Meeting 7 - 14th December 2000

1.0 General
1.1 The chair - Sally Thompson - explained that the meeting was arranged to discuss aspects of mounting the exhibition. Sally rejigged the agenda. She wanted to stress the need for people's commitment in a new agenda item "process" or "how we get things done"!
1.2 Tom Haynes asked who exhibition is for and the reasons for it. Tom Young said it's not about precise marketing. RKT proceeds on the basis that the exhib is of general interest.
1.3 Other responses were also given by Sally and Chris Philips, the main thrust being the development potential of the railway lands known as the Murphy site.
1.4 Paul Gannon, answering Steven Evans query whether the planned RKT exhibition was a response to a particular development, agreed with Sally and Chris' perspective, emphasising the huge land-value that Murphy's are "sitting on".
1.5 Chris stressed Camden's failure to deal with the issue of KT's future. 1.6 Sally suggested the exhibition would not be exhaustive focus on KT's environment
.
2.0 Content
2.1 The Past
2.11 All felt there may be a glut of material dealing with KT's past. Chris thought the trick would be to keep the quantity of this material down so as not to obscure the other themes of the exhibition eg the present and future 2.12 A brief discussion ensued about the past's capacity to surprise us. Paul and Tom felt the core issue of KT's future could not be approached without consideration of the past.
2.13 The need to edit material dealing with the past was agreed. It was felt that material provided by the group as "background" should focus on key events in KT's past eg the railways, industrial decline, comprehensive redevelopment, architectural change etc.
2.14 Another perspective on material relating to KT's history is that dealing with how the area might have been developed. The example of Queens Crescent's truncation by the railways was adduced as an example.
2.2 The Present
2.21 Sally discussed key statistics. KT's current population (30,000) was discussed. Sally would like to know a British town with the same population. Steven suggested Totnes.
2.22 KT's population stats are affected by poll-tax evasion, but overall it's declining.
2.23 The stats will cover households, children per household, age-split, racial mix. A surprising stat is the low number of households with children (around 25%).
2.24 London Planning Advisory Committee's survey of London town centres was referred to. It has info about journeys to centres by foot/bus/car and missing amenities
2.25 Andrew said how familiar places can be re-presented through photography. He referred to shops and shopping as a topic susceptible to this approach. He also suggested how The Assembly House might be re-presented as a community centre, and discussed Blustons which receives busloads of visitors! Sally suggested that Andrew deal with shopping in an exhibition contribution since it is a major issue for Kentish Town.
2.26 Richard T demonstrated the different look of current OS maps of different scales. He also showed the boundaries of the postal district NW5 overlaid on the ward boundaries. The discrepancy between the perceived KT boundaries and political/postal ones is interesting.
2.3 The Future
2.31 Sally said the future of the area is what the exhibition is about.
2.31 The Future breaks into two: the official future and the possible future. 2.32 Andrew said one future exhibit should show how bad "it" could be. Worst case scenarios would make excellent exhibits.
2.33 All agreed that we need to get sufficent exhibits dealing with the future.
2.4 In General
2.41 Paul suggested that the exhib themes will be entwined and hard to separate out.
2.42 All agreed the exhib must be memorable - "a bit different". We discussed how to structure the exhib so that magnet exhibits pull visitors past other less prominent items.
2.43 Some ordinary interactivity through a comments book or questionaire was agreed.
2.44 Video and audio content will be welcomed.
2.45 Paul warned we don't have the time/budget to get really interactive. 2.46 All agreed visitors should be able to speak ideas and responses into a tape-recorder.
2.47 Clair and Andrew expressed excitement about a movable exhibition or one that extends somehow into the street.
2.5 Planning for Real
2.51 Planning Aid for London are committed to helping the group with a planning for real event although costs will be kept down by the group providing most of the necessary background material and doing other basic legwork.
2.52 A rough-and-ready model will be made by RKT. This needs organising.

3.0 Process or "making it happen"
3.1 We discussed confining the contributors to key organisations and individuals but ended up agreeing that a wider range of contributions is preferable.
3.2 Concern about how manageable exhib contributions will be was put aside by Tom and Sarah who said that many will come in pre-formatted as photos, A4 sheets etc.
3.3 It was felt that OS would not be happy for RKT to issue a "exhibition pack" to potential exhib contributors containing OS extracts though Chris' idea of a pack is a good one.
3.4 Tom emphasised that he's taking it for granted that the exhibition won't happen unless large chunks of time are allocated to it eg 8 hour days.
3.5 We agreed to try and get exhib contributions in in February.
3.6 All agreed designing the exhibition will be made easier when its contents are known .
3.7 The need to design the exhib was addressed by Andrew who offered to prepare designs. These would be around the theme of a maze. Whether or not this approach is the right one seemed to everyone less important than begining to think about the exhib design.
3.8 Concern about the expense entailed in designing the exhib was raised though Tom pointed out that a lot can be done with very little.
3.9 Bernie Cauley speaking about his experiences in Dublin resisting comprehensive inner- city redevelopment suggested the next meeting should be on the basis that we have to bring something ie an exhib contribution.
3.10 Clair Drew spoke about her commitment to do a website. This could be an exhib venue. But in the first place will provide info for RKT. Members will need to keep Clair updated with up-to-date info.

