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 John McMullan on
-
Comments from "N" towards Liz:
I think that your post demonstrates that your position is based on taste and preference (which I would call snobbery but I guess that's a loaded term).
By your own planning criteria laid out above it seems that you have a weak opposition to the application as the vast majority of the points you raise above are down to taste alone.
My point is one of principle about the use of the planning process and is not personal.
Additionally I feel that your personal distaste for betting shops shows through again.
We are floundering under a sea of extortion, badly behaved neighbours, uncontrolled gambling (and if the kind of capitalism I engage in all of a sudden needs "control"...), litter/rubbish, planning illegalities and appalling traffic problems and this person comes up with:
I think we can all see that betting shops tend to thrive in lower socio-economic conditions, which is exactly what this area of Green Lanes is, regardless of whether or not HOL members like to think to the contrary.
Where was this person's support when I stood alone against the wimin of Crouch End and their ridiculous campaign to get the council to go against planning law and not grant a lap dancing license to a pub?
The "planning process" and it's lack of application is exactly why this areas of Green Lanes is "lower-socioeconomic".
-
Permalink Reply by Chris brock on
-
Okay, done. But they don't make it very simple, do they?
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Anyone struggling with the online portal can find help in this post. Scroll down for screen shots and instructions
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
Thanks for the link Liz, I'll put something in. The thought of another betting shop in this building is just too depressing, given the others in that particular stretch, for all the reasons you outline.
Just so I'm clear; we don't know that if the change of use was granted a betting shop would open? It could be another greengrocer, cafe etc?
-
-
Then why not ask for a change of use as a greengrocer? The lease is worth so much more with a less restrictive license.
There is more chance of it becoming a betting shop than there is of England lifting the world cup next year (but less than New Zealand's chances).
-
-
If they wanted to open as a shop , they would be applying for a change of use to A1 shops (permitted because they have an open shop front). I don't think they can ask for a change to A3 cafe or bar. No the only reason they need a full A2 is so they can market it to the betting industry since all other financial business is permitted under the current designation.
Given that banks are closing branches and estate agents are not doing well, the only industry that is doing well, thanks to the lax legislation brought in by this government, is the gambling one [which is laughing all the way to the bank while the impotent Dept of culture, media and sport begs them to put a few pennies into gamblers anonymous to deal with the explosion of gambling related problems. ] I believe the Communities dept were looking into legislation to prevent saturation of an area but I've heard nothing more about that recently.
-
-
Thanks Anne.
This online debate is really about discussing our underlying disquiet at the unchecked spread of only one kind of business, at the expense of local banking services. This often hits older people and those on a low income who cannot get to banks further away or don't have the internet to do online banking. Luckily, we still have a large post office and a couple of cash points left!
It is also helped us to go through other reasons for being concerned, and one person (N I'm looking at you) has helped anyone who isn't sure of what can't be cited as part of their objection.
Hopefully now people can come to this post, read what has been written get their questions answered and make a decision about further action (or inaction).
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Even if they get change of use, don't betting shops have to have a license ? Couldn't we oppose this at the Licensing Committee hearing ?
-
-
Yes, but when previous campaigns have been lost on appeal Haringey have been forced to pay costs to the betting shops,. It is unlikely then that Haringey will risk it again. The industry has enormous resources to draw upon in order to get their way. We could and will oppose it but if we lose, I'm guessing that's it.
Our best hope (evenif the full A2) is granted is that something like an estate agent moves in. Steve Hatch? Fancy opening a branch on Green Lanes?
-
-
None that I know of. This is why Haringey uphold the current planning status - in order to make it harder for another betting shop.
The restricted licence allows for all other financial services, banks, building societies , estate agents, employment agencies etc.
-
Permalink Reply by james walsh on
-
Question: is 'N' a plant to keep this discussion going ?
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
