Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Another betting shop planned on Lordship Lane please help
Morning all,
We have just found out that Paddy Power wants to open a betting shop in the recently closed pub on Lordship (606 Lordship Lane N22 5JH) about 5-7 minutes walk from Wood Green tube station. I live locally and am totally outraged as there are already 2 betting shops within 30 seconds walk of that old pub - a William Hill and Ladbrokes.
There is a sign on the door saying Paddy Power has submitted an application under the Gambling Act 2005 and that any representations need to be made in writing to the licensing authorities by 25th March.
I know similar situations have cropped up on Green Lanes and some of you have been active in fighting it - I would like your advice on how to stop this! I am planning writing to local councilors and MPs and will start a petition .
How can it be allowed to have three in such a short stretch of street - the noise and rubbish these places produce is terrible?
Please sign the petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/not-another-betting-shop-on-lord...
Thanks for your support!
Katie
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Zena Brabazon on
-
Dear All
I just received this email so am posting it right away. It might not be in time to stop this application but the more pressure piled on the government the better.
Zena Brabazon
Cllr, St. Ann's Ward
__________________________________________
Dear Councillor Brabazon
I have good news and a request regarding the acute problem of the ever increasing number of betting shops, especially in, but not confined to, poorer areas.
Firstly, the good news: Hackney Borough Council has now submitted a proposal for the government to create a separate use class for betting shops so that councils have new powers to address the problem.
The proposal is Labour Party policy and has fantastic support. It is supported by your council - thank you - along with 62 other councils across the country, the LGA, the GLA and the mayor of London. This is a great opportunity to achieve a positive result for councils.
Secondly, a request: The proposal has been submitted under the Sustainable Communities Act and so the government is considering it right now. A decision could be made at any time.
Could you please therefore write to or email the Communities Minister, Stephen Williams MP, asking him to "Please agree to the proposal for a separate use class for betting shops submitted by Hackney Borough and 62 other councils under the Sustainable Communities Act"? Please encourage colleagues to do so as well, the more correspondence Mr Williams receives the better.
His postal address is Stephen Williams MP, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
His email address is stephen.williams.mp@parliament.uk
Thank you. I will keep you informed of progress.
Yours sincerely
Steve Shaw
National Co-ordinator
Local Works www.localworks.org
Office: 020 7239 9053 Mobile: 07788 646 933
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Arrggghhh!!!!! This is not the solution. The solution is to BAN those bloody machines and then the problem will disappear. They were only ever supposed to be "on approval" anyway.
"A FOBT ban on top of the new tax could be a crippling double blow, even for giants such as William Hill and Ladbrokes. The most obvious beneficiary, however, would be Bet365, Britain’s biggest online operator. Interestingly, Bet365’s owners, the Coates family, have given the Labour party more than £400,000 over the last decade. I wouldn’t bet against them soon becoming Britain’s leading bookies."
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Hi Zena,
I'm with John on this one. IMO the proposal is dangerous because if implemented, it would be ineffective, create the illusion of reform and it would delay even further, urgently needed deep, meaningful change.One of the tests would be how strongly the gambling industry resisted a special category. If they were to mount token or little resistance, they're likely to recognise such a move will further confuse and complicate the law: to their advantage.
I wish that the creation of a separate planning category would be effective in curbing the slick of betting shops. However, if that were to be the only legislative measure, then I think the net result would be to create more work for barristers in the courts, with the gambling industry likely to prevail.
My reason for saying that is that the Gambling Act 2005 is powerful and for some years now, has easily trumped Objectors' concerns, with the exception of change-of-use.
The grounds for objection to new Licence Applications are narrow indeed; the thrust of the Act was that Market Demand would be the sole test.To top it all, the Act instructs Licensing Authorities to "Aim to permit [new gambling premises licence applications]".
I would like to think that the creation of a new planning category would halt the flow of new betting shops, each with four FOBTs, but I continue to believe that without the repeal of the Gambling Act, or its deep reform, little will change.
Disclosure:
am a prospective councillor candidate
Highgate Ward | Liberal Democrat Party
-
Permalink Reply by Katie Tucker on
-
Hello,
Thanks for this information. I have requested to connect so we can message directly. Do you know who the freeholder is - that information would be really useful as we could contact him/her to discuss.
Do you still live near the property? Are you seeking legal advice/Anyway let's connect directly.
Thanks Eleesha.
Katie
-
Permalink Reply by erno72 on
-
Hi All
Not sure if you're already aware but there are now three planning applications submitted by Paddy Power in relation to the pub which are available to view on Haringey Council's website if you search using the address or these are the planning references:
HGY/2014/0715 Alterations to existing shopfront
HGY/2014/0716 Satellite dishes etc
HGY/2014/0717 Signage
I think we can all object to these, and it looks like we have 21 days from 11 March to do so.
Also the Met Police crime map has some useful statistics http://maps.met.police.uk/ which would be useful for objections to the licensing application.
You can search by area, and zoom right in. I'm going to see if I can compare crime stats for a similar area without betting shops (if I can find one!) to hopefully prove that they're already causing a problem and send in a personal objection letter. I will of course share anything useful I find to be used more widely.
Thanks
Alison
-
-
Rather disturbingly, next to our article in the Haringey Independent there's a piece about a shooting in Kenny's Salon (some 20m from the Paddy Power site), from the 24th Jan 2014. No one injured but few better examples of antisocial/criminal behaviour in the area-
http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/10961302.Shooting_in_Wood...
