Consultation letter

2nd July 2009

Dear Resident

PROPOSED ARTICLE 4(2) DIRECTIONS IN THE HOLLY LODGE ESTATE CONSERVATION AREA

Thank you for responding to the consultation on the above.

We stated in our consultation letter in March that if there was public support for the Article 4(2) Directions they would be introduced in April. However following the meeting with residents on 18th March it was agreed that the consultation period would be extended until 1st June, to give residents more time to respond to the proposals.

The consultation ended on 1st June and I am writing now to let you have the results, and to let you know where you can find our recommendations on the way forward.

231 responses were received in total as part of the consultation; 117 responses were received directly from the public, with a further 114 responses collected by a local resident and handed in to Officers in person. The table below gives the breakdown of responses and the sheet overleaf gives our response to the series of 'typical planning requests' sheet circulated by residents.

The results of the consultation and our recommendations will be considered by Members at the Council's Executive (Environment) Sub Committee on 14th July 2009. The Officers report will be available on the Council & Democracy pages of Camden's website (www.camden.gov.uk) one week before this date, on 6th July.download

If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me as above.

Yours sincerely

Caroline Carr
Conservation and Urban Design Team
Contact: Caroline Carr
Direct Line: 020 7974 1944
Fax: 020 7974 1930
e-mail: caroline.carr@camden.gov.uk

New: 6 Jul 09

Consultation outcome

Camden's Consultation
Do you think it is important to protect the special appearance and historic features of the Holly Lodge Estate Conservation Area?
TOTAL	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Response not given
117	80	14	10	2	8	3
100%	67%	12%	9%	2%	7%	3%
To what extent do you support the proposals to introduce special planning measures to protect the appearance of the Holly Lodge Estate Conservation Area?
TOTAL	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Response not given
117	67	4	2	5	38	1
100%	58%	3%	2%	4%	32%	1%
Form Distributed by Residents
Do you think it is important to protect the special appearance and historic features of the Holly Lodge Estate Conservation Area?
TOTAL	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Response not given
85	12	30	16	4	7	16
100%	14%	35%	19%	5%	8%	19%
To what extent do you support the proposals to introduce special planning measures to protect the appearance of the Holly Lodge Estate Conservation Area?
TOTAL	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Response not given
85	3	3	0	13	66	0
100%	3.5%	3.5%	0	15%	78%	0%

Additional form distributed by residents
Camden Council is seeking views regarding the proposed new powers which will be implemented unless considerable concerns through replies to them are voiced. If you feel unable to personally deal with this in your own words kindly complete the slip below and return by hand to xx Hillway or xx Hillway by the 10th May. The forms will then form part of a "multi-pronged" attack on the imposition of Article 4(2).
I disagree / agree with the introduction of Article 4(2) on the Holly Lodge Estate.
Total 97 (100%)	Disagree: 92 (95%)	Agree: 5 (5%)

New: 6 Jul 09

Conservation Committee AGM

At the Holly Lodge Estate Conservation Area Committee AGM on 29 April there was a further debate at which additional information, obtained from Camden, was available. 52 people were there of whom 49 voted against the introduction of the proposed Article 4(2) direction, 2 in favour and 1 abstention.

It was stressed that it was up to every plot-owner to make up their mind as to whether they wanted these extra restrictions on top of the existing Conservation Area and general Town & Country Planning constraints.

Chris Jackson has delivered his questionnaire to all 280 houses, and every plot-owner is urged to reply so that the true feelings of the residents of the houses are known; the flats are not covered by Article 4(2). Camden have said that they will not impose the Direction unless there is a balance of opinion in favour of it.

New: 9 May 09

Holly Lodge Letter

30th April 2009

Dear Neighbour,

I write with reference to Camden's Council's proposed new planning powers. These new powers will be implemented shortly unless there is substantial opposition. The new powers fall under the title: "Article 4(2)". While the title is meaningless, the power it encompasses is enormous!

