Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
URGENT CALL !! WARDS CORNER SEVEN SISTERS / GRAINGER APPLICATION ~ PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS DIRECT TO THE COUNCIL!
SHARE YOUR VIEW WITH THE HARINGEY CASE OFFICER
select "comment on application"
http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...
Dear friends and neighbours,
The ongoing heartbreaking saga of WARDS CORNER continues ... Grainger recently submitted a THIRD application to demolish the whole area between seven sisters road, suffield road and west green road, crushing long-standing local businesses in our seven sisters community. The proposed monstrous structure will take away any sense of historical significance to the street, not to mention how generic the design is!!! We pride ourselves on local run business, we don't want McDonalds and Pizza Express!!! The shop rents will be far too high for any wiped-out business to return. A kind of social cleansing appears to be proposed.
TFL have now also opposed the plans citing structural risks to the underground system.
HARINGEY COUNCIL have arranged a meeting TOMORROW:
Wednesday 30 May 2012, 7pm, The Moselle
Room, Tottenham Town Hall, Town Hall Approach, Tottenham Green N15 4RY
This is our first and possibly last chance to address the many issues directly to GRAINGER and to our Council.
If you don't live in Seven Sisters, please consider coming along to show your support. I sense there will be a lot of disruption, even riots if this proposal goes ahead so it's in everybody's best interests to support the campaign against the development company.
WE ALL AGREE IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE MADE IN THE WARDS CORNER SITE, BUT NOT LIKE THIS !!!
Tags for Forum Posts: corner, council, meetings, seven, sisters, wards
- Attachments:
-
-
1.jpg, 104 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
I thought you might be interested to share your information - not just with me - but with some members of Harringay Online. In a few days (hours?) the membership will pass 5000!
-
Permalink Reply by clyde on
-
IIt did seem to be very rushed through and quite bias to all the looovely areas. I see no reason why the council could not delayed or even have a rolling plan which would add in information from each area with support for ALL areas to create an independent residents neighbour plan to feed in.
Surely the idea of a balance community is one where the poorer areas are supported more than the rich. Why is Seven Sisters zoned as the new Croydon, ugly high rose encouraged and it heritage treated as worthless. Wards Corner is a classic example.
-
Permalink Reply by byl999 on
-
Exactly Clyde~~ i find it laughable to walk past these "I (HEART) TOTTENHAM ~ SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL BUSINESS" posters and banners when they're planning to demolish many local businesses and import generic commericial and UNWANTED shops etc without listening to the fact everyone has said 'no thankyou'. I am so bewildered... I've been keeping an eye on the conversations here and can't believe the councils' behaviour. I can't think of a worse Council right now. They seem to have a death wish for Seven Sisters and aim to kill it at an unstoppable rate. I don't know what to do !!!?
-
-
7 sisters regeneration = replace the problem people>> with new comers (read the application - population growth is a benefit)! Ignore the housing waiting lists because the area is deprived and the people already here are part of the problem. Then replace the well used local shops with national multiples because the local ones aren't good enough and are part of the problem and the PEOPLE who use the shops can go somewhere else for their inexpensive supplies. This will enable the developer to pay for improvements to the public realm because us tax payers can only get decent services when they are sponsored through S106 agreements with developers.
The Grainger proposal says that the area looks shabby and neglected. But that is because OUR COUNCIL HAS DONE NOTHING OVER THE YEARS TO ENFORCE ITS VERY OWN POLICIES AND HAS ALLOWED THE PUBLIC BODY THAT OWNS THE LOCALY LISTED WARDS CORNER BUILDINGS DECAY! But don't believe the lies. The building is very retrievable and has loads of merit. When restored it will provide Seven Sisters with a beacon that people will be proud of.
Does it matter to anyone that there is a brand new Grainger-type building at High Cross with TWO empty units in it? The other units have only been filled over the last year or so! And there too the Council has failed to enforce its shop frontage policies. And at Monumnet way? And another opposite the police station at Bruce Grove with a shanty £1 shop on the pavement. In Dalston, Edmonton, Essex Rd, Holloway rd, Wood Green you will see many more examples of Grainger buildings as I have photographed here....!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jjwilliam/sets/72157629788926988/
And that's only in North London - Ordinary clone replicas. So don't be fooled that the Grainger building is an imaginative landmark or example of innovative design for our community shopping area. It is a way for a developer to achieve a good return on investment no matter what the social and human costs. The sad thing is that the Labour councillors in the cabinet are in cohoots with them when they should be defending us.
