I just wanted to start a discussion about the planning application by Paul Simon to build some blocks of flats next door to the school in Stanley Road N15 next to Harringay Road.
Do you have children at this school or you live nearby?
Personally I think it is a bad idea.
Stanley Road is very congested in fact it is a cul-de-sac and a housing estate of 84 flats built next door to the primary school will destroy the road.
It will create lots of noise and traffic and problems for many months.
Especially for parents dropping off their kids and for children during lessons.
It is not right to allow developers to do this much better to leave the land for public use or to use it to expand the school rather than build 84 new private flats in a very built up area.
Please lets discuss what you think and if you want to you can post a comment on Haringey Council page as well
Consultation ends on the 18th of July.
Post by DTW merged onto this earlier post, as they requested.
Are any of the units social housing?
Nope, not a single one of the 79 proposed
This development appears to be a money making scheme for the developers
They have not bought the land nor have they paid Haringey Council anything for a parcel of land worth millions
I cannot see how this suits Harigey nor the local residents or the primary school next door
I hope the planners reject the application but there is so much corruption in Haaringey that you never know which way they will swing
Karlos, the "new" Labour councillors very much wanted to distance themselves from the "old" council that was proposing the use of public land to private developers who were not building genuinely affordable housing. This is a trial whether it will deliver on those promises.
Does the proposal include social or affordable housing? If not it should be opposed for that reason alone. Haringey desperately needs housing for local people, & desperately doesn;t need expensive private flats.
Ruth, the proposal does not include social housing and gives a very convoluted answer why it is okay that they don't. Page 34 of the Supporting Planning Statement http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...
Mr Simon Oliver is the man behind these developments. He now calls himself Magic Living. he used to be called Magic Homes, but his homes are anything but magic.
We have one of his 'magic' infills at the end of our garden, and received nothing but abusive swearing when we complained about his shoddy work.
Why the council allowed his plan I do not know as it was an infill in his own garden, which he pretended otherwise. He even blocked up his own windows to get the plan passed.
I have read the proposal on the council site. The consultations, made before the election in May 2018, included councillors who may not be responsible anymore for this issue. Twenty residents were consulted. I have made the following objection to the proposal:
As a resident of St Ann's Ward I object to the proposal. While the proposal addresses the open spaces that will mostly stay public and the possibility of passive surveillance because of the buildings, the proposal for 83 residential units has no provision for social housing, which is very much needed. I find very confusing the statements given on page 34 of the Supporting Planning Statement explaining why the proposal’s affordable housing point is acceptable.
There is also no provision for the services offered by The Red House, a residential care home. While it is true that those services were suspended several years ago, the need for residential care homes exists and was raised during the hustings. I also have not found in the documents information about who owns this land but if it is publicly owned, then the use of the land to build privately dwellings at market rate is not appropriate.
It is commendable that the church with its nursery, as well as the pub, will be kept. However, I am a bit puzzled by the following comment on page 29 of the Supporting Planning Statement The Red House, 423 West Green Road, N15 April 2018 7.31 that states: “In summary, the proposal will replace the existing church, community and nursery functions with new high-quality facilities to the benefit of the local community. Furthermore, new retail and residential uses will be provided to provide much-needed housing. Although the proposal will lead to the ‘loss’ of the pub function at the site, it is debatable if this is relevant as it appears that such a loss has potentially already taken place. We also consider that this matter should also be weighed up against the substantial planning benefits that the proposal delivers”.
The design appears quite acceptable. However, it seems, from the objections raised by immediate residents, that they fear that they will use light because of the height of the building. Also, they fear traffic and parking will be adversely affected.
The consultations were done prior to the election in May 2018. The current council may want to deliver on the promises they gave prior to the election: to save social programs and build more genuinely affordable housing. This proposal is flawed on both accounts.
I think the loss of the Pub is also a loss for the community as many pubs have already closed down and been made into flats / supermarkets etc
Any update since the consultation closed? I'm unsure of the the process on this kind of thing
Consultation is still open for some reason
It appears that the building to be demolished called the Red House which is owned by the council is occupied and is divided into 29 studio flats which are rented from the council.
So there will be many people made homeless if this proposal goes ahead if you include the flats above the pub which are also going to be demolished
Hopefully the planners reject the application
Homeless? That’s taking it a bit far... There’s plenty of flats to rent out there. Demolition does not equal homelessness.