Big new TfL Substation to be built on Green Lanes - but community voice silenced

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nigel on September 24, 2026 at 15:01

Gunning Throws Down The Gauntlet

" Dear Mr Kat,

Thank you for your e-mail for which I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence.

 I note the concerns you have raised regarding the decision of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to issue this decision, however the application was considered in accordance with the relevant legislative framework, with legal input obtained as part of the assessment process etc before a decision was reached.

 To be clear as this is the formal decision of the Council, it stands and cannot be revisited through the complaints process or receipt of further correspondence, other than challenge through the legal process of judicial review.

 That said, given that your e-mail appears in part, to raise concerns about the process I have asked that your correspondence be registered as a Stage 1 complaint, with a more detailed response provided in due course. However, and as reflected above it important to be clear the Council’s complaints process cannot alter the outcome of the decision

 Regards

 Matthew Gunning - MRTPI

Team Manager - Development Management"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nigel on September 24, 2026 at 15:13

Picking Up Gunning's Gauntlet

I tried one last appeal to hold this up, short of outcry or JR:

"Dear Mr Gunning,

.....It remains open to the Council of its own motion to revisit and correct administratively the error identified in my previous email. Your legal advisers will advise you of the relevant procedure. I accept that the Council’s Complaints procedure does not of itself allow for such a result.

 Meanwhile, by copy of this correspondence to the Monitoring Officer Ms Alderman, she is now on notice that this decision by the Council has given rise to, would or is likely to give rise to, a breach of law or maladministration by permitting development of the site by TFL other than subject to the applicable statutory planning control regime.

 In such circumstances, the Monitoring Officer has a statutory duty to prepare a formal report to the Council’s executive or full council: s.5(2)(a) of the LGHA 1989. She must do that herself unless unable to do so, when her deputy may do so: s.5(7).

 By s.5(5) LGHA, the Council may then take no step in reliance upon the decision challenged and by s.5(6), implementation of the proposal or decision is automatically suspended until the council has formally considered the Monitoring Officer's report.

 It would be prudent and in the public interest, saving time and costs, for the Council to avail itself of this avenue of remedy, even if it considered that the decision could have been taken in error. There would also be a duty to advise TFL of the position and the wisdom of taking no steps in reliance on the Decision interim.

 You mention judicial review. Councillors have made it plain that Haringey today faces a real financial crisis. The Council’s planners and lawyers (who already appear to have a busy time with litigation) are under a duty to consider and take into account that judicial review is an expensive and adversarial process, which in such a case essentially only examines the legality of the procedure taken. The likely remedy, if the challenge was to be upheld, would send the Council back to consider the matter again in accordance with law. If refused, the Council and TFL may then proceed but incurring considerable irrecoverable costs over months or years, in order to do so. By contrast, to go back and properly reconsider this application in the course of administration would incur minimal cost. Councillors should be so advised.

 Thank you once again.

 Yours"

Fat chance, I fear. The problem is that the officers are unwilling to go back on a decision even if it's dodgy.

The lawyer "Monitoring Officer" who is supposed to be able to give independent advice to the CE is now of no different rank to the senior planning officer and reports through the "Corporate Director of Culture, Strategy and Communities" Jess Crowe. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nigel on September 30, 2026 at 17:37

As at 30th September, neither Gunning nor Alderman have replied. I have emailed Cllr Emery asking him to intervene, cc. Cllr Latchford.

• ▶ Reply

Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh on September 30, 2026 at 17:40

Well done for keeping at this, Nigel.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nigel on October 1, 2026 at 17:56

Thanks. Cllr Emery has responded tout suite and has spoken to Gunning, who claimed it is a "complex legal matter". More may be forthcoming. 

The Monitoring Officer remains silent although I have asked her to invoke her reporting powers and freeze things pro tem, and Emery doesn't want to get involved with that side of matters. I've asked him who, then. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on October 1, 2026 at 18:19

INDEED. That side of matters.

Someone at elected-representative -level or Cabinet-level needs to "get involved". It's called leadership and governance. It operates in a well-functioning, democratic structure.

Permalink Reply by Nigel on October 23, 2026 at 11:55

21 days later. No further reply from Cllrs Emery and Latchford. Neither pressed hard enough.

No reply from the appointed Monitoring Officer. Not so much Monitoring as Nelsonian, or possibly one of the 3 brass monkeys. 

The system of delegated authority in which one officer pronounces on the correctness of another has enabled a plain evasion of planning law in respect of a high-visibility site in the centre of Harringay.

And our elected representatives, Green and Lib Dem, have failed to exert any influence or authority, even when given the evidence and legal advice with which to do so. 

We all know where we stand.

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on September 30, 2026 at 17:47

The problem is that the officers are unwilling to go back on a decision even if it's dodgy.

Haringey Council have no official doctrine of Planning Officer Infallibility.

But now and again, they operate as though there were one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nigel 1 hour ago

Having treated my representations of 23rd September as a "Stage 1 complaint"  - see per Gunning above - the Head of the Council Department responsible for planning, one Catherine Smyth,  has decided to support her officer's Report recommending the grant of the Certificate of Lawfulness and Gunning's Decision to do so. No surprise there, then. 

Her formal disagreement in reply was sent to me a day or so ago and is pasted in full below, complete with choice of pronouns subscript. Bold type added.

The reply sets out a list of matters considered and argues that the application of ss.263 and 264 TCPO and "the relevant statutory framework"  were considered and properly applied.

