prp site analysis and concept (pdf, 20mb)

HILLCREST ESTATE, HIGHGATE – JANUARY 2015

SITE ANALYSIS AND CONCEPT

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION �� 4Report Structure 5The Team 5

2. LOCAL CONTEXT �� 62.1 Transport Network 82.2 PTAL 102.3 Controlled Parking Zone 122.4 Open space 142.5 Play Areas 162.6 Nature and Wildlife 18

Designations� 182.7 Urban Character 20

Developed Land (Figure Ground) 20Topography 21

2.8 Building Heights and Uses 222.9�Heritage�and�Conservation 24

STATUTORILY AND LOCALLY LISTED BUILDINGS 262.10 Views 282.11�Planning�Policy,�Review�and�Aspirations,�New�Applications 303. EXISTING SITE ��323.1 Development History 343.2�Design�Evolution�of�the�Current�Estate 363.3�The�Existing�Site 383.4�Existing�Blocks�General�Arrangement 40

Type A 40Type B 42Type C 44

3.5�Existing�Blocks�Design�Features 46Horizontality 46Concrete Features 48Entrances 49Decorative�Flower�Boxes� 50feature Brickwork 51

3.6�Current�Accommodation�and�Density 523.7 Topography 543.8�Ground�Conditions 563.9 Water Levels 573.10 Ecology and Wildlife 58

Highgate Tunnels Bat Project 593.11 Trees 60

Tree�Classification� 60Root�Protection�Area� 60

3.12 Landscape and Open Space 61Zones�of�Activities�within�Hillcrest�� 62

3.13�Play�Facilities 633.14 Site Boundaries 643.15�Lighting 653.16 Car Parking 66

Car Parking Survey 66

4. CONSTRAINTS ��684.1 Overlooking (20m) 704.2 SINC 714.3�Tree�Root�Protection�Areas 714.4 Spine Road 724.5 Statutory Services 724.6�Summary�Diagram�for�Potential�Development�Sites 735. DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ��745.1 Feedback from Workshop and drop-in event with Residents 765.2 Concept Proposal 78

Proposed�Residential�Blocks� 79Design�Options� 79Changes�to�the�Existing�Site� 80

5.3 Further Improvements 81Landscape, Amenity and Play 81

5.4�Option�1 82Impact on Trees and Ecology 83

5.5�Option�2 84Impact on Trees and Ecology 85

5.6�Option�3 86Impact on trees and ecology 87Further�Investigation� 88

6. CONCLUSION ��90THE WAY FORWARD 90

page 3

Co

nt

en

ts

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

1. INTRODUCTION

PRP Architects are commissioned by the Housing Commissioning Investment and Sites Team (HCIS) of London Borough of Haringey (LBH) to produce a concept design study to identify the potential for residential development within the Hillcrest Estate, North Hill, Highgate.

The�Site�is�located�within�a�conservation�area�in�the�south�west�of�the�London�Borough�of�Haringey�within�a�residential�area on an elevated site surrounded by a woodland belt.

The�purpose�of�this�report�is�to�assist�the�Client�to�identify�potential�development�sites�for�affordable�homes�within�the�borough in order to help the current housing crisis in the capital. Hillcrest is one of a number of sites that the HCIS team�is�reviewing�as�a�part�of�its�work�to�provide��additional�affordable�homes�across�the�borough.�Due�to�its�location�and�context�this�site�is�one�of�the�most�sensitive�sites�and�its�development�potential�needs�careful�analysis�and�input�from a large group of specialists.

There are currently 116 homes in seven blocks on the estate which would be retained as part of any future development.

page 4

1. I

nt

ro

du

Ct

Ion

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

THE TEAMA number of consultants have been appointed to assist PRP Architects in preparing this report. The team input includes the following disciplines:

• Heritage�and�Conservation�(CgMs�Consulting)

• Town Planning (PRP Planning)

• Environmental Impact Assessment (Temple Group Ltd)

• Transport (PRP Transport)

• Ecology (Landscape Planning Ltd)

• Arboriculture (Landscape Planning Ltd)

• Landscape (PRP Landscape)

• Sustainability (PRP Environmental)

• Right of Light (Calford Seaden)

• Civil�Engineering�(Ellis�&�Moore)

• Mechanical�and�Electrical�Engineering�(Mendick�Waring�Ltd)

• Noise�and�Vibration�(Temple�Group�Ltd)

• Air Quality (Temple Group Ltd)

• Townscape Visual Impact Assessment (Landuse Consultants Ltd - LUC)

REPORT STRUCTUREThe�report�is�prepared�in�three�primary�sections:

• Existing�condition�analysis

• Identifying�the�constraints�and�opportunities

• Introducing�concept�design�options

This�report�outlines�our�analysis�of�the�existing�estate�in�its�local context and within its boundary. The analysis covers all�the�characteristics�of�the�site�including�movement,�open�spaces,�ecology,�urban�design,�heritage�and�conservation.

Based on this analysis, a series of constraints and opportunities�have�been�identified�that�would�influence�any development within the estate. Some constraints have a�more�significant�impact�on�the�current�estate�and�its�surrounding areas than others. The importance of these impacts has also been reviewed.

The�opportunities�have�evolved�into�concepts�and�proposals�within�the�estate.�The�development�potential�within the estate has been reviewed for housing and potential�supporting�uses�such�as�community�facilities,�play�area/facilities�and�car�parking.��The�impacts�of�any�new�development on the site are also considered.

The�results�of�this�report�can�be�used�to�review�the�financial�viability�of�a�new�development,�identify�the�most�suitable�tenure and understand technical risks. This report will also assist the Client to progress the next stage of designing the�potential�development�and�understanding�its�potential�impact�on�the�existing�environment�and�surrounding�context, should a decision be made to develop the site. Additional�input�will�be�required�from�the�LBH�conservation�team, planning team and other stakeholders at this point.

Most�of�the�drawings,�illustrations�and�photographs�in�this�document are produced by PRP Architects. Where they are not, the source has been noted.

Source:�Bing�Maps

page 5

1. I

nt

ro

du

Ct

Ion

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

Hillcrest Estate is located in the south west of the London Borough of Haringey, within the Highgate Ward. This is a generally urban area of North London at the north-eastern corner of Hampstead Heath.

Highgate�is�an�affluent�London�suburb�and�is�part�of�the�conservation�area�within�the��borough.�There�are�active�conservation�and�heritage�bodies�including�the�Highgate�Society and Highgate Neighbourhood Forum, who were formed to address any resident concerns regarding the area.

Until�the�late�Victorian�period,�Highgate�was�a�village�outside�London.�Many�green�areas�including�the�eastern�part of Hampstead Heath, three areas of ancient woodland, Waterlow Park and the eastern-facing slopes known as Highgate Bowl remain.

Close�to�the�site�is�Highgate�village,�a�collection�of�largely�Georgian�shops,�pubs,�restaurants�and�residential�streets,�which�also�contain�landmark�buildings�such�as�St�Michael's�Church�and�steeple,�St.�Joseph's�Church,�Highgate�School�(1565), Jacksons Lane arts centre within a Grade II listed former�church,�the�Gatehouse�Inn�dating�from�1670�and�Berthold�Lubetkin's�1930s�Highpoint�buildings�which�sits�opposite the estate. Highgate is also famous for its Victorian cemetery where the grave of the philosopher and economist Karl�Marx�is�located.

To achieve an understanding of the complexities and sensitivities of the site a detailed analysis has been undertaken. This chapter reviews the site at a scale of regional and local context.�The�location�is�described�within�its�immediate�surroundings.�The�local�characteristics�include:

• Transport Network

• Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL)

• Controlled Car Parking Zones (CPZ)

• Open Spaces

• Parks and Play Areas

• Nature and Wildlife

• Urban Character

• Building Heights and Uses

• Heritage�and�Conservation

• Listed Buildings

• Townscape and Visuals

• Planning�Policy,�Reviews�and�Aspirations,�New�Developments within the area

2. LOCAL CONTEXT

41 2 3

Jacksons Lane Arts Centre Highgate School The Gatehouse Inn Shops on Highgate High Street

Source: Google Earth

page 6

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

Shops on Highgate High Street

Source: Google Earth

4

32

1

HIGHGATE WOOD

ARCHWAY ROAD

HIGHGATE STATION

HIGHGATE GOLF CLUB

HAMPSTEAD�HEATH

HILLCREST ESTATE

ST�MICHAEL’S�CHURCHST�JOSEPH’S�CHURCH

HIGHPOINT I AND II

HIGHATE�CEMETERY

WATERLOW PARK

QUEENS WOOD

Source: Google EarthAerial image of Highgate

page 7

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

N

Source: www.maps.google.com - interpreted by PRPWider transport network links

2.1 TRANSPORT NETWORK

Haringey has good radial transport links into central London by road, underground and rail. The site is connected to primary roads such as the North Circular Road (A406) and The Ring Road (A501) via Archway Road (A1).

The�closest�Underground�station�is�Highgate�Station�on�the�Northern Line. Bus routes 43, 134, 143, 210, 214, 263 and 271 are�available�on�North�Hill�and�Archway�Road.�Muswell�Hill�bus�station�is�a�22�minute�bus�ride�away.

The B519 North Hill and B550 Southwood Lane provide secondary�routes�for�vehicular�traffic�to�the�west�and�east�of the site. The B519 North Hill is a two-way road, with wide footways on both sides for pedestrians. The B550 Southwood Lane is narrower and does not provide footways along its whole length. It is a recommended route for cyclists.

The remaining surrounding road network comprises residential�streets�with�footways�and�footpaths�providing�connectivity.

The Site is approximately 0.5km from the top of Highgate High Street. It is bounded to the west by North Hill; the eastern boundary is formed by Southwood Lane; The Park, forms the northern boundary; while the south of the Site is bounded by Park Walk, a public footpath that links North Hill with Southwood Lane.

Site

LB Haringey

Green Open Space

Road Network

Rail Network

Highgate�Underground�Station

KEY:

page 8

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

Local transport network links

N

Site Boundary

Highgate�Underground�Station

Bus Stops

Pedestrian Routes

Cycle Routes

Tertiary�Connectors

Secondary Connectors

Primary Connectors

KEY:

��Source:�Ordnance�Survey�(c)�Crown�Copyright�2014.�Licence�number�100022432�and�licence�number�100020449�(Applies�to�all�OS�Maps�used�in�this�document).�Graphics�by�PRP�based�on�information�from�www.tfl.gov.ukpage 9

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

Hillcrest Estate

Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) is a detailed and accurate measure of the accessibility of a point to the public transport�network,�taking�into�account�walk�access�time�and�service�availability.�The�method�is�essentially�a�way�of�measuring the density of the public transport network at any�location�within�Greater�London.

PTALs are based on public transport infrastructure within 640m (bus stops) and 960m (rail/underground ) of a selected�location.

In the case of larger areas it is appropriate to assess a number�of�locations�to�understand�all�available�public�transport�opportunities.�The�current�online�assessment�toolkit is unable to incorporate walking routes that are not on�the�pre-defined�road�network.�This�can�result�in�adopted�footpaths, underpasses, footbridges and suitable walking routes within larger estates not being included by the online assessment and thus providing inaccurate scores.

In�these�instances�it�is�common�for�additional�site�surveys�to be undertaken to establish suitable walking routes and distances to public transport infrastructure. These measurements are then used to calculate a revised PTAL score�for�the�selected�locations.�The�PTAL�is�established�for�each�location�using�a�set�formula.�These�indices�can�now�be allocated to bands of PTALs where band 1 (1a and 1b) represents a low level of accessibility and 6 (6a and 6b) a high�level.�The�table�below�shows�the�relationship�between�PTAL�scores�and�the�final�PTAL�levels.�A�value�of�0�would�indicate no access to the public transport network within the parameters given.

Discussions have taken place between PRP Transport and LB-H’s�Highways�team�where�it�has�been�generally�accepted�that�the�online�assessment�toolkit�does�not�reflect�an�accurate PTAL for Hillcrest. It has been agreed that the site is�not�1b�(poor).�Whilst�the�final�conclusions�of�the�revised�assessment�are�still�to�be�made�preliminary�discussions�have�agreed that in principle the site reassessment is likely to result�in�a�PTAL�in�the�range�of�3�to�4.�An�initial�assessment�of�the�site�has�been�passed�to�the�LB-H’s�Highways�team,�its�feedback�will�be�essential�in�determining�the�way�forward,�including�what�further�investigations�are�required.��

PTAL maps produced by TFL in 2012. Hillcrest site highlighted.

6

Table 3 Public Transport Accessibility Levels

PTAL Range of Index Map Colour Description 1a (Low) 0.01 – 2.50 Very poor 1b 2.51 – 5.00 Very poor 2 5.01 – 10.00 Poor 3 10.01 – 15.00 Moderate 4 15.01 – 20.00 Good 5 20.01 – 25.00 Very Good 6a 25.01 – 40.00 Excellent 6b (High) 40.01 + Excellent

PTAL Web Site

A PTAL calculator is available on the web at the following address:

webpid.elgin.gov.uk

or via TfL’s Borough Partnership’s web page.

The site allows you to search for a specific location by street name, co-ordinates or postcode and then calculate the PTAL value for the selected location.

Source:�https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/haringey-2012-ptals.pdf

2.2 PTAL

page 10

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

Services within 8 and 12 minutes walking distances

This�diagram�shows�the�location�of�all�the�public�transport�services that were considered as part of the PTAL assessment. It clearly demonstrates a high number of services�within�eight�minutes’�walking�distance�of�the�site�and we are currently establishing exact distances for these facilities.�Pending�completion�of�the�assessment�a�formal�report�will�be�submitted�to�LBH�for�its�consideration.

��Source:�http://www.haringey.gov.uk�interpreted�by�PRP

PTAL Assessment points

Highgate�underground�Station�Entrance

Bus stops within vicinity of Hillcrest

Assumed Service Access Points (SAPS) for PTAL assessment

1. North Hill, Hillcrest (Bus 143)2. 2. Highgate V Red Lion (Bus 214)3. Highgate Village Angel (Bus 210, 271)4. Archway�Rd�Muswell�H�Rd�(Bus�263)5. Highgate�Stn�Muswell�H�Rd�(Bus�43,�134)6. Highgate Stn Archway Rd (Bus 43, 134, 263)7. Highgate�underground�station�

KEY:

page 11

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

Controlled Parking Zones in the vicinity of Hillcrest.

LBH’s�Local�Plan�Strategic�Policies�recognise�that�the�borough�suffers�from�pollution�as�a�result�of�congestion�and�traffic�emissions.�As�part�of�a�London-wide�transport�strategy,�LBH�is�committed�to�reducing�car�use�in�the�borough�in�order�reduce�pollution,�accidents,�and�delays�to�buses.

Controlled�Parking�Zones�(CPZs)�were�first�introduced�in�Haringey�in�1994�to�reduce�traffic�congestion,�improve�road�safety and promote other forms of transport. Within the vicinity of Hillcrest there are a number of CPZs controlling areas of highway. Highgate CPZ (HGA) was introduced in March�2004,�Highgate�Station�CPZ�(HGSTA)�was�introduced�in�June�2005�and�Highgate�Underground�Station�Outer�CPZ�(HGSTA O) was introduced in July 2007.

All�three�CPZs�operate�Mon�-�Fri,�10am�-�noon.�This�type�of�restriction�focuses�on�the�removal�of�commuter�parking�from�residential�roads.

Based�on�the�location�of�the�CPZs,�Hillcrest�could�be�reasonably incorporated into the Highgate HGA CPZ. This would�require�a�formal�consultation�to�discuss�proposals�and�if�agreed,�create�appropriate�traffic�regulation�orders.

��Source:�http://www.haringey.gov.uk/existing_cpz_s_-_march_2014_a1.pdf��-�interpreted�by�PRP

2.3 CONTROLLED PARKING ZONE

Highgate�Station�CPZ�Mon-Fri�10am-noon

Highgate�Station�Outer�CPZMon-Fri�10am-noon

Highgate CPZ Mon-Fri�10am-noon

KEY:

page 12

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

Hillcrest Estate is surrounded by a number of accessible parks�of�varying�size�and�quality.�

The estate is within the 280m catchment of Highgate Wood and�Queen’s�Wood�which�are�of�District�and�Metropolitan�importance.

The parks in Haringey are of great value, providing diverse function,�encouraging�biodiversity�and�bring�great�ecological�value�to�the�area.�Hillcrest’s�local�parks�and�open�spaces��help�to�create�a�specific�identity�and�act�as�key�local�landmarks for the space.

