I welcome your excellent article on Arup's alternative proposals for the redevelopment of Camden Town tube station (NCE 29 January), which were commissioned by the owners of the Camden Market to counter LUL's plans for the tube station.
I would also like to clarify that our proposal does not include accommodation for any new retail space, as seems to be suggested.
We would argue that the compulsory purchase of land for the purposes of a commercial development rather than the construction of the tube station itself is outside LUL's transport remit and ultra vires.
Our alternative proposals demonstrate that an improved tube station at Camden does not require compulsory purchase of all the land on which the Camden triangle stands and that the threatened Camden Market, Trinity United Reformed Church and the Electric Ballroom could be saved.
This approach also stems from the belief - shared by many - that an intrusive aboveground commercial development would irrevocably damage the heart of Camden.
The results of a recent NOP survey indicate that over 70% of visitors to Camden would be put off if Camden Market were replaced by the shops and offices proposed in LUL's scheme.
Henry Lennard, Camden Lock (London), 181-183 King's Road, London, SW3