Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Planning Application for 14 Storey 'Mammoth' on Wightman
The development of the Industrial site by Hornsey Station has been in the offing for a number of years now.
The initial planning application for a very ugly nine story building was rejected in 2014. The new application sees an additional five stories being added to the building, giving 176 flats in a towering 14 storey building. One of the early objectors to the application as described the planned building as a "mammoth multi-storyed building".
The objector may have a point. Even the developers say that the building's 'zone of visual influence will stretch for over a mile in every direction. (Click the picture for a magnified view)
Rather misleadingly, the developer's brochure still features a rather neat and compact looking nine storey building on its front page.The reality will be more like the picture at the top of this page.
From reading the application, we learn that:
The Site would be a notable departure from this character type but is compatible with broad policy objectives of delivering a mixed use residential led scheme and optimising potential.
Due to the site’s separate nature and prevailing land use, the height and mass would have no harmful effects on this area. There would be a high degree of change and the proposal would result in a moderate beneficial effect on this part of the townscape.
This area has a low sensitivity to changes to the townscape and is located on the north side of the New River. It is a predominantly residential area characterised by mid-late 20th century buildings of 3-7 storeys which are of no particular architectural merit and have larger footprints than the residential areas dating from the 19th and early 20th centuries.
There that told ya dinnit. Is this just planner clumsiness or has it anything to do with the fact that the whole visual impact assessment is made on the following basis:
The application Site is located within the Wood Green area, but immediately adjoins the Hornsey area.
Just laziness on the part of the consultants who drew up the assessment, or is there anything else to this, I wonder?
I have attached two of the developer's documents below. These show a range of views from Hornsey and a couple from Raleigh and Hampden and Fairland, but no views from elsewhere on the Ladder. Again, I wonder why Harringay's part has been so obviously underplayed.
You can read the voluminous planning application on the Haringey Council website.
You can support or object to the application by submitting comments online using the button on the planning application page.
All comments will be taken into consideration but those made in reference to specific council policies will carry much more weight. To make life easier for you, please take a look at a summary I did of the relevant policies for the previous planning application. You might also link to the reasons that the last application was rejected - linked to above.
All comments must be submitted by 20th June 2016.
Thanks to Charlotte and Quentin for flagging-up this latest application.
Tags for Forum Posts: hampden road, hampden road development
- Attachments:
-
-
827041.pdf, 4.1 MB -
827042.pdf, 3.7 MB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
I wonder, Geoff, if there's a way you and others might use HoL to offer other residents helpful advice about how to respond most effectively to the planning application?
In other words some do's and don'ts when setting out their views - whether pro or con. So that their submissions form material planning grounds which both Haringey planning staff and councillors on the planning committee might be more likely to consider carefully.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
There's a good start to this in the summary I've linked to in the last but two paragraph in my original post above,
-
-
On top of the summary I did a couple of years back, below is an updated version of the Haringey Policies that are in particular relevant to this application.
The first section reproduces the relevant policies. The second says why I think they are relevant.
Section 1: The policies
Local Plan: Strategic Policies
SP11: DESIGN
All new development should enhance and enrich Haringey’s built environment and create places and buildings that are high quality, attractive, sustainable, safe and easy to use. To achieve this all development shall:
- Be of the highest standard of design that respects its local context and character and historic significance, to contribute to the creation and enhancement of Haringey’s sense of place and identity;
- Ensure impacts on health, climate change, natural resources and biodiversity are minimised by adopting and improving sustainable design and construction techniques;
- Incorporate solutions to reduce crime and the fear of crime, such as promoting social inclusion; creating well-connected and high quality public realm that is easy and safe to use; and by applying the principles set out in ‘Secured by Design’ and Safer Places;
- Promote high quality landscaping on and off site, including improvements to existing streets and public spaces;
- Seek the highest standards of access in all buildings and places; and
- Ensure buildings are designed to be flexible and adaptable – and able to integrate services and functions.
