Development of City North Site*

applehead · January 2010

Hi,
Yesterday we received planning notice app through our door on Moray Road, regarding City North Islington Trading Estate, Fonthill Road and 8-10 Goodwin Street, N4 regarding the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a mixed development comprising two 21 storey (yes it says 2 x 21 storey) building above ground floor plinth, 10 storey building above ground and first floor plinth; and 3 storey building above ground floor plinth for 335 residential dwellings, office space restaurant cafe, gym etc... Application no PO92492 at Islington.gov.uk planning dept.
I thought this sounded shocking and along with what is planned over the way on sgr it would seem the area is up for quite a few potential sky scrapers and change landscape.

krappyrubsnif · January 2010

Yeugh. Might as well all move to Croydon by the sound of it.

Ian · January 2010

Thanks for this - I've had a look through and I'm afraid I'm on the side of build. Looks a really interesting development that will be good for the area, both for the retail and jobs but also by clearing up what is a messy bit of the area by the station. I'm all for it, I think it will be great for the area.

wideboy · January 2010

http://www.islington.gov.uk/Environment/Planning/Online/default.asp

Search for P092492 (with a zero after P)

Or use this deep link instead - <a href="http://bit.ly/citynorth">http://bit.ly/citynorth</a>;

poxy · January 2010

<a href="https://www.islington.gov.uk/onlineplanning/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=P092492&theTabNo=3" target="blank">Pre-emptive YAWN!</a>

tosscat · January 2010

Yay Poxy, but it's still a yawn.

Reg · January 2010

I'm for it too. Am interested to see that the scheme allows for the future introduction of a western access to the station - I assume to Goodwin Street and on to Fonthill which would be good. The developer does seem to be playing the 'habitable rooms game' though which serves to minimise overall affordable housing but that is for the planning officers to thrash out really. To see what I mean, have a look at this example layout for the [three-bed units](http://tinyurl.com/yzzwkyw). On the left the open market unit has no wall between the second and third rooms. Or this will be a 'sliding wall'. As such, this unit shows up with one less 'habitable room' - the unit of calculation for affordable housing in this application. Note that the affordable unit does not have this 'feature' and therefore has more habitable rooms per unit, reducing the overall 'required' number of units. Get it? The scheme is closer to 14% calculated by unit, rather than 20% by habitable room. However, you don't need planning permission to play around with internal walls. So once it has been built the developer can offer to put in a full wall for the buyer to take it up to a 'proper' (and properly priced) three-bed. A happy coincidence for the developer is that this approach will also reduce the stated density of the scheme (habitable rooms per hectare). This is not a big deal in the context of the scheme but it all helps. Having said all that, affordable housing negotiations tend to come down to viability tests (as provided in this instance by GVA Grimley, but redacted by LBI so we can't really comment), rather than strict targets. Eyes wide open, Councillors...

pseudonym · January 2010

What sort of people make these plans?

It looks like the tenants of the 10th and 11th floor duplexes will have 3 toilets and 2 bath tubs in each 2 bedroom apartment. Either there's a large market for incontinent but hygiene-conscious city dwellers that's being targeted, or not much effort has gone into the design so far.

They're going to have fun getting furniture up and down those spiral staircases too.

Alex · January 2010

Just on a pedantic note, this thread does not refer to the John Jones development but the nearby City North one, as I understand it. Can the title be changed, given that both developments may well be under discussion for the next several months and it could get confusing?

andy · January 2010

Good point. * This title has been edited. There are, as i understand, two developments - City North and John Jones. This thread is about City North.

Close_&_worried · January 2010

ok, so I'm feeling like 'applehead' and I are the only local residents on this forum because in an area like this, which is predominantly residential & low-rise businesses, why would anyone think that two 21-storey tower blocks is a good thing for the Stroud Green community?!! London centre has very strict controls that maintain the skyline, it is my opinion that we strive to maintain our skyline also. Lastly, per the comment above about the area becoming like Croydon, how many high rise buildings in other orbital london areas look good 10-20 years on, or bring value to the surrounding area ... I can't think of any. Please, let common-sense prevail

crouchend tiger · January 2010

I'm new on the forum so hello all - I've enjoyed reading your posts.

I really hope this development will be a success - the area around Fonthill Road/station is still a bit crimey and maybe if there are more people around, this will improve.

But I can completely understand where Close is coming from too. The last thing we need is another of those massive orange brick towers that look like huge prison toilet blocks or a blandarama glass and concrete effort.

Does anyone know anything about the architects for this scheme?

pseudonym · January 2010

<em>Does anyone know anything about the architects for this scheme? </em>

They have an unhealthy obsession with lavatories.

tosscat · January 2010

The Croydon council building is lovely, allegedly taking its inspiration from the Pirelli building in Milan. @ C&W - Does the Barbican count, and Trellick tower, or they not considered orbital? (Is fin-fin considered orbital?)

graeme · January 2010

The Barbican's surrounded by roundabouts and underpasses, office blocks and City bars (and empty units). It might look nice from the inside, but isn't exactly in a residential area.

