APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

Home , Hornsey

PROOF OF EVIDENCE FOR LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF SAKIBA GURDA

Appeal by Ashburton Trading Ltd

Site at 45 Hornsey Road, land and railway arches 1-21 rear of 45 Hornsey Road and 252 Holloway Road, London N7

PINS Ref: APP/V5570/A/12/2171435

LBI Ref: P110486

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

I am Sakiba Gurda. My current position is Spatial Planning Team Manager at the London Borough of Islington. I have worked as a town planner for over 16 years, almost entirely in planning policy/spatial planning, with 14 years of experience of working for London boroughs.

I hold a Bachelor of Science Honours Degree in Environmental Planning and a Postgraduate Diploma in Town and Country Planning from Birmingham City University (formerly University of Central England in Birmingham). I also hold a Master’s Degree in Management from University of Westminster.

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

Contents page 1 Summary 4 2 Introduction 6 3 London Plan policy and Core Strategy policy development 6 4 Core Strategy adoption and commentary – tall buildings policy 6 5 Student accommodation policies 14 6 Further Alterations to the London Plan 17

Appendix 1: Delivery of non-self-contained accommodation in Islington: 2010/11 to 2013/14 plus pipeline developments

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

1. Summary

1.1. This proof of evidence first details the background to Islington’s Core Strategy policy CS9E, which sets out the council’s strategic policy on tall buildings. This background includes the London Plan 2008, which was the adopted London Plan at the time that the Core Strategy was being prepared, as well as the (at the time) emerging Draft Replacement London Plan, which was subsequently adopted in July 2011.

1.2. Policy CS9E sets out the approach that was required in policy 7.7A of the then- emerging Draft Replacement London Plan, that “Tall and large buildings should be part of a plan-led approach to changing or developing an area by the identification of appropriate, sensitive and inappropriate locations. Tall and large buildings should not have an unacceptably harmful impact on their surroundings”. A similar policy was contained in policy 4B.9 of the then-adopted 2008 London Plan.

1.3. The proof then sets out that this plan-led approach in CS9E was informed by the document Tall Buildings Evidence Base to inform Core Strategy 2010 (hereafter referred to as ‘the evidence base’). The inspector’s report to the Core Strategy endorses the approach in CS9E as being based on sound and robust evidence that followed the guidance produced by English Heritage and CABE.

1.4. CS9E sets out that “…. Tall buildings (above 30m high) are generally inappropriate to Islington's predominantly medium to low level character, therefore proposals for new tall buildings will not be supported. Parts of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell key area may contain some sites that could be suitable for tall buildings, this will be explored in more detail as part of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell Area Action Plan.”

1.5. The Court of Appeal Judgement concerning the previous appeal in this case gave an unequivocal conclusion on the meaning of CS9E. It concluded that “The use of the word “generally” in the policy text does not allow for the possibility that there might be parts of the borough, such as the appeal site, where tall buildings are appropriate.”

1.6. The Court, therefore, has definitively interpreted the meaning of CS9E, and that interpretation is that the only locations where tall buildings may be suitable in Islington are in Bunhill and Clerkenwell, to the south of the borough.

1.7. The site also falls within Site Allocation HC3, part of the London Metropolitan University (LMU) campus area on Holloway Road. This policy provides specific design guidance for 45 Hornsey Road stating that “The design should retain clear views of and be clearly subordinate to the Emirates Stadium.” A tall building would not be compatible with this policy objective.

1.8. Regarding the issue of design considerations and constraints, the appellants submitted representations at the Further Changes to Proposed Submission stage in June 2012. Their representation sought to challenge the council’s position on the suitability of a tall building at the site. (This has been definitively answered by the Court of Appeal’s judgement on the meaning of CS9E, in favour of the council’s position.)

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

1.9. The appellants did not pursue this point further during the Examination hearings. Nevertheless, further reinforcement of the robustness of the council’s position, as set out in CS9E and Site Allocation HC3 is provided by the inspector’s report on the Site Allocations DPD. The inspector’s report did not request any modifications to be made to Allocation HC3. Therefore we can say with confidence that the appellants had a chance to demonstrate to the inspector that the text ““The design should retain clear views of and be clearly subordinate to the Emirates Stadium” within allocation HC3 was not sound. They did not make this case, therefore HC3 adds further weight to CS9E as interpreted by the Court of Appeal, that a building which is not clearly subordinate to the Emirates Stadium is not suitable at this location.

1.10. Islington’s previous and projected performance in delivering student accommodation is a material consideration relevant to this appeal, and it is crucial that the Inspector is provided with up-to-date information regarding the delivery of student accommodation, and a clear understanding as to the quantum of student accommodation Islington is required to deliver during the plan period.

1.11. The proof explains how the overall targets for housing delivery in the Core Strategy were derived from the 2008 London Plan and the then-emerging 2011 Draft Replacement London Plan, which was subsequently adopted in July 2011, shortly after the Core Strategy (February 2011).

