Forum

Crescent mews developement

people may be  interested to see the planning committee report re the crescent mews development is now on the website,  and that they appear to have recommended approval.  

I will admit, in a fit of anger, I gave up reading when I got to the part that stated that it didn’t really matter that my garden would loose significant light as there wasn’t much there at the moment !

”” The loss of sunlight is from 62% to 39% (of the garden receiving 2 hours of sun on the ground in the spring and autumn solstice) at 37-39, a 37% reduction, and from 40 to 32% at 33-35, a 22% reduction. The latter is just over the 20% threshold, so would be only just noticeable, the former a more significant loss. In mitigation, the applicants’ consultants show that both gardens would continue to receive 100% sun at the summer solstice. It should also be pointed out that both gardens are not well positioned to get much sun already”

 

in my world that would indicate a design flaw rather than a positive!??  councillors clearly have a different thought process...

I would guess there there are numerous other issues/ inaccuracies in the report, as have been mentioned in the many objections, if anyone has any additional ideas as to how to get our point across to Haringey Council they would be gratefully received....

You need to be a member of Alexandra Park Neighbours to add comments!

Join Alexandra Park Neighbours

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Further detailed criticism of the development:

    Crescent Mews N22 - An Urban-Style Ghetto Design in Suburban Alexandra Park

    Residents of Alexandra Park have not been properly consulted on this Major Development in May and October 2019

    There was insufficient notice, publication and engagement with local residents.

    This has resulted in an out-of-character urban Ghetto design for 30 flats with 60 bedrooms and potentially 120 bed spaces.

    The design is too dense, too dark, with minimal or no access to the site and insufficient play space for children on the site. 

    It would be polluted and unsustainable, resulting in significant traffic & parking issues 

     

    Excessive density

    The existing buildings on the site are generally 1-2 storeys. Most of the surrounding housing is in the form of two storey terraces, with occasional  3 storey terraces.

    The Applicant tries to justify the high density of the plan by using the Density Matrix in the London Plan's Housing Guide (the SPG).

    First he chooses the setting of the site as urban rather than suburban. This is an unsound choice as these key points from the SPG's key factors make clear:

    • Urbanareas are mainly dense developments of 2 to 4 storeys, located within 800m of a District Centre or along a main arterial route.  
      (The site here is 1100m from Wood Green. Alexandra Palace station is a main arterial rail route, but that aspect is already covered by the PTAL rating in the Matrix, which here is 3. To include it again would be double-counting)
    • Suburbanareas are mainly lower density, and predominantly residential, with smaller buildings, typically of 2 to 3 storeys.

    By these definitions, the character of this distinct local area is suburban, not urban.

     

    Inaccessibility of the site for service vehicles

    Service vehicles needing access to the site

    Residents would generate a rising number of service vehicle journeys, some delivering close to individual buildings.  Regular examples are: vehicles for refuse collection, supermarket food shopping and other Internet orders, tradesmen such as plumbers.  Occasionally: removal firms, and – most importantly – Fire Service vehicles. (See also Fire)

    The entrance alleyway

    The site is a cul-de-sac with an alleyway that narrows to less than 4 m width towards the end. The proposed gates, some distance in, would narrow it further. In addition, the gates are indicated at just 5.5 m in from the entrance. But this would be insufficient to allow for entry of the proposed 7.2 m private refuse vehicles as they would idle before the gate whilst awaiting entrance and thus block the public footway. 

    The alleyway would need to be 10m wide overall for standard pavements to be added on both sides. Without these, pedestrians would be severely at risk. Especially the disabled, elderly and children.

    Barrier at the heart of the site

    A parking space for three blue badge cars is indicated 5 m away from the end of the alleyway. Next to it is a covered cycle rack. This acts as a barrier that extends to a pedestrian gate. It effectively blocks access to the corridor-like 'courtyard' formed by two main terraces of 3 and 4 storey housing.

    Access for general service vehicles

    The barrier that closes off the so-called courtyard would prevent any vehicle from gaining access to and servicing the courtyard. It also makes any manoeuvring of larger vehicles such as the 7.2 m refuse vehicles that emerge from the alleyway extremely difficult. Removal lorries would not be able to enter the site at all.

    Haringey's Final transport response (28/10/19) recognises this, and concludes:

    "It may be the case that some service vehicles choose or are unable to enter the site, and these will need to dwell close to the development within parking spaces."

