Suggestions for material that might be included in objections to the proposed UKCMRI development
You can add your comments online or email email@example.com, quoting the application reference number (2010/4721/P) in the subject line, or write a letter to London Borough of Camden, Development Control Team, FREEPOST LON 14608 London WC1H 8BR.
The deadline is October 14.
1. Not in accordance with 2003 Planning Brief and Site Allocations DPD
1. Should have 50% of floorspace as residential
2. Of which 50% should be affordable housing
3. Should include community use
4. UDP policy states that Council will seek to maximise supply of new housing
2. Proposed use as a biomedical research lab
1. Incompatible with surrounding area
2. Safety concerns if an outbreak occurs (nearby major transport hub and local schools too)
3. National planning document PPS23 states that the “precautionary principle” should be used
4. PPS23 says that such uses should be planned strategically – this has not been done
3. Urban design problems
1. Massing –refer to UDP Policy B1 – site dominates over nearby buildings. “Security reasons” have overridden other considerations and have resulted in a very large block.
2. St Paul’s Viewing corridor – refer to London Plan Policies 4B.17 and 4B.18 – building interferes with this “viewing corridor” as it is too tall
3. Lack of respect to neighbouring homes on Brill Place and Ossulston Street – refer to UDP Policies SD6, B1 and B6. Site Allocations DPD states that new building shouldn’t detract from neighbouring listed buildings and public spaces
1. Listed buildings include Levita Building, Chamberlain House, Walker House (southern block) as well as St Pancras Station and Midland Grand Hotel
4. Sunlight/daylight – refer to UDP Policies SD6 and SD7 – development would reduce sunlight/daylight enjoyed by local homes. This has impacts on the health of local people.
4. Open space pressure
1. Lots of new workers will put increased pressure on open spaces. This is contrary to UDP Policy N4.
5. On-site energy production
1. Local community would prefer to see on-site energy production link in with “district heating” plans
1. Lots of noise, dust and disturbance for local people
1. Development would increase traffic flows on local streets
1. Like at the British Library the site may have problems excavating the site
1. It would be chaos if this site had to evacuate along with other nearby uses like the station and library