planning+-+local+issues+-+backlands+-+Cecile+pk+(21.12.07)

=**Save Cecile Park backlands**=

c/o 42 Falmer Rd, N15 5BA Tel 8211 0916 info@haringeyresidents.org www.haringeyresidents.org
 * Haringey Federation of Residents Associations**

To: Paul Smith, Head of Development Control South, Planning Policy and Development London Borough of Haringey, 639 High Road, London N17 8BD

your refs: HGY/2007/1866 & 1867


 * Re: Land rear of 60-88 Cecile Park, N8 9AU - Applications for full Planning Permission and Conservation Area Consent for demolition of 38 garages and erection of two 3.5m-high, luxury villas**

Dear Mr Smith,

At the 9th October 2007 monthly general meeting of the Federation, the HFRA agreed to support the objection from the Gladwell, Landrock and Cecile Park Residents Action Group to the current applications for planning permission and conservation area consent with respect to this important 'backland' site overlooked by over 150 households.

I have made a site visit to satisfy myself that the GLC-RAG case is a strong one, and one that raises the kind of concerns affecting backland sites in neighbourhoods throughout Haringey. The Federation has an ongoing concern about the loss of similar backland sites, and hence are pleased to have an opportunity to raise some objections to the proposed development in this case.

GLC-RAG, backed by the local community, has fought an exemplary, well-informed and successful campaign for the last 7 or 8 years against a series of applications over this site by private developer Paul Simon Ltd. We believe that the needs of the community should now be fully appreciated, recognised and protected by your department and indeed by all those who care about the need for strong and sustainable communities.

The GLC-RAG objection to proposed housing development on this site has been vindicated by 2 November 2006 decision dismissing all appeals by the applicant against the Council’s refusals of consent for the previous schemes.

I make the following points, based on the results of my site visit and the documentation I have seen.

1. Many of the problems (visual intrusion, risk to trees, excessively large footprint) identified by the Inspector in that decision and present again in the current application are a result of the inescapable fact that the 16-metre wide site, surrounded by traditional terrace housing, is simply too narrow to accommodate new housing in a manner that provides a quality residential environment for the new and existing residents and does not undermine the form, structure and urban grain of the locality.

2. The Planning Inspector also found that the long, narrow access without a pedestrian path (dangerously mixing cars, service vehicles and pedestrians), “could compromise pedestrian safety” and “could result in large vehicles waiting outside the site and blocking Gladwell Road” and was “indicative of the fact that the proposal would not result in a satisfactory quality of design.”

3. The streets surrounding the site entrance are in a Restricted Conversion Area, identified in the UDP as “…now experiencing problems of extreme parking pressure and a significant adverse effect on residential amenity…” Furthermore, the whole area around the site entrance has a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 2, which the UDP defines as “low.”

When excessive parking pressure and a low PTAL are recognised by the UDP, and insatiable demand for garages in Crouch End is common knowledge, how can the loss of 38 garages, plus 5 more on-street places needed to make safe the site access be justified? The loss of lockup garages and on-street parking will also contribute to the rising demand for crossovers and the increasing blight of front-garden parking, which has been undermining the character and visual amenity of the Conservation A