Urgent - Awful Development at 64-68 Stapleton Hall Road!

edited July 2010 in Local discussion
HGY/2010/1246

The above application has been made to replace the cottagy low level white buildings on the stapleton hall road corner with lancaster road (across the road from the launderette). The developer wants to squeeze a huge three storey development of modern terraces with the fronts right up to the narrow pavement.

A sensitive and well proportioned redevelopment of that corner could look great but this design is truly hideous - take a look at the above reference and see the design statement photos. It is three stories high and looks like a glorified council block. There is still time to lodge objections - maybe the reason many local residents dont know about this is because there does not appear to have been a planning notice outside (maybe it was taken down by someone).

It looks like a glorified 80s council block and is MASSIVE and will really harm the feel of that part of the area.

Please object to this monstrosity on the council planning portal HGY/2010/1246 as quickly as you can before this slips below the radar and we are all stuck with it.
«13

Comments

  • edited 5:11PM
    I hope it's not too urgent, because the planning section of Haringey's site is apparently down for maintenance until 9am Monday.
  • edited 5:11PM
    i think we have a couple of weeks.
  • edited 5:11PM
    It's now possible to view the plans. They seem to have the right idea - matching the scale and materials of the neighbouring streets, getting rid of the billboard, creating a building designed to give a proper focus and presence to the corner. However, from what little can be discerned from the line drawings and crappy renders, it does look a bit weird. I'd like to see a better render before reaching a judgement though. I might try and get one. As things stand it's not enough to make me want to object, although the lack of consultation is troubling.
  • edited 5:11PM
    That site recently changed hands having previously been owned by an architechts practice in Southwark with a rep. for fittings buildings into awkward spaces - sorry repurposing through interesting development of unloved sites. They had several plans turned down - none were three story though - and it took them about three years to sell it.

    Big problems with land to the rear belonging to railway co. who point blank refuse to accept any design that extends a building further back than current one.

    Removal of billboard is quite pithy too as the owners have paid a tidy sum for that site well into the future and were demanding compensation in mid- five figures.

    Not sure that corner could rely on the 'interesting spot' argument - developers could point to the generally unloved appearance of Station House and shopfronts on either side of that parade, the urban Camping look of Triangle and running joke of the Nickelby. Saving grace possibly being the walk up to Parkland by the bridge.
  • edited 5:11PM
    I find it ironic that in that parade, all the shops are now occupied and running seemingly successful businesses. All inthe middle of the recession. During the supposed good times there were many long-standing boarded up shops with uncertain futures. Except for the ever-growing Londis empire. Is FPR recession-proof? p.s. will check the planning application.
  • edited 5:11PM
    Thanks for your comments. I agree that that corner is ripe for development however the devil's in the detail. Id highlight the following - the porposal is not victorian and not contemporary - its a muddle of the odd victorian style window, weird arches, and a muddled roofline all stuck on a modern block of flats - its three/4 storey - its very large. The front face of the building occupies the areas in front of the current white shop and so there wont be any garden/open space and it will be at odds with the line of SHR - that corner will feel very cramped. The application suggests its a high street location but it really isnt - that bit of SHR has a most definitely residential. Its very high at the corner and turns a quiet residential view into something else.

    If they were designing an attractive contemporary building which will be a real addition to the area thats one thing but this looks like an unhappy muddle
  • edited 5:11PM
    Agree it might be a muddle, but don't get too hung up on the number of stories. It has been designed to meet the roof level of the neighbouring building - remember that ceiling heights are lower than in Victorian times. Some people had similar objections to the John Jones development despite the fact that lower ceiling heights plus it being at the bottom of the hill make it only fractionally taller than the surrounding buildings. Also similarly to John Jones, regardless of criticisms it's a hell of a lot better than what's there already. I would like to see a decent render though.
  • edited 5:11PM
    Also, given that it's a corner site it could justify being slightly taller than the neighbouring buildings - that's a commonplace in streetscape design.
  • Hmmm, I don't think it's appaling but I'd be interested to know what materials they intend to use. It reminds me a little bit of those mansion blocks with the big arches on Columbia Road.
  • edited August 2010
    don't worry folks ... the heavy night-time freight trains passing underneath will soon make sure it all falls down ... if not, they will sure make it unpleasant to live there ...
  • edited 5:11PM
    The design statement lists: Red bricks, grey tiled roofs, painted timber windows. "The details in the brickwork elevation will be given special emphasis,taking inspiration from the Victorian architectural language of the neighbourhood. White reconstituted stone lintels..." etc. Sounds positive.
  • edited 5:11PM
    Am I the only one that quite likes the little white building? The rather vague looking design plans look pretty awful to me. I'm not sure how those large arches are in keeping with the area's architecture.
  • edited 5:11PM
    I also like the little white buildings. And as they are former railway buildings they connect with the history of the immediate area - railways, Parkland Walk, former station house across the road and bridge - in a way which a new building couldn't achieve. More practically, I think there is an issue with the gap between the proposed front edge of the buildings and the kerb / railings/ planted area.
  • edited 5:11PM
    Was surprised to read they think one of the current structures on the site is "a ramshackle single storey shop unit". It's quite quaint, and has been improved a bit since Firefly House took it on.

    Arches look quite weird don't they, but the view down Ferme Park Road to the corner (taken from outside Hobarts by the looks of it), does look quite good.

