Serious Concerns Regarding the Development at Tavis House

  The development at Tavis House poses significant risks to the heritage and community values we hold dear. Below, we detail the key areas of concern based on established planning policies and guidelines that we believe are not adequately addressed in the current proposal: 

 Pre-application engagement undertaken by the applicant both prior to the original application being  submitted: The assertion in the Cover Letter claiming limited concern or interest in the proposed amendments at Tavis House is not only misleading but grossly inaccurate. We are fully aware that the sentiment among many stakeholders is one of significant distress and opposition. The proposals are seen as highly contentious, sparking considerable alarm regarding the apparent lack of community engagement. This website and our urgent call for community input stand as a testament to the deep-seated concerns and the critical need for a more inclusive and transparent dialogue. It is essential that these voices be heard and acknowledged, not dismissed or underestimated. 

  The NPPF stipulates stringent guidelines for developments affecting heritage assets, emphasizing the need to assess and preserve the significance of these assets within their settings. The current proposal for Tavis House seems to disregard these requirements, potentially leading to irreversible impacts on the local heritage environment, in particular Mary Ward House (Grade 1 Listed Building)

 Issues of cumulative change and economic viability are central to our concerns. The redevelopment proposal appears to overlook the cumulative impact of ongoing and proposed changes which could destabilize the conservation efforts and economic sustainability of the area.

  This policy mandates that any development involving heritage assets should preserve their significance by considering their importance and harmoniously integrating with the surroundings. The proposed development's scale and design could significantly disrupt this balance. 

Policy D2 protects designated heritage assets from loss or substantial harm. The proposed extensive demolition and construction at Tavis House might contravene this policy, threatening the integrity of local heritage assets.

The Construction Management Plan (CMP) submitted for Tavis House is outdated and irrelevant to the current planning application (reference 2024/1267/P). The CMP, dated 2021, fails to reflect the substantial demolition and structural changes proposed in the latest application. Without an updated CMP, there is a significant oversight in planning and risk management, particularly in addressing the impacts of such extensive demolition. Additionally, there has been a notable absence of stakeholder engagement, which is essential to ensure that the redevelopment does not adversely affect the local community. It is imperative that a revised CMP be prepared and presented, one that fully corresponds with the current project scope and includes comprehensive community consultation to mitigate any potential negative effects on the local area

 Noise pollution generated from the additional plant equipment and the negative visual impact of the acoustic screening on the setting of a Grade I Listed Building: Concerns about the proposed development at Tavis House focus on potential noise from new external plant equipment on the 8th/9th floors and a substation in the yard. A submitted Noise Assessment promises mitigation through acoustic screens and strategic plant placement, but these issues should still be addressed with both Mary Ward House occupants and local residents. Additionally, the plant screening's design on Tavis House's rear façade is visually intrusive and fails to complement the nearby Grade I Listed Mary Ward House, suggesting a need for a design review to better fit the historical setting. 

 The use of the rear yard to accommodate servicing and deliveries associated with labs and the disruption caused by the construction works: The proposed amendments at Tavis House include expanding services to the rear yard to support lab operations, which differ significantly from the previously approved office use. These changes involve constructing a double-height opening on the rear façade to facilitate vehicle movements. Although the site has a separate access from Mary Ward House, the increased traffic and yard operations could disrupt its users. It is crucial that discussions occur with the occupants of Mary Ward House, Local Business's and Local Residents to address and mitigate any adverse effects from these activities.

A preliminary Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted with the application, outlining that construction traffic, material storage, and waste management will be concentrated in the rear yard adjacent to Mary Ward House. This setup raises concerns about the impact on Mary Ward House, Local Business's and Local Residents during construction. While a detailed CMP has not yet been fully developed, engaging with Mary Ward House Local Business's and Local Residents will be vital to ensure minimal disruption. Camden Council has stipulated that neighbourhood consultations occur before finalizing the CMP, requiring at least two meetings with local stakeholders to inform the plan’s development. These meetings should be well-documented, with minutes and attendee lists included in the final CMP submission. We have no knowledge or record of any neighbourhood consultation CMP.