The Planning Issues

Our aim is to try to reflect as closely as possible what the community tells us they want for Archway, so please Contact us.

Rebuilding or Regeneration

Who Should Develop the Site

Type and Scale of Redevelopment

Buildings and Open Space

Dominant Type of Accommodation

Types of Retail Units and Space

Other Types of Retail Unit (non-food)

Leisure and Community facilities

Public Transport

Road Layouts and the Roundabout

Strategic changes to improve the wider area

Type and Scale of Redevelopment

Redevelopment options	Pros	Cons
Total redevelopment. All or most of existing buildings on main site replaced.	Would get rid of the most unpopular buildings, e.g. the tower. It is an opportunity to start with a blank piece of paper and get it right this time.	It would take a long time to get from initial intention to starting on building - until 2014 according to Councillor Euan Cameron. In that time the area could suffer from planning blight - shops remaining empty after leases expire because of uncertainty about the future or because landlords are hoping to be able to charge higher rents if they wait. Because requiring demolition as well as rebuilding, would take a long time. The disturbance and inconvenience caused by the building could deter shoppers from using the area. With the work lasting anything from three to seven years, that could starve remaining shops out of business.
	Would achieve many of the objectives for the area as specified in the GLA's London Plan (densification, large number of new residential units etc).	The overall size of a new development would almost certainly be completely out of proportion to buildings in surrounding area.
	The existing pool could be replaced with more contemporary leisure facilities.	They might not be council facilities, open to all bit could be membership-only.
Radical new design	A total rebuild is an opportunity to replace existing dreary sixties buildings with something splendid, making Archway something of a show piece. Sites of this size and importance come up very rarely for redevelopment and particularly if made the subject of an international architecture competition, could attract interest from world-class architects. A distinctive development would have a style of its own and be less likely to date. If whatever goes on the site has to be big it may as well be grand.	This would take time to organise. Top-class architects are likely to be expensive and that would require higher payback - ie more building on the site. Cutting edge design could be controversial. Cutting edge design may not be properly tested, resulting in a show piece which is even more expensive to put right than to build it in the first place (see Hackney's ill-fated leisure centre). Dealing with the public's reaction to design proposals and making subsequent adaptations to original designs could set project timetable back even further.
More conventional design approach to new development.	Less likely to offend/upset people, easier to reach consensus on design proposals. Might be possible to blend in ground level of buildings with predominantly Victorian architecture.	Design could be anything from lowest common denominator Tesco-style to downright ugly - Wood Green - but higher. Very unlikely to be particularly striking or attractive. And it will be boring on a very large scale! Conventional design is more likely to date badly.
Rework and transform existing buildings. E.g. reclad the tower and other large buildings to improve appearance and solve wind problems. Preserve existing open space but resurface and relandscape it, potentially creating a pedestrian route and vista through to green area of Girdlestone Estate. Change the entrance of pool to face Junction Road to invite people to cross the open space. Demolish most of the ground floor buildings in the mall and re-arrange buildings at that level to create a more inviting and attractive area.
Redevelopment options	Pros	Cons
	Less disruptive, and would not take as long. Could look and feel completely different (and better) even though the bigger basic structures would remain the same.	Unless done well and imaginatively this could amount to not much more than a lick of paint.
	The tower would look better and not cause wind problems. The interiors of the buildings could be refurbished or even entirely reworked. This could be in the form of conversion to residential units, to improved office space, or a combination of both.	But would remain the same rather uninspired shape. Rents would go up. Some existing business tenants could not afford to stay.
	There would be no risk of losing the pool or library.	There would be minimal improvements to existing public facilities.
	Because less expensive the site would not have to generate as much revenue and that would mean less high building.	Would largely preserve the not terribly attractive profile of existing buildings.
	There would be no large supermarket on the site and therefore no night time delivery lorries - or increased customer car traffic.	The bus stand might stay where it is - annoying residents at bottom of Girdlestone Estate and the nursery school. However, it might be possible to move this elsewhere (see Public Transport) as part of this ‘reworking’ approach.
	Tenants of new shop units in a reworked site would be less likely to pose a threat to existing local shops in the way a large supermarket would.
	This option would preserve the essential nature of the area whilst improving it.

Click here to add your comments to the BAF online forum on this subject.