Local Plan Topic Paper

Site Allocations

February 2020

1 Introduction and scope ...... 3 2 The overall approach ...... 4 Delivering development priorities ...... 5 Tall buildings ...... 6 Quantum of development ...... 6 3 Delivery of the Local Plan ...... 8 Site capacity methodology ...... 8 Housing ...... 10 Employment ...... 10 4 Strategic site allocations ...... 13 5 Non-strategic sites – consultation responses ...... 20 6 Unallocated sites ...... 25 7 Monitoring and implementation ...... 28

Appendix 1: Site Capacity Assumptions Appendix 2: Islington Housing Trajectory 2018/19

1 Introduction and scope

The sites identified in the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) (examination document reference PD2) and Bunhill and Clerkenwell Area Action Plan (AAP) (doc. ref. PD3) will play a key role in helping to deliver Islington’s Local Plan. Consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the proposed site allocations will help to meet the borough’s identified development needs alongside the infrastructure required to support growth. Site allocations bring certainty about what will come forward on different sites and therefore help to bring forward sustainable development without delay – a key aspect of the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ set out in the NPPF.

This paper provides background information on the drafting of the Site Allocations DPD and identification of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP sites. In particular it offers:

• an explanation and justification for the overall approach taken to site allocations; • discussion on how the documents assist with the delivery of the Local Plan; • a response to representations received during the Local Plan consultation process; • information on how the site allocations will be monitored and delivered.

Further information about the relationship between site allocations and the NPPF is set out in the Local Plan Soundness and NPPF Self-Assessment (doc. ref. SD32). During Islington’s Local Plan review process the NPPF and London Plan have also been subject to revision. For the avoidance of doubt, the documents referred to throughout this topic paper are the NPPF (June 2019) and London Plan (Intend to Publish version, December 2019).

2 The overall approach

Islington’s adopted and emerging Local Plan takes its lead from the London Plan, which provides boroughs with guidance and targets for housing and employment growth. Islington’s Local Plan sets out the amount of growth anticipated in the borough over the next fifteen years and identifies Spatial Strategy areas where this growth is most likely to be accommodated.

The Spatial Strategy areas are:

• Bunhill and Clerkenwell • King’s Cross and Pentonville Road • Vale Royal/Brewery Road Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS) • Angel and Upper Street • Nag’s Head and Holloway • Finsbury Park • Archway • Highbury Corner and Lower Holloway

The Local Plan includes policies setting out the key priorities and requirements for each Spatial Strategy area. The Site Allocations DPD identifies sites which will help to deliver anticipated growth in the Spatial Strategy areas, with the exception of sites located within Bunhill and Clerkenwell which are allocated through the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP. The Site Allocations DPD also identifies a number of sites outside of the Spatial Strategy areas which are considered likely to make a significant contribution towards meeting the borough’s development needs.

The chapters of the Site Allocations DPD group the sites according to each Spatial Strategy area, with a chapter for the important sites elsewhere in the borough. Each allocation identifies where development will take place, what uses will be provided, and when development is likely to occur.

A similar approach is taken in the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP, which includes policies on growth and conservation for the following key locations:

• City Fringe Opportunity Area • City Road • Farringdon • Mount Pleasant and Exmouth Market • Central Finsbury • Historic Clerkenwell

Relevant site allocations are cross-referenced from each policy in the AAP, with further information provided on allocated land uses, design considerations and phasing.

Paragraph 21 of the NPPF states that Local Plans should make explicit which policies are strategic policies. By virtue of their scale and capacity to help meet the objectives of the Local Plan, particularly in terms of housing and business floorspace delivery, the following sites are identified as strategic allocations in the Site Allocations DPD:

• VR1: Fayers Site, 202-228 York Way, Former Venus Printers, 22-23 Tileyard Road, 196-200 York Way • VR2: 230-238 York Way • VR3: Tileyard Studios, Tileyard Road • VR4: 20 Tileyard Road • VR5: 4 Brandon Road • VR7: 43-53 Brewery Road • VR8: 55-61 Brewery Road • VR9: Rebond House, 98-124 Brewery Road • VR10: 34 Brandon Road • AUS6: Sainsbury’s, 31-41 Liverpool Road • NH1: Morrison’s supermarket and adjacent car park, 10 Hertslet Road and 8-32 Seven Sisters Road • NH7: Holloway Prison, Parkhurst Road • ARCH4: Whittington Hospital Ancillary Buildings • ARCH5: Archway Campus, Highgate Hill • OIS24: Pentonville Prison, Caledonian Road A further nine strategic sites are identified in the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP:

• BC2: City Forum, 250 City Road • BC4: Finsbury Leisure Centre • BC8: Old Street roundabout area • BC15: Richard Cloudesley School, 99 Golden Lane • BC25: Land adjacent to Mount Pleasant Sorting Office • BC28: Angel Gate, Goswell Road • BC34: 20 Ropemaker Street, 101-117 Finsbury Pavement, 10-12 Finsbury Street • BC35: Finsbury Tower, 103-105 Bunhill Row • BC38: Moorfields Eye Hospital

The strategic sites are discussed in greater detail in section 4 of this topic paper.

Delivering development priorities

Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires plans to ‘seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change’. The Site Allocations DPD sets out the land uses that the council deems necessary to meet Islington’s development needs. In order to meet these needs and ensure that sites allocated for specific uses actually deliver particular types of development, Policy SA1 of the DPD states that proposals comprising uses which are not specified in the allocations will not be permitted. It is considered that this policy is necessary to make the best use of the borough’s limited supply of developable land, and that on balance it would be better for a site not to come forward for development than for it to provide a use or mix of uses that does not respond appropriately to the borough’s identified and evidenced need. At least in such a scenario the potential for a site to meet need at some point in the future, perhaps following a change in ownership, is retained.

Although Policy SA1 intentionally places a constraint on flexibility in order to maximise the potential of allocated sites to meet development need, there remains flexibility within individual allocations. The Morrison’s Site (NH1), for instance, is a relatively large and complicated site in multiple ownership. Although it has been the subject of development discussions for some time, uncertainty remains about whether future

development will be comprehensive or incremental. The mix of uses specified are therefore intentionally broad so as not to unduly constrain future proposals and to provide “flex” for changing circumstances and facilitate a viable scheme coming forward in the future.

Given Islington’s inner London location, and the fact that many of the sites are within town centres, close to major transport nodes and/or on key thoroughfares, a number are allocated for mixed use development. For such sites, the allocations provide clarity as to the types of uses expected; for example, active uses such as retail/employment on the ground/lower floors, with residential above. The exact mix of uses has intentionally not been specified in order to avoid restricting the viability of schemes and to provide sufficient flexibility for changing circumstances. The allocations provide clarity as to the weighting of the uses, for example “employment-led” or “retail-led”. The council considers that this approach will provide a useful starting point for discussions between Development Management officers and applicants to identify the most acceptable and viable mix of uses.

Tall buildings

The following sites are identified in the Site Allocations DPD and Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP as potentially suitable locations for tall buildings:

• KC1 King’s Cross Triangle • KC2 176-178 York Way and 57-65 Randell’s Road • KC5 Belle Isle Frontage, land on the east side of York Way • NH1 Morrison’s supermarket and adjacent car park, 10 Hertslet Road and 8-32 Seven Sisters Road • NH2 368-376 Holloway Road • NH10 45 Hornsey Road and 252 Holloway Road • NH12 379-391 Camden Road and 341-345 Holloway Road • NH13 166-220 Holloway Road • FP2 Morris Place/Wells Terrace (including Clifton House) • FP3 Finsbury Park Station and Island • FP8 113-119 Fonthill Road • FP9 221-233 Seven Sisters Road • ARCH1 Vorley Road/Archway Bus Station • OIS21 Former railway sidings adjacent to Caledonian Road Station • BC7 198-208 Old Street • BC9 Inmarsat, 99 City Road • BC10 254-262 Old Street • BC38 Moorfields Eye Hospital

The rationale behind the identification of potential tall building locations is set out in the Tall Buildings Topic Paper (doc. ref. SD28). Quantum of development

The potential number of homes and/or floorspace that each site may be able to accommodate has not been specified within each allocation in order to facilitate a design-led approach. However, the council has evaluated the potential capacity of each site, in order to estimate the potential quantum of development that each site can

6 deliver, in line with Local Plan objectives. It is intended that these estimates will be used for monitoring purposes. Further detail on this is provided in section 3.

In summary, the approach to site allocations is considered appropriate and justified, given the local context. It provides certainty about what is expected on each site whilst allowing a suitable amount of flexibility to allow for changing circumstances. This will facilitate viable development proposals to come forward without unduly constraining them with theoretical targets and parameters.

3 Delivery of the Local Plan

Each site allocation has been assessed for its potential to contribute towards meeting Islington’s development needs. The two priority need areas are housing and business floorspace. In the draft new London Plan, which is likely to be adopted in 2019/20, the GLA has set Islington a target of delivering 7,750 new homes by 2028/29, which equates to an annualised housing target of 775 units. Islington’s 2016 Employment Land Study (ELS) (doc. ref. EB4) suggests that 400,000sq.m of additional office floorspace will be needed by 2036 to support the borough’s anticipated economic growth. The site capacity assumptions for housing and business floorspace are set out by Spatial Strategy area in Table 1.2 of the Site Allocations DPD, and Table 4.2 of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP. The delivery of site allocations will be monitored on an annual basis in order to assess their contribution towards the borough’s overall growth targets.

Site capacity methodology

Islington’s site capacity methodology is set out in Chapter 1 of the Site Allocations DPD and Chapter 4 of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP. In summary the assumptions draw on the site area, potential building heights, appropriate mix of uses and site context. The assumptions also consider internal circulation space and estimates of existing floorspace. This provides net additional floorspace figures for each site and land use, which can be translated into estimated figures for the number of jobs and homes to be delivered. A summary of the estimated capacity of the allocated sites, including allocated sites with extant planning permission, is provided by Spatial Strategy area in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Estimated capacity of allocated sites by Spatial Strategy area Land use Spatial Homes Offices Industrial Retail and Social Other Strategy (sq.m) (sq.m) leisure infrastructure (sq.m) area (sq.m) (sq.m) King’s Cross 190 20,900 2,900 3,200 0 0 and Pentonville Road Vale Royal/ 0 4,900 14,200 0 0 0 Brewery Road LSIS Angel and 40 27,600 -500 8,000 1,500 0 Upper Street Nag’s Head 1,370 30,900 2,700 3,600 10,000 0 and Holloway Finsbury 220 22,200 -2,900 14,700 -800 6,400 Park Archway 510 8,300 0 500 3,600 0

Highbury 50 4,200 0 700 0 0 Corner and

Lower Holloway Bunhill and 840 201,400 -12,700 18,300 -12,000 17,300 Clerkenwell Other 890 17,100 700 0 -1,900 0 important sites Total 4,110 337,500 4,400 49,000 400 23,700

Note: housing figures rounded to nearest 10, floorspace figures rounded to nearest 100

The borough’s methodology and capacity assumptions are deemed to be reasonable and consistent with established technical guidance, such as the Homes and Communities Agency’s Employment Density Guide (2015)1. Where a site was identified through the London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 20172 or inclusion in Islington’s most up to date housing trajectory, the information provided was used as the starting point. For sites with extant permissions, permitted floorspace quantums were generally used, except where extant permissions clearly contradict current policy or where there is a reasonable amount of uncertainty as to whether they will be delivered.

The capacity assumptions within the Site Allocations DPD and Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP suggest that 3,062 homes will be delivered on large sites in the first ten years of the Plan period (2021/2-2030/31). This is consistent with the SHLAA, which covers a slightly different period of time and indicates that large sites in Islington (sites larger than 0.25ha) have the capacity to deliver 2,824 new homes between 2019 and 2028. The findings of the SHLAA informed the borough housing targets set out in the draft new London Plan.

For sites identified in the Islington Tall Buildings Study (2018) (doc. ref. EB14) as potentially suitable locations for tall buildings, the site capacity assumptions assume the provision of a building at the maximum height specified in the Study. Although it is acknowledged that tall buildings may not be delivered in all of the identified locations or at the maximum heights deemed appropriate, there is a realistic expectation that proposals will come forward for tall buildings in these locations. It is also considered likely that if delivery proves to be lower than the capacity assumptions for some sites, this will be offset by greater than anticipated delivery on other sites where the capacity assumptions were conservative. At a strategic level the capacity assumptions are considered to be reasonable.

