North London's Cultural Guide

Castle pub demolition: an underhand letter from Ringley’s

The property management group hit back at our series of "negative" articles, despite an overwhelming tide of reader support to have the building listed. And now historian Gillian Tindall has added her support to our campaign, calling Ringley's "contemptible"

"A disused ugly building." Really?
“A disused ugly building.” Really? Photo: Stephen Emms

We know how much you all care about preventing the proposed demolition of the Castle (or Heroes, or the Flowerpot), the 1840s pub with a long history that dates back to its glory days as a Victorian pleasure garden. Each time we have covered it you have responded with dozens of comments, and the stories have been viewed thousands of times.

And so we’d like to thank several readers for forwarding us a letter that has been doing the rounds – sent by none other than local property people Ringley’s, who accuse both us and the Camden New Journal of “running a series of negative articles”. Negative? On the contrary, we are passionate about preserving our valuable past – while, of course, looking to the future in the most pragmatic (and least soulless) way.

Last night Gillian Tindall, author of seminal Kentish Town history The Fields Beneath, added her voice of support. “The central point to be made about the Castle is that it is not just an early Victorian pub,” she writes below, “and a good example of one, but that there have been a series of Castle taverns on the same site going back to the late middle ages. “The Castle”, at the entrance to Kentish Town, has been a landmark for hundreds of years; it has given its name, in various versions, to surrounding streets. Ringley’s ignorance and arrogance in regard to these facts are contemptible – and they pretend to be interested in Kentish Town.”

Absolutely. Yet in a long stream of bullet points as part of their round robin letter, Ringley’s say: “[We] don’t think the building is sufficiently beautiful to merit protection. The former pub has no unusual Victorian features worth preserving, no clock tower, no domed roof, no interesting dormer roof structures etc…I fail to understand what the Council feel they would like to protect.”


LOCAL ADVERTISING


They say: “A new office development would be more visually pleasing than a black decaying old pub.”

And they even say: “Redevelopment of the site and the erection of a new building will create more jobs for the construction industry.” You what?

A portion of the letter sent by Ringley’s

I need to ask for your help as a friend of Ringley, particularly if you lives/work in the borough of Camden.

You may remember how before Ringley our existing offices stood derelict for 22 years after Dunn’s folded. We renegerated this and have grown and recently bought 147 Kentish Town Road opposite to grow into as a 2nd office.

The Camden New Journal and the Kentishtowner have run a series of negative articles and we now find ourselves faced with Camden Council wanting to locally list the building, despite English Heritage confirming it does not merit this and Camden’s application to put it on the national list being rejected.

All we ask that you do is email edward.bailey@camden.gov.uk by close of play Thursday 20th June.

If you agree with English Heritage that this building is not particularly special and regeneration is more important, both to get rid of this scruffy building, but also to continue the regeneration of Kentish Town South as well as provide more jobs.

If you can paste the same and send it to letters@camdennewjournal.co.uk and paste a comment at the bottom of this page link below that would be lovely too http://www.kentishtowner.co.uk/2013/05/23/for-the-wrecking-ball-hostoric-pub-home-to-the-legendary-flowerpot/

What do people make of this?

To view all the comments of support, and read a fuller history of the pub, head here.


34 thoughts on “Castle pub demolition: an underhand letter from Ringley’s”

  1. Isn’t the key question here why do they have to demolish the pub to use it as an office? Wouldn’t it be cheaper and less offensive to save the exterior and refit the interior?

    Few would argue that more jobs and regular weekday footfall in South Kentish Town is a good thing, probably better than another pub in an area that’s blessed with great boozers within five minutes walk (Abbey, Lion, Eagle, Admiral).

    But why knock it down?

    1. I agree fully with Tim. I don’t have an issue with the interior being changed and the exterior being spruced up (the black paint IS awful), but I see no reason to scrap the entire building and put in a new one.