1.12. The proof sets out the justification for Islington’s restrictive approach to the location of student accommodation, as set out in the Core Strategy and endorsed in the inspector’s report.

1.13. Islington’s delivery of non-self-contained accommodation measured against the London Plan monitoring benchmark for non-self-contained housing across the 2010/11 to 2024/25 plan period has a shortfall of only 116 units. This demonstrates the council is not reliant on the level of student housing proposed in this application in order to meet the Core Strategy target for NSC accommodation.

1.14. The proof then sets out the revised approach to student accommodation delivery in the Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) which will be adopted in March 2015. The approach set out in paragraph 3.53a of the FALP is to “…encourage a more dispersed distribution of future provision taking into account development and regeneration potential in accessible locations away from the areas of greatest concentration in central London, especially that anticipated from housing led, high density, mixed use redevelopment of town centres (see Policy 2.15);…”

1.15. This revised approach to meeting London-wide need for student accommodation in the FALP further reinforces Islington’s restrictive approach to student accommodation and adds significant further weight to the council’s objections, which should strongly outweigh any material consideration in favour of the proposed development.

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

2. Introduction

2.1. Given that the development plan policies regarding appropriate locations for buildings of over 30 metres in height form the basis of the Council’s concerns in respect of the proposed development, I will set out the background to the adoption of those policies in detail and describe the evidence base that underpins them. As the delivery of student accommodation in London and Islington is also material to the Appellant’s case, and the policy context has changed through the Further Alterations to the London Plan since the original appeal, I will also provide detail on how this supports the council’s position on the provision of student accommodation.

3. London Plan policy and Core Strategy policy development

3.1. The genesis of the tall buildings policy, policy CS9E, in Islington’s Core Strategy (2011) came from (at the time) Draft Replacement London Plan (DRLP) and the London Plan (2008) which was the adopted London Plan at that time.

3.2. Policy 7.7 of the Draft Replacement London Plan was taken forward into the current London Plan (2011), with the same policy reference. Therefore although the London Plan 2011 was not yet adopted at the time that the council was formulating its Core Strategy and taking it through the policy adoption process, the approach was consistent with the approach that was used in the 2011 London Plan. An approach that has remained consistent to the present day.

3.3. London Plan policy Policy 7.7 – Location and design of tall buildings, part A, states that:

“Tall and large buildings should be part of a plan-led approach to changing or developing an area by the identification of appropriate, sensitive and inappropriate locations. Tall and large buildings should not have an unacceptably harmful impact on their surroundings”. (emphasis added)

3.4. This plan-led approach as set out in policy 4B.9 of the 2008 London Plan and policy 7.7 of the Draft Replacement London Plan directly informed the approach taken in the council’s Core Strategy.

4. Core Strategy adoption and commentary – tall buildings policy

4.1. The Core Strategy was adopted in February 2011 and includes various spatial and strategic policies which provide the overarching strategic direction for the Local Plan. The Core Strategy underwent extensive public consultation prior to the examination hearings, as follows:

 Issues and Options consultation for 6 weeks between 22nd September and 3rd November 2008.

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

 Direction of Travel ongoing informal engagement from late 2008, including formal consultation for 12 weeks between early June and August 2009.

 Proposed submission version consultation for 6 weeks between 26th October and 7th December 2009.

 Pre-submission changes version consultation for 6 weeks from 8th February to 22nd March 2010.

4.2. Informal consultation with stakeholders was also held at various times during policy development. The examination hearings into the Core Strategy were held between 23rd and 26th November 2010, chaired by independent planning inspector Karen McCabe. In her final report, the inspector requested that the council make several changes to the pre-submission version to ensure soundness. These changes were agreed by the council.

4.3. The Core Strategy was adopted by Islington’s full council on 17th February 2011.

Core Strategy policy CS9E

4.4. The overarching policy on tall buildings is in Core Strategy policy CS9, specifically in part E. This policy makes clear that tall buildings are not appropriate in the borough, with the possible exception of some locations in the south of the borough. CS9, part E states that:

“…. Tall buildings (above 30m high) are generally inappropriate to Islington's predominantly medium to low level character, therefore proposals for new tall buildings will not be supported. Parts of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell key area may contain some sites that could be suitable for tall buildings, this will be explored in more detail as part of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell Area Action Plan.”

4.5. The council’s policy in CS9E, and BC9 of the Finsbury Local Plan, and the evidence that underpins it, forms the basis of the council’s strategic, plan-led approach by identifying appropriate, sensitive and inappropriate locations. This is in full accordance with the plan-led approach in London Plan policy 7.7.

