In February 2016 the 'One Housing' group submitted a planning application to convert a light industrial site into a high-density housing development. This attracted fierce opposition from local residents and a wide range of canal users. The council swiftly refused this application in June 2016, citing 18 reasons, and this stretch of the canal remained an open space for another year.
In March 2017 the council received a revised application, which attempts to mollify some of the objectors, but there are no signs of convergence because the applicant has lodged an appeal against last year's decision. (Appeal Reference: APP/X5210/W/16/3165200)
DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: "Demolition of all buildings on-site and new buildings of 1 - 6 storeys in height to include 40 residential (C3) units (16 x 1 bed, 15 x 2 bed and 9 x 3 bed) of which 34 would be market units and 6 affordable, 813mē (GEA) office floorspace (B1), 55mē (GEA) storage and distribution floorspace (B8) and associated works to highways and landscaping"
See here for some initial observations.
OPTION 1. Go to the Camden Council website, navigate to the Planning applications page, search on Application Number 2017/1230/P and click on the link that allows you to submit comments. See our illustrated guide for help.
OPTION 2. Send an e-mail to the case officer Jonathan.McClue@camden.gov.uk and to firstname.lastname@example.org. Your e-mail subject should be "Objection to Planning Application Number 2017/1230/P". This method is useful if you want to send headed notepaper or illustrations.
The official deadline for comments is 29th March.
Click here to see some objections from 2016.
...and click here to see some objections from 2017.
Click here to see press articles and letters
Clearly the business leaders and planners of today are more interested in short-term solutions than in what they are leaving behind for future generations. They are allowing or encouraging HGVs to saturate our city streets while the purpose-built waterways remain idle.
Here are two London Assembly reports that warn us about the damage this is inflicting on London.
The current plan, just like the previous one, is unacceptable and many of us will be urging the planning officer to refuse it before it even reaches the committee stage. But our role does not end there. We need to consider how the scheme can be altered further still to reach a compromise and the obvious starting point for an alternative design is a direct access route from the road to the canal. Without this feature the site will never be future-proof.