  2. Ringley’s campaign includes circulating the email address of the senior planning officer at Camden. As Chartered Surveyors, Ringleys more than most should be playing by the rules on this rather than encouraging the bypassing the prescribed route to objecting. Perhaps someone might like to let Mr Bailey know about their campaign?

    For what they’re worth, my thoughts are that, even if the building hasn’t been deemed worthy of a national listing, it is still a grand stately looking building of the type that we are quickly losing elsewhere. It has more character in one of its black drainpipes than any 6 floor modern office block I’ve seen recently. Jobs in the construction industry? More like the smell of lucre.

  3. I would like to see the building remain, but I WISH someone would paint it white – or indeed any colour other than the funereal blacks and greys that make it look so drab.

  4. Totally agree with the other comments. Why knock it down? It’s not attractive currently, but could have its facade renovated and interior refitted, if they want another boxy boring building why not use the old council building on St Pancras way? Work with the community to create something everyone can appreciate and respect.

  5. The building is a landmark & despite years of licensing issues with Neighbours, it should remain, in one guise or another. I once lived upstairs & potentially ran The Flowerpot, so I am biased, but the fact remains its a piece of K Town, we have to keep the old Castle on the corner of said Rd, it’s just plain wrong to demolish! Ringleys is an eyesore & a blot, God only knows & probably fears what they’ll do with the land of 47?

  6. Ringleys had the audacity to propose that The Abbey lead the charge on getting the building knocked down. That I would have to explain to an estate agent the added value that the venue has brought to Kentish Town over the years astonishes me. Yes it has had its bad moments but as The Flowerpot we had one of Londons leading live music venues on our doorstep. Ringleys will come and go, the building must stay for future owners with more vision, because once its gone its gone.

  7. I am reliably informed that the council have agreed to place an Article 4 Direction on the Castle so that it cannot be demolished. Time to have another think about the building’s redevelopment potential. Has it been offered on the open market as a pub, and at a price reflecting that use? No? Camden have a robust pub protection policy which ought to prevent a change of use to residential or offices. Time to mobilise those publicans looking for new premises. It’s a great location. Cheers!

  8. I dont have a big issue with the building being demolished its not like its the original castle inn. The whole stretch of road is a shabby eyesore and I think it would be great to see that area of high street revitalised

    But I do object to them illegally demolishing the building.

    If they had acted ethically I wouldnt have objected but they cannot be allowed to get away with it.

  9. Ringley have made a rod for their own back. The application for demolition was refused, yet they continued anyway.

    The method of demolition appears to be ‘malicious’ with the removal of the roof and destruction of architectural exterior features – why would you have workmen smash up the exterior if you were planning on demolition of the building?

    1. I agree, they have deliberately destroyed all the features that might have made it worth keeping and removal of the roof makes the structure less safe.

      Camden is given the choice of leaving a dangerous eyesore in place or let Ringly do what they want.

      What I want to understand is how they can be punished?

  10. I think you pay VAT on a rehab where as new builds are VAT exempt? NO? Also with a new build it would be easier to design it so a change of function would be easier so say if biz wasn’t great in a few years they could go for a ‘change of use’ and easily turn offices into flats and cash in… its business and London is built on business including Kentish Town.. no?

    Just like if I want to post here I have to give you my email and Name which will go into a large database which can be mind and eventually sold (which is also business) no?

    Just my 2c : )

  11. Ringley have probably damaged the structure to the point where it’s dangerous & they won’t budge on the demolition plan. It would appear they want the structure at the point where demolition might be safer – then they’ll simply wait until Camden give up & back down. Camden probably can’t force Ringley to refurbish the exterior – the building wasn’t listed & Ringley own it.
    In an ideal world, yes, Ringley would preserve & spruce up the exterior … but I fear they’ll stop only when there is nothing recognisable of this once proud & historic building left intact. The curious faces of interested locals may be replaced by the dead dollar-eyed eyes of ignorami who neither know nor care what this office block used to be. It makes me want to scream.

