‘The new development at Murphy’s Yard should be withdrawn and rethought’

• WITH disappointment we write to explain that we have both submitted objections to the planning application for the new development at Murphy’s Yard, in the hope that the application will be withdrawn and rethought by Murphy’s in the interest of the community.

We are unable to support the application as it currently stands because the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring community.

First, we are concerned that the applicant has chosen to propose just 35 per cent affordable housing and just 21 per cent low-cost rent (London affordable rent), with no homes at true social rents at all. This does not reflect local needs and is not policy compliant.

The size mix of homes is also far from what Camden Council planning policy requires, with 88 per cent of the proposed 825 homes proposed as one- and two-bedroom flats, and only 14 homes as four-bedroom family homes.

A large site like this ought to make a significant contribution to local problems of overcrowding and housing need.

Secondly, the scale and type of development is much larger than the planning framework requires and would result in excessive height and bulk for a large number of the proposed buildings.

This is out of context for the area and would have unacceptable impact on the community’s daylight and views.

We remain further concerned about the environmental implications of the proposal, noting that the “Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessment” shows that initial construction of the development will result in 1.9million tonnes of CO2 emissions – more than double Camden’s entire Scope 1 (direct) and 2 (indirect) emissions over a year. This directly contravenes Camden’s ambitious commitments to achieve net zero by 2030.

Furthermore no consideration has been made of the impact that the development would have on the Mortimer Terrace Nature Reserve, while there are also insufficient measures to protect the biodiversity on the site.

Lastly, we are also concerned that the construction on the site would significantly increase traffic along local roads and we specifically object, too, to the planned entrance to the development for vehicles at Gordon House Road, which will create a new dangerous junction there.

Given these multiple fundamental failures to meet policy requirements, we believe that this development should be recommended for refusal at the earliest possible stage and the applicant urged to work again with the community on a redesign of the scheme.

However we believe that withdrawal of these plans, a rethink, and renewed good-faith engagement with the community could provide a strong basis for a good development, with long-term profits, compliant with both neighbourhood plans and the planning framework.

We hope that such a proposal could be put forward by Murphy’s in the future, and could enjoy strong community support.

CLLR SIÂN BERRY
Leader

CLLR LORNA JANE RUSSELL, Deputy Leader
Camden Green Group