Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Huge housing development proposed at 500 White Hart Lane
I would like to draw Haringey Online members' attention to the proposal that is currently going through Haringey Council's planning process concerning a huge development planned for 500 White Hart Lane.
We have organised a local campaign and a residents association has sprung up as a result.
There is huge opposition locally because the proposal is so over-sized for a suburban area.
For more information see http://www.devonshirehill.org.uk
I am aware for example that the redevelopment of the St Anns Hospital site may end up looking something similar if this goes through.
The second round of consultation formally closes today, 30 June, but you can still comment on the application after that.
Tags for Forum Posts: housing, planning, spurs, tottenham, white hart lane
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Sean, the "test" for a development like this (industrial to residential) comes from how plans are interpreted. The most significant plan is the National Planning Framework and in 2012 it was amended so that change from industrial to residential would be the defaul position. The outcome of the consultation on this says
"to include a new policy in the National Planning Policy Framework1, to be read in the wider context of the Framework document, that local planning authorities ‘...should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in the B use classes) where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate...’;
So the test for Haringey is really to determine reasons why this should NOT happen, not for the developer to show why it SHOULD which is reversal of previous national planning policies.
-
Permalink Reply by 0n59eal4meshz on
-
500 White Hart Lane - No
St Ann's - No
Apex House- No
This place- No
That place- No
Over there- No.
The comfortably housed are very good at inventing reasons why new homes shouldn't be built.
The fact is London has not been building enough homes for years; no need to invent conspiracy theories about greedy developers! The opposition also has a nasty whiff of "people that I probably won't like will move in, let's stop it"!
-
-
Stuart isn't problem a combination of the level new building not meeting demand AND the nature of the housing that is being built? Is what is being delivered actually solving the real housing problem which is the need for those on lower incomes to have a decent home at a price they can afford?
-
-
Michael- I'm not sure what you mean by "the nature of the housing that is being built", could you expand a bit?
We do need more social housing (whether that should be in old-style estates is another matter). But it's also important to remember that many people who would never get near the waiting- list are also in need of housing!
-
-
If you look at the developments in the area they are aimed at the upper end of the housing market, even the so called affordable housing. What is needed is social housing
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Unfortunately Labour governments in the past have used social housing as an election device so that is now something that counts against it when the Tories are in charge. It also doesn't maximise the value of the land for the developer - look at the difference in price between a two bed flat in an estate locally and a similarly sized one in a Victorian conversion on the ladder.
-
-
John I have been around quite a while and nothing would make me happier than to see the Labour party promise more social housing as an election issue. The Blair govt however didn't even reverse the buy to let and no you can't use the money to build more council housing of the Thatcher era. So now about one third(i think) of Haringey housing stock has been sold off to end up in the portfolio of private landlords.
-
-
I agree Stuart. This is an eyesore of a site which has been left to rot and decay since 2008. You can blame Tottenham Hotspurs for their land banking activities over the past couple of decades. If ever there was a plot that should be developed it's this one.
-
Permalink Reply by Sean Wallis on
-
Hi Antoinette
So Spurs have let the site run down. But it is not completely unoccupied either - the rear of the side is a going concern.
Can I just flag up that the DHRA is in favour of the plot being developed. Indeed we are keen that it does meet the need of residents. We would not be against a well considered mixed development with some shops and community space provided it wasn't so supersized.
But fairly obviously, not all developments are the same.
Do have a look at the link to the residents association I circulated.
There is unanimity in the neighbourhood that this particular proposal is just too big.
It is two storeys higher than any previous permissions in the area, and three storeys higher than any permissions at the top of the hill. So it will set a precedent.
My point in drawing it to your attention is that if it does go through it will be harder for residents of the Gardens to object to an oversized development on the St Ann's Hospital site (for example).
Have a nice weekend.
-
-
I look around me and I don't see any developments which are less than 5/6 storeys. And frankly I don't think the scale of this development is extreme. The concept that private developers can deliver Victorianesque terraced streets in London is just nonsense.
-
-
Precisely: this widespread notion that the heights of new-build properties in London in the 21 century should be restricted to what developers in 1880 and 1930 thought what was suitable needs to be challenged more often!
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
