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