Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Community opposition grows to towers by river
Opposition is building to the proposed 21 storey towers at Hale Wharf, the riverside site at Tottenham Hale, proposed by Muse developers, the development partner of the Canal and River Trust which owns the site.
150 objections have now been submitted, one of the latest being from London’s deputy mayor and local London Assembly member Joanne McCartney. London Mayor Sadiq Khan is due to give his views on 17 August, and Haringey will probably decide the application in October.
Most people in the area accept that there will be tall buildings around Tottenham Hale station. But they oppose this proposal which will dominate the River Lea, the Lee Valley Park and the new Walthamstow Wetlands reserve. Haringey’s own policy says tall buildings should taper down away from the centres like the station – not get twice as high. There are also concerns that it provides no affordable housing in the towers, and at most 9% altogether if the second phase goes ahead.
“This proposal is too tall, badly designed, in the wrong place, and is not the housing mix that Haringey needs. It will destroy the atmosphere of the river and marshes” said Nicola Braggins, a local resident.
“The design is not in keeping with the area. It is designed to reflect industrial mill buildings typical of Lancashire. That has nothing to do with this part of the Lee, which has been characterised by low buildings. It is a poor design. It is uniform and uninteresting, and presents a dull wall to the river and to the reservoirs” said James Wheeler, a nearby boat dweller.
Objections have been submitted by many local organisations including
Tottenham Civic Society, Tottenham & Wood Green Friends of the Earth, Living Under One Sun, Friends of Tottenham Marshes, Stonebridge Boaters.
- Attachments:
-
-
Hale Wharf view 8.JPG, 1.5 MB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by 0n59eal4meshz on
-
Joanne McCartney's opposition is a reminder that politicians are quite happy to go into elections promising to build hundreds of thousands of homes, but if opposition to building in their own constituencies gathers a head of steam, reasons can be found to oppose it!
Assuming this application is passed by Haringey, it will be an interesting test of Sadiq Khan's resolve to fulfil his election mandate!
"There are concerns that it provides no affordable housing in the towers, and at most 9% altogether if the second phase goes ahead".
If the towers aren't built there will be 0% affordable homes- or even a second phase.
How will that help?
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Do you really not understand the point about wanting more affordable housing? Or are you simply in favour of a blanket approval for any housing whatever, regardless if none is truly affordable by residents who now live in Tottenham?
If so, where do you suggest less well-off residents should live?
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Stevenage, Obvs.
-
-
I think Khan and Pipe are in the right direction with their 35% affordable proposal and scrapping of viability assessments plus a longer-term aim of 50%.
However, "we are where we are" and we have to deal with current applications on current rules.
You and I will never agree on density and height, so let's leave it there.
-
-
Please answer my questions.
You have criticised Joanne McCartney's opposition to the Hale Wharf towers on an ad hominem basis, attacking Joanne's motivations - as far as I can tell adducing no evidence for this other than your observation that she is a politician.
I'm sure she is as aware as you are that: "We are where we are and we have to deal with current applications on current rules." That surely is what Joanne McCartney seeks to do. If all you can do is state the obvious, why bother posting a comment?
If Joanne and other people's objections actually succeed in having fewer tall buildings built in inappropriate places and/or result in larger numbers of affordable homes, wouldn't that be positive?
-
-
Although I almost certainly voted for her when I lived in the constituency in 2004,I don't know Joanne McCartney's motivations any more than you do. We've got her objection to read and it looks- from the stock phrases-to have been heavily influenced by representations made to her.
I know from experience that politicians tend to duck beneath the parapet, or take the populist line when nimby campaigns arise. Arguably the Tories are in the worst position of all as their outer-suburban/rural base is the most anti-development of all the major parties.
Your last question re "inappropriate places" - this is the heart of the matter isn't it? Hale Wharf - next door to one of the best connected stations in London is in IMO exactly where we should be building tall high density homes.
Can you give examples of appropriate places (preferably in Haringey) where you have supported or recommended tall buildings?
-
-
It's true that neither of us know Joanne McCartney's motivations. But that didn't stop you posting that her opposition:
"is a reminder that politicians are quite happy to go into elections promising to build hundreds of thousands of homes, but if opposition to building in their own constituencies gathers a head of steam, reasons can be found to oppose it!"
You now add the comment that: "politicians tend to duck beneath the parapet, or take the populist line when nimby campaigns arise". Given the topic of this thread that appears to imply that Joanne McCartney's opposition is an example of this "ducking".
Plainly readers on this website can make their own judgement if this was or wasn't an attack on Joanne's motivation with - in my view at least - an implication of her bad faith.
Neither sitting on the Planning Committee nor as a councillor have I been asked to give a view on a tower this height. Especially one in the flood plain on a narrow island.
I know the view about high buildings being appropriate near transport interchanges. When Mr Chris Shellard first presented the plan for Hale Village he said their model for the whole site was the development at Paddington Basin. I went to Paddington and walked around the buildings for myself and along the Grand Union Canal. Obviously that area is not immediately adjacent to a large Regional Park.
At the time I -and perhaps Mr Shellard too - didn't foresee that property would become an investment for the very rich; with apartments with a view of a water and parkland - even in Tottenham - being a magnet which in some cases might lead to the destruction of homes and social cleansing of poorer communities.
I find it interesting that one of the examples given in Robert Putnam's book "Our Kids" was the small town where he grew up near Lake Erie. And where revisiting now, he found the lakeside a strip of gated communities for the rich.
You ignored my question about affordable homes and where displaced people are supposed to go if there aren't any. HoL readers can make whatever judgements they will about your omission.
-
-
How does building more homes displace anyone?
-
-
How about reading what I wrote with a little more care? I said that neither I nor perhaps Mr Shellard foresaw property becoming an investment for the very rich and in some cases leading to the destruction of social homes and social cleansing of poorer communities. At the time the towers on Hale wharf were not proposed.
But this is the now the wider context for development across London and other great cities. Yes I accept that for a particular brownfield site there may be nobody actually displaced.
But overall that is the critique now being made in a number of places.
Interestingly for me - and I would hope for you as well - Ferry Lane Estate nearby is an example of what can be achieved when former commercial land is developed as a genuine "mixed community" and not the lie of a mixed community usually offered now.
It had, and as far as I know still has, freehold properties as well as leaseholders and social housing. There is also some sheltered housing for elderly and disabled people.
The estate has had its share of troubles and problems over the years. But overall I think would be seen as a success by residents living there. If you don't know it I would urge you to visit. It stretches behind the towpath south of the Ferry Lane bridge.It's the houses on the right of this photo.
I don't know if the residents generally would consider the children there as "Our Kids". I hope many of them do. Please ask them.
By the way Quentin Given is one of the residents. He has never been a "nimby" opposing new homes. On the contrary.
-
-
No one's getting displaced at Hale Wharf!
Putnam, I'm told is good and on my to-read list, though I am sceptical of how relevant a the experiences of a thinly-populated settlement in Ohio is to Tottenham.
-
-
You haven't read the book but you're already sceptical.
-
-
Can I emphasise that the community opposition is NOT to having tall buildings at Tottenham Hale around the station. We accept that we need more homes and probably have to build up to avoid sprawl and that next to the transport connection is the best place. The opposition is to having such a tall dominating building in the midst of the Green Belt between the channels of the River Lea - just where people will want to go to get away from the dense urban atmosphere for a bit.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
