• Feeds

  • RSS2

Vanilla 1.1.5a is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

1. • CommentAuthorapplehead
   • CommentTimeJan 1st 2010 edited

    
   Hi,
   Yesterday we received planning notice app through our door on Moray Road, regarding City North Islington Trading Estate, Fonthill Road and 8-10 Goodwin Street, N4 regarding the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a mixed development comprising two 21 storey (yes it says 2 x 21 storey) building above ground floor plinth, 10 storey building above ground and first floor plinth; and 3 storey building above ground floor plinth for 335 residential dwellings, office space restaurant cafe, gym etc... Application no PO92492 at Islington.gov.uk planning dept.
   I thought this sounded shocking and along with what is planned over the way on sgr it would seem the area is up for quite a few potential sky scrapers and change landscape.
2. • CommentAuthorkrappyrubsnif
   • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010

    
   Yeugh. Might as well all move to Croydon by the sound of it.
3. • CommentAuthorIan
   • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010

    

   Thanks for this - I've had a look through and I'm afraid I'm on the side of build. Looks a really interesting development that will be good for the area, both for the retail and jobs but also by clearing up what is a messy bit of the area by the station.

   I'm all for it, I think it will be great for the area.

4. • CommentAuthorwideboy
   • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010 edited

    
   http://www.islington.gov.uk/Environment/Planning/Online/default.asp
   
   Search for P092492 (with a zero after P)
   
   Or use this deep link instead - http://bit.ly/citynorth
5. • CommentAuthorpoxy
   • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010

    
   Pre-emptive YAWN!
6. • CommentAuthortosscat
   • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010

    

   Yay Poxy, but it's still a yawn.

7. • CommentAuthorReg
   • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2010

    

   I'm for it too. Am interested to see that the scheme allows for the future introduction of a western access to the station - I assume to Goodwin Street and on to Fonthill which would be good.

   The developer does seem to be playing the 'habitable rooms game' though which serves to minimise overall affordable housing but that is for the planning officers to thrash out really. To see what I mean, have a look at this example layout for the three-bed units. On the left the open market unit has no wall between the second and third rooms. Or this will be a 'sliding wall'. As such, this unit shows up with one less 'habitable room' - the unit of calculation for affordable housing in this application. Note that the affordable unit does not have this 'feature' and therefore has more habitable rooms per unit, reducing the overall 'required' number of units. Get it?

   The scheme is closer to 14% calculated by unit, rather than 20% by habitable room.

   However, you don't need planning permission to play around with internal walls. So once it has been built the developer can offer to put in a full wall for the buyer to take it up to a 'proper' (and properly priced) three-bed.

   A happy coincidence for the developer is that this approach will also reduce the stated density of the scheme (habitable rooms per hectare). This is not a big deal in the context of the scheme but it all helps.

   Having said all that, affordable housing negotiations tend to come down to viability tests (as provided in this instance by GVA Grimley, but redacted by LBI so we can't really comment), rather than strict targets. Eyes wide open, Councillors...

8. • CommentAuthorpseudonym
   • CommentTimeJan 3rd 2010

    
   What sort of people make these plans?
   
   It looks like the tenants of the 10th and 11th floor duplexes will have 3 toilets and 2 bath tubs in each 2 bedroom apartment. Either there's a large market for incontinent but hygiene-conscious city dwellers that's being targeted, or not much effort has gone into the design so far.
   
   They're going to have fun getting furniture up and down those spiral staircases too.
9. • CommentAuthorAlex
   • CommentTimeJan 4th 2010

    

   Just on a pedantic note, this thread does not refer to the John Jones development but the nearby City North one, as I understand it. Can the title be changed, given that both developments may well be under discussion for the next several months and it could get confusing?

10. • CommentAuthorandy
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2010 edited

     
    We are Ninja

    Good point. * This title has been edited. There are, as i understand, two developments - City North and John Jones. This thread is about City North.

11. • CommentAuthorClose_&_worried
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2010

     
    ok, so I'm feeling like 'applehead' and I are the only local residents on this forum because in an area like this, which is predominantly residential & low-rise businesses, why would anyone think that two 21-storey tower blocks is a good thing for the Stroud Green community?!! London centre has very strict controls that maintain the skyline, it is my opinion that we strive to maintain our skyline also. Lastly, per the comment above about the area becoming like Croydon, how many high rise buildings in other orbital london areas look good 10-20 years on, or bring value to the surrounding area ... I can't think of any. Please, let common-sense prevail
12. • CommentAuthorcrouchend tiger
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2010

     
    I'm new on the forum so hello all - I've enjoyed reading your posts.
    
    I really hope this development will be a success - the area around Fonthill Road/station is still a bit crimey and maybe if there are more people around, this will improve.
    
    But I can completely understand where Close is coming from too. The last thing we need is another of those massive orange brick towers that look like huge prison toilet blocks or a blandarama glass and concrete effort.
    
    Does anyone know anything about the architects for this scheme?
13. • CommentAuthorpseudonym
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2010

     
    Does anyone know anything about the architects for this scheme?
    
    They have an unhealthy obsession with lavatories.
14. • CommentAuthortosscat
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2010

     

    The Croydon council building is lovely, allegedly taking its inspiration from the Pirelli building in Milan.

    @ C&W - Does the Barbican count, and Trellick tower, or they not considered orbital? (Is fin-fin considered orbital?)

