Planning application · Islington
P2026/0454/FUL.
Land outside Fairweather House, 9 Parkhurst Road, London N7 0NS
Full / Other Planning at Land outside Fairweather House, 9 Parkhurst Road, London N7 0NS, received 17 Feb 2026 — refused on 17 Apr 2026 (delegated, Eve Mackintosh).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationIslington profile →
Refused
Outcome
17 Apr 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
4
Conditions
attached to the decision
10
Documents
10 linked
0
Objections
not captured
Yes
Appeal
Written Representations
Record from the Islington planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Installation of 1 new communications kiosk with integrated defibrillator and advertising display.
Reference
P2026/0454/FUL
Type
Full Planning Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
None recorded
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
17 Feb 2026
Validated
23 Feb 2026
Target date
19 Apr 2026
Decision date
17 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
APPEAL LODGED
Premises record
Council register
Reference
P2026/0454/FUL
Type
Full Planning Application
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
None recorded
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
17 Feb 2026
Validated
23 Feb 2026
Target date
19 Apr 2026
Decision date
17 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
APPEAL LODGED
Premises record
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
Documents open on the Islington portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 17 Apr 2026, delegated decision by Eve Mackintosh — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
17 Feb 2026
Application received
23 Feb 2026
Application validated
19 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
17 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Eve Mackintosh
Appeal
Written Representations
17 Feb 2026
Application received
23 Feb 2026
Application validated
19 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
17 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Eve Mackintosh
Appeal
Written Representations
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed LED screens are energy efficient, and the proposed unit would use
renewable energy (Policy S1).
2
The proposed unit would materials that could be recycled after use and
approximately 99% of the proposed materials could be recycled at the end of their
required life (Policy S10)
40. It is considered that the submitted SDCS is proportionate to the scale of the development
and would comply with sustainability policies of the SDMP (2023).
Biodiversity, Trees, and Landscape
41. Policy G1 of the SDMP requires developments to preserve and enhance the borough’s
network of green infrastructure. Street trees are included in the definition of green
infrastructure.
42. Policy G4 (Part A) of the SDMP states that ‘all developments must protect, enhance and
contribute to the landscape, biodiversity value and growing conditions of the development
site and surrounding area, including protecting and enhancing connectivity between
habitats.’
43. Policy G4 part G states: All developments are required to minimise impacts on existing
trees, hedges, shrubs and other significant vegetation, and provide sufficient space for the
crowns and root systems of existing and proposed trees and their future growth.
Developments within proximity of existing trees are required to provide protection from any
damage during development. The Council will normally refuse permission or consent for the
removal of protected trees, i.e. trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and trees
within a conservation area; and for proposals that would have a detrimental impact on the
health of protected trees.
44. Policy G4 part H states that any loss of or damage to trees or other significant planting, or
adverse effects on their growing conditions or survival, will only be permitted where it is
demonstrably unavoidable in order to meet other relevant Local Plan policy requirements
(as agreed with the Council). In such circumstances, the developer must compensate for
the loss of trees and follow the tree hierarchy.
45. Paragraph 5.38 of the SDMP (the supporting text to Policy G4) states, among other things,
that trees are vital for biodiversity, adapting to climate change and that trees are of a
particular value in Islington due the dense nature of the borough and limited amount of
green space.
46. Paragraph 5.43 of the SDMP states that: ‘Development proposals which are likely to affect
trees within the application site or on land adjacent to the site (including street trees) are
required to follow the process outlined in BS5837:2012 and include an up-to-date
Arboricultural Impact Assessment, which must include a Tree Constraints Plan and Tree
Survey. If the impacts identified require tree protection or identify special working methods
within the root protection area of retained trees, an Arboricultural Method Statement and
Tree Protection Plan (to BS5837:2012) will also be required.’
47. There are two mature street trees of significant amenity value located within close proximity
to the proposed communication hub. It should be noted that only one of these trees is
shown on the proposed site plan. Additionally, as previously noted in this report, there
appears to be inaccuracies in the location of the tree that is shown in the drawings. In
reality, this tree seems to be closer to the boundary wall with Fairweather House.
48. The drawing inaccuracies mean it is not explicitly clear how close to both street trees the
proposed hub would be. Based on the annotated measurements for the tree that is shown
on plan, the proposed hub would be located only 2.9m away from its trunk. No details nor
distances have been provided relating to the other tree that is south of the proposed
location.