In total the capacity estimates suggest that the sites identified in the Site Allocations DPD have the potential to deliver around 3,300 homes and 10,400 jobs, with the Spatial Strategy areas accounting for around 80% of this growth. The estimates prepared for the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP suggest that the proposed allocations could provide around 840 homes and 15,500 jobs. The allocated sites will therefore play a hugely important role in meeting Islington’s development needs and delivering new homes and jobs.

1 Homes & Communities Agency, Employment Density Guide 3rd Edition (2015), available from: https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/planning-policy/pdf/examination/national- evidence/NE48_employment_density_guide_3rd_edition.pdf 22 The London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2017, available from: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2017_london_strategic_housing_land_availability_assessment. pdf

A summary of the capacity estimates for each site allocation is provided in Appendix 1. These individual site assumptions should not be interpreted as precise figures to be used to inform future planning applications, but instead as theoretical assumptions which have informed area wide delivery targets.

Housing

Combined, the sites allocated within the Site Allocations DPD and Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP are expected to deliver more than 4,000 homes over the lifetime of the Plan, as illustrated in Table 3.1, making a substantial contribution to housing provision in the borough. The majority of the anticipated new housing (78%) will be delivered within the Spatial Strategy areas.

Islington has consistently met and exceeded the housing targets set for it through the London Plan, although the borough’s most recent delivery figures along with its projections for the five and ten-year housing supply suggest that meeting the current target of 1,264 dwellings per annum is no longer sustainable. The constraints placed on future delivery by the borough’s small size, previous high rates of delivery and diminishing supply of developable land has been recognised by the GLA, who have reduced the borough’s annualised target to 775 units in the draft new London Plan.

Islington’s 2018/19 housing trajectory (see Appendix 2) shows that, taking the draft London Plan target as the baseline from the 2020/21 monitoring year3, there is an established five-year supply which exceeds the borough’s housing target by 27%, with excess delivery of 1,034. Allocated sites are expected to contribute around 2,800 homes to the five-year supply, accounting for over half of the housing target during the first five years of the housing trajectory.

The delivery of new homes to meet Islington’s housing targets is not contingent on the completion of one or two specific sites, as outlined above. It is important to note that there will be other, unallocated sites in the pipeline that will also come forward and contribute to the borough’s overall housing delivery.

Employment

Delivering employment growth is another key objective of the Local Plan. As part of inner London, Islington has had extremely high rates of employment growth in recent years and this is forecast to continue. Further information about employment trends, evidence and policy can be found in the Employment Topic Paper (doc. ref. SD16).

It is expected that the allocated sites will deliver a large amount of business floorspace to support projected employment growth in the borough. The amount of floorspace and number of jobs that will potentially be generated is set out by Spatial Strategy area in Table 3.2 below.

The draft Strategic and Development Management Policies (SDMP) show that much of the borough’s anticipated office growth, in terms of floorspace and jobs, will be concentrated in the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP area and the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) fringe Spatial Strategy areas of Angel and Upper Street and King’s Cross and Pentonville Road.

3 It is anticipated the draft London Plan will be adopted prior to the start of the 2020/21 monitoring year.

Table 3.2: Employment generation from site allocations by Spatial Strategy area

Spatial Strategy area Estimated office Estimated job creation from floorspace creation Site Allocations (net) from Site Allocations (sq.m) 1. King's Cross and Pentonville 20,900 1,600 Road 2. Vale Royal/Brewery Road 4,900 400 LSIS 3. Angel and Upper Street 27,600 2,100

4. Nag's Head and Upper 30,900 2,400 Holloway 5. Finsbury Park 22,200 1,700 6 Archway 8,300 600 7 Highbury Corner and Lower 4,200 300 Holloway 8 Bunhill and Clerkenwell 201,400 15,500

9 Non-strategic areas 17,100 1,300 Note: figures rounded to nearest 100 Table 3.2 illustrates that there is also significant potential for employment growth in the Nag’s Head and Upper Holloway and Finsbury Park Spatial Strategy areas. The potential of each area is summarised below:

Bunhill and Clerkenwell: Seventy percent of Islington’s employment is concentrated in the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP area. Recent losses of business floorspace elsewhere in the borough, due in large part to the office to residential permitted development right (PDR) introduced in 2013, have increased the importance of the AAP area in meeting the borough’s demand for employment, and specifically office, floorspace. Prioritising office development in the AAP area where the PDR does not apply will help to compensate for losses elsewhere in the borough. Further detail on monitoring delivery for this part of the borough is set out in Chapter 5 of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP.

King’s Cross and Pentonville Road: The King’s Cross and Pentonville Road Spatial Strategy area sits partially within the CAZ, and partially on the CAZ fringe. The ELS suggests that it is important for the wider London economy to ensure that CAZ activities are able to expand into the area north of Pentonville Road and east of King’s Cross/Regents Quarter. In an attempt to secure a supply of office land capable of meeting the borough’s projected floorspace demand the SDMP prioritises office development in this highly connected, accessible location. Table 3.2 details that the site allocations proposed for the area have the capacity to deliver more than 20,000 sq.m of office floorspace and 1,600 jobs4, which will make a significant contribution to the economic growth of the area.

4 Calculated using HCA Employment Density Guide figures of approximately 1 job per 13sq.m of B1a floorspace.

Angel and Upper Street: As with King’s Cross and Pentonville Road, the Angel and Upper Street Spatial Strategy area is partially within the CAZ and partially on the CAZ fringe. Alongside retail and cultural uses, business use is a priority landuse in this location. Site capacity assumptions suggest that the proposed allocations could contribute nearly 28,000sq.m additional office space and approximately 2,100 jobs to the area.

Nag’s Head and Upper Holloway: Islington’s ELS identified limited B-use space in the Nag’s Head and Upper Holloway Spatial Strategy area. However, the proposed site allocations identify significant capacity for office use of 30,900sq.m with the potential to provide approximately 2,400 jobs. A large part of this capacity (22,287sq.m) is associated with just two sites – the Morrison’s site (NH1) and the Argos site (NH2) – both of which are referred to as possible tall building locations in Islington’s Tall Buildings Study (2018). This suggests that in the future the Spatial Strategy area could make an important contribution towards meeting the borough’s identified need for employment floorspace.

Finsbury Park: Finsbury Park is identified in the ELS as the area within the borough, outside of the CAZ, with perhaps the greatest potential for office growth given its excellent public transport links. The SDMP attempts to balance this potential against the need to support the area’s diverse retail offer and accommodate residential use where appropriate. The borough’s capacity assumptions suggest that the proposed site allocations could accommodate over 22,000sq.m B1 floorspace and 1,700 new jobs if brought forward for development.

4 Strategic site allocations

Paragraph 21 of the NPPF requires that ‘plans should make explicit which policies are strategic policies’. Table 1.1 of the Site Allocations DPD and Table 1.1 of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP clearly differentiate between strategic and non-strategic site allocations. The strategic allocations comprise sites that, due to their nature, location and/or scale, are considered likely to make a significant contribution towards meeting the borough’s development needs. The reasoning behind the strategic site allocations is summarised below:

Sites VR1-VR10 (excluding VR6): Vale Royal/Brewery Road LSIS allocations - The Vale Royal/Brewery Road allocations, with the exception of site VR6, are collectively considered to be of strategic importance to the borough. As set out in Policy SP3, Vale Royal/Brewery Road LSIS is Islington’s most significant industrial location and makes an important contribution to the local and central London economies. The Mayor of London’s Land for Industry and Transport Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) identifies Islington as an area where certain industrial uses should be afforded the strongest protection (termed ‘restricted transfer’).

Therefore, while industrial, storage and distribution uses (Use Classes B2 and B8) generally do not generate high employment densities, the council recognises their strategic importance (including for the employment opportunities that such uses offer) and will afford them a high level of protection alongside offices and workshops (B1 uses).To ensure the LSIS retains an adequate supply of industrial land and floorspace, proposals resulting in the loss of industrial floorspace will not be permitted. Similarly, proposals that would lead to non-industrial uses encroaching on the LSIS will be resisted. This is necessary as the borough has lost a large amount of industrial floorspace in recent years and is finding its remaining stock under threat from higher value uses, particularly residential and office uses.

The allocated sites in the LSIS were identified through pre-application discussions or planning applications. The allocations are clear that development proposals involving these sites should prioritise the retention and intensification of industrial uses, and office floorspace will only be acceptable as part of a hybrid workspace scheme. Site VR6 is considered a non-strategic allocation as it is the subject of an implemented planning permission for the provision of a mix of B1(a) and flexible B1 floorspace. If any amendments are sought to this permission, or new applications submitted for the site, the retention and intensification of B1(c), B2 and B8 uses should be prioritised.

The Vale Royal/Brewery Road LSIS allocations, and specifically allocation VR3 – Tileyard Studios – attracted the largest number of representations of any of the proposed site allocations when the council consulted on the Site Allocations Direction of Travel document and the Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 drafts of the Local Plan. The content of the representations is discussed at length in the Local Plan Review Consultation Statement but in summary the respondents, many of whom operate businesses within or adjacent to Tileyard Studios, object to the allocations restricting additional office development in the LSIS. For the reasons set out above the council believes its approach to the sites in the LSIS is justified, underpinned by the evidence in the Mayor’s Land for Industry and Transport SPG and Islington’s ELS, and in accordance with the draft London Plan. The GLA’s representations to the consultations on the Regulation 18 and 19 drafts of the Local Plan are clear in their

13 support of the council’s approach to safeguarding its remaining industrial land. The Employment Topic Paper (doc. ref. SD16) covers this issue in more detail.

AUS6: Sainsbury’s, 31-41 Liverpool Road - As detailed in the Strategic and Development Management Policies, the Sainsbury’s site is the most notable development opportunity in the Angel Town Centre. Policy SP4 states that it ‘is a key strategic site which could deliver a significant amount of new business floorspace’. The site was originally identified through the Angel Town Centre Strategy (2004) as one of few underdeveloped sites in the area that could provide additional retail space, accommodate other uses to contribute to the vitality of the town centre, generate employment opportunities and support the function of the CAZ. The allocation has been carried forward from the 2013 Site Allocations DPD but amended to reflect the priority given to business uses in the Angel Town Centre, as specified in policy SP4 part I.

In representations to the consultations on the Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 drafts of the Local Plan (see R19.0153), the site’s owner suggested that the allocation is inconsistent with national and regional policy, and there is no evidence to support the requirement for a significant amount of business floorspace at the expense of housing in this location. They also suggested that the council’s viability appraisal did not take into account abnormal costs impacting on the site, which mean that without the higher land values associated with residential development, the council’s policy objectives for the site will not be deliverable. In addition they argued that the scale of development envisaged in the viability study does not optimise the true capacity of the site, or the objectively assessed needs for the borough.

The council considers that the allocation reflects the fundamentally commercial nature of the site’s location, and the Local Plan priority of facilitating a healthy, successful economy. There is no explicit priority accorded to housing over other uses in national or regional policy, and the GLA’s consultation responses confirm that the draft Local Plan is in general conformity with the London Plan. More information on the Local Plan Viability Study is set out in the Viability Topic Paper (doc. ref. SD29), but it is worth noting that the viability study was undertaken using typologies to reflect the type of development likely to come forward during the Plan period. The typologies were based on allocated sites but the assessments included in the Viability Study do not constitute site-specific viability appraisals of the kind that would form part of the consideration of a planning application. Similarly, the quantum of development assumed for the typologies does not constitute the actual acceptable quantum of development for a site as that is something that will emerge during the planning process.

NH1: Morrison’s supermarket and adjacent car park – Policy SP5 part F of the Strategic and Development Management Policies explains that Morrison’s supermarket and the adjacent car park is the key opportunity site for maximising and enhancing retail floorspace in the Nags Head Town Centre, as well as having the potential to accommodate a significant amount of office floorspace, residential units and other town centre uses such as restaurants. As discussed in section 2, the site is in multiple ownership so although it represents an important development opportunity it is possible that development will come forward in an incremental rather than comprehensive manner.

NH7: Holloway Prison - The Holloway Prison site is the largest potential development site in Islington. It will make a significant contribution towards meeting Islington’s identified housing need by providing at least 50% genuinely affordable housing, and is also required to deliver high quality public open space and social and community infrastructure, which is likely to take the form of a women’s centre. The Department for

Education’s representations to the Regulation 19 consultation on the draft Local Plan (R19.0166) refer to the potential for the site to generate need for additional school places given the number of homes the site may accommodate, and suggest the allocation should be amended to require development to contribute towards meeting this demand. This amendment is not deemed necessary as school place planning work carried out with the residential development of the Holloway Prison site factored in suggests that there is sufficient capacity within Islington's existing school estate to accommodate any children moving to the area as a result of the development. The update to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan provides further detail on school place planning.

