Regent’s Wharf, the site of the proposed development

CANAL users and residents say that proposed changes to a new development will make the area “like Piccadilly Circus”.

A proposal to relax light pollution restrictions on the Regent’s Wharf Property Unit Trust’s development in Regent’s Wharf has triggered further controversy in a planning saga that has been raging since 2017.

“[The developers] have made a non-material amendment to their application, so they’re using a backdoor method to get this through the planning system. It’s not a normal planning application, so no one in the area was notified – we only found out through a vigilant neighbour,” said Ian Shacklock, who chairs the Friends of Regent’s Canal.

“This stretch of the canal, I know it’s very bustling and well illuminated at some points, but between Islington Tunnel, Caledonian Road, and onto York Road it’s dark. It’s a haven for wildlife … It’s almost like a rural setting in Islington. To me, it’s a no-brainer. It’s dark, it’s quiet, it’s perfect. Why would you want to change it from that rural setting?

“The animals don’t want it and the residents don’t want it. Maybe they want to have discos there? I don’t know what they’re aiming at but it’s not good,” said Mr Shacklock.

Ian Shacklock

The stretch of Regent’s Wharf has been designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.

Peer Hackman has lived in Treaty Street, directly opposite the proposed new development’s site, for nearly 20 years.

“The light pollution reclassification will make it basically like Piccadilly Circus or Leicester Square, when this area is a relatively quiet and residential area,” he said.

The developers have also put forward another application that would allow the opening hours of the development’s communal rooftop terrace, where alcohol is permitted, to be extended.

“The area has started to get quite noisy as it is with Kings Place and the canal becoming more popular, this brings along anti-social behaviour as well,” said Mr Hackman.

Paul Convery, a Caledonian councillor and planning committee member, whose constituents would be among those impacted said: “Myself, Una [O’Halloran], and Sara [Hyde], all of the Caledonian ward councillors, we’ve submitted an objection. Maybe a little unusually, that includes me. What that means is if it comes to the committee, I have to not participate in the decision.

Peer Hackman

“We have also triggered a ‘call-in’, which is a mechanism whereby councillors can make sure that a planning application goes to the planning committee rather than getting decided by a delegate.

“The applicant has ominously, or outrageously, written a covering letter which implies that they’ve already been given the nod to go ahead by planning. That’s impossible. That doesn’t happen.

“They’re also trying to revise the opening hours, so it’s ‘let there be more light and let there be people drinking cocktails on terraces until 11.30pm,’ and suddenly the whole nature of the building starts to change. It’s not a highly flexible work space mixed with other uses, suddenly it starts to become a night-time economy place. That is truly not what we granted planning permission for.”

Neither the developer nor the agent that submitted the amendment on his behalf responded to requests to comment.

The applicant’s planning application said: “The proposals put forward in this application provide an opportunity to formalise (by condition) and improve (through design) the perceived nuisance (of light pollution) to the residential neighbours.”

It also stated: “The proposals will create truly public spaces where retail, leisure and institutional uses can mix with ­commercial business space so that the development is open, inclusive and beneficial to the local economy.”