BA Deputation to Camden Development Control

Backdated from previous BA website

This relates to a planning application by St Mungos hostel in Southampton Row to continue use of this building as a hostel including accommodation for drug users; Click title to read here or navigate to ‘Out files’-deputations

Bloomsbury Association to Development Control Sub Committee LB Camden.  25th March 2004 Camden Town Hall

Deputation


Application Ref:  2003/3360/P
Associated Ref:  2003/3376/P
2-6 Southampton Row, WC1B 4AA

The Bloomsbury Association has previously submitted an objection to this application.

However, In the event that the sub-committee recommends that this application is granted we wish to support the comments submitted by Camden Street Population Services as stated below and we ask that these conditions are imposed on the applicant.

Our reasoning is that these obligations on the applicant will help to reduce the adverse effect caused by large numbers of problematic drug users based in hostels in the south Camden area that roam the streets and cause much of the anti social behaviour that is the primary concern of the community and that continues to contribute to the reduction in our quality of life in central London.

We hope that in the future, Heads Of Terms  – under Section 106 will be applied to ALL hostels that cater for drug users.

We also strongly agree that a protocol should be established whereby Acceptable Behaviour Agreements (ABA’s) should be applied to all residents in these hostels so that each resident is aware that he/she has an obligation to consider the well being of the community that lives in the surrounding area – particularly in south Camden where that there are 3 hostels (Southampton Row, Parker Street and Endell Street) that cater for drug users, very close to 2 primary schools (St Josephs and St Clement Danes) and some 60 hotels and the British Museum that cater for over 4 million visitors to this area each year, plus some 50,000 workers in the area and many thousands of students.

We support;
Comments made by:

STREET POPULATION SERVICES COMMENTS

General:
Street Population Services support the application in principle, as the project is key to the delivery of targets within the Street Population Strategy, particularly the reduction of the numbers of people sleeping rough in the borough.  However this paper highlights issues around timescale and area management, which we would like considered within the application.

Timescale:
We propose that the extension is granted for a further 2 years.  If this is not possible then the 5 year extension needs to take account of the Supporting People commissioning process in that dependent of the outcome of the review of service provision this could continue with the same provider, be provided by another agency or indeed cease.

Proposed Heads Of Terms  – Section 106
The following measures are designed to adapt the current area management model operating at Southampton Row, so that the community safety concerns engendered by the continuation of the project can be robustly addressed.

·    That the Southampton Row management team continue to facilitate the regular community liaison meetings already established, and this process is developed using the Community Council model currently being developed at Endell St.

·    That Southampton Row staff undertake regular staff patrols in the vicinity of the project and wear identifiable clothing when doing so.

·    That Southampton Row management team take an active role in the Tasking and Targeting meeting structure facilitated by the Street Services Team in partnership with the police and the street wardens.

·    That Southampton Row agrees a protocol around the implementation of Acceptable Behaviour Agreements for residents identified for these at the Tasking and Targeting meetings.


Evidence;
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 15 Oct 2001 (pt 21) Ms Keeble: Under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as substituted by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, a planning obligation may be agreed between a Local Planning Authority and a developer. A planning obligation may require or restrict specified activities to be carried out…………………etc


Yours sincerely

Chair
Bloomsbury Association

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s