On the following page (see right hand column) I have tried to present a small list of typical planning requests that residents might have and then show the implications that the Article 4(2) legislation might have. Following this page is a sheet inviting you to disagree or agree with the proposals. It is my intention to collect as many replies as possible by 10th May 2009. Only with your help is there a chance to defeat these proposals. Kindly post your replies to either number 14 or number 74 Hillway.

The HLE Conservation Committee met yesterday evening. At this very well attended meeting more than 95% of attendees voted against Article 4(2). The committee agreed that the best way forward was to collect the paper replies enclosed and then mount a "multi pronged" attack using various means. This will give the highest chance of success so please, please take a moment to return the form to 14 or to 74 Hillway by 10th May 2009.

Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions but I must emphasise that I do not represent any committee on the estate. It is simply an issue I feel passionately about.

Kind regards,

Chris Jackson
14 Hillway
London N6 6QA
07985 567619
chris@place2live.co.uk

New: 2 May 09

Come to Article 4 Meeting

Following the interest shown at last night's AGM I have been asked to encourage you to go to the Conservation Committee meeting next week so that the true implications of article 4 can be fully understood and discussed.

Wed 29th Apr 8.15 Community Centre

My personal view is that Article 4, on the face of it, seems to be an extra conservation measure to protect the "historic" nature of this estate. However, as always, the devil is in the detail. By coming to the meeting and hearing all sides of the argument you will be better equipped and informed on a subject which I feel will have a great impact both on our environment and on the value of our houses.

Camden is in the middle of an extended "consultation" process before they bring in this article 4(2) direction on our estate. As yet they have not given the Conservation Committee the detail requested of what is included in Article 4(2) until it is implemented. They have vaguely mentioned double glazing, solar panels, roof lights etc but without being sufficiently specific.

There is another Article 4 - 4(1) which will be brought in for Hampstead, Belsize and Swiss Cottage conservation areas. This requires permission of the Secretary of State and would extend controls to the backs as well as the fronts of houses.

Article 4(2) is to protect the front of our houses and the views through to the back gardens. Camden has however allowed in-building to occur and many views to the backs of houses are blocked.

Camden would have the right to insist on us following their ideas of and regulations for our Estate and it is my personal view that the Conservation Committee would become redundant.

Camden have informed us that they have no need to consult with us but are doing this to comply with their Statement of Community Involvement. The whole process is rather opaque as they state that they will listen to our ideas and that if there is public support Article 4(2) will be brought forward.

Camden has granted our request for a three month consultation period (extended from the hasty 4 week consultation with the measure being introduced by now) which requires residents' comments by the 18th May. So time is very short for us to make our views known. For this reason alone I think that, rather than sleep walking into this, residents should come to this meeting to become better informed.

I look forward to seeing you on Wednesday 29th at 8.15 for what I am sure will be a very interesting and lively meeting.

Yours sincerely

Pippa Rothenberg
Estate Committee member

New: 24 Apr 09

Email Camden today

Camden have extended the consultation to 1st June so you still have time to email them today with your views.

Just read the links on the left of this page (especially Presentation on proposals) and email urban.design@camden.gov.uk with your views.

You can click here to create a simple email form with your views.

Updated: 30 Mar 09

New Planning Rules Proposed

A Camden consultation is underway on the proposed introduction of "special planning measures" to protect the character and appearance of the Holly Lodge Estate Conservation Area.

If the Direction is applied the following types of development will require planning permission:

1. Enlarging, altering or improving the front of a house – including alterations to and replacement of windows, doors, decorative timber-work and porches.
2. Painting the front of a house if it will be different from the traditional surface treatment.
3. Additions or alterations to the roof at the front of a house, including the installation of a roof-light or solar panel.
4. Erecting, altering or removing a chimney.
5. Making, enlarging, improving or altering a hard surface at the front of a house.
6. Erecting, altering or demolishing a gate, wall or fence at the front of a house.

