Park Collection Planning , Development and WDCO Forum
There is currently a consultation taking place about the Berkeley Homes proposals for Phase 4 of the development here at Woodberry Down.
Phase 4 is the term Hackney/Berkeley/WDCO use to describe the development that will take place soon on the other side of the road called Woodberry Down opposite Kingly Building and the Beis Chinuch Lebonos Girls School, bounded at one end by Lordship Road/Sainsbury's, at the other by St Olave's Rectory and on the north by Seven Sisters Road.
There are other references to Phase 4 on this site - The Commonplace and the very special, Phase 4 and Beyond - Ground Floor / Retail and Enterprise Strategy and How high is a Tower Block?
The answer to the tower block question is being answered. The proposals on the commonplace site include this page and about halfway down the page is a jolly clever internetty thing with a lider showing the original proposal and those now being presented. One huge difference can be seen in the image. What were to have been to neighbouring blocks of 10 storeys each are now two neighbouring blocks of 6 / 9 / 6 storeys and one of 22 storeys. Not so much an evolution , more genetic modification on a grand scale.
The main guardian of resident welfare and general well being on the estate is the Woodberry Down Community Organisation (WDCO) which will hold its regular monthly meeting this week on Thursday. In preparation for that meeting Geoff Bell has prepared a briefing paper setting out what he sees as flaws in the phase 4 proposals. I have my own views on these supposed flaws, which I may well write up as a response to this. More important is to get your views on Geoff's paper, which is presented in full below.
If you wish to read Geoff's conclusions first you can skip straight to them by clicking here , but his arguments for reaching these conclusions are also presented and well worth understanding.
I look forward to your comments.
The current proposals for Phase 4 of Woodberry Down regeneration.
We believe what has been called the “emerging proposals” of Phase 4 for Woodberry Down have serious flaws. We realise that the plans are still being discussed, and that the design committee and, especially the WDCO reps on it are contesting important parts of the proposals. But the present consultation on the plans ends in late July, so it is important that WDCO comments on these before then.
We will state our concerns:
No overall Strategy or Vision.
According to the Partnership Agreement, that is meant to inform all aspects of the regeneration, each phase must adhere to a Masterplan. When asked at the June WDCO board what masterplan Phase 4 adhere to, Berkeley Home admitted it adhered to none, but was a “stand alone” plan.
This should not happen. Phase 4, as with every phase, should be part of the overall vision for the regeneration and should be integrated into that vision. Everything else should flow from that vision, from density to landscaping, from community provision to the height of buildings, from a retail strategy to an arts strategy.
This is especially important for Phase 4 as it is meant to be the most important phase, providing what has been called “the heart of the community.” But not only is there no vision offered, in the current consultation material, neither are there explanations of how the details of the plan relate to previously agreed principles of the regeneration - for example “The delivery of community facilities;” or “building an authentic identity”; or “Strengthen and differentiate local character”; or “Enhance the relationship with the water”; or “Make the most of New River.” All of this is ignored; none of these previously agreed principles inform what has been offered up.
The breaking of promises.
The second masterplan of 2013 made other,specific promises to residents. Some of these emerged after a thorough consultation and negotiating process. What did this say about Phase 4?
-
It noted “Concern at additional tall buildings being added to site”. And the “specific concern at inclusion of potential ‘third tower’ in centre of site”. It said there would be a “Revision of massing: Reduced height around the Central Square and removal of the ‘third tower’ from the square.”
-
The section on height showed, for Phase 4, one “tall” building between 10 and 15 stories, the rest between 6 and 9 stories.
-
It called for “Maximised retention of existing trees across site” and promised to “Preserve as many trees as possible”.
The new proposals disregard much of this this. The new buildings now rise to as high to 22 stories. The new podium (private) garden will destroy all existing trees in this space. While work has been done on tree provision, the destruction of trees to to make way for parking (for existing social tenants), is not “keep as many trees as possible”. It is also short-sighted, as the need parking for existing social tenants for which will eventually become redundant as these tenants pass on.
Opting out of the principle of a balanced and integrated community
A major feature of the new proposals is this large podium garden – “three times the size of a five aside football pitches” which will be reserved exclusively for surrounding residents. This does include residents of “affordable” homes – including social homes, but of course, most of the surrounding residents will be from private homes. The community as a whole will have no access to this garden: they will have access to the new central square and a “pocket park”, but both of these are much smaller than the private garden.
Incidentally, it should be noted that private gardens, have, according to anecdotal evidence been much underused in existing regeneration phases. Members of WDCO have in the past asked for a survey on their use, but this has never been undertaken.
The fact is that it is this private garden and not the central square which now dominates Phase 4. Again, we were promised the square would be the “heart” of the Woodberry Down. Compared to the private garden it is a very small heart. This is not a balanced and integrated community.
Disregarding the need for a significant increase in social homes
In some of the literature surrounding the proposals, Berkely Home stress that things have changed since the last masterplan, specifically, that there is a need to increase density because of public demand for housing is. But this is a mis-analysis of the current situation. What has happened since the last masterplan is growing public and political recognition that the priority should be on the provision of public housing: that Hackney’s housing waiting list is several thousand and growing is just one indication of this.
The Phase 4 proposals largely ignore this priority. While the break down of the tenure mix has yet to be made public it is promised the 43% will be “affordable”. Of that there is likely to be a slight increase in social housing and a slight decrease in social ownership. But the percentage of private homes provision is virtually the same as previously indicated – 57%. What all this means that approximately two and a half times as many private homes will be built as public homes. In no way does this relate to public need or demand. Can Berkely Home afford less profit? Well, from 2019-21 the company made £1billion. A little less profit in Woodberry Down, with the surplus directed to public housing is surely “affordable” for the company.
