Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Whilst in map mode - Haringey's conservation areas
Haringey's conservation areas.
Feel left out? (click to enlarge):
Feel left out? (click to enlarge):
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I've always thought that the area around the New River as it passes through the Ladder Roads should be a conservation area. The views from the bridges are fantastic and worth preserving from development.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
Yes! Can't quite read the map but am I right in saying that the bottom half of Stroud Green is a conservation area? I used to live there, can't quite see what is so radically different between here and there? Is getting conservation area status driven by residents? Perhaps that might explain the geography, as well as the type of buildings?
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Alison, here's Haringey Council's page on Conservation areas with a link to a bigger version of the map and perhaps some answers to your question.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Note the lack of conservation areas in the east of the borough and think about the difference in life expectancy.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
I have my doubts about conservation areas. What they mainly can do for an area is attract funding from heritage pots (and raise house prices in certain places) but often local authorities don't have the resources to protect conservation areas that can't protect themselves with vocal populations that make it their life's work to oppose plastic windows. Thus, Noel Park and the conservation areas in Tottenham struggle to get their status taken seriously and developers often find ways to get round the system (arson is big business on Tottenham High Rd).
Also, the drawing of red lines around places and designating them 'special', means that more 'ordinary' places get neglected and yet they are people's homes too and imbued with significance by the people who live and work there. CABE recently highlighted this in their report posted here
Personally I have a lot of time for the Common Ground approach of local distinctiveness. They argue that authority figures like English Heritage drawing lines around places and saying that this row of houses is more worthy than that row of terraces ignores the fact that places are special because people say they are and every area has stories to tell and an intangible heritage that makes them different and special from any other. As common ground says:
Value the COMMON place. Our Cultural Landscapes are our ordinary history and everyday nature intertwined
p.s. Michael, I think the New River should be designated an urban nature reserve and protected that way.
-
Permalink Reply by Camden Conservation Officer on
-
Whilst I agree with much of what Liz has said - and particularly the point about the effectiveness of conservation area designation being reliant on local authority resources - conservation areas do bring valuable benefits to residents and those who work in, pass through and admire these areas.
Conservation area designation means that the onus is always to retain and not demolish the buildings which ' make a positive contribution' to the area. This should protect pretty much all the historic / interesting / lovely buildings in it - and lots of tests have to be passed (for example the building has to be offered for sale on the open market) before demolition can take place.
Conservation area designation also means that householdeer planning rights are more restricted, which protects historic features and the form of the buildings themselves. For example the recent change to the Permitted Development order means that plastic windows are not permitted where they are to replace timber windows - this is a great leap forward , as much a benefit for heritage as for the enviroment. Residents can ask your Council to enforce against this where you see it happening (but again whether they have the resources to allocate is another matter...)
However I absolutely agree that there are lots of special and beautiful areas which don't have the red 'conservation area' line drawn around them - and this is frustrating, particualrly when it comes to pushing applicants to raise the quality of new design in these areas. It really shouldn't be the case that you get better buildings inside conservation areas, and poorer quality ones outside - it should almost be the other way around!
Caroline (Conservation Officer - neighbouring borough!!)
-
-
I understand what you say about the value of conservation areas, Caroline, in terms of protecting the housing stock from uncrupulous/careless development but, inevitably, perhaps the weathier areas protect them much better than the less wealthy and those that do work on the poorer areas have a greater amount on their plate.
The Tottenham report for 2009-10 of the Conservation Area Advisory Commmittee (full report here for Heritage nerds like me to peruse) notes, for example,:
There are four Conservation Area Advisory Committees in the west of the borough - Highgate, Muswell Hill, Hornsey and Alexandra Park/Palace. These cover a single or small number of conservation areas. Tottenham CAAC covers all twelve conservation areas in Tottenham. A new CAAC for Noel Park conservation area was established in 2009 and has been very active. (It's good to see Noel Park getting a CACC but I know from talking to residents they do struggle to get things enforced)
Probably playing devils advocate here, but your last comments re quality of new design, which I whole heartedly agree with by the way, suggest that listing, born out of an urgent postwar need, and conservation areas, may have run their course based as they are upon the need to prove that somewhere is architecturally of value to a panel of experts. Perhaps we need to develop a better system that raises the standards across the board of design for new build and preservation of older housing stock, taking into account their social and cultural value as well as the aesthetic and architectural.
I know EH has gone some way to acknowledging that the social value of a community's built environment is important, but there are some high profile critics, like Stephen Bayley, of the whole listing/conservation process who claim it stifles architecture in this country and preserves buildings which can then find no purpose because of the huge restrictions imposed upon them, sometimes to the detriment of a community who would have otherwise had new facilities. Meanwhile swathes of housing in the north of England can be demolished and their communities uprooted to make way for the latest government brain wave (see John Prescott's Pathfinder programme, as discussed by Anna Minton in Ground Control) and there is nothing that those communities can do without the thin red line of conservation around them.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