  12. Gillian Tindall

    The central point to be made about the Castle is that it is not just an early Victorian pub, and a good example of one, but that there have been a series of Castle taverns on the same site goint back to the late middle ages. `The Castle’ , at the entrance to Kentish Town, has been a landmark for hundreds of years; it has given its name, in various versions, to surrounding streets.
    Ringley’s ignorance and arrogance in regard to these facts are contemptable – and they pretend to be interested in Kentish Town.

    Gillian Tindall (`The Fields Beneath’)

  13. So many high streets are full of soulless, identikit buildings – without the buildings of character, such as the Castle, you could be anywhere in London. Kentish Town has a handful of buildings which are part of it’s visual identity. I don’t mind if they change the interior, or even change it’s use – that may be the way ahead to keep it. I don’t mind new builds – hopefully with character – but let’s hang on to the places that are part of the Kentish Town we can still recognise.

  14. Gillian Jacobs

    Ringley’s just don’t care. A new Charles Dickens needs to parody them. As a tenant they charge you an administration fee – to negotiate against you.

  15. Well, as they have kindly supplied the email address of the head planner I dropped him an email linking to this article (and therefore their letter) expressing my concerns at their actions.

  16. VAT came up a couple of times above, the correct position is this.

    If the building is not demolished, the refurbishment costs of the existing “non residential building” is VATable at 20%. The owner can reclaim this VAT back if it charges VAT on the subsequent letting or sale or if it occupies the premises for its business. Ringleys, if it occupied the non residential premises as offices etc would be able to claim all the VAT back.

    If the existing building was retained but extended or altered to create brand new dwellings (flats) the building costs of the flats would be zero rated (the owner is not charged VAT).

    If however, the building was demolished to street level and a new mixed use (ground floor offices and upper floors residential) building constructed, the building work for the offices would be VATable at 20% and zero rated for the flats. Again, if Ringley occupy the offices, they would be able to claim the VAT back.

    So, overal, there is not a massive difference in the VAT position bewteen a new build and a refurishment/extension. The rules are a bit more complicated than this but this is the general position.

    I think the bigger issue when comparing the costs of a refurbishment/extension and a new build is this. Unless the existing building is very sound structurally and the existing room dimensions and heights meet current design standards for commercial and residential use, it is nearly always more cost effective to demolish and start with a blank site. Plus you get offices and flats that meet modern design requirements. And it is usually technically less challenging and often much quicker to go for a new build.

  17. Property management agents and estate agents are less likely to behave badly if they believe their business will suffer as a result. They need to be boycotted.

    The monstrous Prince’s Park building at Talacre is being exclusively marketed by Green & Co out of an office at 158 Prince of Wales Road. (The other member of Union Development is only Findon, the developer as far as is known. The prestigious company, Manhattan Lofts were part of Union but have firmly stated that that is no longer the case).

    So if you don’t like what Ringleys are doing, avoid them where possible.

    If you are one of the 99% who hate the Talacre development, make sure you and your friends don’t sell their houses through Green & Co.

  18. “So, overal, there is not a massive difference in the VAT position bewteen a new build and a refurishment/extension. The rules are a bit more complicated than this but this is the general position. ” Sure but!

    Yes but it still means you stump up 20% and can’t reclaim it for what is it..? 18 months..? Also it means that amount of money is then ‘known’ to the revenue…. and where it goes afterwards may be taxable again… people who just make a living by short term investments are pretty funny about tax…

  19. Just to remind you … The deadline for comments regarding Article 4 Direction is 1 July at 17.00 – see site notices posted outside The Castle.

    An Enforcement Notice was served requiring Ringley to make the roof (which they had removed) weathertight along with reinstating items that had been removed – windows and facade detailing. This Notice takes effect on the 16 July unless an appeal is made by Ringley against it. The Notice requires the complete reinstatement of the roof and detailing – timber sash windows, rusticated quoins, window architraves with projecting cornices at first floor, bracketed sills and cornice at second floor and cornice at roof level.

