Council U-turn over petition to protect AIR studios
- Credit: Nigel Sutton
Camden planners have made a U-turn by ruling that an 11,700-strong petition against a basement development next to AIR studios will not be ignored.
As reported exclusively by the Ham&High, AIR’s owners were told the petition and scores of other written objections supported by celebrities including singer George Michael and actress Joanna Lumley could be completely meaningless due to a planning loophole.
The objections were to plans submitted last April by Andrew and Elizabeth Jeffreys, to build a swimming pool, gym, sauna and cinema under their Georgian house in Rosslyn Hill next to the world famous studios,
Studio bosses fear the noise and vibrations from the excavations means they will be forced to close for up to six months which could threaten AIR’s future.
In December, the Jeffreys submitted a new, virtually identical application. They said this was common procedure and they did it to address feedback received so far.
You may also want to watch:
But when AIR’s owner Paul Woolf approached Camden Council to check the status of the petition and letters he was told they would no longer apply.
Mr Woolf launched a campaign last week urging original protesters to resubmit their objections and agree to an amended petition.
- 1 Women attacked by wrench-wielding man in Hampstead
- 2 Camden residents offered symptom-free Covid testing
- 3 Haverstock Hill cycle lanes order scrapped by Camden Council
- 4 Buyers claim luxury flats are 'nightmare' construction site
- 5 South Hampstead neighbours mourn tree felled by Storm Christoph
- 6 Every single critical care bed full at hospitals
- 7 'Big victory,' says man behind Haverstock Hill cycle lanes legal challenge
- 8 Crouch End's 'Paul the Paper' bids farewell to Broadway stall
- 9 Westminster Council shelves Paddington Rec cycling plans
- 10 Plans for council homes to replace Highgate car wash
This week a Camden spokesman issued an apology, staying that the original objections would, in fact, be carried over.
She said: “We should apologise for any impression to the contrary that may have been given to date. Since this application immediately follows the last application and is essentially identical, we can confirm that we will take all representations received on the first scheme into account and no one needs resubmit their objection if they have nothing to add.”
While welcoming the change of heart, Mr Woolf said: “We are dismayed and outraged by the timing which, amazingly, we had to hear from the Ham&High. We have since incurred more legal costs and had to activate another petition.”