646 Green Lanes again....

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Anette on August 16, 2008 at 19:03

were all these denied?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sapphireblue on August 17, 2008 at 2:27

Don't know ... doubt it...will find out soon no doubt....apparently planning department are incredulous at amount of apps from this guy and his company...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sapphireblue on August 23, 2008 at 1:08

Now a letter has been sent by several residents and another by local rep Ian to Haringey complaining strongly about these applications for retrospective planning permission...

Dear Mr Cooke
HGY/2008/1607: 646 Green Lanes N8 0SD:
Proposal: erection of single storey garage in rear garden

The Ladder Community Safety Partnership (LCSP) aims to represent the views and concerns of residents who live in the nineteen >Ladder= roads and their immediate vicinity. Our principal aim is to improve the quality of life for all who live and work in the Ladder - community area.

We are a little puzzled by the nature of this application because there is already a large structure to the rear of these premises, built earlier this year, we believe without any planning application or approval. The current application is presumably seeking retrospective permission for that unauthorised development.

As it happens, the LCSP has already been contacted by a number of residents in the immediate vicinity, particularly on the north side of Harringay Gardens and in properties along Green Lanes itself, including Mountview Court. These residents have all been suffering from acute noise-related problems, emanating from the existing structure and/or its surrounding area, at the rear of 646 Green Lanes. The structure, supposedly a garage, is apparently being used not only for the storage of white goods but also, as residents believe, for cutting up items using very noisy angle grinder type equipment.

This has led to a serious loss of residential amenity, with local householders unable to make use of their gardens because of the noise nuisance from both machinery and workmen (contrary to UD3 and ENV6).


In addition, we would point out that this application needs to be seen in the overall context of the excessive number of heavy vehicles which are using the pavement cross-over at the front of the building to deliver bulky goods to the site. This has already caused pavement cracking, subsidence of the pathway and trip hazards for pedestrians. We are aware of one elderly lady who has already fallen over. Moreover, the sheer volume of traffic passing across, from Green Lanes to the side and rear of the property, is also a serious danger for pedestrians walking to and from the nearby bus-stop. They do not expect to be confronted by lorries and vans regularly driving across the pavement. Large numbers of vehicles, both cars and commercial, are also to be found parked around the property at all times.

We believe it is totally inappropriate for the garden of a residential address to be used for all of these purposes. We hope that, given the circumstances described in this letter, the Council will refuse retrospective planning permission for the existing structure. However, if the Council is minded to grant approval, we strongly urge that conditions be attached, preventing the use of the structure as either a workshop or as a storage unit for heavy/white goods. Both these uses are inappropriate, noisy and dangerous in the residential context of the premises.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james walsh on August 28, 2008 at 17:38

I BET THE OWNER DOSEN'T KNOW WHATS HIT HIM !
DID YOU SEE THE ONE COMMENT FROM ONE OF HIS CRONIES SAYING HOW HAPPY HE WAS WITH THE PALLISADE FENCING. (SEE MY ORIGINAL POST)
"OH YES, I REALLY LIKE THE FENCING IT LOOKS NICE PLEASE LET IT STAY". HA HA

• ▶ Reply