Consultation Draft Plan

The Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Plan seeks to ensure that Dartmouth Park is a vibrant neighbourhood with a balanced and diverse community, with thriving local centres and excellent connectivity with the rest of London. While welcoming sustainable development that provides new jobs and needed housing, the Plan seeks to ensure that the area’s village character, rich architectural heritage, attractive green streets, open spaces and natural environment are not only maintained but enhanced.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan is available for review as follows:

  • Please see the entire DPNF Plan – Consultation Draft here  that can be download as a PDF.
  • A paper copy is available in the Highgate Library on Chester Road N19 5DH
  • Opening hours: Tue-Wed 10am-5pm; Thur 10am-7pm; Sat 10am-4pm; Mon, Fri and Sun closed

The Forum Committee would welcome comments on this draft Neighbourhood Plan.  You may comment in any of the following ways:

  • Use the comments box on below
  • Send an email to info@dpnf.org.uk
  • Drop written comments into the comment box in Truffles on York Rise or Highgate Library in Chester Road.

The last date for receipt of comments on this draft is 15 June 2018.

You will appreciate that as volunteers, we have limited resources to respond to individual comments.  We are grateful for your feedback and will be considering it with the Committee in our review of the current draft Plan.

Thank you.

7 thoughts on “Consultation Draft Plan

  1. Robin Howells

    Thanks for all this hard work. In the draft text could I urge just one ‘correction’.

    Re 9.4.5 ASF Garage
    The Draft says (para 1) that ‘this [garage] site is currently moribund…. although MOTs are still carried out’.

    That statement is inaccurate and misleading. The garage in fact provides in its workshop a full range of servicing and repairs, to a high standard (as it has in my experience over the last forty years), and is staffed still by members of the family of the original owner Andrew Johanides.
    It is moreover a valuable local asset insofar as garages offering full mechanical services in inner north London are few and far between.

    Robin Howells (Brookfield Park).

    Reply
    1. Kelly Pawlyn Post author

      Dear Robin,
      The current owner of the garage is in the process of selling the plot and permission is being sought for the development of six houses. I will pass on your comments.
      Thank you for getting in touch.
      Kind regards
      Kelly

      Reply
  2. kaye stout

    It’s great to see the samples of what constitutes ‘good design’. The Van Heynigen Howard scheme in particular is a great development. It is interesting that this scheme on York Rise is a development in the back garden of a house. It is not a garden shed, it is not an out building. The presumption that rear garden development for new homes should be refused is wrong. If there is direct access from mews roads, streets or to garage sites, planning policy must be in favour of creating more housing. This type of small site is exactly what will assist planning policy, well managed by Development Control. It is precisely the type of housing development that the neighbourhood plan should be supporting for residents down sizing to smaller homes, allowing them to stay within the neighbourhood.

    It can not be a good thing to use the Neighbourhood plan to promote Nimbyism.

    Reply
  3. Joanna van Heyningen

    Congratulations. This is a great document.

    Here are some specific comments:

    – I feel that the document is too long and unwieldy to be properly useful. I am an architect and very involved, and I still find it hard. There is too much repetition. For example: a policy is stated, then later on reasons for the policy are enumerated – but these have almost always been given, in similar wording, in the policy itself.

    – Policy DC3: a lot of what is in this policy is also in the DP Conservation Plan, to which reference should be made without repetition here. An example is item (e). Generally most of the principles here are enshrined in good planning practice. Items (d) and (e) are too non- specific to be useful in a neighbourhood plan. Each case needs to be judged on its own merits.

    – Policy SNSI: our disappointing experience (working on a project for the Mansfield Bowling Club site) about community engagement is that people are very reluctant to meet, to give opinions, or to commit to a point of view UNLESS IT IS TO OBJECT. . The Neighbourhood plan should be realistic about what people are like.
    – specifically on 9.4.2 Mansfield Bowling Club: I welcome this broadly, and agree that the majority of the site should be for public use. But I feel that it is too proscriptive. We (a local senior co-housing group) hoped, and still hope, that the site can become a Community Land Trust, in which case the open space will be “sustainably managed and maintained for the future for the benefit of the public.”
    – Our aim is that the housing on the site should be for older people, and think it is unrealistic and unhelpful that it should be entirely car free.
    – We also feel it would be in contradiction to items [b] and [c] of Policy DC3 if the Neighbourhood Plan insists that any new housing (strictly limited as to size) should be on the foot print of the existing bowling club building.

