293-299, 301-305 KENTISH TOWN ROAD AND 8 HOLMES ROAD, LONDON NW5 2TJ Application no: 2024/4116/P Officer: Daren Zuk
Submission by IARA – The Inkerman Area Residents Association of 31 Alma Street, London NW5 3DH Chair: Debby Hyams, Secretary: David Jockelson.
IARA represents the residents of the area of Kentish Town that includes this site. We have been accepted by Camden for over 40 years as genuinely representative. We consult with over 400 members and have an extremely active WhatsApp group of 250 members.
We accept that (17.2) “The proposed hotel will bring a vacant building back into use, re-providing employment in a key area of the Borough” but the reality of the consequences has not been thought through properly and the officer has unrealistically relied on promises and hopes.
We adopt the objection of Kentish Town Neighbourhood Forum and in addition we object on the basis of our very detailed local knowledge and experience which is probably not available to the officer or the committee.
Referring to the Agenda Document for Planning Committee, 03/04/2025 19:00
Impact of Hotel Use: Transport • KTNF objected saying that the increased traffic impacts from pick up/drop off will cause increased traffic and congestion on Holmes Road, particularly when combined with food delivery drivers gathering outside McDonald’s and the pub opposite, The Old Farmhouse.
Officer response: “An assessment of the transport impacts resulting from the proposal, including mitigation measures and planning obligations are outlined in Section 11 (Transport) of the report. Given the relatively small scale of the hotel and the anticipation that the vast majority of guests will not arrive by vehicle, the impacts to vehicular traffic on Holmes Road will be minimal.”
KTNF: Clients of the hotel will cause noise and disturbance to area residents
Officer response: that impacts of the hotel use would be mitigated through the submission of a Hotel Operational Management Plan
9.4 The hotel would create some additional activity, but it is not considered that it would create significant noise or disturbance if properly managed and mitigated through submission of a Hotel Operational Management Plan, and Servicing & Waste Management Plan. Submission of the final Management Plan will ensure that the hotel is properly managed, minimising impacts to neighbouring occupiers from employees and guests of the hotel.
We say: This is badly misinformed and naively relies on Management Plans. Has the officer considered carefully and consulted with local residents about the ongoing reality of Management Plans? These are already in place in very similar hostels like The Stay Club just down Holmes Road. At that project, promises regarding “guest behaviour” have been ignored for years and Camden has no power to enforce. The result is intolerable noise nuisance and dangerous chaos, with groups of 50-100 students and school-age young people occupying pavements and spilling into roadways dangerously and at late hours of the evening and night. This is on a quieter stretch of Holmes Road and where there are night time staff.
For this to happen at a hotel (effectively a hostel) with minimal if any reception staff on duty and on the much narrower pavements of Holmes Road, right on the corner with the High Street, would create a seriously dangerous situation. Committee members might like to imagine and take responsibility for the likelihood of serious or fatal accidents. This is simply not an appropriate place for a student or backpackers hostel which, given the room sizes proposed, this is likely to be. We invite the members to visit the site and see just how narrow the pavement is – it is wholly impractical for more than a few arrivals.
Coach Parking and Taxis 11.25 The submitted Transport Statement states: ‘With respect to coach parking, this is not expected due to the scale and nature of the hotel and the fact it will not provide any ancillary features that could otherwise generate a need for larger group and coach bookings (e.g. there are no conference facilities or similar).’ 11.26 However, Officers are concerned over the possibility of the hotel attracting the arrival of coach parties (which may be outside the applicant’s control) causing delays and safety issues in the local area. Therefore, a Coach Free planning obligation will be secured by S.106 agreement stating that no coach party bookings will be accepted and a ban on customers being picked up or dropped off by coach at any time directly outside the hotel, in accordance with Camden Local Plan Policy E3 (Tourism – paragraph 5.60)
We say: This obligation will not be enforced. School, tour and student groups will inevitably arrive by coach.
Employment loss: Executive Summary ii) “The application meets the policy tests of Local Plan Policy E2, which seeks to protect existing employment space within the borough. The over two year-long marketing evidence prior to the submission of the application, the void period at the site, market trends in the area, and the attempt to refurbish the site for Page 34 continued business use demonstrate a lack of market demand. The site has been unable to attract prospective office tenants during the marketing period.”
We say - this observation is nullified as later it is admitted at 7.7 that a significant factor was the closure of Kentish Town Underground Station during this time – which has now reopened. Additionally the asking rent is higher than comparable local rent levels. 7.8
KTNF objection: Employment Impacts • Concern over the loss of potential jobs due to the change of use. • Reduction in the number of employees on site would result in negative impacts on the local economy.
Not answered by the officer who refers to paragraphs 7.19 and 7.20 where it is admitted that Net jobs lost (FT jobs expected in employment use minus FT jobs in new (hotel) use): 146 – 50 (from application form) = 96 FT jobs. 7.15 Full time jobs lost 96.
We comment: This is completely misleading and naively accepts the assertion that there will be 50 FT jobs. This is most unlikely in running a hostel with minimal reception facilities. Realistically a maximum of 20 PT jobs. So net loss 126
Consultation : 4.3 “Objections were received from at least 7 individuals”. There is no mention that we at the Inkerman Area Residents Association submitted a detailed objection and, as mentioned above, Camden have for many years accepted that we accurately represent the view of local residents. We consulted with over 400 members. There was nearly unanimous objection.
7.17 Preferred Use for Residential. “Policy H1 (a) and (d) regard housing as the priority land use of the Local Plan and make housing the top priority when considering the future of unused and underused land and buildings. It is recognised that Policy H1 is worded in such a way as to require consideration of housing for the future of unused buildings but does not prevent applications being submitted for other uses, and the Council would not have a strong policy basis for refusing an application at this site for an alternative use to housing.”
We comment: we strongly urge the committee to refuse this application and encourage proper home provision which is much more appropriate to the site and which Camden so badly needs. Why is there no proper exploration of this possibility?
