Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
513 (The old Nationwide Bank) Green Lanes- another betting shop?
This in from the LCSP:
You may recall that in July the LCSP alerted residents to the proposed change of use at the above address (formerly Nationwide). The previous permission, dating from 1979, only allowed building society use within the A2 category, and the applicant sought an ‘open’ A2 use instead (HGY/2009/1091).
The LCSP opposed this on the grounds that it could then become a betting shop. Taking into account the LCSP’s comments, LBH Planning (to their great credit) only allowed A2 use for Financial and Professional Services, thereby excluding betting shop use.
However the applicants are now appealing against this decision via the Planning Inspectorate. This can only mean that they believe they have a good chance of letting the premises as a betting shop or - worse - that they even have such a client lined up already.
If you are concerned by this prospect, please object (see below)!
Best wishes
Ian Sygrave,Chair LCSP
Appeal Reference: APP/Y5420/A/09/2114900/NWF
Objections to:
By post: The Planning Inspectorate, 3/01 Kite Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN
Must be sent in triplicate (ie 3 copies) by 30 November (submissions received after this date will not be accepted), explaining reasons for objecting and quoting the numbers above.
Internet:
Look for the section on appeals and enter the appeal reference (last 7 digits only, follow the instructions, they seem quite clear).
Points to bear in mind when writing your letter of objection:
- This is a Planning Appeal: reasons for objecting must therefore be on Planning grounds. These do not include issues such as effect on property values, personal opinions or moral/religious arguments about gambling, which is a lawful activity.
- strictly speaking, over-supply of gambling outlets in Green Lanes in not a Planning issue either, but with 7 betting shops and an Adult Gaming Centre already there, a case could be made for a ‘tipping point’ in terms of loss of amenity.
- the strongest focus in planning terms should be on the character and appearance of the area, noise and disturbance, effect of viability/vitality of shopping centre, loss of amenity for local residents, possible noise, light pollution, gathering of customers outside premises (smoking etc).
- we strongly support LBH Planning in limiting the use to Financial and Professional Services only, as being more in keeping with the needs of the local area.
You may recall that in July the LCSP alerted residents to the proposed change of use at the above address (formerly Nationwide). The previous permission, dating from 1979, only allowed building society use within the A2 category, and the applicant sought an ‘open’ A2 use instead (HGY/2009/1091).
The LCSP opposed this on the grounds that it could then become a betting shop. Taking into account the LCSP’s comments, LBH Planning (to their great credit) only allowed A2 use for Financial and Professional Services, thereby excluding betting shop use.
However the applicants are now appealing against this decision via the Planning Inspectorate. This can only mean that they believe they have a good chance of letting the premises as a betting shop or - worse - that they even have such a client lined up already.
If you are concerned by this prospect, please object (see below)!
Best wishes
Ian Sygrave,Chair LCSP
Appeal Reference: APP/Y5420/A/09/2114900/NWF
Objections to:
By post: The Planning Inspectorate, 3/01 Kite Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN
Must be sent in triplicate (ie 3 copies) by 30 November (submissions received after this date will not be accepted), explaining reasons for objecting and quoting the numbers above.
Internet:
Look for the section on appeals and enter the appeal reference (last 7 digits only, follow the instructions, they seem quite clear).
Points to bear in mind when writing your letter of objection:
- This is a Planning Appeal: reasons for objecting must therefore be on Planning grounds. These do not include issues such as effect on property values, personal opinions or moral/religious arguments about gambling, which is a lawful activity.
- strictly speaking, over-supply of gambling outlets in Green Lanes in not a Planning issue either, but with 7 betting shops and an Adult Gaming Centre already there, a case could be made for a ‘tipping point’ in terms of loss of amenity.
- the strongest focus in planning terms should be on the character and appearance of the area, noise and disturbance, effect of viability/vitality of shopping centre, loss of amenity for local residents, possible noise, light pollution, gathering of customers outside premises (smoking etc).
- we strongly support LBH Planning in limiting the use to Financial and Professional Services only, as being more in keeping with the needs of the local area.
Tags for Forum Posts: 513 Green Lanes, betting shops
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Link to the planning portal for making objections was missed out of the above post.
A reminder that in that area ,between Warham and Seymour, there is already a betting shop on the corner opposite the post office, Metrobet, and one opposite the post office, Ladbrokes. With one next to the post office, that would make 3 within about 20 yards of each other. Plus the William Hills is actually behind the bus stop 20 yards in the opposite direction. This would be an intolerable concentration (it already is) in terms of litter, people hanging around outside and loss of amenity for the area. Also given the higher rates of crime that we have observed in betting shops, there is also an issue of safety for local residents.
PLEASE try and find some time to click through and raise an objection. We cannot have another betting shop on this strip. This is important for the future of our area.
Hereis the link to object:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/public/planning/appeals/co...
