Development of John Jones Site / Sketch House

[Deleted User] · February 2014

The user and all related content has been deleted.

NorthNineteen · February 2014

Very few affordable housing schemes are only for key workers, most are related to income. I'm sure we've had this discussion before. I'm pretty sure Islington's policy is to not have priority for key workers but instead to prioritise those already living in the borough. Loads more details at: https://www.sharetobuy.com/firststeps or www.google.com

[Deleted User] · February 2014

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Papa · February 2014

I think the general definition of new affordable housing in London now is anything you can't try and flog off plan in Hong Kong. I'm sure someone will find a way to get round that sooner or later.

minim · March 2014

Am really loving the look of the new building. It has character and looks like it will age well. I feel more ambivalent about more student housing, what with the huge (and rather unattractive) new building already on Isledon Road. I can see how bringing more students to an area can make it more lively and interesting (especially with them being UoA students in the case of the John Jones building), but they're also an intrinsically transient population that don't necessarily care that much about the area they live in. Also, being packed together into huge blocks with fellow students doesn't exactly encourage integration into/involvement with the local community. I very much hope to be proved wrong though!<div><div> </div><div> <div> </div><div> <div> </div><div> </div></div></div></div>

DillysDad · March 2014

And seven more trees unnecessarily being cut down. What exactly do John Jones and Islington BC have against wildlife?

Kate Jones · March 2014

DillysDad we don't have anything against wildlife, your comment is childish... I have explained our position on this before but i guess you don't want to hear it.

miss annie · March 2014

Kate, I know that there is a lot of local goodwill towards you and your business, but you are currently a property developer and I don't think it's childish for people to ask you questions about your building site. You might get asked the same question over and over again because people have specific concerns. It may be boring for you but it wouldn't hurt to be courteous. @yagamuffin asked a question about the lack of environmentally friendly and sustainable building materials which I hoped you'd answer. I've just looked at a place to live that has solar panels and am surprised that new developments (not just yours) don't use them more.

Kate Jones · March 2014

The way the comment was phrased was childish as it insinuates we have an agenda against wildlife which clearly we don't. I have answered questions to Dillysdad in the past on the same subject. Over the past few years I have tried really hard to answer all the questions and comments good and bad, honestly and openly (i should point out that just because we are a business that develops a site for our company does not mean we have to answer all the questions - most wouldn't care at all but we do). And yes we do not have solar panels but we have a range of environmental considerations in the building.

miss annie · March 2014

It would be nice to know more about the environmentally friendly and sustainable side when you have a moment please Kate. It is something that I'm sure lots of us are interested in.

Detritus · March 2014

My own personal opinion that carries absolutely no weight what so ever is that the new John Jones building is bog ugly and its all about money. The people at John Jones are not doing this for free it's a blot on the landscape.

DillysDad · March 2014

Kate - Hardly childish. Childish is banding about words like ... 'Childish' Of course you're going to defend the plans. You're the ones who are killing trees. And yes, I took on board your justification for killing the trees opposite the Park Theatre (disease, can't get pushchairs past, roots ripping up the pavement etc' The trees opposite the Worlds End are perfectly healthy, perfectly passable with pushchairs and not tearing up the pavement. So, where's the justification beyond 'development'? You can't cut down our air filters that have been here longer than any of us have been without people who live here asking questions and for justification. So far the only justification is that 'we're planting new trees', which is a cop out answer for 'yeah, we know it's going to piss people off so we'll placate them with the promise of a lush new forest of trees'. You simply cannot compare new saplings to healthy mature trees. The facts are that new trees look like tiny new trees for years and years. We'll certainly never see the benefits of them. And yes, I agree ... The building is imposing and ugly. The only things that distract the eye from the blot on the landscape are ... The trees. Chopping down healthy trees and homes for migrating birds in favour of development ... A development that was originally rejected by the council until 'loop holes' were found.