Trellick is nice to look at, and I don't live there, but having walked past a few times there we ne-er do wells loitering outside it. It's something of an anachronism in the area, even though as a piece of architecture it does look good in isolation.

Croydon already has modern buildings, so the council tower, lovely though it is, isn't quite the sore thumb 2 x 21 stories would be in an area of 2/3 story residentials and the City North tower.

I guess local residents and business were already gyped with the Emirates build and Govt. intervention, but hope their wishes are heard on this.

Consultation between 21-dec and 21-Jan. What form is that taking?

I guess it's a fluke of geography that Islington can throw up any building it likes right on the border of Haringey and no one on the other side of SGR would know anything about it were it not for this forum.

Reg · January 2010

C&W, what local view of what 'skyline' is worth protecting? I think the towers around Canary Wharf are cool, the Gherkin is cool. The Shard will be great. Tall can be good. Conversely, the locality of the station is squat and scruffy. Why build more squat and scruffy buildings? (if you follow the line of your argument) Lets use the opportunity to make sure these are welcome additions, and not missed opportunities (like there are examples of in Croydon and elsewhere, granted) And why wouldn't the towers be good for the community? More customers for the local shops and more choice of housing (including *some* affordable).

Ali · January 2010

The "Towers" that used to be along Seven Sister Rd opposite the park on just got demolished recently to put back house at a better scale for the occupants ! The big pile of rubble that is down there is the old flats. They were very badly built as I can remember stories when Madness did Finstcok that old grannies were getting stuck in the lifts because of the vibrations from people jumping up and down at the Concert !

Arkady · January 2010

I agree that the hideous towers on SS Rd should have come down - they did not work in the surrounding context. But the area around FP station needs a complete rethink, I'm with Reg on this one.

B

wideboy · January 2010

I keep thinking this might end up like Archway. And that ain't nice. Might turn the park into a bit of a sundial too.

Being 21-storey I would have thought that shoving a wind turbine or three on the top would make sense, but it's been discounted without review in the planning application. It's just written-off.

What's the tallest building in North London currently?

twinspark · January 2010

I'm for it on the basis that it may obscure the view of The Emirates from Crouch Hill/Crouch End Hill.

As for Islington I thinmk they are dabbling with lots of develpments round F.Park in the hope they that can create a buzz in the private sector and find a willing partner/fool to stump up for re-developing the tube station with the long mooted piazza and entrance on Fonthill Road [ complete with naff mural no doubt] Hopefully it will be someone other than the berk responsible for the bus station on SS rd. side which looks like a scheme rejected by everywhere else since 1974 but available as a bargain since it looked old before it was finished - sort of built in distressed look for buildings. Either that or it's bit of marine salvage artfully re-purposed as a community sculpture.

wideboy · January 2010

I haven't even got planning notice through the door, even though I'm nearer than the nearest part of Morray Road (re:Applehead's original post) to Wells Terrace.

A snotty phonecall tomorrow is in order methinks.

ActionVerb · January 2010

With regard to G-unit public consultation question, the only thing required is a small notice in the back of a local paper and a letter to the immediate neighbours. The number of neighbours informed is usually down to the planning department to decide on. We got a letter (actually two) living pretty close to the site.

Looking at their public consultation document, it appears that there were 3,000 leaflets distributed, and only 20 people attended the public exhibition last summer, the document then basically goes on to say that the attendance was low because the scheme was not contentious. Not sure why the attendance would be so low? I suppose there could be a few reasons - summer holidays, it was only held on the actual business park, i didn't see any adverst for it etc. I live within a couple hundred yards from the site, but we didn't get a notice, i'd have gone to have a nosey.

I think the exhibiton could have been done a bit better. Change the venues every day, go somewhere where there's high foot-fall in the local area, leaflet a lot more people, engage the local press - local journos love a good 'exclusive'..

I've not yet made my mind up on this scheme though, I think Finsbury Park needs something, but I quite like the current 2-3 storey scale, it gives the place a bit of historical character.

wideboy · January 2010

Well, here is a bit of a problem. Now I feel like the wool has been pulled over the planning depts eyes to some degree. As ActionVerb mentioned, according to the public consultation document 3000 leaflets went out. However:

1) The <a href="https://www.islington.gov.uk/onlineplanning/docserver/applications/2009/12Dec/P092492/(W03) Consultation Statement.pdf#page26">Area action plan boundry</a> draws a near perfect border encompassing predominantly business properties and stops before crossing over into significant residential areas. The cynic in me says this is to involve the least number of residents for a given number of total addresses, and that considering the scale of the development, the zoned area is very small.

