Capacity Study & Density Review Report Review StudyCapacity & Density Hillcrest Estate April 2013 April
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal Contents
1 Introduction 2 The brief 3 Our appreciation of the site and its surroundings
• 3.1 Heritage and conservation study • 3.2 Social - economic context • 3.3 Regional context analysis • 3.4 Local context analysis • 3.5 Site context analysis • 3.6 The Existing Site - Definition of uses
4 Opportunities and constraints 5 Creating a vision 6 Capacity options and density review
• 6.1 Design Approach • 6.2 Option 1 • 6.3 Option 2 • 6.4 Option 3 • 6.5 Option 4
7 Transport Assessment 8 Ecology and Environment 9 Appendices
• 9.1 Social Economic Context • 9.2 Costing Appraisal • 9.3 Planning Review
2 Hillcrest Estate & Garton House Hillcrest Estate &Garton Capacity
Study
&
Density
Review
Report_Stages
A
-
B 3
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal
Introduction
1
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 1.1 Introduction
PRP were commissioned by Haringey Council in January 2013 to investigate development opportunities in connection with the Hillcrest Estate, Highgate, Haringey N6. The brief for this Option Appraisal is wide ranging with Haringey Council being keen that the potential for development be clearly laid out in a number of options ranging from the minimal intervention and reusing the existing building right through to part demolition and new build options maximising the potential for the site within the conservation area. Options presented aim to address the following: • Refurbishment • Rationalisation • Intensification • Redevelopment Current Space standards have been assumed along with planning policy compliance on the new-build intervention options. Where options include units that may be offered for private sale, these have been arranged and located with a view to marketability and achieving best value, with early specialist sales advice input as a guide.
6 7
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal
2 The brief
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 2.1 The brief
HILLCREST ESTATE – SUMMARY STRATEGIC APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT (RIBA Stages A-B) For the options study we will draw on urban design, architecture, landscape, environmental, refurbishment, quantity surveying, planning and consultation skills to enable us to provide a well-informed holistic approach to the potential regeneration. 1. Options The following options will be explored;- • Option 1 - Decent Homes level upgrade of existing stock • Option 2 - Minimal selective new build intervention • Option 3 - Optimised selective new build intervention • Option 4 - Complete demolition and new build The reasoning behind the selection of these options is as follows. A base option must consider that the only intervention is the environmental upgrade of the existing stock. The complete demolition option must be considered (even though this is extremely unlikely to occur) so that the more likely options, option 2 & 3 can be measured against an entirely new-build proposal.
Our Approach Key elements of the options appraisal will be; • Creating a vision for the area • Creating a local neighbourhood that is not isolated • Creating a local neighbourhood that is tenure blind • Model and test the feasibility of the range of regeneration options • Investigating opportunities and constraints within the site and the surrounding area • Investigating different housing mix and tenure with no loss of affordable units • Investigating the potential for part demolition of existing buildings • Investigating density, height, massing and bulk of buildings • Understanding the social/economic context • Understanding the environmental impact • Working within local, regional and national planning guidance • Produce cost plan for each option • Creating an appropriate outline architectural approach • Understanding the sales market and need • Creating high quality urban design strategy with emphasis on place making • Investigating options for sustainable means of transport • Understanding the local housing needs housing will affect the wider resources and facilities • Environmental sustainability overview for the options study • Enhancing and protecting the local ecology. • Creating a redevelopment that we be supported by stakeholders and residents 2. Options Programme 07 JAN - 17 JAN 2012 Assemble baseline information including arboricultural 21 JAN - 25 JAN 2012 Opportunities & Constraints Analysis 28 JAN - 14 FEB 2012 Design work on Options 2, 3 & 4
3. Consultation Strategy Residents Upon completion of the options exercise the preferred options will be used as the basis for a residents meeting where residents can have their say about the potential approach to the development of their estate.
Stakeholders Key stakeholders in the Council will be consulted during the options appraisal exercise to inform the study.
10 3D
Sketch
bird-eye
view
of
the
proposed
option
4,
from
Southwood
Lane
towards
the
western
edge
of
the
site
along
North
Hill 11
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal
site and itssurroundings Our appreciationOur ofthe 3
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3.1 Heritage and conservation study
Highgate conservation area includes a total of seven sub areas which are described in this appraisal. These vary from the Highgate village core, to outlying residential areas featuring streets of elegant red brick terraces, flats in a mature landscape setting, and avenues of large detached early twentieth century houses on spacious plots set in landscaped gardens amongst mature trees. The character of the conservation area is formed by the relationship of its his- toric pattern of development, its high percentage of buildings of architectural merit, its topography, its green open spaces and trees which are all so crucial to its historic setting. It should be noted that the London Borough of Camden also has a designated Highgate conservation area, which is contiguous with Haringey’s. It includes half the original Highgate village, and lies on the south side of Highgate High Street and Hampstead Lane. As the borough boundary runs down the mid- dle of the High Street itself, the character and appearance of the High Street is shared by both Camden and Haringey.
Hillcrest Estate
Key
Conservation Area
Borough boundary
Highgate Conservation Area map showing context with Borough boundaries and Highgate Conservation Area in Camden.
14 T pr landscaped of dential cy r H Our think t desig his H some bourhood forts the sa munities the enabled H cr busy c with mained lage the The houses tracted r pilg spr r sk with t H incline lands the and ev H ern Historic dev erly Lane Golf There Archaeology oads oute esidential ended, oll entury he ighgate ighgate ill, ill, ighgate eated,
ved irting ivate
entually the mansion
ing
T
elopment
road V
rims, south, eighteenth hamlet corner
substantiate main village where Highpoint
site ecton Hornsey.
Course
had
smaller an ictorian of ing and up
ned
by northward important to are from
demolition
of
,
was
blocks large
H
many
older
while the one development
residences. therefore, is
by to
the the
by Henry
about the
been
of
water congested R period by Hill. Hill. was two
located
partnership
east
was
of
became estate
in
Castle
of
W for
driving in
destruction
Muswell the woodland. Park
gardens, and
of north. boundaries
scale architects
Mus
blocks era,
the illiams
1948, T
track well Highgate
use, on T the A
within designated
were
he
hunting, created.
1 saved. the
he
and VIII construction century
famous bishop
direct
Highgate
architectural
and House
of for
their sites
medieval and
of W Y
bishops
rest
of
houses opening opposite
to coming
to
ard. most
in
a Highgate, along
Hornsey the divided
north, ell,
In
named
of
116
and those original
Hill
with new
do be the 2 and
the
secured
During
of adjacent of the
submissions,
route
flats
in
were which T for
Southwood of
In development for and by
by originated
from
hese
low-budget
residents. flats, and
of desirable Hornsey others. Haringey
diocese
1935
1530s.
Hampstead
their
road London.
traffic. the being
areas
course used
to village, their
not
up which speculative
its
Bishop Highgate
and up after
between Highpoint,
its
Council
designed to
large and Crouch
connect
1227
the
AAI on with was nineteenth
curative from contributions
for
of prepared and replacement through
spacious the
or the
own houses,
of
T
By
built
In W
the
Highgate lifestyles. of he twentieth time of boundaries
public
contained
the on close
parts historic
archaeological In of T
its orld until
as north
response 1938. 1380, the
Lane parkland he with the
time
semi-rural
built
houses, site occupation End.
1664
to London’s the
one a
fine among of Lane with
boundary
by powers a
builders new hamlet on city
W
be a
bishop to the
continued.
of Highgate
handsome
grounds.
to enjoyment
of
desktop
provided
parishes
Highgate ar was
Some a
Berthold tunnel century, Highgate of the
situation
houses the
these it
London
the
extended, new pay railway
and
via the II
road confiscation
century
to by the
already only
to but to
the leaders. are opened Hillcrest
east
and
neighbouring estate.
Holloway at Highgate.
nature
demolished the the of
this, towards houses Southwood
the road
main
of AAIs. to
in
formed embodied
fine shown the
62.
archaeological
T interest London, of set occurred
Highgate
an
Lubetkin
station attracted he side in which
Hill Highgate. construction toll. the on
W
Georgian northwest
through
there a contained
St
with
southeast-
which
oods
spreading eighteenth T in alternative T
medieval
by-pass
seven in of estate,
the
he
he became
Pancras northeast were It
of
spacious
the
1386 on of
and a
the
On
led
includes
pattern
were (AAI)
area a North
in hill,
junction
which were
church
during
gradual Regen- the
Lane, original end to
re-
and
resi-
many
also 1867 neigh- North the
to up com- T
vil- a
as
was
at- of
hey
live,
of
161
within too Council’s
a
to
of of
a ef-
investigations
of
the
t Historic
o the whole
where
2006
boundary
Map
the of
UDP
(DAIs). the
of Hillcrest
Haringey,
map. High
of
Applicants
Highgate
Estate
Applications Street
illustrating
is
now.
and
conservation
are
Highgate the
also
for
location
development recommended
Hill,
area. of
the
as
T Park
well hese
within
House
to as
are:
carry North
in AAIs Bishop’s
relation
out
Road
are
DAIs
Lodge expected
and
for
Southwood
proposed in
Highgate
to
prop-
15
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3.1 Heritage and conservation study
Highgate Conservation Sub-Areas Because the Highgate conservation area covers a very wide area, for the purposes of this appraisal, it has been split into seven sub areas. These sub areas are based on historical patterns of development of the settlement, land ownership, and the architectural styles of the buildings within them. A spatial and character analysis of each sub area is found in their individual sections.
Hillcrest Estate
Highgate Conservation Sub-Areas map showing context with Borough boundaries.
16 Close V A Hampstead Sub area 7Bishops W Yeatman Sub area 6Gaskell D Shepherd’s Sub area 5Shepherd’s Hill R Nor R Part Sub area 4Miltons Bloomfield G S Cholmeley A Archway Sub ar open Somerset Sub area 2Highgate Bowl Br G S Highgate Sub area 1 Village core The Nos. outhwood outhwood iew oad, oad, venue, venue, rove, ardens, outh ay, amalea
thwood
sub
of 193-215
Road, ,
land.
