Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Planning Application for 14 Storey 'Mammoth' on Wightman
The development of the Industrial site by Hornsey Station has been in the offing for a number of years now.
The initial planning application for a very ugly nine story building was rejected in 2014. The new application sees an additional five stories being added to the building, giving 176 flats in a towering 14 storey building. One of the early objectors to the application as described the planned building as a "mammoth multi-storyed building".
The objector may have a point. Even the developers say that the building's 'zone of visual influence will stretch for over a mile in every direction. (Click the picture for a magnified view)
Rather misleadingly, the developer's brochure still features a rather neat and compact looking nine storey building on its front page.The reality will be more like the picture at the top of this page.
From reading the application, we learn that:
The Site would be a notable departure from this character type but is compatible with broad policy objectives of delivering a mixed use residential led scheme and optimising potential.
Due to the site’s separate nature and prevailing land use, the height and mass would have no harmful effects on this area. There would be a high degree of change and the proposal would result in a moderate beneficial effect on this part of the townscape.
This area has a low sensitivity to changes to the townscape and is located on the north side of the New River. It is a predominantly residential area characterised by mid-late 20th century buildings of 3-7 storeys which are of no particular architectural merit and have larger footprints than the residential areas dating from the 19th and early 20th centuries.
There that told ya dinnit. Is this just planner clumsiness or has it anything to do with the fact that the whole visual impact assessment is made on the following basis:
The application Site is located within the Wood Green area, but immediately adjoins the Hornsey area.
Just laziness on the part of the consultants who drew up the assessment, or is there anything else to this, I wonder?
I have attached two of the developer's documents below. These show a range of views from Hornsey and a couple from Raleigh and Hampden and Fairland, but no views from elsewhere on the Ladder. Again, I wonder why Harringay's part has been so obviously underplayed.
You can read the voluminous planning application on the Haringey Council website.
You can support or object to the application by submitting comments online using the button on the planning application page.
All comments will be taken into consideration but those made in reference to specific council policies will carry much more weight. To make life easier for you, please take a look at a summary I did of the relevant policies for the previous planning application. You might also link to the reasons that the last application was rejected - linked to above.
All comments must be submitted by 20th June 2016.
Thanks to Charlotte and Quentin for flagging-up this latest application.
Tags for Forum Posts: hampden road, hampden road development
- Attachments:
-
-
827041.pdf, 4.1 MB -
827042.pdf, 3.7 MB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Max on
-
Planning officers have now recommended that the 14-storey tower block be built on the Haringey ladder. The report is here - http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Attachm...
This is despite large opposition from local residents and community groups, the GLA stating that they do not support the proposal in its current form, and a previous application for 8 storeys being rejected by planning officers for being too high.
The planning application is now going to the planning sub-committee on Monday 12th September at 7pm. The agenda details are here - http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=728&...
The panel is here - http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgMeetingAttendance.aspx?ID=7779
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I read officer recommendation report and there are some unanswered questions
- Parking. In some places it refers to the scheme as car free but there is parking provision on site. The residents will be excluded from the CPZ scheme so the two things seems at odds with one another
- Contaminated land. The report acknowledges that the site, currently industrial, is contaminated but makes no recommendation on how this will be dealt with while protecting those living near the site and on the route of the vehicles that will be taking away spoil
- View from Ally Pally. How is this to be protected with a 14 storey block in the middle of it
-
-
Michael
The only protected view from Ally Pally that I know of is the one of St Paul's, which partly explains the lack of high buildings in the Cheapside/ Wood Street area. This proposal doesn't go near that.
From memory,the development might mar the view of Canary Wharf! But there is no protection for that!
-
-
The view and the impact of the development is mentioned in the officer report
-
-
I'm only guessing but as the development includes 10% of flats being fully wheelchair accessible perhaps the on-site parking would be limited to disabled parking.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Thanks for flagging up the officer report, Max.
From my recent conversations with local councillors, it sounds like the developers have bought the goodwill of the Council with 'affordable housing' included in the plan. I understand that situation, but my view is that I welcome any new housing, and in particular affordable housing (which is why I'm such a strong supporter of the StArt project), but this should not be won at any cost.
