blue highway PWA logo gif
twitter black square

follow us

fb black square

join us

bw_email_icon_40

email us

H A R I N G E Y L O C A L P L A N

HARINGEY DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICIES CONSULTATION

MAIN POINTS OF SUBMISSION BY PINKHAM WAY ALLIANCE

These notes give a broad idea of the topics covered in our submission.

The Development Management document contains 23 policies under 3 headings:

• Getting the right development in the right place
• Delivering the best design
• Enhancing our borough’s infrastructure

The introduction tells us that, once in place, these policies will be ‘used every day to make decisions on planning applications’.

The responses to this consultation will be fed into a further document, which will eventually be submitted for public examination.

PWA has asked for assurances that there will be a further chance to comment on the submission document.

Obviously a number of policies do not concern PWA directly, but in some cases we have made comments, if only to say that we support the principle of a policy, but reserve further judgment until we see the final wording.

The main points we have made are as follows:

DMP(Development Management Policy) 7 – Good Design and Quality of Life (p24)
We feel that this puts too much emphasis on the importance of good design and environment in housing alone, and have suggested that it be expanded to include all developments. We have also suggested that it should emphasise the importance to general mental well-being of access to good quality open space, and have quoted some recent research to support this argument.

DMP9 – Waste, Demolition and Construction (p29)
The para about waste is rather nebulous and requires clarification. We feel LBH is saying too little about its own aims as a borough about this issue.

DMP12 – Environmental Protection (p36)
We feel that the aim of the policy to ensure that “all development in the borough is designed to include all development in the borough is designed to include appropriate environmental protection” needs firmer wording than ‘appropriate’, which we feel would be too prone to equivocation. We have also made comments about the correct understanding of the term ‘mitigation’, when discussing lessening of environmental impact of developments, which is sometimes used too loosely.

DMP13 – Tall and Large Buildings (p39)
We need to say that the PW site is unsuitable for tall/ large buildings. DMP7 above also talks about protecting local views; we feel that the view from the north over PW and up to Ally Pally is something worth protecting.

DMP21 – Open Space (p57)
This policy does not cover open space that is not formally designated as such. Thus there is no clarity about how such spaces will be dealt with. This omission needs to be addressed.

DMP22 - Nature Conservation (p59)
The policy makes mention of green chains/ corridors etc, as it should, and is specific on the importance of trees and their removal.

It says that development ‘should be avoided’ on SINCs(Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, like PW) unless there are ‘exceptional circumstances’. The policy then talks about ‘suitable mitigation’.

PWA feels that all these phrases require clarification, as there is a danger that they could be interpreted too subjectively.

PWA feels that there should be discussion of the proposal that DMP21 and DMP22 should be amalgamated into one policy entitled ‘Green Infrastructure’. This has some similarities to the principle of ‘green chains’, but includes open space as well as sites of ecological value.

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

Pinkham Way Alliance Ltd 2012, All rights reserved