Islington residents have voiced concerns over the density of the proposed redevelopment of the former Holloway Prison site, as the Planning Committee considers a non-material amendment to the existing planning permission. Concerns include pressure on local schools, increased traffic, and air pollution.
The Islington Planning Committee met on Tuesday to discuss a non-material amendment (NMA) to the planning permission for the redevelopment of the former Holloway Prison site on Parkhurst Road. The applicant, Peabody Construction Limited, is seeking to amend the wording of the approved description of development and introduce additional conditions regarding the number of dwelling units, floorspace, and building heights. The proposed changes have raised concerns among local residents, who fear increased density and potential impacts on local infrastructure. Residents are worried that the increase in dwellings will strain public services and that necessary infrastructure won't be delivered alongside the development. They also cited concerns about increased traffic, noise, and air pollution, as well as parking issues.
The key changes proposed by the applicant involve removing specific numbers from the description of the development and including them as new conditions. The original description included references to 985 homes (including 60 extra care homes) and maximum building heights of up to 14 storeys. The revised description would read:
Phased comprehensive redevelopment including demolition of existing structures; site preparation and enabling works; and the construction of residential homes including extra care homes (Use Class C3), a Women's Building (Use Class F.2) and flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class E); highways/access works; landscaping; pedestrian and cycle connections, publicly accessible park; car (blue badge) and cycle parking; and other associated works.
The development includes flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class E)
and a Women's Building (Use Class F.2)
. The Committee Report notes that the Women's Building will provide refuge, resource and support for Women and girls as a legacy of the former use of the site as a Women's Prison.
To compensate for the removal of specific numbers from the description, two new conditions are proposed:
- Condition 55 – Unit Numbers: The development hereby approved shall be restricted to 985 residential homes, including 60 extra care homes.
- Condition 56 – Building Heights: The development hereby approved shall be built with buildings of up to 14 storeys in height.
According to the Committee Report, these changes are intended to future proof the extant planning permission
and allow for modifications in response to market, construction, and viability needs. The report states: In order to future proof the extant planning permission for the redevelopment of the wider site including its ability to be modified further to respond to market, construction and viability needs in the context of the decision made by the Court of Appeal in Finney v. Welsh Ministers [2019] EWCA Civ. 1868, this new NMA application seeks to remove the references in the description of the number of homes and the maximum building heights set out within the description of development and place these details in two additional planning conditions.
During the meeting, Councillor Martin Klute, Chair of the Planning Committee, clarified the scope of the discussion, stating, This is very dry, very technical, and is not about building heights. It's not about the numbers of apartments. This is an enabling exercise.
Despite these assurances, the proposed amendments have faced opposition from local residents. According to the Committee Report, the council received 58 objections from the public, raising concerns about potential increases in height and density, impacts on local infrastructure, and the procedural aspects of the application.
One resident stated that the application proposes to use section 96 to prepare for section 73 to make radical changes to the scheme in the future.
Another resident argued that the process undermines the role of the planning committee and weakens public scrutiny.
Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows for 'Non-material amendments' to an existing planning permission. Section 73 of the same act facilitates applications for the development of land without complying with conditions previously attached to a permission. The residents are concerned that the applicant is using Section 96A to make changes that should be considered material, thus avoiding the full scrutiny that a Section 73 application would require.
Betty Lieber, the senior development manager at Peabody for Holloway Park, responded to the concerns, stating, 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.
Planning officers addressed concerns about the potential for a series of non-material amendments leading to significant changes, stating that the council has the power to determine that multiple non-material amendments collectively constitute a material change. They also clarified that any future application to increase the quantum of social rent homes on the site would be subject to full public consultation and re-examination by the committee.
