LETTER FROM RINGLEY TO THE KENTISHTOWNER
NB. We have not corrected any typos in the letter
Given the poor state of the building and our future plans we have hoarded it and begun internal works. We recognise that as a result of local media coverage of this and understand that there are concerns in the local community that we were seeking to demolish the building without planning consent. I would like to be clear that this is not the case. We are working closely with Camden Council’s planning department and following the processes that they have set down.
We are looking to bring forward planning proposals for the site, which would see it replaced with a new building comprising 2 open plan floors of offices (circa 5,500sq feet) and post graduate accommodation above. Our intention is to submit a planning application for this in the coming months. We are still in the very early stages of working up some ideas with our architects and would welcome the views of the Kentish Town Forum and Councillor whose ward borders on this site and has been so vocal.
We have a strong commitment to the local area and want to both stay here and expand. We are currently over capacity in the current building and need to find larger premises. The offices that we are hoping to build would allow us to meet this need and continue to grow locally.
If it is the Victorian style buildng locals seek to preserve, then engage with us as we acknowledge the site is in an important position as part of the gateway to Camden Town and deserves a landmark in its place. If it is a pub locals seek to preserve then, this use failed many years ago and the more recent gig venue use not only failed but was closed down by resident power. Legally to change the use from pub to offices is permitted development so any arguments to protect a pub will run dry.
As for the building…… it was in extremely poor condition, had no valid fire risk assessment, no compartmentation, the roofs were leaking, plants growing out of the parapets, Victorian doors and most features were long lost. In fact, English Heritage rejected Camden’s application to nationally list it saying “it is a typical example of a mid 19-C pub architecture and is not of sufficient distinction to warrant listing on the grounds of external architectural quality” and in respect of the interior “the interior appears to have been comprehensively altered and lacking in fittings of interest” These decisions being made before we became the owners.
Legislation sets out guidance on when a council should seek to remove one’s permitted development rights – central government guidance states that they should only be removed in exceptional circumstances we fail to see what exceptional circumstances exist here. The building is not within a conservation area, statutorily listed and indeed an application to list it was recently rejected, nor is it on the Council current local list.
Replacement Annex D to Circular 9/95 (June 2012) carries forward the earlier advice and this is now contained in paragraph 2.1 and advises that “Local planning authorities should consider making article 4 directions only in those exceptional circumstances where evidence suggests that the exercise of permitted development right would harm local amenity or the proper planning of the area”. Not only has any preparatory work done to date fallen within our permitted development rights – but we fail to see how following the proper planning process for a replacement building would harm local amenity – we will create a minimum of 28 jobs at the location. Yes there is a process to follow and yes we are following it.
As a local I know you’ll remember that Ringley have been in Kentish Town since 1997 and have grown to employ 60 people at 349 Royal College Street, we even received recognition from Camden & Islington as employer of the year 2012.
We see little beauty in the pub and there is a growing number of people who appear to agree. We strongly recommend people engage with us to continue the regeneration we started when we rescued Ringley House after it had been abandoned for 22 years with 8 billboards being the gateway to Camden Town. Nowdays you’ll see the union jack or the st georges cross flag flying when we find an excuse, plants, and a vibrant office full of people.
Careers are being built here, we urge your readers to engage with the potential to build not only a beautiful replacement building but also more opportunities for locals. 34% of our current people are local and we have policies to recruit locally where we can. The Camden Island site behind us would never have got off the ground had it not been for what we started, Ringley have contributed to rising property prices in this area and hope to continue to do so.
30 thoughts on “Ringley respond to readers’ outcry over the Castle demolition: “We have contributed to rising property prices””
Hmmm. The letter from Ringley looks pretty reasonable to me. The pub and gig venue clearly were unsustainable (otherwise they wouldn’t have shut down).
Even the most beautiful building becomes an eyesore if a purpose cannot be found for it. And as Ringley’s letter says, the building isn’t nice or notable enough to warrant listing.
I’d obviously prefer it if a purpose could be found for the current building. But that isn’t the choice facing us.The choice we have is whether to have a new building that’s being used or a once-nice empty one that’s falling to rack and ruin. For all sorts of reasons – aesthetics, the broken windows theory of crime, general feel of the area, local prosperity – I’d rather have a new building.
Oh and Kentishtowner: please stop slagging off better-off incomers and locals who want property prices to go up. We’re your readership too and we want the area to do well.
Are you the Julian that works at Ringley?
‘fraid not chum; my name isn’t even Julian.
I just think some people are born into a different universe where “wealth creation” and “development” and “progress” can never be challenged. And these people trample all over the very heart of the neighborhood that attracts them in the process and then construct soulless edifices all over the place in the name of “jobs” and “growth” completely oblivious to the fact they are undermining the growth they think they are promoting. Because it is utterly charmless. Like the alien spaceship landing next to Kentish Town West station (who on earth thinks this will add something good to the neighbourhood?!!!!). You see it everywhere. Spitalfields. That street in Camden with Pomodoro and Wagamama.
