Stop the Islington City Road Basin 'Redevelopment' Plot

CITY ROAD BASIN, DECEMBER 2003

1. This note sets out the Angel Association’s initial comments on the Council’s masterplanning proposals for City Road Basin. The Association welcomes the principle of a masterplanning exercise to help ensure that the Basin’s development is well planned and to provide a sensible balance between the various uses including public enjoyment of the waterspace with good access to it.

2. The Association has serious concerns, however, about important aspects of the emerging proposals for the Basin. We believe that these can be put right while still retaining a good balance between development and public enjoyment and use of this very important amenity.

The Landowners

3. There are several different land owners around the Basin. These include

• a.. Islington Council
• b.. British Waterways Board
• c.. Groveworld Miller Developments
• a.. Fidelity Investments
• b.. Access Storage
• c.. National Grid

It is not clear whether all these land interests subscibe to the same principles which should guide the improvement of the Basin area. What is apparent from the masterplan produced so far is that the landowners have different views as to what is acceptable in terms of parkland provision, proper access to the Basin and scale of development. Until there is a reasonable, commonly held view about these fundamentally important issues the masterplan is no more than a collection of individual developers’ wishes.

Development Principles

4. The following principles should guide the development and enhancement of the Basin. These are partly covered in the Council’s consultation but are not clearly stated as a set of objectives. These principles and objectives should be:-

• a.. There should be, as far as practicable, public access aound all the Basin
• b.. That public access along the western side of the Basin should be through a linear park, from the present park next to Harris Wharf to City Road. The linear park should be continuous along the whole of the western side of the Basin
• c.. The current open area at the head of the Basin immediately north of City Road, which should link to the linear park, should be a well laid out public area with access to it direct from City Road
• d.. The scale of development should respect the linear park and therefore the proposed Fidelity development is too extensive and should be reduced.
• e.. Proposed development should not encroach too far into the present park area just to the south of Harris Wharf. Sight lines along Coombs Street to Pickfords Wharf on the other side of the Basin should be maintained
• f.. The scale of development along Graham Street should not be more than seven storeys and designed to avoid creating a canyon effect along the street
• g.. The proposed taller buildings at the City Road end of the Basin should not be more than twelve storeys to avoid overshadowing the Basin and the linear park, and causing poor micro climates. With an appropriate design it may be possible to have a slightly taller building on the “Access site” since this would overlook the National Grid buildings and therefore cause no loss of amenity.
• h.. The Basin itself should remain uncluttered and offer similar public views to those currently enjoyed.
• i.. The Basin should remain for the use of the Boat Club and related children’s activities. It should therefore not become cluttered with boat moorings nor should it be used as a boat park
• j.. The Boat Club should be reprovided as part of the development of the site between National Grid and Pickfords Wharf, with a self contained site to the waterside and with controlled access to provide security for users and equipment
• k.. The proposed location of the kickabout area on that same National Grid/Pickfords Wharf site is not sensible. It breaks up that development site to no advantage, it is a use which has no relationship to the waterside, and there is no good reason to move a kickabout area from the site at or near to its present site at Graham Street
• l.. The proposed bridge is a waste of money since opening up pedestrian access to the southern end of the Basin will greatly help access to both sides. It is unclear what the bridge is for and money would be better spent improving the quality of public access to the Basin as a whole and the quality of the linear park. The bridge link badly needed is from the towpath at the northern edge of the Canal, across the lock, along the side of the new Angel Waterside development to the linear park
• m.. It is not clear how much commercial development, shops and restaurants, the Basin area can support. Over the last twenty years pubs and shops have closed in significant numbers in the St Peter’s area and Upper Street is a few minutes’ walk away. There needs to be a proper analysis of the viability of such ideas, and below -market rents for workshops and start-ups should be considered as part of the planning brief.

Council’s Questions

5. Land use : the issue here is to develop sites around the Basin in ways which respect this very important public resource, provide good public access, and which are realistic. The land uses in the masterplan include too much development at the southern end of the Basin(Graham Street/City Road corner) which conflict with the linear park and which would overshadow the Basin. Sight lines such as that from Coombs Street must be maintained to keep the development open, not oppressive. There is no evidence offered why there would be a market for more than 1 or 2 shops/restaurants/bars. Basin related uses such as the Boat Club must be enhanced but no reason is given why this a good place for a health centre or why the kickabout area should be moved.

6. Public Realm : the linear park must be a proper linear park, not as presently proposed a stub end design which stops half way down the western side for no good reason and which truncates the essential link to City Road. The beginning of the linear park at Harris Wharf must not be mean and virtually hidden, the proposed development here extends too far northwards.The area next to the City Road at the end of the Basin must be well laid out as a good public space. It is not clear whether there can be public access in front of the National Grid and Pickford Wharf areas, along the edge of the Basin.

7. Design : Landmark buildings at the southern end of the Basin are fine in principle, but what is proposed is too tall especially at the City Road/Graham Street corner. Development must respect the amenity of the Basin and not overshadow this important resource.

8. Water space : The proposal to incorporate the Boat Club within a development on the eastern side of the Basin offers the opportunity to improve its facilities and make them more secure, and gain financial support through a s106 agreement. The bridge doesn’t have a clear purpose and therefore is a waste of money. The bridge across the lock is the important link to the linear park. Use of the waterspace for youth activities is good but the waterspace must not become cluttered and thereby prevent the development of such use. Boat parks are unsightliy and would destroy public amenity.

9. The comments above represent our initial views. The Angel Association will hold further discussions with the Council as soon as possible. These will help clarify how the masterplan will evolve and how best to ensure a good compromise between development and public use and enjoyment of the Basin.

What can we do about this? The Council have circulated their expensively-produced leaflet to a few (not all) of the nearby houses. Make sure you get your copy from the Town Hall.
E-mail your objections to the Leader of the Council on this address.
Copy your comments to the Leader of the Opposition, Cllr. Catherine West on this address.
The Council Officer in charge is Richard Shaw (a New Zealander, so what does he know about Islington?).
E-mail him on this address. (Our apologies for calling him an Australian).

Make sure all your neighbours know about this dreadful plan.