The judge quashed the planning permission for the Upper Holloway scheme which was granted to Ashburton Trading, the property arm of Arsenal Football Club, following an appeal last year.
The Council's Core Strategy states that buildings over 30 metres high are "generally inappropriate to Islington's predominantly medium to low character" and that proposals for new tall buildings will not be supported. It states that "parts of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell key area may contain some sites that could be suitable for tall buildings".
The inspector had said in his report that "the inclusion of the word 'generally' in the policy provides for the possibility that there may be parts of the borough, not of medium to low level character, where a building more than 30 metres high would not be inappropriate". He said that, in this area, such a building would not be "out of scale with its surroundings" and would not be in conflict with the Core Strategy.
However, the judge concluded that the proposed development did conflict with the Core Strategy policy. He said that, on reading the policy, the meaning was "as I see it, that tall buildings are inappropriate and will not be supported except in the Bunhill and Clerkenwell area", according to a report on the case seen by Out-Law.com.
The judge said that the meaning of "generally inappropriate" was coloured by the fact that the words "will not be supported" appear in the same sentence. "That meaning is also pointed to by the fact that the sentence that immediately follows explains that there are two areas, not Upper Holloway, that “may” contain some sites that “could” be suitable for tall buildings," he said.
The judge noted that the Core Strategy was recent and was the result of "widespread consultation" in the community and "careful evaluation". "The public are entitled to be able to rely on it as the policy applicable to the issue of tall buildings. A proposed development may be permitted despite being in conflict with the development plan but only after consideration has been given to whether material considerations so indicate," he said.
The judge concluded by noting that the high quality of the Inspector's decision had been acknowledged both by Ashburton and the Council and that the quashing of the permission was "no criticism of the Inspector".
