Saturday 8 November 2014

Posted on behalf of a local resident:

Planning Application Alert!

Please OBJECT to an application to erect huge new buildings, on the Hornsey Journal plot (between the Arthouse cinema and Kwik Fit.)

The application, for 6 new flats and 3 houses, has no respect for the local area or community or architecture.
It would be a TERRIBLE PRECEDENT for Crouch End (see below).
Key objections:-
Main front building higher than Kwik Fit, towering over the Citadel, completely out of scale with adjacent buildings
Proposed dark grey zinc cladding – all existing buildings are brick
Two storey blank wall bang up against small existing gardens, a looming, dark and oppressive solid mass
Large trees softening urban landscape would be killed
Cramming – 3 tiny houses with tiny, dark gardens, their only windows look out onto the Kwik Fit wall
Fire escape route between replaced by houses so no fire escape for residents in this development or the new apartments next door.
Another retail space proposed – Crouch End doesn’t need it
No parking provision for 9 new 2+ bed dwellings

Closing date 3rd December
Go to , click Housing and Planning then ‘View planning applications’. The reference is HGY/2014/3139

Valerie Oleiyi, Planning Officer, Haringey Council,
639 High Road LONDON, N17 8BD
Ref application: HGY/2014/3139





Detailed Objections

Fundamental Objections

A) Proposals are detrimental to local built environment & in conflict with local planning policies

The proposed development is in complete conflict with policy SP11 of the Local Plan Strategic Policies document which states:
  • ‘All new development should enhance and enrich Haringey’s built environment and create places and buildings that are high quality and attractive’.
  • Development should be of the highest standards of design that respects its local context and character and historic significance.

The existing building is attractive, with materials, massing and style entirely in keeping with the existing built environment.

The applicants propose to replace it with buildings that are completely out of scale, ugly and in conflict with the adjacent local architecture in every respect. The building design is poor and, apart from the retention of the front fa├žade, has absolutely no ‘respect for its local context and character and historical significance’.

The current building’s roof is not visible from the road. All the adjacent buildings have pitched roofs – the Arthouse cinema buildings, Kwit Fit, and all the houses in the Conservation Area of Fairfield Road. Hence the flat roofs of both proposed buildings are completely wrong and destroy the rhythm of the local architecture.

Hence the proposed development would be severely detrimental to the local built environment.

B) Height and mass of proposed main building on Tottenham Lane
  • Proposed building would tower over Citadel, creating a looming presence over the historically significant Victorian chapel
  • It would create a ‘canyon’ between 161 and new development at 159 Tottenham Lane in which the Citadel would be completely dwarfed.
  • Totally out of scale with adjacent buildings
  • While the existing building is raked and lower at the rear the proposed building would be the same height at the rear and a significantly larger visual mass.
  • The flat roof of the proposed building is made higher by the (unspecified so far) extra height of the rooftop housing of the lift mechanism and plant equipment.
  • Loss of privacy due to rear balconies on upper floors

The additional height and massing of the proposed building would be clearly visible from Tottenham Lane above the roof of the Citadel, and significantly detrimental to the street scene. It would stick out like a sore thumb when viewed from the rear, totally out of proportion with adjacent buildings.

C) Intrusive design & poor configuration of proposed rear houses

  • The proposed house wall built right up to the boundary would be a very serious visual intrusion – an oppressive, towering wall over Fairfield Road gardens. Actual height above gardens xxx metres (to be confirmed)
  • The proposed ‘dark grey zinc’ is totally in conflict with the prevailing brick walls of the area, and would make the visual intrusion even worse for Fairfield Road residents and oppressive in the immediately neighbouring gardens.
  • A house wall on the boundary would inevitably kill existing trees which provide valuable visual amenity from the Conservation Area, softening the urban landscape
  • The flat roofs are completely contrary to the architectural rhythm of the area.
  • The overall effect of the massing of these houses would be to ‘destroy’ the character of this part of the conservation area
  • Concern regarding noise from balconies and winter gardens, whose roofs would be able to be opened
  • Poor light conditions for residents of the houses, with single aspect windows facing a high wall which cuts out sunlight and significantly reduces daylight
  • Unnecessary additional, very small balconies with a primary view of large Kwit Fit brick wall but also overlooking Fairfield Road gardens generating lack of privacy for existing residents – why have it as well as garden and winter garden?

Additional Major Objections

D) Unnecessary additional retail spaceThe proposed development includes a retail space on the ground floor. Crouch End has more than enough retail spaces, several of which are already empty. Crouch End needs housing, not more retail space so the ground floor should be used for housing.

E) Fire Safety Concerns
The proposals highlight the existing ramp between 159 and 161, ‘which allows for a right of way in case of fire'. The proposed design of the rear houses would remove this access completely. The existing vehicular access from the front would also be lost in the proposed design of the front building.

F) More units, no parking spaces
Whilst residents could not apply for a resident’s permit, they could still own cars.

G) Low quality amenity spaceProposed gardens would have virtually no light since they are small and hemmed in on three sides by 2-4 storey buildings. The fourth side of all the gardens would have a barrier to sunlight. Plants would not flourish and soft planted would easily become waterlogged due to lack of sunlight. As such these gardens are low quality amenity space for the house residents.
Closing date 3rd December
Go to , click Housing and Planning then ‘View planning applications’. The reference is HGY/2014/3139

Valerie Oleiyi, Planning Officer, Haringey Council,
639 High Road LONDON, N17 8BD
Ref application: HGY/2014/3139

No comments:

Post a Comment