Garden of Dixon Clark Court

• MY photographs of the garden of Dixon Clark Court that you published were taken because I have long been concerned about the vulnerability of the tower’s setting to those – such it seems as Islington Council – who feel green space on estates is “unloved or underused”, (The council leader continues his attack on those defending the ‘little forest’, November 6).

And can be taken as development land for more housing. Those who oppose this policy have been stigmatised as “nimbys” by council leaders, (Town Hall leader slams ‘nimby’ tree activists, October 30).

But such an accusation works both ways: it is not they who will suffer the effects personally, so they are effectively nimbys in reverse, ready to inflict the consequences of a development on others but not on themselves.

In the case of Dixon Clark Court “the others” are, in the first instance, the residents of the block.

Their Tenants Management Organisation put together, with the aid of planning consultants, a closely-argued and comprehensive objection to the council’s proposals which was submitted by letter in October 2017.

This was followed by a further letter to the council in February 2018, immediately before the scheme was to be considered by the planning committee. That said: “We would like to reiterate these concerns, which have still not been addressed.”

Item No 1 in the list of concerns was “loss of open space” – despite the council having assured residents in a leaflet in 2016 that they would, surprisingly, have “more green space” after the proposed development than before.

Other concerns included loss of amenity, light, and privacy affecting both the estate and surrounding properties, and inappropriate intrusion by the proposed six- to seven-storey block of private flats into the streetscape between two to three-storey neighbours.

The loss of the seven mature trees on the site of the private block which first prompted wider protests a year ago is, in fact, only a small part of the loss of space and amenity on the estate that will result from the scheme.

But no heed was apparently paid to these concerns by Islington Council, operating without substantial political opposition, which gave itself planning permission over the heads of a whole body of its own tenants.

In the circumstances, direct action in physically occupying the site does, indeed, seem to be the only recourse open to objectors; in the hope that enough impact will eventually be made on the council to persuade it to reconsider.

Let it reconsider now.

JAMES DUNNETT
James Dunnett Architects
Barnsbury Road, N1