Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
UPDATE: Huge Swathes of Harringay to be Developed
Further to my post last week, I gritted my teeth last night, put on a brave face and got myself off to the Harringay & St Ann's Area Forum. Part of this meeting was given over to an explanation and Q&A of the plans to develop our part of the borough over the next 20 years.
My aim in attending was to better understand what is planned and the status of the current plans. I'm not sure that I got the complete picture, but I'm certainly better informed. I provide my understanding of this issue below.
What the Plans are about
The current plans are fundamental to how our area will change and develop over the coming 20 years. Make no mistake about it; what gets agreed in these plans will amount to an unchallengeable legal commitment to development. And, these plans are not about fiddling around the edges; they see significant development in our neighbourhood, covering as much as 15-20% of the land area of Harringay. Even if no project affects your road, these plans will affect your neighbourhood.
Where the Plans Come From
As I understand it, a key driver for this planning is top down. The Mayor's London Plan requires Haringey to submit plans to meet certain development targets over the next 20 years. Most particularly, this means housing targets. Haringey has been told that it has to find space for 1,502 new homes each year for the next 20 years.
What the Plans Mean
If the council fails to submit appropriate plans, in effect it concedes all decision-making powers to the Mayor and the Planning Inspectorate. So, as I understand it, the borough's choices are restricted, but there is still some element of choice about where in the borough and in what form development happens.
Once the plans are approved, they commit the Council to what they contain. This means that if planning applications are made in accordance with the plans, the Council is legally obliged to approve them. There will be no second bite of the cherry, no appeals, no representations.
The Council will also be given powers to compulsorily purchase any of the sites included.
So, be warned, once these plans are agreed, that's it; the die is cast.
What's in the Plans
The Sites Allocation Development Plan Document is the Council's first draft at responding to its statutory duties. It does two things:
The plan includes two types of site:
As I understand it, the essential difference between the two is simply scale. Site Allocations are large developments; Housing Trajectory Sites are smaller housing developments.
Seven places in Harringay are included:
For the site allocations, you can read in the plan what is planned for each place. No narrative is provided at this stage for the housing trajectory sites.
To give you some sense of the scale of change, at Sainsbury's the plan envisages putting the car park underground and developing the site with eight storey housing units. Almost the whole of the Harringay Warehouse district is zoned for development. In this area, the development is likely to be intensive with a high proportion of multi-floor units. These represent huge changes to the physical appearance of the area, as well as to the population size and composition.
What Influence Can we all Have
Not all change is bad. Some will be positive and some will have downsides. As I understand it, these plans are at the broad brush stage. The Council has been given targets, officers have identified places they think are the ones that can be used to meet those targets and have made suggestions on what sort of development might take place on each.
So here's what's to play for, areas we can influence:
1. It's very unlikely (but not impossible) that a site will be excluded at this stage. If that is to happen, another site would have to be found to carry the development planned for the excluded site.
2. Thoughts about the type of development planned? (For example, the Sainsbury's area is zoned for high-rise housing development? Is that the right use? If so is it the right type of housing?)
3. Thoughts about the implications of the developments (For example, last night the knock-on effect of traffic was mentioned by Cllr Alexander and a member of the public raised the implications for local health and education provision.).
3. Opportunities the plans might present for our area? (For example, with all the planned development, an examination of traffic flows including local road closures like Hermitage Road may be on the cards. The plan mentions the poor access to Finsbury Park from Harringay. I've been writing about a Park gate for harringay for years. Could that be part of the plans?)
As I understand it, at this stage the plans are broad brush and the Council is asking for a broad brush, as well as more specific responses. Last night we were told that if the community feels strongly, the Council will have to look again at its plans.
Still Confused
This is complex stuff. I think I may have hold of one end of a piece of string, but I certainly don't claim to understand the whole shebang.
The formal consultation for this stage of the plans runs until 7th March. If you'd like to learn more there are supposed to be drop-in events coming up at our two local libraries.
