Yeugh. Might as well all move to Croydon by the sound of it.

http://www.islington.gov.uk/Environment/Planning/Online/default.asp

Search for P092492 (with a zero after P)

Or use this deep link instead - http://bit.ly/citynorth

Yay Poxy, but it's still a yawn.

What sort of people make these plans?

It looks like the tenants of the 10th and 11th floor duplexes will have 3 toilets and 2 bath tubs in each 2 bedroom apartment. Either there's a large market for incontinent but hygiene-conscious city dwellers that's being targeted, or not much effort has gone into the design so far.

They're going to have fun getting furniture up and down those spiral staircases too.

Good point. * This title has been edited. There are, as i understand, two developments - City North and John Jones. This thread is about City North.

I'm new on the forum so hello all - I've enjoyed reading your posts.

I really hope this development will be a success - the area around Fonthill Road/station is still a bit crimey and maybe if there are more people around, this will improve.

But I can completely understand where Close is coming from too. The last thing we need is another of those massive orange brick towers that look like huge prison toilet blocks or a blandarama glass and concrete effort.

Does anyone know anything about the architects for this scheme?

The Croydon council building is lovely, allegedly taking its inspiration from the Pirelli building in Milan.

@ C&W - Does the Barbican count, and Trellick tower, or they not considered orbital? (Is fin-fin considered orbital?)

C&W, what local view of what 'skyline' is worth protecting?

I think the towers around Canary Wharf are cool, the Gherkin is cool. The Shard will be great. Tall can be good. Conversely, the locality of the station is squat and scruffy. Why build more squat and scruffy buildings? (if you follow the line of your argument)

Lets use the opportunity to make sure these are welcome additions, and not missed opportunities (like there are examples of in Croydon and elsewhere, granted)

And why wouldn't the towers be good for the community? More customers for the local shops and more choice of housing (including some affordable).

I agree that the hideous towers on SS Rd should have come down - they did not work in the surrounding context. But the area around FP station needs a complete rethink, I'm with Reg on this one.

B

I'm for it on the basis that it may obscure the view of The Emirates from Crouch Hill/Crouch End Hill.


As for Islington I thinmk they are dabbling with lots of develpments round F.Park in the hope they that can create a buzz in the private sector and find a willing partner/fool to stump up for re-developing the tube station with the long mooted piazza and entrance on Fonthill Road [ complete with naff mural no doubt] Hopefully it will be someone other than the berk responsible for the bus station on SS rd. side which looks like a scheme rejected by everywhere else since 1974 but available as a bargain since it looked old before it was finished - sort of built in distressed look for buildings. Either that or it's bit of marine salvage artfully re-purposed as a community sculpture.

With regard to G-unit public consultation question, the only thing required is a small notice in the back of a local paper and a letter to the immediate neighbours. The number of neighbours informed is usually down to the planning department to decide on. We got a letter (actually two) living pretty close to the site.

Looking at their public consultation document, it appears that there were 3,000 leaflets distributed, and only 20 people attended the public exhibition last summer, the document then basically goes on to say that the attendance was low because the scheme was not contentious. Not sure why the attendance would be so low? I suppose there could be a few reasons - summer holidays, it was only held on the actual business park, i didn't see any adverst for it etc. I live within a couple hundred yards from the site, but we didn't get a notice, i'd have gone to have a nosey.

I think the exhibiton could have been done a bit better. Change the venues every day, go somewhere where there's high foot-fall in the local area, leaflet a lot more people, engage the local press - local journos love a good 'exclusive'..

I've not yet made my mind up on this scheme though, I think Finsbury Park needs something, but I quite like the current 2-3 storey scale, it gives the place a bit of historical character.

@wideboy
I've worked for local authorities, and my knowledge on planning is a little rusty, but I think there's a statutory obligation to consult in a 200 metre radius of the site. I recollect that you can't speak at the planning hearing if you are not within this radius, although you can make comments through the portal.

That list of community groups that were consulted with must have been supplied by the council or the local CVS, I'm guessing. I'm wondering why Stroudgreen.org isn't on there, because I'm sure it has more contact with local residents than some of the others. It seems such an antiquated way of consulting, just sending out leaflets. They were bound to get ignored along with the pile of junk mail in the numerous shared hallways around the area. No wonder they only had 20 people turn up.

Having said that I think the development looks really attractive, especially the podium bit, not sure about the sort of glass, post office tower looking thing and the other tall rectangular block, but maybe those are the bits that will bring in the revenue for the project.

Dorothy, does the 200m radius not scale up with the size of the development?

I think the bus station/station place frontage is pretty good, certainly a huge improvement on how it was before... the sooner they clean up the Wells Terrace entrance the better.

Arky

re consultation, this is a difficult one as being a big development it will inevitably draw a lot of interest. Catchment is not proportional to the size of the application but it is an interesting idea. I wouldn't read anything in to whether you have been directly notified or not and the AAP boundary doesn't have anything to do with this. The local press notices and notices that they put up on lamp-posts are intended to create awareness and websites like this do a great job. I would have thought that the applicant would have made more of an effort but there you have it.

