Home
The Somers Town Neighborthood Plan is now in draft form for comments.
You can see the draft plan here, as well as comment:
http://somerstownplan.info/plan/
Here is my comment on the Somers Town Neighborhood Plan to inspire:
I do not agree to “relocate” (it is not really the correct word because there is also a playground at Polygon park) the children’s playground from Purchese Street Park because a dogs’ exercise area is necessary (and should be expanded to be fair) and there also needs to be an adjacent playground for children for people with both, to be a protection for children, or regardless.
A lot of the Plan describes the ethos:
I personally think the word partnership is too strong as an aim with private sector developers.
It would seem to me to be a bit of a sweeping statement to say, “the Plan has been prepared, and will be delivered with the support of Ward Councillors.” because I think that they are different people, free and independent from each other- and the forum should not be fixed either.
It is said: “Implementation of projects is essential to (the?)plan delivery and monitoring?” How can that be? The main project is the Job Hub and if it is statutory, as stated, there would seem to be a conflict of interest with people attending a democratic forum (and often the subgroups are held at times excluding most in a full time job) and being under the same people’s control in a job hub, if what is meant by statutory is mandatory? These things are proposed but I don’t know if they have been discussed. It is not realistic therefore here to say, “the job hub will build community resilience..residents can truly become both recipients and providers of the services as they become more involved in the management of their own community and its assets. (Our Place Development Strategy)”
It may rather be to the benefit of the Somers Town “community” however (residents, I think, would tend to think you mean residents but I think it is likely something else is meant eg organisations) NOT to capitalise on every opportunity for “growth” (as stated).
The planning forum should be rather steering “growth”, rather than capitalising on every opportunity”.
“Open book” I think needs to be broader with “Open policies/plans” too eg what are the other CIP projects in Somers Town about and for? This is not transparent. Likewise, accounts of the Planning Forum, itself, even if it has no funds, this needs to be transparent as well.
I am not sure about the prediction for gentrification based on other areas (situated like a necklace), and the idea of Somers Town being the last one left. Eg at Regent’s Place, the only other area shown which is in Camden, I do not think that there were dramatic changes in population relating to “unskilled/basic employment/immigrants” ie leaving the area. A lot of very nice social housing was created there and it doesn’t appear to be at a cost for residents (ie taking away the park). (It would also likely be the case that people would be agreeable to move from some places for a choice of moving somewhere they could choose and then more new housing could be built.) (nb there is another discussion with the current Housing Bill proposals regarding the movement of losing social housing as the Council is forced to sell some housing as it becomes available – and also the idea of new tenancies being time limited, as well as housing association flats being able to be bought up by the tenant - see Housing section on this webiste via Home, top left.)
Also, where it is said “residents helping themselves out of disadvantage” most people are employed in Somers Town, with apparently around 10% of working age people unemployed).
People are also loyal to the wider neighbourhood (rather than smaller areas as stated) if they have opportunity to work together on it, and do appreciate Somers Town as an area.
I do not know what “communities want to stay and get a slice of the action” means. Unless what is meant is organisations. In that case they should not be the main voice of the forum but rather the residents.
I don’t think the forum should “co-ordinate private development” but rather predominately residents should discuss what is happening and communicate, and there should be clear procedure eg decisions made in meetings. The forum needs to be better organised then, and does not seem to therefore “tackle social exclusion” as is mentioned.
I don’t think it is uncontroversial to say that HS2” is “integral to national transport policy.” With very many people thinking it is a very bad idea indeed, as well as a very tiny minority of residents being for it and rather a huge majority against it.
*************************************************************
In particular:
I do not think that the convent in Phoenix Road has plans to become empty (I checked with one of the sisters) and therefore it should not be under Meanwhile Use (as if ideas should be sought as if it were going to be).
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=17140
If a cycle route is being proposed for Midland Road (if so this policy is not very clear), this is not a good idea because of the extreme pollution there. Cyclists are already in too close a proximity to pollution. In any case they should not be directed to cycle in this terrible pollution adjacent to the stationary line of taxis pumping out their diesel pollution constantly.
Not just “build on good design, layout and management practice drawn from nearby St Mary St Pancras school” but why not also the METHOD they used, which is building off-site to prevent more air pollution from dust in construction (and this – the constant building – being something that residents in Somers Town are very much aware of eg with British Library, Unison Building, St Pancras Station, Regent High, Crick.)
The description of Polygon Road open space does not mention the abundant mature trees there at all. (There are also large stones that many people like and children like to sit on and it has been presumed that these stones if they are to be moved for some reason would be moved into the polygon “park”[if that is what it will remain] where they can be appreciated there).
The Purchese Street Park description does not mention the dogs’ area, which should be larger and more attractive, nor the current children’s play area.
I agree that Coopers Lane estate does compliment the woodlands of the Purchese St Park. Which if you walk through is interesting and therefore a good observation.
I agree with Project M4 - Dog fouling - but believe that next to the dog exercise area there should be safe play area for children (including for people with both dogs and children, whose dog may be using the exercise area, and where there could be potentially a dangerous attack).
I don’t think we should or could stop people taking an interest from outside eg with guided tours (if that is what was meant), however, I am not sure if a repertory cinema is a good idea because it may be an aspect of gentrification and there is already one of these 5 minutes away at the Brunswick centre.
The HS2 petition should have been shared with residents for comment, in the same way as this plan is. I don’t think it was.