ARCH4: Whittington Hospital Ancillary Buildings - The Whittington Hospital site is allocated for health uses with the potential to accommodate some residential use. As set out in the allocation it is anticipated that St. Pancras Mental Health Hospital will be moving to part of this site, which constitutes an important social infrastructure gain for the borough.

ARCH5: Archway Campus - The Archway Campus site has the potential to accommodate a large number of new homes, including the provision of a significant amount of genuinely affordable housing, to contribute towards meeting Islington’s housing need. A number of representations were received in relation to this allocation as part of the Site Allocations Direction of Travel consultation, in general these were supportive of the principle of development of the site but critical of detailed proposals produced by a prospective developer. The landowner made representations to the consultation on the Regulation 19 draft of the Local Plan (R19.0178) welcoming the allocation, which they consider aligns with their proposals for a residential-led, mixed- use development. They did however suggest that the allocation should not be subject to justification against policy SC1 and requested an amendment to state that a tall building could potentially be acceptable on site subject to justification against policy DH3 and a detailed townscape and heritage assessment.

The council considers that it is appropriate for any proposals for the site to be assessed against policy SC1, which is consistent with the council’s approach to other allocated sites containing social and community infrastructure uses. The Archway Campus site is not identified as suitable for a tall building in the Tall Buildings Study. Any application for a taller building will be assessed on a case by case basis in line with policy DH3.

OIS24: Pentonville Prison – Although Pentonville Prison is operational, it has been reported that it is no longer fit for purpose and the council’s engagement with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) during the Local Plan review process suggests there is an aspiration to close the prison and redevelop the site. However, despite the MoJ’s representations to the Regulation 19 consultation (R19.0144), it was announced in November 2019 that the prison estate rationalisation programme associated with the closure has been shelved. It is therefore considered unlikely that the site will come forward for development in the early years of the Plan period although there remains potential for it to be delivered during the 15-year lifetime of the Plan.

Subject to any reduction in social and community infrastructure being justified, the site represents a significant development opportunity which could deliver a number of new homes to meet identified housing need and reintegrate the closed site with the surrounding area. Consultation responses relating to the site were generally supportive of the allocation, although the MoJ suggested that it should not be necessary to justify a loss of social infrastructure in this case. The council considers

15 that the provisions of policy SC1 do apply to this site and any loss of social infrastructure should be justified in line with its requirements.

The MoJ also suggested it was not appropriate to refer to a 'heritage-led' scheme within the allocation and justification section as opposed to the development considerations, and stated that it is unnecessary to refer to 'genuinely' affordable housing as affordable housing should be provided in accordance with the London Plan definition. They argued that it was unreasonable to have an expectation for the provision of in excess of 50% affordable housing without accepting the submission of viability evidence, and the council should explicitly acknowledge within the allocation that the prison is an exceptional case because of its heritage constraints and a viability assessment will be needed. They also expressed concern that the requirement for active frontages along Caledonian Road would unduly constrain design options and should be relaxed. In addition, requiring a new east-west and north-south access through the site where possible could limit the development potential of the site. Finally, they felt the reference to upgrading the wastewater network was onerous and unnecessary.

The council consider policy SC1 should apply as a prison constitutes social infrastructure. However, a loss could be justified through evidence of a rationalisation programme. The heritage assets on site necessitate any development to strike a balance between maximising housing and protecting heritage, hence the requirement for a heritage-led approach which has been supported by Historic England. As set out in the Local Plan there are a number of forms of affordable housing that will not be acceptable in Islington and as such 'genuinely affordable housing' has meaning within the context of the Plan and the borough's aspirations for future housing delivery. Reference to viability is not appropriate in the allocation, and would need to be justified on a case-by-case basis.

Redevelopment of the Pentonville Prison site offers an opportunity to knit the closed site with its blank facades back into the surrounding community. The provision of active frontages on Caledonian Road is considered an appropriate design response and not unduly onerous. The requirement for new access routes through the site 'where possible' has in-built flexibility as acknowledged in the representations. The reference to upgrading the wastewater network has been included at the request of Thames Water and is an appropriate design consideration.

BC2: City Forum, 250 City Road - The City Forum site has an extant, implemented permission for the development of a mixed-use scheme including up to 995 residential units and 7,600sq.m of office floorspace as well as retail, hotel, leisure, healthcare and childcare uses within 4 blocks ranging from 7 to 42 storeys. As one of Islington’s largest development sites, the allocation is intended to support the delivery of the permitted uses and also ensure that, in the event that the permission is amended or a new application submitted, the provision of affordable housing and affordable workspace at the site is maximised. No comments were received on this site during the Local Plan consultation process.

BC4: Finsbury Leisure Centre – As set out in policy BC7 of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP, Islington Council plans to redevelop the existing Finsbury Leisure Centre in order to provide new sports and leisure facilities as well as much needed council housing, healthcare, childcare and energy facilities and an improved public realm. This is an opportunity to deliver an exemplary civic development that benefits existing users of the leisure centre as well as members of the wider community. A number of representations were made regarding Finsbury Leisure Centre during the Site Allocations Direction of Travel and Regulation 18 and 19 consultations.

Respondents were concerned about the potential loss of football pitches and sports courts, the amenity impacts of development on residential properties, the loss of trees associated with development and the impact on heritage assets. These are issues which will be properly considered as part of the planning application process once detailed designs have been produced. They do not prevent the allocation of the site for the proposed uses.

BC8: Old Street roundabout area – Old Street roundabout is located within the City Fringe Opportunity Area, which is the subject of Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP Policy BC3. Policy BC3 part F states that the environmental quality of Old Street roundabout will be transformed through removal of the gyratory and creation of a high quality, functional new public space. Policy BC3 part G suggests that any development in the centre of the roundabout would reduce the quantum and functionality of potential new open space and will be resisted. The allocation is strategic as the area around Old Street roundabout forms the core part of the agglomeration of digital/creative businesses known as Tech City. The aim of the City Fringe Opportunity Area is to consolidate Tech City’s position as the tech capital of Europe. The redevelopment of Old Street roundabout offers an opportunity to improve the public transport experience and environmental quality of the area, and deliver significant public realm and accessibility improvements that will help attract businesses and investment to Tech City.

BC15: Richard Cloudesley School, 99 Golden Lane – The former Richard Cloudesley School site has planning permission for the development of a two-form entry primary school, to be occupied by the City of London Primary Academy, a nursery, a sports hall, external play areas and a residential block containing 66 social rented units (nomination rights for which will be shared between Islington and the City of London). The site allocation supports the permitted uses which will deliver additional school places to meet projected demand in the south of the borough, and much needed affordable housing.

BC25: Land adjacent to Mount Pleasant Sorting Office, 45 Rosebery Avenue – As set out in Bunhill and Clerkenwell Policy BC6 part A, this site is a major redevelopment site spanning the Islington/Camden borough boundary. On the Islington side of the site, the planning permission for 336 residential units, 4,260sq.m of office floorspace and 1,428sq.m of flexible retail and community floorspace has been implemented. The site allocation supports the delivery of a mixed-use scheme in this location but seeks to ensure that, if any amendments or new applications are submitted, the delivery of genuinely affordable housing and affordable workspace will be prioritised, along with the removal of car parking from the site which is contrary to development plan policy.

The landowner responded to the Regulation 19 consultation (R19.0134) agreeing that the site is a strategic allocation but suggesting it be made clear that the developer should have flexibility to deliver the strategic allocation in its most optimised form. The landowner supports the aspirations of the allocation and say they continue to work on detailed designs for high quality public open space, genuinely affordable housing and affordable workspace. The council has noted the representations but considers the allocation is appropriate as drafted.

BC28: Angel Gate, Goswell Road – In the 2013 Finsbury Local Plan, Angel Gate was allocated for a mix of uses, including small business units and residential. The allocation has been amended in the draft Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP to require a significant intensification of office floorspace at the site alongside active frontages for commercial use fronting Goswell Road. In representations to the Regulation 18 and 19 consultations the landowner objected to the removal of residential use from the

17 allocation, and suggested it be reinstated to promote the viability and deliverability of the site (see R19.0120). The council considers that the changes to the allocation reflect the priority the draft Local Plan places on business use in this part of the borough, and that residential use is not necessary to make the site viable and deliverable. The amendments are also in accordance with Policy SD5 of the draft London Plan which, with a few exceptions not applicable to this site, places greater weight on office uses and other CAZ strategic functions than new residential development in the CAZ.

BC34: 20 Ropemaker Street, 101-117 Finsbury Pavement, 10-12 Finsbury Street – This site is considered strategic due to the significant uplift in business floorspace possible in this priority business location. The allocation reflects an extant permission at the site for the development of a 27-storey building providing 63,507sq.m office floorspace, including affordable workspace, and 1,222sq.m commercial (A1/A2/A3) floorspace at ground floor level. No comments were received on this site during the Local Plan consultation process.

BC35: Finsbury Tower, 103-105 Bunhill Row – As with 20 Ropemaker Street, this site is considered strategic due to its capacity to deliver a significant uplift in office floorspace and the allocation is for the intensification of office use. The site has extant permission for an additional 12,687sq.m of office floorspace including 1,000sq.m of affordable workspace, ground floor commercial floorspace and 25 affordable housing units. In response to the Regulation 18 consultation on the draft Local Plan the landowner suggested that the allocation should reflect the residential aspect of the extant permission but in line with updated evidence the council considers that office floorspace is the priority landuse in this location.

BC38: Moorfields Eye Hospital - Moorfields Eye Hospital and the Institute of Ophthalmology are planning to leave their City Road site in Islington for new world- class facilities just over the borough boundary in King’s Cross. This is a significant loss for the borough, and the site allocation signals the council’s intention that an element of social and community infrastructure use will be retained at the site. Nevertheless, given the site’s location within an internationally significant office area and the limited number of large potential development sites in the area, it is deemed to represent a unique opportunity to support one of the main priorities of the Local Plan by delivering a large quantum of B-use floorspace.

The landowner’s representations to the Site Allocations Direction of Travel and Regulation 18 consultations welcomed the recognition of significant business floorspace capacity in the allocation but stated that residential use of the site should not be discounted. A resident also responded to the Regulation 18 consultation stating that the site should be used for social housing. For the reasons outlined above, residential use is not considered a priority for the Moorfields site. The GLA’s representations to the Regulation 18 consultation support the allocation, citing its potential to contribute to the delivery of the opportunity area’s jobs target.

In their representations to the Regulation 19 consultation (R19.0145) the landowner expressed concern that the allocation is too prescriptive in relation to the location of the public realm and tall buildings, suggesting more flexibility. They also suggested that the allocation should accord greater priority to the enabling role of the development in facilitating the provision of a new, improved eye hospital in Kings Cross which will benefit Islington residents both as patients and by offering employment opportunities. Whilst they support the council’s desire for affordable workspace they consider that in terms of viability delivering the hospital takes precedence over the provision of affordable workspace.

The council considers that it is not appropriate to acknowledge the facilitating nature of the development within the allocation itself, as it would undermine local planning objectives. The parameters set out in relation to the public realm are not considered overly prescriptive, and the council’s approach to tall buildings is underpinned by comprehensive evidence and is in conformity with the draft London Plan.

5 Non-strategic sites – consultation responses

Significant consultation responses received during the Local Plan review process relating to the proposed strategic site allocations were discussed in the preceding section. The following non-strategic sites also attracted significant consultation responses that require consideration:

KC3: Regents Wharf, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 All Saints Street – Site KC3 attracted a number of responses to the Site Allocations Direction of Travel consultation. The majority of respondents objected to the allocation on the grounds that development of the site would impact on residential amenity by overshadowing adjacent properties leading to a loss of privacy and light, and introducing noise and light pollution. The objections did not raise issues that suggested the site was unsuitable for allocation in principle. Residents’ concerns were taken into account in drafting the development considerations for the Regulation 18 draft of the Site Allocations DPD, which clearly state that any development should have regard to surrounding building heights and respect the amenity of neighbouring residential properties. There was a markedly reduced response to the Regulation 18 consultation, although the landowner objected to the allocation being for ‘limited’ intensification with ‘small scale’ commercial uses at ground floor level. They reiterated this concern in response to the Regulation 19 consultation (R19.0146). The council considers that the site does have limited development potential due to its proximity to designated heritage assets. The site is also in the CAZ where office floorspace is the priority land use so the reference to small scale ground floor commercial use is justified.