There is a network of parks and open spaces within the area ranging from small open spaces to parks and heaths. They are�classified�as�follows:

METROPOLITAN PARKSNatural heathland, downland, commons, woodland etc.,�formal�parks�providing�for�both�active�and�passive�recreation.

DISTRICT PARKLandscape�setting�with�a�variety�of�natural�features�providing�for�a�wide�range�of�activities,�including�outdoor�sports�facilities�and�playing�fields,�children’s�play�for�different�age�groups,�and�informal�recreation�pursuits.�

LOCAL PARKSProviding�for�court�games,�children’s�play�spaces�or�other�areas�of�a�specialist�nature,�including�nature�conservation�areas.

SMALL LOCAL PARKS Gardens,�sitting-out�areas,�children’s�play�spaces�or�other areas of a specialist nature, including nature and conservation�areas.

Waterlow Park - view of the middle point

Waterlow�Park�-�upper�section�of�the�park

Entrance gate to Highgate Wood

Path in Highgate Wood

Small Local Parks

280m Pedestrian Catchment


Local Parks



District�&�Metropolitan�Parks



Allotments - restricted access

Golf Courses - restricted access

Outer Borough Sites of Nature Conservation�Importance

Hillcrest Estate

KEY:

2.4 OPEN SPACE

page 14

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

Source:�http://www.haringey.gov.uk�interpreted�by�PRPOpen Space – Types and Distances

page 15

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

2.5 PLAY AREAS

Play elements in Waterlow Park

Play trail in Highgate Wood

Playing�fields�in�Highgate�Wood

Play are in Waterlow Park

Various public spaces are easily accessible from the Hillcrest Estate.�These�spaces�accommodate�equipped�children’s�play�space�and�casual�play�space�of�great�quality�and�value.�The�key�play�areas�are�located�within�10�minutes’�walking�distance and cover play elements for children of all ages.

Significant�play�areas�are�located�in�the�parks�listed�below�and�are�equipped�as�follows:

Highgate Wood is 28 hectares of ancient woodland. It is a haven for wildlife and provides numerous easily accessible and scenic woodland trails. It was originally part of�the�ancient�Forest�of�Middlesex�which�covered�much�of�London,�Hertfordshire�and�Essex�and�was�mentioned�in the Domesday Book. It lies in the London Borough of Haringey, but is owned and managed by the City of London Corporation.

The Sports Ground, located in an opening in the Wood, provides�a�picturesque�and�rural�backdrop,�as�well�as�top�quality�turf.�It�includes�a�full-size�football�pitch�and�a�full-size�cricket pitch.

Highgate�Wood�has�an�excellent�and�well-equipped�playground,�complete�with�sandpits,�climbing�equipment�of�various�levels�of�difficulty�and�a�zip�wire.�Great�thought�has�gone into providing fun and challenges for the various age groups,�and�there's�a�separate�area�for�the�under-fives�to�call their own.

Highgate Wood has received the Green Flag Award for over ten�consecutive�years.�Highgate�Wood�has�also�received�the�Green�Heritage�Award�in�recognition�for�achieving�the�required�standard�in�managing�sites�of�historic�importance

Waterlow Park, set on a hillside in Highgate. boasts one of the best panoramic views over London.

Covering 29 acres, the park includes Lauderdale House with its formal terraced gardens, ponds on three levels, tree lined walkways, mature shrub beds, herbaceous borders, ornamental bedding, expanses of lawn, six tennis courts, a small playground for younger children and a natural play area for older children.

In�addition�Camden�council�has�obtained�grant�funding�for�a�new play area in the park for 6 to 13 year old children.

In front of the Waterlow Park Centre, is an exemplar planting�of�a�dry�border�which�requires�relatively�little�maintenance and shows the type of plants that should survive our changing climate.

The park is home to much wildlife, including hedgehogs, woodpeckers�and�bats.�There's�a�dedicated�wildlife�area�used�for�education�and�maintained�with�the�help�of�volunteers.�The�park�is�staffed�permanently�by�two�gardeners�and�an�attendant.

A�book�was�written�by�Pam�Cooper�`Waterlow�Park,�a�Garden�for�the�Gardenless'

The�author�graduated�in�the�Conservation�of�Historic�Landscapes,�Parks�and�Gardens�(Architectural�Association),�1992. From 1999 to 2002 she chaired the Friends of Waterlow�Park�and�the�Waterlow�Park�Action�Group,�the�latter�formed�in�response�to�proposals�to�restore�the�park�during that period.

Crouch�End�Playing�Fields�an�area�of�open�fields�and�woods�that�has�been�enjoyed�by�generations�of�local�people.�It�makes�a�vital�contribution�to�Haringey's�green�space,�providing�both�formal�and�informal�leisure�opportunities.�It features a variety of landscapes – woodland, allotments, playing�fields�and�meadow.�

Cricket and tennis have long been played at clubs on the site, but it is also a perfect place for jogging, dog walking, playing with the children, bird watching and picnicking.

Hidden�behind�the�playing�fields�there�is�a�tranquil�haven�for�birds,�bats�and�butterflies�–�a�grassy�meadow�bordered�by�trees and blackberry bushes, approached by various wooded paths. In spring, the blackthorn trees provide a backdrop of white blossom and in late summer it is popular for foraging for blackberries and sloes. There are many ancient oaks along�the�paths,�in�addition�to�birch,�ash�and�willow.�A�woodland�walk�links�the�site�with�Queen's�Wood.�

Highgate School Playing Fields is the closest play area to the Hillcrest�Estate.�Although�the�fields�are�not�accessible�by�the�public�there�is�a�large�hall�with�a�vast�selection�of�indoor�facilities�and�a�swimming�pool�for�public�access.�

KEY:

page 16

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

Local play area diagram Source:�http://www.haringey.gov.uk�interpreted�by�PRP

page 17

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

Hillcrest Estate is enclosed by a narrow strip of woodland belt, within a high-density residential area. The woodland is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) of Local Importance, and is known as Southwood Lane Wood.

SINCs�make�an�important�contribution�to�Local�Biodiversity�Action�Plans�and�local�natural�character.�

Within the hierarchy of planning policy, they are less important�than�national�or�regional�designations,�such�as�Sites�of�Special�Scientific�Interest�(SSSI).�In�some�areas�the�SINC�designation�is�sub-divided�into�further�‘grades’�of�SINC:

• Site�of�Metropolitan�Importance�for�Nature�Conservation

• Site�of�Borough�Importance�for�Nature�Conservation��(Grade I and Grade II)

• Site�of�Local�Importance�for�Nature�Conservation�(SINC).

Southwood Lane Wood is a designated Site of Local Importance�for�Nature�Conservation.�The�site�was�first�designated in 1990. The boundary was amended in 2002, with the central part of the Hillcrest estate removed from the�designation.��

The�Southwood�Lane�SINC�Management�Plan�describes�the�SINC as follows:

A section of mature woodland on an embankment around a housing estate … and an area of more recent scrub and woodland within the housing estate.

2.6 NATURE AND WILDLIFE

DESIGNATIONSA�desktop�search�of�other�local�sites�of�conservation�importance has been undertaken.

STATUTORYThe desktop study found three statutory sites within a 2km radius:

• Parkland Walk Local Nature Reserve(LNR) – 14.3 hectares, a 2.5 mile disused railway of woodland, scrub and rough grassland.

• Queen’s�Wood�(LNR)�–�21�hectares,�an�ancient�semi-natural woodland.

• Hampstead Heath Woods (SSSI) – 16.6 hectares of old and over-mature broad leaved woodland.

Parkland Walk (LNR) is a 2.5 mile disused railway and contains�naturally�regenerating�woodland,�scrub�and�rough�grassland. Parkland Walk is located approximately 360 metres�east�of�the�site;�residential�properties�exist�between�the�development�site�and�the�designation,�and�for�this�reason it is considered unlikely that adverse impacts would arise from any development.

Queen’s�Wood�(LNR)�is�an�ancient�semi-natural�woodland,�with�a�species�composition�of�Oak,�Hornbeam,�Wild�Service�Tree, Rowan and Hazel along with Bluebell, Wood Sage and Giant Fescue.

Hampstead Heath Woods includes North Wood and the larger Ken Wood to the south; the woodlands are long-established with an abundance of old and over-mature trees providing dead wood habitat for a range of invertebrate species,�such�as�the�nationally�rare�Jewel�Beetle.

NON STATUTORYThe desktop study found 29 non-statutory sites within a 2km radius�and�five�close�by�the�site.�These�are�listed�below:

• Southwood Lane Wood (HgL06) – Secondary woodland covering 0.6 ha;

• Harrington Site (HgL05) – Secondary woodland and flower�beds�covering�1.32ha;

• Yeatman Road Allotments (HgL19L) – Allotments and scrub covering 3.26ha;

• Highgate�Cemetery�(M088)�–�Secondary�woodland�and�semi-improved neutral grassland covering 14.81 ha;

• Holly Lodge Gardens (CaL01) – Amenity grassland and scattered�trees�covering�1.39�ha.

The closest of these is Southwood Lane Wood (HgL06); It forms the site boundary to the north, east and south. The woodland is situated between the Hillcrest Estate and surrounding�residential�properties.�

Car�park

1

5

1

2

1

2

3a

3b3c

4

4

Non-native�secondary�woodland

Rough�grassland�and�brambles

Compartment�numbers

Path

Boundary�of�Site�of�Importancefor�Nature�Conservation

Map�1:�Habitats

Large�deadhorsechestnut�trunk


Rough grassland and brambles

Compartment numbers

Path

Boundary of site Importancefor�Nature�Conservation

KEY:

Southwood Lane Wood Source: London Borough of Haringey

Car�park

1

5

1

2

1

2

3a

3b3c

4

4


Rough�grassland�and�brambles

Compartment�numbers

Path

Boundary�of�Site�of�Importancefor�Nature�Conservation

Map�1:�Habitats

Large�deadhorsechestnut�trunk

Photographs of Southwood Lane Wood

page 18

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsL05IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07IsBI07

HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13HgL13

IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04IsL04

IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01IsBI01



HgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19MHgL19M


HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06HgBII06

HgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19KHgL19K


CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01CaL01





HgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19LHgL19L

BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13BaL13


BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24BaBII24


HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06HgBI06


M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072M072

IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03IsBII03













IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01IsBII01

CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09CaBII09



BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05BaBI05


CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02CaBI02

CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03CaBI03

Based on the Ordnance Survey 1: 10 000 map © Crown copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey Licence No. 100032216. GLA

Sites of Importance for Nature ConservationEcological Data Map (report 558) for Landscape Planning Ltd.Hillcrest Estate, 5 December 2014

Metropolitan Importance

Borough Importance (Grade 1)

Borough Importance (Grade 2)

Local Importance

2Km Search Area

Areas of Deficiency in Access to Nature

The Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation have been identified since 1986 and the categorisation of sites is related to their protected status in the land-use planning system. The boundaries and site grades reflect the most recent consideration of each site, details of which are available from GiGL. Note that boundaries and grades maychange as new information becomes available.

This map has been reproduced forLandscape Partnership Ltd. and clientfor inclusion in reporting for the above site by GiGL CIC. Produced by GreenspaceProduced by GreenspaceProduced by GreenspaceProduced by GreenspaceProduced by GreenspaceProduced by GreenspaceProduced by GreenspaceProduced by GreenspaceProduced by Greenspace

Information for Greater LondonInformation for Greater LondonInformation for Greater LondonInformation for Greater LondonInformation for Greater LondonInformation for Greater LondonInformation for Greater LondonInformation for Greater LondonInformation for Greater Londonwww.gigl.org.ukwww.gigl.org.ukwww.gigl.org.ukwww.gigl.org.ukwww.gigl.org.ukwww.gigl.org.ukwww.gigl.org.ukwww.gigl.org.ukwww.gigl.org.uk

Scale 1:17500

525000 525500 526000 526500 527000 527500 528000 528500 529000 529500 530000 530500 531000 531500

525000 525500 526000 526500 527000 527500 528000 528500 529000 529500 530000 530500 531000 531500

1860

0018

6500

1870

0018

7500

1880

0018

8500

1890

0018

9500

1900

00

1860

0018

6500

1870

0018

7500

1880

0018

8500

1890

0018

9500

1900

00

Source: GIGL mapspage 19

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

DEVELOPED LAND (FIGURE GROUND)The�figure�ground�map�emphasises�built�form�and�the�spaces between these built forms. This serves to highlight existing�patterns�that�have�arisen�in�the�development�of�the�built�form�(streets�and�blocks),�sometimes�called�‘urban�grain’.

The�site�has�its�own�unique�figure�ground:�its�park-like�character is in contrast with the surrounding urban grain which is predominantly streets.

2.7 URBAN CHARACTER

Figure Ground diagram

N

Source: OS mappage 20

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

Houses on North Hill

Houses on North Hill

Southwood Lane

Highpoint on North Hill

Southwood Lane

Shops along Archway Road

Houses on The Park

Houses on Hillside Gardens

TOPOGRAPHYThe topography surrounding the site and within the site is of interest�and�requires�consideration.

Some parts of Hillcrest are higher than 120m above the datum (base level) which makes Hillcrest one of the highest points in London. It is located on the slightly elevated area that�drops�significantly�towards�the�north-east�down�to�Archway Road.

The�site�rises�dramatically�at�the�junction�between�The�Park�and Southwood Lane. The trees around the site provide screening�of�the�buildings,�especially�in�summer�time�when�the deciduous trees have leaves. From the west the site is slightly elevated from the street at North Hill.

Contours diagram Source: OS 3D contour map Licence number 100022432 reinterpreted by PRP

page 21

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

The surrounding built form comprises mainly low-rise two to�three�storey�buildings.�There�are�a�few�exceptions�to�this,�however; these include Highpoint I &II opposite the estate on the North Hill Road and the 8 storey block to the south, Southwood Lane.

Hillcrest Estate comprises three 7-storey blocks and four 4-storey blocks. These buildings appear higher than the surrounding blocks because of the elevated levels of the site compared to its surroundings.

2.8 BUILDING HEIGHTS AND USES

Height diagram

N

Source: OS map, aerial axonometric photographs and site visit

Site Boundary

1 Storey

2 Storey

3 Storey

4 Storey

5 Storey

7 Storey

8 Storey

KEY:

page 22

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

The�surrounding�area�is�mainly�residential�with�a�number�of�supporting�uses�that�are�typically�found�in�most�of�the�developed�residential�areas�of�London.�These�include�educational,�health,�retail,�places�of�worship,�pubs�and extra-care�facilities.

The majority of the mixed uses are located along Archway Road�and�North�Hill,�creating�local�“high�street”�centres.

Building use diagram

N

��Source:�OS�map,�LHB�interactive�maps�and�site�visit

KEY:

Site Boundary

Residential

Extra Care

Retail

Retail Grnd Floor

Pub

Education

Places of Worship

Garages

Community Centre

page 23

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

This�section�contains�input�from�the�Heritage�Consultants�CgMs,�who�are�sub�consultant�to�Temple�Group�appointed�by LBH to review the heritage aspect of the estate and options�for�potential�development�of�the�site.�

The Site is bounded to the west by North Hill, a major route that historically linked the City of London to the North, developing in a piecemeal fashion with a rich variety of building periods and styles. The eastern boundary is formed by Southwood Lane, a road with medieval or earlier origins with a varied architectural character. A 19th century residential�road,�The�Park,�forms�the�northern�boundary,�while the south of the Site is bounded by Park Walk, a public footpath that links North Hill with Southwood Lane.

By�virtue�of�Paragraph�128�of�the�National�Planning�Policy�Framework,�planning�applicants�are�required�to�describe�the�significance�of�any�heritage�assets�in�the�vicinity�of�the�Site�and�demonstrate�any�potential�impacts�that�a�proposal�would�have�upon�their�significance,�including�any�contribution�made�to�their�setting.�

The principal heritage constraints are the Highgate Conservation�Area�and�a�number�of�statutorily-listed�and�locally-listed buildings in the vicinity of the Site. The Site is located within part of the northern boundary of Sub Area 1 (Highgate�Village)�of�the�conservation�area,�adjoining�part�of�Sub Area 3 (Archway).

A�map�of�the�Highgate�Conservation�Area�showing�the�borough�boundaries�and�division�of�the�Conservation�Area�between�the�London�Boroughs�of�Haringey�and�Camden.�Hillcrest is shown in red.

A�map�of�the�sub-areas�of�Highgate�Conservation�Area.�Hillcrest�is�shown�in�red. Source: Haringey Council website

2.9 HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION

HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF HIGHGATE

Highgate is a suburban area in north London, located at the north-eastern corner of Hampstead�Heath.�Until�the�late�Victorian�expansion,�Highgate�formed�a�distinct�village�outside�of�London,�situated�on�the�main�road�from�the�North�to�the�city.�The�hilltop�position�of�Highgate�with�fine�views�over�London�has�always�attracted�residents�and�it�is�one�of�the�most expensive London suburbs in which to live.

MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENTThe village of Highgate originated as a hamlet at the south-eastern entrance to the medieval Bishop�of�London’s�estate.�The�bishops�used�the�parkland�to�the�north-west�of�the�hamlet�for�hunting�from�1227�until�the�15th�century,�and�owned�the�land�until�the�late�19th century. In 1386 a new toll road from the city climbing Highgate Hill was opened by the Bishop of London as a direct route from London to the North. A gateway was located at the top of the hill and it is from this that the area presumably derives its name. Early growth was presumably�due�to�general�traffic�and�to�the�hermits�who�lived�nearby�to�repair�the�road,�attracting�pilgrims�by�1464.�The�centre�of�the�settlement�lay�around�Pond�Square,�which�today�is�a�tranquil�green�open�area�just�off�the�High�Street.

page 24

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

16TH TO 19TH CENTURYThere�is�evidence�of�several�building’s�in�the�High�Street�from the 15th century and a ribbon of development along Highgate Hill during the 16th and 17th centuries. By 1553 there�were�five�licensed�inns�in�Highgate,�reflecting�the�popularity of the area as a stopping place for travellers. In 1565, Sir Roger Cholmeley founded Highgate School, a free grammar school for local boys.

The�hilltop�position�and�links�to�London�also�attracted�wealthy individuals and Highgate became the home to many parliamentarians. By 1664 Highgate already contained 161 houses. The expansion of the village occurred in the 18th century as Highgate had become one of the main routes from�the�North�to�London,�and�a�fine�Georgian�village�developed. The main period of the development of Highgate occurred during the 19th century with smaller scale houses built among the larger 18th century residences. The area quickly�became�one�of�the�most�desirable�parts�of�London�and�Highgate�Hill�became�increasing�congested�with�traffic.�Archway Road was opened in 1813 as a by-pass, providing a more direct route between Archway and the Great North Road.

During the 19th century, Highgate was developed predominantly on its southeast side. In 1867 the opening up of�the�railway�station�enabled�the�boundaries�of�Highgate�to be extended, spreading to the south, east and north to connect�the�neighbouring�communities�of�Muswell�Hill�and�Crouch�End.�A�cable�tramway,�the�first�of�its�type,�was�taken�up Highgate Hill in 1884, it was replaced in 1910 with an electric tramway.

20TH CENTURYResidential�development�continued�throughout�the�20th�century:�The�Gaskell�estate�off�the�west�side�of�North�Hill was developed between 1902 and 1913; and the Ecclesiastical�Commissioners�developed�throughout�the�1930s, destroying the ancient Bishops Wood. A suburb of large detached houses was developed to the west of Bishops Wood predominantly during 1906 to 1930. There were some important�architectural�contributions�to�Highgate�during�the�20th century, most notably Highpoint I and II on North Hill designed by Berthold Lubetkin and Tecton partnership in 1935 and 1938.

Diagram�illustrating�the�piecemeal�development�of�the�historic�North�Hill Source:�OS�–�Graphics�by�PRP�and�CgMs.

\

18th c.

19th c.

1901-1920

1921-1950

1950s onwards

\

18th c.

19th c.

1901-1920

1921-1950

1950s onwards

N

18th c.

19th c.

1901-1920

1921-1950

1950s onwards

page 25

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

Source:�Ordnance�Survey�(c)�Crown�Copyright�2014.�Licence�number�100022432�and�licence�number�100020449.�Graphics�by�PRP�and�CgMs.

Statutorily listed buildings

Locally listed buildings

KEY:

Statutorily and locally listed buildings

STATUTORILY AND LOCALLY LISTED BUILDINGS

N

There are 18 statutorily listed buildings within 250m of the Site, as well as a number of locally listed buildings (non-designated heritage assets). Statutorily listed buildings include Grade I listed Highpoint I and Highpoint II, located almost opposite the North Hill entrance to the Site. Inter-visibility between the Site and the surrounding listed�buildings�is�limited�due�to�existing�tree�canopies�and�lower-level�planting.�However,�selective�views�of�the�existing�buildings�on�the�Site�can�be�seen�from�a�number�of�these heritage assets during the winter months, thus the potential�visual�impact�of�development�upon�the�setting�and�significance�of�all�built�heritage�assets�including�Highgate�Conservation�needs�to�be�assessed�if�it�is�decided�to�proceed�with a new development on this site.

2

3

65

4

1

7

page 26

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

1-�St.�George’s�House�(Grade�II).�An�early�mid-19th�century�building,�previously�known�as�Morven�House 2-�No.�123�Southwood�Lane�(Grade�II).�An�early�mid-18th�century�building,�formerly�two�cottages

3-�Bank�Point�Cottage�(Grade�II).�An�early�18th�century�house�with�later�additions

5-�Highpoint�I�(Grade�I).�An�internationally�celebrated�block�of�flats�by�Lubetkin�and�Tecton�1933-35

4- The Bull Inn (Grade II). An 18th century public house

7-�No.�4�North�Hill�(locally�listed).�Originally�the�warden’s�house�for�Park�House�Penitentiary6- No. 92-96 North Hill (Grade II). A varied group of 18th century housespage 27

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

This�section�is�prepared�by�LUC,�specialists�in�landscape�planning assessments which are normally provided as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment for detailed Planning�applications.

An�initial�site�visit�was�carried�out�on�01.10.2014�to�identify�key�characteristics�and�elements�which�influence�landscape�character,�to�consider�variations�in�character�within�and�around the site, to select viewpoints from which the impact of visual receptors can be assessed and to establish appropriate�limitations�for�the�Study�Area.�

The�Site’s�location�off�the�main�thoroughfare,�combined�with�its�wooded�perimeter,its�relationship�with�the�townscape�to�the�north�and�east�and�its�elevation,�give�it�a�sense�of seclusion from the rest of Highgate. The character of landscape�within�the�Hillcrest�estate�is�strongly�influenced�by�the�interrelationship�of�the�existing�estate�buildings,�vegetation�and�open�spaces.

Whilst the Site falls well outside of the panoramic view extents�defined�for�the�London�View�Management�Framework�(LVMF)�designated�view�from�Parliament�Hill,�its�location�nonetheless�offers�panoramic�views�of�Highgate.�Hillcrest was not visible in any views from Parliament Hill or other�locations�on�the�eastern�side�of�Hampstead�Heath�in�summer but this needs to be reassessed in winter.

��Source:�Initial�Townscape�Visual�Impact�Assessment�produced�by�LUCA panoramic views of Highgate from Parliament Hill

2.10 VIEWS

IMMEDIATE SURROUNDSHighgate has a strong historic character deriving from the age,�quality�and�variety�of�its�buildings,�the�contribution�made by mature trees to the landscape and its hilltop location.

There are public and private views into the site from all sides, but the character of these views is very much influenced�by�the�extent�of�tree�cover.�Summer�views�from�most�locations�are�very�filtered,�winter�views�will�be�stronger�but�understorey�vegetation�which�includes�a�large�component�of�holly�will�continue�to�provide�a�significant�filter�all�year�round.

WIDER LANDSCAPEBeyond�its�immediate�surroundings�there�is�very�little�perception�of�Hillcrest,�due�to�falling�topography�and�the�extent of tree cover (which includes mature trees within the�grounds�of�adjacent�properties,�and�along�roads,�on�all�sides).�There�is�a�limited�potential�for�visibility�of�elements�of Hillcrest from Bishopswood Road, in the vicinity of Highgate School, but no views were available on the site visit on�01.10.14�and�Highpoint�occupies�the�only�significant�dip�in the intervening tree line.

No public rights of way with views into the Site were identified.�The�Capital�Ring,�a�walking�route�designated�as�a�National�Trail,�passes�within�about�200m�but�along�a�tree-lined�former�railway�line,�offering�no�views�of�Hillcrest.�There�is�no�visibility�of�the�site�from�the�public�recreational�areas�of�Highgate�Wood�and�Queen’s�Wood.

PROPOSED VIEWPOINTSTo�assess�the�potential�effects�of�any�development�on�visual�receptors - i.e. people with views of the site - a number of representative�viewpoints�have�been�identified,�and�agreed�in�consultation�with�the�LBH.�

Assessment�of�effects�at�each�viewpoint�will�be�carried�out�with�the�aid�of�3D�visualisations,�the�photography�for�which�will be carried out in winter to illustrate the greatest degree of visibility through trees, although some views with trees in leaf will also be provided, to demonstrate the extent of seasonal�variation.

Hillcrest is a private estate and so does not have public

viewpoints within it, but it is recognised that the assessment of�effects�of�any�development�on�residents�would�necessitate�visualisations�from�within�the�site�boundary.�Should a proposal be made for development, it is not proposed to carry out visual assessment from dwellings, but to�use�communal�ground-level�locations�within�the�estate.�

With�regard�to�listed�buildings,�such�as�St�George’s�Terrace,�the Townscape Visual Impact Assessment (TVIA) will consider historic buildings in so far as they contribute to landscape character but any cultural heritage impact on the settings�of�listed�buildings�would�need�to�be�assessed�in�a�separate Cultural Heritage Assessment.

The Site does not fall within the Landmark Viewing Corridor of�any�Protected�Vistas,�as�identified�in�the�London�Plan�and�the�London�View�Management�Framework�Supplementary�Planning�Guidance�(SPG),�but�there�is��potential�for�visibility�within the outer extent of the 120-degree panoramas defined�in�the�LVMF�for�the�designated�view�towards�the�City from Alexandra Palace.

page 28

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

Distant views to the Site Source: Google Earth – Graphics by PRP

page 29

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

PLANNING HISTORYThere is no relevant planning history within the proposed red line boundary of the Site.

NATIONAL POLICY‘At�the�heart�of�the�National�Planning�Policy�Framework�(2012)�(NPPF)�is�a�presumption�in�favour�of�sustainable�development’.�Paragraph�14�states�that:

“For�decision-taking�this�means:�

• Approving development proposals that accord with the Development Plan without delay; and

• Where the Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies�are�out-of-date,�granting�permission�unless:

• Any�adverse�impacts�of�doing�so�would�significantly�and�demonstrably�outweigh�the�benefits,�when�assessed�against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

• Specific�policies�in�this�Framework�indicate�development�should�be�restricted.”

1. Be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings with succinct local and neighbourhood�plans�setting�out�a�positive�vision�for�the future of the area. Plans should be kept up-to-date and�be�based�on�joint�working�and�co-operation�to�address larger than local issues. They should provide a�practical�framework�within�which�decisions�on�planning�applications�can�be�made�with�a�high�degree�of�predictability�and�efficiency;

2. Not�simply�be�about�scrutiny�but�instead�be�a�creative�exercise�in�finding�ways�to�enhance�and�improve�the�places in which people live their lives;

3. Proactively�drive�and�support�sustainable�economic�development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that�the�country�needs.�Every�effort�should�be�made�objectively�to�identify�and�then�meet�the�housing,�business and other development needs of an area and respond�positively�to�wider�opportunities�for�growth.�Plans should take account of market signals, such as land�prices�and�housing�affordability�and�set�out�a�clear�strategy�for�allocating�sufficient�land�which�is�suitable�for�development in their area, taking account of the needs of�the�residential�and�business�communities;

4. Always�seek�to�secure�high�quality�design�and�a�good�standard�of�amenity�for�all�existing�and�future�occupants�of land and buildings;

5. Take�account�of�the�different�roles�and�character�of�different�areas�promoting�the�vitality�of�our�main�urban�areas,�protecting�the�Green�Belts�around�them,�recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside�and�supporting�thriving�rural�communities�within it;

6. Support�the�transition�to�a�low�carbon�future�in�a�changing�climate,�taking�full�account�of�flood�risk�and�coastal�change�and�encourage�the�reuse�of�existing�resources�including�conversion�of�existing�buildings�and�encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy);

7. Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment�and�reducing�pollution.�Allocations�of�land or development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework;

8. Encourage�the�effective�use�of�land�by�reusing�land�that�has�been�previously�developed�(brownfield�land),�provided that it is not of high environmental value;

9. Promote mixed use developments and encourage multiple�benefits�from�the�use�of�land�in�urban�and�rural�areas, recognising that some open land can perform many�functions�(such�as�for�wildlife,�recreation,�flood�risk�mitigation,�carbon�storage�or�food�production);

10. Conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their�significance�so�that�they�can�be�enjoyed�for�their�contribution�to�the�quality�of�life�of�this�and�future�generations;

11. Actively�manage�patterns�of�growth�to�make�the�fullest�possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focus�significant�development�in�locations�which�are�or�can be made sustainable; and

12. Take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all and deliver sufficient�community�and�cultural�facilities�and�services�to�meet�local�needs’.

REGIONAL POLICYThe London Plan (2015) is the overall strategic plan for London,�setting�out�an�integrated�economic,�environmental,�transport and social framework for the development of London over the next 20-25 years.

LOCAL POLICYThe Development Plan for Haringey is the London Plan, Local Plan:�Strategic�Policies�2013,�and�the�‘saved’�UDP�policies�(2006).�The�Council�is�producing�a�Site�Allocations�DPD�and�a�Development�Management�DPD�with�consultation�throughout�2015�and�adoption�anticipated�in�2016.�

Haringey�Council�identifies�within�its�Local�Plan�some�of�the�features�that�give�the�borough�its�unique�character,�including�Haringey’s�places,�Haringey’s�homes�and�Haringey’s�environment.�

The Council states that (Local Plan SP0) the Council will take a�positive�approach�that�reflects�the�presumption�in�favour�of sustainable development. The Council has seeks to focus Haringey’s�growth�in�the�most�sustainable�locations�and�has�set a housing policy target of 1502 homes per annum (Local Plan�SP1)reflecting�the�Mayor�of�London�Housing�target�for�Haringey.

There�is�a�draft�allocation�for�Hillcrest�within�the�Local�Plan�Site�Allocations�Development�Plan�Document(DPD)

HIGHGATE CONSERVATION AREAThe�Highgate�Conservation�Area�Character�Appraisal�identifies�the�Hillcrest�Estate�within�subarea�1,�which�is�said�to form the historic core and contain the most intensive area of development.

2.11 PLANNING POLICY, REVIEW AND ASPIRATIONS, NEW APPLICATIONS

The NPPF sets out that “within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of core land-use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision taking. These twelve principles are that planning should:

page 30

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

www.templegroup.co.uk 49

Report for London Borough of Haringey AA4835 Hillcrest Estate Scoping Report

Table 6.8 Cumulative Schemes

Application number(see map for location)

Site Name and Address Scheme Description Potential Inter-project

effects

HGY/2014/2464

Permission granted

Former Police Station, Magistrates' Court and Telfer House, Corner of Bishops Road, Church Road and Archway Road

Demolition of all existing buildings and construction of an apartment block and a mews block to provide 82 residential flats, including basement and undercroft car parking with 41 spaces, and comprehensive landscaping of the site.

Size: 0.4 hectares

Approx. 190m away from the proposed Scheme.

During construction, potential for combined noise and air quality effects and additional construction traffic on the local network.

During operation, potential for increased traffic flows.

Figure 6.4 Cumulative Schemes

Notes:Do not scale from this drawing.All contractors must visit the site and be responsible for taking and checkingdimensions.All construction information should be taken from figured dimensions only.Any discrepancies between drawings, specifications and site conditionsmust be brought to the attention of the supervising officer.This drawing & the works depicted are the copyright of John Thompson &Partners.

This drawing is for planning purposes only. It is not intended to be used forconstruction purposes. Whilst all reasonable efforts are used to ensuredrawings are accurate, John Thompson & Partners accept no liability forany reliance placed on, or use made of, this plan by anyone for purposesother than those stated above.

DateRev Description

www.jtp.co.ukW:

Drawing Title

Job Ref.Scale @A3

Drawing No.

Drawing Status

Scale Bar

Drawn

Client

Key

23-25 Great Sutton StreetLondon EC1V 0DN

+44 (0) 20 7017 1780F: +44 (0) 20 7017 1781T:

Project

Revision.

Perspective View 02 - View alongArchway Rd and Church Rd

00822

Bellway Homes

Checker

00822_V_02

Highgate Police Station

Planning Submission

NTSP1

P1 29.08.14 Planning Submission ALM IF

Notes:Do not scale from this drawing.All contractors must visit the site and be responsible for taking and checkingdimensions.All construction information should be taken from figured dimensions only.Any discrepancies between drawings, specifications and site conditionsmust be brought to the attention of the supervising officer.This drawing & the works depicted are the copyright of John Thompson &Partners.

