The owners of the Crescent Road shopping arcade have submitted a planning application to put another storey on the top of it, containing 4 residential apartments, each with one double bedroom. That's nos. 6-20 Crescent Road - i.e. all of it apart from the new flats in the first house. Full details are on Haringey's planning portal:

The ref is HGY/2021/0430 (the above link should go straight to it), and the contact person is Laurence Ackrill; office phone 8489 2009. The deadline for comments is 8th March - so only a week away. There are no comments on the site as yet.

It would be worth investigating this, because these landlords have been very problematic in the past, including submitting unsatisfactory plans for Crescent Mews.

With 2 people per apartment, that would be 8 people. The planning officer comments that it is 'very likely actual car parking demands will be much reduced' - what does he mean by that? The developers are supposed to include a bike hangar onsite in their plans - any sign of this?



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

Join Alexandra Park Neighbours

Email me when people reply –


    • Thank you Deidre, this is extremely helpful.

  • From Adrian Gilson and Gudrun Parasie:

    Public notice issued for extension on ONE house in Dukes Avenue.
    But public notices refused for a 4th floor over EIGHT addresses at 6-20 Crescent Rd N22.


  • Note that comments about this application will probably not appear on the planning portal until tomorrow.

  • You can contact him via Haringey Council website:


    Councillor Joseph Ejiofor | Haringey Council
    Role of the LeaderHow to Contact the LeaderCllr Ejiofor's surgeriesRole of the Leader[[{"fid":"33487","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"defau…
  • Indijana, what are the contact details for writing to the Leader of the Council?

  • There is a real opportunity for public health and planning to work together to
    support the development of health-enhancing environments where the healthier
    choice is the easier choice.

    This quote from the Director of Public Health, London Borough of Haringey (TCPA Public Health in Planning Good Practice Guide) in 2015.

    But this application - made in a double Climate & Covid emergency - would do nothing for public health.

    A 4th floor at this location would tower over neighbouring buildings. The 4 new flats would have to share just 2 narrow staircases, and this would cause obstruction, noise and health & safety concerns (transporting refuse, prams, furniture up and down, or stretchers in case of illness, etc.).

    There would be nothing to prevent 4 people living in each of these flats who would have a 'study' and an 'amenity' room in addition to a 'bedroom'.

    There would be no disability access, no social housing, no environmentally friendly building materials or heat sources. Nothing to mitigate obstruction of pavements & streets, or environmental health problems caused by refuse at the location, no bike storage, no improvement in air quality, congestion, no lowering of emissions.

    And although the application extends over EIGHT addresses (6-20 Crescent Road) with commercial shop floors at ground level and heavy footfall around the site the council insists that public policy does not come into it, as this is just a 'minor, 4-unit' development that does not require public notices (even though the council posted a public notice in Duke's Avenue in February, concerning just one property), or consideration of comments from more than a handful of people directly adjacent, opposite the front (3) or the back (3) of the site.

    But a previous 'major development' of 30 flats at Crescent Mews was not treated as such, either, as only 3 public notices were put up in Crescent Road after complaints - when the 'consultation' was well under way. The PGRA was not consulted. Environmental, light issues and car traffic emissions were just addressed with un-transparent 'offsetting' elsewhere (no details on when/where/how). As if that will make the air around the site any less polluted. 

  • To clarify: The Council have considerable powers as the main buyer to influence the developments in Crescent Rise and Crescent Road. Any insistence that it is solely the planning matter is therefore disingenuous in the circumstances.

  • This planning application, like the one for the nearby Crescent Mews, will lead to further severe overcrowding where overcrowding is already a problem.

    The Council will say that this is a planning issue. But there is more to it.

    This Council committed to acquiring 2000 new social housing units in their term of office. A noble endevour! Yet... What the Council did not committ to however are the standards they will require for the purchased social housing units that would afford decent living conditions  (i.e. that all rooms must have a window to the side, not just a skylight, and that these must be at least 3m from the next outisde building; that liiving space must be in excess of Xm, etc). As they are not building themselves, The Council are purchasing these units here and there, wherever they can, from private developers. This apparent lack of minimum requirements and the haste with which the units are purchased encourages the developers to (i) squeeze in as many units as possible in any given space, (ii) build as cheaply as possible and cut the corners to meet the deadlines. When both the buyer and the developer have the same interests - to get a maximum number of properties in a minimal length of time - you end up with the repeat of the post war building fiascos that later cost so much to .remedy. And are still costing us here in Haringey.

    The Council will be able to claim that they fullfilled their promise of 2000 new social housing homes; the private developers will make a killing from the units sold and from further long-term rental to Council tenants in "temporary accommodation" from the additional unsold private units .

    The long term consequences awill be substandard living conditions for those who can not afford to buy their own home. And further cost to us rate-payers. The Council owned flats purchased in haste will soon need repairs, overhauls, etc. Finally, most damagingly for our community, it will widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. And, in London, the have-nots will will be an ever increasing number of young families.

    This can all be prevented. By persuading the Council to commit to a set of minimum standards required from purchsed units. It is almost too late if not already too late. But both the Crescent Rise and the Crescent Road developments are yet to be built. Objecting to planning application alone will not do it. Writing to the Leader of the Council to complain about his failure to ensure the social housing units purchased will (i) stand the test of time and last without substantial essential repairs for at least 30 years  and (ii) provide space sufficient and appropriate for modestly comfortable living at least (with minimum space requirements for living and sleeping space). When at it, you may also wish to ask that a proportion of units be for the elderly and the disabled (we have a dire shortage of these in our neighbourhood).

    Many thanks!


    Indijana Harper


  • Ward councillor Nick da Costa has pointed out that this planning application misrepresents the location of the property concerned in relation to surrounding properties. The application states that the scale of the development will sit comfortably within its surroundings and roughly match in height the parade of shops opposite the application property  no. 7-11 Crescent Road. This is factually incorrect; the proposed development sits opposite numbers 13 Crescent Road onwards, which are two story terraced houses, and NOT opposite the parade of shops at 7-11 Crescent Road.

    Throughout the entire application this fact is misrepresented, including omissions from the proposed plans and existing views. Whilst 7-11 Crescent Road has three stories, the properties which are not shops but private residences opposite 6-20 are two story buildings.

    The only front elevation shown of the additional storey on top of the existing building is 'not to scale', so as
    to make it appear smaller. By not presenting the facts accurately, local residents are denied the opportunity to fight planning applications that could have a negative impact on their lives and neighbourhood. I am very troubled about this particular application and have submitted my comments using the link above. I very much hope it gets turned down by Haringey's planning department.

  • The deadline for commenting on this planning application is now 15 March so it's not too late to have your say!

This reply was deleted.

To add a post - click on +Add new Post at top right (if it is not there, you are not signed in - see link at top of page); fill in the details, then click on black button below.

To later edit it, click on the post header to display it, then on +Edit at top right.

If you wish to give somebody your contact details, you may prefer to do so by personal message (click on little envelope at top of page, then on +Compose) rather than putting it in a post which is visible to everyone.


Click on an advert for more info.