• IN a few weeks we will find out whether the developers at Regent’s Wharf have made enough concessions to win the approval of the local planning committee.

They have made significant improvements since losing an appeal last year and have consciously respected the industrial heritage of the site; but they now risk alienating thousands of pedestrians and vulnerable people if they persist with plans to saturate our narrow streets with over 1,200 HGVs.

As its name suggests, Regent’s Wharf fronts onto the Regent’s Canal and is ideally located for using barges rather than HGVs for transporting demolition waste.

There is a door-to-door service to the nearest recycling centre, a mere six miles upstream.

With our heightened awareness of environmental issues it should be a no-brainer to utilise the canal for transport even if there are a couple of short-term cost differences.

The developers have commissioned a study that confirms what we knew already – there are no logistical reasons for using roads instead of the canal and that it is better for the environment.

The study also revealed that any cost savings by road were due not to the transportation but due to an unloading charge.

There must be something wrong with our infrastructure when there are rewards rather than penalties for using HGVs and when the true cost to society is hidden from the spreadsheets.

The decision to use the roads is reversible and there is still time for the council, GLA and contractors to do some joined up thinking.

This site is uniquely positioned and this is a golden opportunity for anyone involved with this high profile project to set an exemplary precedent.

IAN SHACKLOCK
Friends of Regent’s Canal