    This is unrealistic and impracticable, bearing in mind that the junction outside is already the busiest space in the whole area.

     

    Fire – access for fire services (B Reg B5)

    The report for the Planning Sub-committee (para 6.10) says that Fire Safety is "usually assessed at Building Regulations stage".

    That is clearly true for matters such as the fire safety of structure and internal and external linings (B2, B3, and B4), but it should not apply in this case for B5 Access for fire and rescue services vehicles, for these reasons:

    • most dwellings on the plan are inaccessible for fire vehicles –  as for other service vehicles;
    • the applicant may decide to use sprinklers instead; but if sprinklers fail, the usual response of calling in the Fire Service would be impossible.
    • knowing this, Haringey should not grant planning permission until the site is redesigned so that all dwellings are accessible to the Fire Brigade as specified in Reg. B5.

    We have discussed these issues with several London Fire Brigade inspectors in the last two weeks. They tell us that they have now sent in a more detailed comment than the cryptic two-sentence comment of 25 June. 

    The Applicant interpreted that earlier comment (wrongly, we believe, though perhaps understandably) as a full approval.

     

    Traffic Flow in the area

    The site is outside a busy junction of Crescent Road and Palace Gates Road. An increase in traffic flow has been measured in adjacent Alexandra Park Road. https://roadtrafficstats.uk/traffic-statistics-haringey-b106- alexandra-park-road-942401#.Xa2tJjGJKUk 

    The number of motor vehicles in this road alone more than doubled from 7200 per day in 2010 to almost 14700 per day in 2017. That means that now, in 2019, the traffic in just one (residential) road will be around 1700 motor vehicles per day.

    Traffic flow through Crescent Road was measured as more than 400 vehicles per hour in the rush hour 20 years ago.

    The area outside the proposed development is severely congested during the rush hour.

     

    Parking

    Car ownership has been severely underestimated in an outdated 2011 survey, and so has the need for extra parking spaces.

    Parking needs immediately outside the development would increase dramatically, through increased deliveries alone.

    There is no evidence that a car club would reduce or eliminate the need for extra resident parking spaces.

    But more importantly 100 new residents would require a HUGE amount of service operations - especially if they have no cars.

     

    Network Rail’s 2m boundary rule for Housing

    Network Rail stipulates for Housing sites that …all/any building should be situated at least 2 metres from Network Rail’s boundary. This will allow construction and future maintenance to be carried out from the applicant’s land

    The illustration explains how the plan fails this rule, and how it needs to change.

    As in the case of the plan's failure to meet regulation B5: Access for Fire services, the Applicant should be obliged to redesign the site plan to meet this rule before being granted planning permission.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Credibility of the developer

    In marketing the site as luxury flats with swimming pool and gym, different from his application to the Council, the Applicant has shown bad faith.

    This can potentially affect the affordability of buying proposed Council housing and it can affect compliance with planning and building regulations.

     

    Offsetting payments

    The applicant tries to mitigate the lack of sustainable development such as lack of on-site play space for children or lack of carbon reduction measures etc. by offering offsetting payments. These do not reduce the various aspects of pollution, lack of parking and increased traffic around the site. This is a cynical attempt to overlook the flaws in this design.

     

    Climate Emergency

    Haringey has declared a Climate Emergency and should be committed to sustainable development.

    Climate Strike has been named 'word of the year' 2019.

    But the proposed design at the Crescent Mews site is considered so harmful to local ecology that Hariney’s Ecology Officer has rejected it outright

     

    Road Traffic Statistics UK
    Road Traffic Statistics UK at Road Traffic Statistics UK.
    • Hi Susie, this looks really interesting - who is the author?

       

    • I'm not sure - I think it's one of the objections on the planning portal. It was passed to me by Nick da Costa who will be formally objecting to the application at the planning meeting (Civic Centre ) on 11th November.

       

    • Hi Susie & Annabel,

      it was prepared by Gudrun Parasie and David a Rennie. An excellent document and summary.

    • Was there a decision last night? I'm very sorry I wasn't able to get there.

       

    • Sadly the planning application went through. 

    • Thanks, Nick. I guess there wasn't really any likelihood that they wouldn't getting there in the end.

       

    • Feels like decisions were made in advance. I've asked for the final report to be expedited, so that we can look at next steps. 

      I'm very disappointed by the result, as the development is wholly unsuitable

    • It is very very disappointing.

       

This reply was deleted.

Advertisements

Click on an advert for more info.