Consultation Statement - Islington Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 Issues and Options consultation 2 Issues and Options consultation Summary of representations and responses 2.0.1 A total of 318 comments were received from 54 respondents in relation to the Issues and Options document. Comments can be viewed online at www.islington.gov.uk/planningpolicyconsultations. 2.0.2 The main issues raised during the consultation, and the council's response to these, are summarised in Table 1, below. Table 1 Option/Issues Summary comments Response/Action Urban Design and Heritage Option 1 - Design Criteria General support from wide range of consultees, including the GLA, English Heritage, planning agents, developers, amenity groups and individuals. Most consultees wanted more criteria added to address amenity issues (privacy, loss of light), and high quality design and local distinctiveness. The GLA and others wanted criteria for tall buildings to also be included. English Heritage wanted more robust policy wording focused on understanding the character of the site and its surroundings, and suggested new policy wording The revised policy wording for the Direction of Travel stage was based on English Heritage's suggested text and incorporated the additional criteria, including amenity issues. The start of the new policy text set out that high quality design was required of all development. Criteria for tall buildings was not added to policy text for the Direction of Travel, because the Core Strategy policy addresses this issue (although this has been addressed in the Proposed Submission policy text - see Direction of Travel consultation response) . Options 2, 3 and 4 - Local Views Strong support from a wide range of consultees, including English Heritage, City of London and the GLA, for retaining LV2 to LV8. Option 3A was taken forward into policy as retains the historic view of St Paul’s Cathedral including from Farringdon Lane, which provides some of the valuable view opportunities. The new view also addresses Development Management Policies: Regulation 25 Consultation Statement Islington Council 7
2 Issues and Options consultation There was confusion as to what option 3 (changes to Local View LV1) was proposing, with a general resistance to the loss of the view including from the GLA and the City of London. The local land owner (ING) that proposed option 3B supported it. An agent on behalf of a site that previously had a taller building (CardinalTower) in the view corridor but has subsequently been demolished for Crossrail wanted the policy to exempt sites that obstruct or previously obstructed part of the view with a tall building. Thus allowing their redevelopment with another tall building that would also obstruct part of the view. Option 4 (new protected views) was supported. the existing inconsistencies with the City of London’s St Paul’s Heights and thus this option is supported by the City of London and is also the reason option 3C was not taken forward. Option 3B was not take forward as it would significantly reduce the places where St Paul’s Cathedral could be viewed and have a detrimental impact on the townscape of the area. Although diminishing the views of St Paul’s Cathedral would potentially increase development opportunities for new floorspace by allowing buildings over the railway this was not considered to outweigh the damage to the public views of St Paul’s Cathedral and the townscape. Other sites in the area were found to be able to accommodate the future planned growth in this London Plan area for intensification, without the need to infringe of the views of St Paul’s Cathedral. Views policies are intended to operate for a very long time, to preserve and enhance important public views for generations to come. When an opportunity arises to remove an obstruction within the viewing corridor (e.g. the redevelopment of a building that has partially obstruct the view for a period of time, after the view was first recognised as worthy of protection) the views policy seeks for the redevelopment to not continue to obstructing the view. Option 5 Conservation Options 6 and 7 General support for all parts (A, B and C) of option 5. English Heritage wanted a policy that recognises the diversity of the borough’s heritage assets and sets out key parameters by which they should be managed. Support for continuing to protect the views of the listed landmarks and the future identification of new landmarks. English Heritage’s suggested wording has formed the basis of the heritage policy. The protection of the listed landmarks has been taken forward. 8 Islington Council Development Management Policies: Regulation 25 Consultation Statement
Page 1 and 2: www.islington.gov.uk/LDF Developmen
Page 3 and 4: 1 Overview Development Management P
Page 5 and 6: 1 Overview Issues and Options consu
Page 7: 2 Issues and Options consultation D
Page 11 and 12: 2 Issues and Options consultation e
Page 13 and 14: 2 Issues and Options consultation H
Page 15 and 16: 2 Issues and Options consultation C
Page 17 and 18: 2 Issues and Options consultation G
Page 19 and 20: 2 Issues and Options consultation O
Page 21 and 22: 3 Direction of Travel consultation
Page 39 and 40: Appendix 1 Appendix 1 Specification
Page 41 and 42: Appendix 2 Appendix 2 General consu
Page 43 and 44: Appendix 2 • Berkeley Homes Plann
Page 45 and 46: Appendix 2 • City Piazza Resident
Page 47 and 48: Appendix 2 • Elthorne Learning Ce
Page 49 and 50: Appendix 2 • Help the Aged • He
Page 51 and 52: Appendix 2 • Islington Conservati
Page 53 and 54: Appendix 2 • Lawn Tennis Associat
Page 55 and 56: Appendix 2 • Martineau • Matrix
Page 57 and 58: Appendix 2 • Palmers Estate TRA
Page 59 and 60:
Appendix 2 • Seaforth Crescent TR
Page 61 and 62:
Appendix 2 • The Vestry • Thebe
show all

Consultation Statement - Islington Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?