15. • CommentAuthorgodzilla
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2010

     
    The Barbican's surrounded by roundabouts and underpasses, office blocks and City bars (and empty units). It might look nice from the inside, but isn't exactly in a residential area.
    
    Trellick is nice to look at, and I don't live there, but having walked past a few times there we ne-er do wells loitering outside it. It's something of an anachronism in the area, even though as a piece of architecture it does look good in isolation.
    
    Croydon already has modern buildings, so the council tower, lovely though it is, isn't quite the sore thumb 2 x 21 stories would be in an area of 2/3 story residentials and the City North tower.
    
    I guess local residents and business were already gyped with the Emirates build and Govt. intervention, but hope their wishes are heard on this.
    
    Consultation between 21-dec and 21-Jan. What form is that taking?
    
    I guess it's a fluke of geography that Islington can throw up any building it likes right on the border of Haringey and no one on the other side of SGR would know anything about it were it not for this forum.
16. • CommentAuthorReg
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2010

     

    C&W, what local view of what 'skyline' is worth protecting?

    I think the towers around Canary Wharf are cool, the Gherkin is cool. The Shard will be great. Tall can be good. Conversely, the locality of the station is squat and scruffy. Why build more squat and scruffy buildings? (if you follow the line of your argument)

    Lets use the opportunity to make sure these are welcome additions, and not missed opportunities (like there are examples of in Croydon and elsewhere, granted)

    And why wouldn't the towers be good for the community? More customers for the local shops and more choice of housing (including some affordable).

17. • CommentAuthorAli
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2010

     

    The "Towers" that used to be along Seven Sister Rd opposite the park on just got demolished recently to put back house at a better scale for the occupants ! The big pile of rubble that is down there is the old flats.
    They were very badly built as I can remember stories when Madness did Finstcok that old grannies were getting stuck in the lifts because of the vibrations from people jumping up and down at the Concert !

18. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeJan 6th 2010

     
    I agree that the hideous towers on SS Rd should have come down - they did not work in the surrounding context. But the area around FP station needs a complete rethink, I'm with Reg on this one.
    
    B
19. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeJan 6th 2010

     
    I keep thinking this might end up like Archway. And that ain't nice. Might turn the park into a bit of a sundial too.
    
    Being 21-storey I would have thought that shoving a wind turbine or three on the top would make sense, but it's been discounted without review in the planning application. It's just written-off.
    
    What's the tallest building in North London currently?
20. • CommentAuthortwinspark
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2010

     
    I'm for it on the basis that it may obscure the view of The Emirates from Crouch Hill/Crouch End Hill.
    
    
    As for Islington I thinmk they are dabbling with lots of develpments round F.Park in the hope they that can create a buzz in the private sector and find a willing partner/fool to stump up for re-developing the tube station with the long mooted piazza and entrance on Fonthill Road [ complete with naff mural no doubt] Hopefully it will be someone other than the berk responsible for the bus station on SS rd. side which looks like a scheme rejected by everywhere else since 1974 but available as a bargain since it looked old before it was finished - sort of built in distressed look for buildings. Either that or it's bit of marine salvage artfully re-purposed as a community sculpture.
21. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2010

     
    I haven't even got planning notice through the door, even though I'm nearer than the nearest part of Morray Road (re:Applehead's original post) to Wells Terrace.
    
    A snotty phonecall tomorrow is in order methinks.
22. • CommentAuthorActionVerb
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2010 edited

     
    With regard to G-unit public consultation question, the only thing required is a small notice in the back of a local paper and a letter to the immediate neighbours. The number of neighbours informed is usually down to the planning department to decide on. We got a letter (actually two) living pretty close to the site.
    
    Looking at their public consultation document, it appears that there were 3,000 leaflets distributed, and only 20 people attended the public exhibition last summer, the document then basically goes on to say that the attendance was low because the scheme was not contentious. Not sure why the attendance would be so low? I suppose there could be a few reasons - summer holidays, it was only held on the actual business park, i didn't see any adverst for it etc. I live within a couple hundred yards from the site, but we didn't get a notice, i'd have gone to have a nosey.
    
    I think the exhibiton could have been done a bit better. Change the venues every day, go somewhere where there's high foot-fall in the local area, leaflet a lot more people, engage the local press - local journos love a good 'exclusive'..
    
    I've not yet made my mind up on this scheme though, I think Finsbury Park needs something, but I quite like the current 2-3 storey scale, it gives the place a bit of historical character.
23. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2010

     
    Well, here is a bit of a problem. Now I feel like the wool has been pulled over the planning depts eyes to some degree. As ActionVerb mentioned, according to the public consultation document 3000 leaflets went out. However:
    
    1) The Area action plan boundry draws a near perfect border encompassing predominantly business properties and stops before crossing over into significant residential areas. The cynic in me says this is to involve the least number of residents for a given number of total addresses, and that considering the scale of the development, the zoned area is very small.
    
    2) Two pages further down on page 28 it then says "Appendix 5 – List of Consultees, Leaflets Delivered by Hand Residents / occupiers within AAP boundary" and lists several pages of the addresses within the boundry area. It then lists "Local residential estates" and basically lists the entire six acres and andover state by the look of it, but I for one have no recollection of receiving it. And this isn't within the marked boundry either.
    
    3) The newspaper adverts make no reference to the scale of the development at all, which would perhaps help to lower the interest of most people who read it.
    
