News & Events

Proposals for the Future of Wood Street

The local council has put forward a plan for the development of the Wood Street area for the next 15 years. They want feedback from you – and so this is your chance to influence what happens in your area.

You know the area. Let the council have your views whilst you can. This must be done before 30 September 2013.

In summary:

The document includes a considerable number of general policies and there are some site specific matters which people that live, work or visit the area might also be interested in. Particularly but not exhaustively:-

  • There are a number of sites which have been suggested for redevelopment which includes building flats, houses and commercial premises (these are listed below).
  • On the upper limit there are over 1,000 flats/houses proposed being built around the Wood Street area over the next 15 years.
  • There are proposals showing which shopping frontages are considered to be the most important (and therefore protected).
  • A number of buildings are referred to as being of heritage interest.  You might wish to put forward other buildings which are not included or suggest that some ‘locally listed’ buildings should now be ‘statutorily’ listed (which gives them more protection).

The Proposals in full:

Do not be put off by the length of the document. You do not have to comment on everything. You can make comments of a general nature or just about a specific proposal.

The document is a PDF and will open in a new window.


Responses are due by 5pm on 30 September 2013.

You can respond in one of the four following ways, and you do not have to respond to every part of the document, you may just have comments on one particular area or proposal:


Development Sites include the following:

Fulbourne Road

Cedar Wood House (page 96 with photo on page 97)

  • Owned by the council and currently used as offices, it is a locally listed building.
  • Whilst Cedar Wood House is currently not available for development, the Council are looking at their staff accommodation and there’s a possibility that the site may be available for development in the future.
  • Proposal: Mixture of commercial and between 6 and 13 flats dependent on the amount of commercial floorspace included in any development.

Goss Components (p. 99 with photo on p. 101)

  • Private ownership
  • Proposal: Mixture of residential and commercial, whilst seeking to retain a similar number of employment opportunities. Residential above (between 50 & 110 units) and commercial below with a height of up to 4 storeys and 2 storeys where it backs onto residential.
  • Proposals include closing Clifford Road to through traffic to stop people using it as a short cut.
  • Update: this development has been passed by the Council and is now underway.

Walthamstow Business Centre (p. 102)

  • A privately owned employment site.
  • Proposal: The site is being suggested as a possible long term development opportunity, but is unlikely to be redeveloped in the short or medium term.

Ardleigh Works (p. 104 & photo p. 105)

  • Privately owned
  • Proposal: Mix of residential (25 – 60 flats) and commercial whilst retaining the same employment levels.
  • The Council suggests a building height of up to 4 storeys is appropriate or up to 2 storeys where it backs onto residential.

Forest Road Gateway

Stirling House (p. 108 & photo p. 109)

  • Privately owned
  • Proposal: 10-20 residential homes, 3 to 4 storeys high. It’s not particularly clear but would probably involve demolishing existing building.

Willow House (p.110 & photo p.112)

  • Council Freehold
  • Proposal: Mix of residential, commercial and social uses.
  • Development of up to 5 to 6 storeys stepping down to 3 to 4 storeys on Fulbourne Road. Between 20 to 50 flats could be accommodated on the site.

Wood Street Corner (p. 113 & photo p. 115)

  • Owned by the Council.
  • Proposal: A new residential scheme with between 10 and 25 flats, 4 or 5 storeys high is being suggested.

Millenium Clock Corner (p. 116 & photo p. 117)

  • Owned by the Council.
  • Proposal: Mix of residential properties above and commercial below.
  • Clock to be relocated elsewhere in Wood Street.
  • The proposal is for 5 to 10 flats on this site of up to 4 storeys in height.

Thorpe Combe Hospital (p. 119 & photo p. 121)

  • Owned by North East London NHS Foundation and Grade II listed.
  • Proposal: Refurbish it to provide a new bespoke health centre plus the possibility to develop some of the land as residential.