You can see the draft plan here, as well as comment:
http://somerstownplan.info/plan/
Here is my comment on the Somers Town Neighborhood Plan to inspire:
I do not agree to “relocate” (it is not really the correct word because there is also a playground at Polygon park) the children’s playground from Purchese Street Park because a dogs’ exercise area is necessary (and should be expanded to be fair) and there also needs to be an adjacent playground for children for people with both, to be a protection for children, or regardless.
A lot of the Plan describes the ethos:
I personally think the word partnership is too strong as an aim with private sector developers.
It would seem to me to be a bit of a sweeping statement to say, “the Plan has been prepared, and will be delivered with the support of Ward Councillors.” because I think that they are different people, free and independent from each other- and the forum should not be fixed either.
It is said: “Implementation of projects is essential to (the?)plan delivery and monitoring?” How can that be? The main project is the Job Hub and if it is statutory, as stated, there would seem to be a conflict of interest with people attending a democratic forum (and often the subgroups are held at times excluding most in a full time job) and being under the same people’s control in a job hub, if what is meant by statutory is mandatory? These things are proposed but I don’t know if they have been discussed. It is not realistic therefore here to say, “the job hub will build community resilience..residents can truly become both recipients and providers of the services as they become more involved in the management of their own community and its assets. (Our Place Development Strategy)”
It may rather be to the benefit of the Somers Town “community” however (residents, I think, would tend to think you mean residents but I think it is likely something else is meant eg organisations) NOT to capitalise on every opportunity for “growth” (as stated).
The planning forum should be rather steering “growth”, rather than capitalising on every opportunity”.
“Open book” I think needs to be broader with “Open policies/plans” too eg what are the other CIP projects in Somers Town about and for? This is not transparent. Likewise, accounts of the Planning Forum, itself, even if it has no funds, this needs to be transparent as well.
I am not sure about the prediction for gentrification based on other areas (situated like a necklace), and the idea of Somers Town being the last one left. Eg at Regent’s Place, the only other area shown which is in Camden, I do not think that there were dramatic changes in population relating to “unskilled/basic employment/immigrants” ie leaving the area. A lot of very nice social housing was created there and it doesn’t appear to be at a cost for residents (ie taking away the park). (It would also likely be the case that people would be agreeable to move from some places for a choice of moving somewhere they could choose and then more new housing could be built.) (nb there is another discussion with the current Housing Bill proposals regarding the movement of losing social housing as the Council is forced to sell some housing as it becomes available – and also the idea of new tenancies being time limited, as well as housing association flats being able to be bought up by the tenant - see Housing section on this webiste via Home, top left.)
Also, where it is said “residents helping themselves out of disadvantage” most people are employed in Somers Town, with apparently around 10% of working age people unemployed).
People are also loyal to the wider neighbourhood (rather than smaller areas as stated) if they have opportunity to work together on it, and do appreciate Somers Town as an area.
I do not know what “communities want to stay and get a slice of the action” means. Unless what is meant is organisations. In that case they should not be the main voice of the forum but rather the residents.
I don’t think the forum should “co-ordinate private development” but rather predominately residents should discuss what is happening and communicate, and there should be clear procedure eg decisions made in meetings. The forum needs to be better organised then, and does not seem to therefore “tackle social exclusion” as is mentioned.
I don’t think it is uncontroversial to say that HS2” is “integral to national transport policy.” With very many people thinking it is a very bad idea indeed, as well as a very tiny minority of residents being for it and rather a huge majority against it.
*************************************************************
In particular:
I do not think that the convent in Phoenix Road has plans to become empty (I checked with one of the sisters) and therefore it should not be under Meanwhile Use (as if ideas should be sought as if it were going to be).
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=17140
If a cycle route is being proposed for Midland Road (if so this policy is not very clear), this is not a good idea because of the extreme pollution there. Cyclists are already in too close a proximity to pollution. In any case they should not be directed to cycle in this terrible pollution adjacent to the stationary line of taxis pumping out their diesel pollution constantly.
Not just “build on good design, layout and management practice drawn from nearby St Mary St Pancras school” but why not also the METHOD they used, which is building off-site to prevent more air pollution from dust in construction (and this – the constant building – being something that residents in Somers Town are very much aware of eg with British Library, Unison Building, St Pancras Station, Regent High, Crick.)
The description of Polygon Road open space does not mention the abundant mature trees there at all. (There are also large stones that many people like and children like to sit on and it has been presumed that these stones if they are to be moved for some reason would be moved into the polygon “park”[if that is what it will remain] where they can be appreciated there).
The Purchese Street Park description does not mention the dogs’ area, which should be larger and more attractive, nor the current children’s play area.
I agree that Coopers Lane estate does compliment the woodlands of the Purchese St Park. Which if you walk through is interesting and therefore a good observation.
I agree with Project M4 - Dog fouling - but believe that next to the dog exercise area there should be safe play area for children (including for people with both dogs and children, whose dog may be using the exercise area, and where there could be potentially a dangerous attack).
I don’t think we should or could stop people taking an interest from outside eg with guided tours (if that is what was meant), however, I am not sure if a repertory cinema is a good idea because it may be an aspect of gentrification and there is already one of these 5 minutes away at the Brunswick centre.
The HS2 petition should have been shared with residents for comment, in the same way as this plan is. I don’t think it was.
