Stroud Green - Planning Applications

edited March 2012 in About this site
On behalf of the Conservation Area Advisory Committee (CAAC), I receive a weekly list of all planning applications in the London Borough of Haringey, subdivided by ward. Shortly I should be receiving updates for Islington too.<br><br>As a little experiment, I’m going to post new applications on Stroud Green.org. If anyone has any comments that fall within the purview of the CAAC I may summarise them for discussion at our committee meetings.<br><br>In order to access the plans, one need only go <b><a href="http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet">here</a></b>, paste in the reference number below, and voila. Any difficulties please do let me know.<br>
«13456720

Comments

  • edited March 2012
    <b><font size="2">Planning Applications: published 27 March 2012</font><br><br>LB Haringey applications:</b><br><br>HGY/2012/0558<br><b>76 Upper Tollington Park N4 4NB</b><br>Replacement of existing aluminium windows with timber windows to front and rear elevation. Formation of roof terrace to rear elevation and Installation of 2 x rooflights to existing rear extension. (householder application)<br><br>HGY/2012/0566<br><b>Flat A 36 Marquis Road N4 3AP</b><br>Erection of single storey rear extension (Householder Application)<br><br>HGY/2012/0569<br><b>12 Victoria Terrace N4 4DA</b><br>Change of use of unit 4 from live/work to C3 (residential)<br><br><br>(Note that the first application (0558) involves the re-instatement of wooden sash windows. Good for the environment, good for aesthetics, good for the value of your property).<br>
  • Great idea. Will you create a new thread for each batch?
  • edited April 2012
    Yes, thanks for the reminder:<br><br><b><span style="font-size: small;">Planning Applications: published 02 April 2012</span></b><br><br>HGY/2012/0597<br><b>21 Oakfield Road N4 4NP</b><br>Basement extension in order to create 1 x one bed flat, including changes to fenestration<br><br>HGY/2012/0602<br><b>45 Albert Road N4 3RP</b><br>Approval of details pursuant to Condition 3 (refuse / waste storage) attached to planning permission<br>HGY/2011/2062<br><br>
  • <div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt; ">An application to replace the yellow car wash on SGR with something a bit fancy, although not exactly sure what from the application documents. </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt; "><br></div><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt; "><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: small; ">Application number: P120603</span> </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt; "><a href="http://www.islington.gov.uk/services/planning/planninginisl/plan_interest/Pages/planning-search.aspx?extra=7">http://www.islington.gov.uk/services/planning/planninginisl/plan_interest/Pages/planning-search.aspx?extra=7</a></div><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt; "><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: small; "><br></span></div><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt; "><a href="http://www.islington.gov.uk/onlineplanning/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=P120603&amp;theTabNo=3&amp;backURL=<a href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=743328>Search Criteria</a> > <a href=&#039;wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=929966&StartIndex=321&SortOrder=APNID:asc&DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES&BackURL=<a href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=743328>Search Criteria</a>&#039;>Search Results</a>">http://www.islington.gov.uk/onlineplanning/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=P120603&amp;theTabNo=3&amp;backURL=<a href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=743328>Search Criteria</a> > <a href=&#039;wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=929966&StartIndex=321&SortOrder=APNID:asc&DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES&BackURL=<a href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=743328>Search Criteria</a>&#039;>Search Results</a>&lt;/a&gt; </div><div><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><br></font></div><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt; "><br></div><font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">@Arkady - Is this thread only for the CAAC? If so, then happy to move this elsewhere.</font>
  • To the contrary, I’m very keen for someone to post relevant Islington apps. Shortly I should have them sent to me and can do the same as with the Haringey applications.<br><br>Sorry I’ve been slack with posting them recently.<br>
  • <P>It says</P> <P> </P><FONT face=MyriadPro-Regular size=1><FONT face=MyriadPro-Regular size=1> <P align=left>Extension of retail planning consent to include car wash as well</P> <P>Reason is to provide a tidy site with a uniform complete shall</P> <P> </P> <P>Can see why it has been  deemed  invalid but looks like more shops, I wonder how this fits in with Islingtons masetr plan for FP with all the trouble J Jones seem to be having </P></FONT></FONT>