This drawing is for planning purposes only. It is not intended to be used forconstruction purposes. Whilst all reasonable efforts are used to ensuredrawings are accurate, John Thompson & Partners accept no liability forany reliance placed on, or use made of, this plan by anyone for purposesother than those stated above.

DateRev Description

www.jtp.co.ukW:

Drawing Title

Job Ref.Scale @A3

Drawing No.

Drawing Status

Scale Bar

Drawn

Client

Key


+44 (0) 20 7017 1780F: +44 (0) 20 7017 1781T:

Project

Revision.

Perspective View 04 - View ofMews Block

00822

Bellway Homes

Checker

00822_V_04


Planning Submission

NTSP1

P1 29.08.14 Planning Submission ALM IF

0

Notes:Do not scale from this drawing.All contractors must visit the site and be responsible for taking andchecking dimensions.All construction information should be taken from figured dimensionsonly.Any discrepancies between drawings, specifications and siteconditions must be brought to the attention of the supervising officer.This drawing & the works depicted are the copyright of JohnThompson & Partners.

This drawing is for planning purposes only. It is not intended to beused for construction purposes. Whilst all reasonable efforts are usedto ensure drawings are accurate, John Thompson & Partners acceptno liability for any reliance placed on, or use made of, this plan byanyone for purposes other than those stated above.

DateRev Description

www.jtp.co.ukW:

Drawing Title

Job Ref.Scale @A1

Drawing No.

Drawing Status

Scale Bar

Drawn

Client

Key


+44 (0) 20 7017 1780F: +44 (0) 20 7017 1781T:

Project

Revision.

2 4 6 8 10 m

As indicated

Street Scenes

00822

Bellway Homes

Checker

00822_X_00


Planning Issue

29.08.14 Planning Submission ALM IF

01: Archway Road 1:500

02: Bishop's Road 1:500

03: Church Road 1:500

01

02

03

P1

P1

NB: Levels outside the site boundary estimated unless annotated

Estimated levels have been based on a 3D model prepared by VertexModelling. The stated accuracy as supplied by Vertex Modelling is plusor minus 30cm in any direction.

3D View of proposed development on Archway Road by John Thompson & Partners

Section�along�Archway�Road�of�proposed�development�by�John�Thompson�&�Partners 3D View of Rear block of the proposed development by John Thompson & Partners

Location�plan�of�the�proposed�development�by�John�Thompson�&�Partners�in�relation�to�Hillcrest�Site

NEW APPLICATIONSNew developments around the site have been reviewed and�one�planning�application�(HGY/2014/2464)�is�identified�which�includes�82�residential�flats,�in�2�no.�blocks��including�basement�and�undercroft�car�parking�with�41�spaces,�and�comprehensive landscaping of the site. This has now been granted consent.

Size: 0.4 hectares

Approx. 190m away from the proposed Scheme.

Architects: John Thompson & Partners

Source:�LBH�website�–�planning�application�(HGY/2014/2464)page 31

2. L

oC

aL

Co

nt

ex

tS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

3. EXISTING SITE

This chapter reviews the site in more detail including its development�history�and�design�evolution.�The�existing�blocks�are�reviewed�to�identify�their�layout,�accommodation�and architectural character. The review will also cover the existing�landscape�and�ecology�of�the�estate�followed�by�the�car parking survey which was carried out in October 2014.

The�purpose�of�this�chapter�is�to�provide�a�base�to�identify�the�opportunities�and�constraints�of�the�Site�for�any�potential�new�development.

The�Site�is�a�1940s�residential�estate�consisting�of�four�to�seven storey blocks arranged generously in a landscaped parkland�setting.�The�Site�occupies�an�elevated�position�at�the top of North Hill and is enclosed by steep banks and a dense�tree�lined�boundary,�creating�a�sense�of�enclosure�and�obscuring views in and out of the estate.

ALEXANDER HOUSE

MONTGOMERY�HOUSECUNNINGHAM�HOUSE

TEDDER HOUSE

DOWDING HOUSE

WAVELL HOUSE

MOUNTBATTEN�HOUSE

Existing�site Source: Google Earth – Graphics by PRP

page 32

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

Aerial view from north Source:�Bing�Maps

Photographs�of�existing�site�model

page 33

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

3.1 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

This�section�is�provided�by�CgMs�Consulting�as�part�of�its�initial�research�into�the�development�of�the�site.

Prior to the 19th century the site was occupied by the Highgate brewery. The site was purchased by John Cooper in the early 19th century and the brewery was dismantled. By 1815 Cooper had built a large Regency mansion, known as Park House situated in spacious grounds.

Park�House�remained�a�private�estate�until�the�mid-19th�century. In 1848 Park House was sold and converted into an�asylum�for�the�‘mentally�deficient’.��In�1853�the�London�Diocesan�Penitentiary�was�formed�for�the�establishment�of�a�house�for�“the�reception�and�reformation�of�penitent�fallen�women”.�The�lease�for�Park�House�was�acquired�in�1855�and�the�building�became�known�as�Park�House�Penitentiary.��In�1900 the premises was taken over by the Clewer Sisters (an Anglican female religious community) and became known as the�House�of�Mercy�at�an�unknown�date.

Enclosure map of 1815 – Park House occupied the area Source: Enclosure map, 1815. Haringey Archives OS�Map�sources:�Landmark�Mapping�(2014)�OS�Map�of�1870�showing�Park�House�Penitentiary�occupying�the�land OS�Map�of�1896

An�engraving�of�Park�View�House�during�its�time�as�“Asylum�for�Idiots”

The�site�was�closed�as�a�penitentiary�in�1940�and�the�building was demolished to make way for the present day Hillcrest Estate. The site consists of four and seven storey blocks�of�flats,�completed�in�1949�by�Hornsey�Borough�Council to a standard template from the London County Council.�It�was�one�of�the�first�British�post-war�housing�schemes.�Designed�by�architects�T.�P.�Bennett�&�Son,�each�of�the�seven�blocks�is�named�after�World�War�II�leaders:�Wavell,�Mountbatten,�Dowding,�Tedder,�Cunningham,�Montgomery,�and�Alexander.

Source: Richardson 1983

page 34

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

OS�Map�of�1915,�the�penitentiary�is�now�known�as�the�House�of�Mercy OS�Map�of�1935 OS�Map�of�1951-52�showing�the�Hillcrest�Estate

Park View House in 1880 Photograph of buildings on the Hillcrest Estate taken in the 1950s

OS�Map�sources:�Landmark�Mapping�(2014)�

Source: Haringey Archives Source: Haringey Archives

page 35

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

3.2 DESIGN EVOLUTION OF THE CURRENT ESTATE

This�section�is�provided�by�CgMs�Consulting�as�part�of�their�initial�research�into�the�development�of�the�site.�

The Site presented a problem for the architects due to the parkland�setting,�the�presence�of�numerous�large�trees,�the�short frontage to North Hill and the varying topography. Consequently,�four�preliminary�schemes�were�designed�between 1945 and 1946 to ascertain the most suitable type of development at a nominal density of 100 persons per acre.�The�scheme�was�required�to�be�consistent�with�both�economy�and�the�preservation�of�the�natural�features�of�the site. Floor plans were worked out for each scheme and a layout plan produced in which roads and main services were�plotted�to�enable�quantity�surveyors�to�produce�comparative�estimates.�The�four�schemes�were�as�follows:

Scheme 1: Detached blocks of four storeys with staircase access�to�two�flats�per�floor.�This�gave�relatively�high�site�cover and considerable expenditure in access roads and services.

Scheme�2:�Tower�blocks�of�nine�storeys�with�lift�and�staircase�access�to�four�flats�per�floor.�The�blocks�are�sited on the most level areas of the Site, giving maximum unobstructed outlook with minimum interference with natural features and low cost in roads and services.

Scheme 3: As Scheme 2 but seven storeys.

Scheme 4: Six storey blocks with external balcony access served�by�lifts.

The�total�cost�of�each�scheme�was�estimated,�including�the�varying�costs�of�roads�and�services,�and�a�‘cost�per�room’�was calculated. The most expensive scheme was Scheme 4, followed�by�3,�1�and�2;�illustrating�that�the�cheaper�building�cost�of�low�blocks�was�offset�by�the�heavy�cost�of�roads�and�services on the site, whereas the higher blocks, although requiring�a�steel�frame�and�lifts,�were�economical�structures�providing they were no less than seven storeys high. It was thus�decided�to�build�the�majority�of�flats�in�blocks�of�seven�storeys, taking advantage of the economy in roads and main services�and�to�utilise�the�approach�roads�for�service�to�four�low�blocks�of�the�type�investigated�in�Scheme�1.�The�final�scheme�comprises�116�flats�in�the�following�proportions:�2-room units (25%); 3-room units (25%); and 4-room units (50%), with a site density of 77 persons per acre.

The seven-storey blocks, formerly known as Block C, are Mountbatten�House,�Wavell�House�and�Dowding�House;�each�floor�has�a�1-bedroom�flat,�a�2-bedroom�flat�and�two�3-bedroom�flats.�The�four-storey�blocks�were�designed�to�two�different�plans,�providing�a�range�of�accommodation.�Block�A,�Montgomery�House�and�Tedder�House,�have�a�1-bedroom�and�a�2-bedroom�flat�on�each�floor;�whereas�Block B, Cunningham House and Alexander House, consists of�two�3-�bedroom�flats�on�each�floor.�

Scheme 1: detached 4-storey blocks covering much of the land, dated 1945 Scheme 2: 9-storey blocks sited on the most level areas of land, dated 1945 Scheme 3: 7-storey blocks sited on the most level areas of land, dated 1945

15

3.3 HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE

Figure 27:

sceme in Figure 28. (Source: Haringey Archives)

Figure 28: A design of the final scheme dated in 1946. This scheme is what exists on the Site today, however the community centre between Tedder House and Dowder House was never constructed. (Source: Haringey Archives)

Figure 29: Haringey Archives)

Figure 30: Perspective�-�Proposal�for�Hillcrest�Estate

The�elevations�of�the�final�buildings�are�slightly�different�from�the�architects’�original�designs;�the�pitched�roofs�of�the four storey blocks were not realised and the top storey of�each�building�was�not�made�distinctive�from�the�lower�storeys as the original 1946 designs illustrate.

Considerable thought was also given to the layout of the site in terms of preserving the natural features and ensuring�minimal�impact�to�the�domestic�character�of�the�surrounding area. It was thus decided to place the four storey blocks adjacent to the North Hill frontage, with the seven storey blocks situated towards the back of the site.

Two�layouts�were�designed�for�the�final�scheme,�known�as�Scheme 8; the seven storey blocks are the same in each. The first�design,�dated�December�1945,�shows�a�type�A�block�on�the North Hill frontage and a type B block located on the main�approach�to�the�Site;�positioned�to�ensure�minimal�impact to the North Hill frontage. A second layout of the scheme,�dated�May�1946,�shows�the�re-positioning�of�the�two blocks: a type B block fronts North Hill and a type A block is situated closer to the entrance of the site, opening up more room on the site to construct a community centre which�was�never�realised.�To�receive�adequate�sunlight,�each�block�was�also�sited�to�provide�every�flat�with�an�undisturbed outlook over the site on three sides.

Source: Builder, 1947, Augt. 22

Source: Haringey archives Source: Haringey archives Source: Haringey archives

page 36

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

Scheme 4: Long 6-storey blocks, dated 1945 Scheme�8:�Version�1�of�the�final�scheme,�dated�1945.�The�layout�is�almost�identical�to�what�is�present�today Scheme�8:�Version�2�of�the�final�scheme,�dated�1946,�showing�a�community�centre�between�Tedder�House�and�Dowding House

Proposal�of�elevations�of�the�blocks�on�the�Hillcrest�EstateProposal for the community centre Proposal�of�elevations�of�the�blocks�on�the�Hillcrest�EstateSource: Haringey archives Source: Haringey archives Source: Haringey archives

Source: Haringey archivesSource: Haringey archivesSource: Haringey archives

page 37

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

3.3 THE EXISTING SITE

N

ALEXANDER HOUSE

MONTGOMERY�HOUSE

CUNNINGHAM�HOUSE

TEDDER HOUSE

DOWDING HOUSEWAVELL HOUSE

MOUNTBATTEN�HOUSE

The�site�consists�of�seven�blocks�of�flats�that�are�configured�in�three�typologies�with�small�variations.�Variations�of�the�blocks are due mainly to level changes on the estate. Blocks are named as types A, B and C as per the 1940s original proposal�for�the�estate.�Each�block�type�is�identified�on�the�location�plan.�

The�existing�buildings�are�set�within�private�grounds,�vehicular access is from North Hill via an adopted spine road called�‘Hillcrest’�that�extends�through�the�whole�site.��An�additional�pedestrian�access�from�Southwood�Road�also�provides Pedestrian link into the site. A number of footpaths provide�connection�within�the�estate�between�the�road�and�individual blocks.

There�are�three�defined�car�parking�areas,�and�unrestricted�parking along the spine road. The site is surrounded by a belt of mature trees, which when combined with further tree cover within the site give the area a well wooded character. Between the buildings and trees are generous grassed areas.

The�site�is�situated�within�the�Highgate�Conservation�Area,�located�in�Sub�Area�1,�the�Village�Core,�as�defined�in�the�Character�Appraisal�and�Management�Plan.�The�Conservation�Area�Appraisal�states�that�the�flats�at�Hillcrest�“are�generously�laid�out,�with�the�lower�blocks�at�the�front,�and higher blocks set within well landscaped grounds, in contrast�to�the�village�scale�and�character”�(paragraph�4.4.59).�Pevsner’s�description�of�the�estate,�which�was�constructed between 1946 and 1949, makes reference to its�use�of�the�‘Modern’�architectural�style�and�to�it�being�“…generously�laid�out,�preserving�trees�from�the�grounds�of Park House, with the lower buildings at the front in deference�to�village�scale”.

Location�plan Aerial view from eastSource: OS –Graphics by PRP Source:�Bing�Maps�page 38

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

BLOCK TYPES The�existing�blocks�have�been�reviewed�in�depth�to�get�an�understanding�of�how�they�function�as�well�as�their�architectural�conception�and�forms.�The�estate�has�an�architectural�identity�and�it�is�important�to�explore�and�understand�the�existing�so�that�any�intervention�is considered and appropriate. This review includes understanding�the�mass,�orientation,�layout,�proportions�and architectural features.

Of�the�seven�blocks,�three�(type�C)�contain�lifts;��the�remaining�four�blocks�(types�A�and�B)�don’t�have�a�lift.

All the blocks have a raised ground level due to their entrances being through the staircases on half landing level.

It�must�be�noted�that,�at�the�time�of�preparing�this�document, the architects had limited access to some of the blocks�and�none�of�the�properties�has�been�visited�by�the�architects.�The�comments�made�in�this�section�regarding�the�internal�layouts�are�all�based�on�LBH’s�archived�drawings.�Their�accuracy�has�not�been�confirmed�against�the�current�layout of the apartments.

TYPE A

• Montgomery�House�

• Tedder House

TYPE B

• Alexander House

• Cunningham House

Panoramic�view�of�the�Estate,�From�Left:�Mountbatten�House,�Wavell�House,�Dowding�House�and�Tedder�House

TYPE C

• Mountbatten�House

• Wavell House

• Dowding House

Type A general mass

Tedder House

Type B general mass

Cunningham House

Type C general mass

Dowding House

page 39

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

3.4 EXISTING BLOCKS GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

Typical�floor�plan,�original�architect’s�drawing�(Not�to�scale).

Typical�floor�plan�diagram

MASSINGGeneral dimensions: 19.48m long, 7.12m wide and 12.46m high.

ENTRANCEThe�entrance�is�positioned�centrally�on�the�axes�of�the�main�elevation�below�the�stack�of�windows to the central core. It is emphasised by an oval shaped entrance canopy.

Location�Map

TYPE ABlock type A is the smallest type. It occurs twice: Montgomery�House�and�Tedder House.

Both�blocks�are�positioned�on�a�north-east�and�south-west�axis with their entrances and balconies facing north-west.

The�floor�plan�consists�of�a�central�circulation�core�serving�two�flats�-�2-bedroom�and�a�1-bedroom�flat�per�floor.

The bin stores used to be located within the blocks on the ground�floors�but�the�spaces�are�currently�used�as�general�storage and bins are currently located outside the blocks.

The�roof�space�contains�an�extension�of�the�circulation�core�and chimney stacks that project above the parapet level.