    
    Am I being overly cynical?
24. • CommentAuthordorothy
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2010

     
    @wideboy
    I've worked for local authorities, and my knowledge on planning is a little rusty, but I think there's a statutory obligation to consult in a 200 metre radius of the site. I recollect that you can't speak at the planning hearing if you are not within this radius, although you can make comments through the portal.
    
    That list of community groups that were consulted with must have been supplied by the council or the local CVS, I'm guessing. I'm wondering why Stroudgreen.org isn't on there, because I'm sure it has more contact with local residents than some of the others. It seems such an antiquated way of consulting, just sending out leaflets. They were bound to get ignored along with the pile of junk mail in the numerous shared hallways around the area. No wonder they only had 20 people turn up.
    
    Having said that I think the development looks really attractive, especially the podium bit, not sure about the sort of glass, post office tower looking thing and the other tall rectangular block, but maybe those are the bits that will bring in the revenue for the project.
25. • CommentAuthorADGS
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010

     
    Is the dislike of the Seven Sisters Road bus station general? I don't think it's an architectural marvel or anything, but I've seen an awful lot worse, and when the light catches it right it can be quite impressive.
26. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010

     
    Dorothy, does the 200m radius not scale up with the size of the development?
27. • CommentAuthordorothy
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010

     
    @wideboy, having a closer look at Islington's documents on how they consult, it seems they use 30m from the boundary of the development as they area they will notify. It doesn't seem to matter if it's a larger development, (in theory). I think the 200m must have been the policy of the Council I worked for in South London.
    
    30m is a minimum though, there may be reasons that this area would be increased.
    
    It's possible Reg would put me right on this stuff. I have the feeling I may have sat opposite him at very boring Council meetings, but he was listening.
28. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010

     
    I think the bus station/station place frontage is pretty good, certainly a huge improvement on how it was before... the sooner they clean up the Wells Terrace entrance the better.
    
    Arky
29. • CommentAuthorbluejack
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010

     
    I'm with everybody else, agreeing that the site needs to be rethought, and rebuilt. I'm not sure that's the same thing as 'redeveloped' - I certainly don't think 21-storey towers are visually appropriate for the site or the area, and the street level elevations look like they'll be the usual stock generic glass/concrete/steel frontages - I don't see much evidence of exciting, interesting or locally sympathetic architecture.
30. • CommentAuthorReg
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2010

     

    re consultation, this is a difficult one as being a big development it will inevitably draw a lot of interest. Catchment is not proportional to the size of the application but it is an interesting idea. I wouldn't read anything in to whether you have been directly notified or not and the AAP boundary doesn't have anything to do with this. The local press notices and notices that they put up on lamp-posts are intended to create awareness and websites like this do a great job. I would have thought that the applicant would have made more of an effort but there you have it.

    However, since you are reading this thread you are in a position to spread the word and make your own representations - positive or negative. If you do you might also be heard at the committee so this not just lip service, you really can steer this.

    Can I make the following suggestions: 1. Please look at the application very carefully and identify exactly what you are not happy with. You are probably too late in the planning process to stop redevelopment altogether as the principle seems to have been accepted by the local authority in the AAP process. 2. Even if you have very strong feelings about this try not to sound too shrill or reactionary as this will turn off the sympathy that officers and members will have towards us as local residents. Firm and reasonable wins every time. 3. If you don't like the height, be specific about why - character of Fonthill, view from wherever. Suggest what you think an appropriate height/scale would be. 4. If you think that there is an impact that could be addressed through investment though do share it (with the planners or here). i.e. capacity of dentists, doctors, schools etc. Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act requires the developer to address these impacts before/during development and this often comes in the form of direct provision or financial contributions to existing services.

    I would encourage everyone to use this opportunity to make this as good as can be, not to just try and have it thrown out. Of course it is your right to try if you want to but my reading of this is that the principle is already supported - now its about details.

31. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2010 edited

     
    Anyone wish concerns about this planning application needs to put it in writing asap:
    
    "Comments on this application should be made by 21-Jan-2010."
    
    Planning application
32. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2010 edited

     
    [deleted]
33. • CommentAuthorBridget
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2010

     
    Just two days to go for any objections to this so please remember to get your comments in by the 21st.
    
    Ive just done it online. Want the area to be redeveloped but do not want 21 story tower blocks.
34. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2010 edited

     
    Same here. I'm not against the redevelopment, but I raised questions over:
    
    1) Not being notified of the planning application even though I live very close.
    2) The design appears to score relatively poorly in grading points/awards relating to Co2 emissions for office and retail areas. Also appears to score zero in all innovation categories.
    3) The the proposed design doesn't meet LBI's minimum standard of "Excellent".
    4) The dimissal of small scale wind power generation, without giving reasons why.
    5) Height / scale.
    
    ....in relation page 8 See section 4.2 and 4.7. Also see page 94 re: Wind power.
35. • CommentAuthorIan
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2010

     

    Thanks for reminding me folks - I put in a very positive full agreement with the development. I think it will be really good for the area and have no problem at all with the height.

36. • CommentAuthorandy
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2010

     
    We are Ninja

    Small scale wind generation isn't very good. That would be the main reason.

    The payback on domestic wind turbines, with the embedded carbon of manufacture, is pretty poor. You're better off reducing consumption through improved efficiency.

37. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2010 edited

     
    It all starts somewhere. The payback will increase as manufacaturing processes evolve, and not all systems are equal.
    
    >> You're better off reducing consumption through improved efficiency.
    
