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

8 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh on September 8, 2026 at 13:49

For the GLA, try your GLA representative Joanne McCarthy.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on September 8, 2026 at 21:15

The council have form on this site.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nigel on September 10, 2026 at 17:39

I have now written to Cllr Scott Emery, Chair of the Council's Strategic Planning Committee who has had a look at the matter. He is also the Liberal Democrat Councillor for Highgate Ward and Haringey Liberal Democrats Spokesperson for the Environment & Transport. I set out the legal position and relevant planning history in response to his offer to take up any questions.

Has anybody got an idea of the timetable for this misconceived application to come before a decision-maker?

▶ Reply

Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh on September 10, 2026 at 22:07

Target Decision Date 26/8/2026.

Determination Level: Delegated Decision (which obviates the need for it to come before a committee of any sort).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nigel on September 22, 2026 at 2:39

To which post is that, please, Hugh?

And does anyone have the name of the current occupant?

I wonder if the delegation still runs when the application is challenged ?

▶ Reply

Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh on September 22, 2026 at 9:24

My 10/926 (22:07) was responding to yours ao f the same day (17:39). However, that has clearly slipped. This issue came up at the LCSP meeting last night, which said I couldn't attend. Apparently, no decision has yet been taken and no timeline was provided.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Pike on September 21, 2026 at 20:59

Are there any updates to this?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by paulbonham on September 23, 2026 at 13:44

Yes the decision to allow it has been made full info here but not good news https://publicregister.haringey.gov.uk/pr/sfc/servlet.shepherd/vers...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nigel on September 23, 2026 at 13:50

The Planning Officer Mclelland has decided to approve TFL's application for a Certificate of Lawfulness: see: https://publicregister.haringey.gov.uk/pr/s/planning-application/a0... - copy report attached: DM%20Final%20Officer%20Report.pdf

The approval now rests upon whether the land was railway "operational land" pre-December 1968. His summary:

" The question of whether or not the site constitutes operational land is dealt with in the report
above. But in summary, officers are satisfied that the land was acquired prior to the 6th December
1968, for the purpose of carrying on the statutory undertakings of the then operator of the
Piccadilly Line. Subsequent use of part of that land for other uses unrelated to the statutory
undertaking and the recent grant of planning permission for the Evergreen development are not
considered to alter the situation. As a matter of principle, permitted development rights continue to
exist unless they have been removed, modified, or made otherwise unavailable under the GPDO.
The standard mechanisms include an Article 4 Direction, a planning condition expressly removing
permitted development rights, or obligations contained within a Section 106 agreement, none of
which apply to the land in question."

In my view, the reasoning is well-written but may yet be faulted on the ground that the land is still not properly established to be "operational land' within s.263 TCPO (for Part 8 lawfulness) because s.264 (1) (b) applies:

"(b)[the site] was held by them immediately before that date [6th December 1968] but the circumstances were then such that the land did not fall to be treated as operational land for the purposes of the 1962 Act" (and the land was not previously the subject of a railway development planning permission or in operational use by another undertaker under ss. 264 (3) or (4)).

This report does not appear to have considered the pre-December 1968 circumstances of use, operational or otherwise, of this particular site so as to exclude s.264(1)(b). The test is thus whether, in the circumstances prevailing immediately before 6th December 1968, it "fell to be treated as" operational land" for the purposes of the 1962 Act".

That imports s.221 of the 1962 Act, which does include "land which is used for the purpose of the carrying on of their undertaking and land in which an interest is held for that purpose" as operational land but goes on to EXclude "land which, in respect of its nature and situation, is comparable rather with land in general than with land which is used, or in which interests are held, for the purpose of the carrying on of statutory undertakings" .

The report considers the first limb - land held for the operator's purpose - but, wrongly, it does not appear to consider whether this corner land, marked in red, was then more comparable with that purpose or land in general.

So again, the decision-maker was required specifically required to consider the circumstances [which include use] immediately prior to 6th December 1968 and the land to which the site was then, by its nature and situation, more comparable. For that he had to to consider its historic use and planning history. It is not at all clear that the report or decision does so.

2. There may also be a further, less promising argument founded on the assertion that "As a matter of principle, permitted development rights continue to exist unless they have been removed, modified, or otherwise restricted by the GPDO or through another statutory mechanism. Such mechanisms include an Article 4 Direction, a planning condition expressly removing permitted development rights, or obligations contained within a Section 106 Agreement" [emphasis added].

Are TFL 's pre-2016 or pre-December 1968 development rights for this site established? What is the effect of the subsequent planning permissions granted (see again ss.264(3) TCPO).

Can the councillors call in or revoke this decision?

▶ Reply

Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh on September 23, 2026 at 14:21

I was just going to add a similar comments to Nigel's. Below are some key excerpts from the officer's decision notice. I have attached both the full report and decision notice.

23 September 2026

"In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Haringey Council as Local Planning Authority hereby certify that the above proposal, described in the application received on the above date, is lawful, as the proposal does constitute development within the meaning of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but that application for permission in respect thereof would NOT BE REQUIRED under Part III of the Act, as the development constitutes PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT.

"Case Received On: 1 July 2026

"First Schedule

"Certificate of Lawfulness (proposed) for construction of single-storey transformer building within existing operational railway compound, installation of electrical plant, associated hardstanding, sustainable drainage features, new foul sewer connection, and ancillary works including security fencing & enclosures and provision for maintenance access.

"Second Schedule

"Ventilation Shaft Compound, Colina Road, London, N8 0RA

"Informatives:

"INFORMATIVE: Design enhancements and public realm improvements

"Notwithstanding the confirmation of lawful development, the applicant is advised to engage with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to explore opportunities to improve the design and appearance of the proposed transformer building. Given the site's prominent position at the junction of Green Lanes and Colina Road, the preferred approach would be to investigate whether the building can be set back from the back edge of the pavement on one or both frontages to create a landscaped strip capable of accommodating tree planting, shrub planting and other forms of soft landscaping.

Where such setbacks are not feasible, consideration should be given to alternative greening measures, including the provision of green walls and climbing vegetation on the building elevations. Opportunities should also be explored to incorporate public art or mural treatments into the external design of the building, helping to create a more attractive and visually distinctive addition to the local area.

"The LPA would welcome discussions with TfL regarding potential design refinements and opportunities to secure a higher-quality visual outcome for the site.

"For the avoidance of doubt, the LPA would not support the use of the building elevations for large-format advertising displays, billboard-style advertisements or advertisement hoardings, for which advertisement consent would be required."

I was disappointed to see that my letter and I'm sure those from countless others have not been added to the record.

I was disappointred also to note that the only mention of the issue of vibration affecting the nearby residents was the record trhat it arose in objections. No mention is made of the need to mitigate the issue.

However, I was pleased to see that my point about the appearance of the building has been taken on board, if ony in the 'Informative'

With regards to appealing, Nigel, there is a process you can use on the grounds of either:

you disagreeing with it

the decision was not made within 8 weeks.

To comply with the second criterion, the decision would have to have been made by the 26th of August.

I think that the decision can only be revoked by statutory appeal. Such n appeal can apparently be made against a certificate of lawfulness decision. Given the timing issue, I imagine an appeal could be lodged on both grounds.

See "Appeal a decision about a lawful development certificate" on .gov.uk.

Attachments: