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

Who Should Develop the Site?

The only option being considered by the council is wholescale redevelopment by a private developer. There are alternatives.

Redevelopment options	Pros	Cons
A private developer.	Will have the financial resources to knock everything down and start from scratch. If monitored carefully by the council and local community, might produce something really striking. Easier for the Council to organise/administer as gives them a single company to deal with. A private developer for a site as large as this should be able to offer sweeteners - including community benefits which would not otherwise be included because not profitable. A private developer is in a position to arrange matters so the council obtains financial benefits from the development. The input of a private developer could be controlled more effectively than by normal planning routes if before deciding on a developer the council commissioned an urban realm strategy. (An architecture or design practice would develop an overarching framework with key criteria and some visual ideas before developers are even considered.)	A private developer will require around 20% profit on their investment. This means that they will be trying to build as much as possible on the site, meaning building will either be solidly around double the height of surrounding buildings across the entire site or, if there is to be some open space, it will involve two or three towers at least the height of the current Archway tower. The second approach is more likely. To maximise return on investment a developer will seek full priced residential property and large chain businesses (e.g. retail, hotel or cinema). These will almost certainly include a major supermarket. Chain businesses take money away from the local economy. They do create some employment but these will be mostly entry level jobs for local people. Unless forced to do otherwise, developer-led projects generally try to cut costs, including for design - resulting in Wood Green Mark II, or a modernised version of the current Archway Mall. A private developer often offers off-the-peg schemes because these are easier (cheaper) to put together. The suggestion of including a medical centre, down the road from a new out-patient department at the Whittington, is one example, taken from an earlier developer's plan without considering what would be relevant to this particular area. Community benefits in the case of the Archway development would be no more than what is already there - a swimming pool and a library. The originals would first be demolished. The council is seeking to get the re-routing of the A1 paid for by a developer - which would offer financial benefits to themselves* - even though it should actually be paid for by Transport for London. (*If a developer pays for road re-routing, the council issues compulsory purchase orders for more land than is actually needed for the road works, and then sells the unused land to the developer for building on. In this case the 1930s block at the south end of the Archway island - including the employment agency and optician - would probably be sacrificed.)
A not for profit developer or group of developers. (For example Coin Street on the South Bank.)	This can result in a development which reflects more accurately the needs and desires of the community. Because the development only needs to cover costs, there is less drive to include big ticket items like chain businesses, and more inclination to provide space for local people. This scheme would also benefit from an urban realm strategy.	This would require some hard work putting together the package. A council needs a high level of commitment and determination to take on this kind of job and see it through.
The council works with the current owners of the various parts of the site. A combination of carrot and stick policies are employed to rework and improve what is there already. Examples could include: - Encouraging current owners of the office blocks to re-clad them in something more attractive (say in white with pale green glass, as in the new UCH building at Warren Street) and incorporate measures to cure the wind problems (a 'skirt' at second floor level to deflect down-draughts) in return for the Council promoting the area to new potential tenants such as the new business clusters mentioned in the London Plan (see Dominant Type of Accommodation). - Offering planning permission for new retail premises along Lower Highgate Hill (opposite the pub in the island) in return for a better new layout at ground level. (For more detail go to Type and Scale of Redevelopment)	This would mean the least disruption to the area. It would minimise the loss of business to local shops. It could achieve much of the benefit of a full redevelopment with none of the disadvantages of 'densification' or further high rise. This scheme could benefit particularly from an urban realm strategy.	The council has almost no money to spend so could invest very little. It would require real vision on the part of the council, and willingness to seek out innovative approaches.

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