How to find out more:

• Download more detailed information from the panel on the left
• Online www.camden.gov.uk/planning then choose Planning consultations from the options
• By phone 020 7974 1944
• By email urban.design@camden.gov.uk
• In person Culture and Environment reception, Camden Town Hall, Argyle Street, London WC1H 8EQ

Camden said it was extremely keen to get as much feedback from as many residents as possible to make sure that there is as much participation in the decision process as possible.

Feedback can be given by email, by phone, letter at the Public Meeting, or in person to the Council (see above for contact details).

Updated: 30 Mar 09

Consultation meeting packed

Residents from The Estate packed into The Community Centre in Makepeace Avenue on Wednesday evening to take part in a consultation organized by Camden on the subject of proposed Special Planning Measures.

The new regulations if enacted would require Plotholders (the new rules do not apply to residents of flats) to seek planning permission from Camden for alterations to the fronts of houses such as replacing windows, porches or front doors; installing solar panels on roofs that would be visible from the street or any alteration that affected the roof-lines of the houses, such as removing chimneys.

Two presentations were made by the Camden team one of which was a talk by an expert on the architecture of inter-war English vernacular architecture who extolled the virtues of the Estate and highlighted its many unique architectural and environmental features.

A lively and emotional question and answer session followed that raised objections to the proposals on the grounds that:

1. The time for consultation proposed was inadequate to allow all residents to consider properly and respond to the proposals.
2. The costs of compliance with the proposed regulations would be substantial; for instance in requiring wooden (NOT UPVC) single-glazed replacement windows of the same style as the original windows. Each alteration would require a scale drawing to be prepared and submitted to Camden with each application the cost of which would be borne by the Plotholder.
3. The regulations did not appear to take into account the adverse energy-saving implications of the proposals that appear to discourage double-glazing on house frontages and some solar panels.
4. The regulations should include controls to alterations to the rear as well as the fronts of houses.
5. The regulations 4(2)sought were inappropriate as they offered no right of appeal to The Secretary of State that 4(1) regulations would offer.
6. Some of the most damaging developments have been done on the mansion blocks and these are not covered by the proposed measures.

It is difficult to summarise the difference between the various views expressed from the floor and the panel during the evening, but perhaps the common theme is that residents were focussed on how to manage the forward development of the estate in a sympathetic way and representatives from Camden appeared more interested in reinstating the Estate to match its historic appearance.

However, all agreed that Camden's proposed timetable of ending the consultation on 30th March and introducing the directions on 20th April did not give adequate time to consider the issues and demonstrate the consultation is genuine. A show of hands at the end of the meeting indicated a unanimous wish that Camden allow a further 3 months for more intensive, detailed dialogue and consultation with the estate.

All the chocolate biscuits were eaten by the end of the meeting although some plain digestives were left. It is to be hoped that Camden take note of this and rebalance the biscuit order towards more plain chocolate digestives next time that there is a meeting.

New: 21 Mar 09

Article 4(1) or 4(2)

Camden are proposing special planning measures under 4(2) but some residents think that 4(1) would be better for the estate.

• 4(1) – almost all classes of permitted development can be withdrawn, anywhere, on any flat or house, but requires confirmation by Secretary of State.
• 4(2) – a smaller number of permitted development rights can be withdrawn, only in Conservation Areas, only on frontage (or sides that face road), and only on dwelling houses. No SoS confirmation required.

So, if we get 4(2) it will not cover developments at the rear of houses (where many neighbours have had been upset by extensions and garden rooms) and there will be no right of appeal. It might focus on the "chocolate box" house frontage without addressing the real issues that residents face.

New: 21 Mar 09

Sham consultation?

Several of the 50+ residents who attended Camden's consultation meeting on the proposed special planning measures expressed criticisms of the consultation.

Apparently Camden has developed a reputation in the past for "sham" consultations.

It is therefore unfortunate that the decision flowchart was entitled "Implementation flowchart" - which gives the impression that the intention is to implement rather than to consult - and that the test for proceeding is only "demonstrable support" while the alternative is "no public support".

