Controversial new plans for Hawley Wharf development next to Regent’s Canal unveiled

New plans for a controversial development beside Regent’s Canal - which faced mass opposition from campaigners and residents earlier this year - have been released.

Stanley Sidings re-submitted a planning application for Hawley Wharf and the surrounding area, which was partly destroyed by a fire in 2008 on Wednesday (September 12).

Their previous proposals for two large brick arches housing a new market and nearly 200 new homes were rejected by the council in March after public outcry and a massive campaign.

Conservation groups were concerned that the development would dominate the skyline, ruin the tranquillity of the canal and not be in keeping with Camden’s Victorian architecture.

The developers says they have taken these objections into account and scaled down on the height of buildings and the number of homes from 200 to 170.

As before, the new proposals feature a primary school and retail outlets, but will now also include an art-house cinema.

The new proposals have failed to get buy-in from campaigners who believe it will make Camden a “less pleasant and liveable place”.

Most Read

Anthony Richardson, chair of The Regent’s Canal conservation area committee, said: “The committee view the proposals as the destruction of all the heritage values of the sites and a disaster for the Canal and for Camden Town.

“Particularly sad losses are the terrace on Chalk Farm Road and the houses in Hawley Road. The almost exclusive use of the canal side for market stalls contradicts the original planning aim to achieve a mixed use development. The excessive height and bulk of the proposals at the centre of the scheme runs contrary to the refusal of planning consent given by the Council earlier. The use and enjoyment of the canal towpath is compromised by the plan.”

Mark Alper, managing director of Stanley Sidings, said: “We have worked very hard over the past five months on a new and improved design for the Hawley Wharf site that can respond to the reasons for the refusal of the previous scheme whilst bringing this underutilised and neglected site back to life.”