4.6. Regarding tall buildings, the inspector’s report (January 2011) into the Core Strategy examination endorsed the approach taken in policy CS9E, stating:

“The ‘2-stage’ process of analysing Borough wide constraints and opportunities before focussing on area based analysis is an appropriate approach consistent with recent EH/CABE guidelines [REP/178744/4]. Given the particular characteristics of Islington’s residential areas, treating them broadly as a constraint is not

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

unreasonable. Nor does the analysis conflict significantly with the approach to locating tall buildings in LP policy 4B.9 or DRLP policy 7.7.”1

4.7. The Core Strategy inspector’s report further discusses conformity with LP policy 7.7 in paragraph 48:

“The assessment finds that the only area which may contain some sites appropriate for new tall buildings is Bunhill and Clerkenwell. Further detailed analysis to explore possible suitable sites will form part of AAP preparation. In the remainder of the Borough it concludes that such buildings are generally inappropriate. The Council has agreed a change to the drafting of Policy 9E to reflect these findings and to clarify that outside Bunhill and Clerkenwell new tall buildings will not be supported (SC23). This ensures that the CS provides a clear and effective basis for the Council’s strategic approach to new tall buildings and is therefore endorsed. Any proposals that do come forward outside the AAP will be assessed against relevant policies in the LDF and the criteria in the LP. As the latter forms part of the statutory development plan, there is no need to repeat these criteria in the CS to ensure soundness.” 2

4.8. The use of the word “generally” in the policy text does not allow for the possibility that there might be parts of the borough, such as the appeal site, where tall buildings are appropriate. This was the unequivocal conclusion of the High Court and Court of Appeal, when considering CS9. Both the policy and supporting text are clear that the only locations suitable for tall buildings will be in the south of the borough, identified through an Area Action Plan (adopted as the Finsbury Local Plan).

4.9. The evidence base that underpinned the approach in CS9E is contained in the document Tall Buildings Evidence Base to inform Core Strategy 2010 (referred to hereafter as ‘the evidence base’). The justification for using 30m as a threshold above which a building is considered ‘tall’ is set out in the evidence base3: An application for a building that is more than 30 metres high is considered a PSI (Potential Strategic Importance) application where the borough is required to formally notify the Mayor of London under Statutory Instruments 2008 No. 580 Town and Country Planning, England The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. 30m has also been the threshold above which a building is defined as ‘tall’ in the 2004, 2008 and 2011 London Plans.

Background to evidence base

4.10. The council produced the evidence base in order to bring its (at the time) emerging Core Strategy policy into line with the London Plan (2008). The Unitary Development Plan (2002) policy D9 applied a blanket approach under which any proposed building of over 30m anywhere in the borough was deemed to be unacceptable. In 2007,

1 Report on the Examination into Islington’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Karen McCabe, January 2011), paragraph 46, p11 2 Report on the Examination into Islington’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Karen McCabe, January 2011), paragraph 48, p12 4 Tall Buildings Advice on plan-making, submitting, assessing and deciding planning proposals (English Heritage and Design Council, October 2014)

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

UDP policy D9 was cancelled by the Secretary of State as it was considered to not be in conformity with the London Plan (2008).

4.11. The evidence base uses the methodology set out in CABE and English Heritage’s ‘Guidance on Tall Buildings (July 2007). That document has not been withdrawn following the introduction of the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) therefore it is still material to decision making and confirms that the approach in the evidence base has not been superseded in national policy or practice guidance. English Heritage and the Design Council (the successor body to CABE) consulted on a revision to this guidance in late 20144, which continues to guide local planning authorities to use a systematic, evidenced approach that examines opportunities and constraints.

4.12. The evidence base uses a systematic approach, in two phases. First, a Strategic Analysis covering the whole borough, then an Area-Focused Analysis that examines each area’s potential suitability for tall buildings, covering land uses, building heights, building blocks and street networks.

4.13. The evidence base establishes that Islington’s built form is relatively low to medium rise, with the majority of buildings being between two to four storeys in height organised around a traditional street pattern5. It examines constraints and opportunities for tall buildings, to identify where they may be appropriate, subject to further detailed analysis.

4.14. The constraints considered were: protected viewing corridors, historically sensitive places and predominantly residential areas6.

4.15. The opportunities were7:

 close proximity to public transport nodes  the location of existing tall buildings  areas in the CAZ  town centres,  Opportunity Areas and  Areas of Intensification.

4.16. The Lower Holloway area, including the appeal site, was identified for further analysis as a Detailed Study Area for phase 2 of the evidence base8. The conclusions of the detailed study were that the Arsenal (Emirates) Stadium should remain the dominant landmark in this area; that new tall buildings in this area would detract from the

4 Tall Buildings Advice on plan-making, submitting, assessing and deciding planning proposals (English Heritage and Design Council, October 2014) 5 Tall Buildings evidence base to inform Core Strategy 2010 (London Borough of Islington, 2010) p13 6 Ibid, p15 7 Ibid, pp15-16 8 Ibid, pp34-39

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

importance of Nag’s Head as the area’s centre and the landmark of the stadium, and would result in a confusing, illegible townscape9.

