HARVIST ESTATE ACTION GROUP

We are a resident action group that live on Harvist estate, Hornsey Road Islington, London. We are fighting Islington Council’s proposed Housing development on part of our estate on Citizen Road Islington. We understand that there is a need for housing but this development could potentially cause possible health and safety hazards with lack of access to emergency services and cause years of horrendous noise and air pollution and loss of trees and wildlife habitats.  The Council have continued to ignore the 300 voices of the residents of Harvist Estate, who have signed a petition opposing the development and used our reasons to better their original design. We will continue to do everything we can to fight it.


CAN YOU HELP?

WE SAID

  • OUR ALREADY SMALL GREEN SPACES WILL BE GONE

  • THE ICONIC VIEW OF THE TRAIN BRIDGE WILL BE GONE

  • OUR BIRGHT, LIGHT AND SPACIOUS ENVIRONMENT WILL BE GONE

  • A NEWLY PROPOSED BUSY SINGLE LANE ROAD RUNNING THROUGH THE ESTATE WILL BE A DANGER AND A HAZARD TO EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS

  • PARKING SPACES WILL BE TAKEN AWAY

  • OUR QUIET AND PEACEFUL ESTATE WILL BE GONE

  • OUR LOW MAINTENANCE RATES WILL BE HIGHER

OUR PETITION

Majority of residents voice grave concerns and denounce proposed developments

At theTown Hall, at a meeting held on the 21-09-2017, Mr Greening handed in a partition on behalf of the residents of the Harvist Estate objecting to the new housing development.

IGNORING THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

The Council have continued ignoring the majority voice of this estate and have used our reasons from our petition, our meetings and letters for opposing, to make amendments to their original design plans, which they say should appease us but only serves to highlight their condescension and indifference to the majority voice of the people of this estate, which is that WE unreservedly don’t want this development to go ahead.They have used our many reasons to improve their design flaws and taken our hard work and used it to their own advantage. We simply do not agree that the development will improve the estate; in fact it will do the opposite.

NOISE

We will have to suffer years of noise for 9 hours a day 8am till 5pm Monday- Friday from drilling, clanging, digging, grinding, lorries, cranes and generators etc.

CONCERN FOR HEALTH

We’re worried there will be risks to human health from short-term exposure to contaminants, for example from direct contact with temporary stockpiles of excavated material or where contaminants at depth have been exposed. Such risks may occur when construction work re-exposes contaminants or excavation releases volatiles or generates dust. Similar risks may occur on an existing development where maintenance, repair or refurbishment may involve excavation of the ground.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND WILDLIFE

We have countless trees and wildlife on our Estate, some trees as old as 30years will be destroyed and the wildlife are in danger of losing their habitats.  They said they will use unloved or unwanted land on their first proposal leaflet and so we say that this land is loved and wanted by the people of the estate. Some love to walk their dogs there and children love to play there.

PRIVACY ISSUES

The low-level flat windows of the existing tower blocks will be able to see into the new builds and vice versa. They have not answered how they propose to prevent this. They say that they will replace the trees they destroy but it will take 15 years for the new trees to reach maturity and be large enough for the privacy they stated the new and existing tenants would have. Their initial leaflet said that they intend to build on unused or unloved land yet this strip of land is very much used by residents and loved by them.
 

300 SIGN THE PETITION OPPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT

300 residents, the majority of the estate, signed the petition opposing the proposed development. Not only have they ignored it, they are using our petition to make improvements to their original idea. Why? It was not meant to improve their idea but give them countless reasons why we as a community reject it. They seem intent to build regardless of the voice of the majority of Harvist Estate residence unreservedly do not want it to go ahead.

STEALING OUR OPPOSING REASONS AS IDEAS TO BETTER THEIR IDEA

We never set out for the petition to be the ideas behind their improvements to their original plan, the petition points were an addition to that majority not wanting this bit of narrow land with trees and nature to be developed on, not purely the reasons for us not wanting it.  They have used our many reasons to improve their design flaws and taken our hard work and used it to their own advantage. We simply do not agree that the development will improve the estate; in fact it will do the opposite.

EMERGENCY ACCESS ON A ONE-WAY STREET WHEN A TWO-WAY STREET IS SOMETIMES BLOCKED AND ACCESS DIFFICULT.

They still have not given us a concrete and plausible answer for our real concern about Health and Safety of access to emergency vehicles. They propose to make the two-way road a one way, which is bound to be blocked by lorries delivering food to the local shops and has caused blockages on a two-way system before with a car parked opposite a delivery lorry (We have Photographic evidence).  This is a huge concern for residents because we live in Tower blocks and are scared that what happened to Grenfell, where fire engines could not gain access quickly enough due to a blockage on the narrow road could happen on our two way system let-alone a one way system. We presented this at their last meeting and no one had an answer. There really is no answer for this is there, as they can’t control who parks there when people are already parking inappropriately anyway?

PRIVATE RISK ASSESSMENT COMPANY

Why is the council using a private company to carry out risk assessments when it is the local fire brigade who come and have always accessed the Estate by Citizen Road when numerous fires have happened and are not the ones carrying out the risk assessment?

SPRINKLERS, CLADDING AND FIRE HAZARDS

We don’t have sprinklers in the towers and the letter from the testing of cladding, after Grenfell, was incredibly vague and did not give the residents any reassurance that we were safe in the event of a fire and now it seems that they intend to potentially cause a hazard by turning a two way street that can sometimes get blocked by lorries delivering and cars parking on the side road not in car parking space, police horse vehicles and coaches on match days (We have photographic evidence) on a two-lane road into an even more hazardous one-lane road.

MORE WORK IS NEEDED FROM THE COUNCIL ON EXISTING PROPERTIES

There is plenty that the council need to do on existing council properties like improving poor plumbing, fire prevention like fitting sprinklers, better heating systems…Yet they ignore those issue and instead intend to continue to develop new builds without sorting out existing council property issues.

CONCERNS OVER STRUCTURE STRENGTH OF TOWER BLOCKS

There has been lots of talk about high rises built in the late 60's and their safety  "The surveys revealed, among other issues, that the connections between concrete panels were not well constructed and linking steelwork is not always properly connected to the structure..." We are in limbo, not knowing how safe with the structures but also with fire issues, no sprinklers, now a potential safety issue with a one-way street that could easily be blocked with lorries and cars as we have seen with a two-way street. So if it can happen on a two-way street it almost certainly will happen on a one-way street, potentially causing serious risk to residents in the tall towers. What about this situation?
https://www.localgov.co.uk/Council-considers-re-housing-tenants-due-to-explosion-risk/45191

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF EMPTY LONDON PROPERTIES

There are 960,000 empty properties in London the Guardian said last year. What are councils/politicians doing about that? Instead, they just want to keep developing cheap "affordable housing" on every bit of green land that is owned by the council. What about the environment, what about nature, what about existing tenants?