Islington (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Islington residents criticize a housing association’s plan to add 11 storeys to Holloway Park blocks, fearing social housing needs are being sidelined for profit.
According to the proposals, which Peabody revealed last week, two blocks might have their eight stories increased to 17 or 19 stories.
Peabody contends that the government’s requirement that buildings taller than eighteen meters have a second staircase necessitates the redesign. According to them, this means that in order to keep the plan “financially viable,” more apartments must be added.
While the nearby apartments they tower over are designated as social housing, the tallest blocks would be privately sold; one-bedroom apartments are being offered for £675,000.
Residents of Holloway are concerned that overshadowing would affect their access to light and that their concerns will be disregarded, according to the Community Plan for Holloway (CP4H).
Martin Klute, Islington’s planning chief, addressed concerns, saying: “That sounds like an apprehension rather than an informed comment. People shouldn’t be worried about that. The current daylight and sunlight assessments are better than they were before.”
He added: “In terms of who lives in which buildings, it’s a moot point. If you’re in social housing and you’ve got a family, being in a tall building, a high-up flat is not what you want, it’s much better suited to couples.”
Rod Gonggrijp, chair of CP4H, said: “It’s quite a dismissive statement to make before the numbers are published, given that in the previous design hundreds of properties will have a loss of daylight and sunlight, some really badly. To simply wave these concerns away is quite something.”
It seems very obvious that the most attractive locations on the site are dedicated to luxury flats and the least attractive are dedicated to affordable housing. Is that fair? Is that something that the Labour council should be signing off on?”
Originally, the site promised to deliver 985 homes but new plans show that Peabody aims to increase this number to 1,145.
Helen Strongman, who chairs Bakersfield Residents’ Association, which neighbours the site, said that every Bakersfield resident I have spoken to would welcome a high-quality, largely social housing estate on our doorstep.
This would ease the local housing crisis for our families, friends, and current and future neighbours.
However, the original plans for Holloway Park were considered by most to constitute over development, leading to a poor-quality environment for new and surrounding residents.
She added: “In my mind, Peabody’s focus on maximising profit and their commitment to Islington Council to maintain a large proportion of social housing has resulted in the quality of private housing being prioritised over both social housing and the environment for new and existing residents.”
Critics in the area, such as the Community Plan for Holloway, worry that the tall new private apartments, some of which are priced at £675,000, would overshadow the current social housing and have a detrimental effect on the quality of life and access to natural light for renters.
Additionally, because the construction will accommodate about 4,000 people without equivalent additions in GPs, dentists, transportation, or community facilities, they fear that the emphasis on maximizing profit will ignore the need for social housing and put a pressure on local services.
Mr Gonggrijp said that having 4,000 people living on the site would lead to a significant strain on the local amenities.
He told the Tribune that the entire design comes with no additional facilities, GPs, dentists, transport, not even a community centre.
Regarding the threat of over-development, Cllr Klute said that it’s obviously an issue that needs to be assessed very carefully.
There are requirements to maintain the financial viability of the whole scheme. There are costs involved with building the second staircases. Those costs have to be recovered somehow. It is a balancing act.
He hasn’t looked in detail but I think officers tell me that they are broadly happy with the financial viability they’ve been shown so far, and that Peabody is being reasonable.
But Mr Gonggrijp said: “I see them bringing onboard a huge amount of risk to keep expanding on the scale of the site.
There is of course a point where increasing the site even further will be near impossible.
The next thing will be ‘we need to reduce the number of social housing because we need to sell more private housing to make the numbers add up’.”
A spokesperson for Peabody said: “At Holloway Park our priority is delivering the affordable homes that were approved by Islington Council back in 2022 – homes that are really needed in the area.
We’re also creating a new public park, a women’s building, a skills hub, and new shops.
To make all of this possible, we’re planning to increase the number of homes in phases two and three. That’s partly because of rising construction costs, higher interest rates, and changes to building safety regulations.”
He said that they are looking closely at the designs, including building heights and layouts, to make sure they work well for the community and protect things like neighbours’ daylight. They will also be carrying out full assessments to understand the environmental and social impacts.
They are committed to working closely and openly with local people. Locals can visit https://hollowayparkcommunity.co.uk/ to find out how to take part in the consultation.
What are the main concerns of local residents about the proposed 11 storey addition in Islington?
Residents fear that existing social housing will be overshadowed by the much higher new towers, which will drastically cut down on daylight and sunlight access for existing inhabitants and lower their quality of life.
There is concern that the emphasis on building more expensive private apartments will ignore the requirements of people living in social housing, which could result in their feeling excluded or uprooted.
The project, which would house around 4,000 people, raises questions about how well-equipped local services—like general practitioners, dentists, transportation, and community facilities—will be to handle the growing population.
The size and height of the new structures, according to the locals, would change the neighborhood’s identity and create “sunless canyons,” which will make the streets less pleasant, particularly during the winter or during rainy seasons.