Planning – Overshadowing

Hornsey Town Hall is a Grade II* listed building and there is very clear guidance that such buildings should sit in a context which shows them off to good advantage. Part of the planning proposal put forward by FEC is to create a 7 storey tower block behind the town hall. FEC argue that this neither detracts from the setting of the Town Hall, nor does it unreasonably overshadow neighbours.


Not everyone agrees. The Weston and Haringey Parks Residents’ Association , for instance has gone to the trouble of producing its own 3D modelling of the extent of shadows around the proposed monoliths, and has included them in its objection to the planning application. One of the images is included here but they have several more at different times of day
To accompany their computer modelled images they have text which includes:
The new buildings occupy too much of the site, are built too close to the boundaries, and the large footprint has left no room for the Heritage buildings to “breathe”. The “canyon” effect which was the concern of the planners has not been addressed between Blocks A and B. 
In addition, there is a detrimental effect on existing neighbours: The Mews block is built very close to the boundary, causing issues with overlooking and Block A towers above Primezone Mews. The proposed development has an impact on daylight and sunlight for adjoining neighbours, both within their properties and also on their amenity spaces. There is also an impact on available daylight and sunlight within the development itself.”
They go on to question whether the developer has followed best practice in drawing up his modelling of the daylight effects:
We believe this scheme flaunts good practice guidelines in relation to overshadowing of its neighbour’s amenity spaces and in relation to daylight and sunlight across the development. We have done our own 3D modelling to show this, attached at the end of this letter. We want the applicant to provide all year round accurate 3D daylight modelling for the site and surrounding streets, to show the effect of overshadowing throughout the year


Visual Impact
Also worth noting is the decision of Haringey’s own planning department from 2014, that is after the previous planning permission was granted for the Town Hall, that a fourth storey on the building which now houses Superdrug, and Waterstones, would be too tall because of its impact on the local views.

Haringey’s own planning officer produced this report for the Planning Committee  

The scheme was for a single extra floor on the block adjacent to Dunn’s (Superdrug, Waterstone’s). it was turned down – here is the comment from the then Conservation Officer

  • Overall, the proposal is judged to be harmful to the conservation area and the setting of the adjacent listed building and thus be contrary to the NPPF, London Plan Policies 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8, Local Plan Policies SP11 and SP12, saved UDP Policies UD3and CSV5 and SPG1a ‘Design guidance’ and SPG2 ‘Conservation and archaeology’.
  • Saved UDP Policy UD3 states that development proposals are required to demonstrate that there is no significant adverse impact on residential amenity or other surrounding uses in terms of loss of daylight or sunlight, privacy, overlooking. Similarly London Plan Policy 7.6 requires buildings and structures should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy.
If you feel strongly that these are valid objections to the proposed tower blocks you can comment directly here on the Haringey planning website. The comments section also gives you the opportunity to support the proposals, or just to have your say.
If you want to read the full proposals for yourself then the very many documents are here.
There is no limit to the number of comments you can make on the Haringey website, so go ahead now with a complaint about, a comment on or support for the mass of the buildings proposed. As we publish more in this series of notes you can submit further comments.

One Reply to “Planning – Overshadowing”

  1. I object to the proposed tower block application by FEC going ahead, on the grounds that it is an oppressive visual intrusion, which is out of character with the historical heritage of the site. And furthermore, it is not in the interest of local people, who should be the first to benefit from any development schemes, and in this case, they are not!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *