Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Hornsey's big supermarket planning application: deferred ... Now, to be rammed through regardless
IN a rare display of cross-party unity, reflecting some sense breaking out, Haringey's Planning Committee tonight voted unanimously to defer a decision on the huge (some might say, gross) proposal by Sainsbury's and St. James to develop the big vacant site off Hornsey High Street.
Some observers had expected that, after a ritual show of concerns by councillors, it would be voted through, so this came as a surprise. It was clear that all councillors had at least some reservations.
Had the chairman (Labour) allowed the former Mayor to speak for a reasonable time, I—and I suspect others—would like to have heard more from Cllr. David Browne (also Labour), who has previously asked informed and excellent questions in connection with management at Children's Services.
St. James is famous for their New River development. Haringey officers said the drainage problems there were a "management issue" and that the managers were "looking to address" the problems. (I think the address of the stinking problem has been known for a while).
Although many objections were heard, I'm not sure mention was made of the likely impact of supermarket traffic up and down currently quiet Hillfield Road, opposite the proposed development, a road that is steep, narrow and winding.
Planning 'officers' might reflect more credit on themselves if they ceased to use and defend such peculiar terms as "over-trading" (to describe business in Crouch End that is expected to suffer from a Sainsburys mega-store) and to describe the decades-old view from the High Street through to Alexandra Palace as "accidental".
I remember that Haringey's esteemed planning department coined the term "Memory boxes" that are planned for Wards Corner, as a substitute for the actual building.
IMO, a better scheme ought to be possible on this huge site, partly owned by the council.
Tags for Forum Posts: 'hornsey, depot-sainsbury's'
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
ANY residents' relief furnished by the planning committee's decision is to be short-lived. The final meeting verdict is to be in just six working day's time.
3rd of February means the "Deferral" was in little more than name.
It's obvious that the sub-standard plans cannot be amended sufficiently in so few days. One of the things we learnt from the earlier meeting was the degree of collusion between the developer and Haringey's Planning department. Is it not the case that both council and developer are keen to carve up the space to maximise cash generation for each – and stuff the residents?
My main impressions of the scheme are, too much bulk, too much space devoted to too many cars; not enough is greenery. The proposal is heavily dependent on car-traffic – and it might have been planned in the 1990s. Too much for commerce and too little for the community.
It's a recurring pattern.
One of the main criticisms has been the tiny proportion of affordable homes available for families (only 3%).
The committee stunt that the council is pulling, looks similar to the Wards Corner ram-through, that also deeply involved the troubled planning department. They appear to have conflicts of interest whenever the council owns some of the land. The roading leading to another big Sainsbury development (Green Lanes) reflects little credit on planners.
After 15 years of delays, the council's view seems to be force it through now, regardless of long-term consquences.
The Labour-run council is determined to press on with this big mistake and to let down residents.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
Please split the blame for this four ways:
Labour, for being in the majority on Haringey Council. It happened on their watch.
Lib Dems, for making up half the planning cttee but making only trivial requests for mild modifications.
Local people, for not even bothering to notice when a big change is planned, let alone protest.
Right-wing governments, who have passed legislation that prevents us from stopping development.
What would you do with the space if you had power, Clive?
-
-
Chris,
I actually attended the planning committee meeting.In regard to your four points for "blame" split (I find your split the blame crude when considering the length of the list of residents' real concerns about the actual Application) :
"Labour" – All eight members of the planning committee raised pertinent objections and concerns about the proposed development, including all four Labour Councillors (as I've noted before, David Browne wished to say more, but was frustrated by the Chairman. When given the chance, Cllr. Browne can ask excellent questions). Like many, I welcomed the deferral, but that now looks like a trick.
"Lib Dems" – are a minority on the committee when you remember that the chairman is of the ruling Labour group and has particular reasons to re-prove himself as an ultra-loyalist (you seem to ignore the position of the chairman for some reason).
"Local People" ... not even bothering to notice when a big change is planned – this is your remark that I find the most disappointing. I wonder if you were at any of the three public meetings, where scores of residents attended? I was one of about 20 in the public gallery at the planning committee meeting. Though you appear fixated on party affiliation, all councillors were responding to genuine public concerns (the chair was concerned to finish on time).
"Right-wing governments" – at last we find some agreement. An unpleasant, right-wing government passed much regrettable legislation that has done much harm in recent times. I suspect we won't agree on its name – I'm referring to the one in power for 13 years that ended in financial melt-down. (I won't emb'harrass you yet with quotes from its chief architect, Lord Mandelson!)
-
-
Did Labour cause the financial melt-down in the US, Clive? Did Labour cause the financial melt-down that spread to all the other countries? If not, what proportion of the UK recession did the global melt-down cause?
This lie about Labour causing the recession is simply that - a lie. The ConDems promised to borrow less, yet they borrowed more.There is another lie, the lie that ConDems policies have led to a recovery - they have not caused the recovery either, they have punished us with a nasty, unnecessary austerity for the poor and tax breaks for the rich.
What would the Lib Dems have done? Higher tuition fees maybe? Can't think of any other Lib Dem policies at the moment.
During the 13 years of Tory misrule did the UK create an £800bn sovereign wealth fund from North Sea oil revenue and spend 4% of the interest every year improving the country as the Norwegians did? Would the Lib Dems have done that then?
The way it works, Clive, is that developers apply to build, taking commercial advantage of us. The planning sub committee direct the planning department (professional civil servants with no political affiliation, who do not live in the area) to give expert advice that obeys the local, regional and national rules set down by elected bodies throughout the land. The amount of political interference that a Council can bring about is severely limited, no matter how large their majority.
If you were running things, would you refuse to accept the recommendations of the experts on this scheme, Clive? What exactly would the difference be if the Lib Dems were in control of planning the Depot?
-
-
Chris I remain happy to discuss the Deferral, the reasons for the Deferral, the quick end to the Deferral as well as the merits of the actual Application.
I took the trouble to go to the meeting, as did other members of the public and we heard a long list of genuine concerns about the proposal.
After some 15 years to come up with something good, or at least suitable, is this Application really the best possible result for the community of the partly council-owned site?
Councillors of all stripes at the meeting had concerns; I'm interested to discuss the merits of the scheme and the failure of the authorities to respond adequately.
The Professionals ?
The built environment matters to local people who have to live with it in the long term – longer than today's planners who may retire elsewhere, far from supermarket car-parks. Big schemes like this cannot and shouldn't be left to "experts" or officials.
Otherwise, what is the point of having planning committees?
I think the culprits here are probably the "professionals" for whom you express admiration. I'm not overawed or intimidated by the term professional.
Once, we'd have described Dr. Harold Shipman as a professional. I suspect some planning committee members (from both parties) were less than impressed with the silly terms coined by the "professionals" in order to promote their recommendation – and in part, their plan.
As with Wards Corner – where the council also had some ownership and much responsibility – planning dept. officials have managed to collude in a half-baked 'solution' that works better for commerce than for the community: and some residents suspect it.
Official experts and professionals mock the public with their ridiculous jargon (e.g. the claimed "over-trading" in Crouch End) that they even managed to deploy with straight faces!
The decision to Defer ... for 10 minutes
The boomerang return for a final decision renders the Deferral decision valueless. It looks like an act of municipal bad faith. It permits no changes or improvements to the flawed design, let alone further consultation.
Residents and nearby shopkeepers will bear the brunt of the impact. They cannot shape tomorrow evening's outcome, that now looks pre-determined. (Feb 3 was the first available slot to wield the rubber-stamp).
It takes vision, competence and political will to stand up for the community and to resist powerful developer interests and lobbyists.
(I don't think the situation is the same as with the betting shops, where the Gambling Act 2005 renders councils all but powerless to resist the FOBT clusters).
-
-
ANY residents' relief furnished by the planning committee's decision has been short-lived.
The final meeting verdict is to held within the next few hours.
A meeting tonight, means the Deferral was in little more than name. It's obvious that the sub-standard plans could not be amended sufficiently in such a short time.
One of the things we learnt from the earlier meeting was the degree of collusion between the developer and Haringey's Planning department.
One of the main criticisms expresed was the tiny proportion of affordable homes available to families (only 3%). My main impressions of the scheme are, too much bulk, too much space devoted to too many cars; not enough is greenery. The entire proposal is dependent on car-traffic – it might have been planned in the 1990s.
It seems that both council and developer are eager to carve up the space to maximise cash generation for each – and stuff residents?
The stunt that the council is pulling looks similar to the Wards Corner ram-through, that also involved the council's planning department. There appears to be to conflicts of interest whenever the council owns some of the land. The roading leading to another big Sainsbury development (Green Lanes) reflects no great credit on planners.
The Planning Committee is treated with near-contempt. Tonight, the Committee ought to reject the Application in its present form, given that none of their concerns expressed have been addressed.
However, the likelihood is that this will be voted—if not whipped—through.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