Stanhope Milton
Highgate
ea 3Archway Close, Hornsey
areas W Stormont
Road, Road,
part
High Close, Gardens, inchester
Crescent, Road, Aylmer Hill,
Lane, Road, Avenue, Lane,
Avenue, Summersby North
of are
Street, part
Gaskell
Shepherd’s Lane,
Close, Hillcrest. Gardens. Southwood
Church
as Courtenay North
Orchard
Road,
Road, Kingsley
Hill.
of Place,
follows:
Highgate Causton
Hornsey Langdon
Highgate
Hornsey
part Road,
Hill
Bishopswood
Broadlands
Road, Road
W
Road,
of Close,
Avenue,
Place,
inchester
Lane, Avenue, Kenwood
Road, North
Lane Avenue,
Park T Lane,
Hill, albot
Holmesdale
Priory
T Southwood
he
Southwood Gardens, Road, North Grove,
Baker’s
Road, Cromwell Compton
Road. Road,
Park,
Road, Jackson’s Road,
Gardens,
W Road,
Grange Broadlands
Bishop’s embury Lane, Cholmeley
Denewood Milton Storey Road,
Park,
Place, Avenue,
Lawn
Castle Lane,
W
part
Road, ood Claremont
Duke’s
Park, Road, Road, Road,
Cromwell
Road,
Hillside of
Close.
Y
Park,
Lane,
Sheldon ard, Road,
V North Milton
T iew
Point, oyne
S A t
view Joseph’s
looking
R.C.
south Church
east
to
the down
left.
Highgate
(C
1970)
Hill
towards
the
City
of
London
with
the
domes
of
17
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3.1 Heritage and conservation study Sub area 1 – Village core Sub area 1 forms the historic core of the conservation area, developed along the major roads which crossed the high ground to the north of London. This area has the most intense development within the conservation area, rich in form and detail. It has all the elements expected of a village, with a shopping frontage in the High Street providing a variety of services, inns, cafes, grand houses, terraced town houses, simple cottages. The grand houses reflect the fact that Highgate has been a desirable residential area since the late seventeenth century. There are a series of strong edges that define the village core, around which the rest of Highgate has developed. Background The road layout of Highgate’s historic core is still essentially that of the historic routes, which developed to serve travellers along the north-south approaches to London from at least the Middle Ages. The High Street was part of a primary route to and from the City of London, while Southwood Lane has medieval or earlier origins. Townscape quality The layout of Highgate village centre is focused around the intersection of historic routes which converge at the top of Highgate Hill and head north out of London. The sense of enclosure of the village High Street dissipates as after turning the corner through this pinch point, followed by the wider scale of North Road. In the village centre, the street widths, sense of external spaces, building heights, profiles of roof pitches, dormers, parapets and chimneys provide a pleasing silhouette against the skyline. The rhythm of narrow fronted building frontages and vertically proportioned door and window openings and fenestration patterns along the street is accentuated by the harmony and richness of external facing materials. The continuity of the linear quality of the High Street and Hill is very significant, where groups of buildings are tied together in visual harmony. The three storey narrow fronted terrace townhouse, frequently with a shop at street level, is primary building typology, typical of the historic terraces of the High Street. Occasionally, a taller building, roof line, dormer, mansard, or chimney projects to enliven the silhouette of the building form against the sky. Streetscape - Southwood Lane Historic development of the Southwood Lane was principally on the east side, which was outside the bishop of London’s park and was not in ownership of Highgate School. Until the twentieth century, this was a quiet, semi-rural lane comprising eighteenth and nineteenth century mansions, set in substantial grounds, combined with areas of much denser eighteenth century terraced housing closer to Highgate High Street. Most of the mansions have gone. Ho ever, Southwood Lane between Jackson’s Lane and the Park becomes much narrower and retains much of its historic semi-rural character, as well as a variety of historic buildings. The built-up character of the west side of Southwood Lane ceases abruptly north of no. 109. A quiet leafy path, Park Walk, then leads from Southwood Lane up to North Road. Beyond this the road becomes significantly narrower, the pavement disappears and Southwood Lane unexpectedly reveals its rural origins. The bank, which forms the rear of the former Park House Estate (now occupied by Hillcrest, T P Bennett’s 1946-49 blocks of flats), is entirely overgrown with trees arching over the narrow road. Streetscape - North Hill From its connection to the High Street, North Road, continued by North Hill, starts as a wide London plane tree lined avenue, flanked by Highgate School on the east and by a range of three storey Victorian houses set back from the road on the west. Since this road was a major route out of London, buildings sprang up along it at a relatively early date. The result is a very varied streetscape with examples of the architecture of every era from the seventeenth to the twenty-first centuries. Moreover, since houses were erected at wide intervals along the road, older buildings are not grouped together but are found dispersed among more recent construction. This mix of styles has, however, created a harmonious whole, a very sensitive and important feature of Highgate. The buildings types vary from long and short terraces, semi-detached, detached properties and blocks of flats. Of particular important to its character and appearance is the considerable green space and tree cover among and between the properties and lining North Road and North Hill. The great majority of buildings are well maintained. It is also notable that from the first the houses were not intended for one social class but are a mixture, ranging from those intended for quite affluent families to those built for working men or by charities or local authorities as social housing. This has created a diverse community which is still one of the strengths of the road and makes an important contribution to its character. Hillcrest estate is also visible from North Hill and comprises of four and seven storey blocks of flats, clad in facing brickwork and built after 1945 by Hornsey Borough Council to a standard template from the London County Council. The blocks are generously laid out, preserving the trees from Park House (Regency period), with the lower blocks sited at the front, and set amongst trees, in deference to the village scale and character.
18 Historic
Map
of
Highgate North Hill North
illustrating
the
development
between
1700s
and
1800s Park House was located where originally Hillcrest Estate site Southwood Lane 19
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3.1 Heritage and conservation study
In North Hill the largest house, and the farthest back from the road, was Park House, which had been converted into a refuge for prostitutes in 1848 and leased as the London Diocesan Penitentiary (later the House of Mercy) in 1855. It had beds for 60 girls in 1877, was taken over by the Clewer Sisters in 1900, and closed in 1940, although the building survived until the flats of Hillcrest were laid out.
Historic Map of Haringey, illustrating the location of the Park House in relation to where the Hillcrest Estate is Photograph of the stables approximately were Mountbatten House today. The red boundary represent the current regeneration site boundary and the red outline highlights the stands today. existing location of the Hillcrest Estate in relation to the historical Park House mansion block.
20 Park
house
in
Institutional
use
C.
1849.
Y oung
people
with
learning
difficulties
were
the
first
inmates. 21
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3.1 Heritage and conservation study
Sub area 1 – Listed Buildings Sub area 1 – Statutory Listed Buildings Sub area 1 , including the site of Hillcrest Estate is surrounded by a vast amount of List- ed buildings that form a diverse urban environment of significant heritage. In the next pages key statutory and local listed buildings are highlighted and brief descriptions of their architectural merit are presented.
As it stands today
1 10 9 Hillcrest Estate 3 8 2 Date Taken: 1965 - 1976 7 5 6 Statutory Listed Building 1 123 Southwood Lane 4 A remnant of the pre-Victorian rural set- ting of Southwood Lane survives at no. 123, a grade II listed early eighteenth cen- tury two storey cottage with an early Nineteenth century weather boarded ex- tension. The cottage is set back from the street with a small wall to the front. Light red brick with stone coped parapet partly concealing high pitched hipped tiled roof. Bright red brick arches to replaced recessed sash windows with glazing bars those on ground floor with external boarded shutters. Early Cl 9 doors of 6 flat panels under fanlights with interlaced bars in gauged round brick arches. No 123 Key Statutory Listed Local Listed has a weather boarded left extension and a further brick back extension in keeping with house.
22 st the r steeply Lane landscaped landbetween Southwood narrow Grade IIlisted houseissituated withina prominent renderedEighteenth century housewitha deligh The of strongly therural that character thispart the The PointBank Cottage, 62JacksonsLane Statutory Listed Building2 Date As itstands today Sub area 1–Statutory Listed Buildings ailings eps
Highgate
tip corner
centrepiece view T
aken:
and lead tful three storey tallandnarrow
of
wedge to partly
down
the Jackson’s
1960
the
down
of clay
has
Jackson’s wedge,
enclose right.
- of
1970 tiled Southwood
remarkably
is to
tree-covered
Bank
Lane, Jackson’s
V
gambrel
ictorian and
the
Lane
Point
which
a pavement
series
Lane retained. conveys
Lane.
spiked roof. House,
and
descends
towards of
T
he
stone
iron
at a
list from w (Hillside) the southsideby asubstantial house narrowwhere andisenclosedon itisvery near Hornsey. r Jackson’s Hillside House, JacksonsLane Statutory Listed Building3 Date As itstands today oute alls. ed
T
the aken: the
over grade Both
junction
eighteenth Its and Lane
1965
Shepherd’s the
rural II.
its
-
once house
1976
associated
origins of
Southwood formed century
and
Hill
are
the towards
perimeter
part apparent
and
walls
Lane
of are
a date
encla School T considerable S St. School St. Michael’s Church Primary ofEngland Statutory Listed Building4 Date As itstands today here are goodviews towards Highgate chool
Michael’s
T aken: ve
playing (grade
off
1965
the
Church
historical
II -
traffic fields
1976 listed).
of
and of
England interest T
North his
this
is
a is
Road.
circa1890s.
building a Primary
quiet
of 23
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3.1 Heritage and conservation study
Sub area 1 – Statutory Listed Buildings
As it stands today As it stands today As it stands today
Date Taken: 1960 Date Taken: 1965 - 1976 Date Taken: 1955 - 1966
Statutory Listed Building 5 Statutory Listed Building 6 Statutory Listed Building 7 94-96 North Road Highpoint, 1 North Hill Nos. 3 to 7 96 North Road dates from 1780. The Geor- Designed by Lubetkin and Tecton High- Nos. 3 to 7 (listed grade II) is an irregular gian facade is simple and unostentatious point is an internationally celebrated three storey block of small houses in reflecting the reaction against ornamen- example of the architectural philosophy brown facing brickwork. There is an added tation characteristic of the preceding Jac- known as International Modernism. It projecting bay on the left hand side, obean period. It exemplifies many design is listed Grade 1. With the landscaped however whilst it has been altered it still features we associate with the style of private gardens at the back, incorporat- retains a picturesque quality. Charming architecture named after Andrea Palladio ing a swimming pool and tennis courts, though its appearance is this house ex- (1508 –1580) such as the visual separation the solution to the use of land is both hibits features from many different peri- of the ground floor, in this case through economic and elegant. Highpoint I (1935), ods and styles of domestic architecture. rendering, and windows in matching posi- on the right, in particular remains a sym- Although Georgian in origin, we can tell tions on each floor but indicating through bol of the energy and hope that spread from the dimensions of the glass panes on their size the status of the rooms behind throughout Europe between the wars. It the first floor window that the window is them. The roof of this and the neighbour- was built to provide rented homes for the unlikely to be the original Georgian one – ing house are the only ones in North Road staff of the Gestetner duplicator factory. its panes would have been much smaller. / North Hill to feature a balustrade. The penthouses have exceptional views over London.
