Published: 09 February 2012
by DAN CARRIER

AN appeal against the Town Hall’s decision to block a homes development on a disused reservoir is a huge waste of taxpayers’ money, according to a residents’ association.

Linden Wates, a company that builds gated estates described as “Brookside-style en-claves” by opponents, bought a site in Gondar Gardens, West Hampstead, in January 2010.

Despite the land enjoying legal protection from being built on, they have submitted an application to build luxury homes.

It is a habitat for protected species such as slow worms and bats, and enjoys the urban equivalent of green belt status – prompting Camden Council’s planning committee to dismiss the application.

Now Linden Wates has appealed to Whitehall’s planning inspectors – despite a public inquiry safeguarding the site in 2003.

The Gondar and Agamemnon Residents’ Association (GARA) have fought a 10-year battle to protect the site.

Chairman David Yass said: “The appeal is a waste of public money as it forces Camden to defend their sound decision, based on policy set through full consultation, including a public inquiry in 2003.

“It is outrageous to go to appeal, forcing the  council to use council taxpayers’ money when the community has so soundly rejected their plans.

“The original plans were well publicised by the developer and strongly rejected – 1,200 people signed a petition and many wrote individual letters of objection.”

He said that the council found 14 reasons to reject the plans, and concluded that the site could get even greater protection under new legislation being planned by the current government.

“GARA, together with other groups, has started the process of creating a Neighbourhood Plan under the Localism Bill,” said Mr Yass.

“This will set out the type of development that people would find acceptable in the area. It will not include building on protected land in an area where there is no need for additional housing.”

Since the reservoir was decommissioned by Thames Water in the 2001, a series of hopeful developers have drawn up plans to turn the open space into a housing estate.

Thames Water were first when they sought a change in the council’s planning policy – but after a public inquiry found against them, they sold the site on.

GARA has always stated that even any “small” development would destroy the open space  and insisted that although the site needs a small amount of ongoing maintenance, this cannot be used as an excuse for developing it.

It is, they argue, the developer’s responsibility, having bought the site well aware of its needs.

A secondary application, that has been lodged while Linden Wates appeal the first scheme, shows a vastly different plan.

Linden Wates would build a street-front terrace of five-storey homes, complete with a basement area for parking that includes a car lift.

The roof of the reservoir would be removed.

In a statement sent to the council’s planning department, a surveyor’s report says the roof of the reservoir – currently grassed over – is leaking and could, at some point in the future, collapse.

Rather than fix the Victorian brick vaults, they plan to take it off completely and create a bowl-like back garden area for the homes.

A public relations firm employed by the developers declined to provide the New Journal with the reasons for their appeal.

Instead they issued the following statement:  “Linden Wates designed the first believing that it was the best solution for the site.

The council disagreed and refused the application for numerous reasons.

“Linden Wates have appealed this scheme because we still believe the approach we took has merit and deserves further consideration.

“Linden Wates submitted a second application as a direct response to the council’s reasons for refusal on the first scheme.

“We believe this second scheme addresses the previous reasons for refusal and is capable of being approved by the London borough of Camden.”

However, their website says the “vast majority of the land would be protected from future development and properly managed by an independent wildlife trust”.