Development of City North Site*

13»

Comments

  • edited 11:54PM
    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.
  • edited 11:54PM
    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 <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanstanton/2951612204/">Hampden Lane</a> where Haringey are going for revocation.)

    I'd be glad to hear of people in Stroud Green, or further afield, tackling the same issue.
  • edited 11:54PM
    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.
  • edited 11:54PM
    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 ?
  • edited 11:54PM
    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 <b><u>and</u></b> 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.
  • edited 11:54PM
    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).
  • edited 11:54PM
    Alan - rather than contributing anything useful, I just wish to say 'Oooh, I know Nora, she's ace!'
  • edited 11:54PM
    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.
  • edited 11:54PM
    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.
  • edited 11:54PM
    @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.
  • edited 11:54PM
    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.
  • edited 11:54PM
    @Four eyes : I'll try to take some notes and report back here.
  • edited 11:54PM
    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.
  • edited March 2010
    Thanks for the info wideboy.
  • edited 11:54PM
    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.
  • edited 11:54PM
    Thanks for the info wideboy. I had a feeling that would be the outcome.

    *looks nostalgically around soon-to-be-demolished office*
  • edited 11:54PM
    @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?
  • edited 11:54PM
    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...
  • edited April 2010
    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?
  • edited 11:54PM
    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/speckyfoureyes/4465549998/" title="Double Rainbow by Specky Four Eyes, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2725/4465549998_16682d91dd.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="Double Rainbow" /></a>
  • edited 11:54PM
    'Just a fifth of the homes will be affordable'

    Whoop
  • edited 11:54PM
    Nope, a fifth of the habitable rooms will be affordable, number of addordable homes is around 11-12% from memory. Far too low.
  • edited 11:54PM
    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.
  • edited 11:54PM
    "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).
  • edited April 2010
    @Arkady, I'm with you on restricting buy-to-let, if a house isn't affordable then someone's broken the economy. Oh.
  • edited 11:54PM
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.