Objectors at the Town Hall saw the plans given the go-ahead

A MAJOR overhaul of the heating infrastructure of one of Camden’s most famous estates has been approved, despite strong opposition from residents.

The heating on the Grade II*-listed Alexandra and Ainsworth estate, the iconic brutalist building also known as Rowley Way, will change after the council approved a planning application that has garnered 1,500 objections.

Currently the estate is heated through a communal heating network in the walls, however the council wants to update the system which frequently breaks down and is “one of the worst-performing estates in terms of energy efficiency”.

A planning officer added at the meeting last Thursday evening that “maintenance is difficult” and “the heating is on between October and April” because residents can’t alter the heat individually in their flats.

The new plans will see each flat heated by radiators and the single-glazed windows swapped with vacuum double glazing.

But the estate will still use the same gas boilers to heat homes, which residents said was not in keeping with Camden’s net zero goals.

Rowley Way tenant Luke D’Silva said at a deputation at the planning meeting: “The number of objections demonstrates that these proposals are not supported.

“These applications are not only ignoring government policy but Camden’s own policies because there is no insulation, no renewable energy or decarbonisation. These omissions will lead to inefficiencies and increased costs paid by the residents.”

He added: “We need a complete retrofit and not a piecemeal one.” Gerard Ryan, another resident, said the planning application is “disgraceful” with “a lot of fiction going on”.

He said the double glazing proposed would cost far more than what is being suggested.

Resident Harry Charalambous said the failing gas boilers, one of which was out of action for six months as the parts couldn’t be found, should be replaced as part of the scheme in order to reduce future disruption.

He said: “We’re going to wait till [the boilers] fail and then we’re going to have to hobble over to something else. This is not a retrofit. There should be solar panels on the roofs, there should be replacement boilers, and the damage that is being done to this building is not worth it for what is being proposed.”

Labour ward councillor Nanouche Umeadi said the proposal “threatens [residents’] quality of life, financial stability and the architectural integrity of a world-renowned estate”.

She said “the scale of disruption” and daily impact of the works on residents is “unacceptable”.

She also believed the new intermittent heating system from the radiators would cause mould.

Cllr Umedi stressed leaseholders would carry the financial burden of the scheme.

Leaseholder Zoe Davenport said: “The existing system we have now has lasted for 50 years, it’s failing through lack of maintenance.

“I think my contribution 10 years ago was £3,000. If they put this one in now and the one that’s proposed is possibly quoted £14,000, it will more likely be £20,000. “I’m living in a two-bed flat and I’ll probably have to pay £46,000 for one heating interface unit, four radiators, some pipework and possibly damp and mould, and that’s really not terribly good value.

“We’d all much rather have a really good system installed now which has been worked out that will help the building survive for another 50 years.”

Councillors were concerned about the consultation process.

Cllr Eddie Hanson said: “It’s quite clear that the 1,500 residents objected to this application, their voices have not been heard. It is our role as representatives to ensure their voices have been heard.”

Cllr Umedi said the consultation “has not been a two-way process but more of a tick-box exercise”.

The council said it went through the “normal consultation process”.

Four members voted for the scheme, one against, and one abstained.

e