People living at Haddo House say their views have been ignored

RESIDENTS accused Camden Council of “walking over local people” and failing to take public feedback on board in its decision to green-light two affordable housing schemes in Kentish Town.

Known as Homes for Small Sites, the new developments will see 10 social rent homes built on a car park adjacent to Haddo House in Highgate Road and 18 new homes – seven at social rent – in place of garages on the Raglan Street estate.

While current residents on both estates say they support the need for new housing, they criticised the planned designs and council “consultation” process at a decision meeting on March 11 – before the planning committee voted unanimously to move forward with the schemes anyway.

Chair of Raglan TRA Andrew St John told councillors: “You move goalposts, sometimes you lie, you change facts, you pretend to consult while all the time it just seems you’re pursuing your own agenda.

“It feels like you’re walking over local people. I say, no wonder the people round here feel democracy doesn’t work.”

The Raglan Street estate development – objected to by some 50 residents and local groups – is a four-storey building comprising seven social rent homes and 11 at so-called affordable rents, as well as gates around the estate – which current residents were in favour of to combat anti-social behaviour.

Speaking to the New Journal after the council’s verdict, Mr St John emphasised that nobody he knew was opposed to new social housing being built there, but instead took issue with the plan’s overbearing design, pink and grey brick material and how the council engaged with local people.

It feels like there’s a way they could have done it that left us all feeling OK about it. Instead, it’s a kick in the teeth,” he said, adding that many on the estate feel that “Labour are not for working people”.

“[Labour councillors] are just paving the way for probably the scariest government ever in this country, in my opinion. Please, just listen to us – please don’t treat us like we’re dirt.”

Raglan Street resident Kate Barker, whose house will be overshadowed by the development, criticised how the council had engaged with the community.

“I felt really crushed by the decision,” she told the New Journal.

“Everybody has said we totally accept the need for more affordable homes, we don’t object to building here in principle.

“But it’s the height – the mass of it is really domineering. If they put in something three-storey with a dormer roof, people wouldn’t be objecting.”

She detailed how a technical document about the light impact of the new development was uploaded to the online portal just days before the decision meeting, meaning residents were unable to properly review it.

“It felt like they were trying to push this through the back door without scrutiny. The consultation wasn’t meaningful in any way. People feel that Camden is just steamrollering these plans through. It’s really the process, I think.”

The second scheme in Highgate Road similarly faced some 70 objections, criticising the new building’s six-storey height and design, which juts out beyond the front of Haddo House.

In an email to councillors after the decision, Highgate Road estate vice chair Foulla Pashkaj said they “should be embarrassed” by how the process was handled.

“Two years of meetings, consultations, and promises, all wasted. From the start this appears to have been a done deal and residents were treated like pawns for your CVs,” she added.

A Camden Council spokesperson said: “Camden’s New Homes for Small Sites Programme aims to build affordable homes on underused council land for residents on our housing waiting list.

“The first two planning applications under this programme were recently approved which is set to build 28 new council homes.

“A pre-application consultation was carried out by Camden’s Community Investment Partnership team before the applications were submitted.

“Over several years, residents had regular opportunities to share feedback on the proposals with changes made in response where possible, including improvements to the local area.”