Ocado have appealed Islington Council’s 3rd rejection of their request for a cate-blanche ‘lawful development certificate’ to the government’s Planning Inspectorate.

Residents and parents are able to lodge official objections with the inspectorate. It is important we do this so the inspectorate can see the strength of feeling across the community against Ocado’s plans.

Below are some suggested bullet points. If you or anyone you know lived near or overlooked the site in the 90’s please do object with any first-hand knowledge you have.

Ocado’s third CLEUD application to Islington council rests on Units A-D. They have submitted no compelling new evidence concerning these units following the Council’s rejection of their previous application.

  • A single page of uncorroborated testimony from a current employee of the owners of the site – who stands to gain if the certificate is granted – is not sufficient evidence for the Council to issue a certificate.
  • Ocado have repeatedly pointed to ‘storage’ uses in the building to claim ‘storage & distribution’, but nowhere in their evidence have they ever claimed any distribution activity. All buildings have a potential storage function. The test must be whether storage & distribution became the site’s primary function. The testimony of Ocado’s witness, Damian Molony, does not meet this bar.
  • Mr Molony stated ‘I generally visited the site several times in most years’. By his own admission, he only visited the site in ‘most years’ and is therefore not in a position to verify that any breach of condition was continuous for the requisite 10 year period.
  • A ‘use right’ can be lost after the 10 year rule through the formation of a new planning unit. It is our view that Ocado have formed a new planning unit by amalgamating Unit E with A-D’s land, and with the car park behind Connections House at the back of the site. They have therefore extinguished any B8 use right they argue might have arisen.
  • Attempting to use the lawful development route to gain use of this site is an abuse of the planning system. An abandoned site cannot be resurrected 20 years later and turned unto a 24/7 distribution hub.
    The detailed testimony of local residents who lived overlooking the site, and in some cases entered the units, during the period in question confirms the fact that the site was in a semi-abandoned state.



Comments are closed