  • Some that I forgot to inform you about recently.<br><br>The ones at 2 Upper tollington are without the Conservation Area but deserve scrutiny, as they are retrospectively trying to gain permission for the recent hideousness.<br><br>HGY/2012/0780<br>Flat B 70 Upper Tollington Park N4 4LS<br>Erection of single storey extension including alterations to existing pitched roof at existing self contained ground<br>floor flat.<br>06/06/2012<br><br>HGY/2012/0804<br>79 Stapleton Hall Road N4 4EH<br>Erection of single storey ground floor rear/side extension with roof terrace ( householder application)<br>10/06/2012<br><br>HGY/2012/0821<br>62 Lancaster Road N4 4PT<br>Erection of single storey side / rear extension at ground floor level<br>12/06/2012<br><br>HGY/2012/0842<br>2 Upper Tollington Park N4 3EL<br>Alterations to existing timber and corrugated GRP canopy.<br>01/05/2012<br><br>HGY/2012/0843<br>2 Upper Tollington Park N4 3EL<br>Display of 1 x non-illuminated timber sign<br>01/05/2012<br><br>HGY/2012/0845<br>Flat A 78 Stroud Green Road N4 3EN<br>Enlargement of existing rear dormer and formation of new front dormer<br>01/05/2012<br><br>HGY/2012/0855<br>43 Granville Road N4 4EJ<br>Excavation of basement and formation of front and rear lightwells (householder application)<br>02/05/2012<br><br>HGY/2012/0896<br>44A Mount View Road N4 4HX<br>Creation of single storey rear extension at basement level<br>04/05/2012<br><br>HGY/2012/0905<br>51c Lancaster Road N4 4PL<br>Modification of existing rear dormer to create balcony by expanding the cut out of the pitched roof to the width of the dormer.<br>09/05/2012<br>
  • edited May 2012
    And one new one this week:<br><br>HGY/2012/0953<br><b>42 Quernmore Road N4 4QP</b><br>Change of use of lower ground floor from A1 (retail) to C3 (residential), comprising 1 x 1 bed flat, and retention of<br>A1 use at ground floor level<br>
  • @ActionVerb - the documents at your link imply that the rest of the bloick has planning permission... any idea of the reference number?<br><br>I'm glad that this is a billed as a temporary structure.  Though it's a major improvement on what's there already, it is disproprtionally low compared to nearby developments already built or with planning permission.<br>
  • edited May 2012
    @Ali "Extension of retail planning consent to include car wash as well Reason is to provide a tidy site with a uniform complete shall Can see why it has been deemed invalid"<br><br>What do you mean, deemed invalid?<br><br>"but looks like more shops, I wonder how this fits in with Islingtons masetr plan for FP with all the trouble J Jones seem to be having"<br><br>Anyone know how the JJ hearing went?<br>
  • edited May 2012
    @Ali - that application has been put together by someone who clearly doesn't know what they're doing. "A tidy site" is not a form of development, and their 3D sketches make it look like quite a considerable sized building, which I'm not sure retains the carwash? Anyway, it'll require a lot more supporting documents than they have submitted so far, which would hopefully provide an indication as to what they're actually trying to do.  <div><br></div><div>While I'm here, in terms of the Sainsbury's Local, this application is probably why works have not progressed a lot over the last few months: <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; ">P120412</span></div>
  • edited May 2012
    @Arkady - the application is invalid as the information submitted does not look sufficient given the scale of the application, and presumably doesn't satisfy  national and Islington's application submission document requirements to have a valid application. There's probably a dozen documents they're missing, starting off with drawings as the most basic element that's missing.<div><br></div><div>In terms of the temporary point, I think the existing carwash, closed down takeaway & flower shop has a temporary consent - it looks like planning permission P092578 is the relevant one. My reading of it is that they intend to replace this temporary structure (carwash etc) with the building shown on the 3D sketches. </div>
  • Do we know that the documents have not been submitted?  In the past I've found that missing documents are usually Islington's fault; the application wouldn't be registered at all if the appropriate documentation had not been received.  Ditto Haringey.<br>
  • <P>Who ever  does anything there will need to do an environmental  clean up and take out the old fuel tanks.</P> <P> </P> <P>It used to be a National Petrol Station.   I quite liked their logo and it looked good when it was in SGR.</P> <P><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Benzole">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Benzole</A></P>; <P> </P>
  • I think this planning application has not been mentioned here ... Hand car wash on Upper Tollington Park (behind Nando’s and next door to the Osborne Grove Nursing Home). ... from the local LibDem councillor's websie ... deadline of 6th June for comments ... details at: <http://www.richardwilson.me.uk/2012/05/25/have-your-say-on-car-wash-planning-application/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+RichardWilsonNews+(Richard+Wilson)&gt;
