We’re not all suffering from a ‘superlabotomy’ over safety hazards

Published: 6 January, 2011

• COUNCILLOR Peter Brayshaw is misleading in his statement that local objections to the Somers Town “superlab” were outnumbered by objections from around the UK (Few oppose the superlab, December 30).

Groups representing large numbers of local residents and workers objected, including Ossulston Estate Tenants’ and Residents’ Association, Winston Tenants’ Association, St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action, King’s Cross Conservation Area Advisory Committee, Camden Town Urban Design Improvement Society, RMT (offices locally), PCS trade union British Library branch and Camden Friends of the Earth.

Many individuals responded from a wider catchment area because the “superlab” is national. Gordon Brown stressed the national implications. George Osborne has earmarked £220million of national money towards the £660million construction, though this could take years. 

The blasé attitude of UKCMRI supporters to the possible dangers suggests they may be suffering from a “superlabotomy” . Councillor Brayshaw invites local objectors to work with him and UKCMRI to make sure benefits for the community to the value of £10million materialise. 

We invite him and his supporters to join us in our concern for long-term safety, and our belief that biological research should remain on the present 47 acres of the National Medical Research Centre at Mill Hill.

ROB INGLIS
St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action

• WATCHING the webcast of the Brill Place planning decision, I was astounded at the spectacle of Councillor Peter Brayshaw and fellow ward councillor Roger Robinson pitted against each other.

One couldn’t help but wince at Cllr Brayshaw’s cruel dismissal of Cllr Robinson’s objection, by claiming that because he lives in his ward he is better placed to know the attitude of his constituents. 

While this claim may carry some weight, one cannot help but feel sorry for Cllr Robinson, whose long and assiduous service to Somers Town was so openly disregarded by his newly-elected colleague in such a disrespectfully blasé manner. Can any readers remember when a ward councillor has traduced another of the same ward and political party in such a public fashion?

It does not augur well for Camden that divisions between Labour councillors on the left and right are being aired so openly. 

With extensive freedoms to innovate about to be given to the council, under the Local Government Bill, one wonders whether Labour councillors will collectively seize the initiative or whether they will let the moment pass them by as they descend into the type of internecine factionalism for which the Labour Party is best known.

KEITH SEDGWICK
NW5