    What happens when you've done that and it's still not enough? As I mentioned, the design scores poorly in these areas for office and retail, and that's across a wide spread of technologies, and zero across the board for innovation.
    
    The report also *did* evaluated PV panels, which to me seems less likely to be viable.
    
    Remember that this is two 21-floor towers, that's some height. Around here that's a average wind speed of 5.7m/s (at 25m height) and 6.2m/s (at 45m height) - there is online db of this somewhere. The carbon building fund (or whatever it's called) states that locations with an average windspeed of 5m/s or greater are viable for funding, which indicates to me that this is a viable site.
38. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2010 edited

     
    I’ve spent a lot of time looking at this application, and I’ve commented with all but full approval, including agreement on the height (and I will be able to see this development from my flat on Mount View Rd). My only objection is to the removal of the 19th century façade on Goodwin St – they may not think that it is of architectural merit but I think it’s attractive and if incorporated into the design would mark the transition between old and new right by the new gateway, dovetailing the Victorian building next door into the new development. I’ve suggested that if this is not possible then the façade should be saved for use elsewhere, perhaps in redeveloping the gap between the neighbouring Victorian premises with identical facades.
    
    Arky
39. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeFeb 25th 2010

     
    As mentioned elsewhere, there are more images of street views and other projections here
    
    I'd love to be proved wrong, but it just looks like a overwhelming lump to me, perhaps with a hint of spaceship.
40. • CommentAuthorJoeV
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2010

     
    I know some people have objections about the height of the two towers but they concern me less that the impact that the long white monolith the towers rise above will have. It looks like a 10 story, three block long wall of white. It could create a worse separation in the neighbourhood than the railway line.
41. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2010 edited

     

    @JoeV: I gave that some consideration too. But keep in mind that the whole site is currently out of bounds, and a new road will connect Wells Terrace to Goodwin St (and thus Fonthill Rd) with a tunnel under the block. So the development will open up the area, not ‘separate’ it. And the block effectively runs parallel to the railway anyway, so I don’t think it adds to the separation.

42. • CommentAuthortosscat
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2010

     

    @ Arky - I used to think that about lovely facades but I feel that the Queenswood medical centre in CE shows how badly this can be done. The old bit looks ropey and the new bit looks castrated.

43. • CommentAuthorJoeV
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2010

     
    @arkady -- I actually like the overall look of the redevelopment and can appreciate the changes at street level but from the drawings it seems to me that what is essentially happening is that a two-three block long wall will rise 8 stories above the train tracks. The view of the project from the park is disturbing. At least the towers allow sun and light through to street level.
    
    Have you been to Tottenham Hale recently? There's a new development being built next to the station that is constructed in a similar fashion and is absolutely hideous. This plan looks all shiny and new in the drawings but the reality may be much different.
44. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2010

     

    @Tosscat – I haven’t seen it, no, and the internet isn’t assisting on this one. I accept it could be done badly… I just hate to lose the history, you know? I’d like to see some renders with it included so that we can reach a better conclusion.

    @JoeV: Is your primary beef with the view from the park? I agree that it is the least attractive view, perhaps they could lose a story or two from it. But views from elsewhere shouldn’t be compromised at street level because of the surrounding buildings. I would suggest that if we reduced this to ‘positive transformation that this development could bring’ vs ‘reduced attractiveness of view from a particular part of the park’ then the former wins out. As to actual appearance – have a look at some of the end results from the same architects at the link Wideboy posted above – gorgeous, and a rare successful juxtaposition of old and new. That’s my take on it anyway. And it would be difficult to make that part of town worse, let’s be honest. Arky

45. • CommentAuthorJoeV
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2010

     
    @ Arkady –
    It's not just the view from the park that will be impacted. The residential areas on the western (southern) side of the station will be affected as well. The drawings present clean, crisp and white buildings that gleam but the base of the development is a mistake. It’s oppressive and will block sun and light on both sides, especially in winter when the sun is low in the sky. That's my primary beef.
    
    The towers are fine in my opinion, at least they allow some light to reach the street and don’t block the sky as much but that long base structure looks to me to be as wide as the two towers combined, and 1-1/2 times longer. You can correct me if I have the actual dimensions wrong but that’s how it looks to me in the pictures.
    
    The developers have snuck in another even larger tower and disguised it by turning it on its side. It would have been better, and more honest, to include another 20-story tower.
    
    I would be more amenable if the building was reduced to 4-5 stories, keeping it in scale with the other buildings in the area. I still wouldn’t like the unbroken façade but the smaller scale would be an improvement.
46. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2010

     

    So you disagree with the findings of Delva Patman Associates daylight, sunlight and shadowing report (W66 in the application)? Page 16-17 suggests only 3 properties would have windows that would be significantly affected, and then only for part of the day. Demolishing my neighbour’s houses would improve the amount of daylight I got, but there are other factors to take into consideration, sadly! 

47. • CommentAuthorActionVerb
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2010

     
    @Arkady - the pictures linked on the Sky Scraper City forum are heavily manipulated, with significant level of HDR placed on the original photos. As you can probably tell by the photo, there is an unnatural level of contrast and colour on the photos, so I don't think it's a 'true' intepretation of what those buildings currently look like.
    
    With regard to the development itself, I think I have already commented on this thread, and my view has remained that scale wise, it is a bit too high and perhaps over-development in a predominantly 3-4storey area. Don't feel strongly enough to object, as I think in the bigger scheme of things it will probably be a good thing for the area.
    
