Very disappointing to see this application sneak back in. In my opinion the reasons for the original refusal have not been adequately addressed, which is why the applicant has not notified the original objectors or engaged with them. This development if approved would be a smack in the face for local residents and users of the canal.It is way too high, and would overshadow the canal environs plunging the area into darkness. There would be a loss of public space, and a risk to local bio-diversity.
See this 9-page objection (5MB PDF file)
See this 6-page letter from Claire McLean
Please click here (JPG file)
The proposal will have a considerable impact on the existing residences on Royal College Street and surrounding area -
1. It is massively out of scale with the 3 storey buildings on royal college street and disproportionate to the existing buildings on the canal side including the historic warehouse, which demonstrates that is too high, too dense and out of character of the area
2. Bangor Wharf's tall buildings will be twice as high as the historic warehouse (Eagle Wharf) and twice as high as the houses on Royal College Street
3. The height will create a 'wall' - 18m from our living room, which will block off our view of the canal and will "box in" the canal resulting in the loss of its open, spacious, sunny feel and will result in the loss of our privacy with the overlooking balconies and terraces.
4. The impact of the loss of daylight and sunlight has not been considered suitably - the windows facing the development are the only windows providing light to the living area in the flats. The height of the building will result in the serious loss of light to our living areas, detrimentally impacting our quality of life and will obstruct the only sunlight that the flats receive in winter. The analysis done supports this fact further stating that light levels will be below recommended BRE daylight guidelines
5. The natural habitat of the local wildlife will be destroyed and the green nature of the canal will be lost due to the removal of the existing trees and shrubs
6. The additional flats in the area are welcome but it should not be at the expenses / negatively affect the wellbeing of existing residents, the local community and the wildlife - the size and height of the proposed buildings should be reconsidered to respect the character and appearance of the local area and neighbouring buildings
I would like to object to the current plans of Application No.2017/1230/P, Bangor Wharf. My reasoning behind it is that I see extreme danger for the wildlife in this location. The wildlife is already on decline on Regents Canal, and this is one of the last remaining hot spots for wildlife, where geese and ducks breed annually in spring. This wild life is a great attraction for the canal, and loosing it would not just damage the appeal of the canal, but the whole ecosystem around London. One aspect of this that the plans for the current building is just too high. It would greatly overshadow any building in the surrounding area, affect wildlife, peoples health due to very little light entering their homes and contribute to increasing growth of the concrete jungle. Home space is needed in Camden, but the plans for this inadequate, and de-equalising building for the area, is not appropriate.
I hope that these concerns will be heard, and considered during the decision.
I oppose this proposed development for the following reasons.
Loss of light which will inevitably result from building a 6 storey block next to to a three storey building and right on the edge of the canal. This will affect the biodiversity, and the loss of light will have a deleterious effect on the people living in the vicinity of the proposed building.
The excessive height and monolithic appearance of the proposed buildings are not in keeping with the surroundings.
The closeness to the houses on Royal College Street means that their right to privacy will be severely affected.
Perhaps if there was a limit to the height of the buildings to 4 storeys, the negative impact would be reduced whilst still allowing much needed housing to be built
I consider the 6 storeys building to be an excess in the canal context. It would create a wall, closing the canal and harming the wildlife and the heritage asset, which is against the Council´s statements. It would affect the sunlight in the Reachview flats, there not being yet any real projection of how the building would affect this. The previous application stated least than 2 hours of direct sunlight, which is clearly unacceptable. This lack of sunlight in the building and the closed experience in the canal would probably affect the canal experience and even the health of the residents. It would affect the wildlife, losing old trees and shrubs and probably affecting the animal life due to lack of sunlight. The developer, One Housing, had the floating platforms for nesting birds removed so that waterfowl would no longer visit this area and hinder their future plans. The landscape would be hard due to the paved over courtyard. Furthermore, I have not been consulted by the developer, even when the dramatic change of the landscape, health conditions, canal experience and wildlife would made this consult mandatory. Therefore, I strongly oppose this plan and ask it to be denied.
I request that you reject the revised application 2017/1230/P for Bangor Wharf, Georgiana Street, NW1 0QS on the following grounds.
1) The new plans are very similar to the proposal for the site that was rejected last year. They have not addressed fundamental weaknesses with the original scheme, such as its scale and impact on t he canal. Therefore there are no grounds for lifting the rejection.
2) The plans are incomplete and do not provide a sound basis for granting planning permission.
3) The buildings proposed are six storeys high - two storeys higher than any nearby buildings - yet hardly set back from the canal, which means they will deprive the canal of essential sunlight.
4) The development would be intrusively close to the back windows of the Georgian terrace housing at
5) One Housing has ignored Camden's wish to "conserve and enhance the existing character of the canal" and its intention that "designs for new buildings. should respect the character and appearance of the local area and neighbourhood".
6) While Camden undeniably needs more housing, it equally needs to preserve and increase space for industrial use to create jobs for local people. The proposal would amount to a loss and missed opportunity for Camden.
I urge the Council to reject this revised application.
1. I am the resident of 122a Royal College Street. The proposed building works at Bangor Wharf outlined in 2017/1230/P will have a potential and detrimental effect on me. However, I received no notification of the planning application nor invitation to comment. I only learned about this planning application because a friend showed me a letter in the Camden New Journal. The same friend told me there was a notice on a lamp post further up the street on the edge of the proposed development (I cannot get out much), but nothing on the lamp post directly outside my flat which is far more central to the proposed works. My friend also phoned the council on my behalf to find out when letters of notification were sent and the closing date for responses. I was shocked to learn that because of cuts, letters are no longer sent out, although people can sign up for Email alerts. I do not have a computer or an Email address, so had it not been for my friend, I would have had no voice. This new strategy is clearly weighted in favour of applicants. Is it legal to exclude anyone if they are not computer literate?
2. My objections to the planning application are unchanged from last year. My kitchen at the back of 122A, is a sizeable room, approximately 10' by 10' and is a much used living space. I am virtually housebound and spend a considerable amount of time there to get away from the noise and pollution coming from the street at the front of the property (recently made worse by the introduction of a double cycle lane resulting in a single traffic lane). Also to avoid the noise from the Prince Albert pub directly opposite. If these plans go ahead, the back of my flat and garden will be completely overlooked and natural light will be greatly reduced. Plus there would be considerable noise and dust from demolition and building works.
As a resident in a Regent's Canal-side location I wish to object to the proposed development at Bangor Wharf on the following grounds:
The proposed development is far too large for the Bangor Wharf site and its location right on the canal. It will have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring residential dwellings particularly in Royal College Street and Reachview Close in terms of outlook, overlooking, privacy, and access to daylight and sunlight.