AlternativeIy, we could try something else. I was quite impressed with Steve Kelly, the new Assistant Director for Planning who was at the meeting last night and I suggested a few things to him in a conversation afterwards. Firstly I asked if he'd be prepared to arrange for a limited response online Q&A on HoL (to understand the process and ask questions - not to respond to the consultation). I also asked if it would be possible to arrange for someone to attend an informal meeting locally to respond to questions. Steve seems open to both possibilities. Is anyone interested?
Responding to the Plans
1. Formal Response
- Complete an online survey
- By phone on 020 8489 1479
- By email to ldf@haringey.gov.uk
2. Another Option
If enough people are interested, we could arrange to meet informally, discuss the plans and possibly think about submitting a collective response.
Who's in Charge
Players appearing for the Council team were:
Cllr Joseph Ejiofor, Cabinet Member for Planning and Enforcement
Stephen Kelly, Asst Director Planning
Gavin Ball, Planning Policy Officer
Tags for Forum Posts: glsg, local plan, local plan 2014, site allocation plan
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Yes, I did think of you guys down there in your riverside idlyll. I hope it all won't impact too much.
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
I'm bored looking at the New River since 1613. Time to cover it up as our latest hidden river. Would this qualify as a continuous Site Allocation or as a series of multiple Housing Trajectory Sites ? In either case, they could start tomorrow morning and we'd never notice a thing. I don't think they should wait till I'm 90 as I'd fancy a penthouse overlooking Finsbury Park.
Of course, if they'd just take Finsbury Park as a Site Allocation we wouldn't need Hughgate.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
That was a clever ploy, OAE. Drawing our attention to page 94 where these plans are already set out.
For people who haven't yet spotted them, they are in very small print just before the plans for luxury blocks in Alexandra Palace Park. And just after the proposals for beautiful, elegant, signature and iconic skyscrapers on the site of the demolished Muswell Hill roads where Cllrs Claire Kober and Joe Goldberg currently live.
-
-
Ah yes, found it Alan. They have everything covered, literally. Now if they could set a trajectory for Alpha Centauri and place Claire & Joe on it . . . .
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Allocation trajectories (etc, etc):
My small hope is that, one day, the council's planning department might adopt a new year's resolution to use only plain English.
Were some of their convoluted terms to be described as technical, or even jargon, it would be to dignify the merely ridiculous. I speculate that their habit is due to:
- pomposity
- excluding others
- a desire to obscure
- the disguise of weak argument
In a number of recent planning applications, especially where there is direct council involvement by ownership of some of the land, the conduct of the planning department appears consistent with the promotion of developer interests, rather than residents'.
-
Permalink Reply by Karen Alexander on
-
I'll liaise with my Highgate colleagues to find out more about the Highgate Neighbourhood Forum and whether it would be appropriate for Harringay given the level of potential development planned. In the meantime I think the more residents who respond to this with their thoughts and ideas the better. This is our chance to have some input to shape things.
-
-
Mmm, I see that James has reported that with a straight bat. I'd have been tempted to muse as to whether the councillor's response was influenced by his fear of competition for their cooperative council.
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah on
-
I would imagine that any housing development would be car-free,. If not, it really should be. That should mitigate effects on traffic. Something to keep an eye on.
-
-
I'm not sure what the status of car-free developments is. With the proposed development on Hampden Road by Hornsey Station, in the first planning application the developer proposed a car-free development. When I was talking to the architect about the resubmitted plans a couple of weeks ago, she told me that the main reason for rejection was the lack of parking provision. Apparently the main reason stated by residents for objection was fears of their roads being used for parking. These objections came, I was told, from the Hornsey side of the tracks.
I the resubmitted application, the developer had been obliged to add a very expensive, but limited, underground car park.
-
Permalink Reply by Matt on
-
Is that area not covered by resident's parking permits? I lived in a car free development in east London for a time - there was 20 spaces to cover three blocks of apartments, and residents were not eligible for parking permits for the borough, so parking on surrounding streets instead was not an option.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
