Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
NO to Tenure segregation in Wood Green
A new planning application in Wood Green has some of the worst tenure segmentation we have seen: two separate 7th floor roof top amenity and child play areas, and segregated deck access to the 75 flats above and around an inner courtyard.
Please take a few minutes to read the details, and log your objection to what is being proposed.
Also, unaffordable 'Mayor's rent' and high service charges are being used to keep people with lower incomes out of social rent homes.
This could be a turning point for housing and planning, because if applications like this are to be accepted, then the future will be grim indeed.
HGY/2020/0795
Former Petrol Filling Station, 76 Mayes Road, London N22
Applicant: Aitch group and Mura estates
This site is on the corner of Caxton Road and Mayes Road, next to the Shopping City car park access ramp.
Tenure segregation takes three main forms here:
- flats separated by tenure in two blocks;
- two separate roof garden and child play areas for different tenures;
- segregated open air deck access to all 75 flats, set above a small courtyard.
Residents and children from market and affordable tenures will be able to look at one another across the roofs (17.6 m apart) and across the decks (11.7 m apart), but no physical contact between tenures will be allowed in these areas. This is unnecessary, divisive and provocative.
It appears that the developer intends to use London Affordable Rent, known as Mayor’s rent, plus high service charges, to exclude the poor from social and affordable housing at the development. The minimum income requirement for these properties will be between £36,606 and £40,413 per annum. Two full time jobs will be required per household, and for a three bed, one of the workers will need to be in a professional occupation. Presumably they will not be accepting anyone needing benefit support - yet these are supposed to be social rent tenancies.
The above features of the proposal are all contrary to agreed planning policies. We have confirmed with Emma Williamson (Haringey Council’s Assistant Director for Planning) and with GLA Planning officers that tenure segregation is not supported by any agreed planning policy, whether Haringey, GLA or the National Planning Policy Framework.
This application follows a series of meetings and discussions between the developer and the borough’s planners, who have now endorsed the proposals. The planning team have even produced a special letter claiming that this application is fully policy compliant.
There must be a thorough investigation about why Haringey Council’s planning team is supporting such an objectionable proposal.
A detailed planning objection is posted here, together with few images from the planning papers with my comments attached.
Please make your objection now at:
www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSea...
Here is a suggested response:
I strongly object to the tenure segregation within this proposal, with housing in separate blocks, separate deck access, and separate roof amenity and child play provision.
Residents and their children will see one another across the deck and across the roofs, but with physical barriers in place to keep the tenures apart. This is divisive and contrary to the policies of Haringey Council, the GLA and the National Planning Policy Framework, all of which prioritise inclusive design.
It appears that the applicant intends to use to exclude lower income households from social rented housing on affordability grounds. We believe that in line with agreed planning policy, social and affordable rental housing must be accessible to waiting list applicants including those in receipt of state benefit.
The role of Haringey Council’s planning team in bringing such an unacceptable proposal forward should be investigated. Instead of supporting such a problematic application, our planners should insist that new housing developments are socially inclusive, according to agreed planning policy.
All comments and feedback are welcome.
Kind regards
Paul Burnham
078 4771 4158
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hisky0 on
-
Whilst the physical segregation is appalling and I will be logging my concern, you're noting that 36k plus isn't affordable - You're right to think that's more of a middle class income bracket - I don't personally feel that's a problem (although it's questionable how they've used the word affordable) - middle class people are completely squeezed out of new developments and instead only those on very low incomes or very high incomes get access to these new developments. I also feel like housing needs to be prioritized for people who do work as it helps bring in more council income to the borough and is shared between everyone. Haringey already has one of the highest percentages of social housing in London concentrated on the east side of the borough - it might be good if there's more of a mix of housing across the whole of Haringey. This opinion might not be popular, but a lot of working people (and 35k can be a senior nurse, senior teacher or even a council worker) would love the opportunity to live in this area.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Burnham on
-
One of the slogans from the battle to desegregate schools in New York in the 60s was 'integration is an education', and that is true. if you meet and talk with people of different backgrounds with different experiences, then you might learn something. And if you don't meet and talk, then you won't learn anything.
-
-
Catherine West MP has posted a public objection to the Aitch Group planning application for Caxton Road in Wood Green.
The developer wants to use so-called ‘affordable’ rents to exclude lower earners and the poor.
Catherine says 50% of all new homes must be affordable, and all affordable rents must be at Council rent levels. Let’s get behind out local MP who is speaking out over this.
Catherine also calls out the segregated design, calling it by name. It is excellent stuff.
Theere is lots more work to do, please help by making your objection now.
Go to:
http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...
The link brings up the application. At the end of the ‘details’ section and before ‘attachments’ there is a button marked ‘Comment on application’. This opens another box with a menu box to tick support, object, do not object or just comment options.
After you’ve filled in your personal details (as much as you feel comfortable with) and ticked the menu, paste your comments into the box by the left of the Send button. Then hit Send.
Here is a suggested response:
—-
I strongly object to the tenure segregation within this proposal, with housing in separate blocks, separate deck access, and separate roof amenity and child play provision.
Residents and their children will see one another across the deck and across the roofs, but with physical barriers in place to keep the tenures apart. This is divisive, unacceptable, and contrary to the policies of Haringey Council, the GLA and the National Planning Policy Framework, all of which prioritise inclusive design.
It appears that the applicant intends to use to exclude lower income households from social rented housing on affordability grounds. We believe that in line with agreed planning policy, social and affordable rental housing must be accessible to waiting list applicants including those with lower incomes or in receipt of state benefit.
The role of the Haringey Council planning team in bringing such an unacceptable proposal forward should be investigated. Instead of supporting such a problematic application, our planners should insist that new housing developments are socially inclusive, according to the agreed planning policies.
[ends]
Please email haringey_dch@outlook.com for more information, news and updates.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
