Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Rabbit hutch regeneration or how 30 flats can become 60 flats without further permission
Just before Christmas, my eye was caught by a local tweet about the former CAB office on Willoughby Road being turned into 60 flats by Paul Simon Homes, with a link to their site (screenshot below).
Both I and the tweeter felt this couldn't be right. We both know the site well and this seemed very dense for a site of that size. After a brief twitter conversation, I took the issue to Ian Sygrave, the chair of the LCSP (Ladder Community Safety Partnership) who is pretty clued up about local planning.
Ian kindly checked the planning applications and found that they had been granted permission for 25 flats and a roof extension allowing for 5 more, giving 30 flats in all. Paul Simon had notified a change of use in March showing 46 flats but had withdrawn it. Ian agreed to take it up with planning and we waited for the response.
When it came we were all a little taken aback - not only was there no need for them to inform the council that they had doubled the number of flats being shoehorned into that space but it was the council who had told them to withdraw their second application!
Ian duly informed everyone via the LCSP minutes, this week. Here is the relevant extract
Given the dizzying level of proposed development in our area over the next few years (e.g. Hawes and Curtis, the Arena), I would agree wholeheartedly with Ian's conclusions that this is a very worrying situation indeed.
Tags for Forum Posts: Willoughby Road, development, planning
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Amir on
-
Hi Liz, for prior approval schemes Councils are required to assess three issues: flood risk, contamination and highways. As the developer is entering into legal agreement for the units to be 'car-free' then the planners are probably of the view that there will be no additional highways impact going from 30 to 60 units.
Although Haringey are right to an extent that the flats are not required to meet any local/regional internal space standards, the accommodation has to fit the definition of Use Class C3 (residential). I've known prior approval cases where developers have tried to squeeze units in to the point where they the accommodation couldn't be considered as being C3. I would say that units with no windows or with windows borrowing light from communal areas (as appears to be proposed here) are not by definition residential (not even rabbit hutches have no natural light). Haringey/their legal team have been a bit slack with this compared with other boroughs.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
I know that site well and it wasn't a particularly nice building - its design encouraged anti-social behaviour, and I suspect the residents nearby would be relieved with any development that improved that corner for the better, but the site isn't very big and like you, I am mainly concerned that what is being offered (no doubt for a high rent) are poor standard "cupboards" with a bathroom. I simply can't imagine how 60 "studios" can be anything else. I've no doubt Haringey have done what they are supposed to re change of use and, as I said, this is a site that seems suitable for housing but what you say about 'slackness' I have to say doesn't surprise me at all.
-
-
I agree the principle of the change of use is fine. However, the layout plans submitted by the developer give the council the chance to assess whether what is being proposed is actually habitable as self contained residential units (i.e. contains kitchen/ette, a bathroom and bedspace......and windows.
-
Permalink Reply by Zena Brabazon on
-
Given what Amir, Michael and Tris are saying, shouldn't these points be made to those who manage and administer planning, and those who are politically accountable?
From what I've read here, it seems the council could use some influence through other means to control this development. Amir says Haringey is a 'bit slack' compared to other boroughs. I know what a strong campaigner Ian is through the LCSP so, are you all pressing your 3 councillors to take this up with planning, and of course raising this case with the Chair of Planning (Peray Ahmet)and the Lead Member who sits in the Cabinet. (Ali DeMirci)
Even if you don't get this rescinded, it wouldn't hurt to put down a strong marker that you think Haringey could have been firmer so other such developments are prevented.
Zena Brabazon
-
-
Actually yes. The person who noticed this originally has spoken to Cllr Ibrahim and raised it with David Lammy. It's not over yet.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I don't know if refusal on those grounds (the GLA SPG) would be successful if it went to appeal, and for a development of this size, with the potential profit, the developer would definately appeal. Amir is right to draw attention to the habitability of some of the proposed dwellings as a ground for refusal though. I think their legal team is either being over cautious or they don't want to turn it down for some reason.
-
-
Thinking a bit more about it, wouldn't building regulations cover issues like habitability?
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
This is called freeing up the planning system. Or perhaps "getting rid of all the bureaucratic red tape". Affordable hutches with plenty of space for ....?
Meanwhile in one of his talks Prof David Harvey describes how he and other people in New York were estimating the numbers of apartments in new blocks kept empty by their owners, by how many never had lights on. Homes used as safe investments for corporations or foreign nationals looking for high return on their capital.
Especially Interesting for me, in the same talk David Harvey suggests this process - turning homes for people into investment for profit - is the issue to focus on - rather than concentrating solely on gentrification.
-
Permalink Reply by JJ B on
-
People are using the term 'gentrification' as if it Is a deliberate action on the part of 'the powers that be' when it only describes the process resulting from an 'avant garde types', usually creatives, gays and starter families and young couples moving into dishevelled areas resulting in at first gradual change to the retail/food offer and improvement to the street scene and public realm. This then results in displacement of traditional shops and outletsand residents due to increase in demand and prices once the area becomes hip and desirable. Then, of course, the chains and muti unit big developers move in and kill the attractivity of the area and. It becomes 'mainstream' and boring.
The way of the world...the race for 'growth'.
-
-
JJ. How about the view that gentrification has each of these components? In other words, the various decision makers and takers involved in this process are each making choices either to meet their own needs and preferences, or seeking to take advantage of it by encouraging or driving through changes they favour. Or more exactly, which favour their particular interests - sometimes commercial; sometimes political.
The sequence you describe can then change when people with more power decide to short-circuit the stages. Or actively drive the gentrification process by driving out who they see as the "wrong" sort of people. For example, by demolishing social housing in an area they want to gentrify - especially on a prime site where there's lots of profit to be made by development. This will involve most of the existing residents moving elsewhere. Somewhere. Anywhere.
Please take a look at Emma Dent Coad's blog and share your thoughts on it.
-
-
60 units are shocking on that tiny site. But I imagine they will be attractive to rentors, at least when new, as heat and sound insulation will be better and they will have their own proper front door. Terrible precedent though.
-
-
Every day I read articles about how we have a housing crisis and need more housing and yet every proposed development is seen as a bad thing...
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