Applications for tall buildings will be assessed against the following criteria:- an adopted Area Action Plan or existing adopted masterplan framework for the site and surrounding area;
- assessment supporting tall buildings in a Characterisation Study which should be prepared as supporting evidence for all AAP areas;
- compliance with the Development Management Policies criteria for Tall and Large Buildings siting and design; and
- compliance with all the relevant recommendations as set out in CABE / English Heritage “Guidance on Tall Buildings”, 2007.
6.1.16 The Council has adopted the definition of Tall and Large Buildings as those which are substantially taller than their neighbours, have a significant impact on the skyline, or are of 10 storeys and over or are otherwise larger than the threshold sizes set for referral to the Mayor of London, as set out in the London Plan.
6.1.17 As noted in SP1, the Council will prepare Area Action Plans (AAPs) for the areas identified in Section 3.1. As part of the evidence base for each of these areas, an Urban Characterisation Study (UCS) will assess the urban character of each area concerned, including a sufficient assessment of the surrounding area to consider the context affected by the proposals in the AAP. These Characterisation Studies will examine the case for tall and large buildings and whether there are suitable locations within the area.
6.1.18 The Council considers that currently only two areas, Haringey Heartlands/Wood Green and Tottenham Hale, have sites that may be suitable for some tall or large buildings. This is because they are close to major transport interchanges, have been designated in the London Plan as an Opportunity Area (Tottenham Hale) and an Area for Intensification (Haringey Heartlands/ Wood Green) and have existing adopted Masterplan Frameworks. Any AAPs and associated Characterisation Studies for these areas will supersede these established suitable locations for Tall and Large Buildings with their recommended locations (if any). Elsewhere tall buildings are considered inappropriate to Haringey’s predominantly 2-3 storey residential suburban character until shown otherwise, for example, in AAPs and UCSs.
6.1.19 The Criteria for Siting and Design of Tall and Large Buildings will be described in detail in the Development Management Policies.
6.1.20 In all cases, the design of tall buildings should comply with the recommendations contained in the CABE / English Heritage ‘Guidance on Tall Buildings’ (July 2007). It sets the criteria for evaluating proposals for tall buildings and promotes a plan led approach to tall buildings.
Development Management Policies
POLICY DM5: LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT VIEWS AND VISTAS
A. Development proposals within the viewing corridors of the Locally Significant Views shown on Figure 2.1 must demonstrate how the proposal:
- Enhances the viewers’ ability to recognise and appreciate the landmark being viewed;
- Makes a positive contribution to the composition of the local view; and
- Meets the requirements of the Council’s Tall Buildings and Views Supplementary Planning Document.
B. Obstructions to the Locally Significant Views should be minimised and will be assessed by the Council on their level impact on the views.
C. Development proposals should consider opportunities to create new local views and vistas through the design and layout of new development.
D. Existing identified viewpoints and viewing points should remain publically accessible.
POLICY DM6: BUILDING HEIGHTS
A. For all development proposals, the Council expects building heights to be of an appropriate scale which respond positively to the site’s surroundings, the local context, and the need to achieve a high standard of design in accordance with Policy DM1.
B. Proposals for taller buildings that project above the prevailing height of the surrounding area must be justified in community benefit as well as urban design terms and should conform to the following general design requirements:- Be of a high standard of architectural quality and design, including a high quality urban realm;
- Protect and preserve existing locally important and London wide strategic views in accordance with Policy DM5; and
- Conserve and enhance the significance of heritage assets, their setting, and the wider historic environment that would be sensitive to taller buildings (see Policy DM9).
C. Tall buildings will only be acceptable in areas identified in Figure 2.2 as being suitable for tall buildings.
In addition to the requirements in (B) above, proposals for tall buildings should also:
- a. Represent a landmark building which by its distinctiveness must:
- i Be a wayfinder or marker, drawing attention to locations of civic importance, major public transport interchanges, and areas of high visitation;
- ii Be elegant and well proportioned, and visually interesting when viewed from any distance or direction; and
- iii Positively engage with the street environment.