4.17. The overall conclusion of the evidence base was that:

“The phase one and two of the analysis for possible locations for tall buildings in Islington has established that there are no locations where new tall buildings should be supported, other than possibly in the south of the borough.10”

4.18. This was the justification for policy CS9E, which was accepted as sound by the Inspector at the Core Strategy examination.

4.19. It should be noted that the evidence base does not say that tall buildings will necessarily be appropriate even in the south of the borough. The council subsequently explored the suitability of tall buildings in the south of the borough in the Finsbury Local Plan (at the time referred to as the Area Action Plan for Bunhill and Clerkenwell.) This has also been examined, found to be sound and adopted by the council alongside two other DPDs as set out in paragraph 3.1 above.

4.20. The council’s objection to the proposed development and the legal arguments made since the original inspector’s decision turn on interpretation of policy CS9E. The Court of Appeal provided a definitive interpretation of CS9E in its judgement of March 2014. In paragraphs 23 and 24 of the judgement, the Court of Appeal concluded that:

“In some cases, the words in a policy may “speak for themselves”: see per Lord Reed at para 20. In such cases, their application to particular factual situations will often be a matter of judgment for the planning authority and only susceptible to review on the usual public law grounds. But in my view, this is not such a case. I do not consider that there is room for the exercise of planning judgment in determining the meaning of CS9(E). The exercise that the inspector undertook of assessing the character of the area was one that had already been undertaken through the CS process. It was not relevant to the meaning of the policy. The meaning of “generally” in CS9(E) is a hard-edged question of construction for the court to determine.

In my judgment, CS9(E) bears the meaning given by the judge for the reasons that he gave. It does not say that tall buildings are inappropriate throughout the borough. The last sentence makes this clear. It says that tall buildings are generally inappropriate and will not be supported. The scope of the exception to the general rule is set out in the last sentence. If it had been intended to say that there could be exceptions to the general rule throughout the borough, it would have been necessary to say so. Instead, by making express reference to the possibility of exceptions in the Bunhill and Clerkenwell area, CS9(E) makes it clear that, save in that area, the general rule is to be applied and tall buildings will not be supported. I do not accept that the word “generally” is surplusage. It emphasises that the rule is the general rule subject to the stated exceptions. But even if

9 Ibid, p34 10 Ibid, p46

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

“generally” is surplusage, that is insufficient of itself to point to one interpretation rather than another. First, the policy should not be construed with the rigour that is applied to the interpretation of statutes which have been drafted by Parliamentary draftsmen and contracts which have been drafted by lawyers. Secondly, even in the context of statutes and contracts, arguments based on surplusage are rarely of much force: see Arbuthnot v Fagan [1995] CLC 1396, 1404 (per Hoffmann LJ) and Beaufort Developments (NI) Ltd v Gilbert Ash NI Ltd [1999] 1 AC 266, 274B (per Lord Hoffmann).”11

4.21. The Court, therefore, has definitively interpreted the meaning of CS9E, and that interpretation is that the only locations where tall buildings may be suitable in Islington are in Bunhill and Clerkenwell, to the south of the borough.

4.22. The approach outlined above was endorsed in the High Court Judgement in our Judicial Review of the original appeal decision. In paragraph 43 of his judgement, Judge Mackie QC concluded that:

“Reading CS9E, the meaning of CS9E is, as I see it, that tall buildings are inappropriate and will not be supported except in the Bunhill and Clerkenwell area. Of course these are matters of impression but the meaning of ‘generally inappropriate’ is coloured by the fact that the words ‘will not be supported’ appear in the same sentence. That meaning is also pointed to by the fact that the sentence that immediately follows explains that there are two areas, not Upper Holloway, that ‘may’ contain some sites that ‘could’ be suitable for tall buildings.” (emphasis in original).

4.23. The approach established in CS9E is continued in the Development Management Policies (DMP) policy DM2.1, part C [emphasis added]:

“The only locations in Islington where tall buildings may be suitable are set out in the Finsbury Local Plan (Area Action Plan for Bunhill and Clerkenwell). Any proposal for tall buildings must meet other design policies and have regard for the criteria set out in English Heritage/CABE's Guidance on tall buildings (2007).”

4.24. Consistent with both the Core Strategy Policy CS9 and Development Management Policy DM2.1, the Finsbury Local Plan sets out those few locations in the borough where tall buildings are considered appropriate. Policy BC9 states that:

“Buildings of 30 metres in height or more may be appropriate only within the areas indicated on Figure 17. These areas include sites identified in Policy BC2 (City Road Basin) and Policy BC3 (Old Street), as well as an area adjacent to the City of London boundary at Moorgate.”

