Sample Objections (2016)

Demolition of trees: - existing willow may be providing a roost for bats; all self seeded sycamores - loss of greenery

Light - how can the reduction in light so that post development only 50% of the area will benefit from direct sunlight for approximately 2 hours a day be acceptable? This popular section of the canal is well used and valued by all because it is open light and airy.

Mass - the proposed buildings are both too high and too dense. The two main buildings will be at least twice the size of existing buildings and the development is much too close to the canal. The development is overbearing and dominant.

Boats - Loss of opportunity to improve the use of this stretch of canal for boats.

Public Space - The proposals for open space being offered for public access are lamentable. Most of the time this area will be in shade. It will be a harsh uninviting urban setting with very restricted views and little or no suitable softening planting. The walkways are too narrow. There will be a significant loss of public amenity.

I have looked at the plans for Bangor Wharf on the Regent's Canal and am writing to register an objection. The proposal is a massive over-development on a public amenity which is one of the very few sites remaining giving public access and enjoyment to the Canal where you can sit and stare. It will debar potential to restore the historic role of the canal as a means of transport. It robs the canal and surrounding area of light in an already built up area.

By providing accommodation beyond the means of ordinary Londoners (I understand the affordable housing element is disproportionately low), it gives no benefit back to enhance the community asset canal which is virtually being drowned out by poorly designed and greedy developments.

I ask you to reject the application in the interest of existing and future generations.

1. The proposal is seriously out of scale with the surrounding buildings (especially Georgiana Street) and visually unsympathetic to the Conservation Area. The tallest of the buildings is effectively seven storeys above towpath level.

2. The whole scheme will seriously overshadow the Canal to the detriment of wildlife and general amenity.

3. The architectural character is much too formal and pretentious for a canal side building.

4. Low-cost housing would be welcome, but the loss of the light industrial wharf use of the site is a serious drawback - the use should be reconsidered.

5. Though the daylight and sunlight study claims otherwise, the proposal will have a considerable impact on buildings to the north, i.e. Reachview Close. A considerably reduced Sky Factor will clearly result in loss of daylight, serious loss of sunlight and considerable overshadowing, especially to the ground level flats, which are five storeys lower than the proposed high block and three lower than the lower block.

6. Although our flat is seriously affected, it does not seem to have been taken into consideration in the daylight and sunlight study. The proposal will blot out the ONLY sunlight the flat receives in winter.

7. The application as it stands should be sent back for a radical re-think.

I strongly object to this development:

1. The proposed development is completely out of scale to the surrounding buildings. It is far too big, high and dominant. The design is out of keeping with this part of the canal and does not reflect the eclectisism of the local area. This is Camden Town not Milton Keynes.

2. It will be built on and next to a vital bird nesting site and habitat. The proposed development will destroy this vital natural habitat. This is the only place of sanctuary - which allows birds to nest away from the main canal channel - on a very long stretch of canal, basically from Kings Cross to Regent's Park - if not further beyond. This nesting site also complements the nature park for children which is on the opposite bank. If you build such a monstrosity here right next to this calm and quiet space, you will be killing our wildlife that share this environment with us. Local residents and tourists enjoy greatly the birds right on and next to the proposed development. It creates a sense of community. People locally enjoy the birds and the "natural" feeling they bring to the canal between Georgiana Street and Baynes Street. This nesting site has been created deliberately through the demarcation of the line across the side of the canal and through the scrubland on the Bangor Wharf site and front.What provision are you making to protect this nesting site and community asset? And how are you going to protect this safe and tranquil nesting site? the proposed development would obliterate this important breeding area and be a detriment to our local community and bird residents. There is limited green space along this stretch of the canal, so that is why this is such an important space for the community and wildlife. This development is aimed at maximising revenue at the expense of locals and the community here: both human and animal.

I oppose this planning application for the following reasons:-

Height of proposed buildings

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'.

According to the Planning Statement and earlier discussions with the Council Planning Officer: 'Despite the Applicant providing justification to support the height proposed. Officers advised, 'there is no townscape case for the site to be considered a 'gateway' or 'marker' site and there are important differences between the context of this site and the examples provided of other taller canal buildings'. 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. One of the proposed buildings will be twice as high 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 larger building will not alter the looming and overbearing effect that it will have on Royal College Street. They will look out on a windowless 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.

Size and density of proposed buildings

With reference to the diagram and photograph of Lawford's Wharf on Page 27 of Bangor Wharf Design and Access Statement:-

The two buildings proposed virtually occupy 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.

With reference to Drawing 213 in Appendix B in the Daylight and Sunlight Report:-

It can be seen from this 3D image that the size and density of these buildings is extremely large and totally dwarfs the surrounding period buildings. The developers state: 'the site is deliberately dense and the scale is deliberately more than that which exists at the moment in order to achieve important urban design objectives.' 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.

Overshadowing of neighbouring properties and right to light

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'.

DP26.2: 'Development should avoid harmful effects on the amenity of existing and future occupiers and to nearby properties.'

With reference to Drawing 204 in Appendix B in the Daylight and Sunlight Report

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 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 developers claim that: 'windows to the rear of properties in Royal College Street will continue to enjoy good levels of daylight and sunlight'. Yet in the 'Daylight and Sunlight Report' it is stated 5 rooms out of the 34 habitable rooms at the rear of Royal College Street houses will achieve the numerical values set out in the BRE Guidelines with regard to daylight and they go on to say: 'Taking into account the urban location of the site, the close proximity of these properties to the site boundary and the under developed nature of the site the BRE guidelines need to be applied flexibly. It is therefore considered that with 26 of the 34 rooms analysed achieving the numerical values set out in the BRE Guidelines, the aims of the guidelines are achieved'.

