Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Rogue Council Runs into Opposition from London Deputy Mayor over Another Tall Building
Hot on the heels of it's mishandled approval of the tower for the Harringay Ladder, the Council has run up against objections to a proposal for a tall building in Tottenham from Joanne McCartney, GLA member for Haringey & Enfield and now Deputy Mayor of London.
The Canals and River Trust are looking to redevelop Hale Wharf and build up to 505 new homes, of which 249 would be come from the construction of buildings ranging from 16 to 21 storeys.
As with the building for Harringay, plans for Tottenham's canalside tower have been developed in consultation with the Council's planning team. So it is almost certain that they are disposed to grant permission.
However, Joanne McCartney has entered the debate over the proposed development and calls the plans “clearly unacceptable”. In a letter submitted as part of the formal planning process, McCartney says she is particularly concerned about a lack of privacy for people surrounding the block, and says it would be out of keeping with the area, which is Green Belt land.
She writes:
Whilst accepting that this site can provide additional much needed housing the proposed development is not in keeping with the local area, is poorly designed and is far too tall.
At 21 storeys this development is much too high and out of keeping with the local area which comprises of mainly low and mid‐rise buildings. It would overshadow and impact the privacy of the Hale Village opposite and detract from the openness of the area.
The design of the proposed development is also not in keeping surrounding developments and it is not a sympathetic design in relation to its waterside setting. I do not believe that this makes a positive contribution to improve the quality or character of the area.
There's no knowing how this stand will affect the Hampden Road Tower which now awaits GLA approval. In it's first assessment of the Harringay plan, the GLA concluded:
the application does not fully comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in the accompanying report; but that the possible remedies set out in the report could address these deficiencies.
We know that at least one major deficiency was not corrected and that others were hidden from the GLA first time round. Joanne McCartney's stand may be politics as normal, or it may just mean that taken together with the GLA's more professional treatment of planning applications, there's reason yet to hope that London and borough level planning policy will be properly applied in this case. (But I have to say I won't be putting any money on it!).
Whatever happens with the Hampden Road application, McCartney's stand highlights what has quickly become a modus operandi for Haringey - a determination so strong to see tall buildings developed in the borough that they will be pushed through even though they contravene local and regional planning policy and in the face of the strongest opposition from its residents and now, the regional planning authority (the GLA and its mayoralty).
Tags for Forum Posts: hampden road development, tall buildings
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by matthew cuthbert on
-
Go Jo, that's Labour Cooperative in Action. Development in scale with people.
The Hampden Rd developments massing is too mean, their squeezing too much into the site to allow for good design for living, wind tunnels, light deminished 25 degrees out from the build, another 24 cars vieing for already oversubscribed parking, an unsatisfactory proportion of affordable housing this shouldn't get first nod. Let's get CABE to review the design.
A councilor should fight for the best for residents and not throw the towel in first round, much more could be achieved. This is two fingers to the people of Harringay.
Where is the Community Infrastructure Levy Money going, out of Harringay and what is the 123 list of approved community projects?
Frobisher road Junction with Green Lanes is a disgrace, hostile and dangerous, as is Turnpike Lane with Wightman Rd.
Where's the commitment to Living Wightman's aims for achieving a healthy living environment for residents?
Mitigating the impact of excessive vehicular movement though the Ladder and across Harringay, affecting all our health.
Tackling drug dealing on Harringay Passage, pushed on from Duckets Common.
Coordinating services to deal with homlessness in Finsbury Park and Green Lanes, with safe accommodation and rehabilitation.
Accessible transport for Hornsey and Harringay Stations, is anyone talking to Network Rail, Harringay pedestrian bridge continues to go ignored, as does the station overall to widen entrances to platforms, that are fit for purpose, and not restrictive and dangerous.
The ugly utilitarian palisade fencing down Wightman was requested by the council, no consideration to any visual impact to the road.
Our nearest EV charging station is Shopping City, nothing for Ladder residents to consider going electric, as an alternative. Where are our charging stations?
North Harringay and South Harringay Schools need money to refurbish and modernise.
We need to be heard.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
As I understand it, the council approve 1,000 new dwellings a year or they'll have planning taken away from them by the GLA. According to the London Plan you can build extremely "densely" next to a public transport hub like a railway station. When we operate in three dimensions and land is scarce, dense means up.
