Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Salisbury - Planning Updates
Nothing for Harringay or St Ann's this week, but just got an alert on 1st floor at The Salisbury - application to retain as a place of worship.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Rachel Fisher on
-
Hi Liz - as one of those young professionals without kids - I completely agree, I want to stay in the area, and we need to encourage family housing wherever possible. My only point here is that this is not the site for it.
We should most definitely be ensuring that the rules about conversions (or rather preventing conversions) are enforced by the planning department in order to promote more family housing in the area.
That's a campaign I could actively get behind. I've got a few friends who've been priced out of the market on flats in the neighbourhood - people who have lived here for a number of years, and would really like to stay - so where there is an opportunity to develop new flats (which aren't coming at the cost of family housing) I'd like to support it.
On this development, I'm less than keen on the commercial and parking elements and there might be a way to lodge an objection to that effect rather than to the whole scheme. .. I'll have a think.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Thanks Rachel. But I DO still worry about the visual impact on the Salisbury. A building like the one proposed wouldn't be large in proportion in, say Downing Street, but they wouldn't build it there would they.
You're absolutely right about commercial spaces. The only new commercial spaces that have worked in this area recently are in the Arena Shopping park. The Coliseum opposite is empty. Shops built on the corner of Station Approach by Harringay station were eventually turned into flats - but here's an idea, what about if the council were to do a deal and ask for one unit as a space for the local community??????
-
-
That's a great idea with the commerical spaces - it could be part of the planning gain obligations... not all that unusual actually.
The size is three stories - so actually the same height or shorter than the Salisbury Mansions... So just imagine that being continued up to the Sals.
What would make the design better for you? I doubt that losing a floor is an option (as it's likely to make the development unviable). But there might be other ways of dealing with it...
-
-
For my money, if they have to build up against it, I'd go bold and seek to enhance what's there with some good architecture rather than trying to hide a carbuncle. A well designed ultra-modern design would win much more favour with me. There are plenty of good examples around the world............which puts me in mind of a new post.
-
-
I completely agree that a sexy ultra modern design would be fantastic - and by modern I do NOT mean pastiche ... a'la what's across the street... BUT I suspect ultra modern would get even more objections than the fairly inoffensive (though not BRILLIANT) design we've got.
-
Permalink Reply by Caroline on
-
I had a look at Haringey's planning policies over the weekend and think that there are two grounds for objection - should you wish to object.
1. The recommended mix for private market housing in the borough is: 37% 1 beds; 30% 2 beds; 22% 3 beds and 11% 4 bed plus. The scheme that we have here is 25% 3 bed and 50% 2 bed and therefore could be deemed to be an over development as the level of family accomodation is too high. As a supplementary to this the overall sizes of the units are fine but it appears that there is inadequate storage in the 2 beds.
2. There is a real problem with amenity space. The SPG says that family units above ground floor should have private gardens or communal space at a minimum of 25sq.m per family unit. That is clearly not the case here.
Sorry Hugh, you are right about the car parking spaces - the application does say 2 inclusive of those retained but I think that ths is a mistake as the plans clearly show 4, which makes sense as it is one per commercial unit. This does, however, bring us onto another problem: if I lived on the east side of Green Lanes I think that I would be objecting to this application on the grounds that there is insufficeint parking available for a development of this density. This can bring it's own issues - a 'car free' development will make it even less likely that the properties will be bought or rented by families with children and more likely that they will end up being let as a flat share.
On the design side - while we don't really have much to go on here, I think that it terms of height and massing it is a ok scheme. The scale of the building will pretty much match Grand Parade itself and will provide some balance providing a step down from the Salisbury to the flats adjacent. Of course the devil will be in the detail and the materials used: design is often ( not always - there are plenty of examples of plain bad design in the immediate vicinity ) merely a matter of taste, but poor quality materials will make even a good design look rubbish. I think it it is worth flagging to the planners that the building will be adjacent to a listed building and therefore the quality of the materials used is important.
I don't think that that the listing itself is of much help: my understanding is that any building that is adjoins a listed building is itself deemed to be listed, but I think that this might only apply to Grade 1 listings and in any case I don't think that the Salisbury and the exisiting garage actually touch. There is something in between them but I suspect that it is some kind of access route to the substation behind. This is a shame because it is the listing that gets you your modernist building: my experience of English Heritage is that they will allow demolition and redevelopment of a building adjoining a Grade 1 but only if the proposed building is of exceptional architectural merit.
-
-
Thank you for that very comprehensive piece of work Caroline. I sounds like there are a few issues we could offer cautionary opinions on and insist that there things are properly considered. Are you in planning?
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
An excellent analysis. I'd be disappointed if people chose to object to this scheme based on 'as the level of family accomodation is too high'. There aren't enough family premises available at the moment but a lot of 1 & 2 bedroom apartments do currently exist. Repossession of buy-to-let apartments is skyrocketing too and some developments lie empty, although the later phenomenon may not exist in our area.
-
-
Maybe they are indeed going to use them as offices and congregate elsewhere for services. Sound proofing would however imply services are to continue above the Salisbury? It depends how they attach the sound proofing but most systems (like false ceilings) will have to be attached to the current ceiling and could, if not done sympathetically, spoil it.
-
-
Andy of the the Gardens Residents' Association has just circulated the followimng objection which he has submitted o nthis application:
I wish to object to the application (HGY/2008/2020) on the basis that;
1. The proposed design does not show in elevation the existing Salisbury Public House and does not show the relevance of the proposed building to the existing Public House .
2. The proposed building will dominate the Salisbury Public House and should be reduced by at least 1 perhaps 2 floor levels - It will also tower over the terraced housing on St Ann's Road and their private gardens.
3. The design of the building is unsympathetic to the Historical Salisbury Public House. The proposed Front Elevation has an imbalance to the design with the central lift and stairwell window line and entranceway offset, creating an unpleasant and unsatisfactory front elevation, concern should also be highlighted with use of proposed materials i.e. Render.
4. The proposed car parking facility is dangerous at this location with a very busy junction with cars waiting at traffic lights / pedestrians crossing note also a bus stop is opposite the site. The off road car parking facilities should not be permitted on the site and roadside CPZ should be promoted. Secure cycle / moped/ motorbike facilities should be promoted designed in and provided instead of car parking.
5. Only 5 refuse bins have been illustrated I would suggest this would not be enough to accommodate the amount of rubbish generated by businesses and residents - there appears to be no recycling facilities - if not this should be designed into the building facilities.
-
-
Easy isn't it, to object to new homes being built for others ... from the warmth of ones own.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
The Salisbury is a listed building and as such there are very clear rules about what is permitted and not permitted and so it should be. Building homes is impotant but they will not attract people if they are not done properly and with attention to detail. It is too easy for a poor development to turn into a slum. Well done Andy
Easy to object to objection, when its not near enough to ones own house to be an issue...
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
