Daylight concerns derail canal-side development, delaying public access in Paddington

Plans to open a section of a London canal to pedestrians have been set back again after Westminster Council blocked the proposed property development next to the canal.

The pathless side of the Paddington Basin canal

The Paddington Basin is a former industrial canal and cargo wharf constructed in 1801 to bring cargo into central London along the Grand Union Canal. As with most canals, it was off-limits to the public for most of its life as a busy industrial site. However, as canal freight declined, parts of the canals were opened up to the public as decorative places to walk along.

The Paddington Basin was no different. In recent years, the land around the canals has also been extensively redeveloped, further opening the canalside up to the public.

However, not all of the canal is open to the public.

If you’re walking on the eastern side of the basin, at one point, you’ll have to climb some steps, cross a four-lane road, walk around the side of a roundabout, and then rejoin the canal for your walk.

Southern end of the blocked off path
Northern end of the blocked off path

That’s because the site, Baltic Wharf, originally a timber yard, is still a timber yard of sorts, as it’s occupied by the builder’s supplier, Travis Perkins.

There have been plans to redevelop the site with a large block of student accomodation above a replacement Travis Perkins warehouse site. However, the council refused the first application, citing the loss of daylight in the block of flats on the opposite side of the canal from the new building.

The developers came back with an amended proposal, but there were still concerns about the loss of daylight in the existing flats opposite, particularly the lower floors for social renters, where flats also only have single-aspect windows facing into the potentially shaded canal.

The proposed development — Make Architects / Planning document

After a fairly lengthy discussion at last night’s planning committee meeting about the development’s merits and downsides, the plans were rejected by three to one vote against.

Apart from the impact on the neighbouring building, some concerns were raised about whether the area needs or wants student housing. Although it was noted that local students could move into the new building, releasing capacity for private renters, the councillors indicated a clear preference for providing non-student housing to reduce housing demand in the area.

There was also some concern that reducing rental costs for some students as a proxy for affordable housing wasn’t offering enough savings to be truly affordable.

However, the main reason for refusal was the impact on the existing neighbours, particularly social housing tenants, who it was noted would have fewer options to move away if they didn’t like the outcome of the development.

If they want to, the developer will need to come back with a revised design that somehow avoids casting long shadows over their neighbours. In the meantime, the canal path will remain blocked off until such time as a property development does get planning permission.

The blockage in red overlay on Google map