Connecting Crouch End and Hornsey with news, views and information
Objections to the FEC / Hornsey Town Hall planning application have begun to trickle in. The very first one on file covers a huge amount of ground, and is worth repeating. If any knows Katherine Smith please congratulate her and perhaps forward this link to her. The text is copied below, the original is rather better formatted.
The planning process is sensitive to the number of comments. Add your comment to the Hornsey Town Hall Planning Application here.
From: Planning Support
Subject: FW: Comment Received from Public Access
Application Reference No. : HGY/2017/2220 Site Address: Hornsey Town Hall The Broadway London N8
9JJ London Comments by: Katherine Smith
Comments: Issues to address:
1. The number of units ¿ an increase from the initial proposed 114 to 144 units; approximately 25% 1
bed, 60% 2bed, 15% 3 bed.
2. The resulting number of people potentially in this small space could be around
650 made up of:
a. Number of people occupying the units could be in excess of 500
b. 67 hotel rooms - when fully occupied with 2 people = 134 people
What provisions in terms of budgets, amenities and services are in place to cater for this potential
excessive rise in population density in this small space?
Where can I access impact assessment documents? I¿d like to understand how the council has
researched and assessed how this increase will affect:
¿ Doctors¿ surgeries
¿ Transport (in particular the already overcrowded W7 bus route)
¿ Parking spaces (see below)
¿ Pollution from more traffic
¿ Litter and refuse collection
¿ Noise pollution
¿ The drainage system
¿ Crime rates and policing
3. Height of Block A; up to 7-storey.
I don¿t believe we were given an accurate photographic representation of how this would look. We were
shown ¿impact¿ photos (i.e. made-up pictures but supposedly accurate from the Architect), which were all
taken with trees totally obscuring the potential view of the building.
Buildings in this area are maximum 4-storey (5 if you consider roof rooms).
In order for people to have an accurate and informed view of the development, we should have access to a
360-degree view of the area, and not highly selected angle shots chosen by the developer.
¿ There are no images from Primezone Mews. A 7-storey building will this dominate the skyline, impacting
light, noise and privacy. There were no photos from this angle.
4. Nearness of building to current boundaries:
According to plan / image:
underground car park is right up against the boundary wall for Primezone Mews - my flat is a mere 1.5m
away from it.
I don¿t feel the diagrams we were shown were accurate. I was told Block A was 10m away from the
boundary wall, and yet there is nothing to demonstrate this in any diagrams we saw or the plan online. I
would like to see accurate to-scale drawings.
What are the effects on the foundations, digging up trees, risk of subsidence etc. when building up against
a boundary wall?
I'd like to see documents showing there is NO RISK from digging an underground car park, and the FULL
distance between the boundary wall and the proposed 7-storey Block A.
To date, there has been no Party Wall Agreement or survey to assess this risk, so how can this proposed
diagram be considered to be accurate?
Where can I access impact assessment documents to understand how the council has researched and
assessed how this building will affect Primezone Mews flats, in particular:
5. Parking / traffic.
There will be 40 spaces for 144 units, which could potentially have 300 or more cars. Plus there will be
traffic from visitors to the 67 hotel rooms. There will also be 25 car park spaces lost from the removal of
the spaces in Haringey Library. The council apparently will not grant parking permits to residents.
Haringey Park and Weston Park are already oversubscribed in terms of permits/spaces available. There is
little doubt people will park in HP and WP and move their cars at the non-permitted times.
Where can we see this guarantee (not to grant parking permits) in writing?
Where is the traffic assessment work carried out by the council?
6. Lack of affordable and social housing
This is a luxury housing development ¿ this is NOT affordable housing and out of the 144 units, only 4 are
designated social housing.
This could be seen as an attempt at social cleansing, which in a Labour area, with a Labour council and
Labour MP is diabolical. Typically investment developments such as this only serve one purpose ¿ to line
the pockets of the rich investors abroad, and not the people who will come and live in the local community.
We weren¿t told the proportion of buy-to-let vs. properties for sale, so how can we have access to this
7. Loss of designated conservation areas: trees, animals, wild plants etc. will disappear. The
development will retain 31 trees, but there will be a loss of the conservation area, which will be replaced by
the underground car park.
Crouch End is a designated conservation area;
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/haringey_conse.... From the
In a conservation area, local authorities must take into account the need to preserve or enhance the
area¿s special character when deciding whether to grant planning permission.
This build of a 7-storey tower block plus other units to make 144 flats, with approximately 500 people surely
totally contravenes the preservation or enhancement of the character of the area.
8. Finally, the presentation of materials and documentation.
These were not accurate and therefore it is not possible to make a fully informed appraisal of the
development. The information is piecemeal.
¿ As stated, the photos were from selectively chosen angles, there were trees obscuring views
¿ There are no accurate to-scale architectural diagrams showing how far the buildings are from
¿ The presentation delivered by the architect was different to the designs on the printouts.
¿ The diagrams presented also differ to the ones online.
¿ There is no diagram showing the traffic entrance to the development.
All of this makes me feel there is an element of non-discloser / omission of facts designed to confuse the
public and misinform them.
You can see a number more objections on the 2222 application: http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...
I have contacted James Hughes in the planning department at Haringey council and he has confirmed that all comments will be considered regardless of which application they appear on:
Dear Mr Harrison,
Thank you for your e-mail. I had intended to contact you as I understand that your letter to local residents in respect of the site above made reference to HGY/2017/2222. There are actually 4 concurrent applications:
- 2220 – Planning Permission – Hornsey Town Hall site.
- 2221 – Listed Building Consent (LBC) Hornsey Library
- 2222 - LBC Town Hall
- 2223 – LBC Broadway Annex
Planning is trying to consolidate comments on the main planning application (HGY/2017/2220) however, I can confirm all documents are available on each file and if officers get material comments on the LBC files on planning issues (or vice versa) they will all be considered and consolidated. All material comments on any aspect of the Town Hall scheme will be considered and set out in the committee report making the recommendation regardless of reference number. The applications should appear in order by reference number on the system, but anyone having issues with comments or technical concerns with the website can contact me directly via e-mail.
Thank you again for your message.
Thanks, Luke. I've suggested we write to our councillors, and given reasons for extending the consultation