4.0 Further Meetings
4.1 All agreed that meetings are perhaps less important than exhibition contributions. Everyone should be actively seeking contributions not more members at meetings.

5.0 Next Meeting
5.1 To be arranged but probably a morale-booster in a local pub hospitality room. circulation of minutes RKT membership

top

Meeting 6 - 30th November 2000

1.0 General
1.1 Tom Young began by saying that the meeting reflected the clear focus of the group on making the ReNew Kentish Town Exhibition happen. A meeting agenda was distributed.
1.2 The two group expenditures since last meeting were ?300.00 Steve Roper Work towards securing an exhibition venue ?30.00 LBC Libraries Hire of KT Library on 19th October 2000 The balance of the account is therefore ?4470.
1.3 Richard Terry asked whether the money from Camden had been banked yet. Tom said no and will chase Camden Arts.

2.0 Content Group Report
2.1 Peter Wickenden said he had been working on the ward structure of KT and collating population statistics. On a bureaucratic basis Dartmouth Park is outside KT though clearly understood by most people (including RKT members) as part of it.
2.2 John Jopling spoke about the artificiality of the ward structure and work by Peter Cadogan on defining the real communities that form London.
2.3 Peter W spoke about his work on Camden's UDP (Unitary Development Plan) which seems to demonstrate that the Council treats KT as a "backwater". He also referred to the part of the ReNew Kentish Town Exhibition dealing with the future of the area and said that perhaps it was the most difficult to provide a framework for. Peter thought that the railway lands might be a natural focus for those considering the future of KT.
2.4 Chris Philips who presented some fascinating old maps of the area opined that what is striking about KT is how much of the original 18th and 19th structure is still recognizable.
2.5 Richard T presented a range of up-to-date maps and aerial photos. He discussed costs and the group's need to decide what level of OS information it is prepared to pay for.
2.6 After some discussion about the ruinous expense of OS maps, in particular at the normal 1:1250 scale, two key points emerged. First, Gill Scott noted that the OS charge a reduced fee for non-commercial uses. Second, Chris Philips thought that it's quite likely that members have the necessary 1:1250 scale maps already.
2.7 It was felt that OS would not be happy for RKT to issue a "exhibition pack" to potential exhib contributors containing OS extracts though Chris' idea of a pack is a good one.
2.8 Richard T demonstrated the different look of maps of different scales. He also showed the boundaries of the postal district NW5 overlaid on the ward boundaries.
2.9 Richard T discussed costs of aerial photos. An idea is to link an aerial photo with a map.
2.10 Sarah Eley said that the police have very good aerial photos of areas. They can be persuaded to let community groups use them.
2.11 Sally Thompson spoke about the proposal to have an OS map where visitors to the exhibition are able to mark where they live or work in KT. 2.12 Sally raised the idea that there might be a way in which exhibition visitors could pick out their favourite idea in the exhibition by putting it into a special display where it could stay until another visitor chose to replace it. 2.13 Sally noted that the "content group" had had a meeting with Michael Parkes from Planning Aid for London. Parkes is interested in RKT's work and willing to work at reduced rates to put on a planning for real event during the period of the exhibition. Sally stressed that most of the work could be done by RKT members without incurring a cost.
2.14 It was noted that the exhibition is a kind of planning for real event in its own right.
2.15 The issue of cost arising from Planning Aid for London's possible involvement and the cost of OS maps led Sally, amongst others, to point out the need for an updated budget.

3.0 Publicity Group Report
3.1 Phil Thornton spoke about the work being done on various publicity sheets and the further publicity option which might be open to RKT. The central publicity document at this stage is a fold-up leaflet which has already been widely distributed in shops along KT Rd. These leaflets have gone quickly. The leaflet can be seen as moderately successful.
3.2 Phil noted the drop-in at KT Library on 4/11/00 when many people found out about RKT.
3.3 Phil set out publicity options aside from the main leaflet which seem to be open to RKT: 1 features and letters in local press 2 fly-posting 3 website
3.4 Fly-posting was discounted as provocative and illegal, and probably counter to RKT's own goal of improving the environment.
3.5 Conversation focussed on the quality of the leaflet and distribution.
3.6 Maureen O'Brien made very helpful criticisms of the impression left by the leaflet. Maureen noted that she had the impression that something was already going to happen in KT which she now understood was not the case. Paul Gannon noted that RKT does exist to deal with the likelihood of "something going to happen.
3.7 Maureen thought the "your interest" section of the current leaflet is too weak. A much clearer request for ideas for the exhibition is needed.
3.8 Gill Scott noted that the exhibition was for a wider audience than RKT, though Sally noted in response that the exhibition was at least partly for the sake of RKT members.
3.9 Gill made a strong case for the RKT leaflet being far more focussed on its goal - which Gill herself was only now beginning to appreciate - namely, getting KT people to contribute to the exhibition. This criticism of RKT's publicity to date was particularly helpful because it helped everyone to focus on the need to avoid being misleading.
3.10 Phil said that he and Eve are in any case planning a more refined version of the leaflet.
3.11 Tom noted one bit of work that RKT members need to do which is following-up commitments to produce work for the exhibition. This will entail a lot of phoning around.
3.12 Phil turned to the issue of leaflet distribution. He said that this ought to be done before Christmas. Co-ordination is needed to avoid leafleting the same place twice.
3.13 Eve Barker spoke about her graphic work on the leaflet. Draft copies of her work were passed round. Eve said she was planning to organise the graphic appearance of all RKT's documents by establishing an RKT font structure.
3.14 Copies of Eve's and Sally's work on a mdf exhibition stand were passed round. Further discussion of Eve's work is needed but will take place at a dedicated exhibition meeting.
3.15 Tom noted that Kall Kwik (Tally Barash, Kall Kwik, 191 Kentish Town Road, LONDON, NW5 2JU, tel no: 7485-9818) will do two-sided A4 leaflet prints at ?60/1000 (6p/sht). RKT members and anyone else willing to help distribute will be able to pick up leaflets from Kall Kwik free-of-charge.
3.16 Rosemary Lewin noted that LBC Libraries offer a kind of distribution service amongst their own libraries. The London Volontary Resource apparently also offers help with leafletting but this needs to be clarified. 3.17 Michael Wippell said he would be willing to help with distribution. 3.18 Sue Prickett said that RKT should try get help from the schools with distribution.
3.19 The topic of the exhibition title was raised briefly. Most agreed that the exhibition should simply be called The ReNew Kentish Town Exhibition, though Paul said that now the matter had been raised ideas should be sought from members and the matter settled at another meeting.

