At the Annual General Meeting of IARA, after lengthy discussion, the meeting finally agreed unanimously that the issue of IARA’s response to the applications for developments on Regis Road was too complex for a simple blanket response of support or objection.
There are two reasons for this – firstly, opinions within the area vary quite widely and secondly, there are many different aspects to the plans.
We agreed to run a survey of the whole Inkerman area so that we have a clear picture of members’ views about the main aspects of the application. This will inform the Association’s response to Camden.
With massive help from Gary, we drafted the questionnaire which tried to identify in a manageable way most of the major issues and gave people the opportunity for nuanced responses.
The link to the questionnaire was sent out through the WhatsApp group of 274 members, by email to 400+ addresses and in leaflet form to about 600 households, including to many blocks that have not previously been fully covered.
Having checked that all the responses are from members living in the area and within the deadline, we give below the results, based on 147 legitimate responses.
It is clear from the responses to the survey that most IARA residents who replied wish to reject the application in its present form, while welcoming some development on Regis Road, and the provision of affordable/social housing.
There is general agreement that the application and consultation process in itself prohibits a proper evaluation, regardless of the detail. Also that the scale and height of buildings is unacceptable. There is also a high level of concern about the relocation of the recycling centre and, in particular, putting flats above it, and also the environmental impact.
The chart below summarises the responses. The untabulated data is below that.
Please read the labels carefully. For example, in the first bar diagram, green does not mean approval of the application – it means agree with the proposal to reject it because of deficiencies in the process. Relocation of the recycling centre is mainly red for reject.
Please read the details of the data below the chart.
We will use the survey results as the basis of IARA’s objection on the planning portal, although this will not give the detailed statistics and will take a more narrative form. It will also cover the wider issues of risk (the extremely deep basements, fire risk from the recycling centre, cumulative construction traffic impact especially taken with other massive local building projects).
We will also need to look at yet more new documents on the portal since the deadline was further extended to 12 March, and consider whether these need a further response.
—————————————————————————————————————
Detailed data:
Process. Do you agree that the application should be rejected on the grounds that the process prohibits a proper evaluation?
78.8 Y, 12.3 no, 8.9 no opinion
Recycling Centre. Do you support or object in general to the relocation of the recycling facility to Holmes Road?
63.7 object, 19.9 approve, 16.4
Do you support or object to the provision of flats above the recycling centre?
66.4 object 15.8 approve 17.8 no opinion
Film Studio. Do you support in principle the bringing of a film studio complex to the Regis Road estate?
62.3 Y 26 N 11.6 no opinion
Given the scale of the existing proposal, do you approve or reject its construction?
83.6 reject 15.8 approve
Would you consider film studios on the site if the scale were to be considerably reduced?
73.6 Y 7.6 N 18.8 no opinion`
Heathgate Flats.
Do you approve the general provision of new homes on Heathgate
87.6 Y 9 N 3.4 no opinion
What is the maximum height of property you would approve for residential accommodation? (see chart below)
Storeys %
None 1.4
3 12.9
8 47.6
13 9.5
16 19.3
24 9.5
Should developers provide a binding commitment of “affordable” homes of at least 50% in this particular development.
77.6 Y 22.4 N
Inkerman Gardens flats.
Do you approve the general provision of new homes on Inkerman gardens
82.3 Y 11.6 N 6.1 no opinion
Should developers provide a binding commitment of “affordable” homes of at least 50% in this particular development.
76.9 Y 12.1 N
What is the maximum height of property you would approve for residential accommodation? (see chart below divided into Heathgate and Inkerman Gardens)
Storeys %
None 2.0
3 21.1
8 44,9
13 7.5
16 16.9
24 8.2
Environmental impact: Are you satisfied that these losses are acceptable?
70.8 N 16.7 Y 12.5no opinion