Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Sainsbury's Harringay to be Replaced with Housing
Today more is emerging about the future of the Arena site. In March last year I took the time to comb through Haringey's 'Site Allocations Plan' (the document that determines what will get built where in the borough for the next 20 years).
I wrote about it in a series of posts, the first of which was entitled "Huge Swathes of Harringay Earmarked to 'Accommodate Majority of Development in Borough'". It's explained in more detail in my second post.
Following these posts there has been a consultation which some of us responded to.
This week, a local resident revealed that he'd painstakingly gone through a 1,500 page document in which the Council replied to residents' concerns raised in the consultation.
One of the issues that emerged is that the housing planned for the Arena is likely to see Sainsbury's demolished. That housing will be grouped around at least one 8-storey block.
Below is an extract from the LCSP minutes, showing residents' concerns raised in the left-hand column and the Council response in the right.
(It's interesting to note in the responses that after years of denial, the Council have finally admitted their last cock-up and said that it was the expansion of Sainsbury's that is a major contributor to the traffic problems on Green Lanes).
As I said repeatedly last year, there are huge changes planned for Harringay. I'd hoped the Council would work alongside residents, but the tenor of their replies suggests that they may be riding roughshod over our views after all.
| Opposition to 8 storey block on Arena site |
“Detailed design will be required on all sites to gain planning permission, and specific height limits will not be included in Site Allocations, with all developments expected to respond appropriately to their context “Action: remove height limits from the allocations” |
| Inadequate medical facilities for proposed population increase via Site Developments, especially the Arena site | “It is considered that this site, due to its size, if comprehensively redeveloped, may be an opportunity to create some new community infrastructure” |
| How will some 1400 new residents and a new primary frontage, all proposed for the Arena site, reduce traffic impact? |
The site will be designed in such a way that it will help to keep shopping traffic, local and accessed primarily by foot. Additionally, pedestrian access to the park, as well as to Manor House and Harringay Green Lanes station will be improved. Additionally, the reduced congestion from cars accessing the site for car-borne shopping trips will help to improve bus efficiency” |
Concern that Green Lanes cannot cope with more traffic and that Arena site proposals will make this even worse“ |
Disagree. Alleviation of current traffic issues is one of the key reasons for allocating this site. Initial transport modelling has shown that the supermarket is the single largest draw for car-borne traffic, which is then compounded by the other car-compatible uses on the retail park. By replacing these uses with more walk-up retail, congestion at this point can be alleviated” “The allocation includes provision for the superstore to no longer operate” |
A longer extract from the LCSP minutes is attached.
Now may be the time to rally round the GRA, WPRA and LCSP and find a way of getting residents' views heard.
Tags for Forum Posts: local plan, sainsbury's, site allocation plan
- Attachments:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ThaiDi on
-
Nope. I shop in person as and when I need stuff. Limited storage makes bulk purchases/a single weekly shop unhelpful, plus I enjoy a little walk to the supermarket and shops.
-
Permalink Reply by SarahC on
-
Yes, I agree. I tend to do that myself at the moment, and Green Lanes is very good for this, but I don't buy much and have a lot of time. But for people who don't, it's still an easier, and probably cheaper, option than going to a big supermarket.
-
-
Yep. In fact, it's the people who drive to Sainsbury's for their weekly shop who could be well served by online shopping instead. Less time wasted sitting in the car waiting to exit the parking lot!
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
"Sainsbury's Harringay to be Replaced with Housing"
I think it's a stretch to say that at this stage. The most that the 20-year-view Site Allocations document says about the supermarket building is:
Noted. The allocation includes provision for the superstore to no longer operate.
Here's a screen shot of part of page 604 (or 606): click to enlarge:
It's a curious and interesting spot, but it would be wrong to conclude that the Green Lanes Sainsbury's will be demolished. Local Councillors may know more about what is meant by "includes provision for".
CDC
Haringey Councillor
Liberal Democrat Party
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
This came from Ian Sygrave of the LCSP who wrote:
The most significant proposal of course is the complete removal of Sainsbury’s
He's pretty much of an expert on planning matters and not to the best of my knowledge prone to exageration.
The other Council responses about traffic alleviation etc do suggest that he is correct.
The site will be designed in such a way that it will help to keep shopping traffic, local and accessed primarily by foot.
Initial transport modelling has shown that the supermarket is the single largest draw for car-borne traffic, which is then compounded by the other car-compatible uses on the retail park. By replacing these uses with more walk-up retail, congestion at this point can be alleviated” “The allocation includes provision for the superstore to no longer operate
It seems to be that the whole premise of their plan is that the supermarket will go. Perhaps you know something that we don't?
-
-
I know no more than appears in the Council's Site Allocations document. I'm not sure that anyone outside the Planning Department knows more about the broad proposal than is contained in that document.
