Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
The End of the Ladder No Conversion Policy?
A recent planning decision has made me wonder whether we're about to see the erosion of the Ladder no conversion policy.
I'm not, at this point, making the argument one way or the other, but, if I have things right here, it seems that we're in danger of policy being made on the hoof and I'd like to see some local discussion and consultation before that happens.
Tags for Forum Posts: no conversion policy
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Well, thank goodness I restrained my bombast. It seems that there has been at least one other conversion granted on the Ladder. Alexander messaged me with the example of 10 Woolaston.
However, I would yet again challenge Paul Smith's interpretation of the policy. On this one, at least he referred to HSG11, but in my view rather selectively. In full, his reasons for approval were:
The proposed conversion to form two units is considered acceptable. The scheme provides satisfactory accommodation in terms to the unit and room sizes and general layout. Although the site is in a restricted conversion area, the provision of onsite parking for the units mitigates parking pressure in the area consistent with Policies UD3: 'General Principles', HSG 11 'Restricted Conversion Areas', M10 'Parking for Development' and Housing Supplementary Planning Documents (adopted October 2008).
So, if nothing else I'd like to understand what the policy actually means in practice and what scope and grounds officers have for setting the policy aside.
-
Permalink Reply by Geoff on
-
My support for the scheme was on the grounds of its overall architectural quality (quite rare in this area of the borough). It now appears, through Hugh's detective work, that this scheme is a subterfuge to obtain planning permission for the land in order to be able to market the plot at its highest value. It is not very likely that any scheme on this site would be built in the form represented by the proposal, as there is no pressure on the vendor or a prospective buyer to follow through with the construction of this scheme. I hope i am wrong!
Regarding the parking - three dwellings would most likely generate more parking than one. My comments on the stress on parking spaces are based purely on personal experience of trying to find a parking space in the evenings!
-
Permalink Reply by Karen Alexander on
-
I think that there needs to be some clarity and transparency about how the no conversion policy is applied and it certainly doesn't seem to be consistent. I always cite this when a planning application to divide properties up comes to me for consultation and I am not always sure it is applied in the way I (and probably residents) would expect.
I have asked the assistant director and cabinet member to look at the policy and asked for their thoughts on whether it is being applied in a transparent way and whether it is being strictly applied and if not, why not.
I will keep residents updated when I have a response.
-
Permalink Reply by Alix on
-
Hi Hugh, I don't normally get involved in planning chat, but was interested in this one; so I'm an uneducated local resident, not up on the whys and wherefores of the planning committee. But i wonder if the decision on 10 Woolaston is because it's converting to 2 flats from what looks like 5 bedsits? As a local resident I would support that kind of decision (especially having seen inside some of the local bedsit conversions...)
Ah, sorry, just seen that Tris has made a similar point, though feels differently about how the rules are being applied.
-
-
Thanks Alix. That's useful. It certainly sounds like it was a different set-up to the Wightman case and, as you say, it may well have been welcomed by many Woollastonians and Atterburians.
I'd be interested to learn of any other cases where planning permission has been granted for conversion too - whether that's from higher multiples to lower one, like the Woollaston case, or from a single house into multiple units.
-
Permalink Reply by Stuart on
-
The Woolaston decision is nothing short of a disgrace, an utterly made-up decision. The officer hasn't even bothered to work their way through the reasons for approval/rejection which Hugh clearly set out above from the policy.
This house was NOT being converted from 5 bedsits into 2 flats. It was converted from a single family dwelling into two flats. The 5 bedsits issue was a red herring because that's what the rapacious developer initially tried illegally to convert the house into until he was caught red-handed. So he then thought he'd have a go at getting away with 2 flats. With Harringay Planning's incompetence/cowardice, he's got away with it. And this is the same developer by the way who was caught applying for Certificates of Lawfulness with fraudulent evidence for properties down in Harringay Gardens (not that Harringay Planning caught him - they waived it through and it was only thanks to tireless work by residents that the fraud was uncovered).
If any councillors are reading this thread, I'd like to know why Harringay's Planning department have not been challenged on making this type of decision which bears so little reality to the actuality of the Borough's own planning policy.
-
-
Ahh, if that's the case, that puts a different complexion on it. Thanks for sharing, Bushy.
Next time I should read all the docs, not just look at the pictures, I guess!
-
Permalink Reply by Mavic Starfish on
-
Is Haringey Planning Incompetent or Corrupt?
- Posted by Patrick Grant on December 20, 2013 at 15:31 in Council Services, Policy & Local Democracy
Permalink Reply by Alex on December 20, 2013 at 17:00
It now has 6 flats - did someone mention bungs...................
No, just you. But if you have any evidence to support your allegation, I'm sure people would be delighted to hear it....
-
Permalink Reply by David Schmitz on
-
The planning service appears to be all over the place on this issue, and I'm therefore going to have to have a thorough look.
In the meantime, people may be interested to see that I made an member's enquiry in October 2012 about the permission which had just been given in respect of 174 Wightman Road. It was in these terms:
I note that one of the reasons given by officers for approving the conversion of the above property was that it had been marketed by local agents for some time without success. I would be grateful if you could tell me whether the applicants supplied, in support of their application, details as to the price at which the property was marketed and if you could further give me any such marketing figure which may have been submitted.
Clearly, the risk of taking unsuccessful marketing into account is that a seeming lack of demand can be made to appear whenver, for example, the asking price has been set at a figure which includes the value of permission to convert, as opposed to being set at a price which reflects only the current permitted user, plus possibly some hope value.
If a lack of demand for property were to be looked at uncritically in support of an application, there would be precious few applications that would ever be refused.
Although I was promised a substantive (as opposed to a mere formal) reply a number of times, I never received one.
The lack of such a reply, in my view, is highly significant.
I also questioned Marc Dorfman at various meetings on whether (as it appeared to me) the application in respect of 174 had been approved, notwithstanding that it was in some respects slightly smaller than the size then required in order for a property to be exempted from the no conversion policy. Again, although I was promised an answer, none was forthcoming.
David Schmitz
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Harringay Ward
-
-
Thanks for your interest, David. I hadn't realised that councillors were subject to the same stonewalling that residents experience. I thought that heaven and earth were moved to reply to an MP's letter and earth at least was moved to ensure timely replies to councillors. I see this clearly isn't the case.
Since you are a representative elected by a portion of the borough's electorate, I am appalled to hear that your reasonable question got no response from those who should be serving us all. This is almost more worrying than the presenting issue.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