In addition, the canal, the wildlife and the towpath will also suffer a detrimental effect as a result of the size of the proposed development reducing access to light and creating overshadowing. The towpath which is well used by walkers and cyclists at all times of the day, throughout the year, will experience a loss of daylight and sunlight which will have a harmful effect on the wildlife, vegetation and people's enjoyment of this valuable green space. I have seen turtles and many waterbirds adjacent to Bangor Wharf on numerous occasions which would be adversely affected by an over-large building on this site.
As you know this site is located within the Regents Canal Conservation Area. From Camden Council Conservation Area Statement Regent's Canal
The Council's own Guidelines state, in part, the following:
From page 28
New development should be seen as an opportunity to enhance the Conservation Area and should respect the built form, scale and historic context of the particular section of canal in which they are located.
The Conservation Area is varied in scale and new design should respect the scale of their particular location. Appropriate design for the Conservation Area should complement the appearance, character and setting of the existing buildings, the canal, and the environment as a whole. The proposed development does not respect the form or scale of the canal, nor does it respect the scale of the surrounding buildings. It is far larger than the surrounding buildings and more importantly is too large for the space it proposes to occupy.
From page 34
The Council will seek to ensure that all new buildings maintain the established scale of the particular section of the canal. The height of buildings should reflect that of existing canalside buildings or as a general rule the height of buildings which frame the canal should not exceed four domestic storeys on either side of the canal as taken from towpath level.
The Council will resist any development that has an adverse impact on the existing skyline
Given the above guidelines, I do not see how the proposed development meets the guidelines. In addition, I can see a number of elements which contravene the guidelines. The proposed building extends to 5 and 6 stories, each storey likely taller than the 'domestic storeys' referenced when the guidelines were written.
And the skyline will also be significantly changed. The current buildings of only two storeys enable views of the canal to and from all surrounding buildings, which would be obliterated by the proposed building. The Council should follow its own guidelines and 'resist' this development. In addition, other councils have indicated the importance of protecting views of the canal from the bridges within this Conservation Area. This approach should be encouraged throughout the Conservation Area for consistency. The proposed development would almost destroy the view from Gray's Inn Bridge. The development should be much lower overall and especially at the corner of the site adjacent to the bridge, in order to protect this outlook.
We object to these proposals for the following general reasons:
1. They involve the loss of a potentially important canal-based use
2. Offices and commercial housing are not appropriate uses for this canal-side site
3. The scheme is an over-development; too much floorspace is proposed.
4. The blocks are out of scale with both Georgiana Street and Royal College Street
5. There is likely to be severe overshadowing and overlooking of the backs of the Royal College Street buildings
6. There is also likely to be severe overshadowing of the canal, at present quite open at this point, of the nature reserve on the other bank and of many of the Reachview Close flats
7. The proposal involves the loss of trees from the site
8. It will also compromise the biodiversity both of the canal and the nature reserve
9. Contrary to the developers' claim, this cannot be seen as an 'enhancement' of the canal Conservation Area.
We also have a specific objection in relation to our own flat. When Reachview Close was built, sunlight penetration to living rooms was a significant issue. Our living room has one window, facing south west, obliquely providing all our afternoon and evening sun. Though the previous scheme would have involved severe loss of daylight and sunlight to this window, this was not taken account of in the developers' lighting study. This current scheme actually worsens the situation by increasing the height of the intervening block.
We hope the application will be refused permission.
I oppose this planning application for the following reasons:-
According to the Heritage section in Planning Policy and Proposal Compliance: 'proposals should be sympathetic in form and scale to protect and enhance the significance of heritage assets'.
According to the Regent's Canal Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy 2008: 'Each of the sections bracketed by the bridges has its own distinct appearance.' 'It is the Council's intention to preserve and enhance the existing character of the canal.'
According to Camden Development Policy: Respecting Local Character (DP24.12): Designs for new buildings should respect the character and appearance of the local area and neighbouring buildings. Within areas of distinctive character, development should reinforce those elements which create the character'.
Six storey buildings are not the norm in the immediate vicinity along the canal. The height of this development is out of context with its locality. It will detract from the characteristics of the conservation area and it will not reinforce or enhance the period buildings in close proximity e.g. Eagle Wharf and Royal College Street. Eagle Wharf is a listed Victorian warehouse and part of the rich heritage of canal buildings. It is only 3 storeys in height and will be totally dwarfed by the height and bulk of the proposed development at Bangor Wharf. The proposed building right next to Eagle Wharf will be twice as high as Eagle Wharf. How can this enhance the significance of a heritage asset such as Eagle Wharf?
The terraced houses in Royal College Street are mostly 3 storeys high above ground with a basement below. Even 'stepping' the rear of the proposed buildings will not alter the looming and overbearing effect that they will have on Royal College Street. The residents there will look out on a wall of brick just at the end of their small gardens. There is nowhere in the immediate vicinity where residential property is overshadowed by higher buildings - let alone, twice as high.
With reference to the diagram and photograph of Lawford's Wharf on Page 31 of Bangor Wharf Design and Access Statement:-
The two buildings proposed occupy virtually the whole site. The gap between them is compared to the gap between the buildings at Lawford's Wharf but although the gap near to the canal may be the same width, this is not the case further away from the canal. The buildings on either side of the gap at Lawford's Wharf are much shallower in depth than those proposed at Bangor Wharf so that whereas the gap further away from the canal at Lawford's wharf increases so that the smaller houses in Lyme Street are not affected, the gap further away from the canal at Bangor Wharf remains the same as next to the canal and the buildings have a much larger footprint. They are much closer to the terraced houses in Royal College Street. When viewed from the opposite side of the canal at an angle or when walking along the canal from Gray's Inn Bridge, the gap between the buildings at Bangor Wharf will not be visible so the two buildings will appear to be one solid block. Urban design objectives should not mean producing an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities and historic importance of the properties immediately adjacent to the site.
With reference to the Design and Access Statement, Page 24
It can be seen from these 3D images that the size and density of these buildings are extremely large and totally dwarf the surrounding period buildings. One of the alleged improvements the developers have made to reduce the massing is to decrease one building by one storey, but, at the same time, they have increased the other building by one storey and they have presumably increased the height of both buildings by replacing the original flats with commercial units which will have higher ceilings.
In Section 3.04 of the Design and Access Statement the Chair's review recommended 4 storeys. The developers' response was that fewer storeys would mean no affordable housing. Aren't they are obliged to provide affordable housing in a development of this size? As it is, they are only providing 6 affordable flats. So, was this an empty threat?