4.0 Venue Report
4.1 Steve Roper reported on his work towards securing a venue for the exhibition.
4.2 Steve has had one meeting with a key local estate agent, Salter Rex. The agent, Alan Harvey, has agreed to help Steve by providing information about shops which become vacant or are about to be taken over.
4.3 Steve said that getting a venue will become easier when the exhibition is around two or three months off ie after Christmas. This period of time is about the same as that needed to get planning applications for change-of-use which many new shops need.
4.4 Steve said rates are a big issue for a group like RKT trying to keep costs down. Discussion around this theme ensued with these points being made:
1 owners of empty shops have to pay 30% rates anyway
2 LBC has a record of turning a blind eye to outstanding rates where an arts event is involved though this is not a rule and rates officers are difficult people to deal with.
3 LBC has a poor record of rates collection.
4 ?1000 is the likely size of a rate bill.
5 If we can demonstrate we are a charity then our rates bill will be only %20.
6 John said the organisation he represents - Sustainable London Trust - is a charity and could sign for the exhibition venue.
7 Steve said if the liability is reduced to %20 owners might pay it.
4.5 The exhibition period was discussed. Steve's notion that it should include two weekends with a 5 day period in the middle was agreed. The dates are: March 31st 2001->April 8th 2001. A key associated event such as the planning for real investigated by Sally and her group will take place during this period.
4.6 Steve noted that installation and take-down periods are needed either side of the exhibition run which means RKT will need possession of a venue for around 3 weeks hence the approximate ?1000 potential rates liability.
4.7 Steve said he will be committing more time to his RKT work in the next few weeks as his work on another exhibition comes to an end.
4.8 Steve continues to report to the exhibition subgroup consisting of Richard B and Tom.

5.0 Managing it All
5.1 There was discussion about the need for more organisation of the group. The need for an updated budget and programme was agreed.
5.2 John said that a steering group is needed if one did not already exist and said the group needed more organisation. He thought the character of the meeting was slightly confusing, veering between that of a plenary meeting and steering group meeting.
5.3 Tom explained that there had been a steering group which had disappeared over the summer whilst the work on the Awards for All grant application was done. There are also subgroups working on publicity, exhibition content and the venue. There had been a funding subgroup but it had successfully completed its work.
5.4 The steering group would have reps from subgroups. Tom said it could be formed immediately because of the lack of time. The following agreed to be included Tom Young Sarah Eley Sally Thompson Phil Thornton Steve Roper It was clearly stated that the committee is open to others who might want to join it.
5.5 John had the idea that the four exhibition themes could be represented by four RKT members. This could greatly assist organisation and was broadly agreed by everyone.
5.6 Sally and Richard T noted that their group - the "content group" - is already organised along these lines in anycase. When this group's work is complete, it might be possible for its members to take on the role outlined by John.
5.7 Tom spoke about the need to get help with the post. The group membership stands at around 110 and is very likely to increase. The post has become a major chore. Help is now needed.
5.8 Richard Russell noted that it might be possible drop off post work at the library for helpers to pick up.
5.9 Pam Walker said that email has got to be one part of the answer.
5.10 Discussion turned to managing the lead-up to the exhibition and need to chase contributors for their contributions. Gill asked how this was being done. Tom said he is maintaining a database of contributors and contributions which is organised around key dates to ensure potential contributors are reminded at appropriate times of their commitment.
5.11 A general discussion developed about whether RKT should get the exhibiton contributions from contributors sooner rather than later, so, as Sue and Gill pointed out, the group could familiarise itself with the extremely various contributions which are likely to materialise. The conscensus was that sooner is better. All agreed that contributions should be obtained at the start of February leaving people time to get over Christmas and the misery of January.
5.12 Tom noted that in his conversations so far with potential contributors the fact that the exhibition date is still quite far off has been an encouragement.
5.13 Tom noted that he was already getting quite a few commitments to produce exhibition contributions. One example: Paul gave a clear description to the group of his own contribution about the Leighton Rd/Brecknock traffic management schemes.
5.14 Tom agreed to speak as soon as possible to Rosie Rice about contacting schools.