  • Has anyone on the Islington side had a notice about the proposed substation  at 107 - 129 Seven Sisters Road? (near junction with Hornsey Rd).  I am not sure what to make of it.<br>
  • edited May 2012
    HGY/2012/1038<br><b>70 Stapleton Hall Road N4 4QA</b><br>Installation of 2 rooflights to front roofslope and 2 rooflights to rear roofslope (householder application)<br>24/05/2012<br><br> HGY/2012/1057 <br><b>198 Stroud Green Road N4 3RN</b><br>Erection of single storey rear extension.<br>24/05/2012
  • Hold on to your hats everybody, Sugar Lounge have submitted an application to amend their opening hours. No details as to what they are proposing as yet. <div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Application Reference: P121646</span> </div>
  • I've been terribly slack lately.  New ones from LB Haringey this week:<br><br>HGY/2012/1525<br><b>106 Mount View Road N4 4JX</b><br>Date Registered: 31/07/2012<br>Erection of ground floor rear extension, insertion of rooflights to front roofslope an replacement of rear windows<br><br> HGY/2012/1516<br> <b>5 Ferme Park Road N4 4DS</b><br>Date Registered: 31/07/2012<br>Conversion of upper levels to 2 self contained flats and modifications to existing first floor rear extension<br><br>And most excitingly....<br><br>HGY/2012/1536<br><b>1 Ferme Park Road N4 4DS</b><br>Date Registered: 02/08/2012<br>Retention of existing facade of single storey A3 restaurant and erection of 2 storey infill extension to create 3<br>additional floors to provide 3 x 1 bed flats to upper floors<br><br>This one appears to be a plan to extend the Victoria terrace over the top of the Triangle restaurant, with an exact replica of the current end-terrace house.  I haven't decided what I think of this yet.  It will break the current symmetry of the terrace, but it's a big nod to conservation concerns.<br>
  • Really hope that last one doesn't get the go ahead. Looks bloody awful. If you're going to build something new, make it look new.<div>Trying to make it look like the Victorian building around it never works.</div>
  • Dunno.  Can't help but feel that that location is entirely unsuited to a modernist development.  And they appear to be using the same materials as the original.<br>
  • Same skin maybe but it will be concrete blocks underneath and it will all be done with a ruler(!). This means dead straight lines everywhere which will make it stand out like a sore thumb against the Victorian neighbours.<div><br></div><div>Much better to use modern materials and techniques following the existing lines and scales.</div>
  • So if they built it as planned but slightly haphazardly it would be alright? Built-in-subsidence?
  • Well no, because it would still look new and stand out.
  • In that case, you're saying that you don't think new buildings in a predominantly classical area should ever be built in classical styles.  I firmly disagree.  Looking around Stroud Green, I can point to many examples of terribly opt-of-character in-fills that should have been built in the same style as the surroundings.<br><br>One of the most common complaints within the Conservation Area (or any area) is that after the war so many buildings were rebuilt in out-of-character styles rather than replaced as original as happened in many other countries.  I lean towards this view.  There are many extensive brownfield sites where architects can experiment.  Like most of East London.<br><br>For what it's worth, this building will be worth considerably more on the market if build in trad style than if build in a modernist one.<br>
  • This is Greater Stroud Green (and self-promotion) but there's a lot going on north of Fairbridge Road on the Hornsey Road side: http://www.thehornseyroad.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/looking-less-like-detroit-every-day.html<br>;
  • Hard to tell exactly what is being proposed. But it seems a crying shame to lose that building. If it was in Shoreditch or Hackney it would be converted to apartments and sold for millions.
  • I'm guessing that's what's going, in which case I'm with you that it's a shame.
  • Some more drawings submitted in respect of the redevelopment of the yellow car wash on SGR. Application ref: <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">P121537. It's lovingly entitled a 'Retail Shed' and looks a bit on the chunky side of things. </span><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Application to extend opening hours to Sugar Lounge is invalid at the moment, but they'll be proposing to amend opening hours to </span><span style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; ">08:00-00:00 Sun - Thur and 08:00-02:00 Fri and Sat. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">A nice way to ease myself back into the working week... </span></div><div><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "> </span></div>
Sign In or Register to comment.