The�general�arrangement�of�the�flats�includes�dual�aspect�living-rooms on the end with bedrooms in the middle of the block. Kitchens, balconies and bathrooms are grouped together on the opposite side to the bedrooms.

In�total�there�are�four�1-bedroom�and�four�2-bedroom�flats�in each of these block types.

N

Source: Haringey archives

page 40

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

BALCONIES / PATIOSEach�flat,�including�those�on�the�raised�ground�floor,�has��its�own�balcony�(including�raised�ground�floor�flats).�The�balconies�form�a�strong�horizontal�line�on�the�facade�in�contrast�to�the�vertical�stacking�of�the�windows.

ROOFTOP

The�chimney�stacks�and�the�extension�of�the�vertical�core�project�beyond�the�roof�level.Tedder house - view form the West.

chimney stack

core extension

page 41

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

Typical�floor�plan,�original�architect’s�drawing�(Not�to�scale).

MASSINGGeneral dimensions: 26.9m long, 8.17m wide and 12.28m high.

Location�Map

TYPE BBlock type B is the medium sized type on the site. It occurs twice; Alexander House and Cunningham House. The shape of the block is an extended form of block type A.

The�orientation�of�these�two�blocks�differ�from�each�other.�Alexander House is oriented parallel to North Hill and is the only block clearly visible when approaching the site along North Hill. Cunningham House is oriented in an unusual angle almost parallel to block types C.

The�floor�plan�consists�of�a�central�circulation�core�serving�two�3bedroom�flats�per�floor.�

Due to level changes Alexander House contains lower ground�floor�space�towards�the�northern�corner�of�the�block.�This�space�is�now�used�as�a�site�office�and�is�accessed�from outside.

The�roof�space�contains�an�extension�of�the�circulation�core�and chimney stacks that project above the parapet level.

The�general�arrangement�of�the�flats�includes�dual-aspect�living-rooms on the end with links to the dining room and the kitchen. The bedrooms are located in the middle of the block. Kitchens, balconies and bathrooms are grouped together opposite the bedrooms.

In�total�there�are�eight�3-bedroom�flats�in�each�of�these�blocks.

N


ENTRANCEThe�entrance�is�positioned�centrally�on�the�axes�of�the�main�elevation�below�the�stack�of�windows to the central core. It is emphasised by an oval shaped entrance canopy.

Source: Haringey archives

page 42

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

BALCONIESEach�flat�has�its�own�balcony.�The�balconies�form�a�strong�vertical�lines�on�the�facade�in�contrast�to�the�vertical�stacking�of�the�windows.

ROOFTOPThere�are�chimney�stacks�and�the�extension�of�the�vertical�core�that�project�beyond�the�roof level.

chimney stack

core extension

Cunningham house - view form the North.

page 43

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

Location�Map

TYPE CBlock type C is the largest size block type. It occurs three times;�Mountbatten�House,�Wavell�House�and�Dowding�House.

The�orientation�of�these�blocks�differ�from�that�of�the�surrounding blocks; they are almost perpendicular to each other,�creating�a�courtyard�feel�to�the�space�between�them.�

The�floor�plan�consists�of�a�central�circulation�core,�with�two�staircases�and�two�lifts,�serving�four�flats�per�floor.�Each�floor�consists�of�one�1-bedroom,�two�2-bedroom�and�two3-bedroom�flats.�

Mountbatten�House�has,�in�addition,�an�extra�lower�ground�floor�storey�due�to�level�changes�on�the�site.�The�architec�has not been given access to this space but it is assumed it is used as an ancillary space.

The�roof�top�contains�an�extension�of�the�circulation�core,�chimney stacks and plant room, these project above the parapet level.

The�general�arrangement�of�1-bedroom�flats�in�this�type�includes a dual-aspect living dining room on the end with the�bedroom�located�behind�the�communal�stairs�and�lifts.�a balcony is provided in front, with the bedroom tucked behind the living-room. Kitchens, service balcony and bathroom are grouped together on the opposite side to the bedroom.

The�2-bedroom�flat�is�similar�to�the�1-bedroom�flat�with�the�difference�being�that�the�bedrooms�and�the�balcony�are�accessed from the dining room.

The�3-bedroom�flats�are�identical�to�each�other.�They�both�have a dual-aspect living-room at the end linked to the kitchen dining with an access to the balcony. Bedrooms are located in a row, opposite to them are the kitchen, bathroom and secondary balcony.

In total there are seven 1-bedroom, seven 2-bedroom and 14�3-bedroom�flats�provided�in�each�of�these�blocks.�

N


Typical�floor�plan,�original�architect’s�drawing�(Not�to�scale). Source: Haringey archives

page 44

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

chimney stackcore extensionplant

Dowding house - view form the South

MASSING7 storey block with the dimensions of 32.3m long, 8.66m wide�and�20.71m�high.�Mountbatten�House�has�an�extra�lower�ground�floor�added�to�a�part�of�the�footprint�due�to�the�level�differences�on�the�site.

BALCONIESEach�flat�is�provided�with�two�balconies.�The�primary�balconies�are�located�on�the�outer�corner�of�the�flats�enjoying�the�views.�They�create�a�strong�horizontal�presence�on�the�elevations�with�their�concrete�banding�aligning to line up with the window cills and heads. The secondary balconies are located in the internal corners next to kitchens and bathrooms.�The�corner�is�shared�between�two�flats.�

ENTRANCESThe�entrances�are�positioned�in�the�internal�corners�of�the�building mass. These are emphasised by an oval canopy shape as well as circular windows to the core above them.

ROOFTOPChimney stacks, core extension and plant rooms occupy the roof level.

page 45

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

3.5 EXISTING BLOCKS DESIGN FEATURES

HORIZONTALITYThere is a clear horizontality that has been applied to the façades.�The�buildings�are�divided�into�three�distinct�parts:�base, middle and top. The base is denoted further by introducing�texture�to�the�façade�by�using�decorative�brick�work.�Soldier�coursing�is�also�used�to�divide�and�distinguish�each horizontal zone on the façade. The horizontality is further reinforced by the concrete, painted white, that forms the base and coping of the integrated balconies.

Block type A Block type B

Block type C

Block type A - Tedder House - soldier coursing

Block type B - Cunningham House - soldier coursing and balconies.

Block�type�C�-�Dowding�house�-�3�distinct�horizontal�parts.Elevations�are�not�to�scale

page 46

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

VERTICALITY The horizontality of the façades is restrained through the contrasting�verticality�of�the�windows�which�are�stacked�in a regimental order. This is further reinforced by the equal�spacing�between�the�windows�and�the�limited�number of window typologies that have been used throughout the development. Windows are generally Georgian style sash and are painted white providing highlights against the darker red brickwork façades.

Block type A Block type B Block type C - Dowding House

Block type A - Tedder House - western facade

Block type B

Elevations�are�not�to�scale

page 47

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

CONCRETE FEATURESIn�addition�to�the�white�windows, all the concrete features on the facade are in white. These include the base and coping of the integrated balconies, the refuse chutes and the entrance canopies. Together with�the�fenestration,�these�features�soften�the�vast�brick�façades and help animate the�elevations.�


Block type C

Block�type�A�-�Montgomery�house�-�balconies

Block type B - Cunningham House - balconies and entrance

Block�type�C�-�Mountbatten�House�-�balconiesElevations�are�not�to�scale

page 48

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

ENTRANCESThe entrances are clearly marked and highlighted as key features.

Block types A and B have grander curved features that form canopies�over�the�entrances�as�well�as�highlighting�the�block�name.

On block type C, a smaller curved feature canopy is used together with feature brickwork which frames the entrance. Five stacked circular windows above the entrance of block type�C�also�help�to�distinguish�the�entrance�on�these�blocks.

In all cases a degree of grandeur is apparent at the entrances.


Block type C

Block type B - Cunningham House - entrance

Block type C - Dowding House - entrance

Block�type�A�-�Montgomery�House�-�entrance

Elevations�are�not�to�scale

page 49

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

DECORATIVE FLOWER BOXESAnother key feature highlighted on the facades are cantilevered�concrete�flower�boxes.�These�can�be�found�on�both type A blocks and on the western facade of Alexander House (block type B).

On�block�type�A�(Montgomery�House�and�Tedder�House)�the�flower�boxes�serve�the�bigger�flats�-�2-bedroom�flats�except�the�ones�on�the�top�floors.�In�Alexander�House�each�flat�is�provided�with�one�flower�box.

Block type A

Block�type�A�-�Tedder�House-�decorative�flower�boxes.

Block�type�B�-�Alexander�House-�decorative�flower�boxes.

Block type B Elevations�are�not�to�scale

page 50

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

FEATURE BRICKWORKBrick�details�and�concrete�decorative�features�make�some�of�the�elevations�quite�special�and�add�interest�to�the�repetitive�and�regular�elevations.�These�are�predominantly�used�on�the�ground�and�the�first�floors�of��block�type�C.

Feature brick bands run along the building on the ground floor�forming��and�reinforcing�the�presence�of�the�base.�Additional�emphasis�is�given�to�the�entrances�where�the�pattern�changes.�Further�brick�features�appear�on�the�top�of�block type C.

Types A and B contain a limited amount of soldier brick course�on�the�top�floor.

Block�type�C�-�decorative�brick�work.

Block type C - Dowding House

Block type A - Tedder House. Block�type�C�-�Mountbatten�HouseElevations�are�not�to�scale

page 51

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

3.6 CURRENT ACCOMMODATION AND DENSITY

The�existing�blocks�provide�116�flats�for�a�mix�of�Council�(LBH)�tenants�and�leaseholders.�50%�of�the�existing�properties�are�three�bedroom�flats.�The�remaining�50%�is�divided�equally�between�one�and�two�bedroom�flats.

The split between the tenure is approximately 60% LBH tenants and 40% leaseholders.

The overall density of this site area is 2.2 hectares including the SINC. The density is 52.7 dwellings per hectare.

1 Bed Flat 2 Bed Flat 3 Bed Flat TotalMontgomery�House 4 4 8Tedder House 4 4 8Alexander House 8 8Cunningham House 8 8Mountbatten�House 7 7 14 28Wavell House 7 7 14 28Dowding House 7 7 14 28

Total 29 29 58 116

Tenants 69

Leaseholders 47

Accommodation�schedule�of�the�existing�properties� Source:�information�provided�by�LBH

page 52

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

Section�A�-�A

Section�B�-�B

3.7 TOPOGRAPHY

Section�C�-�C

One�of�the�unique�characteristics�of�the�site�is�the�change�in�topography. The highest points of the Site are at its centre, where the loop on the spine road begins, and at the point of access to the disused car park. The rest of the estate slopes down towards the SINC and the northern boundary. The lowest parts of the Site are the two parking areas close to the northern boundary.

In�addition�to�the�general�topography�there�are�localised�raised mounts with footpaths sunken into the grassed landscape.

Within the diagram opposite the lighter shades indicate higher areas. It must be noted that areas outside the site boundary may not be accurate due to merging of information,�OS�and�topographical�survey.

page 54

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

Source: OS + 3D contours - www.promap.co.uk + topographical surveySite topography

page 55

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

3.8 GROUND CONDITIONS

A�phase�1�desktop�soil�investigation�was�carried�out�by�Ground Engineering in August 2014. This was followed by a phase�2�ground�investigation.�The�summary�of�both�reports�is outlined below:

PHASE 1 DESK STUDY REPORT

The�site�is�underlain�by�Secondary�(A)�Aquifers,�the�Bagshot�Formation�and�Claygate�Member.�These�in�turn�overlie�the�Unproductive�stratum�of�the�London�Clay�formation.

Based�on�the�topography�of�the�site�area�the�direction�of�near�surface�groundwater�and�surface�water�flow�would�locally be from south to north.

Historic maps (1864 – 1950) show the presence of a small pond�within�the�Site,�between�the�current�Mountbatten�House and Alexander House. Ponds were also present beyond the site boundaries; approximately 60m to the west, as well as 110m and 140m to the north, and 80m to the north-east. The largest pond was located approximately 180m to the south. By 1935 none of the above ponds was identified�on�maps�and�it�is�assumed�that�they�were�infilled�and built over.

The�site�is�not�within�a�Zone�2�or�Zone�3�flood�plain,�as�indicated�by�the�Environmental�Agency�flood�maps.

On the other hand, the site is located within an area with susceptibility�to�“clearwater”�flooding�from�unconfined�aquifers,�and�a�limited�potential�for�granular�flooding.

PHASE 2 GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORTWater was met in both of the shallow trial pits at 1.30m (TP2) and 1.60m (TP1). The water levels rose within the excavations�to�stand�at�1.10m�and�1.55m,�respectively.

The four window sample boreholes were dry during and on completion.�

The deepest borehole, BH1, encountered water within the Claygate�Member�at�13.30m�depth,�which�rose�to�11.40m�before�drilling�was�resumed�fifteen�minutes�later,�and�then�again�shortly�after�it�had�been�sealed�out�by�the�casing.�The�second ingress was at 14.20m depth and this strike rose to 12.40m before boring recommenced. Water was sealed out of the hole by the casing in the London Clay at 19.00m depth,�and�the�hole�was�dry�on�completion.�The�removal�of�the casing resulted in a water level of 8.80m below ground level.

Water levels in the BH1 standpipe was recorded at 8.07m to 8.21m below ground level, about 114.5mOD, during the monitoring period in June, July and August 2014. The 10.00m deep standpipe in borehole WS4, which was located within the higher ground within the central, eastern part of the site, was dry on the six occasions that it was monitored.

Should�any�development�occur�on�this�Site,�foundation�excavations�on�the�Site�may�well�encounter�water�‘perched’�within the made ground and soils at a shallow depth, as was�recorded�in�the�two�trial�pits�adjacent�to�the�existing�buildings.�This�would�depend�on�the�time�of�the�year�the�construction�took�place.�Groundwater�levels�within�the�solid�geology strata at depth were recorder at about 8.1m below ground level in BH1, some 114.5mOD.

In�the�event�that�foundation�excavations�encounter�‘perched’�water�they�will�need�to�be�dewatered�by�screened�sump�pump�techniques.�The�clay�of�the�Claygate�Member�may�be�regarded�as�highly�susceptible�to�‘loss�of�strength’�if�inundated with water.

Within any proposed scheme, if a basement is proposed as part of the development, a Basement Impact Assessment will�need�to�be�produced,�in�order�to�identify�the�construction�method�and�limitations�to�be�applied�for�any�basement development.

Borehole�position.�Based�on�Phase�2�Ground�Investigation�Report,�ref.No.�C13269A�provided�by�Ellis�&�Moore��

N

KEY:

BH/WS (Borehole and Window Sample)

TP (Trial Pit)

Source: Ground Engineering August 2014

page 56

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

3.9 WATER LEVELS

As�identified�within�the�“Ground�Conditions”�section,�excavations�on�this�site�would�most�likely�encounter�groundwater�‘perched’�within�the�made�ground�and�soils�at�shallow�depth.�This�will�be�highly�dependent�on�the�time�of the year any development took place, and the prevailing weather�conditions�during�this�time.�In�the�event�that�such�groundwater�were�encountered,�excavations�would�need�to�be�dewatered�by�screened�sump�pump�techniques.

Due�to�the�ground�conditions�and�proximity�of�trees,�we�would�anticipate�that�new�development�building�blocks�would�be�founded�on�continuous�flight�auger�(CFA)�piles.�Foundations�of�this�type�should�not�be�affected�by�encountered groundwater.

Where basement areas were proposed within new building blocks, the main structural walls of the basement structure would�be�formed�using�contiguous�piled�walls.�The�internal�tanking of the basement would then be achieved using a waterproof concrete basement slab and facing walls. If groundwater�was�found�to�be�significant�and�likely�to�cause�issues�during�construction,�it�may�be�advisable�to�use�a�secant piled wall instead.

Where�underground�car�parking�is�anticipated,�the�facing�wall�should�be�sufficient�protection�against�ingress�of�water. In areas where the basement was to be used for residential�or�storage�purposes,�a�cavity�drain�system�would�be recommended to ensure that internal areas remained adequately�dry.

If a basement was proposed as part of a development, a Basement Impact Assessment is to be produced in order to�identify�the�construction�method�and�limitations�to�be�applied for any basement development. This assessment would relate the basement proposals to the hydrology and hydrogeology of the Site, along with the surrounding areas.