However, since you are reading this thread you are in a position to spread the word and make your own representations - positive or negative. If you do you might also be heard at the committee so this not just lip service, you really can steer this.

Can I make the following suggestions: 1. Please look at the application very carefully and identify exactly what you are not happy with. You are probably too late in the planning process to stop redevelopment altogether as the principle seems to have been accepted by the local authority in the AAP process. 2. Even if you have very strong feelings about this try not to sound too shrill or reactionary as this will turn off the sympathy that officers and members will have towards us as local residents. Firm and reasonable wins every time. 3. If you don't like the height, be specific about why - character of Fonthill, view from wherever. Suggest what you think an appropriate height/scale would be. 4. If you think that there is an impact that could be addressed through investment though do share it (with the planners or here). i.e. capacity of dentists, doctors, schools etc. Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act requires the developer to address these impacts before/during development and this often comes in the form of direct provision or financial contributions to existing services.

I would encourage everyone to use this opportunity to make this as good as can be, not to just try and have it thrown out. Of course it is your right to try if you want to but my reading of this is that the principle is already supported - now its about details.

[deleted]

Same here. I'm not against the redevelopment, but I raised questions over:

1) Not being notified of the planning application even though I live very close.
2) The design appears to score relatively poorly in grading points/awards relating to Co2 emissions for office and retail areas. Also appears to score zero in all innovation categories.
3) The the proposed design doesn't meet LBI's minimum standard of "Excellent".
4) The dimissal of small scale wind power generation, without giving reasons why.
5) Height / scale.

....in relation page 8 See section 4.2 and 4.7. Also see page 94 re: Wind power.

Small scale wind generation isn't very good. That would be the main reason.

The payback on domestic wind turbines, with the embedded carbon of manufacture, is pretty poor. You're better off reducing consumption through improved efficiency.

I’ve spent a lot of time looking at this application, and I’ve commented with all but full approval, including agreement on the height (and I will be able to see this development from my flat on Mount View Rd). My only objection is to the removal of the 19th century façade on Goodwin St – they may not think that it is of architectural merit but I think it’s attractive and if incorporated into the design would mark the transition between old and new right by the new gateway, dovetailing the Victorian building next door into the new development. I’ve suggested that if this is not possible then the façade should be saved for use elsewhere, perhaps in redeveloping the gap between the neighbouring Victorian premises with identical facades.

Arky

I know some people have objections about the height of the two towers but they concern me less that the impact that the long white monolith the towers rise above will have. It looks like a 10 story, three block long wall of white. It could create a worse separation in the neighbourhood than the railway line.

@ Arky - I used to think that about lovely facades but I feel that the Queenswood medical centre in CE shows how badly this can be done. The old bit looks ropey and the new bit looks castrated.

@Tosscat – I haven’t seen it, no, and the internet isn’t assisting on this one. I accept it could be done badly… I just hate to lose the history, you know? I’d like to see some renders with it included so that we can reach a better conclusion.

@JoeV: Is your primary beef with the view from the park? I agree that it is the least attractive view, perhaps they could lose a story or two from it. But views from elsewhere shouldn’t be compromised at street level because of the surrounding buildings. I would suggest that if we reduced this to ‘positive transformation that this development could bring’ vs ‘reduced attractiveness of view from a particular part of the park’ then the former wins out. As to actual appearance – have a look at some of the end results from the same architects at the link Wideboy posted above – gorgeous, and a rare successful juxtaposition of old and new. That’s my take on it anyway. And it would be difficult to make that part of town worse, let’s be honest. Arky

So you disagree with the findings of Delva Patman Associates daylight, sunlight and shadowing report (W66 in the application)? Page 16-17 suggests only 3 properties would have windows that would be significantly affected, and then only for part of the day. Demolishing my neighbour’s houses would improve the amount of daylight I got, but there are other factors to take into consideration, sadly! 

@ Arkady -- What do I know? I'm just an amatuer relating my thoughts based on a couple of drawings posted to a website. But I don't see how a ten story building of that length can only impact 2-3 properties. If that's the conclusion of the daylight and shadowing report then I'm even more concerned.

I didn't say I was against this project. I think it's really interesting architecturally and could be a really positive addition to the neighbourhood (if that one building was scaled down).

Your response to what I think of as a legitimate concerns seems, well a tad defensive. If all the environmental impact reports are so positive why bother involving the community? Just build the thing.

By the way, have you seen the new development at Tottenham Hale? If you have that is my concern. If you haven't get thee on the Victoria line and have a look.

Joe - OK I found the details of the TH development. Personally I hate the concept design, but I agree that the end result is even worse. Without more research it's hard to be sure, but it looks like major compromises were made when translating it to reality - I'm suprised some of those structures even got planning permission. Then again, it's a shithole around there anyway, they didn't have to worry about the surroundings. Arky