24 haunt T house Gr ing sash pit st The The Bull Statutory Listed Building8 Date As itstands today Sub area 1–Statutory Listed Buildings coed he innissaidto have been a regular oreys, ound ched slated roof hipped at rightStuc
those
Bull T
windows
aken: front
of windows,
4 floor
Inn George
windows, in 1890
with
canted building
modern
with
parapet.
including Morland.
glazing bay, irregular.
comprises
but
2nd 1st
seemly
2
bars,
floor
canted from
Fairly
of
includ-
replaced public
right. 2
high
bays. -
houses distinguish t siasm t par wing the “ ment” visually plast dian 19th Date As itstands today Morven Hill House, 6North Morven Statutory Listed Building9 giant ops o
the apet
main
T
erwork features: to
century. aken: are
for order” front of
the in
distinguishes House hides
the vertically part Greek
North 1965
windows Morven
door on
first whereby
It
the of
the -
dates
the 1976 illustrates culture.
Hill. the
pillars, and
incisions roof;
symmetrical;
lower House
house
on
from
second it
the
the
from
T the reflecting he
storey,
many
windows
the
from to and Doric
ground semi-circular
the
floors; the
early
in
Palla- the
Georgian
“
which
capitals pedi-
stucco
the enthu-
on way floor the
left
a
D with a seg under reys, C19yellowEarly cottage brick of2sto Hillside House, JacksonsLane Statutory Listed Building10 Date As itstands today t oric
each mental
T
plain 4 aken:
porch
flat windows,
floor.
1965 gauged fanlight
bow
with
Door
-
1976 at
sashes thin
left, brick in of
later
6 columns.
with fielded
with arches.
prostyle
wood
glazing
panels
2
storey
cornice
Roman
bars
-
25
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3.2 Social - economic context
A changing Borough
Haringey is, in demographic terms, an exceptionally diverse and fast • Over the last five years the number of asylum seekers arriving changing borough. Some 50% of the population overall, and three- in the borough has dropped from 5,823 in March 2001 to 649 in quarters of the young people, are from ethnic minority backgrounds, March 2006. and around 200 languages are spoken in the borough. • There is a distinct polarisation, in terms of ‘social grade’, be Key Statistics tween the east and the west of the borough. • Haringey’s population is projected to expand by 6.6% or 14,900 • Almost 30% of Haringey’s households have dependent children residents by 2029, according to the ONS projections (2004 sub- and 13.6% of all households are lone parent households. national population projections) and by 10.6% or 23,800 residents by 2031 according to the GLA projections (2005) • There are projected growths in households by 2026 of lone estimates. parent households (+45%) and cohabiting couples (+118%). Married couple households will fall by 34%. • The male population of Haringey is expected to grow faster than the female population; by 2029 there will be 6,400 more • There are larger than average numbers of households living males than females in the borough. in private rented accommodation in Haringey, compared with London as a whole, but in Haringey RSL housing is increasing in • There will be a general shift upwards in the average age of importance. Haringey’s population over the next 25 years; the number of those aged between 40 to 69 will grow by 26.7%: that is 17,500 • ‘Black and Black British’ households are more likely than other residents. groups to be living in social rented housing. • 34.4% of Haringey’s population belong to a Black and Ethnic • ‘White – Other’ households are particularly likely to live in the Minority group. Haringey ranks as the fifth most diverse private rented sector. ‘White – British’ and ‘Asian and Asian Brit borough in London. ish’ households are most likely to be owner-occupier. • The numbers of very young children is also predicted to grow. • The average home in Haringey costs £327,804. • Almost 50% of residents born outside the UK are from Asia and • The £27, 368, average gross household income in Haringey is Africa. lower than the London average of £28,772. • The top five countries of birth for new national insurance • The Housing Needs Survey 2005 calculated that there is a social registrations are Poland, Turkey, Italy, France and Australia with housing shortfall of 4, 865 units per year. Hungary and Lithuania increasingly important. • Eight parks have achieved Green Flag status. • 46% of households do not have access to a car, compared with 37% in London.
London Borough of Haringey: profile guide, 2088
26 27
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3.3 Regional Context Analysis
Best Practice Urban Design Principles The Urban Design Compendium sets out the requirements for successful places as:
’For places to be well-used and well-loved, they must be safe, comfortable, varied and attractive. They also need to be distinctive and offer choice, variety and fun. Vibrant places offer opportunities for meeting people, playing in the street and watching the world go by.’
The following list (not exclusive) outlines the key principles of urban design best practice that underpin this design capacity study. Sustainability – Embraces a range of considerations, including efficient use of and fair access to resources, in particular land (e.g. maximum housing densities and minimum parking standards), the maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment, maximising human interaction whilst minimising the need to travel and providing accessible open space.
• Character – A place with its own identity that also enriches the quality of the existing place, supported by variety and choice. • Legibility – A place easy to understand, offering choices and making connections (physically and visually), both now and in the future. • Permeability – A built environment offering a choice of different routes for moving around including direct links to key destinations and a network of routes that tie all the places together. • Quality of the Public Realm – A place with attractive outdoor spaces that encourages simultaneous activities. • Adaptability and Robustness – Design for Change: a place that responds easily to future changes in use, lifestyle and demography. • Variety – A mix of uses and forms: creating stimulating, enjoyable and convenient places (supports sustainability and viability). • Security and Safety – Natural surveillance enables residents to overlook each other’s houses, cars and access routes providing an enhanced level of security. • Viability – Economically viable places long term: well managed and maintained.
28 29
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3.3 Regional Context Analysis
Movement
Haringey has good radial transport links into central Lon- don by road, underground and rail. East-West journeys are more difficult by road and rail with only the Barking – Gospel Oak line in the south of the Borough offering rail based public transport. Most of the bus routes operating in the Borough are radial. The nature of the road network and low rail bridges provides some constraint on enhancing orbital travel. Of the 43 bus routes currently serving Haringey all but 10 are high frequency routes. The Borough has three Underground lines - Victoria, Northern and Piccadilly and three national rail lines - West Anglia, Great Northern and London Overground]. These lines serve four underground stations: • Bounds Green • Wood Green • Turnpike Lane • Highgate Nine rail stations: • White Hart Lane • Bruce Grove • Northumberland Park • Bowes Park • Alexandra Palace • Hornsey • Haringey • Haringey Green Lanes • South Tottenham KEY Three rail/underground interchanges: • Finsbury Park • Seven Sisters • Tottenham Hale Nearly all rail and underground stations offer interchange with local bus services while Muswell Hill is an important bus to bus interchange. Finsbury Park, Tottenham Hale and Seven Sisters/South Tottenham are identified as key strategic interchanges in the MTS. Overall the borough is well served by public transport.
30 31
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3.3 Regional Context Analysis
Land uses
The borough is a place of contrasts. Some areas display suburban characteristics with lower density housing whilst the majority of the borough is urban with higher density terrace housing and blocks of flats. The Haringey Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy identi- fies five priority areas of the borough which contain the highest levels of deprivation and where regeneration initiatives are targeted. The priority areas are:- • Wood Green town centre, Noel Park Estate and parts of Woodside ward • Central Tottenham and Seven Sisters wards • Northumberland Park • White Hart Lane ward • Bruce Grove / High Cross, including Broadwater Farm Estate Tottenham Hale has been identified as an Opportunity Area and Haringey Heartlands as an Area for Intensifica- tion in recognition of their potential to provide significant numbers of new homes, new jobs and wider regeneration benefits. The borough retains concentrations of employment in industry, offices and warehousing. The Unitary Develop- KEY ment Plan identifies : • 22 Defined Employment Areas (DEAs) • 138 hectares of employment land • Over 1,000 buildings • 722 business establishments and nearly • 736,000 sq.m of employment floorspace The borough also contains other smaller employment locations which total a further 17 hectares of employment land. The borough contains 28 conservation areas and over 350 listed buildings. Haringey’s historic buildings and conser- vation areas are cherished landmarks that relate to the Borough’s rich history and give it a vital sense of place. Haringey contains six main town centres. Wood Green is classified as a Metropolitan Centre – one of only ten in London. Tottenham High Road, Crouch End, Green Lanes, Muswell Hill and West Green Road are classified as Dis- trict Centres. In addition, Haringey has 38 Local Shopping Centres.
32 33
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3.3 Regional Context Analysis
Landscape
A network of parks, open space, wildlife sites and Green Belt is one of Haringey’s strengths, making an important contribution to the quality of life. Despite this, parts of Haringey are deficient in different types of open space provision. The borough has numerous natural and historical assets. It includes part of the Lee Valley Regional Park, which is Green Belt, areas of Metropolitan Open Land, including Alexandra Park and Ecological Valuable Sites of Metropoli- tan Importance. The strategic and local cycle networks comprise 8 LCN Plus links and 4 Greenways routes. The Greenways routes are as follows: • Link 1 Parkland Walk south between Highgate and Finsbury Park • Link 2 Parkland Walk north between Muswell Hill and Muswell Hill Road KEY • Link 3 Finsbury Park to Lee Valley • Link 4 Highgate to Wood Green
Parks • Hampstead Heath - huge open space - natural swimming ponds and art deco Lido • Kenwood Park – lawns sweep down from the house to a lake in the valley below. • Waterlow Park - about 20 acres bordered on two sides by Highgate Cemetery. There are ponds, tree-lined walkways, mature beds and borders, expanses of lawn, six tennis courts, an infant play ground and a play area • Highgate Wood – 70 acres of ancient woodland Queen’s Wood - an ancient oak-hornbeam wood land. It has never been subjected to intensive management so there is a greater diversity of flora and fauna • Parkland Walk - a four and a half mile walk in ‘park land’ between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace.