Figure�2-1:�LB�of�Haringey-�‘watercourses’�–�Hillcrest�site�highlighted Source:�Haringey�Council�Strategic�Flood�Risk�Assessment�-�March�2013 Figure 2-2: LB of Haringey- Channel Type – Hillcrest site highlighted Source:�Haringey�Council�Strategic�Flood�Risk�Assessment�-�March�2013

Hillcrest Estate Hillcrest Estate

page 57

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

3.10 ECOLOGY AND WILDLIFE

Landscape Planning was commissioned by LBH to undertake an�assessment�of�the�habitats�and�the�potential�likelihood�of protected species that might materially impact on any proposals.

The commission included relevant desk-based surveys in�order�to�ascertain�whether�the�site�has�conservation�designation�or�known�records�of�protected�species�locally.�The�commission�also�included�identifying�and�making�recommendations�for�any�future�surveys�required�to�satisfactorily�inform�a�Planning�decision.�

A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal / Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken by Landscape Planning consultants in April 2014�to�identify�and�map�habitats�on�the�estate,�and�to�identify�the�potential�opportunities�for�protected�species�to�inform�the�need�for�additional�specialist�surveys.

PROTECTED SPECIESWith�regards�to�potential�for�protected�species,�the�site�shows�potential�to�support�nesting�birds,�foraging�and�commuting�bats,�and�roosting�bats�associated�with�the�scattered�trees,�wooded�area�and�features�present�on�the�exterior of the buildings. There are no other habitats on or immediately�adjacent�to�the�Site�that�shows�potential�to�support�any�other�protected�flora�or�fauna.

In�order�to�comply�with�relevant�legislation�and�Planning�policy,�the�following�recommendations�are�made�by�the�consultant should any proposal be pursued:

• Any tree works to be undertaken outside of the breeding season, or a nest search should be undertaken by an ecologist immediately prior to works commencing;

• Reptile�presence�/�absence�surveys�to�be�undertaken�between�March�and�September,�focusing�efforts�in�the�woodland and the ephemeral / short perennial habitats;

• Depending on any proposed development, access to the soffits�may�be�required�to�ascertain�whether�they�are�suitable�for�roosting�bats;

• Depending�on�any�proposed�development,�affected�garages�and�outbuildings�will�require�an�internal�inspection�to�establish�whether�bats�are�roosting�within�the structures;

• A�bat�activity�survey�to�be�undertaken�at�the�site�to�establish�foraging�activity�and�to�inform�suitable�lighting�design�and�mitigation;

• A series of emergence / re-entry surveys should be undertaken if any works are to be undertaken to the residential�blocks,�garages,�outbuildings,�woodland�and�any�tree�works�or�removal�in�relation�to�roosting�bats;

• It is recommended that the site to be enhanced post

development�for�the�benefit�of�local�biodiversity�via�the�implementation�of�a�landscape�scheme�that�incorporates�native�and�wildlife�friendly�species.�The�inclusion�of�bird�and bat boxes should also be considered as part of any future�development�even�if�this�is�not�required�as�part�of�a�mitigation�scheme.

7

6

8

5

43

2

1

12

11

910

#

Survey boundary

SINC boundary

Semi-natural broad-leaved woodland

Broad-leaved tree

Amenity grassland

Ephemeral/short�perennial�vegetation

Ornamental�planting

Concrete/gravel hardstanding

Building

Street light

Target note

KEY:

Source: Preliminary ecological appraisal - Landscape Planning

page 58

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

SINC from outside the estate (The Park)

Disused car park space

SINC at pedestrian entrance to the site

HIGHGATE TUNNELS BAT PROJECTThe�Highgate�Tunnels�Bat�Project�involved�the�creation�of�a�new�bat�hibernation�site�in�disused�railway�tunnels�at�Highgate�Station�approximately�200m�to�the�north�of�Hillcrest.

High�bat�foraging�activity

Light�bat�foraging�activity

Highgate Tunnels Bat Project

SINC

KEY:

N

SINC from outside the estate (The Park)

TARGET NOTES FROM PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL1. Fully mature, dead standing, Horse Chestnut. Anecdotal

evidence suggests that a bat roost is present within the stem.�Numerous�holes,�crevices�and�dead�wood�offering�optimal�habitat�for�roosting�bats.

2. Area of ephemeral/ short perennial. This area was covered�in�a�layer�of�bark,�offering�sub-optimal�habitat�for�reptiles�on�site.

3. Fully mature Lime, large cavity present. The cavity and�small�holes�present�offered�suitable�bat�roosting�potential.

4. Outbuilding situated close to the eastern site boundary, had�lifted�lead�between�the�roofing�felt�and�the�wooden�soffit.�The�lifted�lead�and�large�gap�in�wooden�soffit�offered�the�potential�for�use�by�roosting�bats.

5. A window located on the south western aspect of a residential�block,�located�close�to�the�eastern�boundary.�There was damage to the brick work beneath the window frame, along with brick damage to the right of the window.

6. Disused�fox�earth�located�off�site�on�the�northern�earth�bank, which surrounds the boundary of the site.

7. Early mature Sycamore trees, located beyond the northern site boundary, which over hang the site. These trees had dense Ivy growth on the stems.

8. The�structures,�located�on�the�roof�of�the�residential�blocks,�have�wooden�soffit�suitable�for�roosting�bats.

9. A group of early mature to semi-mature Sycamore, many of�which�offered�various�holes�and�crevices�suitable�for�bat�roosting.

10. Garage situated towards the west of the site. The roof appeared well sealed, however between the wooden garage doors and the concrete frame there was a gap, enabling�potential�access�into�the�internal�structure�of�the garage.

11. Fully mature Lime, a predominately hollow stem at the base, with numerous crevices and holes apparent higher on the stem.

12. Outbuilding�thought�to�be�an�electrical�sub-station�outbuilding. Flat roof, brick built, well-sealed building, with no apparent holes or crevices.

This�project�has�involved�the�construction�of�various�measures�inside�the�tunnels�to�provide�optimal�habitat�for�bat�hibernation�and�roosting�and�improvements�in�security.��This has been delivered as a partnership project between LBH, Transport for London and the London Bat Group, and funded mainly by the SITA Trust.

The�tunnels�have�proved�successful�as�Natterer’s,�Daubenton’s�and�Brown�Long-eared�bats�are�found�to�be�roosting�within�them.

page 59

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

3.11 TREES

Source: OS - Promap, Topgraphical survey, Arboricultural Survey

TREE CLASSIFICATIONA survey of trees across the estate and in the SINC was undertaken by Landscape Planning Consultants in April 2014�and�September�2014�respectively.�The�survey�has�categorised�the�trees�in�terms�of�their�‘quality’,�in�accordance�with�British�Standard�guidelines.�The�categories�are:

• Trees�unsuitable�for�retention�(Category�U)

• Trees of High Quality (Category A)

• Trees�of�Moderate�Quality�(Category�B)

• Trees of Low Quality (Category C)

ROOT PROTECTION AREAThe�survey�data�is�used�to�define�Root�Protection�Areas�(RPAs) around each tree. RPAs are a design tool used to identify�the�potential�impact�of�a�development�proposal�on�the trees.

Tree survey diagram

page 60

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

3.12 LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE

The Hillcrest estate is set amongst mature trees and bordered by SINC. The buildings sit within neat grass areas with an array of trees of varying maturity. There are currently no defensible spaces around the buildings, which are serviced by a network of footpaths.

The estate layout currently sits well within the mature landscape.�Some�of�the�trees�on�the�Site�require�maintenance as they are in poor health.

ON-SITE MOVEMENTThe�Hillcrest�Estate�edges�are�defined�by�public�routes.�However the site has only one vehicular access. This is located�along�the�site’s�western�edge�along�North�Hill�Road.��

There is a formal pedestrian access along Southwood Lane and there is also an informal access along The Park.

North Hill Road acts as a primary road and bus route with two bus stops with Southwood Lane and The Park being the secondary access for the area.

There are a series of dead end paths behind the blocks and a few informal paths in-between.

The�dead-end�routes�offer�access�to�formalised�parking�areas.

Site Boundary

Primary Roads

Secondary Roads

Vehicular Roads within the estate

Pedestrian Public Pathway

Primary Pedestrian Links within the SiteSecondary Paths within the site

Tertiary�Access�Paths

Informal Paths

Bus Route

Bus Stop

Vehicular access to the site

Pedestrian access to the site

Informal access to the site

KEY:

On-site movement diagram

page 61

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

ZONES OF ACTIVITIES WITHIN HILLCREST There�are�various�zones�of�activities�within�the�public�realm�of Hillcrest. The SINC that faces The Park and Southwood Lane�is�of�ecological�value�and�adds�a�rustic�feeling�to�the�area. One parking area sits adjacent to the SINC, and the other,�at�the�back�of�Alexander�House�and�the�active�zone.�Open spaces lie at the north-eastern corner of the Site next to the SINC at the back of Dowding House and Wavell House as�well�as�around�Montgomery�House�,�Cunningham�House�and Tedder House.

The fronts of the blocks have a various types of open space and a lack of defensible spaces. The area as one approaches the�estate�in�between�Montgomery�House�and�Cunningham�House�is�aesthetically�pleasing�with�some�well-maintained�planting.

There�are�two�areas�of�active�zones:�A�kick�about�area�located�between�Alexander�House�and�Mountbatten�House.�The�kickabout�area�is�laid�on�a�slope�but�conversation�with�a few residents suggests that it is well used and appreciated by all the children of the estate.

The�other�semi-active�zone�is�the�area�in�front�of�Tedder�House and Cunningham House where picnics and passive recreation�and�leisure�activities�take�place.

KEY:

Landscape zones diagram

page 62

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

Currently the only play feature is a kick-about area

Section�through�kick-about�area.�Size�of�the�area�-�22m�goalpost-to-goalpost�x�12m�wide

3.13 PLAY FACILITIES

The current play facility on site is an informal kickabout area. The�photograph�shows�the�current�condition(January�2015)�of the kickabout area. It is on a slope with levels ranging from +123.68 to +126.03. However it is a well used space.

page 63

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

1 2 3 4 5

9

10

11

3.14 SITE BOUNDARIES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11 10

76 8

The site is enclosed by variety of boundary types including�timber�and�concrete�fences�or�concrete�and�brick�walls.�Over�time�some�of�the�fences�have�been�replaced and in some parts have created a patchy look. Brick and concrete walls are mainly retaining walls for the raised landscape behind. The diagram below�provides�indicative�locations�of�the�boundary�types.

page 64

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

The�Site�contains�a�number�of�lamp�posts�scattered�around�the�grounds.�The�locations�of�the�lamp�posts�are�shown�in�the�diagram�below,�based�on�information�received�from�the�topographical survey and site visits. Entrances to the blocks are�also�provided�with�lighting.�The�status�of�lighting�on�the�estate�needs�further�investigation.

3.15 LIGHTING

page 65

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

Existing�lighting�diagram Source: Topographical surveyLamp post within the estate

DRAFT

The�Site�is�surrounded�by�three�CPZs�as�outlined�in�Section�2.3. The main road entering the site is adopted highway but�there�are�no�restrictions�on�parking.�Parking�takes�place�on the adopted highway and private areas of the site. The majority of parking on site is informal without marked bays and�results�in�tightly�grouped�parking.

As there are no parking controls in this area, it is possible that those who are not residents may seek the site as an opportunity to park when parking controls locally would otherwise prevent them from doing so.

Based on the visible parking pressures on site, and lack of parking controls that could result in parking from non-residents, it was determined that a parking survey should be undertaken to establish parking levels on site overnight and throughout the day.

3.16 CAR PARKING

CAR PARKING SURVEYA car parking survey was undertaken on 23 October 2014 by KM�Traffic�Surveys.�Their�role�was�to�undertake�a�survey�to�the brief provided by PRP Transport on behalf of the client.

The�brief�required�the�following�surveys�and�observations:

A�standard�‘Lambeth’�methodology�parking�survey�(The�Lambeth�Methodology�is�well�respected�within�the�transport�planning�industry�and�is�routinely�used�across�London�to�support�parking�statements�in�relation�to�planning�matters)�to be undertaken between 04:00 and 19:30.

The�recording�of�vehicle�registration�details�of�parked��vehicles�to�provide�duration�of�stay�information.

A�traffic�movement�survey�at�the�junction�of�B519�North�Hill and Hillcrest including the recording of number plates between 06:00 and 20:00.

Observations�on�pedestrian�movements�to�and�from�parked�vehicles and if these appear to be individuals parking who do not live on site.

The�survey�divided�the�site�into�five�areas�where�parking�takes place. The parking was observed in these areas at regular intervals and recorded.

A number of comments were received in the survey data relating�to�the�following:

• Site works were being carried out due to Decent Homes works�to�the�existing�apartment�blocks.�This�resulted�in some parking spaces being unavailable. Site work vehicles were noted and recorded where possible

• A number of vehicles, especially in the morning, enter and leave the site, possibly as they were unable to obtain a parking space.

• That the estate can reasonably accommodate parking levels�around�80�cars,�however�above�this�figure�additional�parking�occurs�in�inappropriate�locations.

The parking survey as undertaken has been provided to LBH. Further�assessment�of�parking�on�site�will�be�required�to�fully understand parking issues in this area. This will likely result�in�an�additional�parking�survey�which�will�also�include�a�larger�area�incorporating�local�streets.

Zone A

Zone B

Zone C

Zone Dpage 66

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

Source: OS – Graphics by PRP. Source:�Photos�provided�by�KM�Traffic�Surveys.Plan showing areas used for parking within Hillcrest EstateExamples of indiscriminate parking (Examples of parking without due care)

N

page 67

3. e

xIs

tIn

g s

Ite

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

Within this section the key constraints that would affect any potential development have been reviewed. The key constraints have been based upon the analysis undertaken and various discussions with the consultant group and officers from the Haringey Council as well as concerns outlined by the residents.

4. CONSTRAINTS

page 68

4. C

on

st

ra

Int

sS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

4. C

on

st

ra

Int

sS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

4.1 OVERLOOKING (20M)

The�overlooking�distances�from�the�existing�blocks�would�have�a�major�role�in�identifying�the�right�location�for�any�new development.

The coloured areas represent the 20m distance. This seems appropriate�for�this�analysis�based�on�the�quote�below�from�Housing�SPG(Nov�2012)�page�70�which�states:“In�the�past,�

planning guidance for privacy has been concerned with achieving�visual�separation�between�dwellings�by�setting�a minimum distance of 18-21m between facing homes (between habitable room and habitable room as opposed to between balconies or terraces or between habitable rooms and�balconies/terraces).�There�can�still�be�useful�yardsticks�for visual privacy, but adhering rigidly to these measures

can limit the variety of urban spaces and housing types in the�city,�and�can�sometimes�unnecessarily�restrict�density/��it�will�often�be�beneficial�to�provide�a�set-back�or�buffer�where habitable rooms directly face a public thoroughfare, street, lane, or access deck, Privacy is also an important consideration�in�the�design�of�private�open�space”.

Further discussions need to be carried out with LB Haringey Planning�team�to�confirm.

page 70

4. C

on

st

ra

Int

sS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

SINC�is�a�local�designation�and�not�a�statutory�one�(i.e.�metropolitan or borough importance). Local Sites are Sites of�Local�Importance�for�Nature�Conservation�but�are�not�legally protected, hence they are material for planning consideration�only.�The�planning�system�however�should�aim to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment.

The�existing�trees�are�real�assets�of�the�estate�and�any�new proposal should consider retaining as many trees as possible.

The diagram below shows category A, B and C trees including�the�Root�Protections�Areas�(RPA).�Category�U�trees�are�not�included�in�this�diagram.�See�section�3.12�for�a�description�of�tree�categories.

4.2 SINC 4.3 TREE ROOT PROTECTION AREAS

The SINC on Hillcrest site is considered a constraint. However�there�are�areas�within�the�SINC,�particularly�the�southern area that is not fully vegetated. This includes the disused�car�parking�area.�There�may�be�the�potential�to�develop the land or provide a car park or play facility.

page 71

4. C

on

st

ra

Int

sS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

4.4 SPINE ROAD

The spine road in the middle of the estate is considered a constraint,�mainly�because�the�access�to�the�existing�blocks�is�required�at�all�times�and�it�is�an�adopted�road.

In�addition�the�spine�road�provides�parking�opportunity�along its whole length that is currently intensively used by residents.

It is therefore considered sensible that any proposal retains this�road.�In�addition�the�roads�are�adopted�and�any�changes�may�cause�complications�and�affect�financial�viability

Sub-surface scans were carried out in September 2014 by Infotec�and�organised�by�Ellis�and�Moore.�The�findings�were�compared with the desktop underground services search provided�by�Mendrick�Waring�in�March�2014�to�identify�the�nature�of�the�underground�survey�findings.�

The�existing�underground�services�run�mainly�along�the�spine road and also diagonally across the estate. At this stage�it�is�anticipated�that�the�services�would�not�impose�critical�constraints�on�the�selection�of�new�development�sites,�they�can�be�relocated�if�they�conflict�with�the�potential�development sites.

