An artist’s impression of the proposed entrance, left, and medical centre, right

A LONG-DEBATED plan to build a large housing development on council land is finally set to appear before Town Hall planning chiefs next week, amid a row about affordable housing.

On Tuesday the planning committee will decide whether to give the green light to build 72 new homes in Vorley Road, Archway, along with a library and medical centre.

If given the go-ahead, the development will be spread out across three high-rise tower blocks reaching seven, eight and 13 storeys.

Thirty-seven homes will be offered for social rent while the other half will be sold on the open market.

The council owns the land on which the tower blocks are set to be built. Adrian Betham of the ­Better Archway Forum criticised the council’s decision to build private accommodation on a “windfall site”, arguing the Town Hall could instead choose to recuperate the costs of the project from rent raised by the affordable housing.

“They are only building 50 per cent affordable units, which is what a commercial developer would do when they bought the site at market value,” he said.

Mr Betham said he was also concerned that the separate private and social housing blocks could lead to “social polarisation”.

Planning documents say the building will be heated by air source heat pumps and built according to “passivhaus” – or rigorously energy efficient – design principles.

Documents say the building’s structure has been designed to offset embodied carbon, but Mr Betham questioned the buildings’ sustainable credentials, arguing the construction of tall reinforced concrete buildings comes with a “high carbon cost”.

The tall buildings will also require multiple lifts, he added, which will need to draw large amounts of energy to operate.

An architect himself, Mr Betham said that if the council chooses to green-light the scheme it will represent “the first time there is a major disagreement” between the Town Hall and the Better Archway Forum.

“In my view, it’s refuseable. I would suggest [the planning committee] defer it so they can investigate it properly.”

The Town Hall does not comment on live planning applications.