Ringley’s. I know you think you are doing the right thing “saving” this pub but no one wants to see bland offices except you and people like you. “Providing jobs” or “redeveloping a building” is not an unambiguous positive. It’s not just about margins. It’s about the soul, the feeling, the essence of a neighborhood. And by considering a thoughtful redevelopment you can intangibly increase the desirability of a location way beyond the fast profits the offices will provide. Please listen to the people!!
Sure, there’s nothing wrong with a little soul in a neighbourhood. All I’m saying is: let’s take some of that soul and MONETIZE it. I like to think of it more as releasing equity from common cultural capital, and then spending it on something shiny and transient. Don’t know too much about local history, but I do know there’s no time like the present!
I find the Ringleys response reasonable too. In fact, the Kentishtowner editorial dissing it with some rather sanctimonious commentary before we get to read it and judge for ourselves is the biggest misfire here.
Plenty of Kentishtowners have benefited from rising prices and the area becoming less scruffy over the last decade. And you know what: it really is a pretty ugly building.
Are Ringley employees out on mass on this? Yawn.
Thanks for that entirely useless contribution to the debate, Anthony. I’m not an employee of Ringley’s and think they have gone about this in the wrong way entirely.
I just objected to the way The Kentishtowner, a site I love, chose on this occasion to present their feedback by editorialising against it before we had a chance to look at it ourselves.
I love Gillian Tindall too, and her authority on this subject means her opinions should be listened to extra carefully. It just so happens that I disagree with her on this occasion. I find myself agreeing with English Heritage instead.
The current building has been on the site since the mid-nineteenth century and has clearly been treated poorly in recent years. As a result of which, I don’t think it has any particular architectural merit, inside or out. In fact, it’s always been an eyesore as far as I’m concerned.
en masse.
Nice bit of ad hominem there. Sadly, I don’t work for Ringley’s.
Thank you, Kentishtowner, for prominently recognising the significant proportion of us ‘locals’ who are still (after decades) renting – the whole “rising property prices” thing sticks in my throat a little – though I can sympathise with the homeowners, too. Ringley’s position as stated in their letter is understandable, though it does betray their lack of appreciation for things that are of intrinsic value to the soul of an area & its society, apparently seeing only that which boosts the figures on a balance sheet. I only hope that whatever they build on the Castle site is interesting & aesthetically pleasing … & doesn’t ride roughshod over any Castle-based heritage.
It’s a very badly written letter. Incoherent writing comes from incoherent thinking – which doesn’t promise well for any new development. A good new building here could be great, but that will only come from a process of real needs being met (e.g. social housing, not “post-graduate’ bedroom-cells and nebulous open-plan office space). Good, modern design only follows on from real needs being identified and met. Look at the Bartholomew Road Health Centre for an example of that. The Swains Lane process, reported on this site, and with significant help from architects, suggests ways forward here.
Just a small example of the bad writing: “34% of our current people are local”. What does “current people” mean? Of course we can guess. But if Ringley had said “A third of our present 60 employees live in or around Kentish Town” then we would know what they meant. To say “34%” is misplaced precision.The whole letter is disingenuous in this way.
How on earth would social housing help? Given the low financial returns social housing would deliver, the structure would need to be redeveloped for even less money, which means less money for architects and therefore an uglier or at least more identikit property.
If the objection here is primarily an aesthetic one then we either need to find the money to save, refurbish and maintain the current building from philanthropic sources; or use it for the purpose that will generate the highest returns and therefore allow the developers to spend a bit of cash on its aesthetics.
Of course you’re right about “social housing” (I was thinking of the recent Peabody buildings): a property developer will never build that, and I only expect the worst architecture from a profit-maximizer like Ringley. Spending a “bit of cash” on “aesthetics” doesn’t sound promising at all. The point I was trying to make is that decent buildings only ever come from clear needs. The Health Centre on Bartholomew Road is a shining example. An arts venue, as Nicola suggests below, could generate a good building here. But will Ringley want to do that?
PS: Kings Place is an example of an arts + business building put up by a developer. But that was a developer with a vision, which Ringley – on the evidence of this miserable letter – don’t have.
I think if one wants to live in a souless environment with faceless office buildings then move to Croydon central. The most expensive and desirable areas to live in London take pride in their historic buildings-preserving and restoring buildings, even ones that have no supposed “architectural merit”. Where is the “architectural merit” in this breed of building multiplying across Kentish Town? I include the Ringley’s building.
Rising house prices does very few people any favours whether on a good income or not. For those in their first home the increase in value is an illusion as the next step up is exponentionally higher and so just as unaffordable as the first rung is for those struggling to buy at all. Where once you might have expected your property to rise in price a modest amount while you saved more to make the step up now there is no step within reach. I for one do not thank Ringley for rising property prices.
I too want the area to do well but I do not consider high property prices an indicator of this. I would like a high street with shops I want to shop in, restaurants I want to eat in, and sports and recreational facilities in the area available for all.. If these amenities are all within the pockets of the local residents who wish to use them then I would consider the area to be doing well.
