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 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
Replies to This Discussion
-
Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh -
Thanks. I missed that info by not reading down another three lines.
Lacking the legal expertise of others, I've now taken the rogues route of asking ChatGPT. It suggests that a Judicial Review would be possible.
You may be in a better position than I to judge if it is of any use at all, if it even offers the grain of an idea.
- Attachments:
-
Permalink Reply by Nigel
-
Gunning Throws Down The Gauntlet
" Dear Mr Kat,
Thank you for your e-mail for which I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence.
I note the concerns you have raised regarding the decision of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to issue this decision, however the application was considered in accordance with the relevant legislative framework, with legal input obtained as part of the assessment process etc before a decision was reached.
To be clear as this is the formal decision of the Council, it stands and cannot be revisited through the complaints process or receipt of further correspondence, other than challenge through the legal process of judicial review.
That said, given that your e-mail appears in part, to raise concerns about the process I have asked that your correspondence be registered as a Stage 1 complaint, with a more detailed response provided in due course. However, and as reflected above it important to be clear the Council’s complaints process cannot alter the outcome of the decision
Regards
Matthew Gunning - MRTPI
Team Manager - Development Management"
-
-
Picking Up Gunning's Gauntlet
I tried one last appeal to hold this up, short of outcry or JR:
"Dear Mr Gunning,
.....It remains open to the Council of its own motion to revisit and correct administratively the error identified in my previous email. Your legal advisers will advise you of the relevant procedure. I accept that the Council’s Complaints procedure does not of itself allow for such a result.
Meanwhile, by copy of this correspondence to the Monitoring Officer Ms Alderman, she is now on notice that this decision by the Council has given rise to, would or is likely to give rise to, a breach of law or maladministration by permitting development of the site by TFL other than subject to the applicable statutory planning control regime.
In such circumstances, the Monitoring Officer has a statutory duty to prepare a formal report to the Council’s executive or full council: s.5(2)(a) of the LGHA 1989. She must do that herself unless unable to do so, when her deputy may do so: s.5(7).
By s.5(5) LGHA, the Council may then take no step in reliance upon the decision challenged and by s.5(6), implementation of the proposal or decision is automatically suspended until the council has formally considered the Monitoring Officer's report.
It would be prudent and in the public interest, saving time and costs, for the Council to avail itself of this avenue of remedy, even if it considered that the decision could have been taken in error. There would also be a duty to advise TFL of the position and the wisdom of taking no steps in reliance on the Decision interim.
You mention judicial review. Councillors have made it plain that Haringey today faces a real financial crisis. The Council’s planners and lawyers (who already appear to have a busy time with litigation) are under a duty to consider and take into account that judicial review is an expensive and adversarial process, which in such a case essentially only examines the legality of the procedure taken. The likely remedy, if the challenge was to be upheld, would send the Council back to consider the matter again in accordance with law. If refused, the Council and TFL may then proceed but incurring considerable irrecoverable costs over months or years, in order to do so. By contrast, to go back and properly reconsider this application in the course of administration would incur minimal cost. Councillors should be so advised.
Thank you once again.
Yours"
Fat chance, I fear. The problem is that the officers are unwilling to go back on a decision even if it's dodgy.
The lawyer "Monitoring Officer" who is supposed to be able to give independent advice to the CE is now of no different rank to the senior planning officer and reports through the "Corporate Director of Culture, Strategy and Communities" Jess Crowe.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Pike
-
Mind the Gaps… Haringey has granted TfL its certificate, but the questions haven't gone away!
The Council has now certified the proposed Colina Road transformer building as "permitted development". In doing so officers have have continued to hide behind existing legal reasoning, including the 1934 land transfer and the site's alleged relationship to the Piccadilly Line.
But let's be clear about what this decision does and doesn't mean. It does not mean the TFL engineers idea of a design has been approved on its thin planning merits. It does not mean residents' concerns about the loss of the promised pocket park, the impact on neighbouring homes, the existing ventilation shaft pollution or the lack of a publicly available alternatives appraisal have been resolved.
Indeed, the Council's own decision does at least recognise the original butt ugly design and public realm need improvement, at least if they are aiming to support their own SPGs and policies. It calls on TfL to explore setting it back, landscaping, green walls and public art, and makes clear that large-format advertising is not supported without the necessary consent.
Given that residents have no grounds to appeal and can only call upon a JR what happens now? Residents have been railroaded by the all stakeholders and those with an interest in the site. So, will TfL genuinely improve the design, or will residents be left with another empty promise?
Will the Council publish the evidence behind its legal conclusions and explain the full history of the land?
Will TfL finally explain what alternative sites were assessed and why this prominent residential corner was selected?
And will somebody finally investigate the black particulate matter residents have been reporting from the neighbouring ventilation shaft?
We are not opposing the Piccadilly Line Upgrade. We want it delivered. But residents should not have to accept unanswered questions, poor design, health concerns and years of environmental concerns simply because the applicant is TfL.
The certificate may have been granted. The need for transparency, accountability and a better outcome for Green Lanes has not disappeared. Mind the Gaps or fill them!
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter
-
What responsibility—if any—does the Planning Department bear for the pocket park condition?
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