In the Daylight and Sunlight report (revised on 17th March, 2017) There are inaccurate diagrams of Amenity Space. The first two show the existing buildings but the canal towpath - that is labelled as such - is the canal itself. According to these two diagrams the canal doesn't exist. The next two diagrams show the proposed buildings but there is no indication of overshadowing of the canal which is presumably an amenity space.
In the previous application made by One Housing in March 2016 there were detailed diagrams showing the detrimental shadowing effect of such high and large buildings on the canal, nature reserve, and the towpath on the opposite bank. The effect of the overshadowing was shocking and a real threat to the biodiversity of the canal, nature reserve and towpath.
The overshadowing diagrams submitted - late - with the new application are very unclear. The main height difference between the two applications is that the two buildings on the edge of the canal have changed places - the higher building is now on the right - as seen from the opposite towpath - and the lower one is on the left. The shadowing of the canal would now be greater on the right. It should be noted that the net amount of shadowing will presumably have increased in the second application as both buildings will be higher. The ground floor flats have been replaced with commercial units which have higher ceilings.
The developers say in the Statement of Community Involvement that their re-application 'does not represent a significant departure from the initial proposals'. (These proposals were of course rejected on 18 grounds.)
Therefore, we can presumably assume that the previous clearer analysis of overshadowing is still relevant - taking into account the reversed positions of the canalside buildings. With reference to these documents, it can be seen from the new buildings' shadow at 1600h on 21st March that the shadow cast by the buildings is very large and reaches right across the canal and up the opposite bank. The proposed courtyard between the two new buildings will largely be in shade the whole time, all year, except for between 1400h and 1600h in the summer. The backs of the houses in Royal College Street will also be badly affected. The biodiversity of the canal will be adversely affected and so too will the Baynes Street nature reserve.
According to DP26: Managing the impact of development on occupiers and neighbours - 'The Council will protect the quality of life of.neighbours by only granting permission for development that does not cause harm to amenity'.
According to the Planning Policy & Proposal Compliance: The development will be expected to be of a form and scale which is appropriate to the Regent's Canal Conservation Area and responds to the open character of this part of the canal and to surrounding listed buildings.
It also states the need to: 'ensure that the design and layout of the development responds positively to its canal setting, and contributes to the biodiversity and green nature of the canal.' In addition, the impact of any overshadowing of the canal should be minimized.
Between College Street Bridge (Royal College Street) and Gray's Inn Bridge (St Pancras Way) is one of the largest open planted sections of the canal. The proposed buildings will be only 1.5 metres away from the canal edge. The developers claim that the gap between the buildings will allow light through to the water but the shadow cast by those buildings is considerable and at times reaches right across the canal and up the opposite bank. This will seriously affect the biodiversity of not only the canal itself but also of the bank and nature reserve on the other side. The towpath opposite is widely used by the public as a sunny open space but this will be affected by the reduction in hours of sunlight and there will no longer be a feeling of open-ness.
In addition to the negative impact of the shadowing on the water, the sheer bulk of this development will change the whole atmosphere of this stretch of the canal. Other areas have lost this and it is a precious heritage that should be preserved. Once lost, it cannot be replaced.
The public space between the proposed buildings will be in shade for much of the time and so will the narrow access area to the canal. There will be no 'sense of openness at the canal edge', as the developers claim, since there will be overbearing buildings around. It will not be much used by the public as they have much better access to the canal from the opposite side. The entrance to this 'public' space will be from Georgiana Street and through some kind of tunnelled walkway. Currently, there are few pedestrians in Georgiana Street so, apart from the residents of Bangor Wharf, how will the public know there is a way to the canal and even when they do find it, why would they want to go and sit in almost permanent shadow in the middle of overpowering buildings?
DP26.2: 'Development should avoid harmful effects on the amenity of existing and future occupiers and to nearby properties.'
The developers claim that their analysis demonstrates that the proposed development would not materially affect the daylight and sunlight amenity received to the neighbouring properties. The residents of Royal College Street will certainly be affected not only by the loss of daylight but also by the overpowering size and height of the buildings which will be within a few yards of their houses or back instead of looking out on an open space with low buildings, they will be looking up at a huge building with windows, balconies and terraces towering above and overlooking Royal College Street houses. In addition to the consequent loss of light, it will feel extremely claustrophobic.
Lawford's Wharf on the other side of College Street Bridge was described as follows:- 'The scheme responds to building heights constraints, sensitively proportioning new development to prevent overlooking of neighbouring dwellings'. The same cannot be said of the proposed development at Bangor Wharf.
As already stated the development at Bangor Wharf will loom over the houses in Royal College Street and will affect the amount of daylight and sunlight they will receive. In addition, it will also affect their privacy. At the back and round the side of the higher building (the northern one) there are private terraces at first floor level. There are also windows on every floor. There is another terrace on the top floor. There are balconies down the side of the buildings. It is unclear the exact height of the boundary wall as it apparently varies, but at one point it is 1.8m high so anyone standing there will be able to look over it into the Royal College Street rear gardens and also into the back windows of the houses.
To sum up, the privacy of the residents of Royal College Street will be invaded from all these viewing points.
As the developers do not consider the new application represents a significant departure from the initial proposals - in spite of the addition of a storey to one of the buildings and an increase in the number of commercial units - they decided they did not have to carry out another consultation process. So they delivered a glossy leaflet two days before the actual planning application was submitted. This leaflet was not delivered to all the affected households. As far as we can judge, very few of the residents in Royal College Street received these leaflets. On the Planning Application website there are big claims that they consulted local residents thoroughly with drop-in sessions, feedback forms etc. There are numerous impressive pie charts to back this up. But all this evidence refers to the consultations carried out prior to the application in March 2016 and this is not made very clear in the current application. The first time the local residents heard about the latest planning application was when they received the glossy leaflet - if they were lucky enough to get one.
The fire engines will not be able to drive into the courtyard as there is no vehicular access. The taller building (northern) will only be protected by sprinklers and the developers add: 'if necessary'. If they decide not to bother with the sprinklers - and anyway, sprinklers are not always reliable - then how will a fire be extinguished?
Undeniably Camden needs more housing and Bangor Wharf is an unused site but the height and footprint of this development is totally out of keeping with this open, planted and sunny stretch of the Regent's Canal. It will dominate the area and will have an overbearing effect on the much smaller houses in Royal College Street as well as depriving them of sunlight, daylight, and privacy. The buildings are too close to the canal and should be no more than 4 storeys high. The shadow produced by these buildings will have a serious effect on the biodiversity of the canal and the opposite bank. The claim that access to the canal will improve is probably a meaningless one as the access is very poor and through an almost completely shadowed, gated courtyard. This development will not preserve and enhance the existing character of the canal nor will it reinforce or complement the heritage buildings around it.
