Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

There is a new planning application for an HMO (Houses in Multiple Occupation) in Roseberry Gardens, deadline for comments to Haringey council is 13/01/20. Application is for 6 separate units in a former family home with no provision for parking or additional rubbish created, amongst other details



*19 Roseberry Gardens N4 1JQ*


Proposal: Change of use from Residential (C3) to small HMO (C4) for up
to 6 people

Tags for Forum Posts: hmo

Views: 3312

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


some background info on HMOs in Harringay and Haringey, with definitions and percentage of HMOs with high concentration in Harringay also recognition that 'family housing' is in short supply in the borough . 

The developers had the entire roof and upper floor off this house in the summer in order to fit in whatever extra structures they planned. So this application is an after-the-fact gesture.

The current screened front garden, complete with graffiti, is currently also an eyesore.

Don’t tell me. They’re being represented by Paul Simon Estate Agents?

HMO's are all well and good but without a suitable waste collection proposal in place what happens to all the additional rubbish or does it just end up being dumped/fly tipped on street corners which is already the subject of much concern?

From personal experience, it forms a pile in the front garden, attracting rodents and emitting smells when the sun is out.

This post is a little concerning as it seems to be a call to action for objection against the application, I do take on board that some of your points raised are genuine concerns but also some have little grounding in reality but will work to rally negativity from those who share such concerns in general. 

I felt the need to say this because I too had been subject to unfounded negative comments against me when I decorated a property in readiness to let and I don’t think this is fair at all, everyone deserves a fair shot and this type of action takes away in many regard the fairness.

I’m not trying to enter into a dispute with anyone on here but I thought it would be good to add in some thought from the other side of the fence and give some more context making this thread less biased and more informative. I’ll do so by giving thought to some of the concerns raised in the order they where.

The application for 6 separate units means it will be for 6 individual tenancies and with the size of property in mind this will mean bedsit style accommodation ie a tenancy per room sharing kitchen and bathroom facilities.

Parking provision or lack there of; in most not all but a very high percentage of cases, the type of tenants who take this kind of accommodation are likely to be on a low budget and do not have the luxury of a vehicle and there will therefore be no additional strain on parking in fact it could be argued that it free’s up a space or two.

Additional rubbish; the house was already of a good size and whether owner occupied or tenanted as a single home to as many adults which could quite easily be achieved would result in the same amount of rubbish, it could also be argued that with only a room and having less space or funds for unnecessary purchases and luxuries that these type of tenants may actually generate less waste.

Housing stock percentages; family housing is of a low rate compared to historic times and as a 30+ year resident I agree, but due to the increase in value of the housing stock over the recent years (similar properties go for £600,000+ and across the road in the ladders £900,000+) and similar increases in rent (a similar house as a single one could achieve around £3000 a month) it’s actually very difficult to find a family with the affordability to take on such a home, and even if let as a single home would in many cases be taken by a group of young sharers (as my experience letting our family home for 7 years with 6 groups of sharers in tenancy over that time and not one viewing or enquiry by a single family ever!).

The other side of that coin is that there is huge and growing demand for lower cost and more compact accommodation.

Having said this some more context into the matter is that as in my case and many others, these rental properties occur accidentally via the ability to purchase an additional home after working hard for many years paying off your mortgage and being able to move out but yet retain this property as a albeit very small but income generating asset and again as with my self the driving factor behind this is that it was our family home for 30+ years and we did not want to loose the property and sell for sentimental reason as well as the fact it offers my parents a pension for the future or an asset which could be cashed in when needed.

In these cases the times and economy we face today make HMO’s almost the only way to do this in these type of areas with the associated values.

I hope I have been informative and maybe even educational. 

of course if you have any genuine reason for concern and are a neighbouring property and wish to object then so be it, I just hope that I have shed some new light on matters you have raised.

As the application is still open for comment Esat, you could usefully say some of this in a letter of support. All of the comments so far received by the Council have been objections.

You are totally right and raise a very good point so I have done exactly that. I hope it at the least allows the application to be considered fairly, like I say it makes no difference to me wether the applicant is refused or gains a licence and I have no vested interest either way. I just didn’t think the concerns where genuine nor the reason for raising them and it didn’t seem right or fair so I have done nothing more than try to give a deeper understanding.

Part of my slightly negative assessment is based on the fact that conversion to HMO has been effectively banned in the Gardens for some years, due to the smaller size of the houses making it an unpleasant prospect for those living in them, and by them. This would be a new precedent, I suspect.

As someone who does actually work in property in the local area and has good experience in the gardens vs ladders I would say this is not quite true, on different roads within both the gardens and ladders there are some varied sizes for example away from this particular road  Stanhope gardens and also Burgoyne Road enjoy some of the largest in the area, and even within single roads sizes vary such as Umfreville road where there are around four different sizes layouts from one end to the other.

Well said Esat.

I may have issues with some of your points about, as I see it, the structures that have seen housing values inflated and the rent-seekers who benefit from this...

...but you make some really valid corrective points about the footprint of HMO tenants vis-a-vis family property owners. As somebody who has lived in several house-shares or HMOs, I'd say that your points about car ownership (very rare) and rubbish generated (no more, in my experience, than an average family) are spot-on.

I have to disagree on the rubbish - I live to next to one - a complete mess most of the time.  For example - tray of Chips in the recycling Bin on NYD, by the next morning a Fox had been on top and spilled the contents of half the bin all over the front garden.  A regular occurence with 6 room occupied an not enough bins.  As for 2 people per room, don't make me laugh.  It might say that on the tenancy but it's usually a minimum of 2 and up to 4 as I can see with my own eyes - everyday.  The borough might have the right intentions, but unscrupulous landlords don't.  I'm not including  Esat in thi, but he must be one of the rare landlords who plays by the rules.  There are 2 further up and 2 across the road.  I'm not a fan as you can probably guess.



© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service