Email just received:
"Location: Land at Plevna Crescent and Ermine Road N15
Proposal: Erection of 158 residential (1-3 bedroom) flats and terraced housing (3 bedroom), together with the regeneration and enhancement of an existing ecological corridor, and landscaping scheme with disabled parking and necessary infrastructure. Outline application with some matters reserved.
With reference to the above planning application I am writing to inform you that after taking into consideration relevant planning policies and the comments of local residents the Council has on 20/02/2013, REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:
The site of the proposed development lies wholly within an area designated as 'Ecological Valuable Land of Borough Grade 2 Importance and part of a Ecological Corridor' where it is Council policy to only permit development that would outweigh the nature conservation value of the site, loss of the ecological valuable land is therefore contrary to policy OS6 'Ecologically Valuable Sites and their Corridors' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan and policy 7.19 Biodiversity and Access to Nature and Policy 7.18 Protecting local Open Space and Addressing Local Deficiency of the London Plan.
The proposal would constitute an unsatisfactory form of development which is out of character with the existing form of development in the area. This would give rise to an unacceptable relationship between the existing pattern of development and the proposal by reason of its height contrary to Policy UD3 'General Principles' and UD4 'Quality Design' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan and Policy 7.4 'Local Character' and 3.5 'Quality and Design of Housing Developments' of the London Plan.
The proposal does not provide sufficient parking as required by Policies UD3 'General Principles' and M10 'Parking for Development' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan and Policy 6.13 'Parking' of the London Plan. The proposal is therefore likely to give rise to an unacceptable increase in on street parking likely to prejudice the free-flow of traffic along the adjoining highway."
this is ref this previous post and updates. Don't know if this will be the end of speculative plans for that site, there have been earlier versions. Now it remains to be found out who cut down at least eight tree covered by TPO's on the site. Next step, think about other possibilities for the site eg allotments? And opening the western part, full of trees, which is locked away? At least that first para acknowledges it has value as it stands.
But there's this para on the online planning portal decision notice:
"To assist applications the Local Planning Authority has produced policies and written guidance, all of which is available on the Council’s website and offers a pre-application advice service. The scheme does not comply with guidance and no pre-application discussion s were entered into. The Council is ready to enter into discussions with applicants to assist in the preparation of a new application."
A little digging shows that the land is owned by a private individual who bought it from the British Railways Board for £82000 in 2008. Somehow I doubt that he bought it to give back to the nation as a wildlife park.
This explains all the speculative planning applications and the design costs they have gone to. As long as LBH keeps refusing planning permission, it is 'worth' little more than five years ago (except inflation). Maybe they can be persuaded to give up, and we as a community can raise £100k to buy it and turn it into allotments. This is not a joke, there are funds for that sort of thing.
Hi Pamish - I hope you don't mind. I have signed up to see if you would be willing to speak to me about the Ermine Road site. I'm a reporter for BBC London.
as far as i know the plans were dropped since the site is now 'safeguarded' as a working base for Crossrail if/when that happens. Seven Sisters station is due to be one of the hubs and the space would become a machines and materials store. You should be able to look up any updates to the submitted plans on the Haringey planning portal, referenced on at least one of these posts.
The plans covered two distinct plots of land so maybe the more fenced-off part is more vulnerable as it's further from 7Sis station.
Can you tell us what story you're working on, Val?
Hugh, I'm interested in talking to anyone who knows what the site is being used for at the moment and over the last few years. Thanks.
And it's specifically that site you're interested in, and only that site? Does your story have a particular angle?
Interesting to compare the reasons for refusal with the application for the Hampden Road site.
Particularly - " The proposal would constitute an unsatisfactory form of development which is out of character with the existing form of development in the area. This would give rise to an unacceptable relationship between the existing pattern of development and the proposal by reason of its height contrary to Policy UD3 'General Principles' and UD4 'Quality Design' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan and Policy 7.4 'Local Character'
I suspect that it's very much not over, Pam. Amongst the primary reasons for refusal are the height of the building. It's a four-storey building. Just up the road they've approved a 23 storey building and over here a 15 storey one. If I were paranoid, I'd be thinking that someone somewhere is pushing around chess pieces and having a damn good laugh.
I suspect, Pam, as I imagine you do, that before long we'll see a plan approved for a very much more intensive development.