34 35
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3.4 Local Context Analysis
Local urban design analysis
Highgate has very good local transport links. Tube services from Highgate’s tube station take under 20 minutes to Leicester Square. Nearby Archway underground station is one stop south of Highgate, also on the Northern line.
Local bus routes include the 134 (to Totten- ham Court Road), the 143 (to Brent Cross), the 214 (to Moorgate), the 271 (to Liverpool Street) and the 603 (to Muswell Hill).
By road, Highgate is on the A1 leading to Is- lington to the south and the M1 to the north.
KEY
36 37
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3.5 Site Context Analysis
Figure ground plan and front elevations
Hillcrest is a large residential estate of four and seven storey blocks of flats, clad in facing brickwork and built after 1945 by Hornsey Borough Council to a standard template from the London County Council. The blocks are generously laid out, preserv- ing the trees from Park House (Regency period), with the lower blocks sited at the front, and set amongst trees, in deference to the village scale and character. Hillcrest Estate is accessed by car from North Hill and through a pedestrian route linked with Southwood Lane. North Hill was a major route out of London, buildings sprang up along it at a relatively early date. The result is a very varied streetscape with examples of the architecture of every era from the seven- teenth to the twenty first centuries. Moreover, since houses were erected at wide intervals along the road, older build- ings are not grouped together but are found dispersed among more recent construc- tion. This mix of styles has, however, created a harmonious whole, a very sensitive and important feature of Highgate. The build- ing types vary from long and short terraces, semi-detached, detached properties and blocks of flats. The great majority of buildings are well maintained. It is also notable that from the first that residential buildings were not in- tended for one social class but are a mixture, ranging from those intended for quite afflu- ent families to those built for workers or by charities or local authorities as social hous- ing. This has created a diverse community which is still one of the strengths of the road and makes an important contribution to its char- acter.
KEY
38 f a H the in One H the T teenth sirable residential area since thelate seven- r houses inns H of and within T high along tion Area 1ofthehistoric core- oftheconserva Hillcrest Estate oftheSub site area ispart Statutory orm. eflect
here his ighpoint ighgate igh block
proximity a
Highpoint village
,
village, detail. area. area
of
ground cafes,
Street
are the
the the ,
century. the
of simple
has
Sub has a major 56
fact
conservation I,
core, It
most grand
and series with
providing
by
of
has to flats
the
developed.
Area
I
that Hillcrest
cottages.
Lubetkin the and
KEY
around
roads Local
significant a all most
houses, of in
shopping
1 north
Highgate the
II strong a
has
(both double
a
which
intense
Listed
elements Estate variety
which
area,
& T been
of terraced he
T
edges listed ecton
listed
London.
frontage
grand
crossed has cruciform rich
site
development the developed buildings of
expected
been buildings services, Grade
that in in
area rest town
houses
1935, form
the in
define
of a is
plan
the
I).
de-
is
39
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3.5 Site Context Analysis
Movement analysis
Although Hillcrest Estate edges are defined by public routes, the site itself has only two access points. Routes around Hillcrest Estate: • Western edge :North Hill • Eastern edge :Southwood Lane • Northern edge :The Park • Southern edge :Park Walk
The only vehicular entrance is located along the site’s western edge on North Hill and a small secondary pedestrian entrance is found along Southwood Lane. Within the site a series of dead end routes offer access to formalised parking areas. Due to the site’s topography and relation to its context, the opportunities of linking further the estate with its surroundings are limited. A further issue in relation to the site’s topog- raphy is that the estate is framed by a dense mature tree buffer with high ecological value. The site is located in proximity to public transport nodes, like Archway Tube Station and local bus services adjacent to the estate’s entrance.
KEY
40 cess site T c along estate. T ther disc to cated asdeadendaccess points for resident A ser r pr T under A lotofthespac cies W cal mature Hillcrest estate issurrounded by adense estate Landscape esidents’ onstraints theoptionsofintegrating the here isonlyonevehicular entrance into the he topography ofthesite varies across the his ithin
ivate park
boundaries
onnected along
e
all creates point ies of large parking court areas are court lo ies oflarge parking
is
the used
with
T
the set
and their tree a here
lack
sense
boundaries North
along informally site
its
and public a buffer
vehicles. and are
lack
of from context.
there with
of es withinthesite area are
have
natural Hill Southwood significant
KEY public
of ownership. spaces that
the
the
and
are definition
across
no T of
hese
actual also
surrounding surveillance.
a the specific one
and variety realm
level
defines large are state,
Lane. pedestrian
dwellings minimises
between
relatively
function.
changes
analysis of grass
which
its tree
context.
physi-
areas.
and
ac- spe-
-
41
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3.6 The Existing Site - Definition of uses
Poor quality play area
Hillcrest Estate has a variety of unused and undefined open spaces. A play area that appears inci- dental with the introduction of a football goal net have been provided, however the play area is not linked or connected formally to a landscape strategy. Entrances to buildings are not distinctive, with an undefined sense of arrival and a lack of defensible space around the buildings. Car parking dominates the central spine through the site and two large areas within the site. There is an unclear ownership definition of spaces, private, communal and public areas have the same treatment and it seems that the site lacks an overall strategy for the public realm treatment.
Large car parking area
Undefined sense of arrival at buildings.
42 Sit Development es
(Demolition
Opportunities
Required)
(No Development
Demolition
Opportunities
Required)
Sites
KEY (Demolition Oppor Further D Oppor Development Parking Pedestrian Roads/Access Green Spaces Existing emolition tunities Sites tunities
development Areas Buildings
Movement
Required)
Required)
routes Sites
(No
43
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal
Opportunities and Opportunities Constraints
4
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 4.1 Opportunities and Constraints
Opportunities Constraints •Create a clear street hierarchy contributing to easier legibility of pedestrian •Topography of the raised site and dense and mature secondary routes linking to buildings entrances and destinations within the site. woodland along Western, Northern and Eastern edges contribute to segregate Hillcrest Estates from surrounding areas. •Integrate car parking within landscape/public realm strategy. •Roads and unclear street and pedestrian hierarchy within the site •Increase the density with appropriate building massing strategy, locating generate poor legibility of spaces. This also contributes to the lack of heights strategically to contribute to legibility within the site. definition of building entrances within the site. •Create residential typologies with individual entrances at ground level •The non traditional street/block configuration generates undefined providing active frontages along the streets. green spaces. •Create a public realm strategy that unifies the site, while providing safer •Site is very insular with buildings not responding to B519 North Hill. play areas for children and pleasant welcoming spaces for adults. This will also contribute to place making and the new character of the Hillcrest •Overlooking distances from existing habitable rooms constraints devel- Estate. opment opportunities. •Create a new ‘heart’ within the development as part of the amenity, play •There is no clear open space strategy. There are lots of unused spaces and and public realm areas. a lack of defensible space the buildings. •Use new buildings to define the entrance into the site. An entrance that is •Only one Vehicular and 2 major pedestrian access routes to the site. well overlooked and clearly marked along North Hill road. •Views in and out of the site are generally limited due to the tall and dense •Utilise views towards the site’s surroundings to increase value within the trees within the non-native secondary woodland area site. •Suitable distances have to be respected in considering building adjacent to these. Opportunities to build gable ends 10m from a habitable room and 20m from facing habitable rooms help set out development opportu- nity sites •Opportunity to create a new pedestrian link at the north-east edge of the site, connecting the estate with Southwood Lane, increasing the permeabil- ity of the site and utilising its proximity to Highgate tube station.
46 High Path Estates _Design Capacity Study Opportunities Place Views
making
and
vistas
opportunities
opportunities link pedestr Potential ian Views Analysis SITE CONTEXT
Landscape Opportunities SITE CONTEXT views Area withfiltered Blocked views Clear Views Filtered Views Filtered vistas Clear Vistas Significant viewingpoints Protected Views Landmark Existing Buildings Site Boundary KEY Views Analysis SITE CONTEXT with Common Point Meeting New Pedestrian Routes Close to theblocks Deliver/ Pick Up/Drop Off New RoadSystem Areas of Activities and Play Without Demolition For NewDevelopment Potential Available Space KEY views Area withfiltered Blocked views Clear Views Filtered Views Filtered vistas Clear Vistas Significant viewingpoints Protected Views Landmark Existing Buildings Site Boundary KEY Landscape Opportunities SITE CONTEXT with Common Point Meeting New Pedestrian Routes Close to the blocks Deliver/ Pick Up/Drop Off New RoadSystem Areas of Activities and Play Without Demolition For NewDevelopment Potential Available Space KEY Constraints Landscape Overlooking distances constraints Overlooking
constraints KEY Landscape Constrains SITE CONTEXT Views Zone withImportante Existing Buildings Mature Trees Site ofLocal Importance KEY distances o 10m distances o 20m verlooking verlooking verlooking Landscape Constrains SITE CONTEXT Views Zone withImportante Existing Buildings Mature Trees Site ofLocal Importance KEY
47
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal High Path Estates Design Capacity Study
ision Creating 5
a
V
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal SITE CONTEXT Landscape Opportunities
ivate - Pr mi 5.1 Creating a Vision Se
The concept
Appreciating the site’s location and the way the buildings are arranged within the site, surrounded by a fairly dense margin of planting, we have formed a Public concept that builds upon Hillcrest es- Private tate’s unique design. Semi-Private A responsive design approach that M seeks to rationalise each element within Movement o v the site, creating a new heart at the e m centre of the estate, and locate key pub- Public en lic activities such as new play areas and t amenity green spaces where they will be well overlooked and easily accessed. From this public activity zone, the con- cept offsets a series of different zones that will include movement, defensible spaces to all buildings and semi-private landscaped areas. This will assist to cre- Concept diagram ate a clear hierarchy between private and public spaces, allowing residents to increase their sense of ownership across different spaces of the site. SITE CONTEXT Landscape Opportunities
ivate - Pr mi Se
Public Private
Semi-Private
M Movement o v e m Public e nt
Spatial diagram illustrating the concept 50 3D Sketch viewof Hillcrest estate proposals 51
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal
Capacity options and Capacity density reviewdensity
6
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.1 The Design Approach
A range of options for the future development and upgrade of the Hillcrest Estate are reviewed in the appraisal report prepared by PRP Architects. The Options proposed are based on the following levels of interven- tion: External and Environmental Improvements to existing buildings • Retention of the existing buildings but with full renovation and refurbishment of the existing fabric and upgrade of fittings. Intervention with no disruption to the existing buildings • Utilising areas across the site that are not well used. This will include areas of the existing parking. Demolition and Intervention • Proposing the demolition of smaller blocks along North Hill and the southern edge of the site in order to maximise the potential of the site without affecting the higher density existing blocks.