I oppose this planning application for all the above reasons. 2017/1230/P Anne Gerulat 22/03/2017 12:56:13 OBJ I am objecting to this application. 6-floor modern buildings are out of character for the Royal College Street area and would certainly affect the the light on the adjoining and close by terraces and gardens of the Royal College Street properties (and also the canal path in the afternoon). The proposed buildings are too close to the property line of adjoining properties and, as already mentioned, too high, and will lead to the existing properties losing their right of privacy, as there will be a direct and close up view from the windows of the proposed property into existing properties,which is not acceptable. I am asking you to reject this application. I am looking forward to hearing your response.
We object to this application, Its proposal is contrary to the Regents Canal C.A. Appraisal and Management plan , to the Planning Policy Framework and the Council's allocations policy
The Regents Canal Conservation Area Advisory Committee
C/O ARP Architects
The huge 1st floor's flat green roof are going to be a lot of trouble for us Royal College street residents, easily invaded by luxury flat residents as a extended terrace garden and play area for kids , more so anybody can easily climb down affordable flat's balcony or communal windows. Summer will be the HELL for us Royal College street residents, DRUNKEN ORGY !! on top of the roof !!!
Deep planters as privacy screen are INSULT.
No plants which can plant in a planter are not taller than man. Anybody be able to kill off plants easily if you wish Then what! foot ball on a roof ! live music on a roof!
Terrace and large glass patio door are unnecessary just a gimmick to sell as a luxury flats, for whom are not Camden residents ! Affordable flats does not need so many windows for gimmick to sell.
Royal College street traffic are clogged from top to bottom, choked by slow moving car-exhaust, for that we can not open front windows. Only windows we can open is back. To build high - rise building our back ! no privacy ! no light ! It's Hell!
Housing association does not need to build luxury flats, there are so many empty luxury flats along Regents Canal for rich investor who left as empty. Over built Kings Cross and Pancras way , Bangor Wharf are only oasis of Regents Canal side that small birds and ducklings are free from cats and dogs, and give Camden residents peace, specially building work HS2 start soon building high-rise buildings Euston area.
We Camden residents do not need more high-rise luxury flats for rich investors to invest for rent city rich.
We do not wish to live shadow of buildings, we do need the SUN for physically and mentally as healthy living.
We Camden residents need space of peace next 20years escape from HS2 building work, please do not destroy Bangor Wharf which is only bit of nature place we human and birds need.
I'd like to object to the proposed Bangor Wharf redevelopment.
I'm situated at xxx Royal College Street and the windows to the rear of the property face nearly directly where the 5/6 storey tower will be.
The window that will suffer the most will be the window in my 7 month old daughter's bedroom. The daylight that comes into that room already struggles feebly through the existing surrounding buildings.
I fear that the new building will nearly eliminate the ingress of light completely. I'd also like for my daughter to be able to continue to see a small patch of sky from her room rather than the side (?) of a building.
Aside from the impact on my daughter's room, we also enjoy a very small courtyard accessible through our kitchen. The courtyard is heavily used, for drying clothes and for barbequing all year round. The daylight that comes into the kitchen is very pleasant. Again, I strongly object to the deprivation of daylight that this proposal brings.
Finally, it appears that balconies will overlook our windows and courtyard. This is obviously an unacceptable privacy concern. I'd also imagine that any future Bangor Wharf residents would similarly object to having to watch my underpants dry in the breeze. Jests aside, I hate the idea of having to draw the curtains while my daughter plays in her room to afford her some privacy.
I urge you to please have the developers drastically change their proposal, swapping the pleasant ingress of daylight for the looming presence of prying eyes is hugely concerning.
Should you wish to conduct a site visit to understand the impact the proposal will have on this property, please don't hesitate to contact me.
The height, scale and sheer mass will be detrimental to the character and general appearance of the canal side, plus lack of reflected light from the water and the increased wind tunnel effect by the aforementioned will give a distinctly gloomy and possibly unfriendly aspect to the towpath.
Obviously the biodiversity of the will be affected by the overshadowing created.
The proposed development fails to preserve or enhance the character/appearance of the Regents Canal Conservation Area.
The design, layout and addition of gates also detrimental to the conservation area.
No priority, or even a thought, has been given to the water space and to promote its use for sustainable transport during construction or looking to the future. Developers state they ',will consider ' providing a tap. No bins.
Also, they, 'will investigate the possibility' of providing moorings, failing to note locked courtyard gates( no public access) would make this completely unrealistic.
I wish to object to this planning application and request that it is rejected.
Many of the reasons for rejection are similar or the same as those for objecting to the rejected application 2016/1117/P last year, as the new proposal fails to remedy most of the problems that lay behind the objections then, also the reasons that caused the council to refuse that application. I agree with the points made by most or all of the other objectors, which are cogent and important and show that they are concerned with preserving the character of this light and airy canal section, also with protecting the amenity of existing residents, the very many leisure and barge canal users and the general public.
This section of the canal is very popular for recreation and should not be lightly sacrificed. The site is certainly suitable for development for new housing and light industrial space, but this should be done in a sensitive way that is in accord with this canal section, does not hugely dominate and it and turn it into a gloomy, dark wind-tunnel, bordered by a cliff-like array of tall buildings. These will dominate the area and overshadow and violate the privacy of existing housing, especially in Royal College Street.
The buildings should be no taller than 4 stories, particularly the Northern one, with less monolithic construction to humanise their appearance from all sides.
Specific reasons for my objection are :
. Excessive and domineering massing of the proposed buildings
. False claim that the new courtyard will be a valuable public open space
. The shadowing and walling in of the canal and housing opposite
. Failure to constructively use the canal or to enhance the canal environment
. There was in reality NO community consultation on this application
This was one of the main reasons for objections to the previous application and is little improved or even made worse by the current one. The developers claim that they have reduced this by removing one storey from the Georgiana Street building, but they have INCREASED the massing of canalside, Northern building, so at very best the massing has remained the same. In fact, the Northern building is significantly more important for overshadowing the canal, also for invading the privacy of housing in Royal College Street.
The developers say "The massing creates two distinct buildings which front the canal"
It is clear from their own visuals that from the vast majority of viewpoints on the canal towpath, this is false. The 2 buildings will visually merge to create a cliff-like front, walling in and shadowing the canal, as is confirmed by their hourly shadow diagrams.
The developers claim that the gap between the 2 buildings will reduce its visual impact and reduction of light and make frequent comparisons with a similar arrangement in Lawfords'' Wharf next along the canal. But the lowest building they propose is significantly higher than the highest building in Lawfords'' Wharf, while their proposal will involve much more monolithic, massive buildings than the sensitive, rounded ones there. Also Lawford''s Wharf is surrounded by low rise buildings so the courtyard there has few visual blocks and is itself light and airy. It is also striking that the highest Lawford''s Wharf building is at most 3m higher than its nearest neighbour in Royal College Street, the Northern building proposed will be at least 10m higher than the existing culturally valuable commercial warehouse building, twice as high, which it will completely dominate, as it will loom over the entire neighbourhood.