- b. Consider the impact on ecology and microclimate; and
- c. Be consistent with the Council’s Tall Buildings and Views Supplementary Planning Document.
D Tall buildings within close proximity to each other should:
- a Avoid a canyon effect;
- b Consider the cumulative climatic impact of the buildings;
- c Avoid coalescence between individual buildings; and
- d Demonstrate how they collectively contribute to the delivery of the vision and strategic objectives for the area.
E. All proposals for taller or tall buildings must be accompanied by an urban design analysis which assesses the proposal in relation to the surrounding context. This should include the submission of a digital 3D model to assist in the understanding of the design concept and impacts of the development.
2.41 ... poorly designed Tall or Taller buildings in the wrong locations can cause intrusive effects on both the immediate and the wider area by adversely impacting local views, domineering heritage assets and their settings, townscapes and other important landmarks, and by altering the established skyline.
2.42 The Council’s approach to Tall buildings has been informed by the Urban Characterisation Study (2015) and the Tall Buildings Locations Validation Study (2015), which resulted in a detailed examination of the case for Tall buildings in the Borough and the identi cation of suitable locations. Figure 2.2 shows those areas of Haringey which are considered suitable for Tall buildings. Within these areas, the appropriate height of new development should be informed by the parameters set out in Policy DM6, having regard to the additional requirements set out in the Site Allocations relevant to and within those areas, and will require detailed urban design analysis which assesses the proposal in relation to the surrounding and much wider context. The Council will prepare further guidance on Tall buildings within these locations through a Tall Buildings and Views Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
2.43 Development of inappropriate height and proposals for Tall buildings outside of the areas identified on Figure 2.2 will be resisted.Section 2: Why I think the policies are relevant
It looks to me like this plan is in direct contravention to Haringey's policies on two key counts (and there may well be more):
How it measures up to provisions in the local plan
1. It does not meet the first provision of SP11 of Haringey's Local Plan which stipulates that any development must:
- Be of the highest standard of design that respects its local context and character and historic significance, to contribute to the creation and enhancement of Haringey’s sense of place and identity;
Both Harringay ward where the proposed development would be built and the Hornsey Park area right next to it, are principally composed of two or three storey Victorian residential dwellings. The proposed development is in complete contrast to these areas both in terns of scale and character. It is also in complete contrast to Hornsey to its north-west. Even the new developments in Hornsey are markedly smaller than this proposed development in terms of height.
2. It fails to meet any of the assessment criteria for tall buildings:
Applications for tall buildings will be assessed against the following criteria:
- an adopted Area Action Plan or existing adopted masterplan framework for the site and surrounding area;
- assessment supporting tall buildings in a Characterisation Study which should be prepared as supporting evidence for all AAP areas;
- compliance with the Development Management Policies criteria for Tall and Large Buildings siting and design; and
- compliance with all the relevant recommendations as set out in CABE / English Heritage “Guidance on Tall Buildings”, 2007.
a. There is no adopted Area Action Plan covering Harringay ward. Area Action Plans for both the Heartlands area and Wood Green show this site is outside of the areas covered by both plans.
b. It fails to meet the provisions set out in DM5 and DM6 of the Development Management Policies criteria for Tall and Large Buildings siting and design.
DMD5:
1. The site is in the direct line of Haringey Strategic view 4 and fails to satisfy a provision in the DPD tp "Protect and preserve existing locally important and London wide strategic views in accordance with Policy DM5".
The developer's application fails to address this issue satisfactorily. The map below shows the variance between the siting of the Developer's Cranley Gardens vista with that of Haringey's nearest viewpoint. The significant difference in height between the the two points has a strong impact on the view. One can only suspect that the developer chose the lower vista viewpoint since it better supported their application. The screenshots from Google Street View attached below the map give some sense, if a rather inadequate one, of the difference.