6.0 Further Meetings
6.1 All agreed that the ensuing group meetings should focus on key topics. The next two meetings will focus on 1 the exhibition itself: 14/12/00 2 further fundraising with the possibility of inviting the commercial sector along in the form of KTBA and Murphys: 11/1/01(?)

7.0 Next Meeting
7.1 The next meeting will be on December 14th, at 7-9pm, at Kentish Town Library.
7.2 A steering group meeting will also be arranged. circulation of minutes RKT membership

top

Meeting 5 - 19th October 2000

1.0 Exhibition Timing
1.1 Tom Y explained that the meeting had been called to discuss how we should organise ourselves in light of the fact that ReNew Kentish Town has won ?4,800 from the "Awards for All" lottery fund and ?1,000 from LBC Arts & Tourism dept. Tom provided copies of the letter confirming the ?4,800 award from "Awards for All".
1.2 LBC Arts and Tourism funding must be spent on some artistically worthwhile work related to the exhibition agenda.
1.3 It appears from the "Awards for All" letter that the money needs to be spent by the end of April, 2001. Everyone saw that in fact there is not much time before we need to get the exhibition up. Steve said if we factor the Christmas period, there is very little time indeed. 1
.4 We briefly considered trying to delay the exhib, but all agreed with Sally in the end that this would really be demoralising procrastination. It would be best to face the challenge head-on and get the exhib up by the start of April.
1.5 Tom briefly mentioned the work which had been started by various subgroups back in February. This work needs to be revisited. Key work areas still largely untouched are venue and outreach to the people of KT who we intend to provide the exhib content.
1.6 The problems of reaching people in KT led some in the group to say that we should consider not casting our net too wide. This thought was rejected in the end as being too negative and contrary to the goals of the group. We must try and engage as many people as possible in KT with the idea of the exhibition and contributing to it.
1.7 Steve came up with the idea of a public drop-in as a way of reaching as many people as possible quickly. We agreed to try out the drop-in idea as soon as possible.
1.8 The need to get in touch with local groups was mentioned once again. This outreach work will be done by the publicity group. Sally said contacting schools and local school children will be a good way to reach out to local parents. Rosie backed this up.

2.0 Appointment of Steve Roper
2.1 Tom Y proposed that Steve Roper work professionally on behalf of RKT for a fee of ?1200. This will cover the cost of 10 full days work. Tom said that Steve's proposed work would focus on securing options on venues ie internal (main venue, debate forum) and external (eg bus-displays, shop-windows).
2.2 Steve provided a brief written summary of his work programme to be agreed with the group (enclosed herewith). He explained the importance of bridging the gap with the public by combining internal and external venues. 2.3 Richard T was concerned that the Steve's appointment might not be an appropriate expenditure in view of others free work.
2.4 Tom Y argued for it saying it was critical to the forward momentum of the group's work that we secure a suitable venue quickly. Doing so will help focus our work. Sally agreed saying she regarded Steve's fee as more than reasonable. The group generally agreed Steve's appointment to secure premises for the exhibition and work on the exhibition.
2.5 A steering group to which Steve will report will consist of Richard B and Tom Y. Others are welcome to join from the RKT membership.

3.0 Exhibition
3.1 All present agreed to contribute work of their own to the exhibition. Each person present gave a brief outline of their exhibit.
3.2 There was discussion about the "point of the exhibition" which was raised obliquely by Sarah's query about what the exhib is for. Peter Cumings spoke at length about the frustrations he had encountered trying to make the council deal more effectively with the management of the urban environment for which they are responsible. He argued strongly that we should not be doing the Council's work. minutes continued_
3.3 John Jopling argued that RKT's work is precisely right for the current politics of the environment. Our approach is therefore worth pursuing not withstanding Peter's experiences.
3.4 It was suggested that Peter C turn his experiences into a history that can be added to the exhibition.
3.5 Rosie Rice spoke about the work at KT CoE school. This is very high quality and would look great in the exhib. She also mentioned local campaigns from the 70s which had successfully scuppered a policy of dividing the area into virtual no-thru zones. Documentation still exists which would form an interesting exhibit. Rosie also mentioned other people in the area with interesting material including Corin Hughes-Stanton and Oliver Cox, a friend with interesting photos of the area.
3.6 There was discussion about making model. Tom Y suggested a plaster of Paris model which Chris thought would be far too heavy. The practicalities of producing the model obviously need much more work to resolve.
3.7 Richard T made it very clear that the framework information will be well integrated with the exhib and will not stand apart from the material supplied by people and organisation in KT. It will be informative not didactic.

4.0 Work to be done
4.1 More help is needed from RKT members. Below is a summary of the current working parties.
4.2 Helpers are needed particularly to issue publicity material to KT groups and organisations and to do leafletting.
VENUE venue steering group T.Young, R.Bourn
DOCUMENTATION publicity material P.Thornton, E.Barker, D.Benson media strategy P.Gannon website C.Drew(?)
OUTREACH post T.Young, ?? leafletting ?? press P.Thornton, ?? exhib items follow-up ?? event organisation S.Thompson, ?? info managemt T.Young
NEW FUND-RAISING local biz approaches V.Beardshaw(?), ?? EXHIBITION framework info R.Terry, P.Wickenden, S.Thompson, C.Philips
GENERAL HELP B.Johnson, P.Walker
CENTRAL ORGANISATION T.Young, ??

