The Planning Sub Committee A of Islington Council met on Monday 26 January 2026 to discuss two planning applications. The committee granted planning permission for a rooftop extension at the Doubletree by Hilton, 60 Pentonville Road, and approved tree works at 94 Gifford Street.

Doubletree by Hilton, 60 Pentonville Road

The committee granted planning permission for the erection of a rooftop extension at the sixth-floor level of the Doubletree by Hilton hotel at 60 Pentonville Road, Islington, London, N1 9LA. The extension will provide an additional 29 hotel bedrooms, a new stair core, and relocation of plant equipment. The decision was made subject to several conditions, including detailed specifications for materials, cycle parking, refuse and recycling storage, energy efficiency measures, green biodiversity roofs, bat and bird boxes, BREEAM certification, solar PV panels, air source heat pumps, noise level controls, and fire safety measures. A condition was also imposed to restrict the use of the accommodation solely as a hotel (Use Class C1) and to limit individual guest stays to a maximum of 90 consecutive nights per calendar year.

During the discussion, concerns were raised by local residents regarding incomplete daylight assessments, the increased height and dominance of the proposed extension, and potential loss of privacy and light. Sergan Jamal, a resident living opposite the hotel, highlighted that the daylight assessment report did not include listed buildings opposite the hotel, making its conclusions unsubstantiated. Ashraf Piran, a resident of a neighbouring property, expressed concerns about the loss of privacy due to direct viewing onto his balcony from the proposed additional floors and the overbearing nature of the extension.

The applicant's agent, Miss Megan Wright of Walsingham Planning, stated that the design had been carefully developed to preserve the setting of nearby heritage assets and enhance the hotel's character. They also highlighted benefits such as reduced plant noise and the provision of high-quality visitor accommodation.

Councillor Jeapes questioned the logistics of crane placement during construction, which the planning officer clarified was a construction process matter outside of planning control.

The committee also discussed the potential for noise and vibration disturbance, with the submitted noise assessment predicting compliance with Islington's plant noise criteria, except for the standby generator. Conditions were recommended to ensure that all plant equipment has a noise rating at least 5dB(A) below background noise levels. Concerns were also raised about the lack of a condition mandating the use of only electric vehicles for deliveries, with members noting frustration that the applicant had not proactively offered such a condition.

The committee noted that they were obligated to consider the Planning Inspector's appeal decision and previous reasons for dismissal. Ultimately, members felt there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate potential additional noise and disturbance, particularly from Sunday and Bank Holiday operations, due to the absence of a guaranteed minimum percentage of electric vehicles.

94 Gifford Street

The committee approved tree works at 94 Gifford Street, London, N1 0DF. The application, submitted by Councillor Paul Convery, sought permission to prune an ash tree (T1) subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The approved works include a crown reduction of approximately 4 metres back to previous pruning points and the removal of epicormic shoots from the main stems and limbs. The decision was made subject to conditions relating to the time limit for the works, compliance with British Standards for tree work, and specific requirements to protect the tree during the execution of the works. Informatives were also provided regarding wildlife protection, bat and bird considerations, and the need for landowner permission.

Councillor Jeapes expressed a general dislike for trees being cut but acknowledged the necessity of pruning for tree health, agreeing with the proposal to keep the tree in good health. The case officer, Linus Irons, stated that the works were unlikely to cause detrimental effects to the tree's condition or its amenity value, as they were aimed at maintaining the tree at its current size and shape. The tree was described as being in good condition and of a mature age, with the ash species being tolerant of such pruning. The works were considered justified for the reasonable maintenance of a mature tree in an urban environment.