Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Hawes+Curtis plan breaches Mayor's need for affordable housing
Just had a look at their plans, for the Planning Meeting this Thursday.
I would have thought that the plan is disqualified as their provision of anything but private sale is inadequate. The mayor's manifesto says 'I’ll work with boroughs to deliver on my target of half of all new homes being genuinely affordable'. I don't know how much of his manifesto has been confirmed as policy but that is his target.
"The viability assessment submitted with the application sets out that no affordable housing can viably be provided [the usual starting position]. The independent viability assessment that was commissioned by the Council did not agree with this position and subsequently the provision of 12%, equating to 16 shared ownership units with the NHS facility or 17.3% equating to 26 shared ownership units if a commercial unit is proposed has been proposed. This is confirmed to be the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing."
So where is the genuinely affordable housing in this scheme?
Tags for Forum Posts: 590-598 Green Lanes, hawes & curtis
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Show me the policy in the London Plan, Christopher. I can find nothing about high rise near transport hubs. High density yes, high rise no. People keep trotting this out but no one can point to any policy.
It's barely relevant anyway. Supported by the GLA, Haringey have proved over the past 12 months that they'll build what they want where they want it regardless of policy.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
High Density = High Rise.
-
-
John it doesn't. You're wrong. We've been through this before. I gave you the example of Hampden Road. Design plays a great role in density. The only way isn't up. The first Hampden Road design had the same number of residences as the approved design. It was 9 stories. The final design was 14 stories.That's not just a shade of height difference, it's a significant one - and it was all about design.
-
-
John in an attempt to forestall your coming back every month with your "High Density = High Rise", this is a direct quote from the London Plan, "high density does not need to imply high rise"
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Fowler on
-
I said that it was a policy introduced by Ken Livingstone. I also pointed out that when Johnson was Mayor, he let developers put high rise block more or less wherever they wanted, wherever they could make a profit. I didn't suggest it was in the London Plan. And I tend to agree with John's point, that high density almost inevitably means high-rise. I agree with you that, regardless of any London-wide policy (such as quotas for affordable homes in new developments), the current Haringey Council will do more or less what they want, and certainly what they can get away with. Haringey is pretty well a one-party borough, and anyone within the majority group who objects to the inner core's policies is de-selected, and replaced by people who are more pliant. The Council policy on "regeneration", especially in the East of the Borough, seems to be about large developments of flats, etc, for sale to gentrifiers; with little or no room for "affordable" housing. The Council wants to push out the poorer residents and replace them with people from whom it can extract more in council tax and business rates, and who don't cost as much in demand for council services. It is social cleansing, and in the case of Tottenham, is probably also ethnic cleansing.
-
-
I'm not sure that I understand your answer Cristopher.
Ultimately planning law allows some discretion to deviate from policy, but the law requires that decisions are still nevertheless anchored in planning policy and that clear reasons are given for any deviation from it.
London's planning policy is enshrined in the London Plan. If it's not in the London Plan, it's not planning policy. The London Plan does make reference to the proximity of a proposed site to a transport hub and the permitted density of the development. No such mention is made of building height however. Building height is specifically controlled within the London Plan.
With regards to the link between height and density, yes, there's a link but it's rarely the defining one. Ask any architect, and they'll tell you that design considerations will be the key determinant of density. As evidence of this I've explained what happened on Hampden Road, The same density as was provided in the approved design was also given by the original 9 storey one.
Planning law is frequently breached by planning authorities and the only challenge open to residents is a costly high court case. Because such a remedy is rarely taken, authorities are pretty much given free reign.
-
-
Hugh - I don't think we are really disagreeing here. I agree with what you say about the London Plan, and that while it might encourage high density development near transport hubs, it does not so encourage high-rise. Also, you are right to say that "high density" does not necessarily mean "high-rise". In the case of the proposed Hampden Road development, I am in agreement with those who argue that it is inappropriate and out of scale in an area of 2/3 storey buildings. I also think you are completely right about local authorities and their attitude to planning law. And I applaud those local people who stand up against inappropriate developments, and who stand up for a proper percentage of social housing. I also applaud everything that you and people on this community website do to keep all of us informed, and to allow discussion of community issues. I apologise if any of my posts here seemed combative. That was not my intention.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
>>Planning law is frequently breached by planning authorities and the only challenge open to residents is a costly high court case.
Acutely depressing! Is it really not possible to prevent the Planning Cttee breaching planning law without a court case? If the police flouted the law...
Was there ever a time when it was possible to make sure that the Planning Cttee was behaving itself and if so, how was it done?
It seems hard to believe that planning laws are being drawn up in the full knowledge that they're only going to be enforced if the Cttee feels like it. Presumably, that means that Cttee members are constantly consulting planning officers to get advice as to how flagrant they can be.
Or, as I suspect, is it more pro-active in that planning officers decide internally whether they want an application to succeed, even if it breaks planning law?
So the people to chase are the officers, aren't they? Don't they have professional standards they can be held to account for? Cheaper than the courts.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
The Progress gang who run t'council are not in jobs for life. Selection of councillors is done by each ward. Prospective councillors have to go through a pre-selection process, but the group which does that is independent of the Leadership.
There is a lot of discussion going on now about the selection of candidates for next year, for the Council elections in 2018. Labour in Tottenham, and probably H+WG, has thousands of new members, mostly from the Corbyn surge. So the choice of candidates will be done next summer by the ward meetings - there are 9 wards in Tottenham, 3 seats each - and already the comrades are divvying up the seats.
A change is gonna come.But only of the elected members. The officers stay where they are, including that top tier which has been doing its very best to keep Haringey afloat on a 60% budget, otherwise their own salaries might just slip away too.
-
-
Elected members enact planning policy through the decisions they make on the planning committee. In most boroughs however, there's effectively a party whip that calls most decisions. I was surprised to learn recently that majority group members of the planning committee get together prior to the committee to "discuss" the forthcoming applications.
-
Permalink Reply by DTW on
-
Can't help but be surprised that you were surprised colleagues discuss work outside of formal meetings.
In regards to a previous thread yes it's all about winning the politics. I would suggest with no real opposition you set up a residents association and use that as a vehicle to get on the council as an independent. Once you're on there you have access to the council officers and it becomes a whole different ball game.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
