Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Big new TfL Substation to be built on Green Lanes - but community voice silenced
Today's planning list shows that the space in front of the Piccadilly Line ventilation shat building is to be used for the construction of a new electricity substation.
I do not object to that but it is very odd that the application is being made as a certificate of lawfulness rather than as a planning application. This means that the public has no right to comment.
I oppose the way it is being handled for a number of reasons. I explained this to the responsible planning officer Anna Anderson (anna.anderson@haringey.gov.uk) in an email I sent to her today. I copied in one of our new councillors, Jo Kuper. I have also spoken with Ian Sygrave at the Ladder Community Safety Partnership who has said that he will raise it at this week's meeting and also write to Anna Anderson.
My email is reproduced below. Any resident can write to Anna about this matter, despite the attempt to cut out community involvement. The decision date is die to be 26th August.
Dear Anna,
Re: Planning Submission for Colina Road site (HGY/2026/1854)
I am a resident of the Harringay Ladder.
Today I noticed the above reference application. It is for a significant building which covers a good part of of the part of a plot that has been unbuilt on for almost 100 years.
I see that is had been made as an application for a certificate of Lawfulness. Can I ask why Haringey has agreed to handle this application this way rather than as a full application?
The site is a significant and prominent one which for that reason alone ought to be open to community scrutiny.
There are two aspects in particular which concern me.
1. The level of noise for nearby properties already flagged in the application,
2. The impact on visual amenity in this prominent site. This is not addressed at all in the application and there are no visuals to suggest that visual amenity has been taken into account.
In HGY/2016/1807, the applicant for 590-598 Green Lanes London N8 0RA (which you should note includes this site), made a specific reference in his application to the site in front of the ventilation shaft building that is the site for HGY/2026/1854. The 2016 application specified:
"..we are proposing to create a 'Pocket Space' on the corner of Green Lanes and Colina Mews. This space will be partly used for a few parking spaces allocated to the NHS facility, but the rest of the space during the week and the entire space at weekends could be used for a community led activity such as a pop-up cafe."
They included the following diagram.
This site therefore has a very recent planning history and I assume since the front of the 590-592 plot was not excepted from the decision its use as a pocket park was also given planning approval.
This makes it even more odd that the current matter is being handled under a certificate of lawfulness.
Yours sincerely,
Hugh
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson
-
I definitely remember the pocket park as part of the deal in the permission for development behind it.
-
Permalink Reply by Anna Abela
-
Hi Hugh,
I appreciate I’m now a Harringay has-been, but I thought I’d chime in as I spent the year before I lost my Council seat advocating on behalf of the residents of the Evergreen development, through various meetings and correspondence with Clarion Housing Group and TfL on this and several other issues.
I suspect the answer to your first question is that there is a plethora of legislation that significantly protects TfL from intervention / enforcement by local authorities in relation to the development and maintenance of railway infrastructure. When I was a councillor, these legal roadblocks were often a source of deep frustration!
In this case, I would hazard a guess that the legislation in question is the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 which establishes a “general permitted development right” in relation to “development by railway undertakers on their operational land, required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail”. I believe this is the relevant legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/part/8/cros...
I’ll caveat this by saying that I am not a planning law expert – so I am happy to be proven wrong and defer to Anna Anderson’s reply to your email.
In my last year as a councillor, I also held several meetings with Clarion Housing Group about the above-mentioned commitments in their planning application and various other promises they made to the residents of the Evergreen development. Although these meetings led to several improvements, including the removal of the hoarding on the perimeter of the site and the bulky waste and pigeon droppings in the area near the TfL vent shaft, Clarion Housing Group repeatedly failed to meet our agreed deadlines to deliver the promised greenery pockets and parking spaces for NHS staff.
Ultimately, I was left with no choice but to write directly to Clarion Housing Group’s CEO Clare Miller about this. To her credit, her Chief of Staff promptly replied to my letter with a commitment to deliver pockets of greenery and a small number of parking spaces for the staff at the NHS West Green Surgery later this year.
As I was not re-elected in May, I was not able to keep following up on this matter – but I would urge the new Green Party councillors to ensure Clarion sticks to this commitment.
Best,
Anna
-
Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh -
Thanks for your comment Anna and thanks for all the work you put in on this issue previously.
Whilst you may no longer be in a position to act in an official capacity, your knowledge and experience will be vey useful, I'm sure.
-
Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh -
Reply from Planning Officer Anna Anderson:
Thank you for getting in touch regarding certificate application HGY/2026/1854.
Development by railway undertakers on their operational land, required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail falls under Schedule 2, Part 8, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, which is why the applicant has applied via certificate. The application is valid as it meets submission requirements.
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Engl...
However, I would like to reassure you, we will review the concerns you have expressed in connection with the proposal. Please do allow me some time to discuss in detail with my area managers & a fellow planning officer who I know has strong knowledge about the site’s context, history and local residents.
Once I have more information for you I will be in touch as soon as possible.
Best wishes,
Anna Anderson
-
Permalink Reply by Zena Brabazon
-
Hi Hugh
Anna is too modest. She was relentless in responding to residents and working to hold Clarion/Evergreen and TfL to account. The utilities and transport providers have an advantage as is made clear by Anna Anderson. Its now up to the new ward councillors, whoever is leading for the Green administration on Planning and the officers to sort this out. Its important residents have their say.
It is likely to be decided by delegated authority which is done by the officers.
Permission was granted for a green space initially, but we will now see whether that has any weight in deciding this certificate of lawfulness application.