4.25. Islington’s statutory development plan is therefore clear that because 45 Hornsey Road does not fall within one of the areas identified in the Finsbury Local Plan, a tall building is not considered appropriate. Any tall building on this site would be contrary to the adopted statutory Development Plan.

11 [2014]EWCA Civ 378, paragraphs 23 and 24

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

Islington Other Development Plan Documents

4.26. Further to the council’s Core Strategy, more detailed policies for Islington are contained in the Development Management Policies (DMP), Site Allocations (SA) and Finsbury Local Plan (FLP). These development plan documents underwent significant public consultation prior to the examination hearings, as follows:

 Issues and Options consultation on DMP and SA for 6 weeks between 26th October and 7th December 2009; and Issues and Options consultation on FLP for 6 week between 1st June and 13th July 2009.  Direction of Travel consultation on DMP, SA and FLP for 12 weeks between 8th November 2010 and 31st January 2011.  Consultation on additional site allocations in SA and FLP for 6 weeks between 11th May and 22nd June 2011.  Proposed Submission consultation on DMP, SA and FLP between 31st October and 12th December 2011.  Consultation on further changes to the Proposed Submission DMP, SA and FLP documents, to align with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was published in March 2012. Consultation took place for 6 weeks between 8th May and 22nd June 2012.

4.27. Informal consultation was also undertaken at various stages during policy development. The examination into all three DPDs was held in the week commencing 10 December 2012, chaired by independent planning inspector Sue Turner.

4.28. Following the examination the inspector requested that the council consult publicly on a schedule of main modifications to the DPDs, which arose from the examination process through statements of common ground and other discussions. The council consulted on these main modifications, alongside other minor modifications, for 6 weeks between 21st January and 4th March 2013.

4.29. The inspector subsequently requested that the council consult on further modifications, which were the removal of DMP policy DM8 (Affordable Housing) and the amendment of site allocation FP7 (107-129 Seven Sisters Road) of the SA DPD. The council consulted on these further main modifications for 6 weeks between 8th April and 7th May 2013.

4.30. The council received the planning inspectors report for DMP on 17TH June 2013; for SA on 17th June 2013; and for FLP on 30th April 2013. All three reports concluded that the respective DPD was sound and legally compliant pending incorporation of the main modifications which had been consulted on previously.

4.31. The council subsequently made these changes and the three DPDs were adopted at a meeting of the Full Council on 27 June 2013.

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

Site Allocations DPD

4.32. In addition to the above tall buildings policies, the site also falls within Site Allocation HC3, part of the London Metropolitan University (LMU) campus area on Holloway Road. This policy provides specific design guidance for 45 Hornsey Road stating that “The design should retain clear views of and be clearly subordinate to the Emirates Stadium.” A tall building would not be compatible with this policy objective.

4.33. The council consulted on Further Changes to its Proposed Submission versions of the three DPDs in May and June 2012. This further stage of consultation was carried out in order to ensure the DPDs aligned with the NPPF, which had been adopted in March 2012. At this stage of the policy process, Ashburton Trading submitted representations regarding the wording of site allocation HC3, concerning the certainty with which the Allocation should accept student accommodation, and also the issue of subordination to the Emirates Stadium as set out in 3.25 above.

4.34. Regarding the suitability of student accommodation at sites D and E (this appeal site), the council is not objecting to the principle of student accommodation in the proposed development. Regarding the issue of design considerations and constraints, Ashburton Trading sought in their representations at this stage to challenge the council’s position on the suitability of a tall building at the site. This has been definitively answered by the Court of Appeal’s judgement on the meaning of CS9E, in favour of the council’s position.

4.35. Ashburton Trading did not pursue this point further during the Examination hearings. Nevertheless, further reinforcement of the robustness of the council’s position, as set out in CS9E and Site Allocation HC3 is provided by the inspector’s report on the Site Allocations DPD. The only main modification requested by the inspector was to amend the allocation text to refer more clearly to nearby heritage assets, and did not refer to Site E, the appeal site12. If the inspector was concerned about the soundness of the text of HC3, she would have requested that it be modified. She did not do so.

4.36. Therefore we can say with confidence that the appellants had a chance to demonstrate to the inspector that the text ““The design should retain clear views of and be clearly subordinate to the Emirates Stadium” within allocation HC3 was not sound. They did not make this case, therefore HC3 adds further weight to CS9E as interpreted by the Court of Appeal, that a building which is not clearly subordinate to the Emirates Stadium is not suitable at this location.

Islington’s Development Plan conclusions

4.37. Given that the council’s tall buildings policy is based on a sound evidence base (referred to notably by the courts) which studied the borough and concluded that there are almost no locations suitable for tall buildings, the council does not see how

12 Report on the Examination into Islington Site Allocations Local Plan (Sue Turner, June 2013) MMS14, p9

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

the appellant would be able to make a contextual argument for allowing a tall building in this location.

