Consultation Statement - Islington Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 Issues and Options consultation Option 16 - Retaining existing employment spaces & Option 17 - Redevelopment of existing employment space Some developers object to minimum marketing periods. Some developers considered options 16 and 17 too restrictive. Jones Lang LaSalle prefer a market demand assessment and refurbishment viability assessment instead of a marketing assessment. A number of developers requested more detailed policies, including in relation to the marketing period and the definition of 'significant increase' Some support for expansion of employment uses. 2 comments objecting to use of floorspace as a measure, rather than number of employees La Salle Management Ltd called for more flexibility for loss outside the CAZ LMU and High Speed 1 definition of employment is too narrow and ignores PPS4 Marketing provides more direct and reliable evidence compared to a market demand assessment and the marketing period allows adequate opportunities for alternative employment uses to be established where possible. The strategic protection of employment land is important for long-term sustainability. Assessing the viability of refurbishment could be undertaken as part of the marketing evidence. Properties should be marketed at a price appropriate to their condition. The Direction of Travel policy was more specific about marketing and about the level of increases expected. The Submission document includes an appendix giving detailed requirements for marketing. It is difficult to confirm the number of employees, existing or proposed. Floorspace is a more practical measure. Users can also change within the same Use Class and this leads to variations in employment densities. Direction of Travel policies refer specifically to CAZ and non-CAZ locations The definition is addressed in the Core Strategy. PPS 4 does not define 'employment' but defines 'economic development'. Option 18 - New employment space Workspace Group supports promotion of SMEs and flexible design A number of developers consider that servicing should be assessed on a site by site basis and that off-street may not be possible in some cases. The policy is considered sufficiently flexible. There is strong evidence about the failure of live-work to provide genuine employment space and about the significant pressures for live-work units to change Use to residential Development Management Policies: Regulation 25 Consultation Statement Islington Council 13
2 Issues and Options consultation Comments from one resident: Object to restriction / ban of live/work. Object to separation of employment and residential land uses. Other GLA have stated that an increase in office floorspace should provide for a mix of uses. A number of comments were also received from developers in relation to mixed-use sites, including in relation to the principal of mixed uses and in relation to viability issues. The Direction of Travel policy states that a mix of uses should be provided as part of developments providing business floorspace. Shops, Leisure and Services Option 19 - Town centre boundaries Tesco supports the extension of the Angel Town Centre Boundary northwards. Highbury Fields Association support extension to Nags Head but would prefer Angel to be extended up to Highbury Corner. London Metropolitan University support extension of Nag's Head but suggest inclusion of University buildings on Holloway Road. Highbury Corner is not considered to be an integral part of the Angel Town Centre, given the distance from the Primary and Secondary Frontages. Further changes have been made to the Angel Town Centre boundary for the proposed Submission version. Further changes have been made to the Nag's Head Town Centre boundary for the proposed Submission version. University uses are not considered main town centre uses. The Site Allocations document refers to the potential for active ground floor uses for some University sites. Option 20 - Managing Town Centres Option 21 - Primary Frontage & Option 22 - Secondary Frontage GLA support use of SPDs to manage Town Centres Tesco support Option 21 A and Option 22 A Metropolitan Police support Option 22 B and Option 23 B but wording should relate to Police facilities Policies to promote A Uses in Primary and Secondary frontages have been included in the Direction of Travel and Submission versions 14 Islington Council Development Management Policies: Regulation 25 Consultation Statement
Page 1 and 2: www.islington.gov.uk/LDF Developmen
Page 3 and 4: 1 Overview Development Management P
Page 5 and 6: 1 Overview Issues and Options consu
Page 7 and 8: 2 Issues and Options consultation D
Page 9 and 10: 2 Issues and Options consultation T
Page 11 and 12: 2 Issues and Options consultation e
Page 13: 2 Issues and Options consultation H
Page 17 and 18: 2 Issues and Options consultation G
Page 19 and 20: 2 Issues and Options consultation O
Page 21 and 22: 3 Direction of Travel consultation
Page 39 and 40: Appendix 1 Appendix 1 Specification
Page 41 and 42: Appendix 2 Appendix 2 General consu
Page 43 and 44: Appendix 2 • Berkeley Homes Plann
Page 45 and 46: Appendix 2 • City Piazza Resident
Page 47 and 48: Appendix 2 • Elthorne Learning Ce
Page 49 and 50: Appendix 2 • Help the Aged • He
Page 51 and 52: Appendix 2 • Islington Conservati
Page 53 and 54: Appendix 2 • Lawn Tennis Associat
Page 55 and 56: Appendix 2 • Martineau • Matrix
Page 57 and 58: Appendix 2 • Palmers Estate TRA
Page 59 and 60: Appendix 2 • Seaforth Crescent TR
Page 61 and 62: Appendix 2 • The Vestry • Thebe

Consultation Statement - Islington Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?