2) Two pages further down on <a href="https://www.islington.gov.uk/onlineplanning/docserver/applications/2009/12Dec/P092492/(W03) Consultation Statement.pdf#page28">page 28</a> it then says "Appendix 5 – List of Consultees, Leaflets Delivered by Hand Residents / occupiers within AAP boundary" and lists several pages of the addresses within the boundry area. It then lists "Local residential estates" and basically lists the entire six acres and andover state by the look of it, but I for one have no recollection of receiving it. And this isn't within the marked boundry either.

3) The <a href="https://www.islington.gov.uk/onlineplanning/docserver/applications/2009/12Dec/P092492/(W03) Consultation Statement.pdf#page43">newspaper adverts</a> make no reference to the scale of the development at all, which would perhaps help to lower the interest of most people who read it.

Am I being overly cynical?

dorothy · January 2010

@wideboy
I've worked for local authorities, and my knowledge on planning is a little rusty, but I think there's a statutory obligation to consult in a 200 metre radius of the site. I recollect that you can't speak at the planning hearing if you are not within this radius, although you can make comments through the portal.

That list of community groups that were consulted with must have been supplied by the council or the local CVS, I'm guessing. I'm wondering why Stroudgreen.org isn't on there, because I'm sure it has more contact with local residents than some of the others. It seems such an antiquated way of consulting, just sending out leaflets. They were bound to get ignored along with the pile of junk mail in the numerous shared hallways around the area. No wonder they only had 20 people turn up.

Having said that I think the development looks really attractive, especially the podium bit, not sure about the sort of glass, post office tower looking thing and the other tall rectangular block, but maybe those are the bits that will bring in the revenue for the project.

ADGS · January 2010

Is the dislike of the Seven Sisters Road bus station general? I don't think it's an architectural marvel or anything, but I've seen an awful lot worse, and when the light catches it right it can be quite impressive.

wideboy · January 2010

Dorothy, does the 200m radius not scale up with the size of the development?

dorothy · January 2010

@wideboy, having a closer look at Islington's documents on how they consult, it seems they use 30m from the boundary of the development as they area they will notify. It doesn't seem to matter if it's a larger development, (in theory). I think the 200m must have been the policy of the Council I worked for in South London.

30m is a minimum though, there may be reasons that this area would be increased.

It's possible Reg would put me right on this stuff. I have the feeling I may have sat opposite him at very boring Council meetings, but he was listening.

Arkady · January 2010

I think the bus station/station place frontage is pretty good, certainly a huge improvement on how it was before... the sooner they clean up the Wells Terrace entrance the better.

Arky

bluejack · January 2010

I'm with everybody else, agreeing that the site needs to be rethought, and rebuilt. I'm not sure that's the same thing as 'redeveloped' - I certainly don't think 21-storey towers are visually appropriate for the site or the area, and the street level elevations look like they'll be the usual stock generic glass/concrete/steel frontages - I don't see much evidence of exciting, interesting or locally sympathetic architecture.

Reg · January 2010

re consultation, this is a difficult one as being a big development it will inevitably draw a lot of interest. Catchment is not proportional to the size of the application but it is an interesting idea. I wouldn't read anything in to whether you have been directly notified or not and the AAP boundary doesn't have anything to do with this. The local press notices and notices that they put up on lamp-posts are intended to create awareness and websites like this do a great job. I would have thought that the applicant would have made more of an effort but there you have it. However, since you are reading this thread you are in a position to spread the word and make your own representations - positive or negative. If you do you might also be heard at the committee so this not just lip service, you really can steer this. Can I make the following suggestions: 1. Please look at the application very carefully and identify exactly what you are not happy with. You are probably too late in the planning process to stop redevelopment altogether as the principle seems to have been accepted by the local authority in the AAP process. 2. Even if you have very strong feelings about this try not to sound too shrill or reactionary as this will turn off the sympathy that officers and members will have towards us as local residents. Firm and reasonable wins every time. 3. If you don't like the height, be specific about why - character of Fonthill, view from wherever. Suggest what you think an appropriate height/scale would be. 4. If you think that there is an impact that could be addressed through investment though do share it (with the planners or here). i.e. capacity of dentists, doctors, schools etc. Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act requires the developer to address these impacts before/during development and this often comes in the form of direct provision or financial contributions to existing services. I would encourage everyone to use this opportunity to make this as good as can be, not to just try and have it thrown out. Of course it is your right to try if you want to but my reading of this is that the principle is already supported - now its about details.

wideboy · January 2010

Anyone wish concerns about this planning application needs to put it in writing asap:

"Comments on this application should be made by 21-Jan-2010."

<a href="http://bit.ly/citynorth">Planning application</a>

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

Development of City North Site*

Comments