Objection to proposed development at 26-28 Brownlow Rd
Principle
The proposal removes two substantial detached properties and replaces them with an overly dense development of 30 units. This is a back-land development on a grand scale, proposed by stealth, which adversely impacts the character of the neighbourhood. It involves the destruction of a recognisable property of some character, being one of the oldest in the area c.1850. The principle of creeping over-development along Brownlow Road, predominantly a residential road of houses, is strongly objected to. Also noted is the sad course of events – acquisition, deterioration, squat, fire, dilapidation, followed by unsympathetic over-development. This same sequence ran its course across the road at 2 Brownlow Road and I sincerely hope that Haringey Council will listen to residents in relation to this proposal.
The supporting information to the application suggests that the development cannot support affordable housing. If a development within 200 metres of an over-ground and underground station within 30 minutes of the economic Central Activity Zone of London cannot sustain affordable housing, we are unable to imagine why this should be the case or why planners or planning policy would allow it. The fact is that affordable housing is a necessary requirement of the London Plan and Haringey’s own planning policy and the developer should be made to comply with it. The developer’s report into the matter, compiled by BNP Paribas Real Estate, is therefore not accepted and is objected to.
The Haringey website confirms local residents’ views that Tree Protection Orders were in place in relation to 28 Brownlow Rd. TPO/2014/2372 (LBH TPO'S 1-220). These trees have been removed and in conjunction with this application we request that the council inspect the site and take any appropriate action in respect of trees that were protected but which have been removed in order to benefit a development, offences punishable by substantial and potentially unlimited fines.
Overlooking
Previously private areas will be overlooked by this proposed development. The adjacent property, Beaumaris, has windows and habitable rooms to the side that will lose privacy. The rear garden of 30 Brownlow Road will be heavily overlooked, resulting in an almost total loss of privacy. The properties to the rear along Queens Rd will be overlooked whereas previously they enjoyed the privacy afforded by adjacency to the substantial rear gardens of the properties in question. At a proposed 5 stories including the dormer roof, this proposed building will also overlook the flats opposite at 2 Brownlow Road, compromising the privacy of residents of this three storey building. The proposed development’s proximity to the frontage of Brownlow Rd will ensure it dominates and overlooks to the front as well as the rear. In summary this proposal threatens a significant loss of amenity to established local residents that outweighs any benefit to be derived from such a dense, massive and overly-high development.
Overshadowing
Areas that currently enjoy daylight will be overshadowed by this proposed development. The adjacent property, Beaumaris, has windows and habitable rooms to the side that will lose daylight. The gardens of 30 Brownlow Road will be heavily overshadowed, resulting in a daily loss of sunlight to its substantial front and rear gardens. The properties to the rear along Queens Rd will be overshadowed at certain times whereas previously they enjoyed the daylight afforded by adjacency to the substantial rear gardens of the properties in question. At a proposed 5 stories including the dormer roof, this proposed building will also overshadow the road and the flats opposite in 2 Brownlow Road, particularly at sunrise. Its proximity to the frontage of Brownlow Rd will ensure it dominates and overshadows to the front as well as the rear. In summary this proposal threatens a significant loss of amenity to established local residents that outweighs any benefit to be derived from such a dense, massive and overly-high development.
Disturbance
The original proposal in relation to 26 Brownlow Rd has increased from two detached houses at the rear of the plot to 30 units (three houses and 27 flats) following the acquisition of the adjacent plot at 28 Brownlow Rd. The increase in the density of the housing units on this site will certainly increase disturbance to neighbouring residents. The proposed development dominates the site with minimal space devoted to outside space. While the area benefits from decent access to parks these are a bus ride away, it is not realistic to expect that children will be able to travel to green spaces to play. The result will be an intrusive level of noise, nuisance and general disturbance centred on the tiny central garden/courtyard resulting from the unsympathetic nature of the design.
Overbearing
The scale of the proposed works will result in a property that has an oppressive impact on the surrounding area and houses. This overly-massive development exceeds all surrounding properties in terms of height, mass relative to plot size, and number of dwellings relative to plot size. It is also close to the frontage of Brownlow Road which exaggerates its overbearing quality. In comparison the neighbouring properties have a good proportion between height, mass and distance from the road frontage that is far more sympathetic to the locality. The proposed development is extremely unsympathetic to the locality by virtue of its overbearing architectural design.
Out-of-character
Discussion amongst local residents confirms the reaction that this proposal is utterly out of character in terms of its architectural vocabulary and scale. Notwithstanding its undoubted external ugliness the proposed design meets none of the key requirements of ‘Decent Homes’, the London Plan and the government’s spatial design guidelines. The proposed properties are internally under-sized, especially in consideration of the three disabled parking spaces. The units fail to meet minimum spatial standards for non-disabled residents. I do not see any unit that conforms to spatial guidelines for the disabled.
The proposed development is unattractive, the internal spaces are cramped and areas offer little natural daylight. The external design and proposed materials are of a ‘mass-produced’, ‘manufactured’ and standardised low quality that renders the design wholly out of character and unsympathetic to the majority of neighbouring properties and the area as a whole.
Road Safety and Parking
Road safety, parking and pollution are issues of great importance to the locality of 26-28 Brownlow Rd. The A406 improvement scheme across the border in Enfield Borough has triggered the development of a number of very dense and tall developments that are increasing pressure on local amenity and are changing the character of the area. The people here feel themselves to be under this pressure and one of the many ways this manifests is in increased concern over traffic, road safety, parking and pollution. This proposal does nothing to alleviate these fears. While the area has a high PTAL designation due to the availability of transport links, the idea that a 27-unit block of under-sized flats can be built with three disabled-only parking spaces is not reasonable. The bike-friendly face of the proposal is positive, but the lack of local cycling infrastructure belies the disingenuous nature of this design. Occupants of these flats and houses (none of which are proposed to be affordable) will almost certainly own cars irrespective of their predilection or otherwise towards public transport and these cars will need to be accommodated on local roads. As the immediate area is subject to a CPZ and further CPZs are proposed to the East of the site, the development will cause a cascade of parking pressure onto local roads that are already stressed in this regard. The developer’s proposals, for example in relation to the single car-share facility on Warwick Road, are unrealistic and unconvincing. It is asserted that no reasonable planning officer would consider them to be realistic and they are strongly objected to.
The proposed waste strategy is similarly unconvincing. The idea that off-site operatives will arrive on ‘bin day’, set out the bins and return them afterwards is unconventional and problematic. The strategy is necessary because the design affords no access to refuse vehicles, being so constrained by over-development.
This leads to a further conclusion regarding the safety of the access road into the site. It is realistic to assume that children will inhabit the proposed development. Their lack of access to open areas for play runs the risk that they will be in conflict with vehicles accessing the properties to the rear which are themselves forced to manoeuvre in a highly constrained space. We believe the proposed design is inherently unsafe to both children and refuse operatives and that the refuse strategy is unworkable and will cause unnecessary blight on the locality.
On reviewing the parking survey we believe it is not representative of local conditions, is based on non-standard methodology and is flawed.