Would the occupiers of the houses in Royal College Street agree with the developers' interpretation of the aims of the guidelines?

In another section of the same report, the developers state that 13 out of 37 windows will not achieve a VSC of at least 27% or 0.8 times the existing. Is this also considered acceptable?

Effect of overshadowing and the bulk and height of development on Regent's Canal

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.

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 in front of the largest building. There is no public access to the canal in front of the smaller building. 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?

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.

Right to Privacy

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. Above the first floor the largest block is set back from the buildings in Royal College Street but at first floor level there is a roof garden with a play area at the rear of the block (Block C). From this area it will be possible to see into the gardens of the houses. The developers say they will screen the play area/roof garden with deep planters but that is dependent on the plants being looked after adequately, and, if they form a screen, they will cut off even more light from the houses behind. There are also private terraces in the new development at ground level. 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.

Choice of brick colour

According to the Design section in the Planning Policy & Proposal Compliance the 'main facing brick will be a multi stock that will complement the variety of brickwork to be found in the immediate vicinity'. That should mean that the colour of the brick will blend with the brick colour of Eagle's Wharf but in actual fact it means that it will be the same colour as the building with the Costa coffee café on the corner of Camden Road and the canal - opposite Lyme Terrace. This is not a heritage colour. It is very dark and stark and will stand out unfavourably in a heritage and conservation area.

Why should a new building match a modern block which mainly fronts a busy road and has no connection with the local character of the Regent's canal and Eagle Wharf. Is this choice of this unsuitable brick colour dictated by price? Is the modern dark brick a cheaper option than the softer more traditional yellow London Stock brick? The bricks used for the building at Eagle Wharf which is right next to the development are probably Yellow London Stock. I believe they are expensive but surely there is a modern equivalent that would blend in with Eagle Wharf better than the brick the developers intend to use?

Conclusion

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 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 a completely shadowed 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. Please notify me of the committee date.

As a Camden resident who regularly uses the stretch of Regents Canal in question, I would like to object to Planning Application Number 2016/1117/P on the following grounds:

2. The whole scheme will seriously overshadow the Canal to the detriment of wildlife and general amenity.

3. Low-cost housing would be welcome, but the proportion of affordable housing seems to be small compared with the scale of the scheme and there are no guarantees of whether it would actually be affordable to local residents, so this benefit is highly questionable.

4. I have real concerns about the loss of daylight and sunlight, despite the claims of the daylight and sunlight study. Post development only 50 per cent of the area will benefit from direct sunlight for approximately 2 hours a day. This will be to the detriment of this popular section of the canal, which is well used and valued by all because it is open light and airy.

5.The proposals for open space being offered for public access are lamentable. It will be a harsh uninviting urban setting with very restricted views and little or no suitable softening planting. The walkways are too narrow. There will be a significant loss of public amenity.

6. The loss of trees is unacceptable because of the impact on wildlife and the trees' ability to absorb CO2 and other noxious gases in an already highly polluted part of Camden.

7. The increase in boat moorings along Regents Canal has done much to improve the atmosphere and safety along formerly desolate stretches. The proposed development would mean the loss of opportunity to improve the use of this stretch of canal for boats.

Dear Jonathan McClue,

I am writing on behalf of the Friends of Regent's Canal to object strongly to the latest Bangor Wharf redevelopment plan (Application Number 2016/1117/P).

The proposed buildings will cause harm to the canal and its environment in many ways. The most obvious harm will be the overshadowing of the canal and surrounding area by excessive bulk of the proposed blocks and I have no doubt that many of the neighbouring residents will have already brought this to your attention. The less obvious harm will be the undermining of the canal as a transport system by the squandering of a strategic wharf.

I understand that this site has been chosen by the council as an opportunity for providing housing but since it is so accessible to the canal and road networks it must also be considered as a water transport asset. Please refer to the Blue Ribbon policies in the London Plan. A sensible proposal would maximise the site's benefit as a wharf as well as a medium scale housing development, but the current proposal achieves neither of these aims.

The high buildings will cast a shadow across the canal and onto the towpath and premises opposite. This will clearly affect the quality of life of the neighbouring residents and will reduce the enjoyment of Camden's many visitors who are attracted to this open sunny stretch of the canal. It will also have a negative impact on the wildlife in and around the canal. Our researchers have advised that water reflects at least half of the light falling upon it, so the overall loss of light is much greater once the canal falls into the shade. This will affects humans, birds and plants alike.

According to the council's Site Allocation Plan, any development on this site will be expected to:

1. Maximise the potential of the site to provide new housing (including affordable housing) while minimising potential conflicts between residential and other uses

2. Provide flexible employment space

3. Contain an active frontage to Georgiana Street.

4. Be of a form and scale which is appropriate to the Regents Canal Conservation Area and respond to the open character of this part of the canal and to surrounding listed buildings

5. Take opportunities to utilise the canal for the transportation of goods and materials, both during construction and in the operation of the development

6. 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

7. Provide active frontage to the canal and to Georgiana Street, in order to improve the relationship between the site and the public realm and to enhance the appearance and safety of the surrounding street scene

8. Provide infrastructure for supporting local energy generation on site and/or connections to existing or future networks where feasible

The current proposal fails to meet most of these expectations. In particular the fifth point, which requires the development to utilise the canal throughout the lifetime of its operation. In fact, it does the opposite, because the proposed frontage contains only a tiny quayside with no provision for any loading or unloading of boats.

Please note that I have cited only a handful of our reasons for objecting but I hope that the above information is sufficient to persuade the council that this badly designed proposal will affect many thousands of people and future industries as well as the neighbouring residents.

Regards,

Ian Shacklock

Chair, Friends of Regent's Canal.

http://friendsofregentscanal.org/