An alternative plan for the site that has been put forward by the Save Museum Street group

• CAMDEN planners will be showing the planning committee councillors around the One Museum Street and adjacent development site before midday on November 4.

They will inevitably stress the apparent dilapidated state of the buildings and will “explain” why the developer’s scheme is wonderful and that it should be approved when they formally consider the application on Thursday November 16.

Doubtless councillors will be told how unfortunate it is that the developer’s 74 metre-high ugly and bulky office tower will seriously damage the adjacent conservation areas, countless listed buildings and precious London views, not least of Bedford Square and the British Museum.

They might also explain to them that a building earmarked in the Bloomsbury Conservation Area as of considerable value, unfortunately, has also to be swept away.

The planners will claim how this is justified because of the new homes that are planned as part of the development on West Central Street and Museum Street.

The fact that 26 dwellings also will be demolished, and the new housing is so badly designed that it will only be suitable for troglodytes, since 85 per cent of all habitable rooms will not have basic standard daylight and no sunlight, and a staggering 50 per cent will have no daylight at all, is apparently also unfortunate.

But this will be “explained” away by the bland assurance that this is due to the difficulties of designing new housing in a tight urban context. In this constant nocturnal environment, residents will be able to grow mushrooms, but not read the paper!

The poor standards of lighting are a direct consequence of poor architectural design, bending to demands to max-out revenue from the site while simultaneously flouting policy requirements not to position a tall building on the south side of a site where, indisputably, it will cast a dark shadow over nearby properties.

The huge floor plate of the proposed new tower means that more housing becomes a requirement, and the developers have chosen to squeeze all of this onto the conservation area block where it sits incongruously alongside the listed buildings, casting its dark shadow and necessitating the demolition of a historic stable block which by Camden Council’s own evaluation, contributes significantly to the conservation area.

There are many ways that good quality housing could be provided, if a different development approach were adopted.

Such an alternative has already been presented by the Save Museum Street campaign in its publication, An Alternative Proposal, showing how good quality housing, including more units at social rents, could be feasible as part of a better-imagined and financially-viable scheme that reflects the needs of the wider community, including residents, businesses, commuters and tourists.

The planners certainly will have no intention to refer to the substantive merits of this proposal and will make sure any such discussions will be completely off-limits as they are highly embarrassing.

Unless councillors are prepared to use their independent judgment, we fear that the planning decision on November 16 is likely to be a foregone conclusion.

All too often the views of senior planning officers appear to be indistinguishable from those of the developers; and the committee has a proven track record of approving large-scale developments within the borough, despite huge opposition from their electorate and in contradiction to a raft of fundamental planning policies.

Hopefully more readers will feel motivated to write in to their local councillors over this deplorable One Museum Street development, urging them to object, despite all the planning jargon and utterly disingenuous planning justifications that their senior planners employ.

HELEN McMURRAY
Secretary
South Bloomsbury Tenants’ & Residents’ Association