Marlowe Road & the Plaza

Marlowe Road (p. 122 & photo p. 125)

  • Majority Council owned.
  • Proposal: Demolish the estate, leave Northwood Tower standing and rebuild the estate as a mix of private and affordable properties. 180 to 400 flats, 4 to 5 storeys high.

The Plaza (p. 127 & photo p.128)

  • Council freehold
  • Proposal: The Plaza should be redeveloped to provide flats above shops, providing around 70 to 170 flats. Local amenities, should be re-provided (such as supermarket & Post Office).
  • Building heights they suggest should be 4 to 6 storeys high – one reason for building so high is because they say it will mean Northwood Tower isn’t so isolated.

Station Area

Brandon Road Car park (p. 130 & p. 131)

  • Owned by the Council.
  • Proposal: Redevelop the car park providing 4 to 8 flats of 3 to 4 storeys high.

Wood Street Station (p.132 –p.133)

  • Proposal: Enhance the entrance to the station and make it step free access.

Vallentin Road (p. 134)

  • Private ownership & Council leasehold.
  • Currently the site of God’s Own Junkyard.
  • Proposal: 8 to 18 flats of 3 to 4 storeys high.

Woodside School Carpark (Bridge site) (p. 135)

  • Council leasehold.
  • Proposal: Possible education use on the ground floor with flats above. Suggestion of 7 to 17 flats, 3 to 4 storeys high.

Scout Hall & Church (p. 137)

  • Private ownership.
  • Proposal: Preferred option for this location is for flats above a social / community centre with 6 to 14 flats 3 or 4 storeys high.

Wood Street South

Dairy site (p. 140 & photo p. 141)

  • Privately owned
  • Proposal: Commercial use ground floor, flats above with suggested 7 to 15 flats, 3 to 4 storeys high.

Crownlea (p. 142 & photo p. 143)

  • Privately owned (this includes The Soul Space and Pure Muscle Gym)
  • Proposal: Demolish existing buildings, and build flats and houses, 40 to 95 units, 3 to 5 storeys high.
  • Either retain some sort of youth space or move it to central Wood Street.

Lucerne Grove (p. 144 & photo p. 145)

  • Council owned.
  • Proposal: Mixture of flats and houses. The actual house could be demolished.
  • 15 to 35 units of 3 to 4 storeys high.


The following diagrams give a quick idea of what is proposed:-

  • Figure 3.1 Key Diagram. Shows the Plan Area and its main characteristics. Page 24.
  • Figure 3.2 Spatial Vision. Shows the development sites and how they might be developed. Page 24.
  • Figure 4.2 Designated Town Centre. Shows the proposed Shopping Frontage designations. Page 37.
  • Figure 4.3 Heritage. Shows the statutory and locally listed buildings. Page 43.
  • Figure 4.4 Map of Legibility. Shows the main housing estates, schools, hospital and other significant features. Page 47.
  • Figure 4.6 Transport Connections. Page 56.
  • Figure 4.7 PTAL for Wood Street. PTAL stands for Public Transport Accessibility Level. Page 58.
  • Figure 4.8 Indicative Plan for DEN Network and Key Loads. This relates to energy policies. DEN stands for Decentralised Energy Network. Page 70.
  • Figure 4.10 Access to Open Space. Page 73.
  • Figure 4.11 Access to Play Areas. Page 73.
  • Figure 4.12 Sites of Importance to Nature Conservation. Page 74.
  • Figure 4.13 Social Infrastructure in Wood Street. Shows locations of schools, hospitals/clinics and library. Page 85.
  • Figure 5.1 Key Sites. Shows all the sites the council consider capable of development. Page 95.
  • Figures 5.2 – 5.23. Details of all the development sites and what the authority considers to be the appropriate form of development. Pages 96-145.
  • Refer to the Glossary on Pages 169-179 for an explanation of the jargon.


Disclaimer: we have put this together in order to aid understanding of the proposals for Wood Street, we have tried to be accurate but do not take responsibility for any inaccuracies. Please refer to the Wood Street AAP for the full and correct details.