4.5 STATUTORY SERVICES

There�are�currently�two�substations�on�the�site.�Substation�number�1�is�located�behind�Alexander�House�and�substation�number 2 is located behind Tedder House close to the Park Walk within the SINC. From the site visits it seems that�substation�number�2�is�not�operational.�Further�investigations�will�need�to�be�carried�out�to�clarify�this,�should any development be considered.

page 72

4. C

on

st

ra

Int

sS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

Site Boundary

Foul Water Sewer

Surface Water Sewer

Communication�Service

Electricity Service

Water Service

Gas Service

BT

Unidentified�Service

KEY:

DRAFT

An overlay of all the key constraints shows clearly which parts�of�the�site�are�the�least�affected�and�are�likely�to�have�some�potential�for�development.

4.6 SUMMARY DIAGRAM FOR POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES

SITE 1Currently used for parking, this area could be used�for�developing�a�block�of�flats�or�play�and�amenity space. The car-parking spaces would need to be relocated. Some of the trees on the SINC might need to be cut back.

SITE 2The former car park that is currently part of the SINC,�is�a�relatively�flat�piece�of�land�which�could�be�used�for�developing�a�block�of�flats�or�play�and�amenity space. Some of the tree crowns might need to be cut back.

SITE 3This site is a sloped piece of land currently used as an informal kick-about area. This space, between Alexander�House�and�Mountbatten�House,�provides an opportunity to create the largest footprint for development of the three sites. Some of Category B and C trees would need to be removed to make this site available.

N

Based�on�this�diagram�and�evaluating�the�key�constraints�that�have�been�identified,�three�potential�development�areas may be considered further.

These�three�areas�are�identified�and�described�below�as�Sites 1,2 and 3.

page 73

4. C

on

st

ra

Int

sS

ITE

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D C

ON

CE

PT

– H

ILLC

RE

ST

ES

TATE

DRAFT

5. DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Three�sites�are�identified�as�potential�land�for�development.�Each�of�the�three�sites�has�its�specific�constraints�and�opportunities.�

While�it�is�understood�that�additional�development�on�this�site�could�affect�and�potentially�threaten�the�current�feel�of�the�estate,�a�new�development�could�also�have�benefits�including:

• Much�needed�additional�affordable�homes�designed�and�built�to�Mayor’s�Housing�SPG�and�the�latest�housing�standards.�Lifetime�Homes�standards�will�be�applied�to�all�new�homes.�The�ground�floor�properties�will�be�designed to Wheelchair Accessible standards to meet the London�Plan�requirements�for�10%�wheelchair�accessible�accommodation�for�disabled�or�elderly�residents.�As�part�of�new�housing�standards�more�adequate�outdoor�spaces�(balconies)�will�be�provided�for�the�new�properties.

• Equivalent�of�Code�for�Sustainable�Homes�Level�4�or�above will be applied to any new development. This would provide elements such as sustainable drainage, highly�insulated�homes,�potential�renewable�energy�to�reduce�the�demand�for�fossil�fuels.�Adequate�bike�storage�would�mitigate�the�reduced�level�of�parking�spaces.

• The immediate landscape around the new blocks could also�be�developed,�which�would�improve�the�existing�access�routes,�refuse�and�recycling�facilities,�lighting�and�security of the estate.

• Safer�and�more-efficient�car-parking�throughout�the�estate

page 74

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

Potential�development�sitesSource: Google Earth –Graphics by PRP

DRAFT

SITE 2

SITE 3

SITE 1

page 75

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

Potential�development�sites�in�3D�viewed�from�north

DRAFT

5.1 FEEDBACK FROM WORKSHOP AND DROP-IN EVENT WITH RESIDENTS

The�existing�site�analysis�was�presented�on�formatted�A0 boards to the residents of the estate at a workshop and drop-in event on 9th Decempber 2014. The following subjects�were�included�within�the�presentation�boards:

• Transport and Car Parking

• Nature and Wildlife

• Trees

• Open Space

• Play

• History�and�Creation�of�Hillcrest

• Heritage Assets

• Urban Context

• Existing�Blocks�-�General�Arrangements

• Existing�Blocks�-�Design�Features

• Constraints�and�Opportunities

• Sustainable Development

PRP Architects and the consultants who provided the material for the above subjects were present at this workshop.�The�consultants’�areas�of�expertise�included�heritage, ecology, arboriculture, landscape and transport.

A�small�number�of�residents�attended�the�workshop�and�some comments were made to consultants and Haringey Council�officers�through�one-to-one�conversations.�A�team�from�Homes�for�Haringey�was�also�present�to�collate�written�feedback from the workshop session.

A�model�of�the�existing�site�was�provided�at�a�scale�of�1:500,�showing�the�existing�and�surrounding�buildings�as��schematic�mass�in�a�wood�material.�New�potential�blocks�for each of the three sites were made from frosted acrylic to�represent�potential�scales�of�development�.�Possible�new�blocks were made in 3, 4 and 4.5 storeys for each site. The purpose of this model was to provide an opportunity for the residents�and�the�architect�to�discuss�the�existing�estate�and�use�the�removable�blocks�to�test�the�different�height�options�for�each�of�the�identified�sites.�

The�model�produced�some�initial�feedback�from�residents�about�the�merits�of�developing�the�respective�sites.�Some�residents�suggested�that�development�of�residential�block�on Site 1 was less desirable due to the possible impact on the�residential�blocks�outside�the�estate�and�the�proximity�to�the�existing�7-storey�blocks.�These�residents�suggested�that Site 1 was probably more suitable for a new informal play�area�benefiting�from�high�levels�of�overlooking�by�the�existing�blocks.�

Site�2�was�also�discussed.�There�were�suggestions�that�this�may be used as a new car parking area or informal play facility.

Most�felt�that�due�to�is�scale�site�3�seemed�to�be�most�appropriate�for�a�residential�block.�However�the�loss�of�informal play area remained a major concern to residents.

Although the residents did provide feedback on the potential�sites,�they�clearly�stated�that�in�general�they�opposed development on Hillcrest at this stage.

The�workshop�session�proved�to�be�positive�and�informative�and provided the design team useful feedback which could�be�used�to�develop�design�options�at�a�later�stage.�The�following�section�explains�the�thinking�behind�the�suggested�design�and�three�new�residential�blocks�for�the�sites�influenced�by�the�feedback�from�workshop�and�drop-in�session, as well as input from other consultants.

page 76

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

Workshop event on 9th December 2014

DRAFT

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

Existing�site�model

DRAFT

5.2 CONCEPT PROPOSAL

Following�detailed�analysis�of�the�Site�and�the�consultation�event, concept proposals were developed. It is considered that each of the three sites could accommodate a block of�flats.�Blocks�1,�2�and�3�are�proposed�for�Sites�1,�2�and�3�respectively.�

The�proposed�blocks�attempt�to�follow�and�complement�the�existing�blocks’�footprint�and�forms.�Block�footprints�follow a standard form of simple rectangles, joined and sliding�along�an�axis�This�configuration�allows�individual�flats�to�then�be�contained�within�the�resulting�geometry.�Flats�benefit�from�dual�aspects�and�the�layout�allows�views�within and from outside of the estate to be explored. The new�blocks�will�provide�an�opportunity�to�add�to�the�active�frontage�on�the�ground�floor.

Existing�site�marked�with�potential�development�sites

page 78

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

SITE 1Block�1�follows�the�orthogonal�relationship�between�Mountbatten,�Wavell�and�Dowding�House,�completing�the�open�square�in�the�centre.�Due�to�the�location�and�close�proximity�to�the�northern�boundary�and�potential�impact�on�the�Highgate�Conservation�Area�to�the�north,�it�is�suggested�that any height block here is limited to three storeys.

This�block�contains�three�flats�per�floor�(two�1-bedroom�and�a�one�2-bedroom).�The�total�new�accommodation�is�eight�flats�(five�1-bedroom,�three�2-bedroom).�On�the�ground�floor,�a�one�1-bedroom�flat�is�replaced�with�an�integrated�refuse and recycling facility and bicycle storage room which is accessed from outside. A full-width balcony is provided for�each�flat.�The�roof�space�could�be�used�as�communal�amenity space for the residents of the block or as a green roof.

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS

SITE 2Block�2�is�located�entirely�on�the�rough�grassland�area�of�the SINC, perpendicular to Cunningham House. This site is relatively�flat�but�only�a�very�limited�footprint�is�applicable�between�the�20m�overlooking�limit�and�the�existing�trees.�This�result�in�the�smallest�block,�with�two�flats�per�floor�(a�1-bedroom and a 2-bedroom). The height limit is restricted to four storeys�to�reflect�the�height�of�the�existing�blocks�on�site�and�respect�the�listed�building�on�Jackson’s�Lane�(Bank�Point�Cottage)�and�the�properties�along�Southwood�Lane.The�total�new�accommodation�is�eight flats (five 1-bedroom, three 2-bedroom).

The refuse and recycling facility can be provided on the�ground�floor�by�replacing�the�2bedroom�flat�with�a�1bedroom�flat.�Bicycle�storage�needs�to�be�provided�outside�the�block.�A�full�width�balcony�is�provided�for�each�flat.�The�roof space is be used as communal amenity space for the residents of the block.

SITE 3Block 3 is located behind Alexander House on the sloped land currently used as an informal kick-about area. As a result�of�introducing�this�block,�three�existing�trees�(one�category B and two category C) would be removed. This site is the largest of all the sites and could accommodate a block�with�four�flats�per�floor�(two�1-bedroom,�a�2-bedroom�and a 3-bedroom). The height limit is to be four storeys with�an�additional�setback�floor�on�the�roof�level.�The�overall height provides an interface between the height of�Alexander�House�and�Mountbatten�House.�The�total�new�accommodation�is�18�flats�(eight�1-bedroom,�five�2-bedroom,�five�3-bedroom).

Due to the site levels dropping at the top end of this site it may�be�possible�to�provide�an�undercroft�car�park�for�this�block. The refuse and recycling facility and bicycle store are�provided�on�the�lower�ground�floor�towards�the�north�end�of�the�block�next�to�the�entrance�of�the�undercroft�car�park.��A�full�width�balcony�is�provided�for�each�flat.�The�roof�terrace provides further amenity space for the penthouse apartments. A green roof can be provided for penthouse apartments�as�a�visual�amenity�for�the�existing�taller�blocks.�

DESIGN OPTIONSUtilising�the�consultant’s�analysis�of�the�site�and�their�recommendations�and�having�had�some�input�from�the�residents,�a�series�of�options�are�proposed�to�compare�the�potentials�between�the�sites�in�order�to�identify�the�most�beneficial�proposal.�Three�options�are�considered:

Option�1:�Residential�blocks�on�all�the�three�sites.�

Option�2:�Residential�blocks�on�Sites�1�and�3.�The�relocation�of the Informal play on Site 2.

Option�3:�Residential�blocks�on�Sites�2�and�3.�The�relocation�Informal play above a car park on Site 1.

Block 1 on site 1 Block 2 on site 2 Block 3 on site 3

page 79

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

CHANGES TO THE EXISTING SITEThe�existing�site�plan�would�need�some�reconfiguring�to�accommodate development. This would include rearranging the spine road and car parking, removing a few trees, relocating�the�refuse�bins�for�the�existing�blocks,�and�relocating�the�informal�kick-about�area.�The�extent�of�the�changes�would�vary�depending�upon�the�intervention�proposed.

Some�of�the�existing�amenity�space�(proposed�site�2�and�3)�would be lost to accommodate the new blocks. However the quality�of�the�current�amenity�space�in�these�two�locations�is�not�fulfilling�its�potential.�Any�loss�could�be�balanced�by improving the amenity on the rest of the estate. The informal kick-about area could be relocated to a more suitable�location,�with�adequate�overlooking�by�existing�and�new blocks.

Existing�site�around�Site�3

The�outdoor�areas�immediately�around�the�potential�new�blocks�provide�an�opportunity�to�create�quality,�well-lit�and�easily-accessed defensible space which is currently missing from�the�existing�blocks.�All�new�properties�would�have�full-width balconies compliant with the space standards of London�Housing�design�Guide�(LHDG).�In�addition,�amenity�space or private amenity space for penthouse apartments could be provided on the roof of the new blocks or alternatively�green�roofs.

Based�on�any�intervention,�some�of�the�existing�parking�spaces�would�need�to�be�relocated.�The�existing�parking�behind�Mountbatten�House�needs�rearranging�and�tidying�up�to�make�better�use�of�the�space.�Underground�car�parking may be provided on Sites 1 and 3 subject to further technical�assessments�and�financial�viability.�Further�parking�spaces may be provided along the old road leading to the disused car parking on the SINC.

Overall�the�aim�is�to�retain�the�number�of�the�existing�surface�parking�spaces�by�relocating�them�around�the�estate�and�using�undercroft�car�parking�spaces�to�service�the�new�properties.



page 80

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

5.3 FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS

LANDSCAPE, AMENITY AND PLAYThere are numerous environmental improvements and designed�options�that�may�be�implemented�on�the�estate.�

The�potential�proposal�may�be�to�create�a�compact�network of spaces (both public and private), a legible public realm with pedestrian friendly accesses and ecological enhancements. This may be addressed through a�combination�of�hard�and�soft�landscape�interventions�as�well�as�tree/shrub�planting�and�bulb�planting�areas.

The�landscape�objectives�may�include:

• Creating�a�sensitive�landscape�that�is�in�keeping�with�the�setting�of�the�Site�and�SINC

• Maximising�visual�and�recreational�amenity�of�private�communal areas

• Providing a pedestrian friendly streetscene

• Providing defensible spaces to each block where possible

• Providing a purpose-built kick-about area

• Creating�safe�and�well-overlooked�areas�and�proviing�planting�buffers�where�possible

• Making�the�neighbourhood�a�safe,�attractive�and�accessible�place�to�live�in�with�a�variety�of�high-quality�usable spaces.

• Embracing�the�level�differences�and�creating�interesting�spaces by carefully detailing terraces

• Maximising�the�biodiversity�value�of�planting�proposals�

• Responding�to�microclimatic�variations�caused�by�the�nature of a new development

• Improving links to adjacent habitats as part of green infrastructure and biodiversity improvements

• Responding to the character of the area

• Encouraging�innovative�and�environmentally�sustainable�designs

• Defining�key�public�spaces�and�a�stronger�public/private�distinction

• Integrating�details�into�the�design�and�style�of�any�development

• Potentially�providing�a�secondary�stepped�pedestrian�link�to the north of the site (behind Wawell House) to provide closer�links�to�Highgate�underground�station.

All�of�the�above�potential�options�would�need�to�be�assessed�within�the�context�of�financial�viability.

PLANTING STRATEGYThe�planting�vision�may�extract�the�maturity�of�the�SINC�and,�where�possible,�planting�should�be�selected�to�provide�colour,�texture�and�diversity.�Consideration�should�be�given�to�seasonal�variety�in�planting,�maintenance,�the�safety�of�children and sunlight and shade.

There�are�also�opportunities�for�food�growing�and�vegetable�gardens should there be interest from the community.

LIGHTING STRATEGYThe�Site’s�overall�lighting�should�be�reviewed�and�proposals�that�are�sensitive�to�the�presence�of�bats�should��be�investigated.

DEFENSIBLE SPACESAdequate�defensible�spaces�need�to�be�provided�to�provide�privacy�to�the�residents�and�therefore�particular�attention�should�be�given�to�providing�a�variety�of�boundary�treatment.

SITE WIDE IMPROVEMENTSThe boundary treatment provisions for the overall estate

Some�ideas�for�newlandscape�and�play�elements�for�areas�around�the�existing�buildings

should be improved following the Secured by Design principles. The provision of secure fencing around the site could be explored and reviewed with residents.

As part of the overall estate improvement bike stands, seating�and�informal�toddlers’�play�area�that�is�in�keeping�with the natural feel of the site could be considered.

The�refuse�and�recycling�storage�facilities�could�also�be�reviewed�with�a�view�to�improving�the�overall�facilities�on�site.

SINC MANAGEMENTSINCs represent a legacy of good management and rely upon�continued�stewardship�by�landowners�and�managers.�Designating�a�site�as�a�SINC�helps�raise�awareness�of�its�importance for wildlife and makes it a focus for nature conservation.

