Connecting Crouch End and Hornsey with news, views and information
By golly , you're right Kathryn, I've double checked the KwikFit website. I proposed that this building be included in the Crouch End conservation area along with the Music Palace during the last review and the planning department agreed it should be, but did not actually do it!!!!!!!
I think the Art Deco building is of the same era as the Town Hall and the old Journal offices next door and should not be demolished.
Sorry for not checking more carefully, I just assumed this was the other side of the old Salvation Army citadel.
Fascinating response to the consultation from the police - essentially they are saying that the shops will stand empty and give the place a bad name do it should not be built.
It would reflect badly on this scheme, the residential units and the wider area of Crouch End if the scheme were built and just left with wooden hoardings on the commercial part
This objection from a resident of Muswell Hill essentially says the developers are wasting their effort, a point which the developers seem to reflect in trying to wriggle out of their S106 obligations.
I can't see why Crouch End needs more shop fronts and flats when it can't rent or sell the ones it has already, especially when it needs small businesses to thrive (like garages and car washes). Crouch End Broadway already has lots of empty or closed shops and restaurants and across the road from this development is a new residential dvelopment where not a single flat has been sold yet. Haringey should support the businesses that actually are thriving in Crouch End and not allow more development of shops, offices and flats when there is no demand for them.
This objection from a resident of Fairfield Road raises several important points, including the disproportionate scale of the building, and the lack of consultations with neighbours:
I can instantly see I object to this application in a big way, but will need time to produce a considered response. Fundamentally, This is cramming of an extreme nature - i.e 7 4-bed houses more or less in the equivalent space of a single rear garden on Fairfield Road, plus 22 flats. However, the most pressing immediate question from me to Haringey Council is - which properties have been contacted about this proposed development? We have not, nor has anyone else on Fairfield Road, least of all those that abutt the proposed development. Furthermore, I have seen no public postings in the same road or vicinity either. I can also say at this stage, whether recessed or not, this part of Crouch End should not ever entertain 5-storey structures - indeed the evidence over the past 10 years is that 4 storeys are acceptable, but not 5 - and the council has consistently refused applications involving 5 storeys. Given the above, I strongly ask for an extension to the consultation period because many interested parties have not had notice of this huge scheme.
I have submitted the following to the planning department:
I wish to object to this application on the following grounds:
1) I was not consulted on this application even though I live within sight of the existing building - I believe this is symptomatic of an inadequate circulation of the consultation notice - it is my view that all the residents and shopkeepers of the block formed by Tottenham Lane, Ferme Park Road, Elder Avenue and Fairfield Road should have been consulted, as well as at least some of the residents of Elder Avenue, Rosebery Gardens and Elmfield Avenue to the North. I think there is also a case for consulting all shopkeepers/tradespeople in Crouch End
2) I have appended an email response I had in July 2009 from Vernon Farmer regarding the extension of the Crouch End Conservation Area. It was agreed at that stage that the Kwik Fit building would be included in the Conservation Area. I believe that the outcome of the 2009 review of the Conservation is still pending. Until it is finalised the building should be protected as though it were making a positive contribution to a Conservation Area.
3) Permission should not be granted to demolish the Kwik Fit building - it and the neighbouring building formerly occupied by the Hornsey Journal are typical of the art deco style. They are roughly contemporaneous with the Town Hall and provide a contrast to its modernist approach, providing diversity in the local architecture.
4) A number of the objections already lodged to this application point out that the development is probably not economically justified. The police objection jumps immediately from 'unoccupied' to 'a blight on the neighbourhood' (I paraphrase). The developer appears to support this view in his submission that the development will not generate sufficient profit to support section 106 contributions. Granting of permission which is not economically justifiable would introduce a planning blight on the premises as a going concern.
5) A number of small and medium sizes enterprises would be displaced by the development. At street level there is a branch of Kwik Fit, a thriving garage (MEB) and a busy car wash (Bubbles). On the upper floors are also listed in various trade directories Alan Hunn's Graphic Designers, Tattersall Hammarling & Silk Graphic Designers. Also listed are MGN Motors and Hush Motors. The loss of a number of businesses would change the local economy.
6) The proposed new building is out of proportion to its neighbours. The 3D visualisations are all produced from low angles which conceal the fact that the proposed building is in fact two storeys higher than its neighbours.
7) The absence of S106 funding for affordable housing will presumably only add to the supply of unaffordable housing!
8) Local services are already overstretched in many respects, the availability of primary school places being notable. This development would add to those pressures.
Thank you for your suggestions on an additional potential extension to the conservation area.
I had a walk around the area last week before the Assembly meeting and noted that the buildings that you mention are of interest, particularly the former Salvation Army Citadel and that they could be included within the conservation area.
I am of the opinion that for consistency a case could be made for the boundary to be extended to the corner of Ferme Park Road and also include all of the buildings along its west side.
Also the group of older buildings in Rosebery Gardens & Middle Lane could be included.
I would be interested to know what you think about these suggestions.
Principal Conservation Officer
Design & Conservation Team
Planning, Policy & Development
639 High Road
Tel: 020 8489 5275