Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Diyarbakir - Second Bite of the Planning Cherry
Having been refused planning permission to extend their restaurant with the addition of a third shop, Diyarbakir have just submitted an application for a temporary change of use.
Their application is made under the The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Engl.... This permits a change use for a single period of up two years to A1, A2, A3 and B1 uses.
As long as the area is less than 150 sq mts, only notification is required. Council approval is not needed.
As far as I'm aware this permission can only apply to the individual premises and would not allow the owners to knock through to Diyarbakir.......but I may be wrong.
The law seems oddly riddled with loopholes on this, doesn't it.
Tags for Forum Posts: diyarbakir, planning
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Si on
-
Technically Antiplier do this. The doner, kunefe salon and full restaurant are all separate premises as far as I am aware but they carry dishes from one kitchen to the other, quite often.
So if Diyarbakir did this... would that be a problem? Doesn't seem practical to do if the new premises has no kitchen.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Good point and I don't know the answer.
They could certainly build a kitchen, but they would have to feel that their investment could be returned within two years. So, I'm assuming that would be unlikely.
The legislation (as linked to above) is pretty concise on this. To service 51 through use of the kitchens at 52 & 53 would certainly go against the spirit of the law. I'm not aware that it goes against its letter. I wonder if this is the sort of thing settled by reference to precedent.
I've made a suggestion to the LCSP about how this challenging this could be woven into their objection.
-
-
Si, thanks again for your useful observation. I called Ian at the LCSP and suggested how this could be woven in to an argument against 51 being used simply as an annex to 52 & 53.
As a result, the LCSP made a submission including the following:
if the premises is going to be serviced by, or act as an annex to, the restaurant at 52-53, it will thereby be exceeding the permitted maximum of 150 sq.m of independent usage
So, well done for that.
Ian has also resourcefully dug up what may be an even more useful observation. In his objection, he's referred to the "Explanatory Notes" to the relevant legislation, of which I was previously unaware. Para 7.7. of those notes offers the following section which seems to me to speak very loudly to the grounds in Haringey's planning policy that were the precise reason for the refusal of the original full planning permission application:
Local planning authorities may consider the impact of the development on the provision of important local services, such as post offices, though only if there is a reasonable prospect of the premises being occupied by another retail use.Shopping impacts will be assessed in relation to the effect of the development on the sustainability of key shopping centres and the provision of services. This is intended to enable local planning authorities to protect valued and successful retail provision in key shopping areas, such as town centres, while underused shop units are kept in use outside those areas.
By way of comparison, this was the reason for refusal for the full application:
The proposal would result in the loss of a retail unit, that would have an unacceptable impact on the balance of uses and harm the vitality and viability of the Primary Shopping Frontage and would exacerbate the over-concentration of non-retail use within the locality of the site, contrary to policies 2.15, 4.7 and 4.8 of the London Plan 2016, policy SP10 of the Haringey Local Plan 2017 and policy DM42 of the Haringey Development Management DPD 2017.
I'd go so far as to say that given the powers awarded them by the Explanatory Notes, it will be difficult for Haringey Council NOT to refuse this application (though of course they'll be wary of making a decision that would end up with their having to defend it in court).
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Permission has been granted
http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Attachm...
-
-
You were quick.
Ian Sygrave just called to tell me of this before I even noticed the email from the Council.
The Planning Dept seem to have told Ian on the phone that the para 7.7 he found doesn't apply - but we're not sure why.
The decision notice does include the following:
Please note that a separate application for planning permission would be required to combine this unit with any adjoining buildings to form a single larger unit.
Quite what that means though, I'm not sure. It almost certainly means that they can't knock through; one would hope that it also means they can't serve customers at 51 from the kitchens of 52 & 53 - but it's not at all clear.
-
-
Yes of course, that seems to be the case. The mystery though is that we were unaware of any such option existing. Still, you live and learn.
-
-
Maddy has started a new thread highlighting an appeal submitted by Diyarbakir against the refusal to grant full planning permission.
-
-
Maddy has started a new thread highlighting an appeal submitted by Diyarbakir against the refusal to grant full planning permission.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
