KTNF responses to Camden Film Quarter
During the response to the Camden Film Quarter application, KTNF commissioned an independent consultant John Russell Transport Planning to analyse the planning application and Environmental Statement.
The report concluded:
* The Transport Assessment and Environmental Statement for the Proposed Development are fundamentally flawed.
* Baseline traffic and transport conditions are unreliable due to conflation of the Application Site with the wider growth area, outdated or inappropriate data, absence of site-specific surveys, and missing
road safety information.
* Trip generation and mode share forecasts are materially underestimated, relying on unrepresentative Census data, flawed “car-free” assumptions, and poorly filtered TRICS data.
*Car parking demand is underestimated through circular reasoning, ignoring overspill and informal parking patterns.
*Environmental impacts are assessed using internally inconsistent and unsupported traffic forecasts, with no transparent methodology or credible evidence base.
*Collectively, these deficiencies render the transport and highway conclusions unsound, preventing any reliable assessment of the Proposed Development’s impacts on highway safety or the local
transport network.
*Therefore in accordance with the NPPF paragraph 116, the planning application should be refused.
With the extra crowdfunding money, we commissioned a noise and vibration report from Miller Goodall, which analysed the noise assessments from the planning application and Environmental Statement.
The report concluded:
* The surveys were carried out during the school holidays.
* No long-term surveys were carried out at the nearest existing noise-sensitive receptors to ‘Station House’ and the proposed recycling centre (e.g. 20-22 Holmes Road).
* No survey details have been provided (e.g. instrumentation, weather, set-up, etc.).
*No discussion of survey uncertainty has been provided.
*There is a discrepancy between some of the baseline values presented in the NIA and the ES Chapter.
*There is concern that even with standard mitigation measures, noise and vibration during the demolition and construction phase are likely to be significant.
*No details of the recycling centre operating hours have been provided.
* No operational assessment of the proposed recycling centre has been undertaken in accordance with BS 4142:2014+A1:2019 ‘Methods for rating and assessing industrial and
commercial sound’.
*There is concern that the required sound insulation for the residential units above the recycling centre is not sufficient.
* There is concern that the required sound insulation for the recycling centre and the film studio (including associated plant) is not sufficient.
KTNF was concerned about the processes and apparent lack of transparency involved in the planning application and wrote to the Camden Council Planning Committee:
It outlined:
*Lack of independent design advice
*Difficult to locate documentation
*Missing/unclear information in new documents submitted
*Lack of clarity about what is actually part of the planning application and what is ‘wishful’ contextualisation
*Misrepresentation that the use of the access road via the UPS site has been agreed for the film studio building
*Missing information on drainage and mains infrastructure
*Incorrect baselines, further missing site-specific surveys, and incorrect historical data presented within the transport analysis.
*KTNF requests that Camden rejects the Yoo Capital Camden Film Quarter application in its present form to enable the developer to address community and institutional concerns and return with revised, complete and more accessible documentation.
KTNF was asked whether there had been any Design Review Panel analysis on the scheme, as had occurred with Murphy and Raglan Street. Following investigations, we discovered there had been reviews – but that these hadn’t been published by Camden Council. Some time later we received the reports which were released from a Freedom of Information request.
The Design Review Panel had concluded that the design and buildings were far too big for the site – and that a lot more work had to be done on the application. It favoured a joint submission including the neighbouring Joseph Homes site, which has yet to come as a planning application.
We also wrote to Camden Planning reminding that controversial decisions cannot be made in the period up to an election.
We received a letter in the last week outlining that the decision by the planning committee had been delayed until after the local elections and most probably be on 4 June.
KTNF has responded with a substantial number of objections to Yoo Capital’s planning application for the Camden Film Quarter.
Work is ongoing on a professional traffic assessment.
Kentish Town Neighbourhood Forum 