Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Athlone House
THOSE interested in conservation will be delighted to know of the decision of the Planning Inspector in respect of Athlone House in Camden Borough and overlooking Hampstead Heath.
Even our (neighbouring) borough had been moved to describe the proposal as like a Stalinist wedding cake.
An account in the Guardian, here.
C D Carter
Councillor
Highgate Ward
Tags for Forum Posts: Athlone House
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Thanks Clive, this is really good news. I think it's worth saying, for those who may not know how the appeals process works, that the developers were appealing against Camden's refusal to allow them to go ahead with this scheme.
-
Permalink Reply by Colinloves on
-
Does anyone know who owns the house/land?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
ACCORDING to this 2011 Ham&High article, the previous owner – Kuwaiti billionaire businessman Nasser Al-Kharafi – died of a heart attack in Egypt in 2011, just four days before a planning inspector’s earlier decision.
The current owners are probably in Mr Al-Kharafi's family.
I've attached below the recent Decision of the Planning Inspector.
- Attachments:
-
-
Cheers. Cos I was reading the owner is a 'mysterious person'.
Do you know any way I can contact them?
-
-
Do you know any way I can contact them?
No, apart from enquiring of the Kuwaiti embassy.
The suggestion – that the proposed design was in Stalinist wedding cake-style – had me look up probably the largest expression of this pompous style: Moscow State University (built 1949–53 with Gulag labour):
and even if not so tall, Ceausescu's palace could be closer …
-
-
EARLIER today at the High Court – in what is hopefully and probably – the last chapter in the fight and saga of Athlone House, was played out. A judge dismissed the appeal. Athlone House is saved.
With permission, I reproduce below a statement this afternoon by Mr. Michael Hammerson of the Highgate Society, who has been much involved in the case (N.B. the AHWG is the Athlone House Working Group and Ulysses is a cat):
Just back from the High Court. But first, “this reminds me of a little story”, as my hero Abraham Lincoln used to say.
I think we all refrained from any forecasting or prejudging of the result. But, when I left home this morning, Ulysses gave me a good luck lick, and I think I had a premonition on the Underground (as one does). I was reading a book on the anti-slavery battle in America, and in the few pages I could read on a very crowded train, I was taken aback by a biblical quote used by one of the Abolitionists in their propaganda, from Jeremiah 22:13 – “Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness”. What are the chances of reading that, completely at random, on the morning of Athlonegeddon?
Well, to cut a long story as short as possible – we had to sit there suffering all morning, so you can for a few more minutes – (we took a lot of notes but putting them together in a few sentences is quite a task), Bird, J. (whose written decision may not be available for 5-10 days) gave the background to the Athlone House saga; the Inquiry submissions (in which we thought we got the impression that he regarded AHWG’s efforts as superficial, though he may only have been citing the appellants’ view); and analysed in some detail the Inspector’s decision, particularly in the light of the submissions and the 2011 appeal decision.
It was clear that he had read all the relevant material from the appeal. He covered the proposals in the light of MOL policy; the Heritage Considerations and impact on Heritage assets; and the materiality, substance and continuing effect of the S.106 agreement.
He then examined the grounds of appeal, again in some detail, and the interpretation of the Law on the issue and on fairness in inquiries.
He then came to his conclusions. Again, to summarise very briefly:
• The Inspector’s interpretation of replacement building in MOL – one of the two main grounds of appeal – was entirely correct; the interpretation must be “the building as it is now,” and the Inspector did not, as the claimants complained, misinterpret the 2011 Inspector’s statement;
• The second ground, that the Inspector misunderstood and therefore misapplied the arguments regarding the costs of restoration as against replacement to an “opulent” and “extravagant” specification, the Judge again disagreed with – the Inspector had all the evidence submitted, and if the claimants wanted to make the points they were now trying to make, they should have made them at the time. He also referred in some detail to AHWG’S submission, observing that we had been involved through the history of the case, and accepting that our argument at the appeal was perfectly correct and reasonable. Everyone agreed that the original scheme permitted in 2005 was probably not practical, but that was no reason for demolishing the house; the purpose of the S.106 Agreement was to secure the restoration of a heritage asset which would be lost, and the loss of which would cause substantial harm to the Conservation Area.
• Finally, he felt constrained to mention the Inspector’s comments on the importance of observing the S.106 Agreement, which he considered completely correct.
“I am therefore unable to accept any validity in [the Claimants’] Grounds 1 or 2, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.”
If anyone heard a loud thud at 10.30 this morning, it was about 1,000 tons and 17 years’ burden falling from our shoulders. I trust, though, that you will restrain your anxiety for the full detail of the decision until the decision document is available.
I spoke to Camden’s lawyer, William Bartlett, afterwards, and got the impression that the next loud thud we hear should be Camden coming down on the developers to enforce the S.106 Agreement. I asked him if he thought it possible that the developers would seek leave to go to the Court of Appeal, but he felt that the judge’s decision was so conclusive that they would not succeed.
So – celebrations all round, congratulations to all those who have played a part in this epic battle, and enormous thanks to the Expert Witnesses who did so much for us pro bono, and to David Altaras for keeping his hand on the tiller of the good ship AHWG as it braved the stormy planning seas. We’ll be writing separately to various individuals. I think we can now say, a little less prematurely than we did a few months ago - “Athlone House is saved”. But I also think it important that AHWG is now in a position of strength to take the initiative once again, with Camden and, if possible, the developers, as well as looking for alternative owners who will restore it, because one imagines that it is now a liability to its current owners.
There can be no doubt that the decision will have national implications. If it had gone the other way,- Metropolitan Open Land protection would have been undermined;
- S.106 Agreements would not have been worth the paper they were written on;
- Undesignated heritage assets everywhere, however, important, would have been at risk;
- Communities’ ability to protect their conservation areas would have been undermined.
Finally, apologies for all the similes etc used above: forgivable in the circumstances, I hope – though while in the mood, a couple more from the Bard, which occurred to me in the court:
“Gentlemen in [Hampstead and Highgate] now abed
Will think themselves accursed they were not here” (Henry V before Agincourt)
and, from the Merchant of Venice, “O learned judge!”
-
-
That's really excellent news. Thanks for a comprehensive report Clive.
-
-
Michael I think the next step is that the Section 106 agreement must be enforced, no?!
-
-
The s106 is normally a payment or other contribution to offset the impact of development. If no development has gone ahead.... Not sure how that one will,be argued as I haven't see what the developers agreed to do.
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Anyone know why CaenWood Towers was renamed Athlone House in 1955 (or 1972)?
-
-
I know the name was changed when it became part of the Middlesex Hospital in the 50s but why I don't know.
-
-
Eddie,
I passed along your question. The answer was,
When it was taken over by Middlesex Hospital; Princess Alice Countess of Athlone was supporter of the hospital in days before NHS.
CDC
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