    I'm also interested if the affordable housing element of the scheme is 'pepper potted' around the development, or restricted to the inevitably lower quality, lower level flats. There's a very nice scheme in Farringdon that looks rather nice with a high affordable housing percentage, yet when you step into the development, you realise that most of it is hiden away behind the main building, with none of the vast glazing and small balconies afforded to the fully commercial properties.
48. • CommentAuthorJoeV
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2010 edited

     
    @ Arkady -- What do I know? I'm just an amatuer relating my thoughts based on a couple of drawings posted to a website. But I don't see how a ten story building of that length can only impact 2-3 properties. If that's the conclusion of the daylight and shadowing report then I'm even more concerned.
    
    I didn't say I was against this project. I think it's really interesting architecturally and could be a really positive addition to the neighbourhood (if that one building was scaled down).
    
    Your response to what I think of as a legitimate concerns seems, well a tad defensive. If all the environmental impact reports are so positive why bother involving the community? Just build the thing.
    
    By the way, have you seen the new development at Tottenham Hale? If you have that is my concern. If you haven't get thee on the Victoria line and have a look.
49. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2010

     

    @ActionVerb – I have no doubt that they are trying to present the development in its best light, I’ve followed enough developments to have lost my naivety and know there is a difference between developer renders and the end result- though sometimes they look better! The current Rothschild development is evidence of that. But again, look at the examples of actual developments by the same architects on that thread – it’s subjective of course but I think they look ace, and there are similarities in style and materials. That’s all I have to go on. I wonder about the affordable housing too, but you can’t blame them for selecting the apartments that they would make the least profit on – sadly it can make the difference between these developments being profitable or not. I’d be curious to know which development in Farringdon you’re referring to?

    @JoeV – sorry if I sound defensive. I’m an amateur too. But I do – pretentious though it may sound- try and maintain a rational, scientific mindset. While maintaining a healthy scepticism, the only evidence we have to go on – as opposed to speculation – is the professional report. Short of getting a second professional opinion, or identifying actual problems with the methodology of the existing report, that is all we have to go on. Community involvement and an open planning system is to ensure that we are not misled. If we found actual flaws in the report then I’d be the first on up in arms. But just saying “I think they’re wrong” without presenting evidence marshalled into a counter-argument is, I would suggest, insufficient. I'll look into the TH development - will I be able to easily identify which one you mean? Arky

50. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2010

     

    Joe - OK I found the details of the TH development. Personally I hate the concept design, but I agree that the end result is even worse. Without more research it's hard to be sure, but it looks like major compromises were made when translating it to reality - I'm suprised some of those structures even got planning permission. Then again, it's a shithole around there anyway, they didn't have to worry about the surroundings. Arky

51. • CommentAuthorJoeV
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2010

     
    I still have an open mind about this development but 'official' reports always say minimal impact, maximum benefit. C'mon, reports also said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Northern Rock was rated as sound before it collapsed.
    
    I think it's prudent to be skeptical. I'm not anti-development but I'm sorry, I trust my eyes more than the statistics at the moment. Look at the pictures. I think it's important to be critical to ensure a better building is constructed.
    
    The development at TH is right next to the station. The new complex is replacing a large area that was formerly empty warehouses (which were replaced by newer warehouses built further north nearer to the M25) with residential and commercial buildings that are touted as an improvement but judging by the first building completed, it's horrendously bad (but at least the surrounding area is less residential).
52. • CommentAuthorJoeV
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2010 edited

     

    The overall plan http://www.haringey.gov.uk/tott_hale_finalspd_jan07low_res-2.pdf

    Phase I design: http://www.woolfltd.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=1

    What’s been delivered (student housing): http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanstanton/4041010976/

    There are other pics on flicker. In the right light, the building doesn’t look so bad, but the closer you get, well, in my opinion it looks like a hulking, concrete prison block with coloured bits sticking off the sides.

    (Sorry, I'm rubbish and making links)

53. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2010

     

    Hey Joe. Scepticism is good. I guess I just put a lot of emphasis on formal evidence over speculation. My eyes tell me otherwise to yours, hence my seeking fact rather than opinion. While maintaining that healthy scepticism, I'll trust the report until someone points out exactly how it's wrong. If you're concerned then I suggest you try and do that, the residents of Wells Terrace might end up worshipping you as a god! :-) A

54. • CommentAuthorActionVerb
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2010

     
    Re: Tottenham Hale, so that's what that awful building is. I drive past it on the way to Tesco/Ikea in Edmonton and it does look horrendous. Those multi-coloured fins to the building already look so out of date, although unfortunately this doesn't stop them being proposed all over the place. I suppose I'm glad that the John Jones development has gone for something a little more authentic, at least from the SG road elevation, I haven't had a chance to look at those plans in more details.
    
    @ Arkady - I'll have a look at the details on that Farringdon scheme, but it's the Tesco Express on St John Street and the residential behind it that used to be a brewery, i think, if you know the area.
55. • CommentAuthorAlan Stanton
    • CommentTimeFeb 27th 2010

     
    I'm a Haringey councillor for Tottenham Hale ward, and a resident told me about comments here on the "Hale Village" development. I also saw that yesterday JoeV added a link to my Flickr photoblog showing the Emily Bowes Court building near Tottenham Hale Station.
    
    Normally as a resident in the far east of Haringey, I wouldn't have added my view. But then I read Arkady's comment:
    "Then again, it's a shithole around there anyway, they didn't have to worry about the surroundings."
    
