Current Issues Group 1st Feb 2016 – Agenda



1. minutes of 07.12.15 (to follow) & matters arising

2. meeting with Chris Williamson

3. Local Plan Consultation & Sites Allocations site (Lynton Rd) – link attached

4. Kwik Fit 163 Tottenham Lane – see e-mail

5. Cross Lane development – see e-mail

6. Hornsey High St & Tottenham Lane developments – absence of masterplans

7. CIG Interim approach (attached)– Chris Mason

8. Office/commercial survey (to follow)

9. AOB


Kwik Fit 163 Tottenham Lane

There’s currently a pre-application that Planning are considering for 163 Tottenham Lane (the Kwik Fit Garage). The site has attracted interest before, and on this occasion two variants are being discussed, I quote –

1. 163 Tottenham Lane N8 / The application proposes the demolition of the existing Kwik-Fit Garage and a two storey building at the rear. Erection of a five storey building for commercial and residential development. Pre-application meeting held and principle acceptable. 

2. 163 Tottenham Lane N8 / The application proposes the demolition of the existing Kwik-Fit Garage and a two storey building at the rear. The erection of a part 4 and 5 storey building (with basements) for 60 mini apartments and works space on basement and ground levels. Pre-application meeting held and more information required on the type of units and living accommodation before a principle on such a proposal is established.

This means that along Tottenham Lane we will have an unbroken string of ongoing significant development – no.165 Picturehouse Cinema, no.163 Kwik Fit (perhaps 60 units), no.161 ex-Hornsey Journal (9 units, including 3 houses), no.159a Arthouse, no.159 ex-car wash (18 units and a supermarket), no.157 offices above Palace Cafe change of use to flats (2 units). Given that this all adds up to quite a large area of development, has it received the correct level of scrutiny?

Cross Lane

One Comment

  1. crouchendforum

    Various Comments received
    Adrian Essex
    My reading of the CIG interim approach is that it is bottom up, planning application, by planning application, flagstone by flagstone. My feeling very much is that there is a wider context within which we need to review each current issue -. the pre-application notes on Tottenham Lane are two such in the context of the immediately neighbouring developments, in the wider context of the whole of Crouch End, in the even wider context that Haringey is re-inventing itself as an estates management/development corporation. I have tried to set out what I mean in this, almost coherent, note.

    So, by basing our approach on the CAAC, I think we are missing a trick. The NF has been created because the CAAC no longer served a purpose. I think a top-down approach is appropriate both to current issues and to the creation of a plan.
    Miriam Levin
    I think the CIG Approach paper needs a wider discussion beyond just within the CIG. Perhaps at the next full CENF meeting post the AGM?

    Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but are you, Chris, suggesting that all these topics are covered by the CIG, even where you think that they’re likely to be covered by neighbourhood plan policies:
    * Conservation area application monitoring
    * Selection of significant cases for comment
    * Townscape issues by topic (paving, lighting, trees, crossovers, cycle parking)
    * Shopfronts
    * Culture
    * Architectural details
    * Townscape clutter / equipment
    * Town Square

    If so, I don’t know if that’s the right approach. All these topic areas, especially numbers 3-8, are basically the heart of the neighbourhood plan and as such should be within the remit of the whole of CENF and covered by our consultation. Otherwise it feels like there’s a separate group that’s discussing all the interesting bits, with no reference to how the rest of the CENF is going to get involved, let alone the community at large.

    My understanding when we first started looking at breaking down the topic areas that the neighbourhood plan would cover, was that the CIG would only be looking at planning applications and Haringey’s planning policies that need a CENF view before the neighbourhood plan is written. A watching brief on Haringey’s planing dept, if you like.

    By taking within your remit, design, conservation, public realm, business, town centre, you’re covering off big chunks of the plan itself, which aren’t in themselves ‘urgent’ issues that can’t wait for proper discussion.

    I’m also mildly worried about the level of detail you go into in the approach document about what changes / policies you’d like to see, eg: re paving stones. I know we’re not starting from a blank canvas but being this prescriptive about what we should be recommending in the neighbourhood plan policies, sounds like everything’s a foregone conclusion, leaving no room for debate or consultation. Could we perhaps bring all this back into the consultation plan and start with the questions about each of these topics that we’d like people to consider?

    Is it possible that the discussion on this document waits for a broader discussion by the new Executive Committee once it’s been appointed after the AGM before being discussed by CIG?
    Rob Jackson
    Yes, I agree with Miriam on this. I thought the remit of the CIG was to address specific urgent issues (eg current planning applications) that cannot wait for the neighbourhood plan. The scope seems to be getting rather broader and encompassing strategic policy issues – almost a CENF within CENF.
    Susan Scott Hunt
    Yes, I also agree with Miriam on on this. It is to centralised structure.
    David Winskill
    I agree with the analysis of “mission creep” and that this is clearly an issue that the EC should take up early on.


Leave your thought