Camden Film Quarter Survey of Candidates.  To give residents clear, comparable answers before polling day, the petition team asked each local party to state exactly where they stand on the most excessive and unreasonable aspects of the Camden Film Quarter (CFQ) development.  

We received responses from two parties: the Labour candidates for Kentish Town North and Kentish Town South, and the Green Party on behalf of thirteen candidates standing across Haverstock, Highgate, Gospel Oak, Kentish Town North, and Kentish Town South.  

Candidates from Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Reform were contacted, but no responses were received, despite a follow up chaser.  

Comparison of party responses on the Camden Film Quarter on:

 1. What maximum building height do you consider appropriate

GREENS: no more than 5 storeys on Holmes Road opposite the school, and 8 storeys elsewhere, citing Policy D1’s requirement that development “respect the local context and character.”

LABOUR: no figure given — “There is no single ‘appropriate’ height in isolation.”

2. Is it acceptable to relocate waste recycling facilities in a residential area considering fire safety risk

GREENS: NO  “it is difficult to see how a fire in the recycling centre could be stopped from spreading upwards and threatening the safety of people living above.”

LABOUR: only with specific mitigations, including fire safety, separation, ventilation, and independent assessment.

3. Should deep basement excavation opposite the primary school be permitted

GREENS: NO  the greens calculate ~350,000m³ of spoil requiring “30,000–35,000 lorries… ie. 70,000 vehicle movements” past five named local schools.

LABOUR: Only with specific safeguards, including HGV limits, air-quality monitoring, and noise/vibration controls.

4. Overall position

GREENS: The scheme is “gross overdevelopment, jeopardising people’s health and wellbeing and Camden’s own services,” and “cannot be modified sufficiently to make it acceptable.”

LABOUR: Proposals must be “carefully balanced  considering housing need, jobs and regeneration alongside impacts on residents,” and they supported deferring the application so decisions are made on evidence.