1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
Option 1 Option 2 Decent Homes Standard- Retention of the Intervention within infill sites - Opportunity to existing buildings but with renovation of build on the existing car park sites - respect- aspects of the existing fabric and upgrade ing overlooking and existing trees, this option of fittings. The improvement works will highlights opportunities within the existing be to the buildings only with little or no built context and includes the proposal for two upgrade to the existing public realm. additional flats blocks. It includes Decent Homes Standards upgrade to existing buildings and environmental improvements to the existing public realm.
54 impr upg fla text lights o build Intervention Option 3 verlooking ts
rade
and block. ovements
on opportunities
includes the to
It existing
and
existing within includes
to
existing
the the
infill buildings within
car
proposal existing Decent 2 2
park sites
trees,
the
sites - Homes and public
Opportunity for existing this
an environmental -
3 option respecting
realm. additional 1 Standards
built
high-
to
con-
4 develop Demolition fr tr Homes in double Option ontage ansformed tervention
Standard the
all block
4 low relative and
public being
or
2 rise
Intervention
to
2 blocks 4
considered.
density. buildings realm retained
facing 2
with
T
blocks his
- 3 and
Opportunity 1
play North It
is
includes
approximately the
area and
Hill. maximum
a and
completely
Decent
to
a
re- new
55
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.2 Option 1
Decent Homes Standard- Retention of the existing buildings but with renovation of aspects of the existing fabric and upgrade of fittings. The improvement works will be to the buildings only with little or no upgrade to the existing public realm.
Issues Benefits • No defined entrances into the estate due to existing blocks’ • Renovation of the existing fabric of the retained blocks to layout. Decent Homes standards. • South-west pedestrian entrance is not overlooked • No controversial interventions. • Lack of natural surveillance across car parking areas. • Lack of street hierarchy and lack of street characters • Under used open spaces due to no specific function • Flats blocks are isolated from each other and therefore there is a lack of clear definition between private and public spaces. • Parking is not distributed evenly across the estate. • The estate is segregated from the wider neighbourhood. • There is no secure and well overlooked play areas. • There is a lack of signage for clear pedestrian and vehicular routes through the estate. • Lack of adequate defensible spaces. • No opportunity of existing residents to move into a newly build dwelling.
56 Option 1 57
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.2 Option 1
Detailed Schedules of Accommodation
KEY
Alexander House Hillcrest Tenure Cunningham House
Dowding House Blocks Tenure Beds Underoccupancy Size of Dwelling Required Overcrowding Size of Dwelling Required Montgomery House 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ALEXANDER HOUSE Tenant 4 4 22 2 11 LeaseholderMountbatten House4 4 CUNNINGHAM HOUSE Tenant 4 4 31 2 LeaseholderTedder House 4 4 DOWDING HOUSE Tenant 19 66 7 4 4 6 2 2 2 LeaseholderWavell House 9 31 5 MONTGOMERY HOUSE Tenant 5 32 2 2 Leaseholder 3 12 MOUNTBATTEN HOUSE Tenant 16 36 7 3 6 7 2 1 1 Leaseholder 12 41 7 TEDDER HOUSE Tenant 7 43 2 2 Leaseholder 1 1 WAVELL HOUSE Tenant 14 54 5 2 1 2 1 Dwellings Demolished = 0 23 9 NetLeaseholder Increase in Dwellings = 014 Total Dwellings 116
1b 2b 3b Total Tenants 69 21 21 27 Total Leaseholders 47 10 8 29
Total 116 31 29 56 Hillcrest Tenure
Blocks Tenure Beds Underoccupancy Size of Dwelling Required Overcrowding Size of Dwelling Required 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ALEXANDER HOUSE Tenant 4 4 22 2 11 Leaseholder 4 4 CUNNINGHAM HOUSE Tenant 4 4 31 2 Leaseholder 4 4 DOWDING HOUSE Tenant 19 66 7 4 4 6 2 2 2 Leaseholder 9 31 5 MONTGOMERY HOUSE Tenant 5 32 2 2 Leaseholder 3 12 MOUNTBATTEN HOUSE Tenant 16 36 7 3 6 7 2 1 1 Leaseholder 12 41 7 TEDDER HOUSE Tenant 7 43 2 2 Leaseholder 1 1 WAVELL HOUSE Tenant 14 54 5 2 1 2 1 Leaseholder 14 23 9 Total Dwellings 116 58 1b 2b 3b Total Tenants 69 21 21 27 Total Leaseholders 47 10 8 29
Total 116 31 29 56 3D Sketch views ofOption1 59
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.2 Option 1 3D Sketch views of Option 1
60 3D Sketch views ofOption1 61
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.3 Option 2
Intervention within infill sites - Opportunity to build on the existing car park sites - respecting overlooking and existing trees, this option highlights opportunities within the existing built context and includes the proposal for two additional flats blocks. It includes Decent Homes Standards upgrade to existing buildings and environmental improvements to the existing public realm.
Issues Benefits • No defined entrances into the estate due to existing blocks’ • Renovation of the existing fabric of the retained blocks to layout. Decent Homes standards. • South-west pedestrian entrance is not overlooked. • No controversial interventions. • Under used open spaces due to no specific function along the • Improved parking areas. western and southern edges of the site, due to existing blocks’ layout. • New traditional street layout with well overlooked parking. • Retained flats blocks are isolated from each other and therefore • New small pay areas across the improved public realm and a there is a lack of clear definition between private and public secure larger playspace (for ages 5-11) located in the heart of spaces. the estate. • Provide defensible spaces for all buildings, this will create a safe buffer between the private and public realms. • Improved signage for clear pedestrian and vehicular routes through the estate. • Opportunity for existing residents to move into a newly build dwelling compliant with current design space standards and accessibility. • New incidental play areas (doorstep play) across the improved public realm for the use of toddlers.
62 Option 2 63
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.3 Option 2
Precedent Images
64 65
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.3 Option 2
Design Strategies
We have given some further thought to op- tion 2 as this option allows us to explain design strategies that can be established if new rede- velopment is incorporated as part of the regen- eration of the estate.
Movement Strategy Landscape Strategy
KEY KEY
Primary routes outside the site Play Area
Secondary routes outside the site Central public realm
Proposed vehicular movement within the site Informal landscape
New pedestrian movement Defensible spaces
Ecological Buffer- Mature trees Existing pedestrian movement
Parking spaces Formal tree planting
Disabled parking Smaller trees along parking
66 ing r on eitherside different Two V Built H Respond
iews esponding to the ighpoint edges
Form
spaces to
-
and
to one
Strategy
context-
from created
build-
la e An ga xisting yout teway
informal
blocks’
-
due
to
Estate ofHillcrest the heart ofspacesA series within key landscape andcr t that Create acontinuous buildingfrontage o
confine
public
increases
and realm
natural
define
eates activity withinthe eates activity areas
specific surveillance,
of
Hillcrest
zones la existing fr Lack ontages dueto yout
Estate
helps of
of
active
blocks’
67
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.3 Option 2
Detailed Schedules of Accommodation
Development Option 2
23838 sq/m Site Land Area Dwellings Demolished = 0 2.38375603 ha Net Increase in Dwellings = 47 19.74 dwellings per hectare Density 60.41 Habitable Rooms per Hectare
Tenure 1B2P 1B2PWC 2B4PWC 2B3P 2B4P 3B5P 4B6P Total Block 1 Ground SO 12 0 Market Sale 7 Storeys 1st- 6th MS 11 0442 and Shared 33 1st- 6th SO 1 2024 Ownership Total132 2466
Tenure 1B2P 1B2PWC 2B4PWC 2B3P 2B4P 3B5P 4B6P Total Block 2 Affordable Ground 110000 5 Storeys Rent 1st- 4th 40 44 14 Total4110440
Total Total 17312810647 Total Habiatble Rooms 34 6 3 6 24 40 30 143 Overall Percentage Mix 36.17 6.38 2.13 4.26 17.02 21.28 12.77 100.00
Affordable + wc Total % Target 4 Tenure Mix Shared Habitable Rooms Percentage Mix (%) dwellings Dwelling Total mix Mix (%) 1B2P 6 12 14.46 21.69 19 1B2P WC 3 6 7.23 2B4P WC 1 3 3.61 2B3P 2 6 7.23 25.30 26 2B4P 4 12 14.46 3B5P 6 24 28.92 28.92 27 4B6P 4 20 24.10 24.10 28 Total 26 83 100.00 Percentage Mix (%) 55.32 58.04195804
Tenure Mix Market Sale Total % Target Habitable Rooms Percentage Mix (%) mix Mix (%) Dwelling Total 1B2P 11 22 36.67 36.67 37 1B2P WC 0 0 0.00 2B4P WC 0 0 0.00 2B3P 0 0 0.00 20.00 30 2B4P 4 12 20.00 3B5P 4 16 26.67 26.67 22 4B6P 2 10 16.67 16.67 11 KEY Block Location Plan Total 21 60 Alexander House Percentage Mix (%) 44.68 41.95804196 Cunningham House 1 Dowding House
Montgomery House 2 Mountbatten House
Tedder House
Wavell House
1 Proposed Block 1
2 Proposed Block 2 68 3D Sketch views ofOption2 69
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 3D Sketch views of Option 2
70 3D Sketch views ofOption2 71
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.4 Option 3
Intervention within infill sites - Opportunity to build on the existing car park sites - respecting overlooking and existing trees, this option highlights oppor- tunities within the existing built context and includes the proposal for an additional flats block. It includes Decent Homes Standards upgrade to existing buildings and environmental improvements to the existing public realm.
