The Belsize Village “Streatery” scheme in action

• THE decision by Camden to grant a licence for a second streatery at Belsize Terrace for six months without proper, transparent consultation has angered many residents including myself.

The streatery has converted the terrace into an outdoor dining area, clogged up in the weekends by hordes of diners arriving with their cars from all over north west London.

A predominantly residential public space has been converted, by stealth, to a private al fresco terrace for six months without a thorough evaluation of consequences and implications for the area and its residents.

At a time when the pandemic has elevated the need for more public spaces, our unique public space has been converted to a mesh of tables and chairs, denying residents a much needed area where people of all ages come to roam, meet others and enjoy the free space.

Not everyone has a garden to stretch and get some air. Not everyone goes to the square for a meal – in fact no one used to.

What is more upsetting are the pictures of councillors being photographed with the organisers of the streatery, the Belsize Village Business Association. Councillors show little interest in engaging with residents despite my and others’ repeated efforts.

And only a limited number of local businesses benefit from the extra tables. Is the streatery, mostly benefiting a couple of restaurants, disadvantaging those further from the square?

There is no excuse by Camden to force a change of use of an important public space at the expense of residents’ needs and ignore key implications such as car traffic, lack of parking for residents, CCTV monitoring, overloaded rubbish containers, and a densely-packed square during the weekends where social distancing is impossible. This represents a failure by Camden to meet their obligations to residents.

We all have some sympathy with helping restaurants during the pandemic and have done our bit in supporting them. We would tolerate some extra tables carefully located outside premises for a couple of months until indoor dining is allowed again.

But granting a licence for six months to occupy practically the whole square with tables, bulky planters and several containers for the restaurant rubbish every night is an abuse and an insult to residents.

As residents we have the responsibility to protect our precious terrace from being converted from a lively residential square to a commercial, high-traffic, dining area resembling a busy high street.

We need to claim back our square and to not let its character change by insisting that the streatery is limited and unwound once indoor dining is allowed.

NIKOLAOS PANIGIRTZOGLOU NW3