Development of John Jones Site / Sketch House

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

andy

<span style="font-family: 'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"In some ways this is worse than murder"</span>

DillysDad

Emma Dixon, Islington Greens sent this to me earlier I’m an Islington Green Party member with some previous experience of saving trees from the chop (in the context of Network Rail and trackside trees) – I have contacted Jeremy Corbyn (as below) and the RSPB (see separate email to follow). The main things you can do are (i) contact the MP yourself (ii) contact london wide or national media (iii) organise some form of direct action (which will be good for (ii) as well). Clearly as felling is imminent you need to keep a close eye on things including, if possible, overnight. And this that she's sent to some tree/bird experts. Dear Tim and Mark See below – I think it may be too early for nesting birds (though the resident does mention starlings living in the trees) – I know it is very short notice but is there any chance of either of you going round to have a look? Felling is planned for TOMORROW Weds. I'm shocked that they can fell trees in the middle of the night on a residential street. Emma said they do this to stop residents protesting. A freelance from the Telegraph and a guy from the Tribune have interviewed me today, the Tribune article goes to print on Thursday.

Sutent

Good work DD!! 

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Idoru

<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">On the subject of national media, I can't promise anything but if you can prepare a press release and send it to me we might be able to put something on our website. We'll need all relevant info and pic. But if the trees are earmarked for felling tomorrow then it seems it's a bit too late. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">I'd also be interested in getting a response from JJ or Spiritbond.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">My email address is rebecca.armstrong@birdwatch.co.uk</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Resident birds (like Starlings, Blackbirds and Robins) could be nesting this early.</span></div>

DillysDad

From the council!!!<br><br>The planning application for this development was originally refused by the council.  However the developer appealed to the planning inspectorate who overturned our decision, they considered the trees during the appeal and found that   "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."<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> The Council then judicially challenged the Inspectors decision but the Court upheld the Inspectors decision and the development can legally go ahead and the trees removed.<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> This is a development that the council did not want to go ahead.<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> The council are removing these trees because they are our trees and we wish to ensure that the correct trees are removed.<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> We appreciate your concern that the removal of these trees will have a significant effect on the area, and have managed to secure significant funds to replant many more trees in and around the area. These will be planted over the next few years, with trees directly outside the site being planted once the development has been built. Ultimately there will be an overall increase in both the total number of trees and the overall amount of canopy that they provide.<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> Jake Tibbetts<br clear="none"> Team Manager (Arboriculture)<br clear="none"> Public Realm<br clear="none"> Greenspace and Business Service<br clear="none"> 1 Cottage Road, London N7 8TP<br clear="none"> Islington Council<br clear="none"> Tel: 020 7527 7262<br clear="none"> Fax: 020 7527 4557<br clear="none">

DillysDad

Hi Idoru,<br><br>I very much doubt the trees will come down tomorrow as there are no parking suspension signs up and cars parked either side of the road.<br><br>I'll have a word with Caroline and Emma (Islington Greens) to see if we can put something together.<br><br>Thanks for the potential offer.<br><br>

miss annie

The notices are up now. Bays suspended 24th & 25th March. Whole load of tree work on Fonthill Rd next week too.

DillysDad

If we assemble enough people on the 24th and 25th, they won't be able to fell the trees. Which will give the birds longer to nest, which would save them for up to a year. Please spread the word.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

DillysDad

Yes, absolutely. We're trying to get as much press as possible. We still feel that many resident don't know it's happening. Save the trees has another installation planned for this week too. I absolutely encourage everyone who is concerned to spread the word to as many people as possible. Get on social media, email your MP's. We need to show our decision makers that their decisions concern and effect us and our well being. Save the trees and myself are planning a meeting on Monday to prepare for the felling days. I'll keep you posted when and where we'll be. More the merrier. Legal and General are also complicit. Let them know how you feel about their involvement in killing off 8 beloved mature community trees.

miss annie

The people who use the station might like to know. And how about telling Danny at the fruit stall, Morefit, the station staff too.

DillysDad

All great ideas Miss Annie. Thank you.

DillysDad

From Richard Watts at the council Thank you for writing to me about the trees at Lennox Road and Clifton Terrace. I share your concern about this issue. The trees are being removed because of the development of the John Jones site. This is a development that the council did not want to go ahead. Islington Council strongly opposed this development because we don't believe it provides enough genuinely affordable housing for local people and also because of the loss of trees. We therefore rejected John Jones’ planning application for this development. However, John Jones appealed to the government's Planning Inspectorate who overturned our decision. The planning inspector considered the trees during the appeal but decided that the detriment arising from the removal of some of the street trees would not outweigh the advantages of the proposed development. The council then judicially challenged the planning inspector’s decision but the court upheld the inspector’s decision. That means the development can legally go ahead and the trees removed. I'm afraid all legal routes to stop this have now been exhausted. The council are removing these trees because we wish to ensure that the correct trees are removed and this sad situation is not made worse by a private contractor removing more trees than there is permission for. We appreciate your concern that the removal of these trees will have a significant effect on the area, and have managed to secure significant funds to replant many more trees in and around the area. These will be planted over the next few years, with trees directly outside the site being planted once the development has been built. Ultimately there will be an overall increase in both the total number of trees and the overall amount of canopy that they provide. I appreciate the strength of feeling about this. Over the last few years the council has fought as hard as possible to save the trees and get more genuinely affordable housing for local people on this site and I'm sorry that we lost the fight.

yagamuffin

I would make a comment about the supposedly community minded business ignoring the democratically elected community representatives, going over their heads to get permission for their money making scheme, but this would probably result in much negative comment making and make the slanging match even worse, so I won't.

dion

Like me saying I have never heard so much sanctimonious vomit in my life and that I don't care about the trees because they drop leaves on my 4x4 range rover. If you are worried about birds, cats are the issue, not a lack of trees.