4.38. The Court of Appeal confirmed this, stating that the inspector “did not carry out the necessary weighing of other material considerations against the serious breach of CS9(E) that the construction of a 25 storey building would entail.”

4.39. Note that the Court of Appeal judgement stated that “The exercise that the inspector undertook of assessing the character of the area was one that had already been undertaken through the Core Strategy process.”

4.40. All parties, including the Inspector, will be able to refer to and rely on the text supporting policy CS9, and the council’s Tall Buildings Evidence Base, just as the courts did.

5. Student accommodation policies

5.1. Islington’s previous and projected performance in delivering student accommodation is a material consideration relevant to this appeal, and it is crucial that the Inspector has available to him/her up-to-date information regarding the delivery of student accommodation, and a clear understanding as to the quantum of student accommodation Islington is required to deliver during the plan period.

5.2. Core Strategy Policy CS12 and Development Management Policy DM3.9 restrict the provision of student accommodation to specific allocated sites related to London Metropolitan University and City University London. Student accommodation is an element of the overall borough housing targets set in the London Plan. Islington’s restrictive approach to provision of student accommodation was adopted after greatly exceeding this element of the target for several years prior to formulating and adopting the Core Strategy. This is part of a more balanced approach which takes into account competing priorities for land uses.

5.3. During the period 2006/7 to 2011/12 (6 monitoring years) there were 3,120 cumulative Non-Self Contained (NSC) completions, vastly exceeding the relevant targets at the time for this type of accommodation. In some years the target has been greatly exceeded, for example in 2007/8, when the target was exceeded by over 1,000 units.

5.4. At the time that Islington was preparing the Core Strategy in 2009 and 2010, the adopted London Plan (2008) housing target for the borough was to deliver 1,160 dwellings per annum, broken down as 992 conventional dwellings, 133 non-self- contained and 33 vacant dwellings brought back into use:

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

Table 1: London Plan 2008 Housing targets

Annual Target Cumulative target over 15 years (2010/11 – 2024/25) Conventional dwellings 992 14,880 Non-self-contained 133 1,995 Vacants brought back to 33 495 use TOTAL 1,160 17,400

5.5. At the same time, the Draft Replacement London Plan was being prepared. Its target for Islington was 1,170 dwellings per annum, made up of 922 conventional, 250 non- self-contained and zero vacants brought back into use.

Table 2: Draft Replacement London Plan (October 2009) housing targets Annual Target Cumulative target over 15 years (2010/11 – 2024/25) Conventional dwellings 922 13,830 Non-self-contained 250 3,750 Vacants brought back to 0 0 use TOTAL 1,170 17,550

5.6. The target in Table 2 was adopted in the 2011 London Plan and remains Islington’s housing target until the adoption of the Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP). (Discussion of the approach to student accommodation in the FALP follows below in section 5)

5.7. At the time of preparing the Core Strategy, Islington was taking account of both the adopted 2008 London Plan target and the then-emerging Draft Replacement London Plan, which was subsequently adopted in July 2011, shortly after the adoption of the Core Strategy (February 2011).

5.8. As can be seen above in Tables 1 and 2, both the 2008 and 2011 London Plan targets for each borough contain separate monitoring benchmarks for non-self- contained accommodation, based on analysis of past trends and pipeline developments. A disaggregated breakdown of the self-contained and non-self- contained elements of the overall targets for each borough is provided in Annex 4 of the London Plan (2011)13.

13 London Plan 2011 Annex Four – Housing Statistics, pp291-293

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

5.9. Given the extraordinary delivery of non-self-contained dwellings in the years leading up to and during Core Strategy formulation, Islington decided to take a restrictive approach to further provision of student accommodation, limiting it to two areas around the London Metropolitan University and City University campuses, This was taken to ensure a balanced approach towards competing land uses, taking into account the scarcity of land in Islington and the need to provide sufficient conventional housing and employment land.

5.10. This approach was endorsed by the inspector in her final report on the Core Strategy examination: “Given the intense competition for available sites in this relatively small, densely built up Borough, it is therefore appropriate to manage the supply of student housing to ensure priority for planned jobs and homes, in line with the CS vision and objectives.” 14

5.11. The Core Strategy target for NSC accommodation and progress on the delivery against that target is set out below. This demonstrates the council is not reliant on the level of student housing proposed in this application in order to meet the Core Strategy target for NSC accommodation.

5.12. When formulating its Local Plan the council has allocated a sufficient amount of land for student accommodation to be able to meet the targets whilst fully complying with, rather than breaching, its development plan policies, including the Tall Buildings policy. There can be no justification for setting aside the development plan position on Tall Buildings in the name of quantity of delivery.

