By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.


Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.




Terry Stacey describes Islington as the planning authority 'for the Archway redevelopment' (AJ letters 18.01.07). But we were consulted about 'regeneration', not 'redevelopment'. He says Islington 'intends to adopt' the supplementary planning document (SPD), but we thought this was going to public consultation first.

Stacey claims that Islington is 'committed to asking and listening to local people's views'. However, local people have overwhelmingly voiced dislike of the Archway Tower - which the SPD would retain throughout the blight during redevelopment and even replicate with more high-rise - and have emphasised the need to remove the harmful and redundant gyratory traffic system, which the SPD leaves to be removed by other but unstated means.

According to Stacey 'there is no major supermarket chain involved' and no 'potential retail operator has emerged'.

But Islington's Retail Study of 2005, referred to in the draft SPD, said that just such an operator had emerged. The SPD suggests 18,500m 2 of additional retail space with no individual unit of more that 4,000m 2, meaning up to five units, each more than 10 times the size of Archway's existing supermarkets.

His last sentence may encapsulate the problem. In 'an area which is overdue for regeneration' (no argument there) he says that the 'Policy Document will inform future development' but crucially not, we would say, inform future regeneration.

Adrian Betham, RIBA/Better Archway Forum

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

The searchable digital buildings archive with drawings from more than 1,500 projects

AJ newsletters