5.0 Next Meeting 5.1 Thursday, 30th November, 7-9pm, KT Library, Childrens Section
circulation of minutes RKT membership

top

Meeting 4 - 3rd February 2000

1.0 Mission Statement
1.1 RB thought there should be more the emphasis on what is wrong in the area. RB was also concerned that there was scant mention of the people of KT in the material produced by the steering committee. TY said that RKT is focussing through the planned KT exhibition on getting the thoughts, ideas & experiences of KT people into public.

2.0 Exhibition Plan
2.1 All agreed that our group should aspire to making a real and lasting contribution to thinking about KT's future. We should therefore aim to produce a document after the planning Kentish Town exhibition which records and gives clear account of our work.
2.2 RT spoke about the need for some professional exhib content. CP spoke about an open structure to the exhibition sustained by a level of professionalism eg maps, analysis_
2.3 SR said the exhib should be open with the group having the final say about content.
2.4 MW said the exhib must be "honest" which means it will reflect diversity of opinion.
2.5 TY said we are presenting the exhib to the people of KT and so a full representation of views is important, not least to express the energy and feeling people have for their area.
2.6 The example of Kentish Town Business Association's abiding interest in parking was mentioned as perhaps antagonistic to the agenda of the Camden Cycling Campaign. Both group's aspirations ought to figure in the KT exhib.
2.7 CP talked about the possibility of taking people to bits of KT that they hadn't visited before: places where an unusual view of the area could be shown to people. The notion of KT tours arose as a result
2.8 EB said there are a lot of surprises in KT. The exhib should publicize these interesting, unknown aspects of the place. PW suggested a school discovery journey
2.9 ST suggested exhib could also present ideas presented in quite different contexts originally, for examples ideas from the Car-Free London exhib. All agreed however that RKT is not doing an exhib led by designers.
2.10 SR said the exhib quality is our job: how material is presented is critical.
2.11 There was broad conscensus that the exhib should be mobile. CD drew attention to the libraries as a venue. PW said perhaps the exhib should be on QC. All agreed it could move there. It could be advertised in shops along whatever street it is in.
2.12 SR said there we need an exhib steering group that reports to main group

3.0 Making Contact with People/Groups in KT
3.1 The role of our group should be made clear when we make our first contacts with individuals and groups who might contribute to the exhib
3.2 SR thought in our contacts with groups and individuals in the area we should stress that existing or past work relating to the area would go well in the exhib; in this connection TY mentioned Camden Cycling Campaign, KTBA and the work of Corin Hughes-Stanton.
3.3 There was concern about the phrase "urban future" used in the exhibition plan. PG noted that KT can only have an urban future - nothing else is conceivable. CD and SL and others said we should use less pompous phrasing to avoid putting people off.
3.4 SR thought we should not worry about "being middle-class". Nor worry too much about the group's capacity to reach out to everyone. In the end, he argued, the main pre- requesite for change in KT is "showing up" (as Woody Allen said), and that is what our group and many other interested and motivated people area do.
3.5 ST said that the way the steering committee has broken down the subject matter of the exhib will help the people we speak to "get a handle" on what the exhibition is. The exhib deals with the past, possible futures for KT, good practice demonstrated in other places and specific shortcomings and problems found in KT's environment. page 2 - minutes continued
3.6 All agreed that when RKT invites people and groups to contribute to the exhibition, it should be very clear that we are not engaged in a process of "consultation". All agreed that RKT does not have a remit to do consultation. Our role is to put on a good exhib. PG spoke about his distrust of the whole consultation business-how it is used to lever pre-determined policy by the council
3.7 We discussed making a questionaire part of initial contacts with people and groups in the area. We felt this might put people off and appear like "consultation" which all agreed is not RKT's job. PW said any questionaire should be part of the public exhib. All agreed there is a need to produce some documentation to give to people and groups when inviting contributions to the exhib.

4 Next Steps
4.1 Publicity material for local people and groups, rather than funding bodies, is necessary. This could be as engaging and effective as the excellent publicity for KT Family Album - very open and friendly. CD called for things to be more basic and down-to-earth. SR said the exhib is for residents, workers, businesses. Each needs to be approached in a particular way. PW said publicity material ought to be picture based. SR said it should include pictures, text and exhib headings, and a map
4.2 We must contact funders asap.
4.3 All accepted Roper's proposal to have the exhib in a shop, at first at least. SR said to get hold of a vacant shop, RKT will have to be opportunistic. TY will contact local estate agents about upcoming vacant properties.
4.4 SR said RKT's exhib will attract business to the High Street. The reasons for not doing an outdoor exhib were rehearsed - cost being the primary one.
4.5 All agreed the shop should be big enough to allow a range of activities. SR repeated the point made in the exhib plan about the exhib being an opportunity for interactivity. SR noted that tackling businesses for sponsorship requires delicacy. Equally, there is no question of points of view being promoted because of sponsorship.
4.6 Breakdown of areas of work -
4.7 All agreed that the group should avoid become overly bureaucratic while working towards setting the exhib up. SR argued that if duties are allocated too rigidly others will not contribute. We ought to aim to network and provide each other with support. TY will reissue member addresses and emails. TY will also continue to run the RKT office.

