8 Comments
User's avatar
Philip Downer's avatar

This is just obscene. Everywhere in the country, local communities are blocking development. "Anywhere but here." It's tragic.

Richard Price's avatar

Just to say, in Highbury we supported an infill social housing project around a decade ago. We has worries that the density was too high (several times over the Mayor’s guidelines), and the scheme was adjusted. Zero-parking also helped it to fit into the existing road/built environment. It’s been a success. I’d encourage other Islington neighbourhoods to engage and support, not to stick your heads in the sand while our fellow citizens are left without affordable housing.

Prashanth Kuchibhotla's avatar

Social housing a favourite panacea prescribed by Lib Dems and Greens.

They forget that all arguments NIMBYs and current homeowners looking to maximize their house values will still be used. Only one they can't use is "Evil developer is making money and that's now allowed." It will be replaced by "it will attract the wrong crowd"

The blades of grass lost, view spoiled, what-about-services, bats/ newts/ badgers, all will be trotted out.

Tom Rider's avatar

You don’t need to own or control a piece of land to apply for planning permission. Britain Remade should crowd fund a planning application, submit and then see if the Planning Committee at Islington have the nerve to refuse an application for a scheme they initiated on their own land.

Bev's avatar

350 signatures is paltry especially when many may have been misinformed. Sounds like Islington wasn't keen but think they can now say, "well we tried." Not very hard though.

James's avatar

Appalling - a total afront to both natural and social justice. The entire system of discretionary planning needs to be abolished

Mark Hazell's avatar

Irony indeed, if you can’t build social housing in Islington where on earth can you? This would make good material for a comedy sketch you’d think … only it’s not funny.

I do have one admittedly somewhat tongue in cheek suggestion. Given that we supposedly have a ‘presumption in favour of development’ certainly at national level, and a regulatory framework that at least for safety and environmental issues abides by the ‘precautionary principle’ why not play them at their own game.

Just require the objectors to prove, why not proeeding with the development causes no harm (or if you’re feeling generous, less harm) to the borough.

Michael Hill's avatar

If this had been a private developer I think it almost certainly would have happened- there is no good reason in the planning system it wouldn’t even under our present stupid system. However, Islington is the developer here and they have ultimately decided not to put in the application (to themselves).