The sight line through the new courtyard from the canal will be blocked by the Geogiana Street building, which is monolithic and cliff like. The idea that the courtyard will provide a canal view from Georgiana Street is clearly shown by the elevations and plans to be fanciful. So views either way over the courtyard will be blocked by the buildings.
False claim that the new courtyard will be a valuable public open space The space between the 2 buildings is claimed to be a valuable addition to public space, which visitors can relax and enjoy as a new leisure facility, and will allow public access to the West side of the canal for the first time. This is so implausible it is hard to see this claim as anything but deliberately misleading.
The courtyard can only be accessed by a deep, gated tunnel in the Georgiana street wall. This has a grim and forbidding appearance, it is highly unlikely that the public will even know of the existence of the courtyard, let alone use it to eat sandwiches or have children play in. The gate will be locked in the evening anyway, so whoever is there would presumably have to be turfed out.
The (late supplied), shadow diagrams show that for the vast majority of the time, for most of the year, the courtyard will be in deep shadow and loomed over by the cliff edge of the 2 new tall buildings. This effect is made worse by the additional story added to the Northern building. This courtyard will be of little use as amenity to the residents of the new block, still less to the wider public.
The shadow diagrams show a much worse sunlight situation for the canal and existing housing if this scheme goes ahead. The courtyard will be in near continuous shade, even at high Summer, while for much of the year a solid block of shadow will be projected across the currently sunny canal from the late morning on. This will seriously reduce the current pleasant atmosphere of this section, there will also be serious loss of natural light in the Reachview Flats, claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
Failure to constructively use the canal or to enhance the canal environment The developers claim that they will enhance canal use. Yet they only propose to "consider" the possible provision of a tap (but not waste disposal facilities) and "investigate" providing a mooring. These are minimal token gestures toward active canal use, and are so provisional that they are not any sort of solid commitment. There is every likelihood that these aspirations would not in fact be met, were the application to be approved.
The problem of minimal canal use remains, while the amenity for the very many recreational canal towpath users will be seriously diminished as the canal becomes walled-in and gloomy.
The development certainly fails to "enhance the canal", in fact its dark, walling-in quality does the reverse.
The statement on community consultation is deeply misleading. It refers to a series of processes, themselves heavily loaded in favour of the developer, that all relate to the FIRST application, not the current one. The only "consultation" on this application was a glossy brochure distributed, in a fairly uneven fashion, to some residents 2 days before the formal application was made. For all real purposes, there was NO community consultation on this application.
For these reasons, I urge rejection of this application. A further application to use this site should be more sensitive and less domineering to the existing situation.
The Commercial Boat Operators Association (CBOA) represents water freight carriage by barge on the UK's inland and estuarial waterways and is accepted by the Government as the representative industry body.
The CBOA has an interest in promoting use of the River Thames and London''s canals and basins for carriage of freight by barge, to relieve road congestion and reduce exhaust emissions. This is particularly relevant where movement of materials is proposed for developments that are adjacent or near to waterways. This is in line with Government proposals for assisting reduction of road congestion in London. (See GPG 2122 - Planning for Freight on Inland Waterways www.aina.org.uk/docs/Planning4freight(1).pdf, and also the London Plan http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/london-plan; the latter as a good example of use of the ''Blue Ribbon Network'' of navigable waterways for freight).
Leeds, Tower Hamlets and Greenwich in London are examples whose local authorities are keen on freight use of waterways in this way. The site at Bangor wharf is a good example of where at least part of the wharf should be kept for future canal transport use for the loading and unloading of barges, for distribution to the vicinity, or collection from the vicinity. Some space on site for the turning of vehicles would also be required. With the increasing population in London, more use should be made of canals and rivers to alleviate use of the road network for goods transport. Good examples of goods (but not limited to these) that can be carried are those for construction purposes, or carrying away excavated material during site preparation. An increase in population means an increasing need for goods distribution.
As an illustration, the benefits of barge transport can be:-
Significant reduction of road congestion
Lower risk of road accidents/fatalities
Lower noise on highways
Reduced highway wear and tear from lorries, meaning Lower long term highway maintenance costs
Lower fuel consumption meaning reduction of the carbon footprint
Lower exhaust emissions, meaning less air pollution in the district - Each barge can carry 2 or more lorry loads.
Secondly, any construction carried out on this site should obviously make full use of the canal for both carrying away excavated material and for bringing in new construction materials. Shortage of storage space on site during construction can be alleviated by using the barges for storage. This needs to be stipulated within the planning consent; contractors are often unwilling to consider canal transport and so the need for the specification of it. The same advantages are applicable with the use of barges as above.
If you need any further information I would be pleased to assist.
2 High Street, Eccleshall, Stafford. ST21 6BZ
I hereby object to the planning consent and intention to redevelop and build the new buildings at Bangor Wharf.
I am not against new buildings at that site per se and indeed Camden needs more houses and it makes absolutely sense to redevelop brownfield sites. And yet I find myself wondering whether the proposed redevelopment would cause more harm than good to Camden residents, the Camden environment and the Camden economy. My three main concerns and reasons to object are:
(i) OneHousing states on their homepage http://www.onehousingbangorwharf.co.uk/about/ that they want to "fund affordable housing" and that OneHousing "responds to and exceeds the need of local community engagement". And yet only only 6 of 40 flat units would be considered being "affordable". More affordable houses and flats is what Camden needs and what the residents need and OneHousing refuses to provide these affordability. In my view, that is neither "responding to and exceeding the need of local community engagement" nor funding "affordable housing". In fact, what I read here between all this documents is just another company pretending to care, but secretly trying to maximise profits - even if they act as non-profit. Camden needs more affordable houses. "London is in the midst of a housing crisis" is what our mayor Sadiq Khan said and according to the Mayor of London homepage (November 2016), he wants to see developments with at least 50% affordable flats, not 15% as currently proposed by OneHousing.
(ii) What makes Camden so beautiful and the people so happy to live there is Camden's unique atmosphere which builds upon the nature combined with the lovely and divers people living in Camden. One of this ingredients for our unique atmosphere is threatened by this redevelopment project: The nature in form of the canal. Increased shadowing will affect the biodiversity of the canal and the sunny nature of the canal towpath. OneHousing could take this into account by reducing the floors of their development to a level which not only matches the adjacent houses, but also does not affect the canal atmosphere.
