Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Biggest Housing Development in Harringay for Decades - Your Comments Needed!
I've just posted in the old thread on the Hampden Road development but wanted to start a new one as it seems that people are saying comment is now closed.
It is not so please get your comments to the council development ref: HGY/2013/0470
or link here:
http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...
Tags for Forum Posts: hampden road, hampden road development
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by AxP on
-
Sorry HOL for spamming the site but here's my posting in the older thread:
I've just returned from the Development Management Forum.
THIS TOPIC IS STILL VERY MUCH OPEN AND THE COUNCIL HAS TO TAKE ON BOARD COMMENTS SO DO GET THEM IN ASAP.
My resident's consultation letter dated 12/04/13 says we have 21 days to comment from receipt of letter. And a lady at the meeting said they have to consider comments up until their decision (due in June).
The meeting was not well attended and disappointingly the council did not take questions, only the architects.
Residents and councillors alike at the meeting agreed that the proposed density and height of the proposed development is unacceptable. The architects did not provide any good reason for the hulking bulk of it, and when I asked if or how they'd considered the characteristics of the area when designing it they said there weren't any.
(NB: that is not a good thing to say to a resident of the Harringay Ladder.)Unfortunately this would appear to be a typical egotistical exercise on the part of the architects - why, please, would someone show us a picture of rock strata to affirm the design of a new residential development in a low-density area with no precedent for 9-storey buildings (it's 9 by the way!)
Main concerns fielded by residents:
1) its off the scale, dominant height
2) Ownership and maintenance of access road currently owned by Network Rail
3) It is unattractive in aesthetic / design terms
4)Its height and density likens it to the types of large scale housing development that we all know FAILED in the 60s and 70s in this country and a patch of garden is not going to make up for that
5) A resident pointed out the importance of the wildlife that use the canal - no environmental impact has been established re. surrounding areas of site only the site itself
6) Resident concerns over parking / traffic / congestion / lack of places for school children and general saturation of the area's amenities and services
7)whilst everyone in the room appreciated the need for housing is huge, everyone agreed that a more modest, sensitively designed development that is in keeping with surroundings would be appropriate. This development is simply not appropriate and I am afraid the architects did not manage to answer local resident concerns.
Obviously we had to raise our concerns in question form...
So PLEASE PLEASE look over the plans and get your comments to the council via their planning page...
it is ref: HGY/2013/0470
Does anyone know the best councillor or bigwig to write to or engage in getting this blocked in its current form?
-
Permalink Reply by Karen Alexander on
-
Unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the forum because I had a school governor's meeting but I have looked at the application and raise the same concerns as residents. I will be discussing this further with the planning department and outlining my objections. Its really important that as many residents as possible make their views known on the planning website.
-
-
Thanks for your post Karen, I'd be more than happy to get involved and help you. I, as well as some other very intelligent resident heads in the room, am extremely concerned about this. I'll send you an HOL connection.
-
-
Other little nuggets include the useful question of how many residents 80 dwellings equates to - we're talking 200 at the conservative end.....
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
This in this morning from London Councils. It speaks to concerns aired on the other thread about local amenity overload:
The shortfall of primary and secondary school places across the capital is set to rise sharply to more than 118,000 by 2016/17, London Councils warned yesterday. In its report: “Do The Maths”, London Councils calls on the government to acknowledge the unprecedented pressure faced by boroughs in providing enough school places for pupils across the capital. London Councils’ Executive Member for Children’s Services, Cllr Peter John, said: “Boroughs are working harder than ever to ensure every child has a school place. But we are fast reaching the limit of how many extensions and conversions can be made to existing buildings – soon the only way of creating extra places will be by building new schools. The pressure for primary and secondary school places is much greater in London than the rest of the country and rapidly increasing, so it is simply staggering that the capital will get proportionately less funding compared with its need.”
Read the full article at hgyol.in/Zkb6AG
-
-
They also spoke of developing the second site there - what is called the Wilmott site where there is currently a 3 storey commercial building.
If this development gets approved at 9 storeys it will open the door to over-develop the Wilmott site as a phase two... and generally be a free-for-all to overdevelop the area.
As of last night there were only 14 formal responses to the planning application and it's a mixed bag of 'yes I approve it' with no reason given, through to a few objections.
If you do have concerns or objections they have to be made publicly through Haringey's response process.
-
-
Cooley architects' description of the development - does this make sense to anyone? It doesn't strike me as quintessentially 'Haringey'?
"... The design grew from a concept where the forces around the site erode and impact on the buildable envelope in much the same way as water sculpts rock over time, to reveal a stratfied form."
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
"... The design grew from a concept where the forces around the site erode and impact on the buildable envelope in much the same way as water sculpts rock over time, to reveal a stratfied form."
" We've designed the building to fit between the railway line and the roads "
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
I used to think this stuff was written in a Shoreditch pub by a bunch of practical jokers and stand-up comedians. I imagined them roaring with laughter as they came up with purple prose extolling each "Master Plan" and nondescript new development.
The phrase "fizzing capillaries" stuck in my mind from "Hale Village": that out-of-scale out-of place bunch of tower blocks uglifying the River Lee, near the reservoirs and Tottenham Marshes. But there were many more meaningless gems. Like "state-of-the-art", "future-proofed", "revitalised", and "sustainable".
I strongly recommended that people take a copy of the Tottenham Hale Urban Centre Masterplan to some secluded corner nearby, to relax and fully enjoy its inspirational poetry.(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by James R Grinter on
-
Indeed, they'll use the same line as at (Tottenham) Hale Village- "there's a precedent for tall buildings" (because they'd just built the first one), and using the excuse of it adjoining the railway line.
But, like I said elsewhere, the council seem to want the extra council tax receipts, without factoring in the capacity (or increasing the capacity) of local services.
-
-
I don't think it's much to do with the Council Tax receipts, James. The main reason is that the planning system is heavily biased towards developers and gentrification. With removal and displacement of some poorer people; or subdividing homes into hutches for others.
If you haven't yet seen it, you may want to download Urban Pamphleteer #2. Some of it's even written in plain English. (Needs to be renamed as a pdf.)
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