The cynical message is if we don't prostitute ourselves to the bulldozer we don't deserve proper services!
Sustainable growth puts PEOPLE FIRST. Let the planners not forget that!
-
-
Excellent comment and visual documentation. Your flickr page images demonstrate perfectly Grainger's total lack of design and environmental consideration. It was a nauseating selection indeed, except for the Shoreditch example where there is some sympathy for the current victorian structure. KEEP UP YOUR GOOD WORK, spread the word. If they bring in bulldozers i'll be there , chained to wards corner. I did it in my parents' home town and i'll do it again!
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
@ byl999, What can you do? Simplest is to register your dislike of the Grainger plan, use the LBH website:
Please add your comment - just 'I object to this plan' if short of time.
http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...
Click Comment on Application, add name + address + type into box. Don't forget to tick Object in the choice of four buttons at the end.
Every comment helps. ASAP please, comments will close shortly. The planning committee is on 25th June, unless we can get it deferred as the legality of this 6-week notice period is dubious.
Don't expect the Grainger-pals on the council to take any notice but at least you will have done your democratic best.
-
-
Hi Pamish,
Yes i did already do that as soon as the new application became public. I also wrote to Paul Smith and Jeffery Holt in email format, but included the planning ap. number and my own address. Neither replied.
Maybe i'll do it again using the link you've shared.
Thanks!
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Pam I've put in my own comments, citing historical and aesthetic objections.
I understand that the council has handed over a large sum of tax money to the developer, prior to Planning Consent, in order to further this Proposal. Further, that a council department favours the private developer's Proposal.
The cash payment to the developer gives the appearance of bouncing the Planning Committee into a decision to approve.
It is surely not typical that a council is seen to be so closely aligned with a developer's interests and a particular proposal. This has the appearance of being a process that at a minimum, exhibits a conflict of interest and at most is biased or prejudiced.
How much account has been taken of public consultation? To what extent have the (unimaginative) plans been altered as a result of community feedback?
In all the circumstances, can this constitute a lawful, unflawed process?
-
-
It is our next baby P Haringey Situation/Scandale (with all due respet for the victims in the Baby P case).
HAringey are looking for this one. An d digging a very big hole for themselves.
-
-
JJ B, when you say the council are digging a big hole for themselves, I think you meant it as a metaphor.
However, it jogged my mind about the Heathrow Tunnel Collapse of some years ago. This development presumably had Planning permission, but was became one of the biggest civil engineering disasters in Britain. The series of collapses came within 20 metres of the Piccadilly Line (Guardian story).
In 2005 there was a tunnel collapse during construction near Gerrards Cross railway station. Sheer chance no one was injured (John Prescott overruled their local council and forced the proposal through).
Haringey I believe have dismissed the possiblity at Seven Sisters.
London Underground have a good safety record and understandably want to preserve it. I note that they've expressed concerns formally about the Grainger Proposal (I think the council have since leant on them heavily to row back somewhat).
It seems the council is hell-bent on ramming through this scheme, despite concerns. If there is a disruptive collapse during construction, I wonder if it might lay itself open to legal action from London Underground, or others?
With or without London Underground's endorsement (this is now a grey area), it would seem to behove the Planning Committee to consider most seriously the safety aspects of the scheme, just above the Underground station.
-
-
There's also that other essential service - water, and sewage. See the comment number 36 on the Planning portal as ref'd above. Thames Water says:
" Waste Comments
There are public sewers crossing or close to the development. In order to protect public sewers and to ensure that Thames Water can gain access to those sewers for future repair and maintenance, approval should be sought from Thames Water where the erection of a building or an extension to a building or underpinning work would be over the line of, or would come within 3 metres of, a public sewer. Thames Water will usually refuse such approval in respect of the construction of new buildings, but approval may be granted in some cases for extensions to existing buildings.[...]
Water Comments
The existing water supply infrastructure has insufficient capacity to meet the additional demands for the proposed development. Thames Water therefore recommend the following condition be imposed: Development should not be commenced until: Impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority (in consultation with Thames Water). The studies should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point. Reason:To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with the/this additional demand. [...]
Thames Water recommend the following informative be attached to any planning permission: There are large water mains adjacent to the proposed development. Thames Water will not allow any building within 5 metres of them and will require 24 hours access for maintenance purposes."
There's more, on surface water drainage and piling, but I think this shows enough to doubt that they are happy - also Grainger /LBH seems to have forgotten to consult them. See the whole comment.
-
Permalink Reply by Marian Leatherby on
-
whoops am trying to remove my comment
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