(iii) The redevelopment actually destroys more value than it creates. From an economical point of view, in my opinion, the redevelopment lowers the economic value of adjacent houses. Current houses with a canal view, for instance from their balcony, will look at a house front or perhaps inside another flat. That will fundamentally lower the value of these houses. In turn, OneHousing provides new flats with a canal view and they don't care what their development does to adjacent houses. Camden should not allow a new building which leads to more unhappy people than it creates happy ones. There are ways to maximise the value for everyone, including adjacent buildings, but that requires a redesign of the site and actually listening to the community's needs. Something OneHousing has not been doing greatly after the first planning rejection. In fact, many adjacent residents did not even get information about the new proposal. It appears that since the official way did not work for OneHousing, they now changed strategy to push for another design without consulting with the public properly. In my view, that is not how one should do business.
We are here, let us talk together.
I strongly object to the above proposal for the following reasons:
According to the Camden Site Allocations: Local Development Document (Sept 2013), the development should, 'Be of a form and scale which is appropriate to the Regent's Canal Conservation Area and responds to the open character of this part of the canal and surrounding listed buildings.'
1. The development comprises a 6- and a 5-storey block, both with offices on the ground floor. With higher ceilings, the offices will add height to the buildings overall. The locally listed houses on Royal College Street are only 3 storeys, while the Constitution pub and the historic warehouse on Eagle Wharf, both of which are positive characteristics of the conservation area, are also 3 storeys. The proposed buildings are twice as high.
2. The size and scale of the development is insensitive compared to new developments in the locality. The Design and Access Statement compares to heights of buildings in the local urban context on the canal, yet it fails to mention the following:
a) Lawfords Wharf staggers down to one storey so as not to hide the listed buildings used as offices and the backs of the terraced houses on Lyme Street.
b) The more recent development, Regent Canalside on Camden Road, which also straddles the canal, lowers to 3 storeys to match the height of the houses behind on Bonny Street, which is part of a conservation area.
c) Star Wharf is only 3 storeys at Gray's Inn Bridge, Georgiana Street.
3. Sites along the canal should be considered individually, not as a whole, and the proposal fails to do so. DP24.10: 'In the borough, a site may be suitable for a tall building while adjacent sites are not, due to impact on either views, conservation areas or listed buildings. Indeed, in some cases, suitability for a tall building differs across a single site.'
4. According to the Regent's Canal Conservation Area appraisal, 'It is the Council's intention to conserve and enhance the existing character of the canal', yet the height of the buildings will create an oppressive sense of enclosure on what is an open section of the canal, a site historically occupied by low buildings. The effect will 'close' the canal and harm its setting as a designated heritage asset. The Local Development document says, 'The character of this section of Regent's Canal is fairly open so any development should avoid excessive bulk and massing along the canal.'
1. The Transient Overshadowing Study in the Daylight and Sunlight Report, shows the negative effect of shadowing as it stretches across the water, the towpath and up the bank, covering the Baynes Street Canalside Garden nature reserve, which is run by London Wildlife Trust and Camden Council, and the gardens of Reachview Close.
On 21 March, 50% of the canal and towpath will have sunlight for only two hours; currently, there would not be any significant shadowing of the canal or towpath until 1700hrs on 21 March. How is this considered to be acceptable?
2. The loss of sunlight to existing homes and the towpath will affect the wellbeing of visitors and residents. In the winter the sun will not rise above the northern six-storey building. DP26: The Council will protect the quality of life of. neighbours by only granting permission for development that does not cause harm to amenity.
3. According to the Daylight and Sunlight Report, windows in the surrounding area fall BRE Report recommendations: 18 windows at Reachview Close; at 128, 132, 134, and 136 Royal College Street, 'transgressions of the guidelines do exist'; at 146 Eagle Wharf, 50% (17 of 34 tested windows) are not compliant.
1. The applicant's previous Heritage and Townscape Appraisal said the development will 'enhance the setting of the adjacent locally listed buildings on Royal College Street', yet the reality is that the terrace's rooflines and historic pattern of window openings - a non-designated heritage asset, as positively referred to in the Regent's Canal Conservation Area appraisal - will be hidden when viewed from the towpath. Cantilevered balconies overhanging the courtyard area will also harm the setting of the Royal College Street terrace, and the gap in between the proposed buildings will appear 'closed' unless viewed straight on.
2. The historic warehouse at Eagle Wharf is a positive characteristic of the Regent's Canal Conservation Area, but its eastern façade will be obscured by the development, creating a loss of visual amenity from the towpath. (In a similar situation, the Victorian warehouse at Kingsland Wharves in Islington is dominated by, and obscured from the towpath, by flats of the same height as the proposal at Bangor Wharf.)
According to the Local Development Document, the proposal should, 'Provide active frontage to the canal. in order to improve the relationship between the site and the public realm.'
1. Active frontage to the canal will be limited. Approximately two-thirds of the canal edge will have offices facing onto it, with only a narrow section in front for for public use, with balconies overhead, which will feel unwelcoming.
2. The Transient Overshadowing Study in the Daylight and Sunlight Report shows the canal frontage at Bangor Wharf and the proposed public courtyard will be shaded year-round, with total overshadowing in both March and June. The Report also says that only 2 of the 4 amenity spaces in the development are BRE Report compliant, and the main amenity space falls short of the guidelines.
3. The courtyard space will become a hangout for office smokers, and given its proximity to water it is not suitable as a children's play area. (Urbanest King's Cross, which has courtyards off the towpath, is a prime example of unwelcoming public space overshadowed by tall buildings. Its gates are usually locked and, despite the high volume of footfall passing by, nobody visits the space.)
3. The tunnel-like entrance has massing above and a thickness created by the width of the southern blocks. This, and the addition of a gate that will be locked in the evening and morning for security, does not provide a welcoming and inviting access point for the public. (The applicant mentions the provision of a residential mooring, yet with a locked gate this would not work.) The overall impression would be of a private estate, and people walking along Georgiana Street (which has little footfall compared with the towpath) would not notice the 'glimpse' of the canal through the entrance.
1. The planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, says decision makers with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area should pay 'special attention. to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area'. Preserving the conservation area should mean that the characteristics in this section of the canal (the two bridges, the Constitution pub, Eagle Wharf, the willow tree, the rooflines, and open planting on the opposite bank) provide a sense of place.
2. Contradicting the above, the developer's Heritage and Townscape Appraisal for the first application said the new development will provide the 'sense of place' and 'create new views' and a signage for people to navigate the area, in a development that is 'deliberately dense', with a scale that is 'deliberately more than that which exists at the moment in order to achieve important urban design objectives'. This suggests the dominance of the scheme, despite its conservation area setting.
