Site allocation at Archway is for conventional housing, the applicant wants to mainly provide purpose built student accommodation. Officers rejected as not plan compliant.
Replies
The politics is clear, Ant: we allocate a site for housing which will contribute to the 1.5million new homes and have rejected a scheme which won’t.
jul 6, 2025, 9:55 am • 0 0 • view
Lots of problems at the officer level too ofc, which is why we need NDMPs and Brownfield Passports to trump local plan policy and increase urban housebuilding. The numbers don't lie - Islington has built far less than it should have for at least half a century, as it blocks rather than builds.
jul 6, 2025, 12:25 pm • 0 0 • view
That's just nonesense, Ant. "built far less than it should have for at least half a century," Islington's newly built housing is almost entirely purpose built flats. Between 1981 and 2021 Census, this category of housing increased from 35,000 to 55,000.
jul 6, 2025, 6:43 pm • 0 0 • view
Have you ever visited Islington, Ant? The last sizeable brownfield development site was built 20 years ago (Lough Rd/Ashburton Grove). One site now being built (ex Holloway prison) is under construction now - over 1,000 homes. Nothing blocked there.
jul 6, 2025, 6:46 pm • 0 0 • view
You want officers to decide but now say they're biased too. You want plan-led developments to be OK'd but now you want local plans trumped by NDPMs. Make up your mind chum.
jul 6, 2025, 6:47 pm • 0 0 • view
Islington doesn't have swathes of ex industrial land. No Lea Valley, docklands or Thames Gateway sites. It's a Borough of 6 sq miles with over 220,000 people. Has the highest population density of any local authority. Despite this we are pro-development and pro-housing.
jul 6, 2025, 6:53 pm • 0 0 • view
National gov should write the rules and local gov should apply them. It's perfectly consistent to want to reduce committee decisions to non compliant and exceptional applications + reduce officer discretion if you want structurally higher housebuilding and if you worry about housing affordability.
jul 6, 2025, 11:34 pm • 0 0 • view
If Islington was pro-housing it would have built much more than it has. It is a conceit to claim Islington is full - if the borough was prepared to allow more demolitions of existing structures much more would be built than is the case today.
jul 6, 2025, 11:42 pm • 0 0 • view
No-one saying "Islington is full". Not a "conceit" to say we have had few sizeable development sites nor to observe we already have the highest population density of any local authority. You want us to bulldoze and build? Tell me exactly which existing high density Council estates you have in mind.
jul 7, 2025, 11:44 am • 0 0 • view
Some council estate regen, some small site infill, some private sector led demolition and redevelopment of resi streets. I'm indifferent as to where this should happen in any borough, but LDOs, SPDs etc all give lots of scope to every council to allow more development of these types.
jul 7, 2025, 12:15 pm • 0 0 • view