Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey Planning. Corrupt? Underfunded? Or just a bit sh*t?
We have, yet another, application in to convert a retail space into an A3 (restaurant) on Green Lanes.
It currently operates as a Turkish cafe (their definition, not mine).
What is interesting is the history of the planning applications for the shop and recent changes in the area.
In 2012, the operator applied to change it to an A3. He was refused permission for the following reason:
The proposed change of use from A1 to A3, due to the existing low proportion of A1 uses in the primary frontage of the Green Lanes Town Centre, would further undermine the vitality, viability and predominately retail function of the centre. This would be contrary to Policies TCR3 ‘Protection of Shops in the Town Centres’ and TCR5 ‘Restaurants and Cafes, A4 Drinking Establishments and A5 Hot Food Takeaways’ of the Unitary Development Plan 2006.
At the time the operator of Selale had this to say in his opposition to the application:
"... I am trying hard to survive given the current economic situation where all businesses are suffering and I do not need a rival there that can destroy my business with an A3 use there... this letter has already caused anxieties for me as I have been trading there for years now, and if necessary, I will take this further to stop any application for A3 use around my shop"
This from the fella who, just two months later, applied to extend his shop and create an A3, and was given permission to do so.
Just two months after the Council had said that such changes would ..."further undermine the vitality, viability and predominately retail function of the centre."
And now he's been given permission from the Council to remove another of his neighbouring retail units and turn it into Selale's bar.
So, the Council thought that the proposed change for No. 7 Salisbury Promenade from A1 to A3 would be detrimental to the area.... but happily allowed No. 2 and No.3 to be converted.
Can anybody explain this?
I'd suggest that the answer lies in one or more of the questions posed in the title.
In the meantime, get your cheap-meat-trough bib on... looks like diverse Harringay is getting another kebab shop.
Tags for Forum Posts: Kebabs, Kober, Korruption
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon Curtis on
-
"Sabri's Chicken Pide at Selale"
Thats saturday lunch sorted then, thanks for the recommendation.
Best Harringay Lamchun is a terrific idea, as long as I can nominate myself as one of the judges.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I wish both Sabri and the owners of Ari well, but the question Phil has tabled warrants consideration. I had a quick look at the Officer's reports on both 2012 applications and there does appear to be inconsistency (both are attached) and an explanation to be offered.
We know that the planning team is pushed. I doubt that it's corrupt or subject to corruption. What I take from this is that as locals we'd better have our wits about us with planning applications as they arise.
- Attachments:
-
-
Ari Ref.pdf, 30 KB -
Sell Grt.pdf, 20 KB
-
-
Permalink Reply by AndrewAW1 on
-
Reading the two side by side is quite entertaining with the totally different reasoning being applied to the same regulations.
-
-
There is no evidence of corruption and allegations about it will not be casually cast about on HoL So two comments have been deleted from this thread. The apparent difference in the application of planning policy to the two cases highlighted means that there are legitimate questions to be answered. Answers to those questions may bring us nearer to an understanding of what happened, but we should not entertain people's reputations being damaged by allegations made without foundation.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I agree Hugh. In the decision making process the officer has to gather and interpret law and policy in order to inform and justify their decision. It's a pretty certain bet that two individuals will, on some occasions, interpret these in different ways and reach different conclusions. If this happens it raises two questions. Are the polices clear and comprehensive enough to bring some element of certainty into the decision process and is the checking process rigorous enough to ensure that there is consistency in decision making.
Planning is not, and hopefully will never be, just a box ticking exercise. If it was there would be no need for human intervention and no capacity for debate.
-
-
Not really excitable in the context of the accusations of corruption you were casting about, Phil. I'm somewhat reassured by the more measured tone of your most recent comment.
-
-
I don't see any evidence of reliance on any representative on my part. What you might see from me is respect for my local neighbours and sensitivity to their reputations.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