JoeV

@Yagamuffin - I have no wish to get into a slanging match but that's not really a fair comment. It was JJ right to appeal the council's decision - it's part of the process. <div><br></div><div><br></div>

Sutent

JJ will be good for the area, as it will benefit the wealthy community and drive house prices and rents up, and hopefully make me more money. 

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

dion

JJ will have no impact on the house prices in the area and will not drive rents up in the area.  The main things that make house prices change in this area are house prices changing in other areas, normally the nicer ones. 

Brodiej

I've re-read the whole thread to get some context over 5 years. My take.....<div><br><div>1. You will never get a development where you are as engaged with the owner as this one.</div><div>2. The tree issue has been widely publicised and debated the whole period. Read it from the start. This is not a new issue and has not been hidden.</div><div>3. The council appear to be gutted that they don't own the land, can't do what they want, get their own way. For them this must be an odd feeling. The reality is its not their land, and they got overruled by a higher authority.</div><div>4. MPs have been reached out to on the project, any issues surrounding it are not new to them. I wonder what they're going to say now.</div><div>5. The council have wasted thousands of pounds of tax payer money picking a fight. Some might say it was worth it, but they didn't lose over a few trees and didn't challenge it over a few trees. This was all about land use. Their legal costs on the case were at least £75,000. Assume £1000 for a mature tree, that's 75 trees. Its also worth pointing out that the widening of the pavement opposite the theatre was included in the proposal, paid for by John Jones. The council did it anyway. Assume £30,000 for that one. Place a value on the development not happening sooner rather than later because of the planning nonsense, and we're talking a lot more to everyone in the area (except the renters). Assume the planting of replacement foliage had happened sooner rather later, and the carbon consumption of those trees that could've been versus the existing....that's probably more. I could go on. </div><div><br></div><div>I have a lot of sympathy with those directly affected by the removal of these trees. Your immediate environment will never be the same which i can see would be upsetting. I have to say though, John Jones have behaved impeccably and i think the frustration towards them is unfair. Islington council wanted to dictate the land use, but JJ wanted to stay as is their right because its theirs. Land is sparse in Islington, the council need more land but couldn't dictate it on this development. All you are seeing is the results of a 5 year petty fight driven by Islington council coming to fruition. If this had been approached in a more pragmatic way by the council, i bet we wouldn't having this debate.</div><div><br></div></div>

Sutent

@brodiej. Thank you for that summary. Reading it i think it is quite balanced and fair, and very helpful to people like me. I missed the whole JJ saga on here over the years. I was always doing exams, thesis writing and NHS working. I am trying to get excited about JJ like many people on here, but it may come once it is open and built. Hopefully it will benefit the area and all the people that live here collectively. It just worries me that the JJ and the city north development are the beginnings of SG turning into an area for the rich who can't afford. Thank you again broidj very insightful 

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

NorthNineteen

Great post brodiej.<br><br>In terms of the affordable housing, this is the only development of student housing and/or commercial development that includes affordable housing.  Could you imagine if the City made Norman Foster include affordable housing within the Gherkin. It was a crazy demand by Islington and I'm glad the inspector over-ruled them.<br>

JoeV

@BrodieJ - One item you left out is that in the 2010 election, Labour won a majority on the Islington Council from the Lib Dems. I think (I don't know) there was a change in policy on the number of student accommodation in the borough and that Islington was already saturated. This seems to be when the fight was picked, which I agree was a huge waste of tax payer money. The council previously seemed to be happy to work with John Jones and their developer until this point.

ChangN4N6

The conga is on for Monday -st Patrick's . I will dress as a Chinese leprechaun , miscarra will entertain with her python act. The trees don't stand a chance. Chang

Arkady

Great post BrodieJ - we needed some perspective.<br><br>As I recall, the new Islington Labour planning policy was still in development when JJ submitted their application. They had assembled their application after lengthy exchanges with the planning department, who expected it to be passed. It came as shock when the councillors outrageously dismissed the application on the grounds of an as-yet unimplemented policy, and even more of a shock to be accused of deliberately trying to pre-empt it (in addition to several other scurrilous accusations and failures of understanding). This was especially unfair accusation given that JJ had gone out of their way to include affordable housing despite it not being required.<br><br>Islington then went on to waste £100,000+ on trying to stop it. The councillor responsible for all this - Paul Convery - had, it seems, their main responsibility shuffled from planning to crime following this debacle. For a while I thought that he would end up as the leader of Islington council when Cllr West stood down, but in the end it went to Cllr Watts.<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi"><o:p></o:p></span></p>

Ali

<P>Brodiej</P> <DIV>1. You will never get a development where you are as engaged with the owner as this one.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>incorrect from the point of view of the student accomodation and the trees.  Did KJ not pass this on and say on 10th March  that JJ has nothing to do with Lennox Rd development.  Very late in the day to make that clear.   So there has been zero engagement from Spiritbond.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One assumes JJ get a new building out of selling part of the site to Spiritbond who then get L&G  to invest because of the steady income flow into investment funds ie probabaly pensions, annuities.  Anyone here  got a L&G  pension product ?</DIV>

Brodiej

<P>OK Ali. My counter point would be that you know that detail from speaking to Kate Jones. Would you have been bothered enough to go and find out yourself? My guess is that we have possibly 95% more detail from this project than an equivalent elsewhere. I make the point again, they didn't even have to bother talking with us.  </P>