    On 3 June an Article 4 Direction Notice was served on Ringley – in this case it removed the right to demolish. Once the Notice is served there follows a minimum of 21 days consultation for anyone to make representation to the Council. At the end of the consultation period the Council make a decision as to whether or not to implement the Article 4 Direction. The decision is based on representations received and the Council’s own analysis.

    If the Article 4 Direction is removed the building can be demolished without further ado. The effect of the Article 4 Direction, if confirmed, is Ringley will have to submit a planning application to demolish the building – which may or may not be granted.

  20. Ringley`s rightly say they have revived and made the building they currently occupy look good – if only they had done the same to the Castle they would be getting accolades and not all the rightly delivered stick they are universally receiving . How about a change of heart Ringley

    1. There doesn’t seem to be an Article 4 notice on the building any more. I wonder who might have removed it…

      I’ve emailed the duty planner at Camden to find out how local residents can make a representation against any appeal by Ringley’s and why the notice has been removed.

      If anyone knows how to submit comments regarding the Article 4 notice please post the details here.

      1. There are two Article 4 Notices at the site. One wrapped around the post next to the Royal Mail post box on Kentish Town Road, and the other one wrapped around a post near the P&D machine in Castle Road. Previous ones have systematically been removed. These have lasted at least three days!

  21. There are two stages to an Article 4 Direction. Stage 1 is the serving and giving notice – which was done on 3 June. This is followed by a period of consultation – (in this case) ending Monday 1 July 2013 at 17.00. If you do not want the building (The Castle PH) at 147 Kentish Town Road to be demolished I urge you to please write/email the Council – however briefly – with your views.

    The Council is also considering whether to put The Castle building on their newly created Local List of buildings deemed to have some heritage significance (eg architectural and/or historical) which will give them some protection against development and are consulting residents for their view(s) about the future of this building. They want to know what we think about both the Article 4 Direction and Local List. Please bare in mind there has been some sort of hostelry/inn on this site for hundreds of years and the site is considered a gateway/landmark into Kentish Town.

    All the Council want to know is whether you want the Article 4 Direction removed or confirmed, and whether you think the Castle building has some heritage significance. This could be architectural, historical (see Gillian Tindall’s history of Kentish Town – The Fields Beneath), as a landmark building, and perhaps if it serves a local need. Where a need for a building has been identified by residents, it does strengthen the Council’s case for putting it on the Local List. And I guess we would all want the Council to have some say over what happens to this building – by confirming the Article 4 Direction and requesting it go on the Council’s Local List for protection.

    Please send your comment(s) to
    Email edward.bailey@camden.gov.uk.

    Letter Edward Bailey
    Placeshaping
    London Borough of Camden
    Town Hall Extension
    Argyle Street
    London
    WC1H 8EQ

    Subject/heading: 147 Kentish Town Road (formerly The Castle PH).

    (There is no reference number to quote.)

    Deadline: Monday 1 July – 17.00

  22. I do take exception to the use of the word ‘former’ in connection with pub sites which have not yet been granted- or had implemented- a change of use. The Castle remains a pub until another use takes its place. CAMRA made a robust representation supporting the present Article 4 Direction and asking additionally for another to protect the pub from any change of use. We await developments with interest.

Leave a Comment

34 thoughts on “Castle pub demolition: an underhand letter from Ringley’s”

  1. Isn’t the key question here why do they have to demolish the pub to use it as an office? Wouldn’t it be cheaper and less offensive to save the exterior and refit the interior?

    Few would argue that more jobs and regular weekday footfall in South Kentish Town is a good thing, probably better than another pub in an area that’s blessed with great boozers within five minutes walk (Abbey, Lion, Eagle, Admiral).

