Plans for 76 homes approved despite concerns over impact on Bruce Castle

Plans to build flats near some of Tottenham’s most historic landmarks have been approved despite concerns they will harm heritage buildings and provide few affordable homes.

Hillview Developments has won permission to build 76 homes in a three-to-five-storey block close to the Grade 1-listed Bruce Castle Museum and Tower, which date back to the 16th Century and are among Haringey’s oldest buildings.

The site of the development, at 313 The Roundway and 8-12 Church Lane, lies partly within the Bruce Castle Conservation Area, east of Peabody Cottages Conservation Area, and close to several other Grade 2-listed and locally-listed buildings in Church Lane, Lordship Lane and The Roundway.

Bruce Castle is a former manor house named after the House of Bruce, which owned a third of Tottenham during the middle ages. The first occupant of the surviving building, Sir William Compton, was Henry VIII’s closet courtier. The oldest part of the building, the Tudor tower, dates back to 1514.

A report presented to a meeting of Haringey Council’s planning subcommittee on Monday revealed the flats would be visible from Bruce Castle Park and affect some views of the museum and tower. In the report, planning chiefs admitted the scheme would cause some harm to the surrounding historic buildings but said this should be balanced against its benefits.

Only 16 affordable homes are included in the proposals. Council policies state that developments should maximise affordable homes with regard to a borough-wide target of 40% affordable housing provision. Officers said the developer had tried to strike a balance between providing affordable homes and minimising the impact on heritage.

Carol Hebbs, a representative of the Friends of Bruce Castle and a tour guide who runs local heritage walks, told the committee that parts of the officers’ report seemed “damning and contradictory” and urged councillors to reject the plans. Carol claimed the heritage assets would be “overshadowed” by the development, which would “totally block the light” from reaching a recently-redeveloped courtyard, “rendering it impossible to continue to improve or use it”.

Sue Jameson and Ibrahim Ali, councillors representing Bruce Castle ward, also spoke against the plans. Cllr Ali raised concerns that the council would be “financially liable” if the development damaged a Grade 2-listed wall between Bruce Castle Museum and Church Lane. He added: “This is the most consequential planning decision in the history of this ward. It will have a huge consequence not only historically but also financially, and it doesn’t actually address the housing crisis.”

Committee members also raised numerous concerns over the scheme. Council officers wrote in their report that the “maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing” had been provided following an independent review of the financial viability of the scheme. They added that the scale of the proposed development would “deliver the optimum balance between minimising heritage harm and maximising housing delivery”.

But Liberal Democrat committee member Luke Cawley-Harrison said councillors had not been given the “full background” to the financial viability assessment in the main officers’ report. Matt White, a Labour committee member, claimed the information about how the balance had been struck between providing affordable homes and minimising the heritage impact was not in the report presented to the committee.

Chris Horn, representing Hillview Developments, said the applicant’s team had known from the outset “that we would have to get to a balanced position between the heritage considerations and the delivery of housing”. He told the committee that the scale of the scheme had been gradually reduced since the initial plans were drawn up, and he sought to reassure members that the Grade 2-listed wall would not be damaged during construction.

Chris added: “We think that, overall, this is a scheme that will make a real contribution to the area. It is a 21st Century contribution to an area that has heritage from every previous century, so we are really conscious of wanting to do that well.”

Cllr White proposed a motion calling for the scheme to be refused – partly due to the low level of affordable housing – but only one councillor, Labour’s Adja Ovat, backed his call. Six committee members then voted to approve the plans, with two abstentions and Cllr White and Cllr Ovat voting against.