E-mail to Hackney Councillors, 14th July 2011

Subject: Regent's Canal Impact - Planning Application 2011/0261 (7 - 14 Branch Place London N1 5PH)

Your ref: http://mginternet.hackney.gov.uk/documents/s17062/Report.pdf

Dear Councillors,

I am writing to register my disappointment that the Hackney council planners are recommending the Rosemary Works planning application for approval on Monday 18th July. It is quite clear from the computer-generated drawings that this project will turn a treasured open space into an urban canyon.

Regrettably, the Friends of Regent's Canal were not aware of this application at the time of the public exhibition, otherwise we would have made comments on the plans at a much earlier stage. Since becoming chair of this group in December 2010, I have been actively promoting the benefits of the canal as a tranquil piece of the countryside in the middle of London, as a formidable link to our industrial past, as one of the most significant open spaces in North London and as a viable means of transporting materials with minimal noise, pollution, vibration or effort. So I find it quite distressing to read such detailed plans that will serve to cancel out most of these benefits.

From a canal user's perspective, there can be no doubt that the proposed buildings are intrusive, out of proportion and out of place. Instead of sloping away from the canal - or being set back a few yards - they actually overhang it. The original intention of this development was to regenerate this thin strip of land, but instead it is merely exploiting it. The proposals are an insult to the canal, because little or no attention is paid to the canal as a form of navigation; it appears to be treated as an ornamental water feature that sits neatly between the towpath and the overlooking balconies.

I am concerned that this development will scupper opportunities to use the canal instead of the roads for transporting waste and other materials. The case officer's report mentions refuse stores near the road, but there is no obvious facility or route for transferring waste to passing vessels on the canal. It is not too late to designate one of the ten commercial units to double up as a through route between the road and the canal. This might not be a priority at the moment, but in five to ten years time public pressure will mount in an attempt to reduce senseless use of road vehicles, especially in an area where parking is so restricted.

I am concerned that the commercial units will be unaffordable to most independent businesses, and I found sections 6.7.4 and 6.7.11 of the report quite unpalatable. These premises are likely to attract retail giants rather than community champions and section 6.3.7 seems to contradict section 6.2.3. In section 6.2.3 it is suggested that the units are suitable for small existing or start-up businesses, yet in section 6.3.7 it suggests that units can be combined to form larger premises. If this were to happen then it could further destroy the character of this neighbourhood, so I urge you to explore ways of restricting or controlling this possibility.

In sections 6.7.4 and 6.7.11 it implies that the developer's profit margins are far more important than any workshops that might benefit the community and there is a hidden message that affordable homes and workspaces are a nuisance rather than an opportunity, hence we can have one but not the other.

I think that the British Waterways request for a service charge for canal-side maintenance is entirely reasonable (section 6.5.3) but the reasons for rejecting this request are absurd. This is NOT a small scale development (it resembles an ocean liner in relation to the narrow boats it is overshadowing) and there is much more to canal maintenance than just the towpath.

I welcome the requirement to assess options for moving freight by water during construction (section 8.1.4) but I think this should go much further. This should not be limited to the construction phase; it should be encouraged throughout the entire lifetime of the buildings. The Friends of Regent's Canal will be taking a very keen interest in this feasibility study.

I am not convinced that all three moorings should be private (section 8.1.11). They offer no direct benefit to the community. It is not too late to impose a condition that at least one of them should be made available to the public or to one of the commercial tenants.

Please consider the above comments before anybody condemns the public's canal to irreversible aesthetic damage. If necessary, please defer your decision to a future planning meeting.

Ian Shacklock
Chair, Friends of Regent's Canal