Apparently, if Camden can demonstrate any public support they intend to proceed with a submission to the secretary of state while if there is zero public support they intend to return to the executive for a decision on whether to proceed. If one believes the implementation flowchart, a response of 30% for and 70% against would surely be interpreted as "demonstrable" rather than "no" public support and the directions would be introduced one month after the meeting!

Criticisms voiced at the meeting included:

• Insufficient detail provided to allow residents to understand what is being proposed
• Only 8 working days between the meeting and the closing dates for comments
• Lack of meaningful options on the consultation reply form

Residents made specific requests at the meeting, including:

• More detailed information to be made available by Camden on their website
• The detailed information to copied onto this web page
• Leaflets to be posted to residents of the flats as well as the houses
• More information on the benefits of different options, including Article 4(1)
• Detailed results of this (and previous) consultations to be published
• A delay of three months in the consultation to allow residents time to understand and comment on the proposals

The final item was put to a show of hands at the end of the meeting and 100% voted for (zero against) an additional three months of consultation.

Updated: 21 Mar 09

Consultation ignored?

The chart below shows the summary of the consultations returned directly to Camden plus those collated by residents.

A massively impressive proportion of residents returned their forms to respond to the question: "To what extent do you support the proposals to introduce special planning measures to protect the appearance of the Holly Lodge Estate Conservation Area?"

The total who agree or strongly agree (green pies) is 77 (39%).

The total who disagree or strongly disagree (red pies) is 122 (61%).

It is therefore pretty stunning that the officers report (download here) recommends:

• 7. RECOMMENDATIONS
• 7.1 After considering both consultation outcomes and the adverse changes to the conservation area that continue to take place, officers consider that the balance still lies in favour of an Article 4 Direction. The Executive (Environment) Sub Committee is thus recommended to:
• i) Give in principle approval to the making of an Article 4(2) Direction in the Holly Lodge Estate Conservation Area
• ii) Refer the Direction to Full Council with a recommendation that the Direction be made.

The original "consultation" allowed 8 working days between the meeting and closing date. After a massive vote at the residents' meeting, the consultation was extended to a proper length. Following criticism of the consultation being measured on the test "demonstrable support vs no support" to a clear statement in writing "We again reassured residents that a balance in favour of the measures from the public was required for them to be introduced." However, the council appears to be ignoring its own consultation and recommending that Article 4 goes ahead. Astounding.

Updated: 9 Jul 09

More questions answered

This article is an extract from a letter sent by Chris Jackson, Pippa Rothenberg, Gregg Egen and Frances Haig on 8th June 2009 to Camden Council in reply to this letter...

Dear Mr West,

Thank you for the letter dated 28 May 2009 sent to Ms Pippa Rothenberg and copied to myself. You are probably aware I wrote the leaflet circulated to residents and I appreciate you outlining more detail regarding my leaflet questions and statement.

I am not sure if the implication of your letter is that I have somehow misled plot holders with my leaflet? This is probably not the case, but just in case I have read your more detailed comments on each of my leaflet points. Please see below but it seems we agree on most (if not all) of these:

Leaflet states: No to UPVC.

Your comments note only like for like replacement do not need plans. UPVC windows can never "accurately reproduce the glazing bar profiles of the original windows". Plastic cannot be shaped like wood and does not have the same structural integrity etc. So, you agree with me. In practice...no to UPVC.

Leaflet States: My house faces south. Can I install a solar panel on the roof facing south? No

Your comments state the "Direction only covers the front elevation". My question talks of the house facing south (surely a layman's term for the front elevation facing south). My question makes no reference at all to other elevations. A solar panel will never be seen to "enhance or preserve" a conservation area. So you agree with me again. In practice...no solar panels in front elevation.

Leaflet States: My house has solid 9 inch walls. I would like to re render the external walls of my property with insulated render. Is this permitted? Yes (in theory).

Your comments note that a thicker render may need a planning application. Clearly and insulated render will be thicker as the insulation component itself is likely to be at least 70 mm or more thick to meat Building Regulation standards. Consequently the reveals will be affected on the front elevation. In practice again we agree... a no to front elevation (and yes to other elevations) i.e. more restrictive than indicated in my leaflet.