Table 3: Delivery and pipeline of non-self-contained accommodation Core Strategy target 3,633

Delivery 2010/11 748

Delivery 2011/12 168

Delivery 2012/13 399

Delivery 2013/14 280

Delivery 2010/11 to 2013/14 1,595

Pipeline (includes recent LMU site C 1,922 permission)

Pipeline plus past delivery 3,517

Shortfall to be made up from appeal 116 site

14 Report on the Examination into Islington’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Karen McCabe, January 2011), paragraph 60, p14

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

5.13. A full breakdown of the sites that have comprised past delivery and the pipeline of delivery is provided at Appendix 1.

6. Further Alterations to the London Plan (due to be adopted March 2015)

6.1. The current London Plan recognises that addressing demand for student accommodation should not compromise capacity to meet need for conventional housing, especially affordable family homes, or undermine the creation of mixed and balanced communities.

6.2. The Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) was published in January 2014, has been subject to examination and will be adopted by the GLA in March 2015. The approach to student accommodation delivery in the FALP continues the position of the 2011 London Plan as set out above, namely that delivery of student accommodation should not compromise the capacity to meet the need for conventional housing.

6.3. Furthermore, the FALP recognises that this objective may raise particular challenges locally, and especially in the four central London boroughs - including Islington - where 57% of provision of new student accommodation has been concentrated. Considering these factors, the Mayor’s new policy approach is to:

“…encourage a more dispersed distribution of future provision taking into account development and regeneration potential in accessible locations away from the areas of greatest concentration in central London, especially that anticipated from housing led, high density, mixed use redevelopment of town centres (see Policy 2.15);…” (FALP para 3.53a) (emphasis added)

6.4. Under the London Plan (2011) which is current at the time of writing, and which will be superseded in part in March 2015 by the draft FALP, borough benchmarks for provision of NSC accommodation are shown separately from the other components of housing delivery but this element of provision does form part of each borough’s overall housing targets. Some boroughs, such as Islington, have chosen to translate London Plan benchmarks for student accommodation into targets in their Local Plans, and others have not.

6.5. The council considers that even if the draft FALP has not been formally adopted at the time of the inquiry sessions, the revised policies and text within the FALP should be given full weight, as they have been through the process of examination and endorsed as sound by the inspector and will be formally adopted in March 2015. The Mayor has already sent an Intention to Publish letter to the Department for Communities and Local Government in December 2014.

6.6. The new housing targets within the draft FALP no longer have a separate benchmark for provision of NSC accommodation, although the targets themselves are still

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

comprised of conventional and non-self-contained housing. However, in line with the approach set out in FALP paragraph 3.53a (discussed above at paragraph 6.3) the non-self-contained element is derived only from pipeline developments. Delivery of non-self-contained dwellings will still contribute towards meeting the overall target. Given Islington’s priorities to deliver conventional housing and employment and the FALP’s strategic aim of dispersing future delivery away from inner London boroughs with a history of high delivery, Islington will continue its restrictive approach towards student accommodation. It is anticipated that Islington will be able to meet and exceed its overall housing target through provision of conventional housing

6.7. Islington has accepted the principle of student accommodation at the location of the appeal site in the Development Plan, but is categorically not dependent on maximising the number of student bed spaces at this site in order to meet the future and unmet need across London. This is recognised in the approach set out in the draft FALP paragraph 3.53a as cited above.

6.8. The council’s position is that the approach in the draft FALP adds further weight to the council’s development plan position, in that it removes any doubt around Islington’s responsibility for meeting London’s unmet need for student accommodation.

6.9. The FALP does not require Islington to modify its restrictive approach to student accommodation; in fact quite the opposite is true: It recognises the over-delivery in four central London boroughs including Islington in recent years and sets out the London-wide approach to dispersing and diversifying the location for student accommodation in future years.

6.10. Islington’s current Development Plan has allocated sufficient land (including the appeal site) to meet its targets for student accommodation and is still able to do so without allocating further sites or departing from key development plan policies such as CS9E and DM2.1.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The council remains of the view that a tall building is inappropriate in this location. It is the council’s opinion that the appeal proposal does not accord with the Development Plan.

7.2. There is a clear consistency of approach running through the council’s development plan policies on tall buildings, which was first established in the Core Strategy, on the basis of the tall buildings evidence base, and continued in the Development Management Policies and Finsbury Local Plan, all of which have been subject to thorough consultation, the examination process and have been adopted as sound.

7.3. The council assessed potential suitability of tall buildings in different locations as part of the plan making process. This has been done through the tall buildings evidence base, which took a strategic overview of opportunities and constraints, and then a finer-grained approach to relevant areas. The conclusion was clear in that only

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

certain areas in the south of the borough could possibly be suitable for a tall building. The council has taken this approach through to its conclusion in looking in more detail at the south of the borough and has identified those areas in the Finsbury Local Plan.

7.4. Changes to the policy context relevant to this appeal, to the appeal site’s physical context, do not affect the balance of planning considerations such that planning permission should now be granted.

