Since forming in May 2018, Community Plan For Holloway’s (CP4H) role has been to amplify the voices of the thousands of local residents it has engaged with, who’ve expressed their views and concerns about the redevelopment of the Holloway Prison site.
Islington Council (LBI) have just completed a consultation on the planning application submitted by the developer Peabody. The pdf below is CP4H’s response to the consultation, informed by everything local people have told us in the past 2.5 years and the hard work campaign members have put in to analyse the planning application, which includes over 330 documents, many of which are hundreds of pages long. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to producing this document.
We have a number of objections to the proposals, which in many cases represent specific failure to comply with the Planning Policy framework. These include (but are not limited to):
– Height density and design failing to comply with specific Islington policies and having a severely detrimental effect on the local area and future users of the site.
– A proposed ‘women’s building’ that is not fully funded and excludes the local community, with a rear garden that is not fit for purpose.
– Lack of community facilities for nearly 3,500 new residents, many of them in social housing.
– Impact on existing local community facilities and public services
– Poor levels of sunlight and daylight in proposed dwellings
– Unacceptable loss of sunlight and Daylight in Neighbouring properties
– Overheating of many proposed flats and single aspect design
– Publicly funded social housing which includes shared ownership tenures unaffordable to many Islington residents.
– Mix and allocation of tenure discriminating against social housing tenants.
– A failure to propose an environmentally responsible construction, with excessive carbon emissions
– The failure to provide a traffic free design that supports cycling and other modes of transport.
– Poor and misleading consultation with the community
– The failure to consider design alternatives with lower negative impacts, complying with policy.
– Multiple inaccuracies which may mislead the public in the consultation process
– Omission of information that is required to make a full assessment of the impact of the proposals.