    Hopefully when/if they build it/complete it, they'll remember to remove the hoardings and we're not stuck with a perpetual shithole like the site next to John Jones.
  • edited 5:11PM
    Mmmm. Personally I think the current structure is ugly, out of proportion and a poor use of the location. It adds to (indeed is a major cause of) the aesthetic of relative neglect on that crossing. Given the recessed doorways, why is it a problem that the walls adjoin the pavement? What else would that space be used for?
  • edited 5:11PM
    The space would be used as space!
  • edited 5:11PM
    How 'bout turn it into a small museum about Stroud Green and where it is, was, starts, stops and should be?
  • edited 5:11PM
    Helen - space for what? There's a pavement there for walking. There would be no less space for walking than any other part of the pavement where there is a garden wall (e.g. by the house next door). And it's not like we have rights on that private land. Further, if you compare drawings 1 and 3 you will note that there will be *more* open space in front of the new development than the current building. About half of the current open (but private) space facing the launderette will be lost, but that is much more than made up for by the new building's corner jutting less far towards the pavement and a new open area where the billboard is now.
  • edited 5:11PM
    Wow. Yet another piece of crap architecture to blight our city.
    Having myself failed an architecture degree I do wonder how some of these people do become qualified if this is the best they can come up with.
    Dull, boring, ugly, no imagination. An attempt to imitate it's much older neighbours with modern materials. May as well get Bovis or Wimpy or any of the other crap house builders to do it.
  • edited 5:11PM
    yagamuffin I completely am with you on this one - it looks a real mess and is huge - like a dodgy 80s hall of residence. the architechture is the worst kind of fake victorian crap - either you do a really crisp contemporary building which complements the area or you excactly copy whats around (which is really hard to do - you usually end up with barratt - see accross the road)

    Arkady - re space I agree we will lose the corner of the current bay but thats about it. The advertising board will be replaced by a cycle storage area and the centre of the building will jut out in front of the line of the neighbouring gardens. For such a huge building to be built up to the line of the pavement will feel oppresive and completely out of kilter with the rest of that street.

    I disagree that its better than whats already there - the existing buildings are at least innoffensive. I agree that a good development for that area would be great but this block is not it.
  • edited 5:11PM
    OK, we differ. I think it's far superior to the plan that was previously passed, but it's partly subjective of course. I personally am 'offended' by what's there currently, and I fear a case of perfection being the enemy of the good.
  • edited 5:11PM
    It's supposed to be a conservation area, which I guess is why they've gone for the fake victoriana. It's rubbish. The development at the top of FPR, just over the brow to CE on rhs, doesn't even attempt this. It's crammed into someone's back garden and is the worst type of crap architecture I've ever seen. Pure Barratt homes. How they got away with it is anyone's guess; but I'm going for a bung to the haringey planning team. I got a fine a few years ago for cutting down a non-native Eucalyptus tree that was causing subsidence to our real Victorian property because of the conservation thing, and then they go and allow that piece of shit.
  • edited August 2010
    @Nick - I agree that's a horrible development. The tiny PVC window is appalling, though the 'tower' is rather interesting-looking. I'm pretty sure it's just outside of the conservation area, the northern boundary of which takes inthe houses on the north side of Mount View Road.
  • edited 5:11PM
    Just checked the planning site - the conservation committee have objected and want it to go to planning committee.

    The architects website is interesting - they are clearly capable of designing decent looking contemporary buildings - I suspect they have gone for this barratt home rubbish because they dont think theyll get anything original or exciting through the philistines in the council planning team - if you are a developer in haringey wanting to make some money do you suggest something new and original or do you go for some tired victoriana that you know will get thru - the latter - just look across the to the other side of stapleton hall road for an example of what passes as decent architecture!

    we shouldnty try to stop this but to get them to redesign something better - they need the confidence the council will go for it tho which is the other issue

    Nick_m - i agree its rubbish
  • edited 5:11PM
    I like the little building too! In my opinion a pleasing throwback which IS in keeping with the Victorian surroundings. A good example of 'less is more'.

    Still, I suppose money always talks.

    The replacement looks vile by any standards. Arches are for Italian piazzas, not Ferme Park Road.
  • edited 5:11PM
    by the way is a fantastic glass extyension on the mount view reservoir and a smart timber clad house on the road going down from mvr - god know how they slipped thru...
  • edited August 2010
    "Arches are for Italian piazzas, not Ferme Park Road." There are many arches in the porticos all the way along Ferme Park and Stapleton Hall Roads. The design spec for this development specifically references them, using pictures. The available render is so bad that I don't see how you can fairly judge the quality of the exterior, to be honest.
  • edited 5:11PM
    By the way, how did that horrible monstrosity opposite this proposal ever get built? Was planning permission granted prior to the conservation area being introduced?
  • edited 5:11PM
    @Arkady

    Arches - the examples they have shown are low rise edwardian and victorian terraces. Those arches are completely different in scale and work in their setting becuase they are repeated and form part of the visual rhythm in those streets. These arches dont - they are much bigger and dont fit either with the building or the pattern of the street. I bet the materials will look crap as well.

    I agree you cant judge the quality of the exterior (but we can guess!) but you can clearly see the form and scale and that alone has got most people here against it.

    I really think half the problem here is with the message the council is sending - if as an area we actively encouraged high quality design as they do in islington and camden etc we would not have this continual problem with legoland pastiche eyesores being proposed and passed - quite understandably thats what people think the council will go for and so thats what they design - we need the council to make clear what "good design" is - it seems like they are in a muddle themselves. Maybe that goes some way to explaining the monstrosity you refer to - I'm sure the application for that made all the same "victorian" references that this one does - and it worked!
Sign In or Register to comment.