Did You Know?
Ama theme has private reply feature, that only admins can see.
Ama theme has private reply feature, that only admins can see.
As many people know, the battle to save the character of Bloomsbury at the important junction of High Holborn and Museum Street has been fought valiantly for over three years by a coalition known as Save Museum Street. This campaign group comprised individual residents, local community and residents’ associations, Camden Climate Emergency, as well as the Bedford Estates, Bloomsbury’s largest landowner. The campaign has been supported by literally hundreds of people, by other Community and Residents Associations, by Friends’ groups, the LSE and other businesses and by the three Holborn and Covent Garden ward councillors.
The planning application for the demolition of Selkirk House and redevelopment of One Museum Street was hugely controversial. It was objected to by numerous heritage bodies including Historic England, the Victorian Society, SAVE Britain’s Heritage, the Georgian Group, and the Bloomsbury Conservation Area Advisory Committee. The fundamental issue of demolition – when retrofitting is preferred – was raised again and again. Over 500 individual objections were received. Julian Fulbrook, elected councillor for Holborn and Covent Garden, spoke eloquently against the development at the committee meeting.
Despite so much valid opposition, the application was approved by Camden’s Planning Committee on 23rd November 2023. The harm to heritage was seen to be adequately offset by the social and economic benefits proposed.
In defiance, Jim Monahan, a local resident, took Camden Council to court in an attempt to get a judicial review of the planning process for this site. He lost his bid at the latest hearing at the High Court on 10 September 2024, at which Ms. Justice Lang ruled that there were no grounds for the judicial review to go ahead. She added that “Despite the strong objections, this court cannot subject its view on a planning decision, but was the decision made correctly.
Meanwhile, the developers (Simten) have obligations to fulfil, which go hand in hand with the planning approval given by the local authority, Camden Council. During the Planning Committee meeting on 23 November 2023, the issue was raised
about the very poor consultation process carried out by the developer. This led to further discussion about how the local community would need to be properly engaged in the demolition and construction process.
Simten are obliged to set up a Community Working Group as part of the Section 106 legal agreement, which provides a way for the community to have a say in the Construction Management Plan. This in turn describes in detail how the construction
process will be managed, and how the impact of development on the nearby community can be catered or mitigated.
According to a transcript of the Committee Meeting, Bethany Cullen, Camden’s Head of Development Management stated clearly that “If there are reasonable requests or reasonable comments or things that we think that can be done to improve the situation, improve the build, mitigate the impact on local people and the transport network, then we will push for those changes to be made.”
Bethany also said that “it’s important to learn from those lessons [from other construction working groups that haven’t gone well) and think about how we can do it better to make sure that people feel that they’re properly engaged and what they’re
saying is being listened to rather than it just being, you know, sort of lip service consultation.”
At the same meeting, Louise McLoughlin, Camden’s Legal Adviser said that Planning Obligations “requires that they [the developers] can’t submit the first draft [of the Construction Management Plan] to Camden for approval unless they can
demonstrate that the working group has been involved and their comments have been taken on board…as long as they relate to aspects of the Construction Management Plan…. There’s a requirement that it’s not just a first draft submitted and
then they’re consulted, they are, they are included in that consultation before that stage.”
So, this Community Working Group is important, and has some power within the development process.
An introductory meeting was held at Phoenix Gardens on 8 July 2024. It was organised by Kanda, the PR company employed by Simten [the developer] in order to kick off the process of managing the ongoing relationship with the community. This did not start well. The first draft of the Minutes sent out was inaccurate. Several attendees were not registered as having been at the meeting (even though they spoke during it). Not all attendees received the minutes. These were inadequate and did not reflect the content or character of the meeting.
Recent discussions
Discussion has taken place how best to create a proper liaison process with the developer, bearing in mind the conflict that has taken place over the past few years and the huge local opposition to this hugely inappropriate office block, which ignores the sensitivity of its location, let alone the concerns of the resident population. It has been agreed that the group formed should be to referred to as a Community Liaison Group. The community felt that the developer (and contractors, when appointed) should “liaise” with the community, and that the group will not be “working” for the developer, and (as might be implied) acquiescing with their aims and ambitions. Meetings have been held between Simten and representatives of the community to try to find common ground and agree Terms of Reference as to how the engagement process will proceed. These have now been formulated and provide a framework for future discussion as the construction proceeds.
Should the appeal succeed, all this would have to be put on hold until the original application is reviewed. But there is no guarantee of success
The developer’s website
The SMS team consistently pointed out that the website initially produced by the developer to deal with the Construction Management Plan, which hijacked the words “community” for their purposes, was insensitive to the fact there has been such massive antagonism to the tower block proposal. It gave the impression that the community actually endorsed the unrealistic and unwanted images of a new office block in this location. This has now been removed. Information about the Community Working Group can now be accessed from the Project website.
However, despite this concession to the community, it was felt that it was wrong to have as the ONLY means of communication between developer and the community, a website designed and managed by the developer’s PR company. Being employed by the developer, Kanda will need to do their bidding. They cannot, by necessity, be neutral. They will not be promoting the community’s concerns. There will inevitably be a bias – of images chosen, of text written – the intention being to underline how the development is a good idea, irrelevant of the feelings of local people who think otherwise.
A community website
It is for that reason that we have decided to set up a community website, run by members of the community, not employees of the developer. The website will provide practical information about CLG meetings and the schedule of works, once the demolition and building process commences. It will publish and / or provide links to all important documents that the developer and contractor are obliged to provide.
But – in addition – it will allow the following,-
*Ideas for mitigating the impact of the development could be posted. These in turn
could be useful for discussion at CLG meetings.
*Individual comments can be posted, and a dialogue ensue, which is not possible
on the developer’s website – this can only ever only reflect their view and provide
limited information.
*Images can be uploaded which reflect the true situation as the demolition and construction progresses. These may illustrate concerns about traffic management, for example. Or an issue noticed by a passer-by. People who live nearby will have a hands-on perspective of the work in progress situation
The Construction Working Group is, by necessity, a small group which is intended to represent businesses, institutions as well as residents. But individuals need to have a place to feel they have a voice, and this community-run website is intended to provide that.
The Museum Street CLG website has been launched to include community feedback. To be able to upload comments, you will need to register to the website, thereby providing a name and email address. These will not be passed on to any third party, but
will allow us to mail out important news, as the redevelopment of the site moves from ‘stripping out’ to ‘demolition’ to ‘construction’ to ‘fitting out’ over the next five years.
There will inevitably be massive disruption, noise and inconvenience for anyone who lives or works in the nearby area. The community need to have their say about the Construction Management Plan, and as this is an evolving document, meetings with the community will continue throughout the project.
The MSCLG.com website – which has been designed to permit contributions from the community – can become a useful source of information and comment. This will hopefully encourage the developer to focus properly on the community’s
concerns during the hugely intrusive process of building a massive, alien, office tower block in the heart of historic Bloomsbury.