    But why knock it down?

    1. I agree fully with Tim. I don’t have an issue with the interior being changed and the exterior being spruced up (the black paint IS awful), but I see no reason to scrap the entire building and put in a new one.

  2. Ringley’s campaign includes circulating the email address of the senior planning officer at Camden. As Chartered Surveyors, Ringleys more than most should be playing by the rules on this rather than encouraging the bypassing the prescribed route to objecting. Perhaps someone might like to let Mr Bailey know about their campaign?

    For what they’re worth, my thoughts are that, even if the building hasn’t been deemed worthy of a national listing, it is still a grand stately looking building of the type that we are quickly losing elsewhere. It has more character in one of its black drainpipes than any 6 floor modern office block I’ve seen recently. Jobs in the construction industry? More like the smell of lucre.

  3. I would like to see the building remain, but I WISH someone would paint it white – or indeed any colour other than the funereal blacks and greys that make it look so drab.

  4. Totally agree with the other comments. Why knock it down? It’s not attractive currently, but could have its facade renovated and interior refitted, if they want another boxy boring building why not use the old council building on St Pancras way? Work with the community to create something everyone can appreciate and respect.

  5. The building is a landmark & despite years of licensing issues with Neighbours, it should remain, in one guise or another. I once lived upstairs & potentially ran The Flowerpot, so I am biased, but the fact remains its a piece of K Town, we have to keep the old Castle on the corner of said Rd, it’s just plain wrong to demolish! Ringleys is an eyesore & a blot, God only knows & probably fears what they’ll do with the land of 47?

  6. Ringleys had the audacity to propose that The Abbey lead the charge on getting the building knocked down. That I would have to explain to an estate agent the added value that the venue has brought to Kentish Town over the years astonishes me. Yes it has had its bad moments but as The Flowerpot we had one of Londons leading live music venues on our doorstep. Ringleys will come and go, the building must stay for future owners with more vision, because once its gone its gone.

  7. I am reliably informed that the council have agreed to place an Article 4 Direction on the Castle so that it cannot be demolished. Time to have another think about the building’s redevelopment potential. Has it been offered on the open market as a pub, and at a price reflecting that use? No? Camden have a robust pub protection policy which ought to prevent a change of use to residential or offices. Time to mobilise those publicans looking for new premises. It’s a great location. Cheers!

  8. I dont have a big issue with the building being demolished its not like its the original castle inn. The whole stretch of road is a shabby eyesore and I think it would be great to see that area of high street revitalised

    But I do object to them illegally demolishing the building.

    If they had acted ethically I wouldnt have objected but they cannot be allowed to get away with it.

  9. Ringley have made a rod for their own back. The application for demolition was refused, yet they continued anyway.

    The method of demolition appears to be ‘malicious’ with the removal of the roof and destruction of architectural exterior features – why would you have workmen smash up the exterior if you were planning on demolition of the building?

    1. I agree, they have deliberately destroyed all the features that might have made it worth keeping and removal of the roof makes the structure less safe.

      Camden is given the choice of leaving a dangerous eyesore in place or let Ringly do what they want.

      What I want to understand is how they can be punished?

  10. I think you pay VAT on a rehab where as new builds are VAT exempt? NO? Also with a new build it would be easier to design it so a change of function would be easier so say if biz wasn’t great in a few years they could go for a ‘change of use’ and easily turn offices into flats and cash in… its business and London is built on business including Kentish Town.. no?

    Just like if I want to post here I have to give you my email and Name which will go into a large database which can be mind and eventually sold (which is also business) no?