    Part of our problem is this sort of attitude about Tottenham Hale. It's a of view of the area we might expect from slum landlords; from property developers; and apparently the London Development Agency. But I'm disappointed to find it on a community website.
    
    The area around Ferry Lane, including Ferry Lane Estate and Bream Close; the streets around Down Lane Park; the neighbourhood inside the Tottenham Gyratory system; Markfield Park and roads nearby; none are shitholes. Though to be fair to Arkady, my photoblog does focus on lots of corners where fly-tippers and dumpers do their best to foul the area.
    
    It's actually rather nice - and sometimes quite beautiful. Don't believe me? Then come and take a walk round. Or look on Flickr. Here are some quick suggestions: There are loads more.
    
    ● Photo by local resident Jordi Martorell.
    ● River Lee 6 April 2008
    ● The river on 2 February 2009
    ● Jeanette Sitton's photos from The Paddock.
    ● Panorama of Tottenham Marshes.
    ● Bream Close Estate website.
56. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeMar 1st 2010 edited

     

    Alan I'm sorry if I hit a nerve. No-one disputes that Tottenham Hale has some gorgeous natural features. However, it's the built environment that we were discussing, and - as the pictures that you provide suggest - developers have not been kind in your neck of the woods. Even relatively good examples - such as the townhouses in the last picture and those on Ferry Lane, are bland and featureless, neither modernist or classical, inspiring nothing. The same dross that they are building in the suburbs of parochialville everywhere. Worse, they degrade the natural environment around them.

    Finsbury Park and Stroud Green are lucky to have some excellent Victorian heritage, and new builds need to take that into account. That's not to say there isn't room for innovation, but it must be done with care. My argument is that the City North site has to compromise less than most as it is surrounded by low-grade architecture that will be redeveloped the next few years anyway - it is a great opportunity for an iconic modernist building. On the other hand, the neighbouring John Jones development has to be more sympathetic. Now, as far as I can see the dvelopment that was referred to in Tottenham Hale also had a lot of freedom, in that it is not surrounded by nice old buildings. My obession with the potentially spirit-lifting aesthetic of the built environment led me to translate that as 'shithole'. The development could have been an attractive and inspiring modernist creation, like MoreLondon or even the Millenium Village. But instead you've got that monstrosity, which will help to continue Tottenham Hale's reputation as an eyesore for another generation. Bad luck. Arky

57. • CommentAuthorAlan Stanton
    • CommentTimeMar 1st 2010

     
    Thanks for replying quickly and frankly Arkady.
    Of course you hit a nerve.
    
    For some people "Tottenham Hale" means just the station and the immediate area round it. For others - the developers and the London Development Agency - it means the area of the so-called Tottenham Hale and Greater Ashley Road "Masterplans" - including land on both banks of the river, and extending to Down Lane Park.
    
    While for us who live here, it's our homes, our neighbourhood and neighbours – including people we call our friends.
    
    True, I'm not expecting architectural tourists to queue up to visit Ferry Lane Estate, or roads near Down Lane Park where we live. You might think them "bland and featureless". Dismissing our streets as "nothing"; "dross"; and "parochialville" homes which "degrade the natural environment around them".
    
    Well, I like handsome Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian and later buildings. But we love out little 1930's house as well. It's also what we could afford at the time. Calling our streets a "shithole" because they're not Victorian seems - well, just a little harsh.
    
    We enjoy and visit attractive modern buildings. Good design of any period is great. Though I'm sceptical about "iconic" buildings which - in my observation - tend to show their problems the minute everyone takes a taxi back from the black-tie prize-giving back-slapping dinner. (Irena Bauman is an architect who is refreshingly honest about this.)
    
    Maybe you and I will agree on some things about the new Tottenham Hale development. Perhaps one is the absurdity of the developers - Lee Valley Estates - calling a high-rise development a "village". I and others have poked gentle fun at this. Chris Shellard, formerly Haringey Assistant Chief Executive and Head of Haringey Regeneration, is now Lee Valley Estate's project manager. He at least, was honest in describing their initial aim as a "mini-Paddington Basin". If that soulless island of concrete next to the Grand Union canal might conceivably be appropriate in central London near a major railway station, it's hardly what's needed next to the River Lee and a Regional Park.
    
    The plans previously put forward for Hale Wharf by Isis - British Waterways development arm - were even more grotesquely out of scale. Though no doubt "signature" and "iconic", viewed miles away where architects and consultants live.
    
    And that's the basic problem. it seems to me that many of the people driving this are uninterested in Tottenham, its regeneration, or the people who live here. They saw a chance to make money - and get a public subsidy as well - with a piece of land next to a tube station which is also on the main line to Stanstead, Stratford and Liverpool Street. It has another bonus: views across the Lee Valley Regional Park, its marshes, reservoirs; bird watching areas, and a river. (The "gorgeous natural features" you mention.) Except that out-of-scale and out-of-context developments will mar these forever for everyone who doesn't have a flat at the very top.
58. • CommentAuthorandy
    • CommentTimeMar 1st 2010

     
    We are Ninja
    If nothing else, a proud and a valiant defence of Tottenham Hale.
    
