Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Owners of Proposed Triple Restaurant in former Fairline/Class A Premises Finally Come Clean
The owners of the almost complete new restaurant in the former Fairline/Class A premises have been pretending for the last year or so that their project was anything but a new restaurant. They even had their agent come on HoL to protest their innocence with regard to any such move.
Of course anyone with half a mind didn't believe them for a moment and they've now finally come clean and have applied for retrospective planning permission.
There are very sound grounds for objection to this development given in Haringey's planning policy and one hopes that the Council will make proper and fair use of these in making their planning determination.
Local objections, particularly those that can be linked to policy are taken into account and do make a difference. Any resident can object. I am attaching a copy of the LCSP's objection which makes clear which policies can be referenced for your objection.
If you'd like to object, or support, the application, you can do so via the planning pages of Haringey's website here, using the "Comment on Application" button towards the bottom of the page. (EDIT: I made a comment essentially just supporting the LCSP's statement in its entirety).
See the tag below for all other related posts.
Tags for Forum Posts: fairline
- Attachments:
-
-
972730.pdf, 75 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by kotkas on
-
The proposed development goes against 2 planning policies:
1) that there are no more than 2 adjoining non-A1 units. The scope of the current application is 3.
2) that number of non-retail units does not exceed 35% across the entire primary frontage. That ratio is currently at 42%. The addition of another non-retail unit will further distort the mix of permitted usage.
I will also add relevant commentary in relation to the planning history of the project and will question the claims to the development enhancing the vitality and viability of the centre.
-
Permalink Reply by Graham Charnock on
-
But what are your objections, exactly?
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Have you not read the LCSP submission? Those are my objections exactly.
That submission took the author eight hours of research (and the rest). I'm not about to reinvent their very well made wheel. It's well researched, policy-based and well written. It says all I need to. I feel no need to rewrite it.
As to the exact same question you've asked koktas, why not give him/her a chance to make their submission before repeating your brusque question to them.
-
-
Sorry to appear brusque, but I was asking what your objections were, not what someone else's objections were. So you have no objections of your own; you have just opted to let someone else speak for you. Fair enough.
-
-
Oh gidaahdavit, Graham.
I'm not sure how much you know about planning objections, but the way it works is that an objection can only be taken account of if is it specifically related to Haringey's planning policy. There are only a limited amount of policies which can be cited in an objection. I've worked with Ian previously developing responses to planning applications and I know he'll have done a thorough job. There's probably no one locally who has a better grasp of Haringey's planning policy.
It's not a matter of his objections or mine. It's a matter of identifying the objections, the only ones that will be taken account of. (The rest is useful groundswell that can make a difference, but the rub's in the nitty gritty). Ian did the required work and we'd all be stupid to individually spend 8 hours each re-doing it. Working as a team, Graham, is the only viable way that local communities can hope to stand up to the power and resources of big organisations.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
That's spot on. Objections need to be about issues the local authority either has control over or has an obligation to consider (known as material considerations). So these would be laws, policies, environmental impacts, crime and disorder and so on. For instance in most cases the aesthetics of a development wouldn't be a material consideration but the environmental impact of the proposal, the impact on traffic and parking and potential for nuisance and disorder would be.
For anything bigger than a householder development, developers employ people who understand precisely what the material considerations are and attempt to address these in the application. It's one of the reasons objections fail as objectors normally do not have the resources to employ a professional to frame their objection. As the default position in the planning process is to approve an application, and only the applicant has the right to appeal against a decision, any help objectors can get (like the research carried out by the LCSP) at least gets a little closer to a level playing field.
-
Permalink Reply by Alice on
-
Thank you very much for sharing the LCSP statement on this thread.
I am a tenant of one of the first floor flats directly above this development so have been subject to the ongoing development across the past few quarters- not only the noise and disruption of building work but predominantly the ongoing concern of whether the premises will commence trading, in what format, with what license and with what resulting impact to our day to day lives. As a tenant it's hard to know what say, if any, you get in situations like this and, having never had to do anything like this before, I had little idea on which grounds to comment so the LCSP document is really helpful.
I notice that the functionality to comment on the Application doesn't allow the opportunity to include images and wondered if anyone here could offer advice- other than the illegality of the development work which has already been documented on this thread, I also have a number of concerns that similar disregard has been given to other areas. Attached are some photos of particular examples, namely:
1. The resulting crack in plaster work and wooden skirting boards from the work to supporting walls or structures below.
2. The air conditioning unit bolted bolted around one meter from my bedroom window which activates circa every 15-20 minutes blowing it's coolant fumes straight in the direction of my window.
3. The industrial extractor unit, precariously propped up on blocks of wood.
I note that the agent for the application, has concluded the following on their planning statement:
“It is considered the living conditions of the upper floor flats above and adjacent to the application site at Nos. 13 to 15 Grand Parade would not be compromised by the new A3/A5 use from the coming and goings of customers and customer vehicle parking as the application site is also located on a busy thoroughfare (Green Lanes) with high vehicle/pedestrian movements and within Green Lanes district centre which contains a number of other similar A3/A5 evening establishments (38 units) in the vicinity. On balance, the proposed change of use at the site would therefore not incur any loss of residential amenity in terms of noise and disturbance.”
essentially- green lanes is already noisy so this development can't disturb them anymore.
As I live above, I understand I can be accused of being biased in disagreement with this- it is my choice to live on green lanes but I don't think that can be used as good reason to disregard planning laws or add to the current level of noise or disruption further.
What I can remain objective on is that these examples give me little confidence that due diligence has been taken with regards to the structural integrity of construction work and little faith that reasonable efforts have been taken towards the prevention of noise/smell disruption and in particular fire safety.
I intend to make mention of these examples in my comment on the application but can anyone advise if there is another separate process to present concerns and photos of this nature that I can make use of? Whether or not it will make a difference, who knows? But I would at least like to make the effort to provide as much information as possible for those involved to make an informed decision.
Would welcome any ideas, or advice from experience.
Many thanks
Alice
- Attachments:
-
-
IMG_0620.JPG, 449 KB -
IMG_0619.JPG, 691 KB
-
IMG_0618.JPG, 343 KB
-
-
-
You can also send an email. The LCSP submission is made to Duncan McKane, the planning officer responsible for this application. An email to duncan.mckane@haringey.gov.uk will find him. You can also copy in one of your councillors at barbara.blake@haringey.gov.uk. (You get the pattern firstname.secondname@haringey.gov.uk).
-
-
Alice. You may want to give Haringey Building Control a ring.
020 8489 5504
-
-
Thanks Michael- wasn't aware of this as an option so will be getting in touch with them.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
If it's any consolation, your flat has gone from mortgageable to unmortgageable and hence down significantly in value. The annual rent you pay should really be no more than 5% of the value of the flat so I expect you can ask for that to go down significantly as well...
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
