I am writing to object to this proposal. I portage around the lock regularly with paddleboarding clients.
1) It is upsetting that the developer has decided in their proposals that it is OK to remove existing mature trees - this is not tackling climate change or paying attention to the critical need to support the existing biodiversity Islington and Hackney have.
2) The new building is vast and will dwarf the lock - and the look of the surrounding area.
3) I am concerned that the planners think it's ok to use the lock apparatus as a bridge (or something similar). These locks can be very dangerous places.
4) It will yet again turn a wildish urban place (where coots and other birds nest) into a squeaky clean, low biodiversity block. I am guessing from my experience on paddleboards the change in height to the building will bring considerable extra wind to the area, which combined with the proposed walkway isn't going to make this area a very comfortable place to relax in as the drawings imply.
5) Everything is just too close to this historic, working, charming lock and the canal edge.
I am writing to object to the plans for redevelopment of the area at Sturt's Lock currently occupied by a storage facility. I understand that the proposal is to build a several storey high building to provide homes for rent. I am a London resident and keen to ensure that canalside developments are appropriate and not detrimental to the local area. Having looked at the proposals my objections are as follows:
* the height and proximity to the waterside of the development is such that the canal will be overshadowed and the building will be unduly dominant
* moreover neighbouring residents will also suffer from overshadowing
* the lock itself will be threatened by the proximity of the building; passers by or residents should not be encouraged to sit or walk on the lock structure itself, indicating that the architects are insufficiently familiar with the nature of locks and their requirements for maintenance and preservation
* the proposal includes removal of trees, what is the justified reason for removing mature trees, there can be none, and trees should be preserved; proposed replacements are not sufficient
* the proposal may affect other aspects of local flora and fauna, risking a reduction in biodiversity, which will be detrimental to the area
* the proposal seems premature in assuming that the owner of the land (the Canal and River Trust) will consent, which it may not
* the proposed dwelling types do not appear to include affordable housing, which is surely what is needed in London rather than more new homes let at a market rate
The grounds of my objection are detailed as follows:
1.Visual appearance, changing the vista of this very important part of the canal. Although the existing building does not have architectural merit, it has minimal noise impact on the area, it does not produce unacceptable levels of shade to neighbours in surrounding buildings and does not excessively affect with eco systems which currently exists on this stretch of the canal. The proposed development will also dominate the skyline, be visible from most of the conservation area and dwarf the lower buildings on the north side of the canal.
2. Impact on the Conservation Area. This development conflicts with some of the design guidelines stated in Hackney Council's Regents Canal Conservation Area Appraisal which I have assume is still in force as it is present on Hackney Council's website. Specifically this relates to overdevelopment (page 49 para 6.4 - One of the threats is over-development of canal side sites for residential use) and (page 50, Conclusion para 3 – Height of new buildings is a major issue, not just aesthetically but because of the danger of tall buildings casting shadow onto the water and causing damage to the ecosystem).
I am writing with an objection to the proposed development of the Access Storage Facility in Eagles Wharf Road. The Regents Canal Conservation area recognises the importance of this heritage for the borough and future generations. The proposal would be a major assault on the canalscape at Sturt's Lock, a key canal heritage asset.
I work with local agencies, including Laburnum Boat Club, on Heritage Lottery funded projects to promote the heritage of the Regent's Canal. This work includes introducing young people to the local canal heritage. One by one, areas serving as a living demonstration of the past are completely disappearing. The intention of the Regent's Canal Conservation Area is increasingly being undermined under pressure from developers for profit leaving no trace for the years to come.
My objections to the building design and size are:
* The 7-storey buildings are out of keeping as they will tower over the canal and the lock overshadowing the water and neighbouring historic Regent's Canal Ironworks complete with chimney. The effect of this will be to belittle the canal as a heritage asset.
* It will ruin the historic scale of the waterway which was lined with low rise warehouses, factories and wharves just by the lock which is a key feature of the Conservation area.
* The frontage is highly glazed which will damage the ecology of the canal, in particular bats which use the cut at night.
* The site provides a rare space for wildlife along the canal. Replacing existing trees with new is now well established as damaging to ecology and the sanitised planting also removes the natural undergrowth which supports a variety of wildlife.
* The Canal provides a green corridor in highly developed, and developing, area linking significant areas of social exclusion and have always provided an amenity (both illegally at the start and legally now) for local people.
* The building will block the vista along the Cut which is a site of historic interest which needs to be 'seen' and enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.
* The educational value of the view would be reduced significantly for future generations who find it harder and harder to visualise how the canals worked.
* Conservation Area status do not support this development.
I am also objecting the proposed cafe's intrusion on the lock as follows:
1. This is dangerous – the locks are a heavy, moving, working piece of engineering. The draught in the water is strong and people underestimate the depth. Dangling limbs are easily caught between boats and the canalside.
2. The weir is still part of, and can be re-instated to being, a second lock chamber. There is much scope for the canal's to be brought back as an ecological method of for transportation. The land by the canal is owned by the Canal and River Trust and the cafe should be kept out.
3. It is inevitable that debris from the cafe will end up in the Cut and this will worsen the closer the cafe is sited to the canalside.
This proposal not only does nothing to preserve and enhance the Conservation Area, but also damages it. I call on you refuse permission until the height of the development is reduced and the lock and it's natural vegetation remain undisturbed.
Carolyn Clark