(Click on the screenshot above to go to a live map)
Image 1: The developer's Vista viewpoint
Image 1: Haringey' Council's Strategic View viewpoint
2. The Local plan states that "The Council has adopted the definition of Tall and Large Buildings as those which are substantially taller than their neighbours, have a significant impact on the skyline, or are of 10 storeys and over". The tallest part of the proposed development is 14 stories. So, whether judged by the '10 stories and over' criterion or by the 'substantially taller than their neighbours' one, the proposed development must be classed as a tall building. The site is not in any of the areas identified as acceptable in areas being suitable for tall buildings. See Figure 2.2 from the DPD below. Section 2.4.3 of the DPD states "Development of inappropriate height and proposals for Tall buildings outside of the areas identified on Figure 2.2 will be resisted".:
3. In addition to the above the majority of local sentiment seems to feel that the building is not, as required by the DPD, "elegant and well proportioned, and visually interesting when viewed from any distance or direction"
4. I am unable to locate any Haringey Council Tall Buildings and Views Supplementary Planning Document.
5. For the same reasons noted above the application fails to be in compliance with all the relevant recommendations as set out in CABE / English Heritage “Guidance on Tall Buildings”, 2007.
-
Permalink Reply by Rory Bergin on
-
My comment is that this application is a poor design, but if there is a site in the area where a large building will have a small visual impact on the area, then this is it. I wish that Fairview had done a better design, and that they had done a better job of fronting onto the New River, and hopefully a sufficient number of negative comments will make them rethink the design. But this is a good site to use for a new large housing project. It has the open space of the railway around it, it has a railway station next to it, and it is a short walk to Turnpike Lane and Wood Green. Without many more such projects our children have no hope of getting a home to buy in London, so development of this scale is a price worth paying. It doesn't have to be badly designed though. And I speak as a housing professional living on the Ladder. The comment about 20th century housing relates to the Denmark Road development immediately next to the development site. It is very poor quality and should never have been built.
I would like to see a better proposal for the New River similar to the Berkeleys New River development where it is now possible to walk along a significant part of it. The plan shows green space along the river but it's nor clear whether there is public access to this area. If there isn't a proposal for this, we should ask for it as part of a longer term objective to open up access to the new river along its length, including the parts that run through the Ladder.
So my summary would be, to object to the scale and massing of the proposals, but not to the number of homes and use the objections to improve the design.
My personal view is that sometimes it is better to have some homes in a taller element to allow the rest of the development to be lower. A taller thinner tower for part of the scheme would have less of a visual impact than this large lump and could be used to lower the size and improve the proportions of the rest of the development.
-
-
Very rational comments, Rory. Thanks.
Your reply here caused me to look at the planning application and see how the comments were coming. What I came across is described here. Fascinating little episode, the outcome of which I look forward to understanding.
-
-
Perhaps my favourite comment on this application on the planning website so far was just submitted by the owners of the steel yard who are selling their property to the developer. You'll be flabbergasted to learn that they support the proposals.
Their otherwise very honest and open email begins, perhaps rather disingenuously with:
I write to express my support for the redevelopment of the above site by Fairview Homes to provide a residential-led mixed use scheme.
The proposed development will deliver new homes on an under-utilised brownfield site in a highly sustainable location close to major transport nodes. The proposed development will make efficient use of the site and deliver much needed new homes to the local area, including affordable housing provision on site.
A strange submission perhaps, that could be mistaken for a sales pitch, but they do go on to make a full and clear statement of their interest. (Full submission attached). More on other local business submissions here.
- Attachments:
-
-
837264.pdf, 26 KB
-
-
Permalink Reply by 0n59eal4meshz on
-
However, their second para is entirely correct, Hugh!.
-
-
It is indeed. I take no issue with that. The irony in their submission however doesn't lie in the veracity of what they have written.
-
Permalink Reply by Penny A on
-
Btw, a couple of local architects are scrutinising the planning application . Will encourage the one I know !
-
-
That's good. I think the Colin Banon who's objected is an architect. There may well be grounds on which professional might object, but to the layman it looks like it might be a bit of a slam dunk in that the development is in an area where tall buildings are simply not allowed. Reduce the height by half then I'll submit a comment of support..
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