    Just my 2c : )

  11. Ringley have probably damaged the structure to the point where it’s dangerous & they won’t budge on the demolition plan. It would appear they want the structure at the point where demolition might be safer – then they’ll simply wait until Camden give up & back down. Camden probably can’t force Ringley to refurbish the exterior – the building wasn’t listed & Ringley own it.
    In an ideal world, yes, Ringley would preserve & spruce up the exterior … but I fear they’ll stop only when there is nothing recognisable of this once proud & historic building left intact. The curious faces of interested locals may be replaced by the dead dollar-eyed eyes of ignorami who neither know nor care what this office block used to be. It makes me want to scream.

  12. Gillian Tindall

    The central point to be made about the Castle is that it is not just an early Victorian pub, and a good example of one, but that there have been a series of Castle taverns on the same site goint back to the late middle ages. `The Castle’ , at the entrance to Kentish Town, has been a landmark for hundreds of years; it has given its name, in various versions, to surrounding streets.
    Ringley’s ignorance and arrogance in regard to these facts are contemptable – and they pretend to be interested in Kentish Town.

    Gillian Tindall (`The Fields Beneath’)

  13. So many high streets are full of soulless, identikit buildings – without the buildings of character, such as the Castle, you could be anywhere in London. Kentish Town has a handful of buildings which are part of it’s visual identity. I don’t mind if they change the interior, or even change it’s use – that may be the way ahead to keep it. I don’t mind new builds – hopefully with character – but let’s hang on to the places that are part of the Kentish Town we can still recognise.

  14. Gillian Jacobs

    Ringley’s just don’t care. A new Charles Dickens needs to parody them. As a tenant they charge you an administration fee – to negotiate against you.

  15. Well, as they have kindly supplied the email address of the head planner I dropped him an email linking to this article (and therefore their letter) expressing my concerns at their actions.

  16. VAT came up a couple of times above, the correct position is this.

    If the building is not demolished, the refurbishment costs of the existing “non residential building” is VATable at 20%. The owner can reclaim this VAT back if it charges VAT on the subsequent letting or sale or if it occupies the premises for its business. Ringleys, if it occupied the non residential premises as offices etc would be able to claim all the VAT back.

    If the existing building was retained but extended or altered to create brand new dwellings (flats) the building costs of the flats would be zero rated (the owner is not charged VAT).

    If however, the building was demolished to street level and a new mixed use (ground floor offices and upper floors residential) building constructed, the building work for the offices would be VATable at 20% and zero rated for the flats. Again, if Ringley occupy the offices, they would be able to claim the VAT back.

    So, overal, there is not a massive difference in the VAT position bewteen a new build and a refurishment/extension. The rules are a bit more complicated than this but this is the general position.

    I think the bigger issue when comparing the costs of a refurbishment/extension and a new build is this. Unless the existing building is very sound structurally and the existing room dimensions and heights meet current design standards for commercial and residential use, it is nearly always more cost effective to demolish and start with a blank site. Plus you get offices and flats that meet modern design requirements. And it is usually technically less challenging and often much quicker to go for a new build.

  17. Property management agents and estate agents are less likely to behave badly if they believe their business will suffer as a result. They need to be boycotted.

    The monstrous Prince’s Park building at Talacre is being exclusively marketed by Green & Co out of an office at 158 Prince of Wales Road. (The other member of Union Development is only Findon, the developer as far as is known. The prestigious company, Manhattan Lofts were part of Union but have firmly stated that that is no longer the case).

    So if you don’t like what Ringleys are doing, avoid them where possible.

    If you are one of the 99% who hate the Talacre development, make sure you and your friends don’t sell their houses through Green & Co.

  18. “So, overal, there is not a massive difference in the VAT position bewteen a new build and a refurishment/extension. The rules are a bit more complicated than this but this is the general position. ” Sure but!

    Yes but it still means you stump up 20% and can’t reclaim it for what is it..? 18 months..? Also it means that amount of money is then ‘known’ to the revenue…. and where it goes afterwards may be taxable again… people who just make a living by short term investments are pretty funny about tax…

  19. Just to remind you … The deadline for comments regarding Article 4 Direction is 1 July at 17.00 – see site notices posted outside The Castle.

