Bulldozers threat to ‘part of our heritage’ in Canonbury conservation area
Neighbours campaign to save Victorian home standing in way of developer’s plans for flats
Published: 16 July, 2010
by PETER GRUNER
A LAST-DITCH effort has been launched to save a 150-year-old terraced house and garden threatened with demolition in a Canonbury conservation area.
An Islington Council planning committee has delayed until September a decision on the future of the eight-roomed home which developers want to bulldoze to make way for flats in St Paul’s Road, at the junction with Newington Green Road.
The plans have sparked a huge protest by members of St Paul’s Conservation and Residents Society.
When the 19th century building – opposite grade II-listed St Paul’s Church in Essex Road – first came under threat from developers four years ago a government planning inspector ruled that it was perfectly sound.
The property is thought to have been built on an estate then owned by the Marquess of Northampton.
Neighbour Mark Thomson said: “Why do they need to knock down a perfectly decent property which is an important part of the uniqueness of the area?
“What is wrong with refurbishing the current building, which we know and love, and using that for homes or businesses?
“They also intend to build flats on a lovely back garden at the house. That means we lose more green space and some wonderful ancient trees and shrubbery.”
Lib Dem councillor Rhodri Jamieson-Ball said most residents wanted to see the property refurbished. It has been semi-derelict for years.
“Developers want to replace the current building with a block of flats which will overlook neighbours, destroy the garden and be totally out of keeping with the area,” he said.
However, Islington’s planners are recommending approval of the developer’s plans. A report says that the proposed building is considered to be of an acceptable design and will not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of Canonbury conservation area.
“On balance, the scheme will provide a number of good-quality residential units and will not have a significant adverse impact on nearby residential amenity that would warrant refusal,” it adds.