5 Nexting Meeting
5.1 To be arranged circulation all in group

top

Meeting 3 - 28th October 1999

1.0 Group Organisation
1.1 The meeting was called to share out responsibilities ie to enable the appointment of officers such as treasurer, chair, secretary and exhibition co-ordinator. In the event, all agreed with Steve that such appointments might be counter-productive this early on.
1.2 All agreed with Steve's proposal that the group appoint a "steering committee" to report back to the main group in around a month. The following have been appointed to steering committee by the group at the last meeting: Virginia Beardshaw Richard Bourn Sarah Eley Paul Gannon Sandra Lovell Steve Roper Ceri Smith Philip Thornton Tom Young (9 total)
1.3 The committee will think about the following issues consultation policy/consultation plan a mission statement funding: who we should seek it from and what are the disbenefits of commitments to funding bodies exhibition timetable exhibition schedule of tasks research local groups/identify key groups openness of exhib other
1.4 All agreed that the committee should meet twice and then report back to the main group. Sally said the committee's work will be quite onerous. John agreed, saying in his experience most of the work is done by a small section of the group but he was hopeful in this case that that will not happen.
1.5 All felt that we should be careful about making contacts with the Council and avoid some of the bureaucratic restrictions which we might suffer if funded/supported by bodies such as CILNTEC or the Council. Groundwork Camden, on the other hand, may well be able to provide support with very limited conditions. Camden's Green Values funding was mentioned. The committee will follow up these leads.

2 Group Name
2.1 The groups name was changed as a result of two votes. The first one selected two alternatives from a list of five. A second vote followed discussion of the first selection which was Renew Kentish Town and Kentish Town Future.
2.2 Ceri said that Renew Kentish Town contains a verb denoting action. Sandra said it has a historical resonance by suggesting a better past. Bob argued that the groups name will end up being Kentish Town Partnership if it is successful. He thought that while we should please ourselves, our name was not perhaps that important.
2.3 The second vote was in favour of Renew Kentish Town.
2.4 Andy and Tom(Y) are interested in working together on the groups stationery.

3 Publicity & Press
3.1 All agreed it is essential to notify the public of what we're doing well in advance.
3.2 Peter was concerned that West Kentish Town might get left out.
3.3 The issue of the specific area covered by Kentish Town was discussed. One point of view was that the group is only concerned with people who are quite clear about KT and their allegiance to it.
3.4 There was some agreement that publicity via press could be an effective way to ensure the other side of Kentish Town - West Kentish Town - is kept informed. On a show of hands, it was in any case quite clear that the group contains several West Kentish Towners already.
3.5 Everyone agreed on the need to manage publicity. Pamela recalled how the CNJ effectively destroyed a very good group in Camden.
3.6 Michael said we need to have the support of the CNJ's editor. He noted the H&H is a good paper but not free and not popular with everyone.
3.7 Shops are an obvious place to dispense leaflets or material about the goals of the exhibition and the fact that we are looking for contributions. Michael said there should be boxes in shops where people can post their thoughts etc.
3.8 Bob said interactive web sites with forms for example are good way to get peoples opinions. Using them can be a part of classroom activity. Eight new internet-linked computers to be installed at the library soon.
3.9 Richard (T) said web sites will attract a middle-class audience.

4 Exhibition Content
4.1 Richard(B) said what's wrong with KT - its very visible, self-evident problems - will be one way into the exhibition for the public. His list of problems was supplemented by one read out from the H&H (1/10/99).
4.2 Tom(Y) said the exhib will be a public demonstration of how all of us can take a more than passing interest in the future of our part of London. 4.3 John said the exhib needs a place where visitors can go in and make an active contribution.
4.4 Chris said the exhibition should make certain key points clear. One might be population decline and how it threatens the local provision of services eg shops.
4.5 All agreed that the nature of the local economy is a key aspect of the exhib.
4.6 Chris said that local history groups have a good deal to contribute to the exhib.
4.7 Richard(T) thought another key point will be the developability of KT. Aerial photos will be helpful in this regard.
4.8 Other key points will be good local characteristics such as diverse shopping that are worth preserving.
4.9 A great variety of visions will be apparent from the exhib.
4.10 Peter and Ceri emphasised the issue of KT's division by the railway lands, of KT as a place broken up by a very large closed-off and inaccessible area in the middle.
4.11 Tom(A) stressed the need to think about pedestrian and cycle accessibility. Transport generally is also very important. Initiatives such as reopening South KT tube station were mentioned.

5 Exhibition Presentation
5.1 Michael said that it is inevitable and perhaps desirable that the exhibition is bitty; its in the nature of what we're doing.
5.2 Pamela said we can still be professional about presentation.
5.3 Alice and Bob described how the exhib might transfer to public places in the area: pubs, libraries, shops
5.4 All agreed there will be plenty of scope to generate literature from the exhibition. This can widely disseminated.