NH11: Mamma Roma, 377 Holloway Road – Five residents responded to the Regulation 18 draft of the Local Plan consultation objecting to the Mamma Roma allocation. Concern was expressed about the impact development would have on neighbouring properties in terms of noise, privacy and security, and the lack of detail in the allocation regarding building heights. It was suggested many of the occupants of the area had not been notified about the allocation. The objections raised do not suggest that the site is unsuitable for allocation in principle. The site is not suitable for a tall building and residents would have an opportunity to comment on other issues relating to the detailed design of a development if an application is submitted. In terms of residents being notified of the proposed allocation, the consultation was conducted in accordance with the relevant regulations and letters were sent to properties within 30 metres of the site. The letter included the site allocation reference, information on how to view the full document and direct contact details for any queries. No additional representations were received in relation to the Regulation 19 consultation.

NH12: 379-391 Camden Road and 341-345 Holloway Road – Five residents responded to the Regulation 18 draft of the Local Plan consultation objecting to this allocation. Concerns included the impact that a tall building would have on the Hilmarton Conservation Area and the adjacent listed building (377 Camden Road), its potential to create a wind tunnel effect, and the effect on the light and privacy of adjacent properties. Nags Head was not considered appropriate for such large scale development. In addition it was suggested the consultation was inadequate and could be subject to judicial review. One further representation along similar lines was received in response to the Regulation 19 consultation.

As set out in SDMP Policy DH3, all proposals for tall buildings must mitigate the individual and cumulative visual, functional and environmental impacts on the surrounding and wider context. Tall building locations are only acceptable in principle

20 and any proposals will need to address the criteria in Policy DH3, and will be subject to statutory consultation. However Islington has significant development needs for new housing and employment and, where suitable, tall buildings are a part of meeting these needs. Nag’s Head is a Major Town Centre and is suitable for new development. In terms of residents being notified of the proposed allocation, the consultation was conducted in accordance with the relevant regulations and letters were sent to properties within 30 metres of the site. The letter included the site allocation reference, information on how to view the full document and direct contact details for any queries.

NH13: 166-220 Holloway Road and NH14: 236-250 Holloway Road and 29 Hornsey Road – LMU submitted representations to the consultations on the Regulation 18 and 19 drafts of the Local Plan asking for site allocations NH13 and NH14 to be amended to include student accommodation (see R19.0176). In the 2013 Site Allocations DPD, sites NH13 and NH14 formed part of the larger site allocation HC3 and were referred to as site A and site B respectively alongside 2-16 Eden Grove and 263-289 Holloway Road (site C); 295 Holloway Road (site D); and 45 Hornsey Road (site E). Sites A-C were under the ownership of LMU and allocated for the consolidation and improvement of existing education and related uses, which it was acknowledged might include an element of student accommodation.

Since the adoption of the Site Allocations DPD, site C (Eden Grove) has been developed into student accommodation providing over 900 student bedspaces. The council’s view is that this development constituted the ‘element of student accommodation’ envisaged in site allocation HC3 and the amendment of draft allocations NH13 and NH14 to include student accommodation is not warranted and would undermine the objectives of the plan. In their representations LMU suggest that Islington’s approach is inconsistent with draft new London Plan policy H17. The London Plan, as articulated through policy H17, does not support the provision of student accommodation at the expense of mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods and in their representations the GLA have not objected to the council’s approach. More information on the council’s approach to student accommodation is set out in the Specialist Housing Topic Paper (doc. ref. SD26).

FP5: 1 Prah Road – Although there was a limited response to this site throughout the Local Plan review process, the landowner submitted detailed representations to the Regulation 18 and 19 consultations objecting to the allocation which warrant consideration (R19.0174). The landowner suggests that a purely residential allocation is the most appropriate and viable for this site which they say does not sit within a typical Town Centre environment and is primarily residential in character. They suggest that the site is not large enough to deliver a broad mix of town centre uses, and that large HMOs and private rented sector (PRS) schemes are supported by the draft new London Plan and should be allowed on the site. They appended marketing evidence to their representations suggesting that sites of a similar size to 1 Prah Road are most likely to come forward for residential development, or for hostel (HMO, Sui Generis use) or extra care living (use C2/C3/Sui Generis) accommodation. Their evidence suggests that demand for small scale commerical uses in the Finsbury Park area is low.

Whilst the council does not agree that the site sits within a residential area or area of ‘transition’ as suggested by the applicant, it accepts that the mix of uses originally proposed is unlikely and has amended the allocation to require business floorspace, particularly workspace suitable for SMEs. The site is located on a well-used pedestrian route, in close proximity to Finsbury Park station, with a mix of town centre uses in the immediate vicinity. It is clearly a town centre location and suited to commercial development. The council has reservations about the methodology used in the

21 marketing evidence supplied with the representations, and does not accept the proposition that if an allocation hasn’t yet come forward it must be because the allocated uses are undeliverable.

FP13: Tesco, 103-115 Stroud Green Road – Objections to this allocation were received in response to the Site Allocations Direction of Travel and Regulation 18 and 19 consultations. The objections relate to the potential amenity impacts of development on neighbouring residential properties, particularly in terms of noise, loss of light and privacy. Concern was also raised about the height and design of any development and its impact on the adjacent Conservation Area and the local area’s Victorian character. One resident supported the allocation but requested affordable housing and suggested that the retail space should be for a local business.

The objections raised do not suggest that the site is unsuitable for allocation in principle. Housing need in Islington is acute and all suitable opportunites for new housing should be prioritised. Any proposals that do come forward will be assessed against Local Plan policies including those on design, residential amenity and heritage assets. They will also be subject to statutory consultation and residents will have the opportunity to comment on detailed designs for the site.

In response to the Regulation 19 consultation a developer wrote in support of the allocation but argued it does not clearly set out the need to optimise the potential of the site and should be clear that the suggested uses are not the only appropriate uses for this important town centre site. They suggested the allocation provides an important opportunity to enhance this part of Stroud Green Road and there is scope for increased height, massing and density on the site.

Islington has significant, evidenced need for additional housing. The site was identified through the 'call for sites' for the GLA's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) as having potential for re-provision of the supermarket and residential development, which has been reflected in the allocation. Given the priority development need for housing the council does not consider that the allocation should be amended to include other uses. As stated above, the design of any proposals, including appropriate height, massing and density, will be assessed as part of the planning application process.

FP14: Andover Estate – A number of comments were received in relation to the Andover Estate allocation. Some were supportive of the potential to deliver additional affordable housing at the site whilst others were concerned about issues such as crime and security, inclusive design, building density and heights, loss of amenity space and the impact of development on privacy and light. The majority of these comments were related to the extant planning permission for the site, which will require reserved matters permission for future phases and will involve further consultation with residents. The objections raised do not suggest that the site is unsuitable for allocation in principle.

ARCH3: Archway Central Methodist Hall – The allocation for Archway Central Methodist Hall requires refurbishment/redevelopment for the provision of a cultural hub which includes community uses. One objection received related to proposals drawn up by a potential developer, rather than to the allocated uses. Sport England objected to the loss of buildings in D2 use, although it appears they thought the site was formerly in sporting use which is not the case. Two responses welcomed the allocation for cultural uses. The most substantive representations to the Regulation 18 and 19 consultations were submitted by the landowner who objected to the cultural use allocation on the basis that it is unviable due to the structural condition of the site, and

22 constrained by covenants restricting leisure and religious uses (R19.0026). They suggested the site should be allocated for B1a and/or general Town Centre uses as there is no evidence of need for further cultural facilities in Archway whilst the council’s evidence base identifies the need for additional office floorspace.

The allocation reflects the council’s preferred use given the site’s central town centre location, lawful use and the emerging Archway cultural context. Archway town centre has been designated a Cultural Quarter in the draft Local Plan because of the number and variety of arts and cultural organisations located in the area, as discussed in more detail in the Retail, Leisure and Services, Culture and Visitor Accommodation Topic Paper (doc. ref. SD22). The designation accords with Policy HC5 part 2 of the draft London Plan which encourages Development Plans to ‘identify and promote new, or enhance existing, locally-distinct clusters of cultural facilities, venues and related uses’. Although the restrictive covenants on the Methodist Hall prohibit the sale of alcohol, gambling and dancing on the premises there are other cultural uses that would be suitable and reflect the area’s Cultural Quarter designation.

A recent planning application (P2018/4068/FUL) to demolish the Methodist Hall and replace it with a six-storey office building was refused on appeal. Whilst agreeing that the site was in a poor state of repair, the Inspector was not convinced by the appellant’s argument that the building could not viably be brought back into social infrastructure use. Evidence presented at the appeal demonstrated demand for social infrastructure and cultural use floorspace in the locality, whilst the appellant had not made enquiries regarding the possibility of having the restrictive covenants lifted, which could help with the marketing of the site. The Inspector concluded that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of D1 floorspace (appeal reference: APP/V5570/W/19/3229738).

HC3: Highbury and Islington Station – This allocation has been carried forward from the 2013 Site Allocations DPD but attracted a number of objections during the Local Plan review consultation process. Residents are concerned about the disruption associated with the construction of a development in this location, including the noise that would be generated and possible impacts on the road network. They are also concerned about the affect development may have on the character of surrounding Conservation Areas and listed buildings, damage to local wildlife habitats, and a loss of privacy and light to their homes.

Representations were also received in support of the allocation, due to the ‘delapidated’ nature of the station building and the potential to deliver an improved gateway into the area. TfL’s Commercial Development team support the allocation but consider the site would be more appropriate for residential rather than commercial development. One business supported the continuing allocation of the site but argued the drafting of the allocation underplays the site’s potential, which they suggested could accommodate buildings taller than 12 storeys.

The council considers that the allocation is suitable in principle. Any development proposals will be assessed against Local Plan policies which seek to protect residential amenity, heritage assets and green infrastructure. There is a priority development need for additional business floorspace in Islington and the commercial nature of the area around the site justifies its allocation. The site is not identified as suitable for a tall building in the Tall Buildings Study. The council's approach to tall buildings is informed by detailed evidence and is in line with the draft London Plan.

OIS4: 1 Kingsland Passage and the BT Telephone Exchange, Kingsland Green – In response to the Regulation 18 consultation the landowner submitted

representations stating that there are no plans to bring the site forward for development during the plan period, and the continuing allocation of the site in its current form is contrary to guidance set out in NPPF paragraph 120. They also argue that the allocation is not deliverable, illustrated by the fact it was not developed during the earlier Plan period. They suggest 1 Kingsland Road should be removed from the wider site allocation, as other uses would be more appropriate there.

Given that the site has extant planning permission the council considers that its decision to carry the existing allocation forward into the new Local Plan is reasonable. NPPF para 120 is only applicable when there is no reasonable prospect of an application coming forward. The landowner's declaration does not preclude the development of the site during the Plan period, particularly in light of the suggestion in the representations that other uses would be more appropriate at the site. The landowner’s potential dislike of the allocated uses does not render the site undeliverable.

OIS20: Vernon Square, Penton Rise – A number of residents objected at the Regulation 18 consultation stage to the allocation for business-led development on the basis that such a use would generate an unacceptable amount of noise. It was suggested that residential use would be more appropriate in this location. One respondent stated that the loss of the existing social infrastructure use should be justified and improvements to Vernon Square should be sought from any development. Development proposals to change the use of the site will be assessed against SDMP Policy SC1, which requires any loss of social infrastructure to be justified. Subject to this it is considered that the site’s location within the CAZ and a Priority Employment Location makes it suitable for business-led development, and residential use would not be supported. Concerns regarding the impact of development on residential amenity would be considered as part of the assessment of any planning applications submitted for the site.

BC27: Finsbury Health Centre and the Michael Palin Centre for Stammering - Finsbury Health Centre is a Grade I listed building which is described by Historic England as ‘the finest monument to nascent clinical provision in Britain and a brilliant piece of planning … it was viewed as the prototype on a national level for modern construction and communal architecture such as NHS clinics, and health and treatment centres’. Grade I buildings are considered to be of exceptional interest, a classification applied to just 2.5% of listed buildings5. As detailed in the allocation the character of the listed building is closely associated with its use, and as such a change of use would not be supported. NHS Property Services responded to the Site Allocations Direction of Travel and Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan consultations arguing that the allocation is not sufficiently flexible and any loss of healthcare facilities at the site should be considered as part of a wider estate reorganisation programme. Whilst Policy SC1 seeks to offer flexibility where estate reorganisation will lead to better public services, in this case the historic importance of the site is felt to warrant particularly heightened protection. The ownership details in the allocation have been amended in response to the NHS’ representations as the Michael Palin Centre on Pine Street is not within their ownership.

