Fyfe Building Creche

From NRVRA

UPDATE 15/07/2008 - ALL PLANNING APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN REFUSED!

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS IS TUESDAY 10th JUNE 2008 FOR MOST RESIDENTS

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS IS MONDAY 23th JUNE 2008 FOR FYFE, KINNEAR AND JUDD RESIDENTS ONLY

Contents 1 Change of use Fyfe building ground floor 2 Traffic 2.1 Detail 2.2 Application 2.3 Objection 2.4 Impact 3 Parking 3.1 Detail 3.2 Application 3.3 Objection 3.4 Impact 3.5 Accident Assessment 4 Loss of open, green space 4.1 Detail 4.2 Application 4.3 Objection 4.4 Impact 5 Noise 5.1 Detail 5.2 Application 5.3 Objection 5.4 Impact 5.5 Planning Applications 6 Signs 6.1 Detail 6.2 Application 6.3 Objection 6.4 Planning Application 7 Our Assessment 8 Alternatives 9 Other Information

Change of use Fyfe building ground floor

Traffic

Detail

There will be increased traffic down New River Avenue and Chadwell Lane which are both private roads

Application

The application has submitted surveys on traffic, including accident reports in the area and has also suggested good transport links.

Objection

• Public transport is already overburdened AT peak times, with trains in the morning subject to serious overcrowding. Adults with pram and toddlers will only add to this.
• In addition there are two large flights of stairs (up and down) at Hornsey station which will deter many from using it if also carrying buggies and children.
• Hence, we believe that many parents will opt for cars - especially given factors such as weather, ease and time constraints. (note also our assessment points further down, with regards to usage)

Impact

• Increased traffic noise
• Increased possibility of accidents as the crèche is at the intersection of 3 "roads". Delivery trucks, rubbish trucks in early mornings and shopping delivery trucks in evening. In addition, the road leading up to the crèche, is from the residential car park.
• Wear and tear - Chadwell Lane is not a proper road surface.
• As these are all private roads, residents will be liable for upkeep and repair resulting in increased cost to the service charge for whar accounts to pulbic and continous use of a private road.

Parking

Detail

• New River Avenue and Chadwell Lane are both private roads and subject to clamping, as there are parking restrictions.
• There is further restricted access to Chadwell Lane via the bollards

Application

• The applicant has requested 6 parking bays and the moving of the bollards

Objection

• Currently residents are unable to have visitors by car due to these restrictions; which is seen by many as very unfair.
• Some residents further up Chadwell Lane need to request bollards to be removed in order to get deliveries to their flats.
• In some cases they cannot be dropped off either by cabs to their front door.
• All requests in the past to have the bollards removed or moved, have been met with a firm insistence that they cannot be moved, as it is a private road that can only facilitate occasional traffic.
• This opinion has now been changed in light of the possible financial benefits to the landlord, which residents deem to be wholly unfair

Impact

• Who will be policing the parking restrictions?
• No doubt there will be more than 6 parking bays required at peak times with cars parking on curbs or obstructing other cars.
• Seems unfair that residents now appear to be the only ones subject to clamping and unreasonable parking restrictions.
• Pumphouse parking spaces will be encroached on in the absence of parking spaces for the crèche.
• It is already well known fact that the Pumphouse has suffered severely due to these parking restrictions.

Accident Assessment

• The proposed parking spaces are on what can best be described as a junction, with the main road in the development running across the top and the road down to the parking garage and social housing leading down from this.
• Currently, there is limited space to maneuver cars and will most certainly become congested with a number of cars trying to get through/past.
• Peak times will be morning and evenings for drop offs and residents returning/leaving for work. Although a number of residents do not use cars, it would not take many cars to create an obstruction or congestion at this "temporary parking point".
• There is also the additional danger, of increased pedestrians around these times.
• We feel therefore that any accident surveys are invalidated and should be considered only with regards to the area of concern.
• Present construction work for the Thames Water plant has seen an increased mark in vehicles, both heavy construction and lighter commercial vehicles mistaking New River Avenue as the entrance to the construction route .

Loss of open, green space

Detail

Section 106: Open space was one of the conditions for which St James got planning permission for NRV

Application

The applicant has requested the approval for a 2500 sq ft play area on a portion of the space set out on the section 106 agreement as open green communal space.

