Haringey Local Plan: Consultation on changes to the Local Plan, including the Sites Allocation Development Document – Feb 9th - March 27th 2015
We have submitted our response to some proposed changes to Haringey Council’s Local Plan and supporting documents (this is a second consultation on these).
Our March 2014 submission highlighted the following:
Priorities in local LBH planning area of Muswell Hill, as detailed in Haringey Local Plan, were Open Space and Biodiversity. Employment not a priority.
The difficulty/impossibility of mitigating the loss of part or all of a long-established SINC, with its own integrated and inter-dependent character. PWA’s Ecological Report confirmed the site’s Grade 1 status, a conclusion later validated by Haringey’s own study.
The site had all the characteristics of having reverted to greenfield land, an opinion supported by case law. PWA noted at the same time that the National Planning Policy Framework stipulated that development should be avoided on brownfield land of ‘high environmental value’.
2014/15 Comments re 2015 consultation
LBH’s approach to dealing with Pinkham Way has changed in that it is now applying proper planning principles to its consideration of the site.
The Site Requirements and Development Guidelines listed below impose very considerable constraints on any development proposals. In PWA’s view, any development proposal that might come forward must be compatible with proper management and enhancement of the SINC(Site of Importance for Nature Conservation), whose biodiversity is being revealed as increasingly rich by studies commissioned by PWA.
As a summary of our position, please refer to the comments we made at Haringey’s Cabinet meeting in January (link). If you are making your own submission, we strongly suggest you read this.
Salient points from Sites Allocation Document (PWA comments in bold italics)
The Council makes the general point that all London councils are under pressure from the GLA to provide housing and create jobs.
The dual designation of SINC and employment use has been retained. The council’s advisers have indicated however that viable employment might be difficult to achieve on the site and there may have to be cross subsidisation with a higher value, non-employment use, such as housing.
For the employment designation to deliver any benefit on its own therefore looks a problem
New Development Guidelines
Any development must identify how the SINC can be enhanced (rather than simply ‘protected’) in line with Council planning policy
The designated ecological corridor running along the railway and to a short distance into the site should also be enhanced (rather than simply ’protected’)
The culverted stream must be inspected prior to any development. A previous inspection by Arups Consultants found the culvert (up to 10m below the surface) was in a bad state. NB – Greater London Authority policy is to de-culvert watercourses.
There should be pedestrian and cycling connectivity through the site to New Southgate Station (potential terminus for CrossRail 2)
Development should include measures to improve air quality and noise pollution. PWA has measured one important traffic pollutant, nitrogen oxide (NO), along this stretch of the A406; it is over 100% above permitted EU levels. The existing 1500 trees will absorb some of this, and, in addition, act as a buffer against traffic noise