Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Proposed development of 5 storey block on Langham Close
There is a current planning application to add 2 extra storeys to the existing 3 storey 1930s block on Langham close (near the bus station).
Comments on the planning application can be made at:
http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...
I'm a fan of modern architecture, but personally I think this looks terrible. Just adding a few more storeys to an existing block seems a particularly lazy and cynical way to maximise profit with minimum expenditure. Also it looks particularly bad for the many houses that the new floors will overlook.
Comments are open until 6th December.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Anna P on
-
Thanks for posting this and I agree! There are a lot of concerns : how it will effect the current heritage site, negative impact on the area residents, alter the character of the neighborhood, and much more.
It will dominate the immediate surroundings (mock up below)
-
Permalink Reply by Muriel Zaccuri on
-
you should sumbit this to the council with your objection
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
For comparative purposes, here's the current birds-eye view from Google Maps.
I note there there will be copper cladding to the west facing elevation that will be visible above TPL station from Ducketts.
The heritage report has the following.
The extension is designed to retain the strong symmetrical form and appearance of the existing building whilst using complementary materials of a sensitive colour palate. These include matching brickwork to the third floor and suitably toned cladding to the fourth floor. A copper coloured zinc cladding will complement the main materials utilised for Langham Close as well as the grade II listed Turnpike Lane Underground Station.
-
-
I'm afraid I can't agree that it's lazy or cynical. All developers make profits, far too much IMO. But surely better to add floors to an existing block than manhattanize Haringey as is happening all around Tottenham Hale, Finsbury Park and Hornsey stations. In fact the extra shadow of these new floors will fall on very few houses compared to most of the much taller blocks. The shadow will fall on mainly commercial buildings to the north and the bus station to the east. OK it will cut out afternoon sunshine from some (not all) of the homes round the back. Are those residents here? What do they think?
The idea of extra floors on an existing block is a way of extending housing without extending its footprint into green space or creating shadows of several hundred metres like the towers do. I just hope some of these will be genuinely affordable...unlike so much of the new building going up. And the quid pro quo of what these developers want to do is that I hope the Council with the recent relaxation of planning regs will look favourably on owners who want to build full width attic rooms/dormers on existing 2 storey homes. That gives a lot more space for large families and three-generation households...the most modest version of building up rather than on new footprints. It could create a lot of new space for families who want to stay together as the kids grow up
-
-
Interestingly I can find no mention at all in the documents about any of the housing being sold / let at affordable rates.
I'm not sure I agree about the extra floors casting less shadow than a new building- it's the height of the building that's important, not whether the floors are bolted on an existing building or not. Personally I think a well-designed 5 storey building that makes architectural sense would be far preferable to this plan. I don't think the developers have decided to add floors because this is some way makes the development less intrusive- they've done it because it is cheap (like it is cheap to repurpose office blocks for poor-quality accommodation, which has also happened locally).
-
-
Affordable housing isn't mentioned because it's not a policy requirement for schemes below 10 homes. You would have a very difficult time even getting a policy requiring affordable housing for schemes of 1-9 homes approved, because the government state that affordable housing should not be sought from small sites. In fact, the government want to temporarily lift this figure to schemes below 40 homes, which in practice will probably inflate land prices.
-
-
Hi Anne, As a resident of Crescent Rd, I can tell you that a large majority of the build would severely impact the privacy and right to light of many residents. The West side of Crescent Rd alone has 12 homes, most of whom would all be looking out to brick walls if this goes forward. In fact, the development would look directly into 32 windows of private homes on Crescent Rd (yes, we've counted!). It would tower over Laila Court, to it's South side, which is a three story apartment building and also look into the homes along the foot of Langham Rd and can look into any lofts along along the East side of Crescent RD and Carlingford. So we're talking over 100 residents directly impacted in a negative way.
To say "It it will fall on very few houses"? Sounds like you haven't been here, so do come by and have a walk around the neighbourhood, which is largely full of period terraced homes (just like the ladder)... imagine how it would feel to suddenly have a looming structure towering over your home.
It should also be noted that even residents of the building itself are objecting.
Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. But please don't minimize the absolute intrusion this would have on many residents who are already settled in the community.
-
-
I know the street well. I wanted its residents to speak to see what they think! Now you have...good luck!
-
-
This project is not just overdeveloping, it is badly designed: for example they suggest demolition of the stairs without giving access to the residents of the existing floors, they positioned bike storage 3m high in front of living room, balconies overlooking the bus station which would be very noisy... and those are just examples.
It would be dominant from the station and Duckett's Common
-
Permalink Reply by Mavic Starfish on
-
If they add some rooftop cameras trained on the drug dealers around Turnpike Lane, then I'm all for it. On a serious note, if done properly and it doesn't affect neighbours sunlight then I think it looks good, but they're a couple of big ifs?
-
Permalink Reply by Nick on
-
I live nearby this area and we are likely to be impacted. With reference to comments here, I understand the need for more housing in London (at least in theory – the impact of COVID of people’s appetite for living in London might change that). However, if you want to put in an objection, we have until 6 December to do this.
My understanding from various exchanges with neighbours, who are more experienced in these matters than I, is to focus on material concerns:
- Overlooking
- Overshadowing
- Tall Building being out of character with the area
- As we live nearby, I will also be seeking clarity from officers on the impacts from construction and their proposed mitigations.
We do not see any reference to social housing by the way (happy to stand corrected).
See here for guidance on valid reasons for objections
https://www.iobject.co.uk/what-are-valid-reasons-for-objecting-to-a...
Other issues for complaint to Council with Cllr Seema – lack of notice for the consultation in these current times when we are encouraged not to go out. In the past, things like this were advertised in local papers or on notices put in lampposts nearby.
Of course, we’ll be contacting David Lammy.
One more thing – apparently there are Neighbourhood Planning Forums – Turnpike Lane Area doesn’t seem to have one (although our richer neighbour Crouch End does!)
https://www.haringey.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning/...
-
-
Re the consultation - as the scheme is below 10 homes / 1000 sqm and won't be in a Conservation Area, there's no requirement for a press notice.
Neighbourhood Planning Forums require a group of people to apply to the council(s) (and re-apply every five years to prove they're still active and relevant), so coverage is very patchy in London.
Incidentally I question the integrity of some of the address data the council holds - I once received a planning notification letter addressed to the billboard on the side of the building I live in (which will be in their corporate GIS system and will have its own business rates, but but is not a postal address), as well as an electoral registration letter to a previous "middle flat" that became defunct when the property had been reconfigured over 10 years ago.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