Objection

• NRV is a high density development which was sold to many residents on the basis of the green open space.
• The nursery playground and parking area will take up all the space to the left of Fyfe and in front of Emerson.
• Behind Emmerson is the social housing which has a larger number of residents with children (these are the 4 bedroom flats mentioned in the applicants planning documents)

Impact

• NRV is mainly made up of studio, 1 and 2 bedroom flats, making it a densely populated residential area.There are also many family flats in the housing association area.
• Much of the green space is along Amazon, with very little green area further into the development.
• The current application reduces green space further down the development.
• It is also possibly in violation of clause 18 of the original conditions of planning, for which St James were granted permission to build NRV.

Clause 18 NRV planning application:

The areas shown as public open space on the approved drawings shall be laid out and
permanently retained as such and shall be used for no other purpose, subject only to the
operational requirements of Thames Waters in relation to the New River.

Noise

Detail

Noise impact is felt to be one of the main concerns for residents

Application

• Application has said it will not cause any unacceptable loss of amenity in terms of noise.
• States also that children will only be allowed to access the external play area during normal working hours (no times given)

Objection

• NRV is foremost a residential dwelling, already subject to much noise from nearby trains, construction and early morning refuse collection. Additional traffic will only add negatively to this.
• Children cannot be expected to play quietly, and are known to be excitable in play areas.
• Noise will be elevated during peak times.

Impact

• The children from the nearby school DEFINE NAME AND LOCATION can already be heard playing in their playground from the development. (Blake and Amazon mostly impacted.
• Having a playground within the development will no doubt be heard across the development.
• Bearing in mind that there are many residents who work from home and also many residents who do shift work, noise will be disruptive to these in particular.

Planning Applications

• Change of condition 13 in original NRV planning application HGY/2008/1041
• Change of use of Fyfe building ground floor HGY/2008/1042

Signs

Detail

Two signs advertising the crèche at entrance of development and to the right of Fyfe, directly in front of Emmerson

Application

Two signs referred to as totem poles are to be added as part of an additional planning application

Objection

• “Kids Unlimited” has negative connotions to a devolvement that is primarily made up of adults, who have bought their flats in the context of landlord's original "luxurious living" marketing pitch.
• Advertising is not allowed on the development. There are no estate agent signs allowed.
• There are no other signs - not even a map of the development.
• The road is not a through road so there is no benefit from passing trade for the totem sign outside Fyfe Building.
• The signs are too large and the design is not in keeping with the rest of the development.

Planning Application

• Planning application HGY/2008/1044

Our Assessment

The applicants have conducted a marketing survey and submitted this as part of their application. We have done some investigation of our own with regards to usage and requirements and have come to the following conclusions:

There are 2 main categories of users of the crèche, of which lower income families will not be part of due to the costs associated with a private nursery. (est. in circa of £2000 per term).

The full day user which would most probably be a working mum:

• This mum does not have time for a leisurely walk to nursery given her time constraints, so will resort to either her own car or public transport (in order of convenience).
• Increased traffic, increased burden on overstretched public transport.

There is also the part time user; the mum that wishes to include her child in the nursery for a few hours a day, who has to have more time on her hands:

• May drive or walk.
• Given that she is a stay at home mum, we can readily assume she is potentially part of middle or upper income family and would almost certainly have a car.

Given that there are a high proportion of these mums in the Crouch End/ Muswell Hill area, we also think that there not may not be such a great need for a crèche, as outlined as part of the Experian study. These mums are stay at home mums for a reason, or they have nannies.

Experian also states that there are 15 day nurseries within 1.5 miles radius of new river village servicing 152,000 people. The area is therefore already very well served by nursery facilities without the need for a further creche. However, we understand that haringey council is about to close up to 16 surgeries and create health centres.

The space should be offered to one of the health centres instead. (They might argue that the estate agents employed by St James’s did try to sell the space to a surgery, with no take up, hence the sale of the whole space to Kids Unlimited – however the point should still be made).

We also note that given that majority of the development is made of single professionals and/or cohabiting couples, there isn't an excessive need for a nursery by residents themselves.

Whilst no doubt there are residents who would find a crèche nearby beneficial, the majority of families are found in the social housing, which would be unable to afford the high fees. Thus we cannot see any benefit to residents to having a crèche nearby that would outweigh the negative impact we feel it would bring.

Alternatives

Eastern Utilities land was originally earmarked for green spaces and schools. Would make sense to have a nursery there.

Other Information

• Original NRV planning application / section 106 HGY/2002/0245
• http://www.kidsunlimited.co.uk/
• * Residents Objection Petition