Issues Benefits • No defined entrance into the estate, along North Hill, due to •• Renovation of the existing fabric of the retained blocks to existing blocks’ layout. Decent Homes standards. • No controversial interventions. • Under-used open spaces due to no specific function along the western and southern edges of the site, due to existing blocks’ • Improved parking areas. layout. • New traditional street layout with well overlooked parking. • Retained flats blocks are isolated from each other and therefore there is a lack of clear definition between private and public • New small pay areas across the improved public realm and a spaces. secure larger play-space (for ages 5-11) located in the heart of the estate. • Provide defensible spaces for all buildings, this will create a safe buffer between the private and public realms. • Improved signage for clear pedestrian and vehicular routes through the estate. • South-west pedestrian entrance - Improved natural surveillance due to new build flats block. • Opportunity for existing residents to move into a newly build dwelling compliant with current design space standards and accessibility. • New incidental play areas (doorstep play) across the improved public realm for the use of toddlers.
72 Option 3 73
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.4 Option 3
Precedent Images
74 75
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.4 Option 3
Design Strategies
We have given some further thought to op- tion 3 as this option allows us to explain design strategies that can be established if new rede- velopment is incorporated as part of the regen- eration of the estate.
Movement Strategy Landscape Strategy
KEY KEY
Primary routes outside the site Play Area
Secondary routes outside the site Central public realm
Proposed vehicular movement within the site Informal landscape
New pedestrian movement Defensible spaces
Ecological Buffer- Mature trees Existing pedestrian movement
Parking spaces Formal tree planting
Disabled parking Smaller trees along parking
76 ing r on eitherside different Two V Built H Respond
iews esponding to the ighpoint edges
Form
spaces to
-
and
to one
Strategy
context-
from created
build-
la e An ga xisting yout teway
informal
blocks’
-
due
to
Estate ofHillcrest the heart ofspacesA series within key landscape andcr t that Create acontinuous buildingfrontage o
confine
public
increases
and realm
natural
define
eates activity withinthe eates activity areas
specific surveillance,
of
Hillcrest
zones la existing fr Lack ontages dueto yout
Estate
helps
of of surveillance incr An ondar
active
blocks’
informal
eased natural y
gateway-
sec-
77
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.4 Option 3
Detailed Schedules of Accommodation
Development Option 3
23838 sq/m Site Land Area Dwellings Demolished = 0 2.38375603 ha Net Increase in Dwellings = 61 Increased Density 25.6 dwellings per hectare 73.42 Habitable Rooms per Hectare
Tenure 1B2P 1B2PWC 2B4PWC 2B3P 2B4P 3B5P 4B6P Total Block 1 Ground SO 12 0 7 Storeys Market Sale and 1st- 6th MS 12 431 33 Shared Ownership 1st- 6th SO 0 235 Total132 0666
Tenure 1B2P 1B2PWC 2B4PWC 2B3P 2B4P 3B5P 4B6P Total Block 2 Market sale and Ground 110000 5 Storeys Shared Ownership 1st- 4th SO 0 2 14 1st- 4th MS 4 42 Total4110440
Tenure 1B2P 1B2PWC 2B4PWC 2B3P 2B4P 3B5P 4B6P Total Block 3 Ground 2 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 5 Storeys 1st- 4th 8 0 4 0 14 Total82 0400
Total Total 255101410661 Total Habiatble Rooms 50 10 3 0 42 40 30 175 Overall Percentage Mix 40.98 8.20 1.64 0.00 22.95 16.39 9.84 100.00
Affordable + wc Total % Target 6 Tenure Mix Shared Ownership Habitable Rooms Percentage Mix (%) dwellings Dwelling Total mix Mix (%) 1B2P 10 20 21.51 32.26 19 1B2P WC 5 10 10.75 2B4P WC 0 0 0.00 2B3P 0 0 0.00 19.35 26 2B4P 6 18 19.35 3B5P 5 20 21.51 21.51 27 4B6P 5 25 26.88 26.88 28 Total 31 93 100.00 Percentage Mix (%) 50.82 53.14285714 KEY Alexander House Block Location Plan Tenure Mix Market Sale Total % Target Habitable Rooms Percentage Mix (%) Cunningham House mix Mix (%) Dwelling Total 1B2P 16 32 39.51 Dowding House 39.51 37 1B2P WC 0 0 0.00 1 2B4P WC 0 0 0.00 Montgomery House 2B3P 0 0 0.00 29.63 30 2B4P 8 24 29.63 Mountbatten House 3B5P 5 20 24.69 24.69 22 2 4B6P 1 5 6.17 6.17 11 Tedder House Total 30 81 Percentage Mix (%) 49.18 46.28571429 Wavell House 3
1 Proposed Block 1
2 Proposed Block 2
3 Proposed Block 3
78 3D Sketch views ofOption3 79
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.4 Option 3
3D Sketch views of Option 3
80 3D Sketch views ofOption3 81
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.5 Option 4
Demolition and Intervention - Opportunity to redevelop all low rise buildings and approximately double the relative density. This is the maximum intervention being considered. It includes Decent Homes Standard to retained blocks and a completely transformed public realm with play area and a new frontage block or blocks facing North Hill.
Issues
• Lower provision of car-parking • Due to the way the retained flats blocks are arranged within the site , there is still something of a lack of clear definition between private and public spaces.
Benefits • Renovation of the existing fabric of the retained blocks to • Opportunity for existing residents to move into a newly build Decent Homes standards. dwelling compliant with current design space standards and accessibility. • Improved parking areas across a pedestrian friendly environment. • New incidental play areas (doorstep play) across the improved public realm for the use of toddlers. • New traditional street layout with well overlooked parking. • Well defined entrance into the estate, along North Hill. • New small pay areas across the improved public realm and a secure larger playspace (for ages 5-11) located in the heart of • Clear definition between private and public spaces across the the estate. estate. • Provide defensible spaces for all buildings, this will create a • A variety of new dwellings, reflecting the needs of existing and safe buffer between the private and public realms. new residents. • Improved signage for clear pedestrian and vehicular • Opportunity for a new pedestrian links at the northern-eastern routes through the estate. edge of the site. • South-west pedestrian entrance - Improved natural surveillance • New strong frontage along North Hill with opportunity for due to new build flats block. architecture of exemplar standard.
82 Option
4 83
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.5 Option 4
Precedent Images
84 85
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.5 Option 4
Design Strategies We have given some further thought to option 4 as this option allows us to explain the full extent of design strategies that can be estab- lished if major redevelopment of the estate is to be taken forward
Landscape Strategy Movement Strategy
KEY KEY Play Area Primary routes outside the site Central public realm Secondary routes outside the site Informal landscape Proposed vehicular movement within the site Defensible spaces New pedestrian movement Ecological Buffer- Mature trees Existing pedestrian movement Formal tree planting Parking spaces Smaller trees along parking Disabled parking
8686 standar of architecture for portunity H along fr New f D ontage ill withop or HillcrestEstate
exemplar efine V H Respond
strong iews ighpoint
North d.
a
new
to -
and to Built
‘ heart’
context-
from
Form
Strategy estate the en that Create agateway
marks trance into the
clearly
Maximise buildings pr sit oposed and retained e’s
context realm withinthekeypublic creates activity that increases natural and surveillance Create acontinuous buildingfrontage
view
from
areas s
acr
all oss
of
the
Hillcrest the
Estate veillance crease natural sur into sec Define ondary entrances ondary
Hillcrest
clearly
-
any in- -
8787
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.5 Option 4
Detailed Schedules of Accommodation
Development Option 4
23838 sq/m Site Land Area 2.38375603 ha Dwellings Demolished = 32 51.6 dwellings per hectare Added Density Net Increase in Dwellings = 91 147.6695 Habitable Rooms per Hectare
Tenure 1B2P 1B2PWC 2B4PWC 2B3P 2B4P 3B5P 4B6P Total Block 1 Ground 1 2 0 7 Storeys Affordable Rent 1st- 6th 12 66633 Total132 0666
Tenure 1B2P 1B2PWC 2B4PWC 2B3P 2B4P 3B5P 4B6P Total Block 2 Market sale and Shared Ground 100010 5 Storeys Ownership 1st- 4th SO 4 0 3 14 1st- 4th MS 41 Total4100450
Tenure 1B2P 1B2PWC 2B4PWC 2B3P 2B4P 3B5P 4B6P Total Block 3 Ground 2 0 0 0 5 Storeys Market Sale 1st- 4th 8 0 4 0 14 Total82 0400
Tenure 1B2P 1B2PWC 2B4PWC 2B3P 2B4P 3B5P 4B6P Total Block 4 Shared Ownership (8*1B2P Ground 0 3 1 0 0 5 Storeys = Market Sale) 1st- 4th 8 0 12 4 28 Total83101240
Tenure 1B2P 1B2PWC 2B4PWC 2B3P 2B4P 3B5P 4B6P Total Block 5 Ground112000 5 Storeys Market Sale (2*3B5P = Shared 1st- 4th 12 3 4 11 34 Ownership) Total131234110
Total Total 4693330266123 Total Habiatble Rooms 92 18 9 9 90 104 30 352 Overall Percentage Mix 37.40 7.32 2.44 2.44 24.39 21.14 4.88 100.00
Affordable + Shared wc Total % Target 12 Tenure Mix Ownership Habitable Rooms Percentage Mix (%) dwellings mix Mix (%) Dwelling Total 1B2P 17 34 17.26 23.35 19 1B2P WC 6 12 6.09 2B4P WC 1 3 1.52 2B3P 0 0 0.00 28.93 26 2B4P 18 54 27.41 3B5P 16 64 32.49 32.49 27 KEY Block Location Plan 4B6P 6 30 15.23 15.23 28 Total 64 197 100.00 Dowding House Percentage Mix (%) 52.03 55.96590909 Mountbatten House 1
Tenure Mix Market Sale Total % Target Wavell House Habitable Rooms Percentage Mix (%) mix Mix (%) Dwelling Total 1B2P 29 58 37.42 1 Proposed Block 1 2 41.29 37 1B2P WC 3 6 3.87 2B4P WC 2 6 3.87 2 Proposed Block 2 3 2B3P 3 9 5.81 32.90 30 2B4P 12 36 23.23 3 Proposed Block 3 4 3B5P 10 40 25.81 25.81 22 5 4B6P 0 0 0.00 0.00 11 4 Proposed Block 4 Total 59 155 Percentage Mix (%) 47.97 44.03409091 5 Proposed Block 5 88 3D
Sketch
views
of
Option
4 89
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.5 Option 4
Demolition and Intervention. Opportunity to redevelop all low rise buildings and approximately double the relative density.
