DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF 35 MAIDSTONE ROAD

DEADLINE FOR OBJECTIONS - JANUARY 26

We very much hope that if you haven’t already, you will consider objecting to this proposal (HGY/2017/0035).  This can be done on Haringey’s website; this link will take you to the application: 

We have drafted a suggested objection below, which you are welcome to use, and amend as you see fit.

Thank you very much for your attention.

I object to the proposed plans to demolish number 35 Maidstone Road and replace it with a purpose built block of flats.  While recognising the need for the provision of new housing, the provision of new homes should not be achieved by demolishing fine, well built family houses and shoehorning high density flats into relatively small plots.
Maidstone Road is an attractive, tree lined road with a friendly community and our side of the road is an unbroken mixed row of architecturally interesting houses that date from 1840-1970.  Number 35, proposed for demolition in this application, is a fine 1930s property with a classic staircase. Its destruction would be a loss to the street, to local history and would erode the character of the area. 
Application Documents
The documentation supporting the application seems sparse, vague and contradictory in many areas.  I contend that the documentation supplied by the applicant is not of sufficient quality on which to base a decision, and that for that reason alone the application should be rejected.
Basement
The design proposes the creation of a basement.  There are currently no basements in Maidstone Road, so this would be wholly out of keeping.  The impact on the flow of subsoil water is not known and could jeopardise buildings for some distance.
Outbuildings
The plans propose a building of 102 square metres at the end of the garden.   There is no justification for the loss of garden to such a building.
There are some specific and detailed problems with the proposal, including:
Waste Management
`There is space for only six bins, whereas each flat will require a minimum of two, for general waste and for recycling.  There is no obvious way to increase the space allowed for bins, so there would be a risk either of overflowing bins (a particular problem if bins are shared), or many more bins being stored unsuitably and creating an eyesore.
Disturbance
Substituting a single dwelling with six housing units will almost inevitably lead to a much higher degree of disturbance for neighbours that is currently the case.
Parking and Road Safety
There is already considerable pressure on parking in the area, as demonstrated by the implementation of a controlled parking zone.  Adding six extra households and only one parking space will exacerbate the existing problem.
Out of Character
This stretch of the road is predominately single occupant dwellings.  The proposed development is wholly out of character and sympathy with this.  The houses either side of the development are detached or semi detached family houses, as are most of the properties on the same side of the road.  Inserting a six flat, ten bedroom block into this terrace is wholly unsuitable.  
I object to this proposal and urge the council to reject it in its entirety.  In summary our grounds for objection are:
  1. The documentation supporting the application is not to a sufficient standard to understand what is being proposed, so should not be used to make an informed decision.
  2. The design documents are vague and contradictory and give no confidence that any eventual building would be to the required high standard.
  3. The proposals are contrary to the council’s own policies
  4. The proposal  for six dwelling units and ten bedrooms is wholly out of scale with adjoining buildings.
  5. Inappropriate design - lack of daylight to the kitchen and circulation area.
  6. There would be a serious loss of of amenities and privacy.
  7. Overlooking the gardens of number 33 and 37 with a much larger number of windows, balconies and occupants than now.
  8. No precedents for excavating a basement to try and create higher and denser development than the local roof line would normally allow.
  9. The potential for the proposal to disturb local groundwater flow and jeopardise nearby buildings

Views: 442

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Matthew Kitching on April 30, 2019 at 20:03

35 Maidstone Rd appears to have disappeared?

Permalink Reply by Anna Blackburn on May 5, 2019 at 12:33

Yes, I'm afraid the developer has won.

RSS

Connecting the communities of Bowes Park and Bounds Green in north London.

Featured Content

Top Content 

1 Messy Christmas @ Muswell Hill Methodist Church

Messy Christmas @ Muswell Hill Methodist Church
2 This week @ Karamel N22

This week @ Karamel N22
3 Free CPD Professional Development For Artists and Creative Enterpreneurs

Free CPD Professional Development For Artists and Creative Enterpreneurs
4 New River Geese

New River Geese
5 New River Geese

New River Geese
6 Cinema Club for the over 60s; JOY: Thurs 21 Nov; 2:15pm; Crouch End Picture House

Cinema Club for the over 60s; JOY: Thurs 21 Nov; 2:15pm; Crouch End Picture House

Forum

This week @ Karamel N22

Started by Collage Artspaces in Community News and Information on Tuesday. 0 Replies

Free CPD Professional Development For Artists and Creative Enterpreneurs

Started by Collage Artspaces in Community News and Information on Tuesday. 0 Replies

Cinema Club for the over 60s; JOY: Thurs 21 Nov; 2:15pm; Crouch End Picture House

Started by James Cowling in Events and Activities Nov 15. 0 Replies

Haringey Children's Writing Competition

Started by All Good Bookshop in Community News and Information Nov 8. 0 Replies

WOOD GREEN IS OPEN

Started by Collage Artspaces in Events and Activities Nov 2. 0 Replies

Translate this website

© 2024   Created by Richard McKeever.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...