The proposed development (image from developers and only shows one tower) and protesters
From No To Tesco Towers Campaign
More than 2,000 Harrow residents have signed a petition opposing the development of multiple tower blocks on the Tesco site on Station Road in central Harrow.
The current Tesco store from Hindes Road (Credit: Google Streetview)
Greenmead Place would see 559 new flats across ten blocks up to 15-storeys high, 155 residential parking spaces, a 20% smaller Tesco store and a third less customer parking,
The tallest block is 15 storeys, one at 14 storeys, one at 13 storeys, one at twelve storeys, one at 11 storeys, two at seven storeys, one at six storeys and two at five storeys.
Local residents and residents associations have joined forces to protest the plans, launching a petition and website, nototescotowers.com. To date, more than 1,800 residents have signed online with hundreds more signing the paper petition.
Concerns include the scale of the
development, a lack of truly affordable housing and the impact on local
infrastructure, such as roads, public transport, schools and health services.
While housing association Notting
Hill Genesis claims 32% will
be “affordable housing”, two thirds will be shared ownership - increasingly
criticised for its unaffordability - and
only 55 flats (9.8%) will be social housing. The vast majority - 380 flats -
will be sold at market prices. [Q&A on Shared Ownership]
At a recent Harrow Council meeting, the developers admitted that reducing the height of the towers would reduce the amount of affordable housing, including social housing.
Cllr Marilyn Ashton, responsible for Planning and Development, referred to residents’ anger over the proposal and urged the developers to take on board the meeting’s feedback.
One local resident posted on Facebook:
I live near the Kodak site. The original plans included a primary school and community centre. The reality is that those vital facilities do not exist on the developed site and the surrounding roads cannot cope with the increased weight of traffic.
The roads around the Tesco site were not built for such heavy usage so traffic chaos will be inevitable. There is no justification for this site other than profit for developers. We need affordable social housing. Not luxury flats only a few can afford. The system is very broken.
Pamela Fitzpatrick, Director of Harrow Law Centre, a charity providing free legal support, and a former Harrow councillor said:
Housing is one of the biggest problems we see in Harrow. There’s enough housing in Harrow for everyone but it’s all largely unaffordable.
Housing associations no longer do what they were set up to do - provide low-cost, secure rented properties - so many people can’t even afford to live in housing association homes. The proposed Tesco site development appears to simply add to the problems and will do little to alleviate the housing crisis.
Tesco and Notting Hill Genesis are expected to submit a formal planning application to Harrow Council in early 2023.
THE PETITION WORDING (SIGN HERE)
Residents Say No to Tesco Towers and Notting Hill Genesis Development in Harrow
This petition is to object to the proposal by Notting Hill Genesis and Tesco to turn the store on Station Road Harrow into a high-rise development called Greenmead Place– Notting Hill Genesis ‘Tesco Towers’ including a 15 storey building.
We ask Harrow Council to consider why the community objects:
- The proposed development is overbearing and will dominate the surrounding homes of mainly two-storey houses and low-rise flats.
- The development design totally ignores the surrounding community.
- There are no infrastructure improvements, no additional GP surgeries, capacity at Northwick Park Hospital, improvement to public transport links, roads, water supply or sewage disposal.
- The increased congestion and pollution from high density housing on one of the busiest roads in Harrow, adds 155 cars to a road where two schools are within a few metres
- 20% reduction in the Tesco store size and 33% less parking spaces for Tesco customers yet further increasing congestion on the roads and less jobs for residents in a smaller store.
- NHG says ‘35%’ of the new accommodation will be ‘affordable’ but this includes shared ownership which is anything but affordable with prices in Harrow.
This development does not benefit the community and would be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the area.
We ask Harrow Council to not approve the application of this development.
12 comments:
The picture of the development is from the developers and isn't accurate - behind the 12 storey tower are 15, 14, 13 & 11 storey towers in close proximity. Surely developers have to provide accurate images?
I agree. I searched for a CGI of the whole scheme and could not find one. Only partial images.
I have amended the caption on the post to reflect that.
I can't agree with the opposition. Sure there are things that perhaps should be changed but I feel the opposition might be even stronger if there was more social housing. Surely the way to get more affordable housing is to have more housing? It's simple supply and demand. I also don't understand the claim that things are "unaffordable". If the Kodak development has led to more traffic then surely people are living there? One can't argue it both ways. Certainly the area looks much nicer. Harrow town centre also looks a lot better with its many smart new tower blocks and the influx of consumers it has brought is slowly improving the town centre.
Matt
Thank you for your comment. The campaigners will speak for themselves about the Harrow issues.
However, here in Wembley the problem is that most of the new developments are not affordable for Brent residents on median family incomes. To tackle the very long housing waiting list (and reduce the large numbers in temporary housing and hotel accommodation) social housing is needed. The amount of social rent housing in new developments has been very low, even when the land developed has belonged to the Council. Now things have become worse with inflated building costs so that proposed tenures are being switched from social or London Affordable Rent to market rates or Shared Ownership. The Brent Poverty Commission concluded that the only truly affordable housing to tackle poverty was social housing.
Do you not think it would be more productive to focus your petition around removing shared ownership as part of the ‘affordable housing’ segment and replacing it with social housing or flats sold at lower than market price.
There is a big need for social housing and while I agree the development should not proceed if the majority of social development is shared ownership some of these opposition reasons, e.g. it doesn’t look nice, seem ridiculous.
I'm sorry but as a young person living in Harrow your position is completely indefensible. I vote for the Green party and am all for more social housing being built, but how many units would be added if this development is blocked? The answer is Zero. I also know the huge benefit the existing developments have had for younger people in Harrow, adding much more choice especially for people who prefer to live in centrally-located apartments close to the town centre and train station. By all means, let all middle-aged people who prefer their semi-detached houses with garden stay there, but why should we let them block us younger harrovians from finding convenient flats in our borough?
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I don't understand it though. If people move into new flats in Wembley, then either they are buying two properties and living in both or there is an empty property created. Very few people have second homes in that way, and i would assume 95% or more leave an existing property. Which is either sold or rented to someone who either did not have anywhere to live or now has a nicer place to live. Building more supply, especially somewhere as busy and popular as Wembley, will always improve housing outcomes. That the median household cannot afford such a property is unfortunate, and social housing can help to offset this, but ultimately while we have a very inequal distribution of income it will persist. It can only be made worse by building fewer flats. Building more frees up other housing stock which is cheaper.
I agree. Most of these so-called campaigners often own large detached or semi-detached properties. They want to stop all development. They then complain that their children can't find anywhere to live locally! And the shops are closing! They're happy to see Harrow slowly decline rather than do anything to equip it for the 2020s and beyond. it's such a shame as it could be a great area, look at the transformation in Wembley (albeit not everytihng is perfect) and at the loss of a few ugly warehouses.
The point of new housing isn’t to be “affordable”, it is to exist. When residents move into the new housing, they will move out of old homes - and those will be more affordable. Increasing the supply of housing is the only way to drive down the cost of housing.
It’s disgraceful that a “green” party are campaigning against new dense housing because they’d rather have a car park. I’d expect that from the Tories. Clearly we can’t trust the Harrow Green Party to do the right thing for the environment or the people of Harrow and Wembley.
The rational that people moving onto the new development are freeing homes that become more affordable can only be ignorance or come from someone that has an invested interest on the development
These flats do get bought but are then rented out as Air B&B. It is all about money. This has happened a lot in these new builds. Stop over populating areas and filling them with concrete. Taking away communities. I bet the people who give the planning permission and those in the development companies will not be looking out there windows to the view of these towers. The impact it has on existing residents is huge.
Post a Comment