|
|
 |
| |
Guy and Hazel Walker. ‘I’m determined not to give in,’ he said |
Battle lines drawn in ‘right to light’ row
Neighbour opposing five-storey house in Georgian square vows to take fight to High Court
PLANS to build a five-storey, Georgian-style house in leafy Canonbury have sparked a furious row with neighbours over their “right to light”.
Retired re-insurance broker Anthony Pointing, 52, has support from the Canonbury Society for the property he wants to build in listed Canonbury Square.
The ornate square, built in 1807, was once the home of writers Evelyn Waugh and George Orwell.
But accountant Guy Walker, 50, whose glass-clad designer home overlooks the proposed site of the new house, argues that it will remove 70 per cent of his natural light.
Mr Walker is threatening to go to the High Court for the second time to try to stop the development, which will include a 50-foot wall being built a few metres from his two-storey home in Hydes Place.
He decided to speak out following last week’s Tribune story in which the wife of one of London’s top hairdressers complained that a planned balcony next door will allow neighbours to see directly into her home.
Issues over the proximity of new developments have become all too familiar in overcrowded Islington.
Mr Walker’s home is separated from the site of the proposed development by a 20-foot wall and a narrow forecourt, where he and his wife Hazel sit in the summer.
Their house was built 11 years ago on the site of a former ladder factory.
It is proposed that the current wall should be replaced by a new one up to 50 feet high, which the Walkers argue will make their house dark and gloomy. Builders will need to use the forecourt at the Walkers’ home to carry out demolition and rebuilding work.
The Walkers have already spent thousands of pounds on the battle, including £2,000 on their own light survey, submitted to the council. The survey stated that the development would breach guidelines by reducing light by 70 per cent.
But Islington Council’s west area committee supported the application. Mr Walker appealed against the committee’s decision at the High Court last year, but the hearing did not go ahead because Islington’s planners backed down and the application was quashed over a technicality.
Now, a new application has been submitted, which is expected to be approved by planners. A final decision is due to be made by the west area committee next month.
“I’m determined not to give in,” Mr Walker said. “I’m prepared to go to the High Court again if I lose at committee stage.”
He claims Islington’s planners are responsible for “inaccuracies” and could be breaking planning rules.
“I can’t afford expensive lawyers and I’ve had to learn about planning law as I go along,” he said.
“It’s an absolute minefield. I work from home and can give some time to this but I pity anyone else going through what we are going through.”
But Mr Pointing is equally determined that his house will be built.
He said that when Mr Walker built his house 11 years ago, he should have been aware that there was then a plan to build the property and that it would overlook his home.
He added: “Mr Walker should never have positioned his large windows overlooking the site for my house in the first place.
“We are simply replacing a five-storey property that was on the site in the first place and demolished in the 1920s or 30s.” |
 |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