5 Listed Buildings Identification and Extent, Historic England 2019, available from: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/has/listed-buildings/

6 Unallocated sites

A number of sites nominated in response to the council’s ‘Call for Sites’ and consultations on the Site Allocations Direction of Travel document and Regulation 18 draft of the Local Plan were not deemed to warrant allocation. The reasons for this are outlined below:

Travelodge, King’s Cross Road: This site was suggested in response to the GLA’s Call for Sites. The council decided that the site’s close proximity to a number of listed buildings meant it did not have clear scope for expansion and an allocation was not warranted.

Elizabeth Croll House, Penton Rise: Suggested in response to the council’s Call for Sites, the council’s view was that significant additional intensification of this part of the site was unlikely given the existing scale/massing of the site in relation to its surroundings. The Council however considered the adjacent land suitable for allocation; OIS20: Vernon Square, Penton Rise.

440a Hornsey Road: Site proposed in response to Islington’s Call for Sites. The site sits outside spatial strategy areas and cannot accommodate a significant quantum of development therefore was deemed too small to justify an allocation.

9-11 Brooksby Mews: Site proposed in response to Islington’s Call for Sites. Considered too small to justify allocation.

Busworks, North Road: This site was mentioned in relation to Islington’s Call for Sites. As discussed in the Islington Employment Land Study, the site is well- maintained and practically full and the potential for significant intensification is considered limited. Therefore an allocation was not considered necessary.

Hill House, Highgate Hill: This site is part of the former Archway Core Site allocation. As set out in the Site Allocations Direction of Travel document (2018), the Archway Core Site was de-designated as Archway Tower, Hamlyn House and Hill House - which together made up a large part of the allocated land - had all received planning permission since the publication of the 2013 Site Allocations DPD.

Land at Vale Royal; land between East Coast Mainline and Emirates Stadium; land west of Drayton Park Station: These three sites were suggested by a planning consultant in response to the Council’s Call for Sites, where it was stated that they are

25 all disused railway land. However, the sites at Vale Royal and Drayton Park are both part of Borough Grade 1 sites of importance for nature conservation (SINCs), and the land near the Emirates is a SINC of Metropolitan level importance. As set out in Policy G4 part B of the SDMP, development which would adversely affect a SINC of Metropolitan or Borough Grade 1 importance will not be permitted. Allocation of these sites is not considered appropriate.

Cemex site, Randells Road: This site was put forward in response to the council’s Call for Sites by a resident who suggested it could be used for retail or office floorspace. The council supports the current industrial use of the site. In the absence of any indication from the landowner that they intend to develop the site for other uses the council is satisfied that current and proposed policies are sufficient to protect the existing land use and an allocation is not required in this case.

Land north of Carnoustie Drive and Pembroke Street (south of rail track): This site was suggested by the London Gypsy and Traveller Unit in response to the GLA’s Call for Sites. The council acknowledges its duty to plan for Gypsy and Traveller pitches as detailed in policies H1 part R and H12 of the SDMP and discussed in the Gypsy and Travellers Topic Paper (SD18). However this site is part of the Copenhagen Junction SINC, which is of Borough Grade 1 importance. Development which would adversely affect a SINC of Metropolitan or Borough Grade 1 importance will not be permitted, as set out in policy G4 part B of the SDMP therefore allocation of the site is not considered appropriate.

Sotheby Mews Day Centre: This site was suggested in representations made on behalf of the Sotheby Mews users in response to Islington’s Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18 stage) consultation. The council considers that an allocation is not necessary as the current use of the Centre is sufficiently protected by existing and proposed policies, specifically Strategic and Development Management Policy SC1 relating to social and community infrastructure.

Bemerton Estate: This site was suggested for redevelopment by a local resident in response to the Site Allocations Direction of Travel consultation. The Planning Policy team consulted the Housing Directorate when drafting the Site Allocations document and they did not indicate that there are any plans for works to the Bemerton Estate. As it is considered unlikely that the site will come forward for development within the Plan period an allocation is not deemed to be necessary.

Orkney House, 195 Caledonian Road; Texaco petrol station, 219 Caledonian Road; Cally Pool, 229 Caledonian Road: These three sites, which are adjacent to one another, were suggested by two local residents in response to the Site Allocations Direction of Travel consultation and the Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18 stage) consultation. As the owner of two of the sites – Orkney House and Cally Pool – which are on either side of the petrol station, the council considers it unlikely that any development proposals will be brought forward within the lifetime of the Plan. Following on from this, the potential for intensification of the petrol station site is not deemed significant enough to warrant allocation by itself. Nevertheless, as set out in Spatial Strategy Policy SP2 part E, the council will support opportunities to repair, improve and unify existing frontages on Caledonian Road, particularly the stretch between the junctions of Twyford Street and Copenhagen Street which includes the three proposed sites.

Former All Saints Church, Carnegie Street: This site was suggested for residential use with community uses at ground floor level by a resident in response to Islington’s Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18 stage) consultation. The site is adjacent to the

Regent’s Canal (West) Metropolitan-level SINC and Thornhill Bridge Community Garden, and in close proximity to the Regent’s Canal West Conservation Area. As the site sits just outside of the King’s Cross and Pentonville Road spatial strategy area and is subject to heritage and open space constraints which will limit the quantum of development possible at the site, it is considered that an allocation is not justified in this case.

143 Caledonian Road: This site was proposed for residential development with active uses at ground-floor level by a resident in response to Islington’s Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18 stage) consultation. If the site were to be developed the council’s priority would be for retention and intensification of industrial uses. In the absence of any indication from the landowner that they intend to develop the site for other uses the council is satisfied that current and proposed policies are sufficient to determine any proposals for the site.

Edward Rudolf House, 69-85 Margery Street: This site was suggested as appropriate for an increase in office floorspace by a planning consultant in response to Islington’s Regulation 18 and 19 stage consultations (R19.0147). Whilst the council supports the principle of intensification of office floorspace in this location, the council is satisfied that current and proposed policies are sufficient to determine any proposals for the site.

87 Sunnyside Road: This site was suggested for residential-led development by a planning consultant in response to Islington’s Regulation 18 and 19 stage consultations (R19.0114). If the site were to come forward for development, the council’s priority would be for retention and intensification of the site’s existing business uses in line with policies B2 and B3 of the SDMP. However, as the site is located in a conservation area it is considered unlikely that the scale of development could be increased in any significant way and an allocation is not warranted in this case.

Bacta House, 6 All Saints Street: It was suggested in representations to the Regulation 18 and 19 consultations on the draft Local Plan that the boundaries of site allocation KC6 (8 All Saints Street) should be amended to include the adjacent building at 6 All Saints Street, or that the allocation’s development considerations should refer to Bacta House as having potential for limited intensification (R19.0035). The council does not consider that the site boundary should be amended as, given its locally listed status, the development potential of Bacta House is limited.

Wellington Mews: In their representations to the Regulation 19 consultation (R19.0144), the Ministry of Justice suggested that Wellington Mews should be considered for allocation for residential use. Given the heritage constraints placed on the site by its close proximity to the Grade II listed Pentonville Prison buildings, the scope for significantly intensifying its use is considered limited and an allocation unnecessary. This does not preclude an application coming forward for the site and the principle of residential use is supported by the council.

As set out above, the council has considered all of the sites proposed in response to the various rounds of consultation on the draft Local Plan and Site Allocations DPD and decided in some cases that a site allocation is not warranted at this time. This decision will not prevent any of these sites from coming forward for development, and the council considers it has developed policies which support the development of windfall sites in compliance with NPPF paragraph 68 and draft London Plan Policy H1 part B (b).

7 Monitoring and implementation

As set out in Chapter 10 of the Site Allocations DPD and Chapter 5 of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP, it is important to monitor the delivery of site allocations to determine if they are making the contribution to the borough’s growth anticipated in the Local Plan. The key monitoring indicators will be the amount and type of development provided on each site and the extent to which this complies with the allocation; the timescales for delivery; and the quantum of uses delivered across each Spatial Strategy area.

An indicative phasing schedule for the site allocations is set out in Table 1.2 of the Site Allocations DPD and Table 4.2 of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP. Delivery partners, such as landowners and infrastructure providers, have been engaged in the development of the Local Plan documents. It can therefore be considered reasonably certain that the sites will come forward during the life of the Local Plan. The council will monitor site delivery and, following the first phase of the plan, undertake a review of site allocations to ensure an adequate supply of land is maintained.

The delivery of the site allocations is not reliant on any specific piece of infrastructure. However, it is important that there is continual investment in infrastructure to facilitate growth. Policies within the Local Plan seek to secure the infrastructure necessary to support development through on-site delivery and financial contributions where appropriate. Infrastructure delivery in the borough is also supported by Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) receipts.

Infrastructure improvements specific to Spatial Strategy areas and sites are mentioned in individual allocations where they are considered important to support growth, for example improvements to stations, the retention/improvement of community facilities and the provision of open space. A number of sites in the Angel and Upper Street Spatial Strategy Area are safeguarded for the Crossrail 2 project which, subject to securing funding and the necessary permissions, will connect the national rail network in Surrey and Hertfordshire via an underground tunnel through London.

The need for infrastructure improvements has been identified using evidence such as the Infrastructure Delivery Plan Update Report 2019 (doc. ref. EB12) and engagement

with infrastructure providers in the preparation of the document (for example Thames Water, National Grid, the NHS, Transport for London and Network Rail).

The table below summarises the approach to implementation in each Spatial Strategy area:

Spatial Strategy Approach to implementation area King’s Cross and SDMP policy SP2 states that business uses will be safeguarded Pentonville Road and proposals for new business floorspace will be required to maximise provision in the Spatial Strategy area. The need to support employment growth in the CAZ and CAZ fringe justifies the approach taken to site allocations in this location. It will be important to monitor employment delivery closely in this area to understand if floorspace and jobs estimates are achievable. If not, high delivery of jobs in other Spatial Strategy areas may, at least in part, help to compensate for this.

The King’s Cross Triangle Site (KC1), part of the larger King’s Cross Central development spanning the borough boundary with Camden, is the major residential development site allocated within the Spatial Strategy area. The site has planning permission and the timescale for it to be brought forward in phase 1 of the Plan (2021/22-2025/26) is considered accurate.

Site capacity estimates suggest that 176-178 York Way (KC2) and the Belle Isle Frontage (KC5) have the potential to deliver significant amounts of business floorspace. Discussions with the landowners suggest that the timescales specified in the DPD can be considered with reasonable certainty to be accurate.

8 All Saints Street (KC6) is a constrained site and therefore a low amount of development has been assumed.

Vale Royal/Brewery The proposed site allocations support the Vale Royal/Brewery Road LSIS Road LSIS’s role as the borough’s most significant industrial location by safeguarding and encouraging the intensification of industrial uses.

Site capacity estimates suggest that the Fayer’s site (VR1) has the greatest capacity for intensification to deliver additional industrial floorspace for the Spatial Strategy area. Engagement with the landowner and proposals submitted for the site indicate that development is likely to come forward during phase 1 of the plan, as specified in the Site Allocations DPD.

Angel and Upper Consistent with its CAZ/CAZ fringe location, business use is a Street priority land use in Angel Town Centre. It also has a strong retail, service and leisure offer that the Local Plan seeks to support and enhance.

The major development opportunity in the Spatial Strategy area is the Sainsbury’s site (AUS6). This is a high-profile site in the heart of the town centre, which capacity estimates suggest could accommodate a significant amount of retail and business use

floorspace, supporting a large number of new jobs and helping to meet the borough’s development needs for employment floorspace.

As set out in SDMP policy SP4 part F, Angel Town Centre is also a designated Cultural Quarter where existing cultural uses will be protected, and new cultural uses promoted. The Collins Theatre (AUS11) allocation reflects this policy and the council’s aspiration to see the permitted theatre space brought into use, some years after it was completed to shell and core level.

Nag’s Head and Site capacity estimates suggest Nag’s Head has considerable Holloway capacity to deliver new homes and business floorspace.

