Mount Anvil hosted two drop-in events in late September for residents to learn about the latest version of their proposal for Bacton, including some changes that have been made based on feedback received in the last consultation phase.
BTA attended these drop ins and took photos of the exhibition boards. Below is our take on what it means.
Overall, the changes Mount Anvil have made are minimal and don’t address our key concerns in any meaningful way. Here are the three main differences we could detect:
- The highest tower has been reduced by two floors to 21 storeys while adding five stories across two other towers
- 20 ‘social rent’ homes have been added bringing the total to 26%. That’s 134 ‘social rent’ homes for the price of 334 private flats on a site of less than a hectare
- Mount Anvil have used different metrics (such as floorspace or the number of ‘habitable rooms’) to increase the social rent aspect to 38% and 40% respectively (don’t be fooled by this)
- Mount Anvil’s figures also include homes built in Bacton phase 1 (now known as Cherry Court) and Bacton phase 2 (this development), even though they are two completely separate schemes and Mount Anvil can take zero credit for the homes built in Cherry Court
Overall, there seems to have been very little change in the design.
We found out that there will be another round of consultation this autumn, with the planning application expected to be submitted in ‘winter/spring’.
Through speaking with several Mount Anvil representatives at the drop-ins and asking questions, we learnt that:
- Mount Anvil are only doing what they are legally required to and seem comfortable with ‘scoping out’ (dismissing) a whole range of impacts this development will have, including environmental impacts, knock-on effects on services and infrastructure or biodiversity
- There is no provision of any community facilities in the proposal because Camden council wants to prioritise housing, according to a Mount Anvil official
- Their main argument against most of our concerns remains ‘viability’, meaning they insist that if we want more family-sized council homes, decent green spaces or facilities for our community, the only way we will get them is by accepting 334 private 1-bed flats in tower blocks
The GLA grant for Bacton has not in fact been withdrawn but is ‘vital’ in making this development possible and will be conditional on the planning application being successful.
The below carousel includes images of some of the key boards Mount Anvil presented at the event:
An attentive neighbour also pointed us to the following text that has appeared on Mount Anvil’s online consultation page:
“Some hostile groups/individuals are targeting consultations in an attempt to skew results towards less favourable outcomes which are not in the public interest. […] You need to “think for yourself” and should reflect carefully on how you have been informed on the facts of the consultation ahead of sharing your views.”
The last time we checked, residents of Haverstock and Gospel Oak could and were actively thinking for themselves. In fact, here are some testimonials from residents who went to the consultation events:
“[The Mount Anvil representative] responded patronisingly in reassurance mode: this won’t be a problem, that won’t be a problem, because money will be available for extra police, NHS, schools etc. I said, this isn’t a real consultation, is it? You have an answer for everything, but the police is overstretched, the NHS is overstretched, and you are saying that these won’t be problems. We asked how they would guarantee that Camden would use the money as stated and there was no answer.”
“I was concerned by the dismissive behaviour of both Council and MA officers. […] I pressed repeatedly for the year ago promise for visits to other MA sites and a working group. The excuse was it took a lot of work.”
“The graphics have an eyeline at the height of a church tower (or similar) so they show lots of lovely sky … that the people on the ground won’t get to see.”
“They were really pushing the surveys and had skewed the questions so that they could then say, “100% of you wanted more green spaces and affordable housing, so we are going ahead with our plan to build a tiny fraction of affordable housing and keep the green spaces that already exist and build a huge great tower”.
“This is not a consultation but a show of what was to be done.”
At this point, we are not confident that Mount Anvil will use residents’ input from these consultations in good faith. The questions in their consultation form continue to be misleading and only allow for comments on aspects of the proposal rather than the overall premise.
In addition, Mount Anvil has refused to have an open forum discussion with us and insisted on controlling the agenda by asking us to submit all our questions in advance.
Camden council has been equally evasive. On 11 September, the Gospel Oak DMC formally asked Camden (via a unanimous vote) to organise a public meeting to review the cumulative impact of major developments in the neighbourhood. Cllr Boyland confirmed that Camden’s CIP officers would arrange this in the first half of October but has refused any responsibility for the fact that this hasn’t happened.
We will continue to put pressure on Camden council and our elected representatives to answer our questions and prepare objections for when the planning application is submitted. You can support our efforts with a donation here – we are very grateful for every contribution.
Bacton Towers Action 