Land is cheap alongside a railway line (Heartlands High School for example) but perversely must be quite valuable alongside the railway AND right next to the station. The crazy thing is that the best thing for Londoners is a 5-10 minute walk to their local public transport hub, not a one minute walk. That would be like living in Hertfordshire and walking to your car. Previous generations knew this and accordingly did NOT build homes right next to railway stations. The problem is the very recent metrics in the London Plan. If you want a really stark example look at what's been happening around Finsbury Park station since this came in.
The London Plan is horrendously flawed in this respect and is what is leading to situations like this.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Yes according to the London Plan you can build more densely on sites closer to transport hubs. However the same London plan also strictly limits the sites where high buildings are permitted. The Ladder site is clearly and absolutely not one of them. These provisions are reflected in the borough's own policies.
As previous plans showed, densities compliant with those in the London Plan could be obtained on the Hampden Road site without building a tower.
As a matter of interest the densities planned for in the site in the application that was just approved, were in excess of those permitted in the London Plan. These densities were calculated by including the area of Hampden Road into the calculation. Once the road is excluded, the densities are well in excess of the London Plan limits. One of the reasons that the GLA's report on the application said it that it did not comply with the London Plan was on the basis of the density. They required a recalculation, omitting the road from its basis. It is my understanding that this was not done.
One of the principal reasons that the design in the most recent application required a tower was because a significant area of square footage on the site is allocated to open, rather than under-croft, car parking.
It is neither the London Plan, nor the metrics within it that are the problem in this case. The issue with the determination of the Hampden Road application was error and misjudgement on the part of the Council.
-
Permalink Reply by Rod Wells on
-
Hi Hugh
I have to agree with your analysis of the difference between decisions rushed thru on Hampden Rd and the more considered engagement on the earlier 500 White Hart Lane.And the completely unlevel playing field btwn developers and their long negotiations and residents' 3 minutes pleas !
Is it down to the amount of lobbying done before by cllrs and residents. Or is it down to the amount of "so called affordable " homes Haringey can squeeze onto a site to make up for the lack at the Spurs site and elsewhere? Even if this means 14 storey building . ( I refer to your comments on Hampden Rd under that post.)
I am also concerned that Haringey contravenes local and London Plans and the regional planning authority -the GLA .
I was there as I am a member of the Keston Action Group who oppose a modest (in comparison )4.5 storey (really 5 ) planned development but one that will dominate the local 100 year old Downhills Park. Its in asuburban area of 2/3 storeys per Haringeys DPD . The Pre Application briefing was later where it seems the developer Pocket Living get a chance to introduce their plans and fend off any problem questions that the sub ctte may have before they submit their final plans
We believe the density at Keston at 130 per hectare is the high end of the London PLan matrix of 70/170 especially when the Site Allocation was 70 units. Can you point me in the reference in the London Plan on density ?
-
-
Thanks Rod. I appreciate your comments.
The density matrix is at www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-pl.... You need to know the PTAL score for the development location tp accurately calculate the target density.
As far as the London Plan being contravened is concerned, my conversation with the GLA case officer for the Hampden Road case gave me the impression that it will be unlikely that the Council's decision will be reversed. There are several clear contraventions of the London Plan in the Hampden Road case. Whatever the situation, in any case referred to him, the Mayor has three options:
- Take over the case and acti as the planning authority.
- Direct the Council to make a certain decision.
- Allow the Council to make its own determination.
I was told that it's very rare for the mayoral powers granted under options 1 & 2 to be exercised.
Apparently the Mayor has a meeting on the cases referred to him each Monday. He personally reads the officers' reports and recommendations prior to making a decision. Apparently the Harringay case will go before him this coming Monday or the subsequent one - a determination must be made within 14 days of the GLA having received the local decision from the Council. My level of optimism for any reversal is very low.
-
Permalink Reply by Pat Devereaux on
-
HANDS OFF OUR PARK
Building 5 storey blocks on Downhills Park
Hi all,
Thought I would update you on how the campaign is going.
Public Meeting Tuesday 1st November 7pm at the Goan Centre. Come and see Pockets plans on how they plan to squeeze 126 dwellings onto the site and how their blocks will tower over our lovely park. Come and show your opposition to these plans .
We will have sample opposition letters there so if you have not managed to do your objection yet you can take one there. The more objections the more councillors listen .
Tell friends and neighbours . Get everyone who cares about the neighbourhood and the Park to join us.
-
-
I'd keep your hopes to a minimum. See what the GLA revealed in supporting the recent Harringay tower block.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