The most significant and complex site in the Spatial Strategy area is site NH1 (Morrison’s Supermarket). Engagement with the landowners suggests that there is reasonable certainty of the site coming forward. The allocation provides clarity about the provision of retail use, given the site’s location within the town centre, whilst providing flexibility for a mix of other uses, including employment. In view of the site’s previous identification within the SHLAA, an element of conventional residential accommodation is also recognised. It is considered that a scheme can be brought forward within the remit of the allocation.

The Holloway Prison site (NH7) is the most significant unimplemented residential development opportunity in the borough and is required to deliver a large amount of genuinely affordable housing. Engagement with the landowner indicates that a scheme will be brought forward within the timescales stated in the DPD. The Holloway Prison SPD provides detailed development considerations for the site and will be given very significant weight during the determination process for any planning applications.

Finsbury Park The majority of the allocated sites within Finsbury Park have been subject to pre-application discussions or full planning applications in recent years, providing reasonable certainty that they will come forward for development.

As one of the largest sites in the Spatial Strategy area, the City North allocation (FP1) reflects the site’s implemented planning permission for the delivery of 355 residential units and over 10,000sq.m of mixed use employment floorspace, including 2,172sq.m office floorspace.

Capacity estimates suggest that 221-233 Seven Sisters Road (FP9) could also deliver a substantial amount of office floorspace as well as community use floorspace and an element of residential use. Part of the site (233 Seven Sisters Road) is identified as potentially suitable for a tall building, however the allocation states that this should be linked to the comprehensive development of the whole site. As the site is in multiple ownership this would require significant site assembly, and it is possible that development will come forward in a more incremental fashion.

There are outstanding urban design issues around Finsbury Park station. The Finsbury Park Station and Island allocation (FP3) seeks to ensure that these issues are considered and addressed holistically. The allocation highlights the commitment of the council to work with transport partners to explore the reorganisation/ reorientation of the station, including the possibility of over station development.

Archway Significant improvement work has taken place in Archway since the adoption of the 2013 Site Allocations DPD. The gyratory has been replaced with a two-way traffic system and a new public space, Navigator Square, has been created in the heart of the town centre. At the same time, the council’s vision for the regeneration of the area was hindered to a certain extent by the introduction of office to residential permitted development rights, and the resulting change of use of some key town centre buildings.

The Archway Campus allocation (ARCH5) has been carried forward from the 2013 DPD and is probably the most significant development opportunity remaining in the Spatial Strategy area. The allocation reflects the former healthcare and educational use of the site by requiring the reprovision of social infrastructure floorspace, at the same time as recognising that the site is an appropriate location for residential development.

The Whittington Hospital Ancillary Buildings allocation (ARCH4) has also been carried forward from the adopted DPD, but has been amended to reflect the anticipated relocation of St. Pancras Mental Health Hospital from Camden to Islington. The hospital represents an important social infrastructure use, bringing benefits that will reach beyond the borough boundary. Alongside the social infrastructure use, it is estimated that the site has the potential to accommodate in the region of 65 new homes.

Highbury Corner As set out in SDMP policy SP8, Highbury Corner is a key transport and Lower node in Islington and significant improvements are being delivered Holloway to improve the pedestrian, cyclist and road networks in the area.

There may be an opportunity to improve Highbury and Islington Station (allocation HC3) but it is a complicated site where there is an element of risk as development would involve decking over the railway lines. Whilst this will be dependent on the costs of the technology involved and land values, engagement with landowners and developers suggest that it is likely that a scheme could be brought forward within the lifetime of the plan. It has been phased accordingly.

A further transport improvement relates to the allocation for 10, 12, 16-18, 20-22 and 24 Highbury Corner (HC1), which states that development could potentially deliver a new ticket hall with step- free access to the Victoria Line. This allocation is also notable due to the presence of the Garage music venue on the site. SDMP policy SP8 part E is clear that cultural and night-time economy uses in the Spatial Strategy area will be protected, and that the retention of the Garage is a priority.

Bunhill and Bunhill and Clerkenwell is the area of the borough expected to see Clerkenwell the most significant levels of growth, particularly in business floorspace. The sites allocated through the AAP are focused on supporting the area’s office function, and enhancing and consolidating the area’s cultural, retail and leisure role.

Site capacity estimates suggest the allocations should deliver significant employment growth able to support over 16,000 new jobs. The need to support employment growth in the CAZ justifies the generally restrictive approach to land use taken in the allocations.

Engagement with landowners suggests the sites have reasonable certainty of coming forward within the timescales specified.

Other important The sites within this section of the Site Allocations DPD vary sites significantly in size. Some are large sites with the potential to provide substantial amounts of new housing and employment floorspace (such as Pentonville Prison, OIS24) while others are smaller sites that will provide minimal growth but serve an important function, for example by providing workspace for small and medium enterprises (such as Leroy House, OIS1 and the Ivories, OIS2).

The majority of the sites are the subject of recent planning applications, have existing permissions or were put forward for allocation by their landowners. Therefore, the council has reasonable confidence that they can be delivered within the time periods specified.

Collectively the sites have the capacity to make a significant contribution to the borough’s housing and employment delivery over the lifetime of the Plan, with an estimated potential for 925 new dwellings and 17,100sq.m of office floorspace.

32 Appendix 1: Site Capacity Assumptions1: Site Capacity Assumptions

Site Site size Large/small re: Large/small Spatial Strategy area Number of Adoption Years 1-5: Years 6- Years 11- Office Adoption Years 1-5: Years 6-10: Years 11-15: Office jobs (based Industrial Retail and leisure Other floorspace SI floorspace (sqm) 0.25ha re: 1ha homes (net 2020/21 2021/22- 10: 15: floorspace 2020/21 2021/22- 2026/27- 2031/32- on 13 FTE per floorspace (net floorspace (net (net additional) (net definition definition additional) 2025/26 2026/27- 2031/32- (net 2025/26 2030/31 2035/36 sqm) additional) additional) additional) 2030/31 2035/36 additional ) KC1: King's Cross Triangle Site, bounded by York 11774.0 Large Large King's Cross and 115 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,328 0 0 Way, East Coast Main Line & Channel Tunnel Rail Pentonville Road Link, N1 KC2: 176-178 York Way, N1 0AZ 2300.0 Small Small King's Cross and 69 0 0 69 0 8,289 0 0 8,289 0 638 0 0 0 0 Pentonville Road KC3: Regents Wharf, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 All 3658.0 Large Small King's Cross and 0 0 0 0 0 1,253 0 1,253 0 0 96 0 877 0 0 Saints Street, N1 Pentonville Road KC4: Former York Road Station, 172-174 York 893.0 Small Small King's Cross and 0 0 0 0 0 902 0 0 0 902 69 0 0 0 0 Way Pentonville Road KC5: Belle Isle Frontage, land on the east side of 1785.0 Small Small King's Cross and 0 0 0 0 0 7,498 0 0 7,498 0 577 0 0 0 0 York Way Pentonville Road KC6: 8 All Saints Street, N1 9RJ 702.0 Small Small King's Cross and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pentonville Road KC7: All Saints Triangle, Caledonian Rd, Kings 3395.0 Large Small King's Cross and 0 0 0 0 0 2,926 0 0 2,926 0 225 2,926 0 0 0 Cross, London N1 9RR Pentonville Road VR1: Fayers Site, 202-228 York Way, Former 4251.2 Large Small Vale Royal/Brewery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,850 0 0 0 Venus Printers, 22-23 Tileyard Road, adjacent Road LSIS 196-200 York Way, N7 9AX VR2: 230-238 York Way, N7 9AG 1581.8 Small Small Vale Royal/Brewery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,190 0 0 0 Road LSIS

VR3: Tileyard Studios, Tileyard Road, N7 9AH 8679.7 Large Small Vale Royal/Brewery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Road LSIS

VR4: 20 Tileyard Road, N7 9AH 517.5 Small Small Vale Royal/Brewery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 454 0 0 0 Road LSIS

VR5: 4 Brandon Road, N7 9AA 954.1 Small Small Vale Royal/Brewery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 0 0 Road LSIS

VR6: The Fitzpatrick Building, 188 York Way, N7 975.4 Small Small Vale Royal/Brewery 0 0 0 0 0 3,808 0 3,808 0 0 293 0 0 0 0 9AD Road LSIS

VR7: 43-53 Brewery Road, N7 9QH 1285.4 Small Small Vale Royal/Brewery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,292 0 0 0 Road LSIS

VR8: 55-61 Brewery Road, N7 9QH 313.2 Small Small Vale Royal/Brewery 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 250 0 0 19 152 0 0 0 Road LSIS

VR9: Rebond House, 98-124 Brewery Road, N7 2186.0 Small Small Vale Royal/Brewery 0 0 0 0 0 818 0 818 0 0 63 638 0 0 0 9BG Road LSIS

VR10: 34 Brandon Road, London N7 9AA 158.0 Small Small Vale Royal/Brewery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 Road LSIS