Option 4 90 Option
4 91
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 6.5 Option 4
Demolition and Intervention. Opportunity to redevelop all low rise buildings and approximately double the relative density.
92 Option Option
4 4 93
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal
Assessment
7 Transport
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 7.0 Transport Assessment
96 97
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 7.0 Transport Assessment
98 99
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 7.0 Transport Assessment
100 101
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 7.0 Transport Assessment
102 103
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 7.0 Transport Assessment
104 105
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 7.0 Transport Assessment
106 107
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 7.0 Transport Assessment
108 109
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal
Environment Ecology and
8
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 8.0 Ecology and Environment
112 113
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 8.0 Ecology and Environment
114 115
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal
Appendices
9
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 9.1 Social - economic context
Population density
In 2001, the population density of Haringey per hectare was estimated at 73.2 persons (or 7,609 people per square kilometre), making it the 11th most densely populated of London boroughs. The 2005 mid-year estimate (ONS) show that Haringey had a population density of 75.9, again 11th among Lon- don boroughs. ONS and GLA agree in estimating that by 2016 density per hectare will have increased to around 78 residents per hectare, an increase of between 2 and 5 residents per hectare. The highest residential densities in Haringey tend to be in the east of the borough, particularly Bruce Grove, Totten- ham Hale, St Ann’s and Seven Sisters wards.
118 gate tis Map crease. aged has 30- Haringey Age
Green.
34 declined
4 and
concentrations concentrations of working age residents. Muswell Hill. Harringay, Noel Park and Tottenham Green also have high working age in the west of the borough, particularly Stroud Green, Highgate and Green. Map 5 also shows that there are higher concentrations of residents of in the west of the borough, particularly in Highgate, Muswell Hill and Fortis Map 4 shows that there are higher concentrations of residents of retirement age concentrations of working age residents. Muswell Hill. Harringay, Noel Park and Tottenham Green also have high working age in the west of the borough, particularly Stroud Green, Highgate and Green. Map 5 also shows that there are higher concentrations of residents of in the west of the borough, particularly in Highgate, Muswell Hill and Fortis Map 4 shows that there are higher concentrations of residents of retirement age 100017423. Source: 2001 census. Produced by Policy and Partnerships, Haringey Council March 2007 Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown copyright 2007. All right reserved LBH licence number Source: ONS. This product contains mapping data licensed from Ordnance Survey with the permission of the 100017423. Source: 2001 census. Produced by Policy and Partnerships, Haringey Council March 2007 Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown copyright 2007. All right reserved LBH licence number Source: ONS. This product contains mapping data licensed from Ordnance Survey with the permission of the Click Click 65
form shows
and
Muswell here here has Map
the
over
slightly that a to go back to chapter cover sheet to go back to chapter cover sheet
5 similar
two
also Map Map 4: Map 4:
seen there Hill.
largest
as shows
age Haringey,
in
Percentage of residents of a retirement age Percentage of residents of a retirement age a are
proportion London
profile
groups higher that
Noel there
to (12.4%
concentrations in
London
of
the Park
are
the
in borough,
higher and
total 2001
as
T a
ottenham population,
whole, to concentrations
of
11.1% 13.4%
residents
with
and in Green
from
2006). 31.6%
11.0% of
of also retirement
9.8%
residents In of
respectively.
have
terms Haringey
in
2001
1.11 1.11 high
of age
of
absolute
to
working residents concentrations
in 100017423. Source: 2001 census. Produced by Policy and Partnerships, Haringey Council March 2007 Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown copyright 2007. All right reserved LBH licence number Source: ONS. This product contains mapping data licensed from Ordnance Survey with the permission of the 100017423. Source: 2001 census. Produced by Policy and Partnerships, Haringey Council March 2007 Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown copyright 2007. All right reserved LBH licence number Source: ONS. This product contains mapping data licensed from Ordnance Survey with the permission of the
9.4% Over
the
west in half
numbers, age
2006. under
our of
in Map Map 5: Map Map 5:
the the
T of population
25 his
however,
working
borough,
west (for
is Percentage of residents of a working age Percentage of residents of a working age
in
London
of contrast
the
age
is both
particularly
under
borough,
residents. the
Haringey London Borough of Haringey: London Borough of Haringey: to
figure
35. the
T
increase
in particularly he
is
and Highgate,
population 30.4%).
London Our changing borough Our changing borough
in
the
T
Stroud
hose Muswell
population aged have profile guide profile guide
aged
Green,
seen 65
Hill
25-29 and
and a
of High-
de-
over
those
and For- 119
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 9.1 Social - economic context
Ethnicity According to the 2001 Census, 34.4% of Haringey’s population belonged to a Black and Ethnic Minority group. White residents accounted for 65.6% of Har- ingey’s population, which ranked as the 28th lowest in London. In 2005, the largest ethnic groups in Haringey were White British (47.6%), White Other (14.1%), Caribbean (8.3%) and African (9.1%). The ethnic diversity of an area can be measured using Simpson’s Index. It takes into account the number of individuals in categories present, as well as the number of categories. London boroughs dominate this index with Slough in nineteenth; the only non – London borough in the top twenty. Applying the Simpson’s Diversity Index to the 2001 Census, Haringey ranks as the 5th most diverse borough in London and the country with a score of 3.95, considerably higher than the London average of 2.66.
Children and Young People There are approximately 55,600 children and young people under 20 living in Haringey. As the population projections contained in chart 5 indicate, while the population of Haringey as a whole is getting older, the numbers of very young children is also predicted to grow. This will increase demand for many children and family services in the short and medium term.
Main languages spoken in Haringey schools There are approximately 130 languages spoken by pupils in Haringey schools. The most common languages spoken (other than English) are Turkish, So- Our changing borough mali, Akan, French, Polish and Bengali. Religion The most up-to-date figures on the religious profile of Haringey residents come from the 2001 Census. In 2001, half of Haringey’s residents were Christian, compared with 58.2% of London’s and 71.7% of the residents of England Wales. 11.3% of Haringey residents stated their religion as Muslim, compared with Our changing borough 8.5% of London and 3.0% of England and Wales. Haringey has a lower percentage of residents who stated their religion as Hindu (2.1%) and Sikh(0.3%) than has London (4.1% and 1.5%, respectively). A fifth of Haringey residents stated that they did not have a religion, which was higher than for London (15.8%) and for England and Wales (14.8%). Social grade Social grade Chart 13: Social Grade in Haringey by ward ‘Social grade’, widely used by market research and marketing industries, is a measure of income and employment status. Haringey’s 2001 Census shows a distinct polarisation, in terms of social grade, between the east and the west of the borough, with high concentrations of grades D and E in the east of the Social grade borough, and AB and C1Chart in the west.13: Social Grade in Haringey by ward ‘Social grade’, widely used by market research and marketing industries, is a measure of income and employment status (see box in chart 13, for more detail). Haringey’s 2001 Census‘Social grade’, shows widely a distinct used by polarisation, market research in termsand marketing of social industries, is a measure of income and employment status (see box in chart 13, for more grade, between the east anddetail). the Haringey’s west of 2001 the borough,Census shows with a distincthigh concentrations polarisation, in terms of social of grades D and E in the eastgrade, of between the borough, the east andand theAB west and of C1 the in borough, the west. with high concentrations of grades D and E in the east of the borough, and AB and C1 in the west.
Source: 2001 Census, ONS Source: 2001120 Census, ONS
London Borough of Haringey: profile guide 1.28 Click here to go back to chapter cover sheet
London Borough of Haringey: profile guide 1.28 Click here to go back to chapter cover sheet proportions are Highgate (11.6%) and Harringay (11.8%). are Alexandra (22.6%) and Muswell Hill (20%); and the areas with the lowest map 8. The areas with the highest proportion of couples with dependent children End (4.2%), Highgate (4.4%) and Muswell Hill (4.4%) - this is illustrated further in Northumberland Park (15.5%) and Tottenham Hale (15.5%), and lowest in Crouch parent households with dependent children is highest in White Hart Lane (17.8%), Table 16 shows the distribution of households at ward level. The proportion of lone (34%). proportion of married couple households (27.2%) was below London as a whole single person households was 35.8%, slightly higher than London (34.7%). The dependent children, which was higher than in London (11.1%). The proportion of households were lone parent households with either dependent ‘or non- children, which is in line with London (29%). As table 15 shows, 13.6% of all According to the 2001 Census, 29.2% of Haringey’s households had dependent Household composition Click proportions are Highgate (11.6%) and Harringay (11.8%). are Alexandra (22.6%) and Muswell Hill (20%); and the areas with the lowest map 8. The areas with the highest proportion of couples with dependent children End (4.2%), Highgate (4.4%) and Muswell Hill (4.4%) - this is illustrated further in Northumberland Park (15.5%) and Tottenham Hale (15.5%), and lowest in Crouch parent households with dependent children is highest in White Hart Lane (17.8%), Table 16 shows the distribution of households at ward level. The proportion of lone (34%). proportion of married couple households (27.2%) was below London as a whole single person households was 35.8%, slightly higher than London (34.7%). The dependent children, which was higher than in London (11.1%). The proportion of households were lone parent households with either dependent ‘or non- children, which is in line with London (29%). As table 15 shows, 13.6% of all According to the 2001 Census, 29.2% of Haringey’s households had dependent Household composition Click gate highest T whole single households According Household composition ottenham here here
(11.6%)
person to go back to chapter cover sheet (34%). to go back to chapter cover sheet
proportion
to
Hale
Map Map 8: Map Map 8: were
and T the
households he
(15.5%), with with dependent children in Haringey
with with dependent children in Haringey
2001 Haringey proportion lone
Percentage of lone parent households Percentage of lone parent households of
couples
parent Census,
and
was
(11.8%).
of
lowest households
with 35.8%, 29.2%
lone
dependent
in parent
of slightly
Crouch
Haringey’s
with
households
higher
End either children
households (4.2%),
than
dependent
are with
London
Highgate
Alexandra
dependent
had
‘ or
(34.7%).
dependent
non-dependent (4.4%)
(22.6%)
children 1.29 1.29
T and he
and proportion
Muswell children, Source: KS20, 2001 Census, ONS Source: KS20, 2001 Census, ONS Total with dependent children Other All pensioner All student With With dependent children Other households All children non-dependent With With dependent children Lone parent households All children non-dependent With With dependent children No children Cohabiting couple household All children non-dependent With dependent children No children All pensioners Married couple household Other Pensioner Single Person All Households Total with dependent children Other All pensioner All student With dependent children Other households All children non-dependent With dependent children Lone parent households All children non-dependent With dependent children No children Cohabiting couple household All children non-dependent With dependent children No children All pensioners Married couple household Other Pensioner Single Person All Households
is
Muswell
highest
children,
Hill which
of
Hill
in Table 15: (4.4%) Table 15:
married
which W
is (20%); hite
in
-
line
this was Hart
couple
Household Household Composition in Haringey, 2001 Household Household Composition in Haringey, 2001 and
with
is higher
Lane
illustrated the
households London
areas (17.8%),
than London Borough of Haringey:
London Borough of Haringey: with
further in (29%).