However, the reply simply does not address the critical point on which I said they got the law wrong and that they failed to consider or get right the critical facts. Put simply, the Report and Decision did not meet the requirements of those provisions of the TCPO (non-lawyers may look away now).

 s.264(1)(b) with s.264 (2) TCPO excludes land held by the railway operator prior to 6th December 1968 from being treated as operational land where "...the circumstances were then such that the land did not fall to be treated as operational land for the purposes of the 1962 Act". The 1962 Act s.221 excludes land "....which, in respect of its nature and situation, is comparable rather with land in general than with land which is used, or in which interests are held, for the purpose of the carrying on of statutory undertakings".

The reply does not refer specifically to s. 264(1)(b) or s.221 or the precise point of fact which flaws both the Report, its recommendation and the Decision relied upon in my letter to Gunning of 23rd September. There is no consideration of whether there was railway operational use of the site prior to 6th December 1968 or whether its nature and character was then "more comparable with land in general "in either the Report or the Decision. 

IIRC, other Representations evidencing the history of the site showed there was no such use prior to 6th December 1968 (or since) and that its nature and character were more comparable with land in general. If that is right, it is also difficult to see how "officers [could have been] satisfied that the site constituted operational land for the purposes of Part 8". 

Grrr. Maybe I'll complain about the failure of the reply to grapple with the particular point so as to make the Council lawyer on this file sweat a little further. 

"Dear Mr Kat,

RE: Planning Application HGY/2026/1854: S.192(1) TCP Act 1990 and the GPDO 2015 Schedule 2, Part 8 Class A
Ref: COM/14683

Thank you for your complaint received on 24 September 2026 regarding the decision to issue a Certificate of Lawfulness in relation to the above reference number. Firstly, please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.

I have carefully reviewed the points you have raised, together with the officer report and material considered in reaching the decision.

As set out in previous correspondence, the Council's role in determining a Certificate of Lawfulness application under section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is to assess whether the proposed development would be lawful having regard to the relevant legislative framework. In this case, that included consideration of whether the development benefitted from permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 8, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

In your complaint, you contend that the Council misapplied the legislative framework and therefore reached the wrong conclusion on the question of lawfulness. You have raised concerns regarding the Council's interpretation and application of sections 263 and 264 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, particularly whether the land constitutes “operational land” and whether sufficient consideration was given to the circumstances existing immediately prior to 6 December 1968. You contend that the officer report did not adequately address these matters and that the decision therefore rested on an incomplete assessment of the statutory test.

Having reviewed the matter, I do not agree. The application was assessed having regard to the relevant statutory provisions, including sections 263 and 264 of the 1990 Act, and the factual information submitted with the application, as set out in the officer report, including:

• the site's ownership history;
• its inclusion within the same freehold title as the existing Piccadilly Line ventilation shaft compound;
• its physical and functional relationship with the Piccadilly Line infrastructure;
• the continuing ownership interest retained by TfL; and
• the fact that the proposed transformer would serve the operation and maintenance of the Piccadilly Line.

The Council also considered the site's planning history, the title documentation submitted in support of the application and the representations received during the application process. Having regard to those matters, officers were satisfied that the site constituted operational land for the purposes of Part 8 and that the proposed development was lawful. Having reviewed the points raised in your complaint, I am satisfied that the application was assessed against the relevant statutory framework and that the decision was properly reached.

In relation to your suggestion that the decision should be revisited or withdrawn, the Council's complaints process cannot be used to overturn or remake a formal planning decision and as such the decision remains in force unless successfully challenged through the courts.

If you are dissatisfied with this response, you may request a further review by our Feedback & Resolutions Team under Stage 2 of the Council's internal complaints procedure. Requests for a Stage 2 review should normally be submitted within six months of the date of this response and should set out the aspects of the complaint that remain unresolved and the outcome sought.

Email: S2Complaints@Haringey.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

Catherine Smyth
Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement
Built Environment & Highways
Environment & Resident Experience

Pronouns - she/her"

Bold type emphasis added. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Pike on September 23, 2026 at 15:10

Mind the Gaps… Haringey has granted TfL its certificate, but the questions haven't gone away!

The Council has now certified the proposed Colina Road transformer building as "permitted development". In doing so officers have have continued to hide behind existing legal reasoning, including the 1934 land transfer and the site's alleged relationship to the Piccadilly Line.

But let's be clear about what this decision does and doesn't mean. It does not mean the TFL engineers idea of a design has been approved on its thin planning merits. It does not mean residents' concerns about the loss of the promised pocket park, the impact on neighbouring homes, the existing ventilation shaft pollution or the lack of a publicly available alternatives appraisal have been resolved.

Indeed, the Council's own decision does at least recognise the original butt ugly design and public realm need improvement, at least if they are aiming to support their own SPGs and policies. It calls on TfL to explore setting it back, landscaping, green walls and public art, and makes clear that large-format advertising is not supported without the necessary consent.

Given that residents have no grounds to appeal and can only call upon a JR what happens now? Residents have been railroaded by the all stakeholders and those with an interest in the site. So, will TfL genuinely improve the design, or will residents be left with another empty promise?

Will the Council publish the evidence behind its legal conclusions and explain the full history of the land?

Will TfL finally explain what alternative sites were assessed and why this prominent residential corner was selected?

And will somebody finally investigate the black particulate matter residents have been reporting from the neighbouring ventilation shaft?

We are not opposing the Piccadilly Line Upgrade. We want it delivered. But residents should not have to accept unanswered questions, poor design, health concerns and years of environmental concerns simply because the applicant is TfL.

The certificate may have been granted. The need for transparency, accountability and a better outcome for Green Lanes has not disappeared. Mind the Gaps or fill them!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on September 23, 2026 at 16:03

What responsibility—if any—does the Planning Department bear for the pocket park condition?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page