-
Permalink Reply by The Black Lark on
-
Just flung a comment on this to the Inspectorate. From a previous experience, there'll need to be a good body of objections/comments to swing the inspector's decision, but it can be done.
Someone somewhere must have studied the proliferation of betting shops, and the conditions that generate this.....
-
-
Thanks BL, let's hope a few more people will find the time to pop an objection in.
-
Permalink Reply by james walsh on
-
So sorry could not understand how to challenge the appeal.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Many governments recognise the existence of money laundering, which is what I think matt was getting at, even if this implication is not obvious to all. This phrase appears in Statutes and Regulations in more than one country, but prosecutions are not often. The whole point of money-laundering is to obfuscate evidence of the origins of money; ergo, evidence is hard to come by.
-
-
As I have stated elsewhere, I have nothing against a betting shop or even two. I may be one of the few females on the site that have actually used a betting shop (as opposed to being forced to work in one with the door open because I am too scared to be in there on my own: source local police). They have their place in the scheme of things, providing the circuses bit to take the bread as it were, but as I said above, in one small area there would be 4 (half the betting shops on the strip) betting shops.
No, it is not snobbery on my part, although I wish they were better neighbours (providing smoking areas at the back, keeping their shop fronts clear, protecting their female workers better, discouraging groups of men from hanging around etc) but a dismay that my high street where I shop daily, socialise and love for its history, should be allowed to lose valuable amenities like banks and small businesses to make way for places that attract illegal activity and give nothing to the area, not even the goodness to make their shop fronts decent (I exempt BetterBet from this, their front borders on classy).
I do not apologise for wishing for an area I have lived in so long to develop in a way that provides amenities for all, and shows a mix of shops and businesses. Why is there an assumption that people from the working classes prefer betting shops to greengrocers, that they like seeing their high street lose banks?
-
-
Very well, N, I guess you will have to come and meet me one day at the drinks to be able to judge whether the picture you have formed of me is in fact the correct one.
I do not like anyone smoking out the front of any building and would have preferred legislation that ensured smoking areas, not the street.
The staff themselves have explained their position to the police when they police requested they shut their doors. You may argue anecdotal because I cannot link to the police report but I can assure you this came from the shops and was conveyed by the police to explain why the doors were remaining open.
There are also police reports via LCSP minutes of criminal damage caused by Fixed Odds betting terminal rage and there was an armed robbery at the bottom of the one in Hewitt Road this year. The cafes you mention are also the subject of complaint and concern and in recent months groups of men hanging around Allison were moved on etc. It's not an either or situation.
You may not agree with this. You certainly have that right. You do not have to raise an objection. I'm guessing 99% of this site will not raise an objection.
However, I think it is rather unfortunate that you should make assumptions about my motivations based on an inverted snobbery that says anyone who cares about what happens in their bit of the community is a snob and that I should just lump it. Please come and meet me personally at the HOL drinks and then make your value judgements about me
-
Permalink Reply by DavidJ on
-
It is hard to understand where you are coming from on this N. As perhaps you know Betting shops are notorious for robbery because they handle large amounts of cash and are poorly staffed and have low security. When buses have been subject to regular robbery and such - there have been lots of protests (you can dig around on here for problems on bendy buses for example).
On the point about diversity - I think you were aknowledging that diveristy of amenity was a planning issue. Whether you think that Harringay is sufficienlty diverse is a matter of opinion. It is a fact however, that an increase in betting shop numbers is to currently reduce the diversity of amenity in Harringay.
-
-
The report published by the Association of British Bookmakers earlier this year, would impy that robbery is a 'real' issue.
http://www.abb.uk.com/press/34-SBA%20Document_Fv1%20pdf%20-%20Adobe...
From the Foreword:
"Where we are is the start of the journey with the development of a minimum standard that all betting operators in London should be capable of achieving and appropriate higher level standards where there is evidence that the risk is greater."
You can question the claim about the increase in betting shops reducing diversity; but it still does reduce the diversity. -
-
-
Apologies I realise I was being a bit obscure in referring to the document published by the Association of British Bookmakers- it is called "Voluntary Code of Robbery Security Standards for London Bookmakers."
As the Foreword (written by Met officer) says:
"Betting shop robbery has been an ever present threat in the capital and significant Metropolitan Police resources have been devoted to detecting and prosecuting offenders with a good degree of success."
It does seem that the both the Met' and the bookies think there is a problem.
The document then consists of advice about how bookies should try and protect themselves. It would certainly be interesting to compare the advice with typical local practice. -
-
-
So what was the motivation of a group of people objecting to a car parts business in Effingham Road?
Surely the man was just trying to make a living and a bunch of local residents from a specific tranche of society didn't want that in their back yard? If the owner can make money, surely the market must decide, not the planning dept?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