One can see why there might be a particular need to focus on getting developments like this one through to meet affordable housing targets. It may all be part and parcel of the Council's desperate wish to get their Tottenham regeneration plans through. The Guardian pointed out the following in a recent article:
..Haringey awaits the momentous arrival of Tottenham Hotspur’s new £400m football stadium. This bulbous mothership was promised to bring 200 new homes, half of which would be “affordable”, and an abundance of public benefits to the area. But, once again, the affordable component has been mysteriously waived, replaced with 285 flats for solely private sale, while the Section 106 contribution has been reduced from an agreed £16m to just £477,000 – a token contribution towards transport improvements.
If they've had to miss out on affordable homes in Tottenham to buy the developer's good will, they have to be put somewhere else. So perhaps the Council is willing to sacrifice this site to help meet their target. (Note the use of quotation marks for affordable - more on that just below).
As to to 106 contributions for the Hampden site, the financial contribution to 'the lcoal area' amounts to just £62,000. The Guardian thought half a million a token. We're positively bargain basement.
Of course, many of you will be aware of developer promises to Haringey planning being broken. We're very well aware of the broken promises at the Queen's Head. Countless stories bounce around elsewhere in London about developers wriggling out of affordable housing commitments. One such instance was reported in Southwark earlier this year. So a further question for me hangs over whether all or any of the promised units will materialise.
We also have to consider what type of affordable housing will be built, if it is built. Haringey's local plan recognises three types:
Types of affordable housing include social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing.
The second two of those amount to a 20% discount on rental or purchase market rates. According to the GLA's submission on the application only those second two types would be included with a 60/40 split in favour of affordable rented. So there would be no social rented at all. The question I'm left with is whether the this 20% discount on private rental or purchase is a price worth paying to waive through this development.
The Guardian article referenced above also points up the pressure the officers are under to approve big housing schemes:
any officer who advises against a new development can be conveniently framed as “anti-growth”
Who can say what the situation is in Haringey, but I can certainly imagine at the very least that it can't be discounted as a factor.
With regard to the visual and townscape impact issue on the Hampden Road Development development, in their recommendation the officer's report on the application includes the following:
The visual and townscape assessments accompanying the application demonstrate that the overall bulk and massing of the tallest element of the development, which is most likely to be visible in the views, is animated to a degree so as to add interest to it. As such the less than substantial harm would be outweighed by public benefit associated by the development.
The officers refer to the "less than substantial harm" (let's just speak plainly and say substantial harm) the building will cause to the visual and townscape amenities. They say that they nonetheless recommend approval because "the tallest element of the development, which is most likely to be visible in the views, is animated to a degree so as to add interest to it."
'Animated to a degree so as to add interest to it'. Really? It sounds to me like they're repeating some line fed to them by the developer. How can the development both cause 'less than substantial harm' whilst also 'adding interest'. I assume that this is interest in the 'Chinese' sense.
Here's the developer's take on the way the building would be 'animated to add interest' in their own mock-up view from Ally Pally.
You can imagine what level of 'interest' there will be once viewing it from Harringay. You can see the range of animated interest the building will add in the developer's own mock-ups in the attached pdf. You'll see how it 'animates' the views of Hornsey Church as well as more local views.
I detailed my objections on this comment back in June.
- Attachments:
-
-
827042.pdf, 3.7 MB
-
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I appreciate it's big but surely the issues are around parking, percentage of affordable homes and the section 106 contribution?
Again, if you want a measure of how much profit these things generate, just go back to my example of what home owners on the ladder could do with their terraces. The affordable component is a joke, the parking will be a waste as autonomous ubers are coming and the section 106 provision is criminal. The size is not relevant other than with regards to those three issues.
-
-
The S106 is negligible (see above) and you can make your own mind up on the value of the type of affordable hoes on offer and take a view on the likelihood of them leaving the drawing board. And, yes the parking will no doubt be a real issue too.
With that as a basis, one then has to decide if that package is worth Haringey ignoring their policies
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
Sorry mateys. I wish I could say this won't happen, but if this bunch of yaysayers let through the plan for 23 storeys of ugliness in the middle of the residential streets in Seven Sisters, they are not 'minded' to say No to a mere 14 storeys. Especially as it's animated to a degree.
Sending sympathy.
You can try the mayor for a call-in later, but he's not minded either.
-
-
I know. I keep forgetting that its being animated to a degree changes everything.
-
-
Oh look. Tottenham Hale Starchitects think that adding a pitched roof to a 21-storey tower will fool us into thinking it's just a very tall house.
And our supine council sips from the same tub of KoolAid.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