Leaflet States: My porch is old and requires replacement. Can I build a new one? No probably. Only repairs are likely to be allowed.

You agree repairs (like for like) are likely to be allowed. I have omitted that like for like replacement being allowed as you suggest because it is unclear if "like for like" replacement might apply to a 1970's porch or just to an original porch (of which there are almost none and so the issue of replacement becomes irrelevant).

Leaflet States: I would like a small porch. Can I build one? No

You comment: "Open porches should normally be preserved". On the HL Estate potential new porches would normally be formed from open porches. So, you agree again in practice for this estate....No to new porches

Leaflet States: Can I install a roof light in the front elevation? No

Your comment is that it would be o.k. if the roof light "preserved or enhanced the conservation area". It never would. So, in practice again you agree with the leaflet....no roof light in front elevation.

Leaflet States: I would like a new front door. Is this possible? Possibly, but design should be as original in the 1920s. Repair of original preferred.

Your comment agrees that "repair would be encouraged" and only a 1920's like for like replacement would not require a planning application. Clearly again my comments agree with yours. You add some detail.

Leaflet States: Is it o.k. if I paint the render on the front of my house in a non white colour? No. It is unclear if "off white" or other colours are acceptable.

Your comments suggest colours and finish should reflect the original property. So in short again we agree but you are stronger. 1920's colours only i.e . likely white. Render to be as per 1920's.

Leaflet States: My front fence/wall/gate needs replacing. Do I need permission to execute work? Yes. Design must meet council approval.

Your comment notes that my leaflet statement is correct for any alteration to design. It notes there is an exception in the case of a like for like replacement of the item. Apologies for this omission but excepting this the statement is correct and we agree.

Leaflet States: I would like to install external lighting (e.g porch) and/or an external letter box and/or a burglar alarm box and/or other object on front elevation. Is this o.k.? No idea at this stage, but the Council have power to demand approval.

Your comments note that such minor works will not require applications at the current time. My leaflet states you would have the power to demand approval. It never says you would use this power. So, again, the leaflet statement is correct although in this instance mainly underscores the extent of power being handed to the Council.

Leaflet States: I would like to redesign my driveway. Is this o.k? Yes possibly but strict criteria.

Your comments give more detail but you agree again with my statement.

It is pleasing that we are in such broad agreement about the implications of Article 4(2) on the Holly Lodge Estate. If there has been a suggestion that I have misled plot holders via my leaflet, then I think we now agree that this is clearly not the case?

Consequently, following your kind work and a response from approximately 50% of the estate stating that 95% either disagree or strongly disagree with the introduction of Article 4(2) must carry even more weight. You are probably also aware that the majority of the respondents took the time to write letters, e mails and comments explaining their decision. I was amazed by the quality and quantity of the response. Mr Marshall assured us in our meeting that "if people do not want Art 4(2) they will not have it". That was excellent news as 95% of the Holly Lodge Estate does not want the introduction of Article 4(2).

New: 25 Jun 09

Update on response campaign

At the AGM of the Conservation Committee it was agreed that Plotholder Chris Jackson would circulate a questionnaire that asked Plotholders to comment with their views on the draconian new Planning Regulations aka Article 4(2) p being promoted by LB Camden.

Helped by active canvassing Chris's questionnaire elicited a response of over 50% from Plotholders, 95% of which were against the proposal. This will send an unambiguous message from the Estate.

Additionally Chris and colleagues have met Green local counsellors and plan to meet and seek support from others imminently.

You may also see the Campaign in the local press.

Many thanks Chris!

Peter

New: 14 May 09

Proposed Planning Powers

Article 4(2) is soon to be implemented by Camden Council on the Holly Lodge Estate. What does in practice does this mean? Please read on...

