Highgate Society responds to consultation on Haringey’s Draft Local Plan

Members of the Society worked intensively over the Christmas period on our response to Haringey’s Draft Local Plan, a complex 500+ page document. Our submission ran to more than 30 pages, reflecting both the scale of the Plan and the seriousness of its implications for Highgate and the wider borough.

Central to our concerns is the requirement to deliver 400 new homes in Highgate, a target driven by the Government’s unrealistic ambition of 1.5 million homes by 2030. Highgate is already densely developed, and it is difficult to see how this number can be achieved without the loss of employment space, green space or damage to the public realm. Many of the proposed development sites are also privately owned, meaning the Council has limited control over whether or when they come forward. Consequently, the housing target is unlikely to be met.

We also challenged the emphasis on housing numbers rather than the number of people housed. Current targets incentivise smaller units at the expense of actual need. We argued that targets should be refined to focus on bed spaces, better reflecting actual housing need and the Council’s housing register. Moreover, the Plan assumes that the construction industry has the capacity to deliver at this scale. Evidence suggests otherwise, with skills shortages, rising costs, legislative delays and a weakened market combining into a “perfect storm” for delivery.

While we welcome the policy requiring 30% three-bedroom homes and excluding studios, experience shows that housing mix policies are often poorly enforced, with developments dominated by one and two-bed units. Stronger adherence is essential.

We also welcome the Plan’s acknowledgement that there is no current need for additional purpose-built student accommodation. Student housing is highly attractive to developers due to its profitability and exemptions from affordable housing and space standards. We argued that this policy should be strengthened to make clear that such schemes will not be permitted unless there is a nomination agreement with a higher education provider.

There has been some welcome strengthening of basement policies, including greater protection for neighbouring properties and a Basement Impact Assessments (BIA) is now included within the new policy. However, we pointed out that these protections should apply equally to basements under new builds, and requirements should be mandatory, not optional. We also argued for stronger safeguards, including more rigorous site investigations and construction management plans at the application stage and the setting up of a bond to provide security for neighbours in the event of a dispute.

For heritage while we welcomed the principal that the Council will support proposals which positively contribute to the preservation, restoration and enhancement of the borough’s heritage assets we pointed out that in our experience Haringey takes inadequate account of heritage assets and their settings and that they need to be more robust.

We were disappointed by the Town Centres and High Streets policy, which focuses almost entirely on town centres and ignores the importance of local high streets. We also pressed home the need for an Article 4 Direction to stop Permitted Development rights from conversion from retail to residential, which is a huge threat to our high streets and which the Council has so far resisted.

Finally, we strongly supported the Plan’s recognition of biodiversity loss and climate adaptation and the strengthened policies in these areas including a preference for genuinely biodiverse living roofs over sedum roofs together with the acknowledgement of the Council’s statutory duty to support nature recovery. Our response focused on strengthening delivery, long-term management, monitoring and enforcement to ensure these environmental gains are real and lasting.

To read our response click here.