    An Enforcement Notice was served requiring Ringley to make the roof (which they had removed) weathertight along with reinstating items that had been removed – windows and facade detailing. This Notice takes effect on the 16 July unless an appeal is made by Ringley against it. The Notice requires the complete reinstatement of the roof and detailing – timber sash windows, rusticated quoins, window architraves with projecting cornices at first floor, bracketed sills and cornice at second floor and cornice at roof level.

    On 3 June an Article 4 Direction Notice was served on Ringley – in this case it removed the right to demolish. Once the Notice is served there follows a minimum of 21 days consultation for anyone to make representation to the Council. At the end of the consultation period the Council make a decision as to whether or not to implement the Article 4 Direction. The decision is based on representations received and the Council’s own analysis.

    If the Article 4 Direction is removed the building can be demolished without further ado. The effect of the Article 4 Direction, if confirmed, is Ringley will have to submit a planning application to demolish the building – which may or may not be granted.

  20. Ringley`s rightly say they have revived and made the building they currently occupy look good – if only they had done the same to the Castle they would be getting accolades and not all the rightly delivered stick they are universally receiving . How about a change of heart Ringley

    1. There doesn’t seem to be an Article 4 notice on the building any more. I wonder who might have removed it…

      I’ve emailed the duty planner at Camden to find out how local residents can make a representation against any appeal by Ringley’s and why the notice has been removed.

      If anyone knows how to submit comments regarding the Article 4 notice please post the details here.

      1. There are two Article 4 Notices at the site. One wrapped around the post next to the Royal Mail post box on Kentish Town Road, and the other one wrapped around a post near the P&D machine in Castle Road. Previous ones have systematically been removed. These have lasted at least three days!

  21. There are two stages to an Article 4 Direction. Stage 1 is the serving and giving notice – which was done on 3 June. This is followed by a period of consultation – (in this case) ending Monday 1 July 2013 at 17.00. If you do not want the building (The Castle PH) at 147 Kentish Town Road to be demolished I urge you to please write/email the Council – however briefly – with your views.

    The Council is also considering whether to put The Castle building on their newly created Local List of buildings deemed to have some heritage significance (eg architectural and/or historical) which will give them some protection against development and are consulting residents for their view(s) about the future of this building. They want to know what we think about both the Article 4 Direction and Local List. Please bare in mind there has been some sort of hostelry/inn on this site for hundreds of years and the site is considered a gateway/landmark into Kentish Town.

    All the Council want to know is whether you want the Article 4 Direction removed or confirmed, and whether you think the Castle building has some heritage significance. This could be architectural, historical (see Gillian Tindall’s history of Kentish Town – The Fields Beneath), as a landmark building, and perhaps if it serves a local need. Where a need for a building has been identified by residents, it does strengthen the Council’s case for putting it on the Local List. And I guess we would all want the Council to have some say over what happens to this building – by confirming the Article 4 Direction and requesting it go on the Council’s Local List for protection.

    Please send your comment(s) to
    Email edward.bailey@camden.gov.uk.

    Letter Edward Bailey
    Placeshaping
    London Borough of Camden
    Town Hall Extension
    Argyle Street
    London
    WC1H 8EQ

    Subject/heading: 147 Kentish Town Road (formerly The Castle PH).

    (There is no reference number to quote.)

    Deadline: Monday 1 July – 17.00

  22. I do take exception to the use of the word ‘former’ in connection with pub sites which have not yet been granted- or had implemented- a change of use. The Castle remains a pub until another use takes its place. CAMRA made a robust representation supporting the present Article 4 Direction and asking additionally for another to protect the pub from any change of use. We await developments with interest.

Leave a Comment

About Kentishtowner

The award-winning print and online title Kentishtowner was founded in 2010 and is part of London Belongs To Me, a citywide network of travel guides for locals. For more info on what we write about and why, see our About section.