• Can I install double glazed windows?
  No to UPVC double glazed.
  Yes (possibly) for wood double glazed (2.5x price of UPVC).
  Professionally drawn scale plans must be submitted to Council to apply for any change.
• My house faces south. Can I install a solar panel on the roof facing south?
  No
  Professionally drawn scale plans must be submitted to Council. Unlikely permission granted.
• My house has solid 9 inch brick external walls. I would like to re render the external walls of my property with an insulated render. Is this permitted?
  Yes (in theory). Council have indicated render must be as original pebble dash. Better insulating lime mixes (with different texture) may be deemed inappropriate?
  Professionally drawn scale plans must be submitted to Council.
• My porch is old and requires replacement. Can I build a new one?
  No probably. Only repairs are likely to be allowed.
  Professionally drawn scale plans must be submitted to Council
• I would like a small porch. Can I build one?
  No
• Can I install a roof light in the front facing elevation?
  No
• I would like a new front door. Is this possible?
  Possibly, but design should be as original in the 1920s. Repair of original preferred.
  Professionally drawn scale plans must be submitted to the Council for approval.
• Is it o.k. if I paint the render on the front of my house a non white colour?
  No. It is unclear if "off white" or other colours are acceptable.
  Application to Council would be required for non white.
• My front fence/wall/gate needs replacing. Do I need permission to execute work?
  Yes. Design must meet council approval.
  Scale drawings must be submitted to council for their approval.
• I would like to install external lighting (e.g. porch) and/or an external letter box and/or a burglar alarm box and/or other object on front elevation. Is this o.k.?
  No idea at this stage, but the Council have power to demand approval.
  In theory scale drawings etc required for approval.
• I would like to redesign my driveway. I this o.k.?
  Yes possibly but strict criteria
  Professionally drawn scale plans required by Council prior to approval.

Note:All professional or scale drawings cost money.

PLEASE WRITE OR EMAIL ABOUT THIS MEASURE WHETHER IN FAVOUR OR NOT

New: 2 May 09

Reply from Camden

Dear Pippa

Thank you for your email and attached letter.

I am not able to attend Wednesday's meeting but please do feed back any thoughts arising from this. We had a lively debate on the 18th and I hope you feel the minutes of this reflect what was said.

Can I correct you on the matter of the other proposed Article 4 Directions in Camden. As you will have seen from the report on Article 4 Directions discussed at Camden’s Executive (Environment) Sub Committee on 13th November 2008 and to the Full Council on 19th January 2009 none of the proposed Directions will cover the rears of properties. This report has been made available on our website since 6th November 2009 and residents can read it reproduced on the Holly Lodge Consultation pages here: www.camden.gov.uk

Finally can I also make a suggestion as I notice that the letter you sent to me did not have an address or the name of the body you represent on it. It might be useful to include this on future communications with residents so they are aware whom you represent and how to contact you.

Mark please could you publish my response on the HLE website.

Caroline

Caroline Carr | Conservation & Urban Design Team | London Borough of Camden | 6th Floor, Camden Town Hall Extension | Argyle Street, London WC1H 8ND
Tel: 020 7974 1944 | Fax: 020 7974 1930 | email: caroline.carr@camden.gov.uk | www.camden.gov.uk

New: 27 Apr 09

Letter from Camden

Dear Owner / Occupier

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1995 AND AS AMENDED
Proposed Article 4(2) Direction in the Holly Lodge Estate Conservation Area

Consultation on the introduction of special planning measures to protect the character and appearance of the Holly Lodge Estate 2nd March - 1st June 2009

We wrote to you in March about the consultation on the proposed introduction of Article 4(2) Directions in the Holly Lodge Estate Conservation Area.

I am writing now to update you on three points following the public meeting on Wednesday 18th March.

1. The consultation period will be extended until 1st June 2009 to give residents more time to respond.

2. Questions were asked regarding whether double glazed replacement windows would be permitted under the proposed Article 4(2) Direction, and what constitutes like-for-like replacement.

The aim of proposed measures is to preserve the historic character and appearance of the Holly Lodge Estate. As such we would always urge residents in conservation areas to retain and repair their historic windows where possible, and upgrade the thermal efficiency of the house by other means, before considering replacement double glazing.

