Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!


Admin for testing

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 due 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

Views: 5155

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh on Friday

Clive, really?!?! It IS the used term. May I suggest moving on.

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on Friday

Chaucer used the word Officer in the 14th century to describe people holding a public administrative post .  Its use in a military sense did not start until the 16th century.

The Shipman’s Tale

And eek an officer, out for to ryde to see hir graunges and hire bernes wide,

And also an officer, to ride out to see to their granges and their capricious barns.

I knew studying mediaeval literature for A level would come in useful someday.

Permalink Reply by Cllr Rosie Latchford on Friday

Hi Hugh, 

I think there might be a mix of opinions on whether the substation itself is being challenged just based on conversations I have been having with residents but yes totally hear you on this - I have conveyed and will continue to convey the points you've mentioned to officers. 

I have also been very much pushing for the council to work with TFL on this, to my knowledge they are in conversation and I will push to be a part of that myself too to advocate on behalf of all residents affected.

I really am sorry for the lack of response from council officers, unfortunately that is out of my control in the short-term as a councillor - but I will ask they get back to those who have emailed in, and as a new administration we can look to tackle this as a broader issue. And just to stress, I myself remain committed to working with residents on this issue.  


Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh on Friday

Thanks, Rosie. I’m sure you’re right about the range of opinions, from challenge to outright objection. I understand the limitations of your role, but perhaps this is a great opportunity for you and your colleagues to really make your mark as a new broom!

Permalink Reply by Nigel on Monday

Would Cllrs Kuper and Latchford please post on here when the TFL application for a Certificate of Lawfulness is next to come before the Council or Cabinet, and when they expect to see a paper containing the executive's summary of the facts and recommendation as to grant or otherwise? 

Would they also identify by name for us both the elected councillor and the senior official  (pace Clive Carter) responsible for planning matters? 

Thank you. 

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter yesterday

NIGEL, in the list of Cabinet Members, there are only two references to planning.

There is "Planning policy (Local Plan)" (Councillor Hymas) and "Emergency planning" (Councillor Beckford).

In this context the (Councillor) Chair of the Planning Committee may be relevant.

At some point, a new layer of 'Corporate Director'-administration was added, superior to all the existing Directors. Thus, between the CEO and all the 'standard' Directors—including the Director of Planning—there is another layer:


Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh 21 hours ago

Yesterday I received the followig email.

Dear Hugh,

I am writing to you in relation to the Certificate of Lawfulness application for the proposed transformer building at Colina Road (HGY/2026/1854) and your recent correspondence with the Case Officer regarding this matter.

I would first like to advise that this case has passed to a different officer, Neil McClellan, given in part current workloads across the service and the fact that Neil previously has a pre-application inquiry relating to the site and is therefore familiar with the background to the matters raised.

I appreciate from the planning portal that residents have raised concerns regarding the proposal, particularly in light of the site's planning history and the uses previously envisaged for the land. However, I would highlight that the Council's role in determining a Certificate of Lawfulness application is limited to assessing whether the proposal is lawful under the relevant planning legislation and whether a formal determination of whether such rights exist or not can be issued.

That said Officers recognise that the relationship between the current proposal and the site's planning history requires careful consideration and in turn the Officer's Report will address the relevant historic consents and set out the Council's assessment of their relevance to this Certificate application, including any matters of legal interpretation and relevant case law, with legal advice sought etc.

I would point out that officers will not be able to engage in ongoing discussions regarding the legal merits of the application with third parties, including local residents or Ward Cllrs as rather this Certificate application must be assessed through the formal determination process, taking account of the submitted application, relevant legislation, planning history, case law and representations received to date or subsequently submitted. In turn the Council's position on such matters will be set out in the published Officer's Report and decision notice.

Separate to the matters above, and following initial advice previously provided by officers, we are seeking to set up a meeting with TFL regarding the design of the proposed substation should it proceed. Whilst accepting that design and appearance are not matters that can be determined formally via the outcome of the Certificate application, officers want to explore whether improvements can be secured to reduce the development's visual impact on the street scene, specifically siting the structure further back from the street frontages to allow for landscaping and planting, and/or incorporating green walls, with it also intended to be made clear to TFL that such structure should not have a large advertisement sign attached (itself requiring advertisement consent).

Should TfL agree to design amendments following these discussions, we would hope to share those changes with Ward Members and local residents and so can provide a further update in due course.

Regards 

 

Matthew Gunning - MRTPI

Team Manager - Development Management

RSS

Advertising

© 2026   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service