6 Exhibition Opening as Public Event
6.1 Paul thought there said the proposed location of the main exhibition - under the canopy on the corner of Leighton Rd and KT Rd - may not provide us with enough space. He asked the group to think about the possibility of closing off KT Rd to traffic for one day as a solution.
6.2 Philip said road closures would have to be legal: we must avoid being hijacked by single-issue anti-road groups
6.3 Andy suggested that we could work with a theatre group which would attempt to characterise some of the problems of the area through a drama enacted on the street.
6.4 Michael said something similar used to happen in the 20s & 30s when there used to be "Living Newspapers" - Unity Theatre actors who acted out the news.
6.5 John described how an unloved piece of open ground in Islington was brought to public attention by someone who pretended to be a developer keen to develop it. His ruse brought about a collossal response from people.
6.6 Tom(Y) said we could have a funeral procession for KT down the high street. Michael said it should finish with a "resurrection".

7 Participation
7.1 Tom(A) said the group must be open to more than middle-class people. Sandra said we must work with as wide a group of people as possible: we must draw people in.
7.2 Chris noted that if we fail to do engage broadly, there will be "hell to pay" from people and groups who feel left out and neglected.
7.3 All agreed that we should clarify our mission statement and our plan of action before getting in touch with other groups such Kentish Town Business Assoc.
7.4 Tom(Y) it's important that we all give to the exhib not just our "professional" skills but commit ourselves by putting forward ideas, drawings, memoires, thoughts about the area. He recalled one of the group's tenets - namely that the talents of the group as it stands are most probably in excess of what's available at Camden's Forward Planning and Regeneration offices
7.5 Sally said we could do a planning for real event
7.6 There was a general discussion about involving young people. Richard(T) said that it will be easy to contact schools because members have children. Schools will also be a good way to get in touch with parents. 7.7 Tom(Y) said Torriano Junior School is doing a project about KT Rd's traffic problems.
7.8 Tom(A) thought that children's experiences of walking around the area would be an interesting part of the groups thinking about transport.
7.9 Sarah and Steve said that the group could work with architecture and urban design students at nearby colleges eg The PoW School of Architecture, University of North London, AA and LSE (which has an urban design course). Sarah said the group could filter the ideas coming out of school projects focussed on KT.
7.10 Richard(R) said that it might be better to involve students of sustainable development. The feeling was their outlook would be more relevant and less perscriptive.
7.11 There was a feeling that the contribution of children has limits ie the future of KT is an adult issue. However, given one of KT's problems is neglect - a failure to take the place seriously - children do have the power through their image-making to remind us of what it is to engage with a place fully.

8 Consultation
8.1 Tom(Y) said participation in the exhib is a form of consultation. Contributing to and visiting the exhib are forms of consultation/participation. Consultation is a kind of participation: participation is not only about filling out forms (important as that is).
8.2 Andy said the group does need a consultation policy - a thought-through approach to the need to consult at every stage.
8.3 Nick suggested that the group should try to compile a questionaire about Kentish Town to be distributed with publicity leaflets for the exhib. Nick said he worked professionally on managing town centres and balancing their shopping amenity.

9 Nexting Meeting 9.1 The Steering Committee will suggest times as part of their work. circulation all in group

top

Meeting 2 - 16th September 1999

1.0 NEXT STEPS 1.1 All agreed that we should concentrate on a public event.
1.2 All agreed that we should mount an exhibition showing ideas for the future of Kentish Town.
1.3 All agreed the exhibition be located around/under the canopy on the corner of Kentish Town Rd and Leighton Rd ie an outdoor exhibition.
1.4 Concerns were expressed about Camden's willingness to allow such an exhibition.
1.5 There was discussion about the format of the exhibition, and how it might be spread around Kentish Town's shops, libraries and schools after it is removed from the canopy area.
1.6 All agreed the exhibition should be aspirational.
1.7 Everyone agreed that the exhibition should draw on the thinking of many more people than are in our group. Other groups in the area should be contacted. Individuals, whether or not affiliated to groups, should be alerted to the proposed exhibition through publicity in shops on KT Rd. Nori said the Kentish Town shopkeepers association will be a very important partner organisation (see last minutes). Paul mentioned his links with Camden Cycling Campaign.
1.8 Jim said there must be many other groups who have done what we're doing around the country. The Kings Cross Railway Lands Group were mentioned in this connection: Tom said that he is in contact with them.

2.0 ORGANISATION
2.1 Alice said careful organisation is needed to mount a successful exhibition.
2.2 The group asked Tom to provide a list of tasks for the group to discuss.
2.3 Alice noted that group must now appoint "officers" eg secretary/treasurer.
2.4 Sandra said a sensible lead-in time for the exhibition is essential. Jim said that the start of the Spring next year will be good time to have it.
2.5 Tom thought the group - it is over 40 strong at the moment - is big enough to generate financial resources for the exhibition.
2.6 Jim said we should expect the group to get much larger eventually.
2.7 The full membership will be issued to everyone in the group.

