Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Iain Meek on November 13, 2017 at 21:18

Alternative 2 looks like a rational approach.  I note Camden successfully brought the old Christopher Hatton back into use as a school some years ago.

Some doubts about the wisdom of block 2 blocking all sunlight to the proposed school...perhaps better to increase the size of blocks 1 & 3? 

I still think the geometry of any new buildings should follow the old school/ fashion college axis and be set off from the listed Golden Lane estate to help define the two elements.

Any idea when the lease on the school (fashion college) comes up?

I assume Alternative 1 is still a gross overdevelopment as it crams both the proposed school and the new housing onto too small a site.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Humphries on November 14, 2017 at 16:34

Yes, all good points Iain. There is a bit more space between Block 2 and the playground than it appears from this angle, when we publish the plans it will be possible to check that. Alternative 1 might still be regarded as over-development, but because it creates some amenity space it is actually less dense than the scheme that is currently in for planning.

I have checked the land registry and it appears that the London College of Fashion (University of the Arts) actually own the freehold of the building, so rumours about a lease are incorrect. But the rumours about them moving are true. They plan to be in their new building in the Olympic park by 2021:

http://blogs.arts.ac.uk/4fashion/introduction-to-4fashion-the-move-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Kreikmeier-Watson on November 28, 2017 at 16:26

As a dim-witted Council Tenant I hope all you clever architects are taking into account the fact that the new Council Housing is supposed to include a decent proportion of larger properties for families?

It's not just about 'units' - it's about homes that will ease the overcrowded conditions that many City Council Tenants are facing. We have already had families on the Estate where young teens have had to share with younger siblings.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Humphries on November 28, 2017 at 17:02

Hi David,

You need to refer to Islington's policy DM3.1 for housing mix. You can download it here. Table 3.1, page 31. For Social Rented housing they specify the following:

1-bed 0%

2-bed 20%

3-bed 30%

4-bed 50%

You will notice that the proposals that have been submitted for planning, being predominantly 2-bedroom  do not comply with this mix.  I agree that there should be fewer larger units on the site in compliance with planning policy and would encourage you to write in and make this point to the planning authorities during the current consultation period.

The mix of units and the emphasis on numbers of units over quality of homes was primarily set by the councillors who commissioned the project based on maximising "units" rather than the architects who designed it. I was a council tenant  for twenty years and I think you'll find most architects understand this issue.

The point of our alternative proposals is to show that the exact same square footage of social housing can be built on the site in a style that is compatible with the existing Estate, does not break planning policy on height, density, public space, daylighting and noise and without the isolating effect of a high rise tower. 

• ▶ Reply