Objection to planning ref P2023/1346/NMA
(relaxation of light pollution conditions)

Dear Joseph Hennessy,

I am writing on behalf of the Friends of Regent's Canal to planning reference P2023/1346/NMA.

I object to the applicant's motives, the usage of a Non-Material Amendment and the claim that the council has already agreed to this proposal.

Regent's Wharf is located in a Conservation Area, a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and a Site of Metropolitan Importance (SMI). This stretch of the canal is quite rural in nature, despite its proximity to a busy railway station and ring road, and its light pollution category must remain at E2. So I see no honourable reasons for illuminating it after dusk. This would NOT be in the best interests of the canal, its neighbours or its wildlife inhabitants.

This proposal is a significant change, which will have an adverse effect on the residents, yet the residents were never notified. This appears to be a devious usage of a Non-Material Amendment aimed at pushing the proposal through the back door.

I am not convinced that the council officers have agreed to a change like this because it makes a mockery of the guidelines and all the good work carried out by the council over the years to protect wildlife corridors. If any officers have been misquoted then I urge the council to put the record straight.

Here is an extract from the covering letter from DP9, which I believe to be highly questionable. "Please note that E3 and E4 are considered to be more appropriate Environmental Light Zones for the site than E2 and E3. This has been discussed and agreed with London Borough of Islington's Planning and Environmental Health officers and is corroborated by the WSP report".

I urge you to reject this application. It is most unwelcome, it undermines the council and it has caused unnecessary distress and mistrust amongst the affected parties.

Regards,
Ian Shacklock
Chair, Friends of Regent's Canal