[Deleted User] · March 2014

The user and all related content has been deleted.

DillysDad · March 2014

Misscara - there are 7-8 more trees that are destined for the axe at a date after 12/3/14 They're the ones opposite the Worlds End. It might not be too late if enough pressure is put on the council.

Papa · March 2014

I thought that Clifton Road down towards the Park Theatre, looked nice for the short period of time after the council redid the pavement and trees before they were cut down. DillysDad is right in that you cannot really replace existing mature trees with new small ones. Whether trees just sometimes have to be collateral damage in improving an eyesore site, is another question.

ChangN4N6 · March 2014

Surely new 'mature ' trees can be planted. These are expensive but it does happen - result building work can go ahead and trees restored. Is this possible? I don't think bashing Kate is fair. And green is not alwYs white. . Imagine the lack of info and dialogue if it was some big time Barrat type developer (or in fact Islington council who consult then totally ignor feedback on so many things). I am growing to like the building, and SG was never gonna be Bath or Upper Street but think it's a pity the whole 'town centre ' thing including this block has not had an overall vision - where are the Cllrs on this? We expect London design to be haphazard but variations in quality etc eg Vista are sad. Chang

ChangN4N6 · March 2014

Having read about the 8 trees to go '- 8 brothers?' - I think we should save them or plant at least 4 mature trees to replace them when the block is up. Small price to pay for keeping it fresh and the council owe us one after the cpzs, and general lack of interest in NIslington. This place is called Stroud GREEN and Finsbury PARK after all ...Jez could do a show in a tree house. Chang.

DillysDad · March 2014

Kate hasn't been 'bashed'. She's defending John Jones' choice to kill a load of healthy mature trees, depriving local people and wildlife from having them. I don't think anyone was imaging SG looking like Bath or Upper St but it's worrying that around a dozen mature trees are being cut down without much reason beyond 'development'. For some people, they are the only trees they get to see all day on their way to and from work.

NorthNineteen · March 2014

The trees were pretty poor quality and not suitable for a street environment. The new trees will look better in the long run. BUt I know people are going to disgree with me on that, trees are such emotive things. It's amazing how many people are terrified by trees, I used to deal with a lady who council property had a lovely tree in the background (with TPO no less) and almost every week she'd ring us saying it was swaying dangerously and was going to kill someone and she was scared to use her back room in case the tree came down.

Arkady · March 2014

I can see a strong argument that, within reason, replacement trees should be of similar maturity. But those around the JJ site are/were inappropriate species, sickly in appearance, and added little to the streetscape in my opinion. We've done this conversation to death though.

Sutent · March 2014

@Arkady - can I ask you a question? Do you have any personal interest in the John Jones building or are you just a admirer of the site?

Arkady · March 2014

Ha! Just an admirer (though if they want to offer me shares then I could sure use the money :-) For me it’s the culmination of lots of things I care about. Densification; promotion of local business; mixed use; the link between the arts, education and regeneration; brownfield-site development rather than messing around with conservation areas; ‘clustering’ and ‘stepping up’; focusing development near transport hubs; modern takes on classical design principles, the use of brick and stone.... oh I could go on and on (and regularly have). I have met Kate Jones, once, and am entirely reassured that they are officially Good People who care deeply for the local area and have gone to great lengths and expense to make this development a boon to the local community rather than a profit-making exercise. As per Andy’s comments above, I quite understand her exasperation at armchair internet critics who focus on real or perceived flaws, or emphasise their personal and subjective tastes rather than the bigger picture, or speak as though they have never heard the other side of the argument. But you know all this already.

DillysDad · March 2014

Arkady - there is nothing wrong at all with the trees on Lennox rd. They are perfectly healthy and beautiful trees. Whether this has been 'done to the death' or not, accountability and public opinion are very important. Particularly as the trees in question have 1 week left before they're killed. The 'done to death' was about te trees on Clifton Terrace. The trees that we were told were diseased. The trees we're now talking about are fine.

