The Islington Council Planning Committee met to discuss a non-material amendment to a previously approved planning application for the redevelopment of the former Holloway Prison site. The committee voted to approve the amendment, which allows the applicant to make future changes to the scheme more easily.

Holloway Prison Non-Material Amendment

The committee considered an application for a non-material amendment (NMA) to planning permission P2021/3273/FUL, which was granted in August 2022 for the redevelopment of the former Holloway Prison site on Parkhurst Road, London, N7 0NU. The original permission was for a phased comprehensive redevelopment including the construction of 985 homes (including 60 extra care homes), a Women's Building, and flexible commercial floorspace in buildings up to 14 storeys in height.

The NMA sought to amend the description of the approved development and introduce additional conditions to set out the numbers of proposed dwelling units, floorspace, and building heights. Specifically, the application proposed to remove references to the number of homes and maximum building heights from the description of the development and place these details into two new planning conditions.

The report notes that the applicant, Peabody Construction Limited, intends to submit a future Section 73 application¹ to address changes required by the Building Safety Act and to adapt to viability and construction changes. The report states that the proposed NMA would facilitate this future application.

The committee voted to approve the non-material amendment, subject to conditions outlined in the Public Reports Pack.

Objections

The council received 58 objections to the proposed amendments. Concerns raised included:

• Height: Objectors argued that taller buildings would decrease sunlight to the neighbourhood, be out of character with the area, and set a precedent for future development.
• Number of dwellings: Concerns were raised about increased pressure on public services, overdevelopment, and a lack of affordable housing provision.
• Procedural matters: Objectors claimed that the application was not transparent, that it obscured critical development details, and that it reduced public scrutiny. Some argued that the changes were material and should not be considered a non-material amendment.
• Highways, traffic, and transportation: Concerns were raised about increased traffic, noise, and air pollution.
• Environmental considerations: Objectors expressed concern about pollution, the impact on local ecosystems, and the carbon emissions associated with taller buildings.
• Amenity considerations: Concerns were raised about loss of light, the overbearing impact of the proposed changes, and increased light pollution.

Arguments for approval

Peabody stated that the Section 96A application does not make any changes to the consented scheme, and is simply an enabling exercise to allow them to bring forward changes to phases 2 and 3 at Holloway Park at a later date. Betty Lieber, Senior Development Manager at Peabody, said:

the section 96A application does not make any changes to the consented scheme it is simply an enabling exercise which will allow us to bring forward changes to phases 2 and 3 at Holloway Park at a later date hopefully later this year the proposed changes before you this evening relate to the structure of the original decision notice and simply move the details from the description of the development into a condition there are no changes to the consented scheme through this amendment all of the existing controls within the existing permission will remain as such these amendments are clearly non-material and should be approved this evening

Lauren Thomas, an economist, spoke in favour of the application, stating that it does not change the overall application as it currently stands, but allows for the application to be amended in the future after consultations with local residents. She argued that requiring the applicant to start from scratch would undermine new housing in Islington, and that housing delayed is housing denied .

Planning officers stated that the proposed changes were a procedural exercise to introduce flexibility to the implementation and interpretation of the planning permission, and that any proposed material amendment would require a detailed planning application and assessment. They also stated that the committee would have the same level of scrutiny over any future applications, and that the alternative to this approach would be to go back to a full planning application, which could delay the project by a number of years.

Committee discussion

Councillor Martin Klute, Chair of the Planning Committee, said that he understood the sense of suspicion surrounding the procedural process, but that it was the result of a combination of legislation and case law. He clarified that the second staircase legislation was not in place when the application was first approved, and that other major applications in the borough were facing the same problem. He said:

what we're looking at is i suppose in terms of our decisions the committee is more about um setting the time scale against um any perceived risks of using this this slightly procedural approach to continue the application on on a more speedy basis than we would do if we went back to square one

Councillor Diarmaid Ward asked planning officers if the applicant was minded to reduce the quantum of social rent homes on the site, how would they go about doing that. Planning officers responded that the applicant would have to apply for a Section 73 or a whole new application, and that they would have to provide a new viability assessment to justify the reduction.