Count Northumberland Count 68729.2 26,867 35314.7 13,533 25813.6 12,548 19412.9 11,924 50527.2 25.5 25,055 35.8 23,534 33,053 London 26,867 13,533 12,548 11,924 25,055 23,534 33,053 Haringey ,4 9.6 8,846 ,8 3.9 3,580 ,9 3.8 3,498 ,5 9.8 9,050 ,1 2.5 2,313 ,6 5.9 5,469 ,8 8.6 7,981 ,7 3.8 3,478 ,8 7.0 6,482 ,7 3.4 3,171 10.3 9,519
Haringey 8,846 3,580 3,498 9,050 2,313 5,469 7,981 3,478 6,482 3,171 9,519
(27.2%) the 3 0.4 332 7 0.8 775 9 0.2 199 332 775 199
As in
lowest
map table
(11.1%).
was 92,170 92,170
Our changing borough
Our changing borough 8.
proportions 29.2 14.7 13.6 12.9 27.2 25.5 10.3 35.8 15
below 9.6 0.4 0.8 3.9 3.8 9.8 0.2 2.5 5.9 8.6 3.8 7.0 3.4
% % T
he shows,
T
Park he
areas
London proportion
profile guide (15.5%) profile guide London London
13.6%
with
are 3,015,997 3,015,997
High- as
the
of and 29.0 12.3 11.1 15.2 12.7 34.0 22.0 34.7
29.0 12.3 11.1 15.2 34.0 22.0 12.7 34.7 a
7.7 0.4 0.5 3.7 3.5 7.6 0.3 2.5 5.3 8.1 4.9 8.5 5.4
7.7 0.4 0.5 3.7 3.5 7.6 0.3 2.5 5.3 8.1 4.9 8.5 5.4 121 of % all %
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 9.1 Social - economic context
Housing We want people to have greater opportunity to make a success of their lives and to benefit from the borough’s prosperity. This means in part that we need to increase the availability of high quality affordable dwellings through the optimum use of existing dwellings and by building more affordable homes, and that we need to improve our stock to Decent Homes standard. Tenure The number of households living in the borough has increased from 85,300 (1991 Census) to 92,170 (2001 Census). Of these households:Our changing borough • 44.6% are owner occupiers compared with 55.6% in London and 68.22% in England and Wales (49.7 % in 1991 census); • 20.1% are renting privately (19 % in 1991 census); • 19.7% are council tenants (24.9% in 1991 census); and • 10.5% are RSL tenants (6.4 % in 1991 census). Private rented Chart 15: Council and RSL stock numbers (2003- 2007) Private rented In 2001,In 2001, there there was wasa larger a larger than averagethan average number number of households of households living in privateliving in private rented accommodation in Haringey. 20.1% of Haringey households live in rentedprivate accommodation rented accommodation in Haringey. 20.1% compared of Haringey with 14.3% households in London live in and 8.72% in England and Wales. private rented accommodation compared with 14.3% in London and 8.72% in EnglandSocial and rented Wales. stock Chart 15 shows that there has been an increase in the number of RSL properties and a decrease in the number of Council rented properties. The reductions Socialrecorded rented in Council stockstock numbers between 2003 and 2005 are largely due to Right-to-Buy sales. Overall, there has been a net increase of 164 properties from Haringey Borough’s social housing stock (82 per annum). Homes for Haringey is Haringey’s Arms Length Management ALMO that was established in April 2006. Homes for Haringey manages the running of council housing, whilst the council remains the landlord. Map 9 shows the distribution of social Charthousing 15 shows in the that borough. there has Tbeenhe highest an increase concentrations in the number Ourare of inchanging RSL White Hart borough Lane and Noel Park. properties and a decrease in the number of Council rented properties. The reductions recorded in Council stock numbers between 2003 and 2005 are largely due to Right-to-Buy sales. Overall, there has been a net increase of 164 properties from Haringey Borough’s social housing stock (82 per annum). Source: Council’s Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (HSSA) Private rented Homes for HaringeyChart is 15:Haringey’s Council Arms and RSLLength stock Management numbers (2003- ALMO 2007)that was Map 9: Distribution of social housing in Haringey (2001) established in April 2006. Homes for Haringey manages the running of council housing, whilst the council remains the landlord. In 2001, there was a larger than average number of households living in private rented accommodation in Haringey. 20.1% of Haringey households live in Map 9 shows the distribution of social housing in the borough. The highest private rented accommodation compared with 14.3% in London and 8.72% in concentrations are in White Hart Lane and Noel Park. England and Wales.
Social rented stock
Chart 15 shows that there has been an increase in the number of RSL properties and a decrease in the number of Council rented properties. The reductions recorded in Council stock numbers between 2003 and 2005 are largely due to Right-to-Buy sales. Overall, there has been a net increase of 164 properties from Haringey Borough’s social housing stock (82 per annum). Source: Council’s Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (HSSA) Homes for Haringey is Haringey’s Arms Length Management ALMO that was Map 9: Distribution of social housing in Haringey (2001) established in April 2006. Homes for Haringey manages the running of council housing, whilst the council remains the landlord. 122 Click here to go back to chapter cover sheet 1.33 London Borough of Haringey: profile guide Map 9 shows the distribution of social housing in the borough. The highest concentrations are in White Hart Lane and Noel Park.
Click here to go back to chapter cover sheet 1.33 London Borough of Haringey: profile guide reduce the need for car ownership. be noted that there are more tube and train stations in the east which may car ownership is lower in the poorer east of the borough. However, it must also that car ownership is higher in the west of the borough. As is to be expected, access to a car, compared with 37% of households in London. Map 11 shows The 2001 Census shows that 46% of households in Haringey do not have Car ownership Click here to go back to chapter cover sheet 1.47 housing and In Affordable housing-supply include t The Housing development also The Car ownership tha Click Our projected net additional dwellings up to 2016 is set out in Table 20. intermediate. affordable housing completions 75% were social rented units and 25% were completed which represents 46% of all housing completions. Of these and 5% change of use (53 dwellings); 312 affordable housing units were new builds (681 dwellings), 31% conversions and extensions (333 dwellings) In 2006-07, 1067 net additional dwellings were completed, comprising 64% Affordable housing- supply housing to meet an overall borough target of 50%. providing 10 or more units will be required to include a proportion of affordable Haringey’s Unitary Development Plan 2006 states that developments capable of the open market. towards the provision of affordable homes for those who cannot afford to buy in The Mayor’s London Plan seeks a 50% contribution from housing developments Housing development Housing supply o
2006-07, buy t
Mayor’s 2001 5% be car here
in
noted
a change ownership
completions
the proportion Census to go back to chapter cover sheet
1067
London
open
that
of
Map Map 11: net shows
use there
market. is
Plan
additional of
higher 75%
(53
affordable
that are
seeks Car ownership in Haringey (2001)
dwellings);
were Haringey’s
more
in 46%
the
a
dwellings social
50%
of
tube
housing west London Borough of Haringey:
households
312
Unitary contribution rented
and
of
affordable were
the
to train
units
meet Development borough.
completed,
in stations
Haringey and
from an
housing
overall
25%
As housing
in Chapter heading
is
comprising the
were Plan do
to
units profile guide borough
east not be
2006 developments intermediate.
expected, were
have which
states
64% target
completed
access
may
new
1.37
that car
of
reduce Our
to
towards 50%. ownership builds
developments
a
(Source: Haringey’s Annual Monitoring Report) these these projected dwellings being affordable units. Table 20 shows the projected net additional dwellings for Haringey with half of which
projected car,
the (681
compared
the
2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 2012/13 2011/12 2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08
represents need
is
dwellings), provision
lower net Table 20:
for capable
additional
with
car in Year
46%
the of
ownership.
31% Projected net additional dwellings up to 2016 37%
of affordable
of poorer
providing
conversions dwellings of all
households housing
east
homes
10 of
up London Borough of Haringey:
completions.
the or and
to Net additional dwellings)
for more in
borough. 2016
extensions
London.
those
units
is
set
who
Of
However, Map will Our changing borough
out
(333 these
cannot
be
in 11
dwellings) required T
shows affordable able
it profile guide afford
must
1195 1602 1657 1027 20. 195 395 517 495 855
to
123
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 9.2 Costing Appraisal
124 125
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 9.2 Costing Appraisal
126 127
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 9.2 Costing Appraisal
128 129
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 9.2 Costing Appraisal
130 131
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 9.3 Planning Review
132 133
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 9.3 Planning Review
134 135
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 9.3 Planning Review
136 137
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 9.3 Planning Review
138 139
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 9.3 Planning Review
140 141
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal 9.3 Planning Review
142 143
Hillcrest Estate Options Appraisal Hillcrest Estate Capacity Study & Density Review Report