DillysDad · March 2014

Hmm 'armchair critics' is an insulting comment to make and belittles genuine concern. If you pass the site twice a day every day, if it's in your community, if it adversely impacts your life then comments are justified. I can totally see 'the other side' of development. However, there is no justification for cutting down these trees on the 12/3. It's absolutely right that John jones and Islington council should be held accountable (both good and bad) for the effects caused to residents as a result of their development. Surely the 'bigger picture' for all of us is the environment?

Arkady · March 2014

For the sake of clarity, perhaps we can request some details of which trees are going, why, and the nature of their replacements.

Detritus · March 2014

Good point Arkady.

krappyrubsnif · March 2014

I think this discussion is slightly pointless without a contribution from someone who is professionally expert in trees.

NorthNineteen · March 2014

For anyone that is interested, this map shows the trees: http://planning.islington.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/00082997.pdf Removal of T2-T15 were part of the additional application which was accpeted (on appeal). T20-T24 were subsequently given approval (late 2012) for removal through a minor alteration to the planning application. The following should be retained: T16, T17,T18,T19,T25,T26 and T1. I don't know if this has been the case. T20-24 were removed due to obstruction to the footway, help visibility for access/egress to the site, Supporting docs: http://planning.islington.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/00158515.pdf http://planning.islington.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/00158001.pdf I couldn't find the reasoning behind the tree removal in the original application but generally the full application would be scrutinised to a greater level of detail than minor ammendments.

Arkady · March 2014

Good work NN. I found that map earlier but didn't have the skills to decode it.

NorthNineteen · March 2014

I found the inspectors report: http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.2938748&NAME=/Decision.pdf This is what he had to say on the trees (note only T2-T15): Trees 19. Although the on-site and street trees were not in leaf at the time of my visit I have no doubts regarding the significant contribution they make to the amenity of the surrounding area. Apart from the protected Poplar, which has been the subject of some pruning, the individual trees do not appear to be particularly special; in my view, their value is mainly cumulative and lies in creating a welcome splash of greenery and natural life in a densely built area. Only two trees need to be removed to allow the proposed development to take place but the construction works would impinge on both the roots and canopies of several others and, consequently, their health and life expectancy could be reduced. 20. In these circumstances my view is that the best course of action would be to remove those trees which would be most affected, including the two covered by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), and replace them with new specimens at an appropriate time. The Council would carry out the new planting and the appellant has agreed a sum for this purpose which would be provided through the unilateral undertaking. This would be in line with UDP Policy Env 6 which states that where the retention of existing trees is not appropriate their replacement in a suitable location will be required. 21. I have also had regard to both the Mayor’s A Tree and Woodland Framework for London and the Council’s own A policy for trees in Islington and consider that, as long as the affected trees are appropriately replaced, there would be no conflict with their objectives or policies. In any event, and taking account of the replacement planting, I do not consider that the detriment arising from the removal of some of the street trees would outweigh the advantages of the proposed development. 22. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the fact that policies require the site to be developed more intensively than at present and that there is also some advice that street frontages should be strong and consistent. Setting the proposed outer elevations back significantly could conflict with this position which also means that the well-being of the trees would be an issue whatever was proposed here. It does not appear to me that the presence of the trees was disregarded in preparing the scheme. The existing trees have most impact in Clifton Terrace where they line both sides of the street. The presence of the outer row closest to the existing dwellings, however, which as far as I understand would not be affected by the proposed development, would help to lessen the effect of the removal of the inner trees by retaining a leafy environment in the street. 23. With regard to the other appeal decisions brought to my attention by the Council it appears to me that both cases involved a greater number of trees protected by TPOs. Unlike the case before me, neither proposal was of sufficient merit to outweigh the harm that might be caused to the affected trees and I can, therefore, draw no helpful comparisons from them.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

Development of John Jones Site / Sketch House

Comments