The Islington Planning Committee met to discuss a hybrid planning application for the New Barnsbury Estate, which includes both detailed and outline elements for up to 1,161 homes, a nursery, a community centre, commercial space, and extensive landscaping; the committee heard objections from residents and the Islington Society, but ultimately voted to approve the scheme due to overwhelming support from residents.

New Barnsbury Estate Redevelopment

The committee considered planning application P20251765OUT for a hybrid development on the New Barnsbury Estate¹, a project that has been in development since initial approval in 2023. The application includes detailed plans for 711 homes in 12 buildings, a nursery, a community centre, and landscaping, as well as outline plans for up to 405 additional homes and 1,500 square metres of commercial space. The proposal aims to replace 291 existing social rent homes with modern units and add 135 new social rent homes.

Decision: The committee voted to approve the scheme.

Arguments for the scheme:

• Housing Delivery: The development would contribute 1,116 homes towards the borough's housing targets. Councillor Diarmaid Ward said that the homes would provide the best life chance for young people whether that is in the form of a home or whether that is in the form of opportunities for all of those reasons .
• Improved Housing Quality: The 291 replacement homes would be larger, modern, and of better standards, with protected rent levels.
• Affordable Housing: The scheme includes 135 new social rent dwellings to address housing needs, with no intermediate products included.
• Nomination Agreements: Enhanced nomination agreements would ensure that those with the most need receive housing.
• Community Benefits: The development includes an enlarged, improved, and multifunctional community floor space and nursery, as well as improved retail provision prioritizing local traders. The new Sunnyside Community Center will be almost triple the size of the existing one.
• Environmental Improvements: The project would enhance landscaping and open space, improve the urban greening factor, and increase tree canopy cover, with contributions towards improvements to nearby parks like Barnard Park and Grimaldi Park.
• Economic Benefits: The scheme includes a commitment to on-site construction apprenticeships, each with a London Living Wage and a bursary of £28,000.
• Resident Support: A representative of Newlon Housing Trust, the developer, stated that there was a majority support for the new development from existing tenants.

Arguments against the scheme:

• Increased Harm: Councillor Toby North expressed concern that the plan would increase harm to the site without sufficient benefit.
• Housing Quality Concerns: There would be a substantial increase in single-aspect properties and properties that do not meet Building Research Establishment (BRE) recommendations for daylight and sunlight.
• Lack of Affordable Housing: The proposal does not meet the 50% affordable housing target.
• Impact on Neighbours: The development would significantly reduce light to neighbouring properties, many of which are social housing units.
• Design Issues: The Design Review Panel's steer for a new approach to the master plan was not adequately addressed.
• Height and Massing: The height and massing of the buildings would negatively impact the context and heritage of the area, with seven tall buildings on a site not allocated for such structures.
• Loss of Open Space: Despite improvements in the quality of open space, there would be a technical loss of open space, contrary to policy.
• Retail Reduction: There would be a reduction in retail space in a local shopping area.

Key Discussion Points:

• Viability: There was a significant difference between the council's and the applicant's viability assessments, particularly regarding land value.
• Daylight and Sunlight: Concerns were raised about the impact of the development on daylight and sunlight for neighbouring properties, with objectors claiming inaccuracies in the applicant's assessments.
• Building Safety Act: The Building Safety Act² requires two means of escape, which has led to instances of single-aspect units in the development.
• Biodiversity: Despite an increase in the number of trees, there would be a biodiversity loss due to the way biodiversity net gain is calculated.

Objections from Residents and the Islington Society

Several residents and representatives from the Islington Society voiced strong objections to the proposed redevelopment.

Hilary Norris, a resident, expressed concerns about the adverse effects of the proposed towers on surrounding conservation areas, arguing that the towers would violate urban design guidelines and the development plan. She highlighted that the towers' height would be significantly greater when viewed from the canal towpath due to the elevated ground. Norris also raised concerns about the potential for the flats to be sold off-site to absent landlords, leading to empty blocks and inflated rents.

Emma Smith from the Islington Society raised concerns about the over-densification of the site and multiple contraventions of the London and Islington local plans. Smith criticised the height of the canal-side towers, the dwelling density, and the reduction in green space per person. She also noted that a significant percentage of new habitable rooms would fail BRE standards for daylight, and that there would be a high number of single-aspect units.

Dr. Eleanor Vasilika expressed concerns about the impact of the development on the neighbourhood's character and the availability of amenities. She questioned the necessity of doubling building heights and raised concerns about safety and maintenance in the area.

Veronica Grimaldi, a resident of a nearby building, raised concerns about the loss of security and privacy due to the removal of gated fencing and the creation of a public right-of-way adjacent to her window. She also highlighted health concerns related to ventilation and mold, as well as the loss of natural light to her flat.

A representative from Fife Terrace raised concerns about inaccuracies and absent information in the sunlight and daylight impact assessments, particularly regarding the effects on properties in the canal region west conservation area.

Applicant's Response

Representatives from Newlon Housing Trust and Mount Anvil addressed the concerns raised by objectors and provided additional context for the planning application.

They emphasised that the plans to transform the estate were initially approved in 2023 and that the updated plans were designed to meet new fire and building safety legislation. The applicant stated that the development would not only replace existing homes but also address overcrowding and deliver additional social rented homes. They also highlighted that the first homes built would be for social needs and that Newlon was taking a risk by investing tens of millions of pounds upfront to unlock the development.

Celine, a resident of the New Barnsbury Estate, spoke in favour of the redevelopment, highlighting the poor living conditions in the existing buildings and the need for improved green spaces and facilities for young people. She argued that many of the objections came from a place of comfort rather than lived experience and that the development represented health, safety, dignity, and stability for families who have been waiting for years.

The applicant's team addressed specific concerns about the height of the buildings, viability, and daylight/sunlight impact. They stated that the designs had been amended to gain officer support and that they were comfortable that the impact on light for residents in Old Barnsbury would be minimal.

Additional Points

• Councillor Clare Jeapes raised concerns about public access to the pathway beside the canal and the protection of wildlife during and after the development.
• Councillor Benali Hamdache asked about the design features and building relationships that had been previously deemed acceptable, as well as the impacts on light for neighbouring properties.
• Councillor Ruth Hayes inquired about the balance of properties and whether overcrowding would be alleviated, as well as the nomination process for residents from Old Barnsbury moving to the new site.
• Councillor Diarmaid Ward asked about apprenticeships, shared equity for leaseholders, and rents below social rent, as well as measures to prevent flats from being bought up by foreign investors and left empty.
• Officers clarified that a dentist would be an acceptable use for the commercial space under the Class E designation³.