7.5. In fact, the material considerations that have become relevant to this appeal since the appeal Inspector’s decision of 5th October 2012 was issued, including the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal regarding the interpretation of Core Strategy policy CS9 and up-to-date information regarding Islington’s delivery of student accommodation further indicate that planning permission should not be granted for the proposed development.

7.6. Crucially, in addition to this, the revised approach to meeting London-wide need for student accommodation in the FALP further reinforces Islington’s restrictive approach to student accommodation and adds significant further weight to the council’s objections, which should strongly outweigh any material consideration in favour of the proposed development.

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

Appendix 1: Delivery of non-self-contained accommodation in Islington: 2010/11 to 2013/14 plus pipeline developments

Permission Completed Reference Address FY Existing Proposed Net Change Postcode P062364 James Leicester Hall, 34 Market Road 2010 11 220 577 357 N7 9PN EC1R P070092 2 Myddleton Square 2010 11 8 0 -8 1XL P072869 301-315 Holloway Road 2010 11 0 316 316 N7 8HS 29-30 Wakley Street & 312-330 Goswell EC1V P081736 Road 2010 11 0 136 136 7LT P082373 429A-429P Holloway Road 2010 11 50 0 -50 N7 6LJ P090794 54 Balls Pond Road 2010 11 9 0 -9 N1 4AP P091562 35 St Thomas's Road 2010 11 8 0 -8 N4 2QH P092354 272-276 Pentonville Road 2010 11 0 10 10 N1 9JY P101321 28 Wynford Road 2010 11 0 4 4 N1 9SN

1,043 748

Permission Completed Reference Address FY Existing Proposed Net Change Postcode EC1R P071047 Durant House, 8 Herbal Hill 2011 12 0 45 45 5EJ P071376 35-43 Hornsey Road 2011 12 0 13 13 N7 7BP P081650 80 Highbury New Park 2011 12 19 0 -19 N5 2DJ P092347 The Haven Highbury House, 280 Holly Park 2011 12 20 26 6 N4 4BN P092642 556-564 Holloway Road 2011 12 0 149 149 N7 6JP P100258 14 Tufnel Park Road 2011 12 5 0 -5 N7 0DP P102457 254 St Paul's Road 2011 12 7 0 -7 N1 2LJ P110558 25 Freegrove Road 2011 12 7 0 -7 N7 9RG P112261 106 Calabria Road 2011 12 7 0 -7 N5 1HT

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

233 168

Permission Completed Reference Address FY Existing Proposed Net Change Postcode P081070 3-5 Thane Villas 2012 13 0 53 53 N7 7PH P082407 189-219 Isledon Road 2012 13 0 400 400 N7 7JR P091352 280-282 Holloway Road 2012 13 0 14 14 N7 6NJ P100246 710 Holloway Road 2012 13 7 0 -7 N19 3NH P101263 108-110 Fonthill Road 2012 13 0 14 14 N4 3HT P101626 Riversdene House 2012 13 67 0 -67 N5 2SX P110820 39 Packington Street 2012 13 3 0 -3 N1 8QB WC1X P121424 7 Cumberland Gardens 2012 13 5 0 -5 9AG

481 399

Permission Completed Reference Address FY Existing Proposed Net Change Postcode P111989 Barnsbury Reception Centre 2013 14 60 12 -48 N1 1HH P2013/1584/FUL 57 Kingsdown Road 2013 14 0 7 7 N19 4LD Mallet And Porter House, 465 & 465A, P091813 Caledonian Road 2013 14 0 350 350 N7 9BA Amber Court 1 (1-42 Amber Court), Bride P2013/3789/COL Street 2013 14 29 0 -29 N7 8PY

369 280

Total 2010/11 - 2013/14 2,126 1,595

Pipeline P100197 Morris Place 0 475 475 N4 3JG

APP/V5570/A/12/2171435 Site at 45 Hornsey Road, London N7

EC1V P111829 Bastwick St 487 805 318 7PD P110969 Wedgwood Court 316 323 7 N7 1XX LMU Site E LMU Site E (Appeal Site) 2013/2963/FUL LMU Site C 263 Holloway Road 0 862 862 N7 6NE P120351 295 Holloway Road 0 212 212 N7 8HS P120768 120 St John St 17 14 -3 N4 4EU P121278 83 Anson Rd 4 8 4 N7 0AS P2013/3246/FUL 456 Holloway Road 10 12 2 N7 6QA EC1Y P2012/0637/FUL Errol St 112 146 34 8SE EC1R P2013/4919/FUL 8 Herbal Hill 45 50 6 5EJ P112874 47-53 Leigh road 8 13 5 N5 1AH

Total pipeline 1,922

CORE STRATEGY BENCHMARK (A ) 3,633

DELIVERY 2010/11 TO 2013/4 (B) 1,595

TOTAL PIPELINE ( C) 1,922

DELIVERY + PIPELINE (B+C=D) 3,517

SHORTFALL TO BE MET FROM APPEAL SITE (A - D) 116