Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Sainsbury's Harringay to be Replaced with Housing
Today more is emerging about the future of the Arena site. In March last year I took the time to comb through Haringey's 'Site Allocations Plan' (the document that determines what will get built where in the borough for the next 20 years).
I wrote about it in a series of posts, the first of which was entitled "Huge Swathes of Harringay Earmarked to 'Accommodate Majority of Development in Borough'". It's explained in more detail in my second post.
Following these posts there has been a consultation which some of us responded to.
This week, a local resident revealed that he'd painstakingly gone through a 1,500 page document in which the Council replied to residents' concerns raised in the consultation.
One of the issues that emerged is that the housing planned for the Arena is likely to see Sainsbury's demolished. That housing will be grouped around at least one 8-storey block.
Below is an extract from the LCSP minutes, showing residents' concerns raised in the left-hand column and the Council response in the right.
(It's interesting to note in the responses that after years of denial, the Council have finally admitted their last cock-up and said that it was the expansion of Sainsbury's that is a major contributor to the traffic problems on Green Lanes).
As I said repeatedly last year, there are huge changes planned for Harringay. I'd hoped the Council would work alongside residents, but the tenor of their replies suggests that they may be riding roughshod over our views after all.
| Opposition to 8 storey block on Arena site |
“Detailed design will be required on all sites to gain planning permission, and specific height limits will not be included in Site Allocations, with all developments expected to respond appropriately to their context “Action: remove height limits from the allocations” |
| Inadequate medical facilities for proposed population increase via Site Developments, especially the Arena site | “It is considered that this site, due to its size, if comprehensively redeveloped, may be an opportunity to create some new community infrastructure” |
| How will some 1400 new residents and a new primary frontage, all proposed for the Arena site, reduce traffic impact? |
The site will be designed in such a way that it will help to keep shopping traffic, local and accessed primarily by foot. Additionally, pedestrian access to the park, as well as to Manor House and Harringay Green Lanes station will be improved. Additionally, the reduced congestion from cars accessing the site for car-borne shopping trips will help to improve bus efficiency” |
Concern that Green Lanes cannot cope with more traffic and that Arena site proposals will make this even worse“ |
Disagree. Alleviation of current traffic issues is one of the key reasons for allocating this site. Initial transport modelling has shown that the supermarket is the single largest draw for car-borne traffic, which is then compounded by the other car-compatible uses on the retail park. By replacing these uses with more walk-up retail, congestion at this point can be alleviated” “The allocation includes provision for the superstore to no longer operate” |
A longer extract from the LCSP minutes is attached.
Now may be the time to rally round the GRA, WPRA and LCSP and find a way of getting residents' views heard.
Tags for Forum Posts: local plan, sainsbury's, site allocation plan
- Attachments:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dave on
-
The Guardian article argues that house price inflation comes more significantly from UK buyers rushing in to buy, with the belief that prices will keep going up. It challenges whether overseas investors are such a significant threat as quoted in the FT. Choose your paper. One does largely finance, the other isn't known for such :)
It still holds that the UK has no place for providing towers for overseas investor's property portfolios when said property is then left empty. That approach does nothing for London.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
And it does emphasise that the solution to the housing crisis is for local authorities to build masses of affordable rental housing.
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah on
-
That's interesting.
Also remember that George Osborne has made the housing market a lot less attractive to landlords now with increased tax on rental income (taxed on turnover now not profit) and increased stamp duty on second homes. If my boyfriend and I ever move in together I had thought we would rent out one of our properties, but that's not looking financially viable now. I think these measures will reduce house price inflation.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Most of house price inflation is caused by mortgages. If you look at the prices of unmortgageable properties (above a chip shop, above the 4th floor ex-local authority) they do not increase in price nearly as fast as mortgageable ones.
"If my boyfriend and I ever move in together I had thought we would rent out one of our properties, but that's not looking financially viable now." - I'd look into that really carefully and my advice is still, never sell a property. I don't think being a landlord has been made a lot less attractive, perhaps becoming a new one is a little less attractive but if you look at the up front fees for buy-to-let mortgages, there was definitely room to increase stamp duty for second homes.
-
Permalink Reply by Anna on
-
Cheaper credit, lower interest rates and government programmes are enticing people to buy properties. At the same time between 2005 and 2015, the average value of a London home rose from £233,758 to £456,228, compared to a national average house price of just £197,044 last year according to https://tranio.com/
-
-
When the Sainsbury's was first put up many people did want housing instead. The Arena Sainsbury's is an example of the worst type of ways in which retail developments waste land space - single storey, masses of space for car parking . If all car parks in the borough were built over we could have far more land for housing, and there would be a greater chance of reducing the density and height of new housing developments. There is nothing to stop new developments having car parking below housing or retail units, either underground or on the ground floor with other uses beginning at first floor level.
I applaud the plan to demolish Sainsbury's. The borough has far too many supermarkets anyway.
I just pray the Council will extract a commitment from the developers for a decent proportion of genuinely affordable (preferably real Council) housing and use planning permission conditions, as Islington has done, to deter flats being used as speculative assets and kept empty.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Chalk on
-
Hi Anne. I agree but I think housing co-ops are better. Remember when Islington had 50! Maybe the council should promote, facilitate and sponsor them. Labour & Co-operative Party should do more on this. Imho
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
As co-ops may be the only social housing not covered by right to buy legislation (when housing association properties are included after the new bill goes through to legislation) they could be the best option for new development.
-
-
Glad to hear that but where have you found any definite statement that coops are excluded ? I've been meaning to try find time to look that up for a friend who is in one.
-
-
Hi Anne. There's a useful briefing note on the parliament.uk website on the bill and only housing associations are mentioned. However the bill is still a distance from becoming law so there could be more inclusions along the way
-
-
Some interesting discussions going on but, going back to initial point, what can be done to stop this going ahead ? I feel very strongly that it would be a bad thing for the area !
Sorry I wasn't available at the beginning - with the first posts last year, but I'm very happy to get involved now!
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