As to the Castle, I have held a certain fondness for it over the years, mainly due to Gillian Tindall’s book, but once it lost its name to become “The Venue” and other names since, for me it lost its link with history. And while I don’t think an office/residential block will enhance that part of the street at all – I’d prefer a modern arts/music/food venue, maybe with the liviing space above if that makes it viable – I’m not the one with the money.
Although I understand Ringley’s position, and English Heritage’s and the Council’s etc, the fact remains that unless we protect our local buildings, we really will end up looking like Watford High Street or any other characterless road – I want to keep as much of Kentish Town’s history and independent buildings as possible. I’m very happy for Ringley to take over the building and hope they make it look beautiful again; I don’t want another faceless office block making our high street look like a business park.
Estate agents are only interested in making money, they don’t give a damn about the community. They have priced a lot of local people out of the housing market in Kentish Town.
So agree with this. I definitley won’t be going to Ringleys again and will recommend that all my friends and acquaintances do they same.
They are treating the local community with contempt and have no regard for local people or environment. Just pure greed.
Estate agents don’t set prices. The market does.
But here is what this estate agent says: “Ringley have contributed to rising property prices in this area and hope to continue to do so”. (“The market” is human beings taking decisions: estate agents, bankers, politicians, you and me, etc.)
The only participants that really matter in the market are buyers and sellers. Brokers and advisors such as estate agents can only influence the core actors; they can’t take pricing decisions.
An estate agent might claim to have contributed to rising prices, but that’s like a GP’s receptionist claiming to have improved health outcomes in the area covered by their practice. At best it’s self-indulgent and ill-informed puffery.
No matter how poor the condition of the building, however architecturally typical it is; I guarantee anything Ringley propose to replace the current facade with, will be instantly forgettable. The site will be ‘optimised’ for maximum return on Ringleys investment. The Design will be anything but, just another architect forcing his cold ego on a street with personality. It’s not all a done deal, the architect will still have to select whether to ‘design’ his design from the concrete or glass catalogue. Everything can be machined to 2mm tolerances in a material that has zero sympathy with its surroundings. Chris above, you sum it up nicely, why do people move to places with character and then try and turn them into the next Stevenage, please just buy an ex local authority flat and live in your urban ideal. For the rest of us who prize individuality, history, provenance; Ringley, please, look at the success of the restorations around Kings Cross or closer to home Kentish Town Baths and breath life into an old building. In contrast, just look at the eyesore on Harmood Street for University Accommodation, the Lock Tavern has been trashed. There’s dozens of pubs across the city that have been converted for use as theatres, comedy club venues, restaurants, you don’t need to trash the character of our high street to return a profit.
I find ringleys such a stuck up estate agents. Whenever I walk past their offices with my pushchair and me being ethnic. The dirty look they give me is shocking. It’s like they have radar button under their desk that gives a warning “do not get near our property you are bringing our house prices down! Or they want to make an impression to their buyers how middle class the area is then there’s me with my lovely Iceland bags and my big old push chair ha ha ha
REMINDER
You have until 17.00 today, Monday 1 July to make comments to Edward.Bailey@camden.gov.uk
regarding Article 4 and Local List.
I think RIngley’s have smartened up their present building fairly well. So why do they have to ruin it all with those awful billboard size adverts in their windows? I see they are trying the same tactic by pleading their case with similar ugly placards on the castle. They just dont get it.
They may have smartened up their building, but as you go in to it there are two steps down into the office making it wheelchair inaccessible. So much for employing 60 people. I wonder how many of them are mobility disabled – or, for that matter, disabled at all …
@ Julianator Tuesday 2 July 2013 at 9:44 am: That’s not a realistic account. For example, who sets the interest rates? Who determines the level of stamp duty? And when estate agents are out of the picture, and buyer and seller deal directly, then the price is no longer the “market price”. Estate agents do have a strong say in prices, and Ringley’s boast isn’t an idle one.
Getting back to the main topic here, maybe it’s a good idea to wait and see what the planning application for the Castle site is like. Then we can all have another go.
Agree that my account is simplified when it comes to actors that can impose taxes, though only badly designed taxes impact prices in a way that change the underlying value of an asset. Stamp duty, with its cliff-edge approach, is such a tax.
Interest rates are a different matter. Demand and supply decisions (i.e the market) sets those. The government would have you believe otherwise, but the recent failure of mortgage rates to fall at same rate as, and to a closer level to, the BofE base rate, proves my point.
Estate agents really do have next to no impact on price levels; witness what would happen if an estate agent tried to set a price well under or over the equilibrium point between demand and supply. If underpriced, demand would be so high that the seller would increase their price; if overpriced, demand would be so low that the seller would have to decrease price if they wanted to sell. Either way the equilibrium would be reached without the intervention of the estate agent. And just because there isn’t a public broker doesn’t mean there isn’t a market price; the market exists in the decisions made between buyers and sellers, not as a physical or even virtual forum provided by brokers.
The point of all this detail is actually important and central to the discussion: Ringley’s and other developers aren’t to blame for ruining the building and/or the area. The market is, through the micro-decisions we all take daily that influence how we use the space around us. If we want fewer developments such as Ringley’s porposed one we need to change how we all use these spaces. Otherwise we’re simply protesting against our own bad decisions.