Better Archway Forum
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
R19.0158 Submission from the Better Archway Forum Regarding Draft Islington Local Plan 16th October 2019 We warmly welcome the generation principles of the Plan including among other issues the commitment to young people, to protecting the environment and the active designation of Archway as a cultural quarter. There is much else that we could commend so please take it as read that we are supportive of what the Plan sets out. The following are suggestions where we believe there is scope for increasing the effectiveness of the proposals. We appreciate that some of the points here are strictly speaking matters for TfL but include them as part of the local picture. Safety 1. One of the best ways of achieving public safety is to ensure ‘eyes on the street’. For this reason it may be helpful to specify that all development, whether residential or business, must feature a clear sense of connection with the public space with doors directly from the street and windows large enough to clearly signal active use of the building. 2. Point 8.72 proposes improving permeability. However, the Space Syntax study of the Girdlestone Estate in 2008 found that one of the key underlying problems with the estate was that there is too much permeability, so those responsible for anti-social behaviour can easily evade detection. Policy favouring permeability should ensure that integral to that is an assessment of potential impact on crime and anti-social behaviour and where permeability is sought, it is only with measures which will keep the space safe. Simple cut-throughs such as proposed on the Holborn Union site may prove a great deal more problematic than helpful. In effect permeability needs to be across what has been called 'defensible space' and/or what the Rowntree Foundation called LOTS (Living Over The Shop), ie spaces which are actively overlooked and/or in a clear sense of ownership. Retail 3. Given the value of town centres as a place to meet, either accidentally or by design, we very much welcome the support given to retail and other uses including pubs as well as other small businesses. 4. As part of this, rather than naming any specific business, which may change hands, it may be more helpful to name specific uses and/or sites which are to be supported, so for example small workshops and other SME properties such as those at the end of Windermere Road N19, the market space, the bakery in Junction Road (what was Stagnells) and other retail based business where unless work space is protected it is being lost to poor quality housing. This point might even be applied to Post Offices. 5. As ever, if there is any way of preventing the use of solid shuttering on shop fronts, that would be warmly welcomed as the metal frontages form an intimidating townscape after dark. Neighbouring boroughs do have policies against these, which apparently offer security but in fact facilitate raiders who can enter unobserved from the rear, while at the front the business loses the promotional advantage of a pleasant frontage which prompts passers-by to return to purchase. Archway Maps 6. We are puzzled that the map indicates that Archway town centre primary frontage is not designated as extending down Holloway Road to the branches of Sainsbury’s and Tesco’s, but that there is a proposal that the retail frontages should extend up Highgate Hill, behind the Archway Tavern, where there would be no retail continuity. This makes no sense, particular as the creation of retail frontages on the Holborn Union site would have the effect of adding additional, unnecessary mass to a site where the proposed height of new buildings is already unpopular. The aim, especially in the current retail environment, should be to consolidate not dissipate the retail frontages, and the map should be adjusted to take account of the actual situation and extend the town centre down Holloway Road. Cultural Quarter 7. This designation for Archway is very welcome. However, the strength of Archway is the diversity of cultures, that none-the-less cohere. It may therefore be helpful to clarify that this encompasses more than the conventionally ‘arty’. 8. Potential problems with a night-time economy and anti-social behaviour are something local residents have become keenly aware of. It would therefore be useful to be clear that activities of any kind will have a clear termination point such as midnight. 9. The Archway Tavern is a key building in Archway, ever more so since the creation of Navigator Square. But the current leaseholder (we understand with 40 years to expire on his lease) appears determined to leave it empty and neglected. Indeed, we understand that not even the night club at the back is now operating. Designating the building as an active element of the cultural quarter might be helpful in prompting either a sale or the arrival of a more capable manager to start running the building. 10. In terms of point R11 it would be helpful to set out some examples of how robustly to demonstrate social value. In the case of Archway Tavern, because it has been closed for so long there is no clientele for example. While in the case of the Whittington & Cat the designation as an Asset of Community Value was quietly ignored by the owners. Housing 11. We are all too well aware of the on-going housing problems for many in the borough and welcome the expectation that new housing will take account of the needs of families. 12. We welcome also the requirement for dense design but note that this is best achieved through low and medium rise, parallel ‘streets’ and inward-looking ‘courts’ rather than high rise - as in the paper by Professor Steadman of UCL - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b39141. 13. We are disappointed to understand that LB Islington does not support co-housing projects. Because these offer shared facilities they often encourage residents to live in smaller accommodation than otherwise, and the social support they provide leads to significant savings in support services. Their success in countries like the Netherlands is proof that they can be highly effective. Tall Buildings 14. Point 8.55 of the draft plan includes a number of issues regarding tall buildings, not least wind blight and the Tall Building Study carried out for LB Islington noted that nowhere in the borough was suited to tall buildings so it is clear that there is considerable reason not to permit these. 15. In addition we would highlight the report by Professor Philip Steadman of UCL on the very questionable sustainability of tall buildings. He finds that those above 20 storeys have a carbon footprint two and a half times those of six storeys or under. www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/energy/news/2017/jun/ucl-energy-high-rise-buildings-energy-and- density-research-project-results and www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09613218.2018.1479927 offer information on his research. This refers to office buildings. Professor Steadman says they also looked at residential buildings but without access to actual energy consumption data. However, a statistical approach again showed a steep increase in the intensity of energy use with height. The high energy cost is a particular concern for social housing where the cost of running the building must be paid for out of public money. 16. Professor Steadman has also found that tall buildings are not the densest form of housing – see link above. Given that they are widely unpopular with potential tenants, there does not appear to be good reason to build them other than for private profit. We therefore believe Policy DH1 F, if kept, should be amended. Tall buildings do not make the best use of land because they do not optimise the amount of development on a site, and policy should make that clear so that planning decisions can be made in the light of that knowledge. 17. We note also that tall buildings are particularly expensive in terms of maintenance so are liable to become much more run down than properties where maintenance is easier and more affordable. And of course they now require a great deal of investment in fire safety. Tall buildings do not appear to offer long term value, whatever the short-term return. Transport 18. Given the potential benefits it may be helpful for LB Islington to adopt the TfL Healthy Streets policy https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/planning-for-the- future/healthy-streets to promote improved public space and active transport. 19. In terms of public transport we believe it would be extremely useful to reopen Junction Road Station on the Gospel Oak to Barking line, perhaps calling it Tufnell Park High Level Station and even at a later stage providing an escalator connection to Northern Line at Low Level. At the moment there is an extensive catchment which is not within easy public transport or walking distance of either Upper Holloway or Gospel Oak stations, so effectively not able to make use of the increasingly popular overground line. 20. While there has been an apparent reduction in traffic on the main roads around Archway, there has been a degree of displacement which has been unhelpful. While we appreciate that TfL requires a diversion route for buses in the event of an emergency, it would be helpful for example for St John's Grove not to be shown as a through motor traffic route. 21. What has become clear is that with reduced traffic levels, when the road is clear there is an increase in speeding on both Holloway Road and Junction Road.