This briefing calls for a root and branch re-think of the current proposals for phase 4. At the very least we call for:
-
A vision for phase 4, and how this relates to past visions and principles.
-
A community infrastructure plan.
-
A retail and arts strategy.
-
The podium to be scrapped and replaced with a ground level heavily wooded garden with the retention of all existing trees and with access for all.
-
A detailed plan for the Central Square, with its possible enlargement and proposing what should be in the square and how it will reflect and enhance local character and the area’s relation to water and New River.
-
No buildings above 16 stories, unless an increase is specifically agreed in consultation and negotiation similar to which produced the promise on this in the Second Masterplan consultation.
-
An increase in the percentage and total of affordable homes; fewer percentage of private homes. The consideration of a pilot scheme for key worker housing provision.
-
Different options for parking provision for social tenants.
-
A full and independent consultation on the final proposals, including public meetings, focus groups and questionnaires. WDCO to be given unrestricted access and inspection rights to the process of this consultation
You need to be a member of Woodberry Down Residents' Associations to add comments!
Replies
I have lived at Woodberry Down for 2 years with a long lease on what I think of as my own flat.
In the context of this consultation I care about 2 things:
My own comfort and well being in what I hope will be an improving environment
That there actually be a community in Woodberry Down
I am far from convinced that the Phase 4 proposals will achieve either of those things.
The WDCO board is also far from convinced and has passed a motion saying so, the original motion was amended slightly and then put to a vote. The changes watered down the demands slightly
The Local Labour Party Branch has also submitted a response setting out a number of concerns, which you can download from this link.
WOODBERRY DOWN PHASE 4 RESPONSE3amended.docx
The so-called central square
The location of this square is deeply flawed. It has been placed where by chance there is a largely empty space at present. The empty space arises out of a design decision made shortly after WWII. It is a space which has not worked in the time I have been here. The only practical uses for this site in that time have been
for the fish and chip van
for the discarding of unwanted items
as the location for a Christmas Tree
for an ultimately futile protest against the felling of a tree
This is evidently not the place for a central square. It is essentially a wider piece of pavement with little footfall and no inherent attraction.
The central square should be
central
a route to many destinations (i.e. permeable)
filled with interesting and useful things
worth stopping in to spend time for the sake of spending time
The question of permeability is very relevant. The previous Masterplan had a series of neighbouring but unconnected blocks along Seven Sisters Road. These are now replaced by a totally impermeable barrier. If one were a medieval baron attempting to defend the strategically important water sources to the south, this is precisely what one would build. The very opposite of what we have been promised. Far from building community this looks like a deliberate attempt to fragment it.
My suggestion
There seems to be an obvious redrafting of the proposed plan. Relocate the very tall block to the corner by the crossroads, move one of the 8 storey block between the very tall block and the 6-9-6 block and relocate the central square in the very centre of phase 4.
This would provide a genuinely central square satisfying my 4 criteria. This combined with a genuine Arts/Cultural/Ground floor strategy would provide a much more satisfactory solution.
The Podium Garden
This is a huge area set aside for the sole use of residents of the Barbican proposed for Seven Sisters Road and their neighbours on its southern side. The very opposite of what we have been promised. Far from building community this looks like a deliberate attempt to fragment it.
My suggestion
Drop this selective treat for a minority of residents and make it the central square for all
Ground Floor Strategy
WDCO was promised the opportunity to contribute to and participate in the development of a Ground Floor Strategy. If this opportunity has been presented I have missed it.
Where now do I look for this Ground Floor Strategy.
My suggestion
Actually carry out the promised conversation with the public and with their appointed representatives in a free and open fashion to determine more precisely what it is we need in the way of a retail, enterprise and services strategy on the ground floor and maybe upstairs as well.
Trees
It must be acknowledged that Woodberry Down is a completely artificial, man made environment, terra-formed for our convenience.
The New River, neither new nor a river, was hewn by hand to bring water from out of town to the inner suburbs.
The reservoirs were dug to maintain and enhance that water supply.
The landscaping is entirely fabricated to fill in the space between the tower blocks, man’s monument to his own fecundity.
The trees too, are where and what they are because someone decided so.
And yet, a religious fervour has grown up about them that they must remain where they are, as they are because they are old.
This is irrational.
We are building this substantial estate for our convenience. We need to take rational decisions based on what our needs now are. Badly placed trees, with a declining lifespan, unsuited to our increasingly drought-ridden climate should be replaced, with species we now know to be better suited to an urban housing estate in the middle of a climate crisis.
One of the concessions made by the estate designers is to the tree-huggers. That is a mistake. Trees can be replaced just as blocks of council flats can, it just takes a little longer.
My suggestion
Put the commitment to conserving ancient trees in the context of a modern strategy and preserve only those which match our updated criteria
Arts Strategy
Also in the supporting text on the Commonplace pages are references to to an Arts Strategy. The best the Berkeley Homes rejoinder to the WDCO motion can come up with is a lantern making workshop.
Where is this Arts Strategy?
My suggestion
Well, lets have an Arts Strategy
The WDCO Motion
This motion came to a meeting of WDCO just before the summer break, in the course of a meeting delayed by a previous community discussion with the Safer Neighbourhoods Team, and where management issues such as repeatedly failing lifts, unreasonably locked windows and the smell of sewage, occupied a very great deal of time.
The motion was not properly debated, nor were its main points examined in detail, but it was passed by a very substantial majority (10 for, 2 against, 3 abstentions) because, as its proposer persuaded the board “WDCO must say something”.