A habitat management plan would help to ensure that these�sites�are�maintained�in�good�condition�and�therefore�a SINC management plan could be developed to encourage conservation�initiatives.

page 81

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

5.4 OPTION 1This�option�includes�all�three�block�(1,�2�and�3).�The�blocks�are�3,�4�and�4.5�storeys�respectively.�The�total�number�of�new�properties�is�34�flats.�

In�this�option�the�central�open�space�is�modified�to�accommodate a new informal play area in the middle of the site where the loop of the spine road is located. The car park at�the�rear�of�Mountbatten�House�(Zone�C)�is�rearranged�to�provide�a�defined�row�of�parking�spaces�and�the�road�is�extended�to�the�front�of�Mountbatten�House�to�link�with�the�spine�road.�New�soft�landscape�is�provided�around�the�rear�of�Mountbatten�House�to�provide�a�buffer�zone�and�screening�to�the�car�park�between�the�flats.�This�option�also�considers�an�underground/undercroft�car�park�under�Block�1�and the new play area. The site levels allow for the provision of a small ramp behind Block 1 leading to an underground car park.

The footpath leading to Block 2 is widened to provide car access to Block 2 as well as a few car parking spaces. This road�follows�the�existing�road�leading�to�the�disused�car�parking in the SINC area.

The road leading to Block 3 and Alexander House slopes down considerably, which provides the opportunity to provide�undercroft�car�park�below�Block�3.�Further�in-line�parking spaces are provided along this road.

Accommodation�Schedule:

1B2P 2B4P 3B4P Total

Site 1 (Block 1)

5 3 0 8

Site 2 (Block 2)

5 3 0 8

Site 3 (Block 3)

8 5 5 18

Total 18 11 5 34

Proposed�option�1

Surface Parking Spaces 73

Underground�and�Undercroft�Parking�Spaces� 35 DRAFT

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

IMPACT ON TREES AND ECOLOGYSITE 1, BLOCK 1:The proposed block extends minimally into the RPA of three trees: less than 5% of the RPA of one tree and less than 1%of the RPAs of two other trees. The crowns of trees in the�SINC�would�need�cutting�back�to�provide�clearance�from�the�building.�Specific�pruning�proposals�would�need�to�be�assessed for each tree to minimise impacts on tree health and appearance.

SITE 1, UNDERGROUND CAR PARKING AND PLAY AREA:Five category C trees would need to be removed in order to accommodate the underground parking and level surface play area. Those trees are T52,T53, T54, T55 and T56. It is also possible that the entrance to the underground parking would border the edge of RPAs of trees in the SINC. Forming the�entrance�would�require�sheet�piling�which�would�require�high�access�requiring�cutting�back�of�overhanging�crowns.�

Undercroft�Car�Parking.�This�also�skirts�edge�of�RPA�of�T51�a�Category�A�tree.�The�cumulative�impact�of�undercroft�car�parking and changes in hard surfacing within RPA would need to be considered. This is all achievable subject to existing�versus�finished�levels�for�the�hard�surfacing.

SITE 2, BLOCK 2:The�proposed�block�would�require�the�removal�of:�a�small�dead Rowan sapling; a mature Lime tree; and part of a small group of Holly trees. The Lime tree is considered to be in poor�condition�because�of�decay,�but�is�also�a�potential�bat�roost.�The�crowns�of�trees�in�the�SINC�would�need�cutting�back to provide clearance from the building.

The new road to Site 2 passes through the RPA of 2 Category A�trees�T73�and�T74.�This�would�require�a�permeable,�no-dig�construction�,which�might�not�be�adoptable.�

SITE 3, BLOCK 3:The�proposed�block�would�require�the�removal�of:�two�sapling trees, two Pear trees, a Sycamore and a Lime tree. The�Lime�tree�is�considered�to�be�in�poor�condition�because�of�decay,�but�is�also�a�potential�bat�roost.�The�block�extends�minimally�(less�than�1%)�into�the�RPA�of�one�other�(off-site)�tree.�The�crowns�of�adjacent�trees�would�need�cutting�back�to provide clearance from the building.

The�entrance�to�the�undercroft�parking�may�border�the�edge�of the RPAs of T202 and T40. As explained regarding site 1 forming�the�entrance�will�require�sheet�piling.�Proposed�new�hard surfaces within the RPAs of T40, T201 and T202 are in principle�achievable�using�permeable,�no-dig�construction,�and�would�be�dependent�on�existing�versus�finished�levels.

IMPROVEMENTS TO CAR PARKING AT THE REAR OF MOUNTBATTEN HOUSE:The�new�car�parking�should�be�a�‘reduced-dig’�construction�technique�and�the�levels�should�be�kept�the�same�as�the�existing�levels.�There�are�one�category�B,�four�category�C�and one category U trees in this area (T46, T43, T4, T44, T74, T8�and�T45�respectively).�New�parking�spaces�would�need�

to be in order to keep all the category B and C trees within the�hard�surface�area.�Further�investigation�would�need�to�be carried out to prove that this is achievable. It is possible that some the category C trees would need to be removed to�make�the�car�parking�area�more�efficient.�

Overlay of trees diagram Photographs�of�model�with�Option�1�blocks

DRAFT

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

5.5 OPTION 2This�option�provides�two�blocks�(1�and�3)�as�described�in�Option�1.�The�blocks�are�3�and�4.5�storeys�respectively.�The�total�number�of�new�properties�is�26�flats.�

As�outlined�within�Option�1,�the�central�open�space�is�modified�to�accommodate�a�new�informal�play�area�in�the middle of the site, where the loop of the spine road is located. The site layout and car parking arrangement is the same�as�Option�1.�

The footpath leading to Site 2 is widened to provide car access to Site 2 and includes a few in-line parking spaces. This road follows the exact road leading to the disused�car�parking�in�the�SINC�area.�In�this�option,�Site�2�accommodates�a�new�play�area�which�benefits�from�the�relatively�flat�site�and�is�overlooked�by�Tedder�House�and�to�some degree by Cunningham House.

The�area�around�Block�3�is�similar�to�Option�1.�



Site 1 (Block 1) 5 3 0 8

Site 2 (Block 2) 0 0 0 0

Site 3 (Block 3) 8 5 5 18

Total 13 8 5 26



Underground�and�Undercroft�Parking�Spaces� 35

DRAFT

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

IMPACT ON TREES AND ECOLOGYThe�comments�on�trees�and�ecology�are�the�same�as�option�1 for sites 1 and 3.

Overlay of trees diagram Photographs�of�model�with�Option�2�blocks

SITE 2, BLOCK 2:The�play�area�requires�removal�of�a�similar�number�of�trees�from�the�SINC�area�as�Option�1.�However,�there�would�be�no�potential�conflict�between�the�crown�of�T74�and�occupiers�of�the�proposed�block�in�Option�1.

The play area surface extends into the RPA of T74, a category�A�tree�and�would�need�to�be�a�soft�surface,�e.g.�grass or a permeable, no-dig surface.

DRAFT

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

5.6 OPTION 3

This�option�provides�two�blocks�(2�and�3).�These�are�the�same�as�those�described�within�Option�1.�The�blocks�are�4�and�4.5�storeys�respectively.�The�total�number�of�new�properties�is�26�flats.�

The�existing�car�parking�at�Site�1�(Zone�B)�is�re�arranged�and�capped�with�a�flat�roof�to�accommodate�the�new�informal�play�area.�In�this�option�the�loop�at�the�end�of�the�spine�road is retained as it is.

The�areas�around�Blocks�2�and�3�are�identical�to�Option�1.�



Site 1 (Block 1) 0 0 0 0

Site 2 (Block 2) 5 3 0 8

Site 3 (Block 3) 8 5 5 18

Total 13 8 5 26



Underground�and�Undercroft�Parking�Spaces� 47

DRAFT

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

IMPACT ON TREES AND ECOLOGYThe�comments�on�trees�and�ecology�are�the�same�as�option�1 for sites 2 and 3.

SITE 1, UNDERGROUND CAR PARKING AND PLAY AREA:There are no trees to be removed in this part by construction�of�the�undercroft�parking�but�it�may�border�the�edge�of�RPAs�of�trees�in�the�SINC.�Forming�the�foundations�would�require�sheet�piling�which�will�require�high�access�and�the�cutting�back�of�overhanging�crowns.�

Some�pruning�may�be�required�to�raise�crowns�to�make�the�site�more�inviting�for�play�and�for�construction�purposes,�but�such�requirements�would�be�less�stringent�than�in�respect�of�Options�1�and�2.�No�significant�decrease�is�anticipated�in�the�permeability of the visual screen provided by the trees in the SINC adjacent to the play area.

The�proposed�play�area�could�be�built�up�from�the�existing�concrete parking area, or this might be carefully removed and replaced with an appropriate permeable surface, using a�no-dig�construction�method.

Overlay of trees diagramUndercroft�car�park�on�the�lower�level�of�informal�play�area�on�Site�1 Photographs�of�model�with�Option�3�blocks

Site�1,�Option�3�represents�a�significant�reduction�in�potential�impacts�on�the�trees�in�the�SINC.�It�overcomes�potentially�significant�objections�that�options�1�and�2�would�result in heavy pruning of trees in the SINC, increasing the permeability of the screen they provide an impact on tree health�by�virtue�of�the�heavy�pruning�and�possible�effects�of�sheet�piling�and�foundation�excavations�on�tree�roots.

DRAFT

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONAny new development will have some level of impact on the�existing�estate.�The�impacts�vary�between�the�three�development�options.�There�is�an�opportunity�to�improve�or�to�enhance�the�current�conditions�of�the�external�environment. Should a new development be pursued and a�Planning�application�be�submitted,�a�comprehensive�Environmental�Impact�Assessment�would�be�required�to�review all the impacts of development.

The�following�assessments�are�likely�to�be�required�if�a�new�development is considered:

• Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing

• Amendments�to�the�existing�underground�services�(a�radar survey has been carried out, however no further investigations�have�been�carried�out�to�confirm�the�nature and capacity of the services).

• Basement assessment

• Disruptions�during�construction

• Air�quality

• Noise�and�vibration�(initial�investigations�have�already�begun)

The�following�matters�have�been�reviewed�with�consultants�but�need�further�investigation�in�the�next�stage.

OVERLOOKINGThe Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) where the overlooking guidance comes from has recently been withdrawn. LBH is going through a process of streamlining its SPDs/SPGs and will be including this within its new Development�Management�policies,�which�are�being�consulted upon in 2015. This subject will need to be revisited�once�the�policy�is�approved�and�finalised.

ECOLOGYWhere�a�potential�new�development�is�located�on�Site�2�the�following should be considered, whilst the SINC provides some�habitat�value,�the�habitat�itself�is�not�of�a�high�quality,�being over-dominated by Sycamore, with a species-poor under-storey and an almost absent herb layer (I DONT UNDERSTAND�THIS.).�Whilst�potential�development�involves�a�small�loss�of�SINC�area,�this�represents�an�insignificant�loss�of biodiversity. There is scope for ecological enhancement through suitable landscaping of the site generally, and works to enhance the remaining SINC.

In�practice�some�local�authorities,�such�as�Bromley�Council,�have�included�within�their�UDP�the�condition�that�a�development�proposal�that�may�significantly�affect�the�nature�conservation�interest�or�value�of�a�local�nature�reserve�(LNR),�site�of�importance�for�nature�conservation�(SINC) or a Regionally Important Geological Site (RIG) will be permitted�only�if�it�can�be�shown�that�the�reasons�for�the�development�or�benefits�to�the�local�community�from�the�development outweigh the interest or value of the site, or any�harm�can�be�overcome�by�mitigating�measures,�secured�through�conditions�or�planning�obligations.

In general any new development would have some impact on�the�existing�ecology�of�the�estate.�Removal�of�the�trees�or�a�reduction�in�canopy�in�the�SINC�and�on�the�estate�could�reduce�habitat�suitable�forforaging,nesting,�roosting�and�commuting.�Increased�lighting�due�to�additional�properties�has�the�potential�to�disturb�bat�activity.�The�extent�of�these�impacts�should�be�reviewed�in�detail�if�a�preferred�option�is�selected and moved forward for a Planning submission.

TREESLBH’s�UDP�in�relation�to�trees�states�that��when�unprotected�trees�are�affected�by�development,�a�programme�of�tree�replanting�and�replacement�of�at�least�equal�amenity�and�ecological value and extent is approved by the council.

The proposed development sites have been carefully selected�in�order�to�reduce�the�impact�on�the�existing�trees,�however�some�of�the�tree�crowns�and�root�protection�areas�(RPA)�would�be�affected.�From�the�initial�assessments�it�is�clear that more surveys would be needed of the bat-roost trees�that�could�be�affected�by�development.�The�minimal�incursion into the RPAs of the trees is considered low impact, but could be further reduced by appropriate design of�foundations�and�suitable�construction�methods.

The�potential�impacts�of�tree�pruning�on�tree�health�and�appearance would need to be assessed on a tree-by-tree basis. During development trees would need to be

protected�by�appropriate�fencing�and�ground�protection.�Regular checks would need to be carried out to ensure protection�measures�remain�in�place.

RIGHT OF LIGHT (ROL)Following�an�initial�assessment�of�the�potential�loss�of�light�to�the�surrounding�properties�(including�the�existing�blocks�on the site) by Calfordseaden in June 2014, it was evident that development could be limited due to Rights of Light. The Right of Light (RoL) specialist and the LBH legal team reviewed�the�available�options�in�order�to�limit�the�impact�of�RoL�on�any�potential�new�development.

In�summary�there�are�four�groups�of�properties�that�could�be�affected�by�RoL:

• Leaseholders within the site boundary

• Tenants within the site boundary

• Tenants of more than 20 years tenancy

• Residents outside the site boundary

By reviewing the lease agreements between LBH and the leaseholders it was determined by the legal team that leaseholders do not have any legal right to claim for loss of light.

The�legal�team�also�confirmed�that�the�tenants�of�LBH�within�the site boundary can only claim for loss of light if their tenancy has been longer than twenty years.

The�residents�of�properties�outside�the�site�boundary�can�also claim for loss of light if their window has been in its location�for�at�least�twenty�years�and�new�buildings�would�leave�them�with�inadequate�light.

page 88

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

6. CONCLUSION

Following�the�review�of�the�design�options,�each�option�has�its�own�merits.�Option�1�provides�the�greatest�total�number�of�additional�properties.�Option�2�provides�a�more�sympathetic�approach�to�the�SINC�by�providing�a�play�area�with�soft�and�permeable�surfaces�which�the�ecology�experts�believe�can�mitigate�effects�on�the�SINC.�Finally�Option�3,�which uses Site 1 as car parking with informal play, is the most�sympathetic�to�the�conservation�area�to�the�north.�This�option�also�re-provides�the�kick-about�area�in�a�location�that�is well overlooked.

It�is�felt�that�a�modest�intervention�to�provide�additional�housing is feasible, however there are key aspects of the characteristics�of�the�estate�that�need�to�be�considered�carefully. These features include but are not limited to ecology and wildlife, car parking, amenity, heritage, architectural�language�and�play.�Hillcrest�Estate�has�a�unique�identity�in�terms�of�its�architectural�form�and�language�which�has�been�reviewed�in�the�Analysis�section�of�this�document. Any future development should consider this existing�language�carefully�to�ensure�that�any�intervention�is�appropriate.

THE WAY FORWARD The�client,�London�Borough�of�Haringey�will�use�the�options�and�opportunities�outlined�within�in�this�document�to�assess�the�financial�viability�and�appropriateness�of�any�new�development. The constraints and list of outstanding and further�investigations�should�provide�an�idea�of�the�potential�future costs and hurdles to achieve new housing with the minimum�disturbance�to�the�existing�residents�of�the�estate�and�surrounding�properties.�

Consultations�with�the�residents�will�play�a�crucial�role�in�refining�the�findings�of�this�document�and�exploring�the�options.�The�initial�substance�of�this�report�was�presented�to�the residents in a workshop and drop in event in December 2014�in�order�to�restart�the�communication�with�the�residents, use and learn from their vast knowledge of the estate and the area.

Should the client decide to proceed with development, a full�Planning�application�would�be�required.�There�will�be�a�requirement�for�the�planning�and�conservation�officers�at�LBH to review the proposals in depth before any planning application.�Consultation�with�other�key�stakeholders�such as English Heritage, Highgate Society and Highgate Neighbourhood Forum will further inform the future of any proposal.

page 90

5. d

ev

eLo

pm

en

t o

pp

or

tu

nIt

Ies

SIT

E A

NA

LYS

IS A

ND

CO

NC

EP

T –

HIL

LCR

ES

T E

STA

TE

DRAFT

PRP Architects LLP10 Lindsey Street

SmithfieldLondon

EC1A 9HP

prp site analysis and concept (pdf, 20mb)

Documents