OpinioN8

Connecting Crouch End and Hornsey with news, views and information

Matt Lingard has posted a useful guide to the  revised application at 161 Tottenham Lane
Objections to Revised Proposals for 161 Tottenham Lane, Crouch End.

There is a revised planning application for 161 Tottenham Lane (former Hornsey journal office, next door to the The Crouch End Arthouse). It is open for comments until Tuesday 24th February 2015.

Post your Objections & Comments

Please respond via Haringey’s Comments Form Feel free to copy-and-paste any text from below!

Further details: as the full plans are poorly labelled by the Developers I have saved and renamed some key documents.

image
image
image

Note: the trees in the the Developer’s picture do not match the reality. The photo below highlights the large tree on the boundary (centre of photo) that would have to be removed if the rear development went ahead right up to the boundary. 

image

My objections to the revised proposals

There are some welcome changes in the revised proposals (e.g. drop in floor level) but they do not address all the concerns previously raised.

A) Height and mass of proposed front block on Tottenham Lane

  • Double height - a predominantly 2 storey building would become a 4 storey one
  • Out of scale with adjacent buildings; it would tower over the Crouch End Arthouse (former Citadel). It would be higher than Kwit Fit too.
  • It would create a ‘canyon’ with the former old Citadel dwarfed between this proposed building and the new development planned for the car wash (159 Tottenham Lane).

B) Position of proposed rear houses

  • House wall built right up to the Conservation Area boundary
  • Large tree at corner of 24 Fairfield Road garden would inevitably be lost.
  • Proposed ‘green wall’ couldn’t be maintained from within proposed properties
  • A revised layout should position amenity space between proposed houses and Fairfield Road gardens.

C) Poor visual design

  • Front building features an unattractive 2-storey cube on the top of a building with some character
  • Overall cube / flat roof design is out of keeping with surrounding architecture

D) Fire Escape route replaced by houses

  • An existing fire escape route between 159 and 161 Tottenham Lane (which was included in approved plans for 159) would be lost. Clarification is needed from the Developers & Fire Brigade.

E) More units, no parking spaces

  • Although residents wouldn’t be able to apply for a resident’s permit, they could still own cars.

F) Low quality amenity space

  • The scale and positioning the proposed buildings would create very small, poor amenity space for new residents.

Tags: 161 tottenham lane, objection, planning

Views: 478

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

  • "Although residents wouldn’t be able to apply for a resident’s permit, they could still own cars."

Err... Deny the right for people to have a car?? A bit much surely.

Not fair in my view.

Regards

JC

Sorry that was poorly explained!

My main point is that there are 9 new units with no parking provision so this will put additional pressure on local parking.

The developers are addressing this problem by preventing the residents from obtaining local parking permits. This may discourage potential buyers with cars but it may not. I'd rather there were fewer units and some parking provision. The approved development for 159 Tottenham Lane (current car wash) includes some parking provision

Hope that makes more sense!

Matt

I notice there's another list of planning applications gone in for 161 Tottenham Lane (HGY/2016/1048-1052). On materials, landscaping, plant, lighting etc. Whether these differ from earlier applications is very hard to say - perhaps the objectors can work it out.

If nothing else I suspect this means the development is shortly to go ahead.

I also noticed that the site, having succeeded in gaining planning approval was sold onto new owners at some point (maybe people know this already!).

Many thanks for flagging this Mark. I wasn't aware. We've not had any letters yet. As far as I know there has been no decision on HGY/2016/0512 from Feb 2016 yet either. Submitting several proposals at once seems tactical to me. I'll take a look when I get chance. Thanks.

RSS

© 2017   Created by Adrian Essex.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service