    Arky, like Boris Johnson and Liverpool, you now have to go there and pretend that you like it.
59. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2010

     

    Proud and valiant indeed, credit to your passion Alan. You’re right that I was associating TH with the area around the rail station, and perhaps that is unfair. I certainly get miffed when people dismiss the wider Finsbury Park area. I admire your sense of community, and I suspect we share a hope for regeneration tempered by scepticism towards development agencies. And we also share the belief that ‘good design of any period is great’ – sadly the percentage of good designs after c.1930 - when classical principles and ornaments were largely abandoned - are thin on the ground. You may genuinely love ‘your little 1930s houses’, but when compared to their older neighbours they seem like a failure to me (I’m making a narrow point about architecture here, I’m not slagging off the residents). This failure has largely remedied for individual buildings in the last few decades – modernism has been endowed with a new appreciation for aesthetics. But modernism still struggles to provide good streets, most low-rise estates have desperately poor aesthetics compared to their classic forebears. Even mid-to-high rise developments like this one and Tottenham Hale can be done right with attention to detail and the right materials. But at the moment it looks like a badly wasted opportunity.

    Arky

60. • CommentAuthorShaunG
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2010

     

    I know Alan from when I lived in Tottenham, and if every councillor was as dedicated and passionate about improving their communities, Haringey would be a better place. Good to hear from you, Alan.

61. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeMar 6th 2010 edited

     
    Anyone know when this City North application will appear at a planning hearing? I don't know much about the process, but I believe that's what happens next. Would I need to attend to ensure my points are heard, or is just submitting formal comments via the portal enough?
62. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2010

     
    This planning application will be considered at the "East Area Planning Committee" at the Town Hall on 30th March 2010 which starts at 7:30pm.
63. • CommentAuthorAlan Stanton
    • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010

     
    Thanks, ShaunG and regards from me and Zena to you and JG.
    
    I haven't had much time to browse Stroud Green website. But it strikes me that many issues in common are discussed by community websites and Residents' Associations - including bogus charity collectors and where to get the best coffee!
    
    So carping at other neighbourhoods (and websites) seems pointless. Instead, cooperation and sharing information between local community groups - online and offline - could generate win-win. And this is true whether we're objecting to poor development; or e.g. looking for the best method for an adopt-a-plot community garden scheme.
    
    Currently I'm a member of a loose group - linked to Haringey Online website - who've been exposing the activities of landlords and developers who exploit loopholes in the Certificates of Lawfulness process to convert homes into hutches. (Here's one in Hampden Lane where Haringey are going for revocation.)
    
    I'd be glad to hear of people in Stroud Green, or further afield, tackling the same issue.
64. • CommentAuthorActionVerb
    • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010

     
    The city north application is being recommended for approval by the Council's planning officers, although I cannot seem to find the committee report - it should be an interesting read.
65. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2010

     
    Alan - I'm looking into a certificate of lawfullness issue right now in Islington and have found some jaw-dropping incompetence and dodgy goings-on in the process. Whisper me your email address ?
66. • CommentAuthorAlan Stanton
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2010

     
    Wideboy, please use this:
    alan[dot]stanton[at]blueyonder[dot]co[dot]uk
    
    Initially we couldn't believe the dodgy stuff we found in support of Certificates of Lawfulness. (More like Certificates of Awfulness!)
    Visits to the Planning Office turned up: fake utility bills; fake tenancy agreements; forged letters; and laughable cut-and-pasted so-called Statutory Declarations.
    
    And of course, neighbours, the neighbourhood and many tenants in these places suffer when perfectly good homes become overcrowded tiny hutches.
    
    In Haringey there's a small silver lining. The residents' group working on this - with Nora Mulready (from David Lammy's office) and me - met with council leader Claire Kober who agreed that procedures needed tightening up. This has happened - although not yet enough. Some revocations have started.
    
    I think that, ideally, there now needs to be funding for a full time research project; investigating and gathering evidence of these abuses and recommending changes - whether in legislation or local procedures.
67. • CommentAuthorgodzilla
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2010

     
    Maybe take a leaf from the DVLA's book of 'you haven't paid your road tax - we'll crush your car', and have a severe 'You've broken planning laws and committed fraud - we'll have this property thanks very much'. That'd be a fair deterrent. Tenants could then serve out the remainder of their tenancy, council takes the rent and puts it towards maintaining the property, then sells it off and pockets the proceeds.
    
    Seems appropriate given the impunity with which rogue builders/landlords appear to ruin areas and properties (and the lives of tenants and residents).
68. • CommentAuthorADGS
    • CommentTimeMar 25th 2010

     
    Alan - rather than contributing anything useful, I just wish to say 'Oooh, I know Nora, she's ace!'
69. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2010 edited

     
    Planning hearing today at the town hall starts at 7:30pm.
    
    http://www.islington.gov.uk/Democracy/meetings/areameetingdetail.asp?meetingid=2528
70. • CommentAuthorFour Eyes
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2010

     
    Is anyone going tonight? If so could you report back on how the hearing goes? I'm an interested party (the plans involve the demolition of our office) but I can't make it tonight.
71. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2010

     

    What is the format of these meetings, are members of the public alowed to comment or ask questions? I'd like to go myself but I'm not sure if I'm going to make it.

72. • CommentAuthorActionVerb
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2010

     
    @Arkady, every Council is different, but the usual approach would be for the following to be allowed to speak:
    
    one objector of the application
    one supporter of the application
    Local parish/town representative
    The applicant
    
    Each gets a 3 minutes speech, and you're likely need to be registered 24hr before the meeting, but could be just before the meeting starts depending on the Council, if there's a free spot.
    