According to the Local Development Document, the proposal should, 'Ensure that the design and layout of the development responds positively to its canal setting, and contributes to the biodiversity and green nature of the canal.'
1. This part of the canal will lose its characteristically green nature, as the trees along the canal edge will be chopped down, with one 'feature tree' replacing the willow. There is no guarantee that landscaping on the development will be carried out or maintained.
2. The biodiversity of the Baynes Street Canalside Garden nature reserve will be affected by the overshadowing of the buildings, as well as the waterway itself.
3. Bats inhabit this section of the canal. They are mentioned in the Ecological Appraisal as having potential habitat here, but they are easy to see with the naked eye flying backwards and forwards at dusk. Lighting pollution from inside the proposed flats on the canal edge, as well as the light reflected on the canal water, could have a detrimental effect on the bat population.
4. The floating bird platforms in front of Bangor Wharf were removed ahead of submitting planning proposals in mid-February 2016. Previously, this was a prolific site for waterfowl and the developer has, by its own admission in the Statement of Community Involvement, cleansed the site of these birds and their breeding ground. The developer has deprived the local community, children and canal visitors of wildlife along this stretch of the canal. The platforms were removed illegally, as both London Wildlife Trust and the Canal and River Trust were unaware of their removal.
1. I would expect and hope the brick stock and design is of a high quality deserving of a conservation area, but there is no guarantee. DP24.12: 'Designs for new buildings. should respect the character and appearance of. neighbouring buildings. Within areas of distinctive character, development should reinforce those elements which create the character.'
2. The gap between the buildings proposes to allow good levels of sunlight and daylight to the water. It is clear from Transient Overshadowing Study in the Daylight and Sunlight Report that this is not the case.
3. The increase in height of the northern block will have a drastic effect regarding overshadowing as the site lies on the southern side of the canal. And it will dominate the adjacent historic warehouse at Eagle Wharf, at twice its height, while harming views of the building from the towpath, heading west.
4. The vertical cliff-like façades of the buildings on the canal edge will have a canyon-like effect. Tall buildings create wind tunnels and trap pollution. The latter is something good architecture and planning should be addressing at a time when we are facing a public health emergency through pollution.
According to the Local Development Document, the proposal should, 'Take opportunities to utilise the canal for the transportation of goods and materials, both during construction and in the operations of the development.'
1. The Regent's Canal is part of the London Plan's Blue Ribbon Network policy. According to section 4C of the policy, '.policies should make the most of sustainable and efficient use of space in London, by protecting and enhancing the multi-functional nature of the Blue Ribbon Network so that it enables and supports those uses and activities that require a water or waterside location.' Canal-boat users have not been guaranteed a water tap and bin facilities. An original dock adjacent to Eagle Wharf could be restored for their use.
2. DP20.3 'The Regent's Canal provides the potential for more sustainable, lower impact waterborne movement of freight. It is the only navigable waterway in Camden.' With good road access, Bangor Wharf could be partly used for sustainable transport for goods, or kept for this use in the future. There should be a report as to the feasibility for delivering goods to shops, restaurants and bars along the canal, for example. Taking heavy goods vehicles off the roads and reducing pollution should be a priority, and the canal should be used during construction work. Royal College Street and Baynes Street are already suffering from increased levels of traffic congestion and pollution.
1. The developer provided no public consultation for this second proposal, even though it is classed as a major development, as they felt the changes 'did not represent a significant departure from the initial proposals'. However, an alternative design was provided, and the northern block increased in height by one floor. They posted feedback leaflets through some doors in the vicinity - although many flats on the Royal College Street did not receive them. I emailed my feedback to Curtin & Co and did not receive an acknowledgment.
2. The Statement of Community Involvement contains inaccuracies that are of significance. It says that height alteration 'means the tallest element of the proposal is located furthest away from Reachview Close'. However, the tallest element is now facing the middle of Reachview Close, creating an even worse situation regarding overshadowing of the canal water, towpath, nature reserve, and communal gardens.
The benefit of providing only 6 'affordable' homes does not outweigh the harm the development will do to this historic waterway and conservation area, nor does it do much for the 'much needed' housing issue. The nearby Barratt London development, Camden Courtyards, is currently advertising availability of two-bed flats from £755,000 to £947,500. This is an indication of local market rates and how unaffordable the flats will be at Bangor Wharf. I would like to see the homes go to junior doctors, teachers, nurses - those key workers who need to be near their place of work. Rainbow Wave, which occupies the Victorian warehouse at 146 Royal College Street employs 50 people. It runs as a fashion showroom and studio, which requires natural light for its business. This is the kind of creative business that the council should encourage to the area, as suggested in the Site Allocations document.
The proposed development is too close to residential properties and its overdevelopment will have a devastating effect on the daylight and sunlight levels on the canal water and towpath. This will be an irreversible loss for future generations, for the Londoners and visitors who enjoy the canal and its towpath for leisure, and those who do not have balconies, terraces or communal roof gardens. The focus on taking height and massing away from Georgiana Street and St Pancras Way is detrimental to the canal, towpath and nature.
Given the constraints of the site at Bangor Wharf, I would question whether this site is suitable for such intensive development. More thoughtful architecture could take away height, while still allowing public access to the canal edge, and in doing so put the courtyard space to better use. The proposed development only meets 50% of the Site Allocations guidelines, which were agreed through a public consultation process.
The current developer has aggressive housing targets to meet, but Bangor Wharf, given its importance in the history of London canals and its conservation area status, needs a softer and more long-term approach to development.
Despite it being rejected for 18 reasons, the developer has lodged an appeal against the rejection of their first proposal, which shows they are not serious about working with the council and local community to improve their plans.
I would urge planners, councillors and those involved in the decision-making process to look at the negative effect this proposal will have on the canal, one of London's great assets and a place of public recreation, and to please consider my comments when you make your decision. At the very least, this development should match the height of adjacent buildings.
My name is Andre. I am a resident in Reachview Close.
Upon viewing the plans for your project, I feel they are unacceptable.
The size of the building will overwhelm the neighboring buildings and deprive them and the park of natural sunlight, as well as the natural obstruction to the views it will pose.
It will carry significant costs on the park and wildlife adjacent to the canal.
This not only affects the canalside's status but will also cause the existent buildings to lose value, thus greatly affecting the entire canalside desirabilty on the long term in favor of short term gains.
I am strongly against this project going forward
A year has passed since the Camden New Journal reported on the planning application for housing at Bangor Wharf, by the Regent''s Canal in Camden Town. A deeply flawed scheme, the paper also published letters from concerned locals. The application was rejected with fully eighteen points for developer One Housing to note.