AUS2: Pride Court, 80-82 White Lion Street, N1 603.8 Small Small Angel and Upper 0 0 0 0 0 325 0 325 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 9PF Street AUS3: Electricity substation, 84-89 White Lion 653.1 Small Small Angel and Upper 0 0 0 0 0 2,027 0 0 0 2,027 156 0 0 0 0 Street, N1 9PF Street AUS4: Land at 90-92 White Lion Street, N1 9PF 240.0 Small Small Angel and Upper 1 0 1 0 0 650 0 650 0 0 50 0 372 0 0 Street AUS5: 94 White Lion Street (BSG House), N1 9PF 643.0 Small Small Angel and Upper 0 0 0 0 0 668 0 668 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 Street AUS6: Sainsbury's, 31-41 Liverpool Road, N1 8774.4 Large Small Angel and Upper 0 0 0 0 0 12,256 0 0 12,256 0 943 0 5,067 0 0 0RW Street AUS7: 1-7 Torrens Street, EC1V 1NQ 2720.1 Large Small Angel and Upper 0 0 0 0 0 919 0 0 919 0 71 0 230 0 0 Street AUS8: 161-169 Essex Road, N1 2SN 2525.8 Large Small Angel and Upper 0 0 0 0 0 1,086 0 1,086 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 Street AUS9: 10-14 White Lion Street, N1 9PD 1321.0 Small Small Angel and Upper 0 0 0 0 0 3,794 0 3,794 0 0 292 0 0 0 279 Street AUS10: 1-9 White Lion Street, N1 9PD 1588.0 Small Small Angel and Upper 6 0 6 0 0 2,447 0 2,447 0 0 188 -494 329 0 0 Street AUS11: Collins Theatre, 13-17 Islington Green, 2064.0 Small Small Angel and Upper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N1 2XN Street Site Site size Large/small re: Large/small Spatial Strategy area Number of Adoption Years 1-5: Years 6- Years 11- Office Adoption Years 1-5: Years 6-10: Years 11-15: Office jobs (based Industrial Retail and leisure Other floorspace SI floorspace (sqm) 0.25ha re: 1ha homes (net 2020/21 2021/22- 10: 15: floorspace 2020/21 2021/22- 2026/27- 2031/32- on 13 FTE per floorspace (net floorspace (net (net additional) (net definition definition additional) 2025/26 2026/27- 2031/32- (net 2025/26 2030/31 2035/36 sqm) additional) additional) additional) 2030/31 2035/36 additional ) AUS12: Public Carriage Office, 15 Penton Street, 3495.2 Large Small Angel and Upper 32 0 0 0 32 3,358 0 0 0 3,358 258 0 0 0 0 N1 9PU Street AUS13: N1 Centre, Parkfield Street, N1 7405.6 Large Small Angel and Upper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,945 0 0 Street AUS14: 46-52 Pentonville Road, N1 9HF 1010.5 Small Small Angel and Upper 0 0 0 0 0 -1,198 -1,198 0 0 0 -92 0 0 0 1,198 Street AUS16: Angel Square, EC1V 1NY 3661.1 Large Small Angel and Upper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Street AUS17: Windsor Street Car Park, N1 8QF 698.1 Small Small Angel and Upper 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Street AUS18: Royal Bank of Scotland, 42 Islington High 7200.0 Large Small Angel and Upper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Street, N1 8EQ Street NH1: Morrison's supermarket and adjacent car 16015.3 Large Large Nag's Head and 154 0 0 77 77 13,100 0 0 6,550 6,550 1,008 0 2,486 0 0 park, 10 Hertslet Road, and 8-32 Seven Sisters Holloway Road, N7 6AG NH2: 368-376 Holloway Road (Argos and 1741.1 Small Small Nag's Head and 29 0 29 0 0 9,187 0 9,187 0 0 707 0 0 0 0 adjoining shops), N7 6PN Holloway NH3: 443-453 Holloway Road, N7 6LJ 5861.1 Large Small Nag's Head and 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 3,000 0 0 231 2,238 0 0 0 Holloway NH4: Territorial Army Centre, 65-69 Parkhurst 6894.4 Large Small Nag's Head and 96 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Road, N7 0LP Holloway NH5: 392A and 394 Camden Road, N7 1721.7 Small Small Nag's Head and 19 0 19 0 0 1,450 0 1,450 0 0 112 0 0 0 0 Holloway NH7: Holloway Prison, Parkhurst Road, N7 0NU 39791.2 Large Large Nag's Head and 880 0 660 220 0 1,100 0 825 275 0 85 0 1,100 0 2,200 Holloway NH8: 457-463 Holloway Road, N7 6LJ 807.6 Small Small Nag's Head and 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Holloway NH9: Islington Arts Factory, Parkhurst Road, N7 1802.5 Small Small Nag's Head and 25 0 25 0 0 414 0 414 0 0 32 0 0 0 -171 0SF Holloway NH11: Mamma Roma, 377 Holloway Road, N7 1561.9 Small Small Nag's Head and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 431 0 0 0 0RN Holloway NH12: 379-391 Camden Road and 341-345 2697.0 Large Small Nag's Head and 47 0 0 47 0 1,971 0 0 1,971 0 152 0 0 0 0 Holloway Road Holloway NH13: 166-220 Holloway Road, N7 19620.5 Large Large Nag's Head and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Holloway NH14: 236-250 Holloway Road, N7 6PP and 29 6189.3 Large Small Nag's Head and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,007 Hornsey Road, N7 7DD Holloway NH15: 45 Hornsey Road (including land and 5166.7 Large Small Nag's Head and 117 0 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 railway arches 1-21 to rear), N7 7DD and 252 Holloway Holloway Road, N7 6NE NH16: 11-13 Benwell Road, N7 7BL 1315.2 Small Small Nag's Head and 7 0 7 0 0 595 0 595 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 Holloway FP1: City North Islington Trading Estate, Fonthill 8661.5 Large Small Finsbury Park 177 177 0 0 0 -986 -986 0 0 0 -76 -2,905 10,101 0 -487 Road and 8-10 Goodwin Street, N4 FP2: Morris Place/Wells Terrace (including 3818.0 Large Small Finsbury Park 53 0 0 53 0 6,666 0 0 6,666 0 513 0 1,467 0 0 Clifton House), N4 2AL FP3: Finsbury Park Station and Island, Seven 234.0 Small Small Finsbury Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sisters Road, N4 2DH FP4: 129-131 & 133 Fonthill Road & 13 Goodwin 601.3 Small Small Finsbury Park 0 0 0 0 0 700 0 700 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 Street, N4 FP6: Cyma Service Station, 201A Seven Sisters 374.6 Small Small Finsbury Park 0 0 0 0 0 1,047 0 1,047 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 Road, N4 3NG FP7: Holloway Police Station, 284 Hornsey Road, 1297.0 Small Small Finsbury Park 45 0 45 0 0 280 0 280 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 N7 7QY FP8: 113-119 Fonthill Road, N4 3HH 737.1 Small Small Finsbury Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FP9: 233 Seven Sisters Road, N4 2DA 1840.0 Small Small Finsbury Park 33 0 0 33 0 9,811 0 0 9,811 0 755 0 2,416 0 0 FP10: Former George Robey Public House, 240 1310.6 Small Small Finsbury Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254 6,661 0 Seven Sisters Road, N4 2HX FP11: 139-149 Fonthill Road, N4 3HF 1261.1 Small Small Finsbury Park 10 0 10 0 0 401 0 401 0 0 31 0 10 0 0 FP12: 179-199 Hornsey Road, N7 9RA 1130.2 Small Small Finsbury Park 9 0 9 0 0 947 0 947 0 0 73 0 0 0 -344 FP13: Tesco, 103-115 Stroud Green Road, N4 3541.0 Large Small Finsbury Park 65 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3PX Site Site size Large/small re: Large/small Spatial Strategy area Number of Adoption Years 1-5: Years 6- Years 11- Office Adoption Years 1-5: Years 6-10: Years 11-15: Office jobs (based Industrial Retail and leisure Other floorspace SI floorspace (sqm) 0.25ha re: 1ha homes (net 2020/21 2021/22- 10: 15: floorspace 2020/21 2021/22- 2026/27- 2031/32- on 13 FTE per floorspace (net floorspace (net (net additional) (net definition definition additional) 2025/26 2026/27- 2031/32- (net 2025/26 2030/31 2035/36 sqm) additional) additional) additional) 2030/31 2035/36 additional ) FP14: Andover Estate bounded by Durham Road, 104973.0 Large Large Finsbury Park 71 71 0 0 0 5,159 5,159 0 0 0 397 0 87 0 0 Moray Road, Andover Road, Hornsey Road, Newington Barrow Way and Seven Sisters Road, London N7 FP15: 216-220 Seven Sisters Road, N4 3NX 499.3 Small Small Finsbury Park 0 0 0 0 0 1,355 0 1,355 0 0 104 0 388 0 0 FP16: Conservative Club, 1 Prah Road, N4 2RA 476.0 Small Small Finsbury Park 0 0 0 0 0 980 0 980 0 0 75 0 0 -294 0

ARCH1: Vorley Road/Archway Bus Station, N19 2632.8 Large Small Archway 70 0 70 0 0 2,096 0 2,096 0 0 161 0 0 0 0

ARCH2: 4-10 Junction Road (buildings adjacent 663.1 Small Small Archway 0 0 0 0 0 1,029 0 1,029 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 to Archway Underground Station), N19 5RQ

ARCH3: Archway Central Methodist Hall, 782.6 Small Small Archway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Archway Close, N19 3TD ARCH4: Whittington Hospital Ancillary Buildings, 11628.8 Large Large Archway 65 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N19 ARCH5: Archway Campus, Highgate Hill, N19 14702.2 Large Large Archway 260 0 260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,286 ARCH6: Job Centre, 1 Elthorne Road, N19 4AL 3340.8 Large Small Archway 30 0 30 0 0 1,788 0 1,788 0 0 138 0 0 0 0

ARCH7: 207A Junction Road, N19 5QA 1028.6 Small Small Archway 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARCH8: Brookstone House, 4-6 Elthorne Road, 2520.0 Large Small Archway 0 0 0 0 0 1,552 0 0 1,552 0 119 0 0 0 0 N19 4AJ ARCH9: 724 Holloway Road, N19 3JD 774.8 Small Small Archway 0 0 0 0 0 419 0 419 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 ARCH10: Elthorne Estate, Archway, N19 4AG 1764.3 Small Small Archway 46 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 ARCH11: Dwell House, 619-639 Holloway Road, 2579.0 Large Small Archway 21 0 21 0 0 1,101 0 1,101 0 0 85 0 601 0 0 N19 5SS ARCH12: 798-804 Holloway Road, N19 3JH 451 Small Small Archway 5 0 5 0 0 310 0 310 0 0 24 0 -119 0 0 HC1: 12, 16-18 and 24 Highbury Corner, N5 1RA 714.0 Small Small Highbury Corner and 0 0 0 0 0 700 0 700 0 0 54 0 231 0 0 Lower Holloway

HC2: Spring House, 6-38 Holloway Road, N7 8JL 2258.0 Small Small Highbury Corner and 0 0 0 0 0 1,421 0 0 0 1,421 109 0 0 0 0 Lower Holloway

HC3: Highbury and Islington Station, Holloway 18793.0 Large Large Highbury Corner and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Road, N5 1RA Lower Holloway

HC4: Dixon Clark Court, Canonbury Road, N1 5076.0 Large Small Highbury Corner and 41 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 2UR Lower Holloway

HC5: 2 Holloway Road, N7 8JL and 4 Highbury 986.0 Small Small Highbury Corner and 12 0 12 0 0 1,250 0 1,250 0 0 96 0 250 0 0 Crescent, London, N5 1RN Lower Holloway

HC6: Land adjacent to 40-44 Holloway Road, N7 250.0 Small Small Highbury Corner and 0 0 0 0 0 838 0 838 0 0 64 0 210 0 0 8JL Lower Holloway

BC1: City Barbican Thistle Hotel, Central Street 3944.3 Large Small B & C: City Road 0 0 0 0 0 541 0 0 541 0 42 0 0 0 0 BC2: City Forum, 250 City Road 19016.8 Large Large B & C: City Road 621 311 310 0 0 3,800 1,900 1,900 0 0 292 -13,031 3,360 9,000 840