3.0 AFTER THE EXHIBITION
3.1 Jim wondered what follows the exhibition. He said that there is a big difference between the detailed, professional work needed to complete a Kentish Town plan and what we do now.
3.2 The fact that Camden have done nothing so far and that our group is probably more talented than Camden's Forward Planning Dept was mentioned in response to Jim.
3.3 Alice said she would be very loath to hand over "the project" to Camden.
3.4 Judy said Kentish Town's potential development warrants a national architectural competition. minutes of meeting continued_
3.5 Philip said a good relationship with Camden is needed in the long term. He spoke about the work at Mile End which has grown up organically through community involvement. He stressed the importance of involving organisations further up the governmental hierarchy than the local authority. 3.6 Nori noted that the Kings Cross Railway Lands Group have failed to get Camden to incorporate the group's housing objectives in the Borough Plan ( the Unitary Development Plan or UDP: copies are available in Camden libraries) despite intense lobbying.
3.7 In resisting Kings Cross Railway Lands Group, Camden gives itself freedom. Likewise, Council is not specific about Kentish Town's future quite possibly because it is a huge development opportunity.
3.8 Nori asked what we do if Camden reveals area redevelopment plans before we are "ready".
3.9 Paul said that what interests Camden most about Kentish Town now is probably the new bus-route on Kentish Town Road. He added that Camden's likely failure to implement pedestrianisation in Camden Town may mean that it is looking for "successes" elsewhere. Paul suggested it may be a good time to get Camden to consult with local people about their hopes for Kentish Town: Camden has a funny way of finding money when it wants it!

4.0 GROUP NAME: SHORTLIST OF ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Michael raised concerns about the group's provisional name ie KTDF. He thought it sounded too much like a get-together of designers, and called for new ideas about names.
4.2 Everyone agreed with Michael and decided to shortlist some new names for the group there and then with the intention of settling the matter as fast as possible while insuring that the rest of group has a say through voting on the shortlisted alternatives.
4.3 Andrew said he was interested in designing the group logo.
4.3 Please could you indicate which name from the shortlist you like most. 1) ReNew Kentish Town 2) Inter-aKT! 3) Act for a New Kentish Town 4) Kentish Town Future 5) Kentish Town 2005
circulation all KTDF members

top

Meeting 1 - 24th June 1999

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Tom spoke about the need for a well thought out area plan. Our group can develop a community approved area plan in advance of the large-scale developers making their move into the area.
1.2 Tom suggested we begin by thinking as widely and openly as possible about KT's future.
1.3 Richard noted that the main "sites" in KT are amongst the largest in London.

2.0 CONTACTS WITH OTHER GROUPS
2.1 Nori suggested we talk to other local groups. All agreed to this proposal.
2.2 Nori suggest talking to West Hampstead groups dealing with Railtrack's proposals. Mark commented that they are reacting to proposals, whereas our group will be making proposals.
2.4 The Council are not top of a list of possible contacts. John noted Camden's unresponsiveness in the past. Michael said working with local Councillors early on might help, on the other hand.
2.5 Tom said he has good links with Kentish Town Business Association (KTBA) via Cllr Roberts' KT Rd working party which is concerned with minor improvements on KT Rd.
2.6 Camden's proposed CPZ (controlled parking zone) in KT has mobilised local people who may well be interested in our groups' work.

3.0 PUBLIC PROFILE
3.0 Tom suggested our group's vitality will be sustained by doing enjoyable, public things such as walkabouts, planning-for-real events and exhibitions. 3.1 Support from the local press will help our public profile.
3.2 A web-site to give info about our work will be another way of getting across to the public.
7.2 A model of the area positioned in KT library may stimulate public reactions and involvement. Lewis said a lot of the area is hidden from view. A model could help people think about KT.
3.4 Lesley said she knows about various youth schemes which could be linked to our group.

4.0 GROUP ADMIN
4.1 Chris suggested sharing print and post costs
4.2 John suggested meetings are managed by "facilitators".
4.3 All agreed that the group should not be "led" by any one person.
4.4 All agreed the group is called Kentish Town Design Forum (KTDF).

5.0 LOCAL HISTORY
7.2 Tom said 125 years ago the KT railway lands were meadows, then came the railways and the big rail depot, then, with the decline of railways, the current l ight industrial usage and zoning.
7.3 Chris said KT had a much larger population 100 years ago which supported the high street.
5.3 Lewis noted KT Rd used to have 4 or 5 cinemas.

6.0 CURRENT CAMDEN POLICY
6.1 LBC's plans new B1/B8 on the Murphy site. Tom said this does not deal with the site's real potential.
7.2 Nori/Tom said Highgate Rd's designation means new B8/B1 on Murphys is consistent with UDP.
6.3 Richard thought large scale retail/housing proposals would not get planning permission in KT.
6.4 Alice noted how small sites along the North London Rail Viaduct are picked off for housing. More of this is at least a possibility if housing associations get part of the Murphy site.
6.5 Nori said LBC recognises the need for open space in KT. KTDF does too.
6.6 Lewis said Murphys should become parkland.
6.7 John said open space, workspace and homes are needed in the form of "sustainable development".
6.8 Hassan said Camden is reducing on-street parking without improving foot/cycle accessibility.

7.0 WHAT NEXT?
7.1 We agreed to put down our own thoughts and ideas about KT. John said our statements are a good way to find out about each other. Our initial ideas might form KTDF's first publication.
7.2 Peter said we should think what is the key question that needs to answered about KT's future.
7.3 We will meet for a walkabout at the KT canopy (jct KT Rd/Leighton Rd) on 11th July, 1999, at 11.15am.
7.4 Lesley said she may have access to a good vantage point somewhere close to her flat. This will be a good spot to take photos from during the walkabout.
7.4 Mark said our group may be buoyed up by central govt support for bottom- up planning processes.
7.5 Frank said he is going to the Urban Task Force's report launch and will tell the group about it. circulation all present other KTDF members

top