Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Lammy promises to whip up 'national storm' and tarnish the KFH brand if betting shop goes ahead
News on the support for the resistance to the Salisbury Promenade betting shop. David Lammy has taken up our call for KFH to act in the community's interest and echoed our concern for their brand reputation.
In a strongly worded newsletter sent to his mailing list today, Lammy wrote:
There is huge concern that the empty shop front opposite the Salisbury Pub on the corner of St.Ann’s Road and Green Lanes will be turned into a betting shop. The current owners of the leasehold, Kinleigh Folkard & Hayward (the Estate Agent), have been unable to open an office there and have indicated that they will sign the lease off to Tipico, a bookmaker. This will be the first Tipico store in the UK and the NINTH betting shop on one 300 metre stretch of Green Lanes.
We know that the planning and licensing systems are currently rigged against local people who want to have a say in their local areas so our only recourse to action is to make our feelings known to KFH. I have spoken to their MD, Lee Watts, and have made it clear to him that if they go ahead with this they can expect to find themselves in the middle of a national storm where their brand will be tarnished for as long as there is a betting shop on that site. Their head office email is ho@kfh.co.uk - if you have a moment today or this evening, tell them not to give over yet another Green Lanes storefront to a bookmaker.
Worth each of us emailing KFH and encouraging others to do the same?
Elsewhere, we have good reason to hope for some convincing coverage from regional papers and we're working on the BBC.
Tags for Forum Posts: betting, gambling, kfh, kinleigh folkard hayward
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David on
-
emailed them. they could at least give it over to a charity shop (thereby saving themselves the business rates) until the community can find a use for the space.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Good on him but Hugh, some respect for our MP please. Even if he was a Tory or UKIP I'd find referring to him by his surname alone disrespectful.
-
Permalink Reply by Lesley G on
-
Doesn't sound disrespectful to me to be honest. Isn't it fairly common journalistic practice to refer to someone by their surname after you have used their full name in the previous sentence?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Yes, Courtesy costs nothing. Manners maketh the man.
An irony here is that in the nooze meeja, a convicted felon is often (and undeservedly) referred to as Mister Joe Bloggs. A democratically elected member of Parliament deserves at least as much respect.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
With two of you on the case, I started to wonder if I'd totally missed the mark. So I paged through the Guardian's headlines and it seems to be about evenly split between the use of both names and surname only. There seemed to be no relation between the choice and the level of 'respect' accorded in the ensuing article.
But, for the avoidance of doubt, no disrespect was implied.
Can we focus on the real issue again now?
-
-
Dear Mr Flouch,
I note you benchmark against Guardian headlines. Can I respectfully suggest and encourage that you aim even higher? i.e., benchmark against (Britain's best newspaper) the Financial Times, that avoids tabloidal forms of address.
I am pleased that Mr David Lammy MP has joined the fray.
Yours Sincerely
-
-
which they could do by letting it to a charitable business until they can find a suitable tenant.
i completely agree that Green Lanes needs to be a thriving commercial space, but it needs to be the right tenant for the area (i.e. someone who will add value to the area).
letting to a charity to give themselves time to a find a commercial, locally useful tenant will free them from any rates payments and buy them time.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on
-
Not sure I agree that we should only focus on changing the legislation on two counts (1) this appears to be a nigh on impossible option given the number of years it has been discussed and (2) even if a change was in the offing it would not prevent this current creeping colonisation.
With that in mind I think it is perfectly legitimate to attempt to persuade a local stakeholder that their actions are contrary to their publilcy state community facing position and that the community they puroport to be a part of are not happy with their actions.
It's a bit like your neighbour firing up the stereo at midnight. You don't call the council to have noise abatement team come and put a stop to it, you go round and knock on their door and tell them to knock it off!
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
We have to hope Mr Lammy will be equally helpful in stopping Paddy Power opening another damn bookies at 6 West Green Road. Premises plans are on the Planning portal, and a strange note re licencing that indicates it, together with the Coliseum one, will be shown on 1st November? The WGRd shop is next to Everybodys Music, where their takeover failed last year.
-
-
Paddy Power's attempt to pollute Everybody's Music failed only because it would have meant a [planning class] Change of Use. If 6 West Green Road does not require a change of use, then PP will get their licence because the Gambling Act (2005) trumps all else.
Local authorities seek anti-clustering power. I'm not sure if they are aware that the overweening power of the Gambling Act would inevitably trump such low-level controls, due to the statutory mandate Aim to Permit (gambling premises licences).
-
-
6 WGRd has an A3 - restaurant - licence, so they would need to switch to A2.
The objections to the Everybodys Music site were the same - nuisance, and proximity to the college.
-
-
If its a change of use, then that potentially is good news. Sounds like at least some of the Objections related to Everybody's Music could be re-heated, making an easier case for Objectors.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