BC3: Islington Boat Club, 16-34 Graham Street 547.8 Small Small B & C: City Road 27 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 538 B & C: Central BC4: Finsbury Leisure Centre 8686.4 Large Small Finsbury 120 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,462 0 0 B & C: Central BC5: London College of Fashion, Golden Lane 1444.0 Small Small Finsbury 0 0 0 0 0 1,479 0 0 1,479 0 114 0 0 0 0 BC6: Redbrick Estate: Vibast Centre, garages and B & C: Central car park, Old Street 5155.7 Large Small Finsbury 55 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -101 0 -719 B & C: City Fringe BC7: 198-208 Old Street (petrol station) 699.6 Small Small Opportunity Area 0 0 0 0 0 1,469 0 1,469 0 0 113 0 367 0 0 B & C: City Fringe BC8: Old Street roundabout area 4308.1 Large Small Opportunity Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B & C: City Fringe BC9: Inmarsat, 99 City Road 2406.4 Small Small Opportunity Area 0 0 0 0 0 12,327 0 0 0 12,327 948 0 0 0 0 B & C: City Fringe BC10: 254-262 Old Street (east of roundabout) 2837.5 Large Small Opportunity Area 0 0 0 0 0 11,639 0 0 11,639 0 895 0 1,293 0 0 Site Site size Large/small re: Large/small Spatial Strategy area Number of Adoption Years 1-5: Years 6- Years 11- Office Adoption Years 1-5: Years 6-10: Years 11-15: Office jobs (based Industrial Retail and leisure Other floorspace SI floorspace (sqm) 0.25ha re: 1ha homes (net 2020/21 2021/22- 10: 15: floorspace 2020/21 2021/22- 2026/27- 2031/32- on 13 FTE per floorspace (net floorspace (net (net additional) (net definition definition additional) 2025/26 2026/27- 2031/32- (net 2025/26 2030/31 2035/36 sqm) additional) additional) additional) 2030/31 2035/36 additional ) B & C: City Fringe BC11: Longbow House, 14-20 Chiswell Street 1383.3 Small Small Opportunity Area 0 0 0 0 0 3,502 0 3,502 0 0 269 0 45 0 0 B & C: City Fringe BC12: Cass Business School, 106 Bunhill Row 4558.3 Large Small Opportunity Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,537 BC13: Car park at 11 Shire House, Whitbread B & C: City Fringe Centre, Lamb's Passage 2607.8 Large Small Opportunity Area 35 0 35 0 0 1,954 0 1,954 0 0 150 0 1,616 3,022 0 B & C: Central BC14: Peabody Whitecross Estate, Roscoe Street 2711.5 Large Small Finsbury 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 435 BC15: Richard Cloudesley School, 99 Golden B & C: Central Lane 3632.3 Large Small Finsbury 66 0 66 0 0 216 0 216 0 0 17 0 0 0 214 B & C: Historic BC16: 36-43 Great Sutton Street (Berry Street) 1638.1 Small Small Clerkenwell 0 0 0 0 0 894 0 0 894 0 69 0 0 0 0 BC17: Caxton House, 2 Farringdon Road 2846.4 Large Small B & C: Farringdon 0 0 0 0 0 9,925 9,925 0 0 0 763 0 2,248 0 0 BC18: Cardinal Tower, 2A, 4-12 Farringdon Road and 48-50 Cowcross Street 4290.6 Large Small B & C: Farringdon 0 0 0 0 0 13,293 0 13,293 0 0 1,023 0 840 0 0 BC19: Farringdon Place, 20 Farringdon Road 3705.8 Large Small B & C: Farringdon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BC20: Lincoln Place, 50 Farringdon Road 1568.0 Small Small B & C: Farringdon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B & C: Mount Pleasant and BC22: Vine Street Bridge 488.0 Small Small Exmouth Market 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 488 0 B & C: Mount BC24: Clerkenwell Fire Station, 42-44 Rosebery Pleasant and Avenue 1297.9 Small Small Exmouth Market 26 0 26 0 0 1,290 0 1,290 0 0 99 0 0 0 1,101 B & C: Mount BC25: Mount Pleasant Post Office, 45 Rosebery Pleasant and Avenue 35777.8 Large Large Exmouth Market 336 168 168 0 0 4,260 2,130 2,130 0 0 328 0 1,428 0 0 B & C: Mount Pleasant and BC26: 68-86 Farringdon Road (NCP carpark) 1938.4 Small Small Exmouth Market 0 0 0 0 0 3,869 0 3,869 0 0 298 0 427 4,780 0 B & C: Mount BC27: Finsbury Health Centre and Pine Street Pleasant and Day Centre 2743.2 Large Small Exmouth Market 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 631 BC28: Angel Gate, Goswell Road 6904.3 Large Small B & C: City Road 0 0 0 0 0 19,592 0 19,592 0 0 1,507 0 0 0 0 B & C: Central BC29: Taylor House, 88 Rosebery Avenue 2179.0 Small Small Finsbury 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B & C: Central BC30: Telfer House, 27 Lever Street 1106.1 Small Small Finsbury 22 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B & C: City Fringe BC32: Monmouth House, 58-64 City Road 1364.7 Small Small Opportunity Area 0 0 0 0 0 6,170 0 6,170 0 0 475 0 404 0 0 B & C: City Fringe BC33: Oliver House, 51-53 City Road 359.7 Small Small Opportunity Area 0 0 0 0 0 490 0 490 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 BC34: 20 Ropemaker Street, 101-117 Finsbury B & C: City Fringe Pavement, 10-12 Finsbury Street 3333.8 Large Small Opportunity Area 0 0 0 0 0 36,373 0 36,373 0 0 2,798 0 -61 0 0 B & C: City Fringe BC35: Finsbury Tower, 103-105 Bunhill Row 5042.6 Large Small Opportunity Area 25 0 25 0 0 10,150 0 10,150 0 0 781 0 1,061 0 0 B & C: Mount BC36: Finsbury Business Centre, 40 Bowling Pleasant and Green Lane 3441.0 Large Small Exmouth Market 0 0 0 0 0 1,622 0 0 1,622 0 125 0 0 0 0 BC37: Triangle Estate, Goswell Road/Compton B & C: Central Street/Cyrus Street 7064.5 Large Small Finsbury 48 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B & C: City Fringe BC38: Moorfields Eye Hospital 10015.5 Large Large Opportunity Area 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0 3,846 0 1,311 0 -28,000 B & C: Central BC39: Laser House, 132-140 Goswell Road 2027.2 Small Small Finsbury 0 0 0 0 0 1,426 0 1,426 0 0 110 0 537 0 0 B & C: City Fringe BC40: The Pentagon, 48 Chiswell Street 2617.0 Large Small Opportunity Area 0 0 0 0 0 1,422 0 0 0 1,422 109 0 0 0 0 BC41: Central Foundation School, 15 Cowper Street, 63-67 Tabernacle Street and 19 & 21-23 B & C: City Fringe Leonard Street 6716.8 Large Small Opportunity Area 0 0 0 0 0 3,019 0 3,019 0 0 232 0 0 0 3,395 BC42: Site of electricity substation opposite 15- 27 Gee Street and car park spaces at 90-98 B & C: Central Goswell Road 653.7 Small Small Finsbury 0 0 0 0 0 3,956 0 3,956 0 0 304 0 94 0 0 B & C: Central BC43: Easy Hotel, 80-86 Old Street 739.9 Small Small Finsbury 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Site size Large/small re: Large/small Spatial Strategy area Number of Adoption Years 1-5: Years 6- Years 11- Office Adoption Years 1-5: Years 6-10: Years 11-15: Office jobs (based Industrial Retail and leisure Other floorspace SI floorspace (sqm) 0.25ha re: 1ha homes (net 2020/21 2021/22- 10: 15: floorspace 2020/21 2021/22- 2026/27- 2031/32- on 13 FTE per floorspace (net floorspace (net (net additional) (net definition definition additional) 2025/26 2026/27- 2031/32- (net 2025/26 2030/31 2035/36 sqm) additional) additional) additional) 2030/31 2035/36 additional ) B & C: Historic BC44: Crown House, 108 Aldersgate Street 149.0 Small Small Clerkenwell 0 0 0 0 0 174 0 174 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 B & C: Historic BC45: 27 Goswell Road 906.3 Small Small Clerkenwell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BC46: City, University of London, 10 B & C: Central Northampton Square 12160.0 Large Large Finsbury 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,000 BC47: Braithwaite House and Quaker Court, B & C: Central Bunhill Row 1308.7 Small Small Finsbury 42 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BC48: Castle House, 37-45 Paul Street; and Fitzroy House, 13-17 Epworth Street and 1-15 B & C: City Fringe Clere street 4734.0 Large Small Opportunity Area 0 0 0 0 0 4,766 0 0 0 4,766 367 0 0 0 0 BC49: Building adjacent to railway lines and opposite 18-20 Farringdon Lane 385.8 Small Small B & C: Farringdon 0 0 0 0 0 1,047 0 0 0 1,047 81 0 0 0 0 B & C: Historic BC51: Italia Conti School, 23 Goswell Road 429.7 Small Small Clerkenwell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BC52: Queen Mary University, Charterhouse B & C: Historic Square Campus 18637.2 Large Large Clerkenwell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B & C: Central BC53: Travis Perkins, 7 Garrett Street 1029.9 Small Small Finsbury 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372 0 0 0 B & C: Central BC54: Sycamore House, 5 Sycamore Street 340.9 Small Small Finsbury 0 0 0 0 0 544 0 544 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 BC55: 2, 4-10 Clerkenwell Road, 29-39 Goswell B & C: Historic Road & 1-4 Great Sutton Street 1122.3 Small Small Clerkenwell 0 0 0 0 0 4,353 0 4,353 0 0 335 0 871 0 0 OIS1: Leroy House, 436 Essex Road, N1 3QP 1776.0 Small Small Other Important 0 0 0 0 0 1,888 0 1,888 0 0 145 0 0 0 0 Sites OIS2: The Ivories, 6-8 Northampton Street, N1 1555.6 Small Small Other Important 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2HY Sites OIS3: Belgravia Workshops, 157-163 1943.0 Small Small Other Important 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marlborough Road, N19 4NF Sites OIS4: 1 Kingsland Passage and BT Telephone 4733.8 Large Small Other Important 67 0 67 0 0 7,714 0 7,714 0 0 593 0 0 0 0 Exchange, Kingsland Green Sites OIS5: Bush Industrial Estate, Station Road, N19 33906.9 Large Large Other Important 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5UN Sites OIS6: 100 Hornsey Road, N7 7NG 1589.6 Small Small Other Important 26 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 296 Sites OIS7: Highbury Delivery Office, 2 Hamilton Lane, 1447.0 Small Small Other Important 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N5 1SW Sites OIS8: Legard Works, 17a Legard Road, N5 1DE 909.3 Small Small Other Important 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sites OIS9: Ladbroke House, 62-66 Highbury Grove, 2563.6 Large Small Other Important 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,985 N5 2AD Sites OIS10: 500-502 Hornsey Road and Grenville 1950 Small Small Other Important 0 0 0 0 0 700 0 700 0 0 54 700 0 0 0 Works, 2A Grenville Road, N19 4EH Sites OIS11: Parkview Estate, Collins Road, N5 17795.6 Large Large Other Important 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sites OIS12: 202-210 Fairbridge Road, N19 3HT 966.6 Small Small Other Important 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -32 0 0 0 Sites OIS13: Highbury Roundhouse Community 1874.3 Small Small Other Important 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Centre, 71 Ronald's Road, N5 1XB Sites OIS14: 17-23 Beaumont Rise, N19 3AA 1609.3 Small Small Other Important 27 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -300 Sites OIS15: Athenaeum Court, 94 Highbury New Park, 1070.0 Small Small Other Important 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N5 2DN Sites OIS16: Harvist Estate Car Park, N7 7NJ 31879.0 Large Large Other Important 24 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sites OIS17: Hathersage and Besant Courts, 6942.0 Large Small Other Important 43 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 Newington Green, N1 4RF Sites OIS18: Wedmore Estate Car Park, N19 4NU 8296.0 Large Small Other Important 19 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sites OIS19: 25-27 Horsell Road, N5 1XL 814.0 Small Small Other Important 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sites OIS20: Vernon Square, Penton Rise, WC1X 9EW 3840.0 Large Small Other Important 0 0 0 0 0 3,052 0 0 3,052 0 235 0 0 0 -3,052 Sites Site Site size Large/small re: Large/small Spatial Strategy area Number of Adoption Years 1-5: Years 6- Years 11- Office Adoption Years 1-5: Years 6-10: Years 11-15: Office jobs (based Industrial Retail and leisure Other floorspace SI floorspace (sqm) 0.25ha re: 1ha homes (net 2020/21 2021/22- 10: 15: floorspace 2020/21 2021/22- 2026/27- 2031/32- on 13 FTE per floorspace (net floorspace (net (net additional) (net definition definition additional) 2025/26 2026/27- 2031/32- (net 2025/26 2030/31 2035/36 sqm) additional) additional) additional) 2030/31 2035/36 additional ) OIS21: Former railway sidings adjacent to and 1103.0 Small Small Other Important 16 0 0 16 0 300 0 0 300 0 23 0 0 0 0 potentially including Caledonian Road Station Sites

OIS22: 114 Balls Pond Road and 1 King Henry's 3048.0 Large Small Other Important 62 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk, N1 4NL Sites OIS23: 1 Lowther Road, N7 8US 1101.0 Small Small Other Important 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sites OIS24: Pentonville Prison, Caledonian Road, N7 33178.0 Large Large Other Important 550 0 0 184 366 3,432 0 0 1,144 2,288 264 0 0 0 3,000 8TT Sites OIS25: Charles Simmons House, 3 Margery 408.0 Small Small Other Important 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 17 Street, WC1X 0HP Sites OIS26: Amwell Street Water Pumping Station, 2921.0 Large Small Other Important 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clerkenwell, EC1R Sites 4,984 881 2,802 826 475 354,405 16,930 171,983 129,384 36,108 27,262 4,394 48,931 23,657 376 Appendix 2: Islington Housing Trajectory 2018/19

Table 1 – Islington Housing Trajectory Table

Reporting Current Past 5 years Five year supply Years 6-10 Years 11-15 year year 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2020/ 2021/ 2022/ 2023/ 2024/ 2025/ 2026/ 2027/ 2028/ 2029/ 2030/ 2031/ 2032/ 2033/ 2034/ 14 15 16 17 18 2018/19 2019/20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Vacancies Returning to Use Projected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total vacancies returned to use 105 62 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non Self-Contained Past Completions 287 287 484 885 -3 192 0

Projected Completions 291 13 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Non-self-contained 287 287 484 885 -3 192 291 13 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conventional Past Completions 1,429 969 1,156 808 470 768 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Projected Large Sites 733 1,196 555 638 350 415 308 220 227 0 0 109 77 184 183 183

Projected (permitted) small sites 148 148 95 34 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Projected windfall small 484 484 484 484 484 484 484 484 484 sites 0 0 0 450 466 484 484

Projected Total small sites 148 148 95 484 484 484 484 484 484 484 484 484 484 484 484 484

Projected Total 881 1,344 650 1,122 834 899 792 704 711 484 484 593 561 668 667 667

Total Conventional Dwellings 1,429 969 1,156 808 470 768 881 1,344 650 1,122 834 899 792 704 711 484 484 593 561 668 667 667 Total Past completions 1,821 1,318 1,672 1,693 467 960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Projected Completions 1,172 1,357 650 1,122 834 946 792 704 711 484 484 593 561 668 667 667 Total Completions 1,821 1,318 1,672 1,693 467 960 1,172 1,357 650 1,122 834 946 792 704 711 484 484 593 561 668 667 667 Source: 2019 Housing Trajectory data, Cdpsmart development monitoring system, LBI

Note: The figures in table 1 differ from the net additional dwelling statistic produced by MHCLG (Live Tables 122, 123 and 124). This is likely because the MHCLG figures are a snapshot at the time of data submission in September 2019, whereas the figures in table 1 are updated on an ongoing basis as data about completions is received.