Email just received:
“Location: Land at Plevna Crescent and Ermine Road N15
Proposal: Erection of 158 residential (1-3 bedroom) flats and terraced housing (3 bedroom), together with the regeneration and enhancement of an existing ecological corridor, and landscaping scheme with disabled parking and necessary infrastructure. Outline application with some matters reserved.
With reference to the above planning application I am writing to inform you that after taking into consideration relevant planning policies and the comments of local residents the Council has on 20/02/2013, REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:
The site of the proposed development lies wholly within an area designated as ‘Ecological Valuable Land of Borough Grade 2 Importance and part of a Ecological Corridor’ where it is Council policy to only permit development that would outweigh the nature conservation value of the site, loss of the ecological valuable land is therefore contrary to policy OS6 ‘Ecologically Valuable Sites and their Corridors’ of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan and policy 7.19 Biodiversity and Access to Nature and Policy 7.18 Protecting local Open Space and Addressing Local Deficiency of the London Plan.
The proposal would constitute an unsatisfactory form of development which is out of character with the existing form of development in the area. This would give rise to an unacceptable relationship between the existing pattern of development and the proposal by reason of its height contrary to Policy UD3 ‘General Principles’ and UD4 ‘Quality Design’ of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan and Policy 7.4 ‘Local Character’ and 3.5 ‘Quality and Design of Housing Developments’ of the London Plan.
The proposal does not provide sufficient parking as required by Policies UD3 ‘General Principles’ and M10 ‘Parking for Development’ of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan and Policy 6.13 ‘Parking’ of the London Plan. The proposal is therefore likely to give rise to an unacceptable increase in on street parking likely to prejudice the free-flow of traffic along the adjoining highway.”
This may be the end of that proposal, or they may come back again as the developers have put a lot into their plans including several revisions.
Now we’ve been alerted to this space, what else could it become? And – WHO CUT DOWN THE TREES covered by a Tree Protection Order?