49. Given the drawing inaccuracies, and in the absence of any other details/surveys such as an
Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan, it has not
been demonstrated to the Council that the proposed development would not have an
adverse effect on the growing conditions and long term health of these trees. The Council’s
Tree Preservation Officer has also objected to the proposal on this basis.
50. As the application is being refused on design and highways grounds, it was not prudent for
the Council to seek further information on trees during the assessment of the application.
51. Overall, the proposal is contrary to policies G1 and G4 of Islington’s Strategic and
Development Management Policies (2023).
Conclusion
52. It is recommended that planning permission and advertisement consent are REFUSED.
1
The proposed LED screens are energy efficient, and the proposed unit would use
renewable energy (Policy S1).
2
The proposed unit would materials that could be recycled after use and
approximately 99% of the proposed materials could be recycled at the end of their
required life (Policy S10)
40. It is considered that the submitted SDCS is proportionate to the scale of the development
and would comply with sustainability policies of the SDMP (2023).
Biodiversity, Trees, and Landscape
41. Policy G1 of the SDMP requires developments to preserve and enhance the borough’s
network of green infrastructure. Street trees are included in the definition of green
infrastructure.
42. Policy G4 (Part A) of the SDMP states that ‘all developments must protect, enhance and
contribute to the landscape, biodiversity value and growing conditions of the development
site and surrounding area, including protecting and enhancing connectivity between
habitats.’
43. Policy G4 part G states: All developments are required to minimise impacts on existing
trees, hedges, shrubs and other significant vegetation, and provide sufficient space for the
crowns and root systems of existing and proposed trees and their future growth.
Developments within proximity of existing trees are required to provide protection from any
damage during development. The Council will normally refuse permission or consent for the
removal of protected trees, i.e. trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and trees
within a conservation area; and for proposals that would have a detrimental impact on the
health of protected trees.
44. Policy G4 part H states that any loss of or damage to trees or other significant planting, or
adverse effects on their growing conditions or survival, will only be permitted where it is
demonstrably unavoidable in order to meet other relevant Local Plan policy requirements
(as agreed with the Council). In such circumstances, the developer must compensate for
the loss of trees and follow the tree hierarchy.
45. Paragraph 5.38 of the SDMP (the supporting text to Policy G4) states, among other things,
that trees are vital for biodiversity, adapting to climate change and that trees are of a
particular value in Islington due the dense nature of the borough and limited amount of
green space.
46. Paragraph 5.43 of the SDMP states that: ‘Development proposals which are likely to affect
trees within the application site or on land adjacent to the site (including street trees) are
required to follow the process outlined in BS5837:2012 and include an up-to-date
Arboricultural Impact Assessment, which must include a Tree Constraints Plan and Tree
Survey. If the impacts identified require tree protection or identify special working methods
within the root protection area of retained trees, an Arboricultural Method Statement and
Tree Protection Plan (to BS5837:2012) will also be required.’
47. There are two mature street trees of significant amenity value located within close proximity
to the proposed communication hub. It should be noted that only one of these trees is
shown on the proposed site plan. Additionally, as previously noted in this report, there
appears to be inaccuracies in the location of the tree that is shown in the drawings. In
reality, this tree seems to be closer to the boundary wall with Fairweather House.
48. The drawing inaccuracies mean it is not explicitly clear how close to both street trees the
proposed hub would be. Based on the annotated measurements for the tree that is shown
on plan, the proposed hub would be located only 2.9m away from its trunk. No details nor
distances have been provided relating to the other tree that is south of the proposed
location.
49. Given the drawing inaccuracies, and in the absence of any other details/surveys such as an
Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan, it has not
been demonstrated to the Council that the proposed development would not have an
adverse effect on the growing conditions and long term health of these trees. The Council’s
Tree Preservation Officer has also objected to the proposal on this basis.
50. As the application is being refused on design and highways grounds, it was not prudent for
the Council to seek further information on trees during the assessment of the application.
51. Overall, the proposal is contrary to policies G1 and G4 of Islington’s Strategic and
Development Management Policies (2023).
Conclusion
52. It is recommended that planning permission and advertisement consent are REFUSED.
Policies cited
G1G4
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Written Representations
Outcome not yet recorded
Written Representations
Outcome not yet recorded
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
Objections
0
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
No agent recorded
Applied without an agent, or agent not recorded.
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
No agent recorded
Applied without an agent, or agent not recorded.
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.