    It's up to Councillors to ask the questions (of the case officer, not the applicant/developer), the public consultation stage is when questions should have been raised by Mr Bloggs.
    
    It could be an interesting debate, I would check whether there are any other items before this application on the agenda, with something this big, it could take a while.
73. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2010

     
    I'm going just to see what happens. I made 'formal' comments via the planning portal, but I haven't asked to speak at the meeting (I got a letter asking if I wanted to speak).
    
    It's probably in one of the main chambers at the Town Hall, each chamber has a sign outside usually saying what's on at what time. So it will probably be signed as "East Area Planning Sub-Committee" or thereabouts. You could also just ask at the front desk. If it's like most meetings there, you can just rock up and take a seat wherever you like.
    
    I'll be wearing a bright red tracky top if anyone wants to say hello.
74. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2010

     
    @Four eyes : I'll try to take some notes and report back here.
75. • CommentAuthorwideboy
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2010

     
    I borrowed a mini laptop with a dongle, for as-it happens news!
    
    How terribly exciting...
    
    The case officer read out design details relating to “Linear Terrace“, “cylindrical building“, “rectilinear building“ and amenity space. The case officer mentioned several objections, mainly arising due to size and scale but didn’t seem to go into any real depth.
    
    Objections from three members of the public were heard regarding application process, the timing of consultation letters, environmental impact and scale, play areas and BREEM rating.
    
    Votes cast 3 in favour / 2 against. Application is approved.
76. • CommentAuthorgodzilla
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2010 edited

     
    Thanks for the info wideboy.
77. • CommentAuthorActionVerb
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2010

     
    I think it's now referred to the almighty and all-knowing Mayor of London, for his decision on such large applications. I think it's safe to say it would have had a much tougher time under Livingstone than Johnson due to the low number of affordable housing in this scheme.
78. • CommentAuthorFour Eyes
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2010

     
    Thanks for the info wideboy. I had a feeling that would be the outcome.
    
    *looks nostalgically around soon-to-be-demolished office*
79. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2010

     

    @Four Eyes: Where exactly is your office, out of curiosity? If it's on the City North site I'm guessing it's not that pretty on the outside anyway! Are your firm expecting to be relocated within the new development?

    Does anyone know what the timescales will be on finalising planning permission and commencing work?

80. • CommentAuthorFour Eyes
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2010

     
    On the contrary @Arkady the view from here is fantastic on the fourth floor of City North overlooking the park and the station and the whole of North & Central London. Landlord has said he'll decant us whilst this building gets demolished. I suppose the view will be even better from the 21st floor of the tower block that's going to sit on top of where I'm sitting right now?
    
    Oh and we have a lease until 2012, we've been promised nothing will happen until then...
81. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2010 edited

     

    Four eyes, any chance of a photo or two of that view?

    I'm less concerned about views from the site than I am about views OF the site, to be honest. We can't all work there, and it's an eyesore at the moment.

    Any idea when exactly the lease is up?

82. • CommentAuthorFour Eyes
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2010

     
    
83. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2010

     

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23822956-twin-towers-will-dominate-the-skyline-of-north-london.do

    Whoop. A

84. • CommentAuthorJungleFaceJake
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2010

     
    'Just a fifth of the homes will be affordable'
    
    Whoop
85. • CommentAuthorActionVerb
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2010

     
    Nope, a fifth of the habitable rooms will be affordable, number of addordable homes is around 11-12% from memory. Far too low.
86. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2010

     

    It's a trade-off to start the redevelopment of the whole area. The development simply wouldn't be possible if the usual targets were imposed.

    Must say I'm sceptical about affordable housing anyway. Instead of enforcing the construction of medium-low quality housing (inevitable if developers are forced to make them affordable) they should introduce restrictions on buy-to-let so that housing is available for people who want to buy-to-live-in.

    Given the 3-year deadline to start contruction and what FourEyes said about the lease, we can expect construction to start in 2012-3 if the funding comes through.

87. • CommentAuthorActionVerb
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2010

     
    "Just a fifth of the homes will be affordable — a trade-off made by Islington in exchange for a guarantee that building work will start within three years. "
    
    Here's someone who doesn't understand the planning process at all. Commencement of the development within three years is a standard planning condition attached to every application. There's nothing to stop them a)start material works and then stop - just like the Vista development on SGR b)apply to extend this limit by either variating the condition or simply applying to renew the permission, which has very recently been made easier by the government. If this 3year thing is secured in the legal agreement, then I dont think there's anything stoping them doing (a).
88. • CommentAuthorgodzilla
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2010 edited

     
    @Arkady, I'm with you on restricting buy-to-let, if a house isn't affordable then someone's broken the economy. Oh.
89. • CommentAuthorArkady
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2010

     

    Hehheh. Re housing specifically - and I won't pretend this is an original argument - a big part of the problem is that we haven't quite decided whether we want to be a homeowner society or a renter society. In France most people rent and arguments like this don't happen. But if we are going to insist that home-owning is a good thing - and I can see the argument for that - then we have to limit people from buying multiple homes, especially for buy-to-let. Otherwise the demand for housing actually rises at a higher rate than population growth.

    Of course if we did the sensible thing and worked to limit and reduce the population then this problem, like so many others, would go away.

90. • CommentAuthorMirandola
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2010

     
    It looks a lot like this guy's house: http://www.geckoandfly.com/2008/08/26/indias-richest-man-mukesh-ambanis-60-storey-tower-house/