The Planning Sub Committee A of Islington Council met on Monday 20 July 2026 to consider two planning applications. The committee granted planning permission for the conversion of a single dwelling into two flats at 93 Axminster Road and for the comprehensive refurbishment and extension of office buildings at 68-70 and 60 Goswell Road.

93 Axminster Road, London N7 6BS

The committee granted planning permission for the conversion of a single dwellinghouse into two self-contained flats (one two-bedroom and one three-bedroom) at 93 Axminster Road¹. The proposal also included a rear ground-floor extension, a mansard roof extension, the installation of cycle storage, an air source heat pump (ASHP), and photovoltaic (PV) panels.

Concerns were raised by objectors and Councillor Jonathan Ward, Councillor for Tollington Ward, regarding the quality of accommodation, design inconsistencies, potential future use as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), and the adequacy of sustainability measures. Councillor Ward specifically highlighted issues with floor area discrepancies, insulation depth, and the single heat pump for two flats. Jamie Curran, a local resident, echoed these concerns, emphasizing the need for detailed, evidence-led design to ensure the homes are quiet, cool, and usable. Christopher Proctor, an architect, raised concerns about insufficient roof depth for insulation and inadequate front terrace design.

The planning officer clarified that the condition restricting permitted development rights for HMO conversion was necessary to maintain family-sized units. Regarding sustainability, the officer stated that assessments were made against the council's guidance and planning policy, and that for conversions of existing buildings, certain standards are naturally constrained.

The applicant's representative, who was contacted on the day of the meeting, acknowledged some inconsistencies but stated they had not had time to fully investigate them. They argued that the proposed condition restricting HMO use was unreasonable, as a previous planning permission for extensions allowed for a larger occupancy.

The committee discussed the legality of the HMO condition, with officers confirming that such conditions have been successfully imposed in similar cases and are considered reasonable and necessary. Councillor Martin Klute, Member for St. Peter's and Canalside Ward, sought clarification on the level of detail required for assessing applications of this scale, with officers explaining that assessments are proportionate to the proposal. Councillor Giulio Ferrini, Councillor for Pluck and Ward, inquired about the viability assessment, which indicated no affordable housing contribution was viable.

Ultimately, the committee voted to grant planning permission, with Councillor Sheridan Kates expressing satisfaction with the officers' responses regarding detailed design, noting that new build policies should not be applied to existing conversions. Councillor Ferrini, while recommending the inclusion of the HMO condition, acknowledged that the council can enforce such conditions.

68-70 & 60 Goswell Road, London EC1M 7AD

Planning permission was granted for the comprehensive refurbishment and extension of the existing office buildings at 68-70 and 60 Goswell Road². The approved development includes façade alterations, new roof extensions with terrace space, PV panels, plant areas with screening, new shopfronts, and associated works to improve accessibility and fire safety. The project will increase the Gross Internal Area (GIA) by 374 square metres.

During the discussion, Councillor Martin Klute questioned the number and angle of the PV panels, seeking clarification on why they were mounted suboptimally. The planning officer explained that the angle was a balance between visibility and energy performance, and that the panels were not visible from the public realm. Councillor Klute also raised concerns about potential light pollution in the rear courtyard, but officers stated that no such impact was identified and that a condition for plant noise had been imposed.

The applicant's representative, Charles from CMA, highlighted the collaborative process with the council's team and the balance struck between heritage importance and sustainability requirements. They confirmed that the PV panels were maximised and angled to avoid public visibility. Regarding the removal of the external escape staircase, they stated this was in response to objectors and that they were happy to adhere to additional conditions requested by neighbours.

Councillor Sheridan Kates inquired about the maintenance of the green roof, and the applicant expressed willingness to accept a maintenance condition. Councillor Giulio Ferrini asked about the projected EPC³ rating and engagement with residents regarding daylight and sunlight impacts. The applicant stated they did not have the EPC figure readily available but confirmed extensive consultation with neighbours. Officers clarified that the daylight and sunlight report was based on a worst-case scenario and that the removal of the external staircase would not negatively impact these assessments.

The committee deliberated, with Councillor Klute noting the gentle intensification of the site and the strong sustainability measures. Councillor Kates supported the proposal, emphasizing the applicant's extensive work with planning officers and the reinstatement of the rear of the building to its original state. A condition regarding green roof maintenance was proposed and seconded, to be added to the existing conditions. The committee then voted to grant planning permission.