Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Big new re-development proposed on Green lanes opposite Finsbury park
Hi,
I was walking up the hill to Manor House tube at the weekend, and spotted a new planning notice - basically, Hackney is now starting to plan a redevelopment of the Rowley Gardens estate & surrounding area. The notice was dated 15th May, with 21 day period for responses - planning ref 2013/0877
Hackney's planning web site isn't working at the moment, but this is how it is described in the "Hackney Today" council mag:
"Request for Scoping Opinion pursuant to regulation 13 of the Town and Country Planning Environmental Impact Assessment (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, for:
-Demolition of existing buildings within the planning application boundary;
- Provision of up to 360,000 square meters (sqm) Gross External Area (GEA) of residential use (equating to approximately 4,200 units) with associated on-street and basement car and cycle parking;
- Residential buildings of varied architectural typology and height, with buildings ranging from 3 to 9 storeys and a number of taller buildings in the region of 10 to 25 storeys;
- Provision of approximately 10,000sqm GEA of non-residential use including commercial and new community facilities such as office space, shops and recreational facilities;
Provision of a site-wide energy network providing combined heat and power. Mode of generation, capacity for renewables, and extent of connection to prior phases is to be determined. Site of Energy Centre to be determined;
Provision of a range of publicly accessible open spaces including landscaping the edges of the New River and the East and West Reservoirs;
Reducing the width of Seven Sisters Road from 6 to 4 lanes and related improvements to the public realm.
2013/0877 Major Development
Tags for Forum Posts: planning, redevelopment
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ElleCarumba on
-
According to the article posted above it is 41pc social/affordable (run by Genesis Housing Association) and 59pc private.
-
Permalink Reply by michaelw on
-
The article is referring to the previous 'Woodberry Park' development, that is just about completed now.
I'm not sure the planning of the new project has got to the point of discussing the balance of properties yet, there was nothing obvious on the Hackney web page.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
'Affordable' is not social housing. They have managed to elide those terms so we don't spot what is going on.
-
Permalink Reply by Ruth on
-
And the term 'affordable' is relative after all. Affordable if you have a decently paid job and a deposit.
This sort of decanting of local communities is going on all over the capital and in other major cities.
Zones 1 and 2 and soon zone 3 will be 'cleansed' of those who cannot afford to buy or pay high rents.
-
Permalink Reply by Maddy on
-
I agree - some "affordable" flats in Central London cost a fortune , it's just that they are less than the local "market value." It's also pretty hard to get approved to buy one of them.
-
-
'Affordable' around here will soon be a small fortune. This redevelopment will impact on Harringay prices. good for those who own their own homes and might want to move out of London but not for anyone hoping to buy here or even rent.
Not sure where this is going to end but probably in tears...
-
Permalink Reply by graemeTP on
-
It's naive to object against these developments simply on the grounds of overloading existing health and education services. Schemes of this scale will oblige developers to pay MILLIONS of pounds towards local infrastructure through Section 106 Agreements, without which they will not secure planning permission. At a time when local authorities are seeing budgets slashed, it is my view that we should be grateful we live in an area where people are, hopefully, prepared to invest to such an extent (and in an era when despite such pressing need we are somehow building fewer homes than at any time since the 1920s). Only with large scale developments, well located for open space and public transport, do really meaningful sums of money come forward to be spent on schools, surgeries and community facilities. I think this location can only benefit from bold regeneration proposals such as have been put forward, and hope it will lead to opportunities for all sorts of people to move to new homes in the area.
-
-
Not as things stand: it's current planning policy in Hackney. They're consulting on the Community Infrastructure Levy, which will presumably come in at some stage. Anyway, the point stands that a development of this sort of scale would bring with it major contributions towards local infrastructure, including health and education, whether by S106 or CIL, or a bit of both. Which I think is worth considering when debating its impact.
-
-
Show me where it's working in Haringey. Grainger of demolish-wards-corner fame has quietly dropped the commitment to match their 198 private dwellings (the poor things can't afford to bring in anything other than top-of-market flats to this buld) with equivalent 'affordable' housing elsewhere, in some less worthy part of the borough. Oh I do believe they have offered to paint some lamp-posts in West Green Road. Do correct me if I'm wrong, Cllrs who were on the New Deal setup and the several planning committees that were so impressed by Grainger's powerpoints over the past decade.
and Spurs .... !!!!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
It's a persuasive argument, Graeme, and similar to one I've heard in respect of the Love Lane Estate in North Tottenham and the options now being strongly championed by Haringey Council - unconditionally - as benefits and improvements. (Not of course that Spurs was held to its section 106 agreement on the new stadium and supermarket.)
I've also been told that opponents of these big schemes are simply standing in the way of necessary change.
All these arguments may be true or partly true. But they don't begin to acknowledge, let alone answer basic questions about who stays and who goes when places are redeveloped or "regenerated". If what's happening may be displacement and "clearance" of areas now occupied mainly by poorer people.
And a wider question: what sort of cities do we want? Demarcated by race and class; age; and in some places, religion?
There's a standard model, isn't there? Central Paris, Manhattan. Old cities with pretty central areas. Safe for wealthier people; companies who've bought houses and flats off-plan (as John McMullan points out). And as a sort of tourist playground.
Which, as David Harvey describes in the book: Rebel Cities, is serviced by people from other less well-off areas. Many of whom travel in - at night and early in the morning - to do the menial jobs.
"And in the morning, it's our job to make things look pretty again."
From the film Dirty Pretty Things
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
