| |
We have our say, but do the planners listen to us?
• I AGREE with Rosin Gadelrab’s article regarding the “farcical” running of the planning committee and the handling of the planning application for the high-density development in Central Street, Finsbury (The ‘bullying tactics’ of an ‘inept and farcical’ planning committee, October 19).
Many of the points raised by the concerned residents, who will be severely impacted by this development, were either glossed over or simply ignored.
When the issue of privacy for the residents in Peartree Street was raised, the planning department’s response was that there is no policy for privacy and the closeness of buildings and there is enough precedence set where privacy is limited.
Just by doing an internet search for the word “privacy”, I found five relevant references that refute this statement: one in the London Plan and four in Islington’s UDP Planning Standards Guidelines. I believe there are many more.
The current planning applications in Central Street add up to 443 flats. The average household has 2.4 people living in it. This would mean an additional 1,063 people in Central Street.
Other applications are in the pipeline for the opposite side of Central Street. One is expected to not only include residential accommodation but to do that by reducing the amount of open space in St Luke’s – namely Paton Street, the pedestrianised area with trees and benches that is essentially a park.
In addition, it will be interesting to see what the options are for Finsbury Leisure Centre and whether the council is taking this and the additional 1,000-plus people into its calculations. Let’s hope that the next south area planning committee meeting on November 1 proves to be run in a way that will adequately address all our concerns. Otherwise, what is the point of us being able to have our say?
Julie Hoesli
Secretary, Paton Street Residents’ Association
• I completely agree with Professor Franklin’s comments on the planning meeting considering the development around Central Street. Most importantly, the meeting in effect drove a coach and horses through the very valid views of the independent conservation and design panel. The panel had concluded that the proposed development was “an ill-thought-out, poorly-designed scheme which ought to be resisted” – very clear language.
This was based on its view that the plans were too dense, too large (competing in scale with the Barbican and dwarfing surrounding buildings), in violation of many of the council’s own stated design principles, and including a poor-quality mix of commercial space.
The committee’s logic for overlooking these views? That the panel was independent, and therefore carried less weight than the council’s own conservation and design team, which had helpfully not raised any significant objections to the proposal.
Independent committees exist to provide an important counterbalance to the council simply imposing its point of view at will. This bending of logic must be questioned.
I would urge the Tribune to contact the the conservation and design panel to gauge its view of how its work was treated by the committee.
Rajeev Bahl
Peartree Street, EC1
• Further to the Tribune’s coverage of the partisan behaviour of south area planning commitee, it should be added the planning process for the “supra-sized” proposed development at Central, Peartree and Seward streets has been shamelessly biased from the start.
Claims made at the committee meeting earlier this month included the suggestion that raising the building height seven metres opposite existing Peartree Street residents’ homes to twice its current height would have “no canyoning effect” because the top-floor (fourth-storey) flats would be “partially recessed”.
Gobsmacked residents who attended the meeting were told the addition of 274 flats and car parking spaces would “not cause any increase in local traffic”. Since Peartree Street is one of the narrowest streets in the borough – no more than two metres wide at the eastern end – the council planning officer’s claim that daylight, privacy, traffic and amenities will not be affected by the proposed development of six 10-storey towers (an additional three are planned for the current NCP car park) can only be described as shameless pandering to developers.
Dr Sara Ahmed
Peartree Street, EC1
|
 |
|
| |
| Your Comments : |
| |
| |
| |
