Tottenham community reacts angrily to Mayor's decision

Community organisations around Tottenham Hale have reacted to the London Mayor’s decision to overturn a Haringey Council decision, and impose a development up to 21 storeys on a sensitive site surrounded by Green Belt land and right next to Tottenham Lock on the River Lea. They believe it will fundamentally harm the sense of open space that people coming from densely populated Tottenham will feel on arriving at the Lea valley.

 The believe that the Mayor took a decision that was unnecessary, and that ignored key policy.

 The text of their reply follows.

Quentin Given, Ferry Lane Action Group 07946 535656 on behalf of Tottenham Civic Society; Tottenham & Wood Green Friends of the Earth; Stonebridge Boaters; Hale Village Pavilions Residents; Ferry Lane Action Group (residents’ association for Ferry Lane Estate).

Dear Mayor of London Sadiq Khan

Hale Wharf, Tottenham Hale

 On 10 March you overruled Haringey Council and ignored the views of local residents to give the go-ahead for a huge 21-storey tower at Hale Wharf, right next to the River Lea and Tottenham Lock, a site almost surrounded by Green Belt land.

 No-one had objected to housing on this site. But the community wanted to preserve the beauty and sense of openness of the Lee Valley, not only for existing residents, but for the thousands of new residents coming to the 5,000+ new homes being built in other dense developments around Tottenham Hale. We consider this development both intrusive and ugly.

 We deeply regret your decision to overrule a democratic local planning decision, and the overwhelming majority of those record numbers of people who responded to the consultation.

 It wasn’t necessary. The target of 5,000 new homes around Tottenham Hale is on target to being met, even without any homes on Hale Wharf. We certainly don’t need 21-storey towers to meet it.

 It might be that the Tottenham Hale Housing Zone is slipping behind its original timetable, but a) it is doing better than most housing zones and b) there is no doubt that it will hit its targets in time. Planning decisions that will have an impact for many decades to come should not be made to resolve short-term delivery bottlenecks.

 The GLA officer’s report, and your own conclusion, completely ignored the key planning policy that was cited by objectors: Tottenham Area Action Plan Policy AAP6 which says at item D: “The Council expects the highest density development to be located adjacent to public transport nodes, and in Growth Areas and Areas of Change. At their boundary, development is expected to transition between these areas and the suburban areas of the AAP through appropriate transition/scaling of heights.” (our emphasis). Given that this policy was so prominently cited by objectors, the fact that it wasn’t even mentioned in the officer’s report or by you looks like a deliberate act to sweep the policy under the carpet. You will recall that Haringey’s own Planning Committee Chairman spoke at the hearing to uphold their decision to reject the plans on the grounds of inappropriate height.

 It’s insulting. You and your officers could have at least addressed the issue, and said that although you recognised it as an issue, you believed that the benefits of affordable housing outweighed the undeniable impact that would be caused. Instead you ignored the key issue, you have chosen to say in effect it’s all lovely, and local people, and organisations including the Lee Valley Regional Park, and their Council – are all wrong. You have done the office of Mayor a disservice.

 Subsequently on 28 March your spokesperson said: “The Mayor is the guardian of London’s skyline and is committed to ensuring new developments are of the highest possible design standard. 

 “Without doubt, tall buildings have a role to play in London but they should only be built in suitable areas, contribute positively to the skyline and their locality and, if residential, should help ease the capital’s housing crisis.” (Quoted in the Evening Standard)

 So, if this site, next to the river and almost surrounded by Green Belt, is a suitable area, then what would you consider unsuitable? We would like to hear from you on this point. It might be reassuring to communities across London who live next to areas of green space and water to know which of them would be protected from such tall buildings.