    Reply
  4. Stephen King

    Thanks for all of the hard work to date.

    It does feel however that as a community plan, it over looks how much a community is able to form with so much traffic and cut through of the area. More strongly worded action needs to be added about reducing non-local cars/trucks/etc from using these roads. This is not only for the now obvious reasons of health concerns, but also to foster a promote more of a community feel to the streets and shared spaces.

    Please consider this as a starting point to rebuilding a stronger sense of community, as this will ultimately lead to making all of the other changes more easily.

    Steve

    Reply
  5. ANTHONY EDWARDS architect retired

    Comment on DRTMOUTH Park Neighbourhood forum Consultation Draft 2018 15/6/18
    By Anthony Edwards Architect retired

    Thank you for such thorough work .

    However the section on Ch7 Environment and Sustainability is inadequate on detailed policies about the highly urgent crisis of Climate Change.

    Climate Change is a Development issue, because the EU directives and Camden’s policies have serious targets, which require changes to the exterior appearance of homes in Dartmouth Park.

    Also Fuel and Food poverty also need similar exterior improvements. I do not see any policy about the large number of families in the Dartmouth park are in Fuel+Food poverty, needing high levels of home insulation (external needing Development Control permission)

    Note: in Camden’s data (a little out of date), One in 7 homes in Dartmouth Park are in Fuel + Food poverty. See Harold Garner, LBC officer, Sustainability Acting Head, for data.

    You seem to confuse Sustainability with Green trees etc, important though they are.

    You do NOT yet include Sustainability as an urgent crisis issue in the Draft.

    The United Nations Bru dtland definiton of sustainable Development is :-
    Development which meets the needs of today, without compromising the needs of future generations of our children.

    I.E. Not causing irreversible Climate Change.

    The joint UK/US Research expedition to the Antarctic with “Boaty Mcboatface submarine”, in oct 2018 says that for every 5 years we put off sustainably cutting our Fossil Fuel energy use to nearly zero, the sea will rise another metre. London will be destroyed by a metre sea rise.

    They think it is too late to stop the sea rising 1.4m. and a ¼ m by 2070.

    We need to urgently insulate our homes thoroughly, so a minimum of energy is burnt, whether Fossil fuels or other. Insulation has to be on the outside, with a rainproof stucco coating.

    If not, many deaths will occur if insulation is inside, during summer heatwaves, which are expected to increase in frequency and intensity.

    Reply
  6. ANTHONY EDWARDS RIBA retired architect

    Comment on DARTMOUTH PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM CONSULTATION DRAFT 2018 16/6/18
    Cc Camden councillors:- Sian Berry, Oliver Lewis, Anna Wright
    Following my comments on 15/6/18, I have a further comment:- that you need to correct a legal error in your Draft. While this is just after your deadline, it is an important legal issue to correct:-

    Your Draft section Ch7 Environment and Sustainability ,ES4 Energy is legally NOT correct about Solar Panels on flats and houses and bigger buildings. This may be because Permitted Development changed since 2014 Draft. This legislation reinforced and encouraged more extensive use of renewable energy panels, wind turbines, CHP, Heat pumps etc everywhere.

    You say:- “Policy ES4 Energy efficiency
    Support measures which increase energy efficiency and which reduce energy and resource loss, by:
    (a) permitting the installation of solar panels that are sensitively incorporated and (where the development is located within the Conservation Area) either are not visible from the street or are physically and visually integrated into the roof and do not project above the plane of the roof (see examples below); and “

    If you read the legislation:-
    The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 2015 No. 596
    SCHEDULE 2 PART 14 Renewable Energy
    (see:-
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/part/14/made )

    The above The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015
    Says that no-one needs to apply for Town Planning approval for Solar Panels (or other renewables like wind turbines etc) in a Conservation Area, or any other area, on a house or flat, and also other bigger buildings, subject to reasonable conditions, eg no more than 200mm above roof surface, but can be visible from the street.

    Your proposal for visually integrating solar panels into the roof costs twice as much as normal solar panels, and so shows that you do NOT support energy efficiency, because this will considerably reduce the number of installations, and neither reduce Climate Changing Carbon emissions, nor help those in Fuel + Food poverty.

    Your Draft has to be consistent with NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) which says how UK Planning decisions have to be made. You cannot diminish locally, in your Draft Plan, the National Legislation above.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.