However there are a growing number of companies who make timber double glazed (Low Emissivity) units which may be fitted into new multi-paned timber windows, with narrow glazing bars to match those at Holly Lodge like-for-like. We are currently in discussion with these companies about what discounts they might offer to local residents.

What does like-for-like mean?

If these new double-glazed windows can match the glazing bar / frame / cill dimensions as the ones they replace, with the same pattern of glazing bars and opening in the same way (for example, side or top hinged casements) we would consider this to be like-for-like replacement. In this case the replacement windows would not therefore need planning permission.

If the Article 4(2) Direction is introduced we will produce comprehensive Design Guidance setting out appropriate methods and materials for repair and replacement, including scale drawings of windows and other historic features and details of relevant companies and any discounts offered. If you require further information in the meantime please contact me on 020 7974 1944.

3. Decision-making and Reporting. Some residents expressed concern about how the results of the consultation would be analysed, and how the results would be publicised.

If the balance of public support is in favour of the proposed Direction, it will be introduced. If the balance of public support is against the measure, we will return to Members to make a decision on the way forward.

The statistical results of the consultation will be published on the consultation page of Camden's website (see below) and will also be posted to all those who have responded to the consultation.

The full minutes of the meeting will be sent to all those who attended and will be posted on the Holly Lodge Estate website www.hle.org.uk and on Camden's own website at: www.camden.gov.uk/planning (then choose planning consultations). If you would like a hard copy of the minutes posted out to you please contact me on 020 7974 1944 or write to the address above.

How can I find out more and have my say?

The views of local people are important and we want to hear what you have to say before we make our decision.

Online: the consultation documents are also available to view on our website at: www.camden.gov.uk/planning then choose planning consultations

• By email: urban.design@camden.gov.uk
• By post: using the enclosed Freepost reply
• Telephone: Caroline Carr on 020 7974 1944

Please submit your comments before 5pm Monday 1st June 2009.

Yours faithfully

Caroline Carr
Conservation and Urban Design Team

New: 30 Mar 09

Help on Conservation Committee

The Holly Lodge Estate Conservation Area Advisory Committee needs new members urgently.

Several members of the Committee helped to form it in 1992 and have served on it since then. Others have moved away from the area. The need for new committee members is urgent and important.

Meetings are called when cases are presented for consideration. The times of these meetings are arranged to suit the majority of members. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone who has a real interest in the conservation of this beautiful Estate at heart and who could attend a reasonable proportion of the meetings could contact:

Roland Walker
Secretary of the Committee
43 Hillway
N6 6AH
020 8340 4229

Knowledge or experience of a housing estate management would help although most committee members do not have specialist qualifications.

The reward is the satisfaction of knowing that one is contributing to an area of exceptional beauty.

New: 26 Mar 09

Conservation Committee

The Holly Lodge Estate Conservation Area Advisory Committee was formed in 1992 at the request of Camden Council. Its main function is to examine applications for planning permission sent to it by the Council and to advise whether they should be granted or refused. Its role is advisory and Camden makes all final decisions.

The Conservation Committee continues to be fully and legally operative in 2008 while it awaits an update of its Guidelines through Camden's slow administrative processes.

The main criterion is whether the proposed work would preserve, enhance or detract from the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

The Committee has drawn up a set of guidelines to assist in reaching its decisions, and these are available to the public. Applicants may find it useful to consider the guidelines before drawing up a planning application. The Guidelines are lengthy and include a section relating to trees.

The Committee can have a maximum of 15 members; all must be residents of the Estate. We are always looking for people such as architects, surveyors and Town Planners to join. It meets only when necessary, i.e. when planning applications are received, and on average this is about every 5 or 6 weeks.

If residents have planning concerns they can contact the Secretary or any member of the Committee.

• John Gatenby (Chair)
• Martin Morton (Vice Chair)
• Roland Walker (Hon Secretary)
• Marie-Helene English
• Miss J Guyatt
• Mrs C Spyer
• Miss V Doulton
• Alisa Yemeni
• Derrick Knight
• Mr J Lillie

Updated: May 09