Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Poor Doors at Altitude N8 - It's the bins entrance for Harringay tenants
Tenant campaigners have written to the Local Government Ombudsman to object to Haringey Council officers who concealed Poor Doors from a Planning Committee.
The Altitude N8 development near Hornsey BR station has a tenants’ entrance turned away from the centre of the scheme, to be accessed by a separate side door from Hampden Road.
Dean Hermitage, Haringey Council's Head of Development Management, described the tenants’ entrance as ‘access to the refuse store for refuse collectors’.
Yet the Council’s Planning Report in September 2016 claimed that:
‘The architects have managed to achieve an exceptionally clear and equal approach to each and every core off the “internal street” with none in a significantly “worse”, less visible or less attractive location, than any others’.
‘The space between the blocks is treated as a street with… crucially all of the front doors to cores giving access to the flats’.
All untrue.
Council officers hid the facts from Councillors on the Planning Sub Committee.
The plans supplied with the Sub Committee Reports Pack were insufficiently clear for Members to see the detailed layout of the scheme, which was described so glowingly in the Report.
Haringey Council has since refused to do anything about it. Official complaints have been completely rejected. It looks like the officers would willingly do the same again.
Other new Haringey developments have poor doors too.
- In the Tottenham Hale Centre plan, the developers praise their architects for so well segmenting the market and shared ownership tenures, so that no Market resident has a shared owner as their neighbour, and with no social rent whatsoever. Planning objections are mounting to this development proposal.
- At High Road West, opposite the Spurs ground, the developers Lendlease (yes, it’s them again) promise a “tenure-blind” development. But the reprovided council housing would in fact be Invisible: hidden away behind the railway line. This scheme will be subject early next year to a residents YES/NO ballot on the demolition of existing council homes at the Love Lane estate.
Haringey Defend Council Housing meets at 6.30pm on Thursday 11 October at Café Life, North London Community House, 22 Moorefield Road, N17 6PY. Near the Bruce Grove BR station.
All are welcome.
Paul Burnham
Secretary
Haringey Defend Council Housing
07847 714 158
Tags for Forum Posts: hampden road development
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
From your picture, it looks like the more expensive housing is next to the railway. I think I'd rather be further away from it.
Do you know what type of "affordable" housing has ended up being built?
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
With double glazing that will be an amazing vista. You just don't like trains.
-
-
Trains are fine, and I'm quite happy with the somewhat distant noise of trains (whereas road traffic noise is horrible near or far), but I don't think I'd like to live on top of a railway line.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Burnham on
-
The market block next to the railway may well turn out to be largely private rented, with many overcrowded families with children - guessing but based on other recent similar schemes.
The affordable black has two entrances - shared ownership (facing the internal street) and 'Affordable Rent' (facing away to the side of the development).
Of the 174 residential dwellings, 55 are to be affordable (31.6%); 32 affordable rented and 23 shared ownership.
There is some question as to exactly what 'Affordable Rent' means, it is supposed to be a maximum of 80% market rent, but there is also the issue of service charges, and the tendency sometimes of developers to push the envelope by asking for higher rents.
-
-
Paul, surely, surely, there is either a serious penalty for saying that council officers lied or a serious penalty for council officers for lying.
The main thing I am annoyed about (poor doors is slightly stretching it), is that these flats were marketed for two months in Hong Kong and Dubai before they were offered for sale in Britain.
-
-
Hi John, see below. Poor doors is an accurate description. If these properties were first offered for sale overseas, how typical for this type of development.
How reckless and dangerous, in that some people may then blame 'foreigners' rather than public policy here in the UK, if they cannot rent or buy a home.
-
Permalink Reply by kotkas on
-
Don’t get what you mean by poor door. There’s an affordable block. It has a door. Get the plans and compare the discrepancy between the designs, before you use this as an example of the council affronting the ‘poor.’
-
-
-
-
There appears to be nearly as much land set aside for car parking as there is for living.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
I thought a condition of the grant of planning permission was that there would be NO parking, apart from a few disabled spaces?
-
-
I did too but what are all of those paved spaces between the trees?
-
-
One of reasons that the first (2014) application for the development of this site was refused was due to its "inadequate parking provision". Haringey said that felt that the "scheme would result in an unacceptable increase in on street parking and prejudice the free-flow of traffic along the adjoining highways network".
The new scheme includes 52 parking spaces, including 17 No. blue badge spaces either within the central courtyard or located in the undercroft of both buildings.
Other than that, the development is to be "permit/car free with respect to CPZ permits". Nonetheless, the approval still required the developer to include £9,000 in their S106 contribution, "to investigate potential measures to mitigate issues with parking stress arising from the development." Go figure!
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
