios, residential accommodation, a relocated materials recycling facility, and
associated uses (referred to as the “Camden Film Quarter”).
While the principle of regenerating the underutilized industrial land is supported, the
current proposal represents a significant overdevelopment that breaches key policies in
the London Plan 2021 (including Policies D9, G6, G7, SI2, T4, and T6), the Camden
Local Plan 2017 (as amended by emerging policies in the Proposed Submission Draft
2025), the adopted Regis Road Area Guidance Supplementary Planning Document
(SPD, March 2025), the Kentish Town Neighbourhood Plan (2022), the Town and
Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, and
the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The reasons are set out below, with
reference to the submitted application documents.
Non-Compliance with Tall Buildings Policies (London Plan Policy D9; Camden
emerging Policy D2; Regis Road Area Guidance SPD)
The proposed buildings reach heights of up to 24 storeys (113.5m AOD) and 22 storeys
(109.3m AOD), as detailed in the Design and Access Statement and Townscape and
Visual Impact Assessment (TVIA). These heights significantly exceed the prevailing
context of 3–6 storeys in the surrounding residential areas and do not comply with
Policy D9 Part C, which requires tall buildings to:
* Respond positively to local character and spatial hierarchy;
*Achieve exemplary architectural quality and appropriate massing; and
*Avoid adverse impacts on strategic views and heritage assets.
The block-like massing of the proposed Camden Film Studios building, as illustrated in
the submitted visuals, appears bulky and does not integrate sensitively with the
surrounding townscape. The TVIA indicates that the proposals would introduce
prominent new elements in the background of London View Management Framework
(LVMF) View 3A.1 (Parliament Hill to St Paul’s Cathedral), contrary to Policy D9 C(3)
requirements to protect strategic views. The heights also exceed the parameters
suggested in earlier site guidance within the Kentish Town Planning Framework and
Regis Road Area Guidance SPD.
Harm to Biodiversity and Tree Canopy (London Plan Policies G6 and G7; Camden
emerging Policies NE1 and NE3; Environment Act 2021)
The proposal would result in significant harm to existing biodiversity and urban
greening, contrary to policies requiring protection of trees and achievement of
biodiversity net gain:
* The Arboricultural Impact Assessment acknowledges the removal of
approximately 50% of existing on-site trees. This conflicts with Policy G7 and
Camden’s commitments to increase canopy cover.
* The proposed planting strategy relies heavily on non-native species (83% of
trees, 66% of shrubs, and 62% of herbs/grasses, as set out in the Landscape
Strategy), which does not maximise benefits to local wildlife or comply with
Policy G6 requirements for native species to support habitat connectivity.
* The extensive basements (up to 30 metres deep, as described in the Basement
Impact Assessment) would limit soil volumes, preventing the successful
establishment of deep-rooting canopy trees and undermining long-term urban
greening and the mandatory 10% biodiversity net gain required under the
Environment Act 2021 (as assessed via the submitted Biodiversity Metric).
Deficiencies in the Environmental Statement (EIA Regulations 2017, Schedule 4)
The submitted Environmental Statement (ES) is inadequate and legally vulnerable:
* It fails to include a proper cumulative assessment with other committed
developments, notably the anticipated Joseph Homes scheme on adjacent land.
This omission prevents a full evaluation of combined impacts on
daylight/sunlight, townscape, and local infrastructure, contrary to Schedule 4
requirements.
* The ES does not adequately assess whole-life carbon emissions, including
significant embodied carbon from the extensive reinforced concrete required for
deep basements, contrary to London Plan Policy SI2 and Camden’s Net Zero by
2030 target.
Transport and Infrastructure Impacts (London Plan Policies T1, T3, T4, and T6)
The Transport Assessment (TA) does not demonstrate that transport impacts can be
acceptably mitigated:
* Trip generation appears underestimated due to reliance on outdated data and
inappropriate TRICS parameters, as noted in the TA methodology.
* Servicing of the proposed materials recycling facility relies on unproven
mechanical turntables for HGV movements, with no robust evidence of
operational reliability on the Strategic Road Network.
* The proposal would intensify pressure on Kentish Town and Gospel Oak stations
but provides no secured contributions towards accessibility improvements (e.g.,
lifts), despite the addition of significant new population.
* The car-free approach (with car parking provision limited to blue badge bays only,
as set out in the Design and Access Statement and supporting drawings) would
lead to increased demand and displacement pressure on on-street parking
within the surrounding Controlled Parking Zone, without proposed mitigation
measures such as resident permit restrictions or contributions to CPZ
enhancements, contrary to Policy T4 requirements to fully assess and mitigate
transport impacts.
Incompatible Land Uses and Amenity Impacts (London Plan Policies D14 and
SI8; Camden Policy CE4)
The relocation of the materials recycling facility directly beneath residential
accommodation is incompatible and would cause unacceptable amenity impacts:
* Risks of odour, noise, vibration, dust, and air quality issues for future residents
(including social housing) and nearby sensitive uses (schools and nurseries),
contrary to Policy D14.
* Potential fire safety risks associated with waste facilities are material, given
national incident statistics.
* The proposed facility is substantially smaller than the existing Regis Road site,
failing to demonstrate equivalent or greater throughput capacity as required for
re-provision under waste safeguarding policies.
Heritage Impacts (NPPF Section 16; London Plan Policy HC1)
The scale and massing of the proposals would cause harm to the setting of nearby
designated heritage assets, including the Grade II listed Kentish Town Police Station
(subject to associated listed building consent application 2025/5084/L), through visual
intrusion and loss of contextual openness.
Conclusion
The adverse impacts of the scheme – including policy non-compliance on height,
biodiversity loss, inadequate environmental assessment, transport constraints
(including unmitigated parking displacement), incompatible uses, and heritage harm –
would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the proposed benefits. The proposal
therefore fails the presumption in favour of sustainable development (NPPF paragraph
11) and should be refused.
We urge the Planning Committee to refuse permission.
Yours sincerely,
—————————————- 0 ——————————-
KTNF Objection to the Camden Film Quarter Planning Application
2025/4861/P for the redevelopment of Regis Road