“ The promise to “substantially reducing the height and scale” of the proposal may be deemed to have been achieved by the two northern blocks being dropped and the remaining site being at a lower level. The six and eight storey high blocks on the lower section may well be retained. We shall see.
The developers had already indicated they intended to increase the number of blocks on the lower section and also that they consider between 300 and 350 apartments as the minimum for the project to be economically viable. It seems unlikely this figure could be achieved unless the heights of the buildings could be maintained at between six and eight storeys and also unlikely that they would wish to build an estate with six or seven buildings of identical height. That implies the tallest buildings could still be eight storeys high. Again this remains to be seen.
There is no room for significant trees and greenery between the buildings and the pavementless Great North Road. Even if there was it would have to be mighty high to reduce the impact of buildings the equivalent of between nine and ten shipping containers stacked in their present position – a wall of buildings up Barnet Hill from the railway bridge to past the junction with Station Approach.
There is simply no space for the “great spaces to walk through and enjoy”. The new apartment blocks would have to be built in a horseshoe around the substantial and apparently immovable power transformer station which was deliberately sited in the middle of the complex away from habitable buildings.
The exceedingly limited land not being built on would have to be used for access threading its way as between the apartment blocks and the power substation. There would not be “great spaces to walk through and enjoy” but an intimidating canyon between high rise buildings on one side and a razor wire security fence on the other.
It has to be said the proposal to build at the northern end of the site stretched plausibility so much widespread suggestions it was a straw man are hard to refute. If so the intention would always have been to drop it to take heat out of objections to the scheme. Discussion in established residents groups always seems to have those both for and against such projects. This tactic can usually be guaranteed to leverage either neutrality or support for schemes which are objectively still deeply flawed well past the limit of acceptability. Yet again this remains to be seen.
This would still be a budget high density high rise estate the experience of the last sixty years would indicate would be an horrific built environment for poor souls expected to live there.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Lets keep an open but sceptical mind until we see the revised plans. ”