|
|
 |
| |
Residents, from left: David Marsh, Mike Weedon, Penelope Eyres, Meg Mendoza and Margot Messenger |
Battle lines drawn in Holloway planning row
Residents raise objections to ‘oppressive’ development, but planners say their ‘right to a view’ is an empty vessel argument
INSENSITIVE developers are threatening the views of some of the borough’s most historic sites – including the ornate Mary Magdalene church in Holloway Road – a public inquiry heard this week.
That was the claim by an alliance of Highbury residents and Islington Council conservation officers.
They accused the government-backed regeneration body English Partnerships of planning an “obstructive” and “oppressive” housing scheme which will overshadow a conservation area and block out light to homes.
The scheme is for 119 flats and shops for up to 300 residents – 43 per cent affordable – at the former Mann Overton black taxi showrooms off Holloway Road, close to Highbury
Corner.
At the southern end of the development a seven storey block would be as tall as the tower of the Mary Magdalene church tower and overshadow Islington Central Library, both listed buildings.
At the northern end, residents off Highbury Fields would be facing a sheer concrete wall
abutting the site, albeit covered in foliage.
A planning inspector will have to decide whether residents have a right to their views of St Mary’s – and whether these scenes should be protected.
English Partnerships argued that the scheme, which would have a landscaped grass courtyard, has been designed with architectural support from the charity the Prince’s Foundation.
The aim is to transform a semi-derelict run-down area of Holloway Road. The development would also be car-free.
Residents complain that the perimeter wall will only be 15 metres from their windows, three metres less than the council’s guidelines.
Luciana Grave, Conservation Officer with Islington Council, said the scheme would block views to St Mary’s for residents in Highbury Crescent.
She added: “It’s height and bulk would also diminish the presence of the library building with the conservation area.”
Ms Grave explained that the original scheme was refused by Islington’s east area planning committee because it would have resulted in an “adverse visual impact on the character and the appearance of the local conservation scene.”
The development was also contrary to the council’s own conservation and environmental policies.
At the same time it failed to meet a satisfactory 50 per cent affordable housing criterion as laid down in the London Mayor’s London Plan.
Ms Grave said that while Holloway Road had a reputation of being yet another traffic clogged highway it contained an “interesting mix “ of properties and shops of varying historic importance.
Russell Harris, QC for English Partnership, said it was “saddening” that councillors had chosen to reject the original scheme – despite support it received from Islington’s own planning officers.
He added: “The case made by the authority is incomplete, insubstantial and lacking in force.”
Mr Russell said that allegations of harmful loss of outlook are “empty vessels” unsupported by any rational evidence. He maintained there is no legal right to a view.
“Planning does not protect any given view or outlook from development,” he said.
“Those who currently have a view to the development site look over an ugly, uninspiring commercial yard."
* The inquiry continues today (Friday) at The Resource Centre in Holloway Road next door to Waitrose.
From Monday it will continue at the Crescent Suit, Ronald Road, Highbury. Residents will have their opportunity to speak on Tuesday at 10am. |
 |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
