However we do not accept that there need be additional provision for pedestrian crossings as regards Liverpool Road. There are already three crossings near the junction with the Angel. We ask that it is stated that there is no provision to close off Liverpool Road, or to divert traffic elsewhere. G. We welcome the point that the Night Time Economy should demonstrate that there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity.

4. Policy SP8: Corner and Lower Holloway (p 58 on). We ask that there is express reference to the need, in our view, to monitor the effects of the reconfiguration of Highbury Corner, and the effects in rat-running in surrounding local roads.

Second, we ask that there should be express reference to the need around Highbury Corner for a) public lavatories, where provision was removed some years ago. A sign in the station says that there are no facilities there, and points to the lavatories at the top of , a long distance away. b) restoration of Post boxes at Highbury & station to serve the many thousands who pass the hub each week. These were removed in 2014.

5. Policy H1: Thriving Communities (p 61 0n) Para 3.1. ‘Islington’s residential population is expected to increase significantly over the plan period.’ Again we believe that the Draft Plan should refer to the fact that the Borough is the most densely populated in the UK. Para 3.4 Strategic Housing Land Assessment Process (SHLAA) has highlighted that there is dwindling capacity for new residential development in Islington, insufficient to meet local housing need. The Plan needs to make reference to the needs of long term future residents.

6. Policy R1 Retail Leisure and services, culture, and visitor accommodation. (p130 on) Paras M and O refer to the Night Time Economy and Pubs. Para P refers to the need for the highest standards, while Para 4.78 refers to ‘These varied activities all require good quality infrastructure to make the movement of people efficient, safe and attractive.

One aspect of that, in our view, is that the growth of the Night Time Economy and indeed the huge increase in daily footfall in the Angel and Upper Street Areas requires insistence on more adequate space for public toilet facilities. Future licensing of pubs and bars provision should be expressly linked to adequate provision of in-house facilities.

7. Sustainable Design. Policy S7 We particularly support the Draft Plan in reference to the environment. We note that Para 6.93 stresses that ‘the whole of Islington is covered by an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), where national air quality objectives in relation to NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are not likely to be achieved.’ We recognise that Islington and Camden were among the first Boroughs to accept the need to improve air quality.

8. Policy T2. Sustainable Transport Choices We welcome most of this section of the Draft Plan, especially the priority of public transport and pedestrians, the transport modes of most travellers and commuters.

9. Design and Heritage Policy DH3. Building Heights Para 8.45. Islington is historically a low-rise but densely built area. We note and accept that policy should optimise development while providing a form of development at a human scale. ‘There are significant opportunities to optimise development while providing a form of development at a human scale which is responsive to the surrounding contextual heights across much of the borough.’

10. Policy DH4. Basement Developments. We welcome this Policy entirely.

Appendices. Appendix 1. We note controls proposed in advertising property Marketing and Vacancy criteria. We would like to see a wider new general Policy requiring estate agents to rely primarily on advertising by internet, as is the real case today. In our view estate agents’ signage on properties is disfiguring and unnecessary. We believe that in certain London Boroughs- and indeed in some Scottish cities- agents’ hoardings are banned, restricted or time- limited.

B). Site Allocations Consultation.

We comment on section 8. Para HC3. Highbury and Islington Station and Holloway Road

We note the suggested timetable of 2031/32- 2035/36 as being so far ahead. Nevertheless should design of a new station go ahead we would like to be kept informed.

The station at present, while about the 13th busiest interchange in the UK, is much overloaded, and has no lifts to the underground section to help the disabled. This should be stressed in dealings with TfL.

C). Integrated Impact Assessment

We just comment briefly on this large and useful document, which must represent a huge amount of research and work.

This is certainly welcome overall in looking to 2035. We note the Local Plan Sustainability Framework in table 2.1.

We particularly welcome the reassuring sections in para 3.54 etc Cultural Heritage and Townscape Heritage Assets, page 37 on, including the emphasis on the low-rise townscape.

We note the section on Socioeconomic Characteristics – paras 3.91 onwards, that the Borough is remains among the most deprived, at 5th in London and 13th in .in London. We particularly note the Assessment of Likely Effects of the Objectives set out in section 4.

We would like to make one particular comment, however: in our view some of the data and charts on pollution and the environment set out in Environmental Characteristics, page 23 onwards, now seems out of date. In the past Islington has collaborated with Camden in some research. Possibly that collaboration could to be updated.

Yours faithfully

Response sent on behalf of the Chair and Committee, The Upper Street Association.