Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
89 Umfreville - new HMO?
I've been watching this property for a few weeks and there's been a lot of building work going on upstairs. I can now see that a kitchen has been installed at one end of the front room, which leads me to suspect it might be an HMO or illegal conversion into flats. There's no trace of it in the planning applications list, and I have emailed the planning department to find out what's happening. We don't need any more of these HMOs on the Ladder - there's already one at 74 which was converted illegally, but has since been granted limited planning permission with a couple of changes (which I have no idea whether or not were made).
Does anyone have any further information about no 89?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I don't have any info on Umfreville, but I had a similar case in my road. I'm afraid since planning are so stretched you need to keep gently but firmly on their case. It took me about 18 months to see it through, but it's worth it if you want to stop your road turning into HMO alley. The Planning Enforcement team seem not to police matters without 'encouragement'. As things stand the Council has chosen not to arm itself with any extra powers, but I understand they may be about to relent on that and go for Article 4.
-
Permalink Reply by Stuart on
-
In my experience, you have to use far more than gentle encouragement. Bloody-minded persistence would serve you better. They are good people but way over-stretched with limited powers and hemmed in by a statutory framework which enables dodgy developers to string the process of enforcement out over years.
I suggest you call them tomorrow, make a formal complaint about the property to get it on the system and ask them to visit it as soon as possible, then phone them at least every month asking for an update (and log every call).
It's also worth just popping by the property and innocently enquiring what's going on. Tell them you know someone who's looking to buy a flat. Often the builders will happily spill the beans because the actual owner is never actually on site.
-
Permalink Reply by Carol Stevenson on
-
Can you be sure it is a kitchen and not an en suite shower room?
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on
-
The problem for the council (in their defence) in this and a host of other issues that they have form of responsibility for is that it costs them a fortune to both staff and pursue individuals that they are trying to enforce an action against. That is, they pay for the time of the staff to run any investigation / case and then there is time and money in the courts that can often run to tens of thousands of pounds.
The problem is then that even if they succeed in enforcing any action the amount that they are able to get back by way of 'costs' if it ends up in court is miniscule. What should really be able to happen is that they should be able to quantify and recover their full costs. This way the respective departments can be better staffed, and the people paying the cost is shifted to those in the wrong, and not the council tax payer....
-
-
Neil
I think we're confusing two things here. What is happening at 89 is an illegal conversion in breach of planning laws. That doesn't mean it's an HMO and until we see how it's used, it may never be a HMO within the meaning of that term. For example, the owner may well be planning on selling it as two separate flats - that's not an HMO and HMO laws are irrelevant to that scenario. The point is that to convert a house to a flat in the Ladder, you have to get planning permission (and there's essentially a blanket ban which means it's always refused). So this is an illegal conversion, not (yet) an HMO (lawful, licensed or otherwise).
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