Residents adjacent to the site have recently received a glossy leaflet from One Housing, complementing its revised planning application 2017/1230/P.
Serendipitously, I was reading the leaflet on the tube when a fellow passenger enquired about it and revealed he was a resident of a property in One Housing''s portfolio. His reaction was interesting. He was clearly unimpressed by One Housing''s failure to respond adequately to maintenance of their present housing stock. Poor landlords, regrettably, aren''t news. We parted agreeing that it would be so much better were One Housing first to manage properly their current portfolio rather than extend themselves further with new properties, letting down potentially more people with their good words but inadequate deeds.
The new plans, not very different from last year''s, are extraordinary. Submitted originally to Camden Town Hall incomplete, it just confirms the incompetence of One Housing.
The scale of the buildings proposed is quite out of keeping with the immediate area. Two stories higher than any nearby buildings, yet hardly set back from the canal, the planned edifices are of little architectural merit and will contribute to a corridor of shadow along the Regent''s Canal, deleterious to flora and fauna. Indeed, the short stretch of the canal between two road bridges currently is open and sunny, popular with towpath users, but this development casts a shadow for users in future decades. Pity the residents of the Georgian terrace housing at 118-134 Royal College Street. Their back windows will be so close to the planned development that it''ll be akin to a wartime blackout, permanently.
One Housing ignores Camden Council''s wish to ''conserve and enhance the existing character of the canal'' and its intention that ''designs for new buildings ... should respect the character and appearance of the local area and neighbourhood ...''. It''s extraordinary that the company dares put forward this planning application.
One Housing also makes much of creating a publically accessible space in and around the development. There is absolutely no such need. The towpath and the Regent''s Canal itself are the principal amenity, the adjacent Gray''s Inn Bridge carrying St Pancras Way has a large expanse of pavement that''s perfect for enjoying the view from above and, of course, the beautifully tended St Martin''s Gardens are two minutes'' walk away.
I don''t deny the need for housing or, indeed, for commercial space affording employment. I do say that six stories are far too high whereas four stories would be compatible with the immediate area and reduce the impact of shadow.
Only a developer could claim that the proposals are an improvement on the first application and that they will visually improve the area and enhance the canal! It''s a pity, though, that further industrial use is not being considered for this particular site, its being so used for a century and more. London''s population increases apace, the one-lane Royal College Street (the A5202) is often one long traffic jam, and yet we all expect more and timely home deliveries of online purchases. Thought must be given to future commercial use of the canals and space reserved for canalside warehousing.
This revised planning application from One Housing must be rejected.
We wish to raise our concerns about the proposed development of Bangor Wharf.
We are not against a development in principle, as the site is clearly being inefficiently used at present, and there are many potential needs. However, we would oppose the application without satisfactory answers to the following points:
(1) The height to the building - there needs to eb a balance between development and the deprivation of light to the residents of Reachview Court, the many people who now use the canal as a route for commuting or leisure, and the Consitution pub and beer garden which is both a local amenity and a more widely known attraction.
(2) Wildllfe - the simple haven used by wildlife has been removed even before permission has been give to go ahead.This does not say much for the integrity of the developers. It would be a simple and cheap matter - and indeed an attraction for users of the new building if a simple wildlife haven on the lines of that next to the Camley Street Park were restored. Since it would be actually on the canal there would eb no loss of gorudn for the development.
(3) The greatest need locally is for housing to house young working people who have grown up here, but are being driven away by housing costs. This could still be profitable - many are young professionals - all that is needed is that the excess above costs and a reasonably profit - which will in fact be income for decades - be removed.
(4) What provision is being made for the extra services which will be needed - for example, even buyers of new homes become sick at times.
(5) The site is at a very awkward point on a busy road. We wish to be informed how the traffic which is needed during construction will be managed. At present the outlook seems to be months of disruption, which in the complex traffic system of Camden has in the past had huge knock-on effects back towards King's Cross, Camden Town and Kentish Town.
I wish to object strongly to the development the above planning application in Bangor Wharf
The proposed development will result in a monolithic building which looks ugly, over-bearing, out-of-scale, and far out of character in respect to appearance compared with the character buildings in Georgiana Street and it neighbours. The building would have an adverse impact on the character of the neighbourhood
Georgiana Street is a very small road built with an outstanding character. The through road cannot take any more traffic. it would be another accident waiting to happen because of the narrowness and the large development on the corner of such a small narrow street.
Parking in Royal College Street and Georgiana Street is already a problem. There would be Insufficient parking space which will adversely affect the service of surrounding properties. Roadside parking on this narrow lane/busy junction would be a problem
A residential feature, the loss of existing views from Reachview Close and neighbouring properties would be adversely affected. Not only will there be a loss of views, there would be a loss or privacy. Our flat and neighbouring properties will be overlooked by bedroom windows from the proposed building.
To development does little to help meet the housing, and social requirements of the community. Affordable housing has been given little consideration in this development despite government guidelines/regulations.
The splendour of Camden is being able to enjoy walks down the canal and enjoy the wildlife and open views. The blockage of light into the canal which will inevitably result should this monolithic development be allowed to proceed will harmfully affect wildlife habitats. The development does not in any way enhance the local environment
Planning permission should be refused for reasons of poor design that fail to improve the character and quality of the neighbourhood and the way it functions. Therefore, I strongly oppose this planning application due to:
. Insufficient parking space will adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties through roadside parking on this narrow lane/busy junction
. The proposal could lead to vehicles overhanging the adopted highway verge/road to the detriment of other road users
. Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of (among other factors) noise, disturbance, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing etc., noise and disturbance arising from the actual execution of the works.
. Highway safety. The development would adversely affect highway safety and the convenience of road users
. Unacceptably high density/overdevelopment of the site
. Objection to new dwellings when there is NO existing development.
. Effect of the development on the character of the neighbourhood.
. Design. The proposed development is over-bearing, out of scale, out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the locality.
. Loss of existing views from the neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential features of the owner/occupiers.
. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy, adversely affecting the amenities enjoyed by the occupier of the adjacent dwelling house
. The mass, bulk and proximity of the side elevation would present an overbearing and intrusive element to those neighbours opposite the property.
. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of light, adversely affecting the amenities enjoyed by residents of Camden and it visitors to the canal, and in addition the loss of light will adversely affect wildlife
. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy, adversely affecting the amenities enjoyed by the occupier of neighbouring dwellings
. The proposed development by reason of its size, depth, width, height and massing would have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of the properties immediately adjacent to the site and the surrounding area by reason of overlooking, loss of privacy and visually overbearing impact
I sincerely hope, this time, you take my comments into consideration and hopefully we will have a satisfactory outcome resulting in the planning application being opposed.