-
-
There have been two shootings within 20m of the pub in the past 4 months. Operation Trident posted leaflets to those of us in the vicinity on the day after each shooting.
The council does have to consider organised crime as they assess the application (quote Gambling Commission's Guidelines), worth considering.
-
-
Hi All
Just a reminder to object to the related planning applications. I think the reasons for objecting are less restrictive than those for licensing. There are only 5 objections on the council planning site so far so we need lots more.
Search for the pub address 606 Lordship Lane in the planning application site and there are 3 related applications. We put our objection in to the first one only, but you could do all three. This the link to the planning application search page:
http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...
Thanks
Alison
-
-
http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...
link to object to the planning permission and changes to the front of the building. this is short notice i know but if you could submit objections to this too - deadline tomorrow 1st April at midnight if i am calculating the 21 days from 11th March correctly. And no this is not an April fool's!
-
-
done.
-
-
A template objection for the planning permission Paddy Power has submitted - have until midnight tonight to send through comments. Thanks Mei for drafting this!
I object strongly to the proposed changes to the pub at 606 Lordship Lane. While the building is not located in a conservation area it is adjacent to the Noel Park conservation estate and the proposed changes will affect the visual appearance and not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the conservation area.
Furthermore, although not listed the property has a long history (over 120 years old) and architectural features of interest. Paddy Powers corporate signage, colour and style is not sympathetic to the mock Tudor frontage and features of the property. The proposed signage would completely alter the look of the property.
The pub is situated across from Chapmans Green, a local park which is popular with local residents and frequented by families with young . Small children. Paddy Power's signage will be visible from the green and will have an impact on vulnerable young children, further exposing them to advertising and gambling publicity. In addition, it will also be exposed to children walking to and from the green along Lordship Lane on the way to the park.
Altering the look of the building will also affect the visual impact of the small parade of shops. There is already another betting shop less than 15 metres away, the signage of Paddy Power as another betting shop will dominate and overwhelm other non betting neighbouring businesses, reducing the viability of neighbouring businesses and promoting gambling as a primary business in the area.
The above is of particular concern. While not directly in the Wood Green SPD area, its proximity to the town centre means the presence of a strong, viable and sustainable local economy on Lordship Lane is equally important. The signage of Paddy Power as mentioned above will add to the number of businesses as betting shops and not give the impression of a thriving and viable local area. haringey Council's own Local Plan (SP1) says development must respect the character of its surroundings which the proposed changes to the shop front will not.
The proposed changes will cause significantly affect the visual impact of the neighbouring residential area and Chapmans Green. I would ask that the changes be rejected for the above reasons.
HGY/2014/0716
I object to the application to install a number of satellite dishes on the roof of 606 Lordship Lane.
606 Lordship Lane backs onto a huge residential area and currently, the view is of relatively clear roofs with only a few small satellite dishes.
The installation of 4 satellite dishes, a TV aerial and two condensers will impact the visual amenity of the residential properties and surrounding areas towards Lordship Lane. From the applicant's proposal, it is likely the installations will occupy a large proportion if not all of the flat roofs at the rear. This will dramatically alter the view from the residential area towards Lordship Lane, making it unsightly and obtrusive for neighbours.
Furthermore, the two condensers will be running fairly long hours and the noise would impact the residential properties neighbouring the site. This will cause undue disturbance to the residential neighbours, forcing them to endure the sound over long periods of the day and night. The condensers will emit a low, constant, continuous hum.
For the above reasons I would ask that the application be rejected.
HGY/2014/0717
I object strongly to the proposed changes to the pub at 606 Lordship Lane. While the building is not located in a conservation area it is adjacent to the Noel Park conservation estate and the proposed changes will affect the visual appearance and not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the conservation area.
Furthermore, although not listed the property has a long history (over 120 years old) and architectural features of interest. Paddy Powers corporate signage, colour and style is not sympathetic to the mock Tudor frontage and features of the property. The proposed signage is too bright and whether illuminated or not would completely alter the look of the property.
The pub is situated across from Chapmans Green, a local park which is popular with local residents and frequented by families with young . Small children. Paddy Power's signage will be visible from the green and will have an impact on vulnerable young children, further exposing them to advertising and gambling publicity. In addition, it will also be exposed to children walking to and from the green along Lordship Lane on the way to the park.
The signs will also affect the visual impact of the small parade of shops. There is already another betting shop less than 15 metres away, the signage of Paddy Power as another betting shop will dominate and overwhelm other non betting neighbouring businesses, reducing the viability of neighbouring businesses and promoting gambling as a primary business in the area.
The above is of particular concern. In the Council's Local Plan DMP 23 provides for signage to "be of the highest possible standards and promote a safe and attractive environment". The signage for a betting shop will not promote a safe and attractive environment as it will overwhelm the advertising of smaller local businesses next door to it. Furthermore, the signage is garish and unsightly. It will detract from the visual quality Of the row of shops.
The proposed changes will cause significantly affect the visual impact of the neighbouring residential area and Chapmans Green. I would ask that the changes be rejected for the above reasons.
-
-
My wife and I have objected to all three. I wonder if there is any way of getting the building listed as somewhere 'important to the community' - if that even exists.
I also wrote to the company who owes the chain of pubs that includes The Gate over by Ally Pally, telling them how much we'd love a nice pub/restaurant in the area. Here are the contact details if anyone is interested. http://www.orchidgroup.co.uk/contact.php
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
