The Planning Issues

Our aim is to try to reflect as closely as possible what the community tells us they want for Archway, so please Contact us.

Rebuilding or Regeneration

Who Should Develop the Site

Type and Scale of Redevelopment

Buildings and Open Space

Dominant Type of Accommodation

Types of Retail Units and Space

Other Types of Retail Unit (non-food)

Leisure and Community facilities

Public Transport

Road Layouts and the Roundabout

Strategic changes to improve the wider area

Dominant Type of Accommodation

The options are purely residential blocks (as offered by a private developer), commercial/offices (as is currently the case), or a mix of residential and office space. In all cases the area is likely to include retail space at ground level.

Current proposals for rebuilding the site would include a large number of residential units - around 650 to 700 flats. Housing is so high priced at the moment that it is profitable to build expensive tall buildings.

Redevelopment options	Pros	Cons
Residential flats (initial proposal is for 700 units).	Will have to include some ‘affordable housing’ but this is rarely defined in terms of price levels.	There is no commitment of how much of the development would be affordable housing. Affordable housing may still be too expensive for local buyers and prices can inflate fast, moving them out of reach of first time buyers. There is no statement at this stage of inclusion of social/council/housing association housing.
	Like all councils, Islington has a quota of new housing to build or facilitate the building of. This would fulfil most of Islington’s obligations for a year.
	Adding residential properties where there is already an infrastructure to cater for them seems sensible.	So many new residents will put extra pressure on places in local schools, medical services etc.
	It would put the new homes in an area well served for transport and other facilities. Building where there are good public transport connections is a priority of the Mayor’s London Plan.	This is a good idea, as long as the public transport is not working to or beyond capacity - which the Northern Line is already. More residents in the area will mean as many as an extra 1,000 travellers using Archway station morning and evening.
	The council says such a development could be car free but could include a car club (a small number of cars to be shared by residents who rent them when required for periods from an hour or two to several days), reducing any potential extra traffic.	An entirely car free development is unlikely. Purchasers of expensive private flats will expect a parking space. Under the London Plan, each of the residential units would be permitted a car parking space. This would total 700 parking spaces. Even if officially car-free, a residential development will attract cars - all will have visitors plus there will be residents who find a way around the regulations.
	More residents in the area means more people to spend money in local shops.	Most of them will be absent all day, so extra spending would happen mainly at weekends. If current offices replaced by flats many local shops/cafes/suppliers would lose a significant amount of weekday business from the estimated 3000 office workers at Archway. The amount of floor space required for a resident is significantly more than that of an office worker - i.e. fewer spenders per square metre.
Offices If the current buildings are retained, they can continue to be used as offices. The Greater London Authority wants to encourage ‘business clusters’ - areas where similar or related small businesses congregate. These are often new types of business (e.g. new media) that can’t afford inner London rents but need easy access to central areas.	This would be a realistic option, particularly if the surrounding area were made more attractive and lively. Archway has good transport but is cheaper than Camden or central London. Good quality up-to-date offices would be appealing to many businesses not requiring a more central location. Archway could be a realistic location for fledgling enterprises which, in turn, would contribute to the regeneration of the area. Business clusters, growing off each other, could promote further business growth by drawing further businesses to the area to serve their specific needs. Small businesses will generate custom for other small businesses already in the area (e.g. printers, design studios, office suppliers, cafes/caterers). Office workers already an important part of the local economy. Additional offices would mean more weekday business for local shops and suppliers. E.g. An office worker spending £5 per day on lunch, newspaper and sundry requirements, over 40 working weeks in a year spends £1000. An office block containing 1000 people means £1m spent in local shops. The same size block of flats would contain far fewer people.	There might be jobs for local people, but on balance this is unlikely.
Effect on local public transport and parking.	People coming to work at Archway will either be going against the main flow of commuters on tubes/buses or, if coming from further out will be getting off at Archway and not adding to congestion on routes into London. Offices do not need much/any parking. Any visitors cars will leave by the end of working hours.
A mix of residential and office space.	This would fulfil a directive of the London Plan which wants to see more mixed development. This would ensure that the impact of residents was limited by limiting their numbers, but would have the benefit of ensuring that the area is alive in the evening as well as during the day.	This would not generate as much profit for a development and because of that would not be considered in any development by a private developer.
Exploiting the height of the buildings. Archway Tower has wonderful views from the top, but it is not accessible to the public. Taller buildings would offer even better views. Past redevelopment schemes proposed a restaurant on the top floor of the Archway Tower.	New high buildings could have secure public access to the top floor(s) designed in. If the public had access the buildings would become ‘our towers’ rather than these huge buildings looming over us. (Hargrave School are already planning class trips up the tower to see how their local neighbourhood looks!) Public facilities on the top floor(s) are more compatible with offices on the floors (residents in the flats in the Oxo Tower on the South Bank suffer from noise from the top floor restaurant).	Providing access to top floors without access to the intervening floors would form an added cost even to a new build and such elements are best designed in from the start. Such a prime location would not be cheap. The restaurant/bars could be prohibitively expensive for many local people, unless provision were specified for a free/cheap public viewing area.

Click here to add your comments to the BAF online forum on this subject.