Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Redevelopment of African Caribbean Centre and adjacent site
PMRA has received notice from the council that it intends to enter a Planning Performance Agreement with developers for the area between Turnpike Lane, Hornsey Park Road and the south end of Clarendon Road - approximately half of the so called 'Site SA23' in the adopted Site Allocations DPD ( https://clarendonroad.communityuk.live/explore ). The matter will be discussed (almost certainly agreed) at the Planning Sub-committee on 11th January 2020. Its purpose is to pave the way to the grant of planning permission in the slickest way possible for applicant and council (which we believe to also be the land owner). It therefore feels like there could be both a conflict of interest and a compromising of positions (Haringey being the statutory planning authority, corporate landowner, lead for regeneration and possibly supporter of the applicant). We have got to where we are following a Pre-planning Consultation between council and applicant and the recent public consultation where the applicant introduced their plans to an unsuspecting and demoralised (from development) neighbourhood mid November.
The application is clearly problematic. The scale of development and thought given to its integration into the neighbourhood follows the approach taken by Haringey at Hampden Road. Its arrival coinsides with a complete absence of a strategic approach and politcial leadership on development to the west of Wood Green and at a time when the council has failed to give any thought to its impact on the neighbourhood and the need for improvements to inadequate infrastructure. In February 2020 it removed the Government's recommended minimum spend of CIL on the host neighbourhood. In approving Heartlands and several other developments, the council couldn't even find it in its heart to provide a zebra crossing or some trees in Hornsey Park Road even after receiving millions of pounds in S.106 and CIL: at the same time it has allowed all through-traffic previously shared with Mary Neuner Road to Hornsey Park Road alone where it will probably stay. So we are starting from a low point.
The subject of the proposal deserves careful consideration but the nature of the proposed homes is perhaps not so different from that which the council fought so hard to prevent at Alexandra House, in Station Road (the so called 'human warehouse'). The wider community needs to be included in the conversation on whether this is the best use of the land - while it's served by two east-west bus routes, a larger community centre would have no accessible access to the overground and be poorly located relative to the overstretch Piccadilly Line (all shortcomings glossed over in Haringey's flawed Area Action Plan predicated on Crossrail-2. Cycling doesn't seem to be the answer and reliance on the car is unacceptable.
Our community deserves better than to be served up with a pre-prepared scheme that ignores the needs of the neighbourhood. This, of all sites, owned by the council and a gateway to our area and Wood Green needs to face and be a part of an integrated, community led plan that will help build a strong, cohesive, sustainable community. From what we've seen to date, the council hasn't a clue on what we are saying.
- Attachments:
-
-
E_13440985.pdf, 66 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Waller on
-
Hi,
Reading the agenda item, it appears that the main purpose is to effectively give a "members briefing" on progress thus far, rather than to actually agree the terms of the PPA (a mechanism which most councils expect developers to use for schemes of this size - and I know elsewhere it is used for Housing Revenue Account council housing schemes).
Existing community facilities are quite strongly protected in policy terms, hence its re-provision. It's not really clear what would be preferable in place of the additional floorspace?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
The full planning application hasn’t been submitted yet so there’s nothing for the committee to agree Extract from he report below.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1. The proposed development is being reported to Planning Sub-Committee to enable members to view it ahead of a full planning application submission. Any comments made are of a provisional nature only and will not prejudice the final outcome of any formally submitted planning application.
2.2. It is anticipated that the planning application, once received, would be presented to the Planning Sub-Committee in summer 2021. The applicant has engaged in pre-application discussions with Council Planning Officers as well as presenting the scheme to the Quality Review Panel (QRP) on two occasions.
-
-
It says the PPA will be considered by the Planning Sub-Committee - following which I imagine the council will feel free to sign it, which effectively makes it a done deal. A PPA is entered into before starting work on an application so that both parties can follow the steps laid down - following which there is an expectation that permission will be given for something of a prescribed quantum in accordance with the agreed timescale. They are designed to create a safe space for developer and local authority which is precisely why they should not be used as a weapon against community.
Their progress is worrying - Pre-panning consultations (which attract fees) complete, QRP (very surprised but anything is possible in Haringey) signed up, and now the PPA which attracts yet further payments to Harinegy ahead of the planning application and statutory fee. It makes a mockery of Localism and genuine consultation - essential protections put in place by the Government when planning was realigned in favour of development.
PMRA has plenty of experience of how Haringey operates to contrive to get what it wants. There is nothing in the documents to suggest Haringey has a clue - certainly not when it comes to planning the infrastructure needed to support developmen tof the scale we are witnessing on our door step. And we haven't even mentioned the 'grab' of NCIL our area needs. Planning in Haringey lacks integrity and our corner of Hornsey/Wood Green bears the scars.
-
-
I used to manage a team that gave fee attracting planning advice in another local authority and it was absolutely no guarantee of permission being granted. It was to ensure that the application was in a fit state to be considered at the application stage - that was all
-
-
This is absolutely the case. In fact, some local authorities have a policy of not accepting amendments to submitted schemes (while they are being determined) unless the applicant engaged with a pre-application (or PPA for more complex schemes), on the basis that if they had used the pre-app service, they wouldn't need to make as many amendments!
-
-
We are slightly digressing from the point - we now fully expect an application to be put together between applicant and council in camera and then presented as a done deal - Iceland is a nice (not nice at all) example of the method. It's only a matter of time before the same thing happens at the Filter Beds.
As for what an applicant might expect through courting officers, it's quite a lot. St. William paid £173,160 for just one building (C7, a building they already had planning permission for) when the subsequent planning application fee for a material amendment was only £27,184 - quite an earner! There was never a chance that the applicant wasn't going to get what they had agreed before handing over the payment.
Back to the story - the issue here is one of democratic planning and integrity. Having thrown out Localism and with a history of not planning strategically in the interests of the neighbourhood and more widely, there is a strong chance we will get another poor development that drives another nail into the coffin. It needs to stop.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