Good luck,
Zena
-
Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh -
Thanks, Zena.
-
Permalink Reply by Inkjetpack
-
A new wooden fence has already been erected around this location, which before reading this post led me to believe that the previously promised improvements to this site were about to be actioned.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Pike
-
Mind the Gaps... because there are still some very big gaps in TfL's story over the proposed Colina Carbuncle.
"Development by railway undertakers on their operational land, required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail falls under Schedule 2, Part 8, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015... However, I would like to reassure you, we will review the concerns you have expressed... Please do allow me some time to discuss in detail with my area managers and a fellow planning officer who I know has strong knowledge about the site's context, history and local residents."
Firstly, thank you to Anna for taking the time to respond to Hugh. I genuinely welcome the fact that LB Haringey under the Greens is prepared to look again at the site's history and local context.
But here's the thing, nobody is disputing that Part 8 Class A exists. We all understand that Parliament has given railway undertakers permitted development rights to build infrastructure on “operational railway land” where it is required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail in this case the much-delayed Piccadilly Line Upgrade (PLU). Legislation isn't the issue but the evidence is. It brings into questions about whether this particular site satisfies the tests that TfL says it does.
Gap No. 1 – Why this site?
TfL's own Piccadilly Line Upgrade documents explain why extra electrical power is needed. They identify four new substations, including Turnpike Lane. What they don't explain is why this corner of Green Lanes and Colina Road was chosen. Where is the engineering options appraisal? Where is the site-selection report? Where is the assessment of alternative operational sites? Where is the evidence that other TfL land around Turnpike Lane and Wood Green was considered before selecting one of the most prominent gateway sites into Harringay’s Green Lanes high street area? I've looked. I can't find it. If it exists, TfL should publish it.
Gap No. 2 – Is this really operational railway land?
TfL describes the application site as an "existing operational railway compound."
Really? That isn't how local residents have experienced it.
Before Evergreen this wasn't an operational railway yard. It was occupied by commercial uses including BDC, later the Hawes & Curtis warehouse, associated parking and, for a period, a hand car wash. The ventilation shaft has always occupied the neighbouring plot with its own dedicated access point, but that's a very different proposition from saying this entire corner functioned as an operational railway compound.
Then came Clarion Groups Evergreen development. Most people would agree the redevelopment improved this part of Green Lanes. The scheme was approved and most of it was built. This corner wasn't and people have questioned why including past ward councillors. This part of the site was intended to provide parking for West Green Surgery together with landscaped public amenity space.
The planning permission was subsequently quietly amended through HGY/2021/3583, submitted by Savills on behalf of Clarion Housing Group and approved by the Labour-led London Borough of Haringey on 26 May 2022. The parking and the landscaping will delayed permanently.
Instead, residents were left with years of Clarion Housing Group Evergreen-branded hoardings surrounding an abandoned site. We witnessed rough sleeping, graffiti, repeated fly-tipping, drug related anti-social behaviour and neglect. The neighbouring ventilation shaft—apparently critical to the operation of the Piccadilly Line—was even broken into and left unsecured for days. If this was genuinely an actively managed operational railway compound, why did it look and function like this? Then, only weeks before this application appeared, the Evergreen hoardings disappeared and a new close-boarded fence went up. For the first time in years meaningful activity. Again, perhaps there is a perfectly good explanation. If there is, let's hear it.
What agreement existed between TfL and Clarion? Why was the approved Evergreen scheme never completed before the NMA? Who was responsible for managing the site while residents dealt with years of nuisance?
When did TfL regain possession or control of this land again? Because their data gathering appears to have been at the peak of ASB on site. They have been happy to have cosy per-application discussions with planners. Planners have simply waived through a Certificate of Lawfulness.
Gap No. 3 – The planning history
The key NMA to the Evergreen scheme was approved by the previous Labour-led administration. Was there already an understanding that this corner would eventually return to TfL for railway infrastructure? If so, where is that recorded? Was it ever explained publicly? Did ward councillors know? Were local residents told? If the answer is yes, let's see the documents.
If the answer is no, then that raises equally serious questions.
The Council has now changed and Haringey is led by a Green minority administration. This is an opportunity to demonstrate that planning decisions involving major public infrastructure will be transparent, evidence-led and properly scrutinised more so than with Labours flimsy approach.
Haringey's own planning policies place enormous emphasis on high-quality design, protecting residential amenity, improving townscape and creating better public spaces. Those principles shouldn't suddenly disappear because the applicant happens to be TfL or because it relies on permitted development legislation. Check out the plans and elevations. There are serious problems with monolithic brick block that extends above the line of parapets and windows of the residential block. To hide the vast Green Lanes brick elevation, they propose an equally vast ugly advert hoarding. In case you miss it the previously promised public realm will finally arrive – two very small SUDs planters. Now if you want to know how much TFL cares about landscaping here check out the fly tipped plastic strewn bushes around the existing shaft.
I'm not saying don't build the Piccadilly Line Upgrade. I'm saying:
Show us the engineering; Show us the alternatives; Show us the planning history; Show us why this location is the only realistic option. Try harder with scale, massing, townscape...
Because until that happens, we're still being asked to Mind the Gap—the very large gap between what residents are being asked to accept and the evidence that has actually been placed in the public domain.
If you've got photographs, planning documents, local knowledge or memories of this site, please share them. The more evidence we can gather, the stronger the case for asking the questions that should have been asked in the first place.
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
