Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

Today more is emerging about the future of the Arena site. In March last year I took the time to comb through Haringey's 'Site Allocations Plan' (the document that determines what will get built where in the borough for the next 20 years).

I wrote about it in a series of posts, the first of which was entitled "Huge Swathes of Harringay Earmarked to 'Accommodate Majority of Development in Borough'". It's explained in more detail in my second post.

Following these posts there has been a consultation which some of us responded to.

This week, a local resident revealed that he'd painstakingly gone through a 1,500 page document in which the Council replied to residents' concerns raised in the consultation.

One of the issues that emerged is that the housing planned for the Arena is likely to see Sainsbury's demolished. That housing will be grouped around at least one 8-storey block.

Below is an extract from the LCSP minutes, showing residents' concerns raised in the left-hand column and the Council response in the right.

(It's interesting to note in the responses that after years of denial, the Council have finally admitted their last cock-up and said that it was the expansion of Sainsbury's that is a major contributor to the traffic problems on Green Lanes).

As I said repeatedly last year, there are huge changes planned for Harringay. I'd hoped the Council would work alongside residents, but the tenor of their replies suggests that they may be riding roughshod over our views after all. 

Opposition to 8 storey block on Arena site

“Detailed design will be required on all sites to gain planning permission, and specific height limits will not be included in Site Allocations, with all developments expected to respond appropriately to their context

“Action: remove height limits from the allocations”

Inadequate medical facilities for proposed population increase via Site Developments, especially the Arena site

“It is considered that this site, due to its size, if comprehensively redeveloped, may be an opportunity to create some new community infrastructure”

How will some 1400 new residents and a new primary frontage, all proposed for the Arena site, reduce traffic impact?

The site will be designed in such a way that it will help to keep shopping traffic, local and accessed primarily by foot. Additionally, pedestrian access to the park, as well as to Manor House and Harringay Green Lanes station will be improved. Additionally, the reduced congestion from cars accessing the site for car-borne shopping trips will help to improve bus efficiency”

Concern that Green Lanes cannot cope with more traffic and that Arena site proposals will make this even worse“

Disagree. Alleviation of current traffic issues is one of the key reasons for allocating this site. Initial transport modelling has shown that the supermarket is the single largest draw for car-borne traffic, which is then compounded by the other car-compatible uses on the retail park. By replacing these uses with more walk-up retail, congestion at this point can be alleviated” “The allocation includes provision for the superstore to no longer operate”

A longer extract from the LCSP minutes is attached.

Now may be the time to rally round the GRA, WPRA and LCSP and find a way of getting residents' views heard.

Tags for Forum Posts: local plan, sainsbury's, site allocation plan

Views: 8016

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

When I was a young boy learning about the history of the early days of Wellington in New Zealand we learnt about the dangers of absentee landlords. People in England were just buying plots and hoping to be able to sell them at a profit later because of improvements other people made to their plots. A land value tax would stop that but what was done in Wellington amounted to confiscation.

I never knew that! But my school taught English history, not NZ.
Perhaps the empty property discount for Council Tax needs to be looked at. There are times when a property legitimately needs to remain empty, for example when major works are taking place, but should this be by negotiated agreement only and for a set period of time? If the property remains empty beyond the agreed time perhaps Council Tax could increase to 150% of the rate?
In my street there is a property that has been empty for over 3 years. I'm sure most Ladder streets have similar ones.

Scuse my ignorance, but what is the big issue with getting rid of that Sainsburys? If it's causing so much traffic problems (and that whole arena site seems to be a bit of a mess regarding traffic) then what is the problem?

And paying 50% more. apart maybe for vegetables.

Do you really believe that the things only available locally in Sainsburys will all miraculously appear in local shops if it is demolished? That seems a strange marriage of fluffy idealism and faith in the free market.

I agree - the whole site is an eyesore and a planning disaster in terms of traffic, but I don't entirely trust the council to improve on it.

Justin, the solution re housing could not be easier: we should ban the ownership of housing by foreign non-residents, as they do in Norway and Australia. Currently 75% of inner London housing is never shown on the UK market, going straight to mainly Asian investors. This has to stop.

Do you have a reference for that statistic ?

I'm not sure about the statistic but I do know that 100% of phase 2 at Woodberry Down went on the market in Asia before it went on the market in London. 9am in Hong Kong and Singapore is earlier than 9am in London, even if it is "the same day".

John D, The Guardian quotes The FT;
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2013/oct/22/london-...
Link within article. The FT has a paywall.

Thanks. The Guardian article paints a much more optimistic picture to that in your post. Worth reading to counter the doomsayers :-)

RSS

Advertising

© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service