CONTENTS – 1 Newlon’s responses to questions
1. Newlon’s responses to questions
We have had the following responses from Symon Sentain and Robert Syme from Newlon:
Q1. Please explain why there are now two separate planning applications for New and Old Barnsbury (both our MP or local councillors seem surprised by this, we have forwarded your email to them so they can pick up directly with Newlon as well).
Newlon’s response :We are seeking for the applications to be kept separate due to the different timelines that each will need for Islington Planners to consider, seek clarifications, assess the viability model, assess for townscape, heritage and so forth. It will take much longer assess the proposals for New Barnsbury planning application than the time that will be needed for the Old Barnsbury. This is largely because New Barnsbury will mean the wholesale demolition and replacement of all buildings, whereas this is not the case with Old Barnsbury.
Q2. We are confused by this because as recently as Symon’s email of 23rd Feb, he was suggesting the Old Barnsbury planning application would be going forward at the end of April. What has brought about the change of heart and what are the implications of this?
Newlon’s response: I don’t know that we have had a change of heart as much as that it is simply more logical to submit the planning applications separately for the reasons I’ve outlined above.
Q3. You mention September as the new target planning application date and that the two applications are being separated ‘largely due to the fact that there will be different timescales involved in the project’ but what are the two sets of timescales now proposed?.
Newlon’s response: It is currently proposed that the New Barnsbury planning application is submitted in late April and the Old Barnsbury planning application in late June, so the 2 applications can both be heard at the September Planning Committee.
Q4. Please be honest if you simply missed Old Barnsbury consultation deadlines and your hand was forced – there is some speculation that this could be the reason.
Newlon’s response: I am always honest when corresponding with residents, as it doesn’t pay not to behave with integrity. The consultation has recommenced later that we would have wished as we have needed to consider in detail the energy strategy and the fire strategy for Old Barnsbury, the former because of the need to future proof the estate from the effects of climate change and meet Government targets, and the latter due to new legislation regarding fire safety and the new regimes we will need to have in place. We are keen to share these ideas with residents on the estate, starting this afternoon.
Q5. Can you explain which elements, if any, from the overall estate design, such as outdoor space redevelopment, pathways etc. in Old Barnsbury will form part of which (of the now two) separate planning applications? Is it as simple as saying there will no reference to any changes in Old Barnsbury in the New Barnsbury application and vice versa? As much detail as possible would be appreciated if there is any overlap.
Newlon’s response: There will inevitably be overlaps, or perhaps more correctly, interfaces between the 2 applications. This is because BEST was conceived as one masterplan covering both sides of the estate to ensure we considered the impact of one part on the other and sought synergies that could be positively optimised between both sides of the estate. The open space strategy will be a key component of this as we seek to ensure there is permeability, desire lines and safe spaces between the two sides dissected by Charlotte Terrace.
Q6. Could you please explain more clearly your answer – plain English would be great – to question 2 as this is too vague to answer the questions we are receiving. Specifically which aspects of the planning application which relate to Old Barnsbury will be included in New Barnsbury’s? and vice versa?
Please can you demystify the second sentence and express it in more simple, clear terms with a list of all the areas of overlap. What is a desire line, for example? and what do you mean by permeability in this context?
Newlon’s response: A desire line is the route through the estate that residents use every day, which is often not the same as the route originally devised. For instance, if residents do not feel safe using one route they use an alternative one that may not have been planned by the original architects. Permeability is the extent to which the design of the estate permits or restricts the movement of residents or indeed, vehicles, in different directions on the estate. We will have project team members (our architects, landscape architect, etc.) who will be able to express all of this more fully at the consultation events planned.
Q7. Can you be more specific and say which elements of the New Barnsbury planning application will specifically impact Old Barnsbury and vice versa?
The splitting of the planning applications means that people will have two sets of plans to review and comment on so I think Newlon really needs to help with this as much as possible. For example, Will any new pathways proposed anywhere in Old Barnsbury be covered by the New Barnsbury planning application or the Old Barnsbury one?
Newlon’s response: It would be best, I think, if you were to get the answers you are seeking via the formal consultation exercises we have planned, the latest session being this very evening at the Barnsbury Community Centre.
It is likely that the New Barnsbury planning application will include provision for the open space strategy to cover Old Barnsbury as well in the form of a Section 106 commitment though I cannot confirm this as it will be determined by the planning process itself.
Note: We have looked up what a section 106 means and found the following definition:
A section 106 agreement is designed to make a development possible that would otherwise not be possible, by obtaining concessions and contributions from the developer. It forms a section of the Town And Country Planning Act 1990.
Barnsbury Estate Leaseholders Group 