On Thursday 22 March the Planning Committee had to make a decision on an application to demolish and refurbish Templar House, a fine, beautifully detailed 1950s neo-classical office block, that defines the essential character of High Holborn.

 

BRAG was pleased to support the deputation being made by the Red Lion Tenants & Residents Association, speaking for the Red Lion Estate and its neighbours directly to the north of the development site. The Estate includes many social housing units accommodating families with children and many vulnerable residents including the elderly, the disabled and those with mental health issues.

 

Local residents were strongly opposed to this proposed development which would result in local people living in the shadow of a 15 storey structure, more than doubling the height of the existing building that overlooks Eagle Street today. Although a late submission, BRAG’s objection was read out to the Planning Committee during the meeting.

 

The applicant proposed to replace the existing office building with a development of two parts  -  a new commercial building on High Holborn 12 storeys high (reduced from 14 no. originally) and a residential building accessed from Eagle Street, a narrow street to the rear, comprising 52 residential units, 4 of which would be allocated for social housing.

 

It was suggested by planning officers that any loss of light to neighbouring residential properties, in the Red Lion Estate and in neighbouring streets, was outweighed by the merits of the additional commercial and residential space.  Local residents contended that the mass, density and height of this proposed development were just too great to be acceptable, as noted by the GLA and other bodies.

 

Local residents also disputed the developer’s claim that the proposed building would not be unduly prominent as demonstrated by views taken from Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Gray’s Inn and Red Lion Square. But there was a suspicion that these images had been manipulated to minimise the impact on the surrounding area.   

 

The webcast of committee meetings can be useful and informative. Although officers recommended approval, Councillor Danny Beales asked a very simple question: “The Conservation Area Committee don’t particularly like it. The Design Review Panel, our independent design experts, don’t like it - think it’s too high. All of those experts locally and nationally seem to have some issues with it. Yet we decided we don’t. Why?”

 

Why indeed? Neither Heritage England nor the GLA were in support.

 

Councillor Flick Rea spoke eloquently when she said, “This is part of a residential area. I can’t believe we’re settling for a rather handsome, if too tall, building for 4 affordable flats and a quarter of a million pounds to stop us complaining about pollution.” 

 

It was good to see that the majority of the Planning Committee recognised the so-called “public benefits” did not outweigh harm to the character of the area, the destruction of an historic façade and a huge negative impact on residential amenity. Following the vote as to whether the officers’ recommendation should be approved or not, Councillor Heather Johnson, the Chair, said “I think that is clearly lost”. Lost for whom? For those who would profit from the redevelopment, of course. But it was certainly welcomed by the residents who live nearby.

 

Despite being recommended by Camden Planning Officers, the Councillors on the Planning Committee backed local residents in refusing approval. But this is unlikely to be the end of the battle to ensure redevelopment of Templar House does not cast an enduring blight on the neighbourhood.