Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Blog Website Set up to Generate Support Comments for Hampden Road Plans
I'm not once for conspiracy theories, but I do have to admit to being somewhat suspicious about a sudden flurry of comments in support of Fairview's development plans at Hampden Road. All were generated by a form on a mysteriously sparse one page Wordpress website - fairviewhampdenroad.wordpress.com - screenshot below, lest the site should disappear.
Of the seven comments, three were from Lausanne, three from Frobisher and one from Wightman. (All are attached below as a single document)
All seven support comments show clearly that they originated from this Wordpress website. (Incidentally, they also all appear to come from the email address of someone called James Argles, But I believe that he is just the council officer in the panning team who printed the submissions for posting on the planning website).
Whoever orchestrated these support comments may just be a passionate local pro-housing type, or they may not. It may be they just want to give me and or HoL a bloody nose because they strongly disagree with what I've written. Whatever the truth of the matter, it's an unusual cluster of comments to find on a planning application, unusual enough to make one wonder.
Should you want to have your own say for or against this application, there's more info here.
Tags for Forum Posts: hampden road, hampden road development
- Attachments:
-
-
Hampden Supports.pdf, 48 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by 0n59eal4meshz on
-
An article almost beyond- stupid from Oliver Wainwright. He never mentions once that London's problem is the restriction on housing supply and our pathetic attempts to build sufficient homes.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Surely the whole premise of the article is tension between the need for housing that is within the reach of the majority of Londoners and the desire of developers to make maximum profit from new developments?
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Maximum profit means Rabbit Hutches. Not as much profit as usual means something like this.
-
-
If he was doing that Michael he might have begun by examining why London land prices are so high and if the planning system is helping or hindering the supply of new homes.
Instead he parrots the received wisdom that the developers are the cause of our ills, London is emptying, councils are greedy, None of which is true, and only 7% of new-build homes in London are foreign-owned. Probably a lot higher in Alicante. I'd say more on the above but it would take too long
A small section of the London left has practically given up any notion of building new homes and comfort themselves with articles like the above. Thankfully Sadiq Khan is not allied with them!
-
-
Again I'll make the unpopular case that our Victorian homes on the ladder, especially in the northern third, should be demolished to provide extra housing. The houses actually devalue the land, it would be worth more as just a hole in the ground. 4-5 five stories high, flats on the top or bottom perhaps, perfectly large and modern "homes" with granny flats in the back yard. So existing home owners would be able to sell at least one leasehold flat and have the same amount of space that they do at the moment (perhaps more!).
-
-
OK, another example then, the Heygate estate in Elephant and Castle. There were over 1,000 homes available for social renting until demolition. The new development of around 2,000 homes will have 74 units available for social renting. This proportion is infinitesimal compared to Southwark's own policies on the provision of social housing in new development. Developers do have local authorities over a barrel when it comes to applying their policies, not because the planning authority doesn't want these homes, but because the deregulation of the planning system and the gradual watering down of its status as from carrying out a quasi legal function to an advisory one left them toothless.
During the time I worked in planning its focussed changed from development control to development management. A good or bad thing depending on where you stand.
-
-
I wonder when that started happening....
-
-
The most significant change was the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). CIL is a tax paid on the increase in value of land as a result of development so it is an incentive to allow development that brings about higher land values. Social housing brings about little in the way of increased land values whereas high cost housing does.
-
-
In my view the Heygate generates more heat than light. It seems that Southwark made several mistakes and could have obtained a better deal.
However, it should also be remembered that many of the *tenants* who were decanted got homes in areas they liked. But then again not the ideal flagship for regeneration it's true.
** leaseholders not so much**
-
-
And, very sadly, last week, 3 iconic, heritage buildings on the south-west side of the THFC site were demolished, against the wishes of the local community, againast the advice of SAVE and Historic England. They were in a consefrvatio area,formed a part of Tottenham Historic Corridor and were located in a key point of the High RD.
But we are ruled by philistines and money speaks.
The argument for ignoring the policies is again and again.... "the benefits outway the negative aspects".
We are ruled by philistines.
-
-
There really are no sound reasons for this. Historic buildings were preserved and restored as part of the Kings Cross development. Instead of seeing them as a hiderance to the development they were regarded as positive contributors and you only have to look at the people enjoying Granary Square to understand what a success that approach has been
-
-
That is where I work so I know first hand what you are talking about.
MONEY SPEAKS! PHILISTINES!
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
