Consultation Statement - Islington Council

2 Issues and Options consultation
Option 16 -
Retaining
existing
employment
spaces
&
Option 17 -
Redevelopment
of existing
employment
space
Some developers object to
minimum marketing periods. Some
developers considered options 16
and 17 too restrictive. Jones Lang
LaSalle prefer a market demand
assessment and refurbishment
viability assessment instead of a
marketing assessment.
A number of developers requested
more detailed policies, including in
relation to the marketing period and
the definition of 'significant
increase'
Some support for expansion of
employment uses.
2 comments objecting to use of
floorspace as a measure, rather
than number of employees
La Salle Management Ltd called for
more flexibility for loss outside the
CAZ
LMU and High Speed 1 definition
of employment is too narrow and
ignores PPS4
Marketing provides more direct and reliable
evidence compared to a market demand
assessment and the marketing period allows
adequate opportunities for alternative
employment uses to be established where
possible. The strategic protection of
employment land is important for long-term
sustainability. Assessing the viability of
refurbishment could be undertaken as part
of the marketing evidence. Properties should
be marketed at a price appropriate to their
condition.
The Direction of Travel policy was more
specific about marketing and about the level
of increases expected. The Submission
document includes an appendix giving
detailed requirements for marketing.
It is difficult to confirm the number of
employees, existing or proposed. Floorspace
is a more practical measure. Users can also
change within the same Use Class and this
leads to variations in employment densities.
Direction of Travel policies refer specifically
to CAZ and non-CAZ locations
The definition is addressed in the Core
Strategy. PPS 4 does not define 'employment'
but defines 'economic development'.
Option 18 -
New
employment
space
Workspace Group supports
promotion of SMEs and flexible
design
A number of developers consider
that servicing should be assessed
on a site by site basis and that
off-street may not be possible in
some cases.
The policy is considered sufficiently flexible.
There is strong evidence about the failure of
live-work to provide genuine employment
space and about the significant pressures for
live-work units to change Use to residential
Development Management Policies: Regulation 25 Consultation Statement Islington Council
13