in the words of the Examiner: "I have come to the conclusion that the facility is indeed a community facility, on a par with the others in the list, and that it should be recognised as such in E5. I therefore recommend that in E5, the facility be listed by reference to its address, not a name." THANK YOU TO ALL WHO HAVE SUPPORTED US! We believe this is an important recognition that the people who have been occupying this facility constitute a community (both day centre users and People's Centre) and will be seeking all the support we can muster to ensure that this community has a chance to develop and grow into a full inclusive community resource. See below for link to the report and a fuller excerpt http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/environment/planning-and-built-environment/two/planning-policy/neighbourhood-planning/fortune-green-and-west-hampstead-neighbourhood-forum.en "8.3 One contentious aspect of the plan, which gave rise to a range of representations, is the inclusion of the People’s Centre for Change in the list of community facilities at E5, for protection. The Centre meets the needs of a section of the community with severe impairments and complex needs. It uses a facility known as New Shoots Day Centre, at 96-8 Shoot-up-Hill. At the public hearing I heard oral evidence from parents of those who are supported by the centre, and who are very concerned by the Council’s plans to close down the facility and use the site to fund a new, broader ranged, facility in Kentish Town. I also heard from the Council as landowner, as to the background and objectives of these plans. They objected to its inclusion, as they considered its protection would undermine the viability of the new facility, the plans for which are well advanced and approved. 8.4 The Council, as planning authority, is concerned, inter alia, about the blanket application of the policy and that it applied to a particular group (as opposed to a facility) so could not be given protection. I agree with these points. However, I have come to the conclusion that the facility is indeed a community facility, on a par with the others in the list, and that it should be recognised as such in E5. I therefore recommend that in E5, the facility be listed by reference to its address, not a name. To avoid the policy providing unqualified protection to these facilities – and the places of worship listed in E6 – I am recommending it be appropriately modified.