"Includes Provision for" needs to be followed up, but it doesn't have the same meaning as "Sainsbury's Harringay to be replaced with Housing".
I'm not aware of any such decision and I much doubt any such decision has been made or is near being made. It would be more accurate to say that it appears as a possibility, rather than to imply that it will happen.
Sainsbury's may or may not know about the Planning Department's wishes.
By contrast, the site allocation of Rowans (by Finsbury Park) is further advanced and would appear to involve a net loss of Metropolitan Open Land.
-
-
Clive, the statements on the right of the LCSP document are all answers from the Council. I haven't said the Sainsbury's demolition will happen. Read what I wrote. I said it is likely to happen. Move beyond your focus only on what is written in the SAP and weigh all the available evidence handed down by the Council. It very clearly points to a new use for the Arena site as their direction of travel.
And, do remember that this is just one part of the site allocations for Harringay - the biggest concentration of housing development earmarked in the borough. We all mourn the loss of some Metropolitan Open Land, but the other proposed developments across our neighbourhood are likely to have a much greater impact.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Clive, it's useful to apply a bit of logic this one.
Sainbury is developing two major new shopping outlets very near to the existing one
Drawing on the experience of the Tesco disaster, the big supermarkets are all considering the extent of their saturation geographically
The rise of online shopping has reduced footfall nationally
The bargain supermarkets are taking up a lot of the other footfall the big supermarkets traditionally assumed was theirs
That would inevitably make Sainsbury think hard about the viability of the Arena store, especially as the constraints of the site mean they only way they could extend is up, a costly move.
The site allocation for the Arena site is banking on a very large proportion of the overall delivery of housing in the borough being on that site. That would seem a very rash thing to do unless there were good indications that it would become available. Putting so many eggs in that basket and it falling through would jeopardise the entire housing delivery target which Haringey, along with all of the other London boroughs, is under immense pressure to deliver.
From that it would seem a safe bet that it is felt (or perhaps known by Haringey) that the Sainsbury land, which includes a large car park, has a high likelihood of becoming available within the life of the site allocation plan.
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Clearly the W5 (=Wightman5) from Archway, with no need to serve the non-existent Sainsburys, will turn off Endymion to Alroy - Wightman - Hornsey Park Rd - Mayes Rd - Station Rd - High Rd - Turnpike Lane - Wightman - Alroy - Endymion . . . etc to Archway. The revised W5 route will of course serve Morrisons. ("Taste the Difference!").
John McM, you can cancel that 182 Barnet link.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Can I suggest a reframing here. Yes there are threats to different local areas. Yes the planners are working purely to the interests of developers and to the stipulations of Boris Johnson's London Plan. And yes, planners' proposals to get rid of local height limits and their probably unattainable fantasies about reducing traffic and other goals, are likely to mean worsening of the quality of life.
And it's worse still, because the arrogant inanity of the Council's responses to genuine concerns raised by residents - buried in many hundreds of pages of cabinet papers - shows how little they take any real and significant notice of what we say.
So what's my suggested reframing? That we also pay attention to what's happening elsewhere in London: to understand what's happening. And to look for practical ways to share information and possibly to join up with other Londoners who are dismayed by what's happening to them.
And perhaps we might also consider demanding that our local councillors actually start representing us and not just the property developers who sponsor their trips to Cannes.
"Across the capital, Londoners are growing increasingly frustrated at the wave of large developments they feel are being foisted upon them. Most of the towers that are currently proposed for London have been devised to serve the international property investment market rather than provide genuinely affordable homes for Londoners, of which there is a chronic shortage. (Source)
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on
-
What is interesting about this whole process is that it is being driven by a need for housing. As you say Alan some/a lot of new developments are being bought by investors and are doomed to lie empty! I went to a friend's who lives in a development on a canal in Hackeny Wick a while back. As we walked round she pointed out several properties that were empty and owned (apparently) by the China Development Bank (or some such)!
We need to do two things I reckon:
1. If a property lies empty for [6] months or more without good cause the council have the right to seize the property for a period of [3] years and use it to offer some form of social housing to someone on a counc house waiting list, a teacher/nurse/essential worker etc at a pre defined affordable rent that goes back to the owner after costs
2. Pay a property super tax both annually (as a recognition of the negative impact of keeping valuable housing empty in an area that clearly needs it- and the housing having been provided through the expropriation of space with social utility in the first place) and when actually sold (by way of an enhanced capital gains tax which will apply on a sliding scale depending on the proportion of time the property has remained empty over the ownership period (from 0% to 85%)
The council can monitor much of this in the first instance through data on council tax...
We have to provide some dis-incentive to sitting on empty investment properties, especially if they are causing the destruction of open space or community assets in a neighbourhood.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
