Comments on 2016 Revised Proposals for 161 Tottenham Lane
Eleven further changes (HGY/2016/0512) have been proposed to the previously approved plans for the development of 161 Tottenham Lane.
Please Comment!
Deadline: Wednesday March 16th
Comment here: Comments for HGY/2016/0512
There are some welcome changes but some that are a cause for concern.
I have outlined my own concerns below but I would encourage you to read the full proposals on the planning website. The key document from the developers is this statement: I have also produced my own short summary
My Own Response (feel free to copy/paste/edit)
I have commented on the previous proposals for this site and my objections to the original (2014) and revised (2015) proposals (both HGY/2014/3139) still stand.
However as HGY/2014/3139 has now been approved by the Council I will only comment of the specific 2016 proposals from the new developer, Mr Sonny Gowans, Unique Property Connections.
I have three strong objections and would like further information on a fourth proposed change.
Objection 1: The extension of 1st-3rd floors
There is a proposal to extend the rear of the main property by a further 1.5 metres beyond the plans the Council approved last year. I do not support this as it will add further bulk to a four storey building which is already significantly larger than the neighbouring historic building (the Arthouse Cinema). The cube design is out of keeping with surrounding properties and further adding to it will not improve the development
The developers suggest that this would be 1.5 metres smaller than the current building’s footprint. This is not true for the 2nd and 3rd floors as there is currently no 3rd floor at all and the current 2nd storey is only at the front of the property.
The proposal to retain the existing ground and 1st floor rear facade is welcomed. But I do support any further extension to the 2nd and 3rd floors.
Objection 2: Removal of Winter Gardens from rear properties to reduce outdoor space and increase profit through an additional bedroom.
The addition of a third bedroom isn’t suitable for such small properties and will increase the number of inhabitants. The amenity space for new residents is already limited and I am completely against the removal of the winter gardens. The developers should be looking to improve the quality of the outdoor space not reduce it and squeeze in more residents.
Objection 3: The re-appearance of a balcony that was removed in the approved plans following community feedback.
I strongly object to this reversal. Following the initial consultation the original developer agreed to remove a proposed balcony due to concerns of privacy given its proximity to the neighbouring small garden.
The drawings indicating the sight-lines are not appropriate as they do not show the sight-lines from the front of the balcony. This balcony is only a metre or so from the boundary wall and will directly overlook the small garden of Flat 5, 22 Fairfield Road. This will reduce the privacy that this garden currently has and therefore the quality and overall value of the property. I urge the Council to follow it’s original decision and exclude a balcony from the rear property.
Further information needed: external building material
The proposed change to the material is currently vague and therefore difficult to comment on (”We would suggest a light-coloured, and possibly gloss-finished cladding board...”). The photographs provided all look quite different so it is not at all clear what is intended. Once the developer has selected a proposed material then I can comment further. I don’t think the proposals should be approved based on possible materials.
Matt Lingard
