Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Recommendation: Hanoi Pho Vietnamese Restaurant
Having eaten in once before, we got a takeaway from Hanoi Pho on Green Lanes last night.
It was excellent! We had vegetable spring rolls, summer rolls, followed by sizzling chicken and roast duck (both with rice and salad), and stir-fried aubergine with bean curd. Very tasty, with a fresh feel.
I mention it, because the place was empty, compared to the crammed Turkish restaurants, and I wish them more business and definite survival. They deserve it. For those who don't know, they already have a well-established restaurant in Hackney.
Hanoi Pho is at 1 Grand Parade, just next to the Salisbury pub.
Tags for Forum Posts: hanoi pho
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I'm not sure about the logic of your argument Alan. Giving grants and loans will always favour the organisation or business in receipt rather than those not in receipt, it cannot be otherwise. The only way to have a level playing field is not to give them to anyone.
-
Permalink Reply by clare on
-
This thread seems to have lurched off topic a bit. I've received a copy of the inspection report (I made an FOI request but I'm not sure if I am allowed to post it) and I'm happy to eat there. The inspector noted lack of training, lack of pest and waste contractors etc, essentially, a few things that sounded more like admin errors than evidence of dirty food prep.
-
-
Clare, anything released under FOI is deemed as being in the public domain... even if the actual document is deemed to be copyrighted (which is unlikely but possible), you can directly quote it's contents.
-
-
The failings were:
1) No food safety management system in place
2) Inadequately trained staff
3) Food storage and prep in outdoor shed
4) Unsuitable (wooden) floor covering in cooking area
5) Missing paper towel dispensing unit
6) They need to produce evidence of contractors: pest, rubbish collection, waste oil collection
7) Missing planning permission for ventilation system
As I wrote before, after reading the report I'm happy to eat there. To me, lack of training etc isn't evidence that people are preparing food unhygienically (most of us prepare food at home without a system of fridge storage etc). I realise that they have not met requirements but the report did satisfy me that the inspector didn't actually find evidence of pests, bad food or anything dirty. Again, I love the food, the open kitchen looks clean to me and I will be going back. I would suspect that some of these may be teething problems and I really can't get myself worked up about a wooden floor.
-
Permalink Reply by Abi on
-
Hmm, OK. On that basis I would not view the failings as being the simple paperwork issues I was led to believe they would be - and would not eat there again until seeing an improvement. Storing food outdoors can't be safe!?
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
1. this is important & should be in place & is useful when training new staff
2. training, even on-line is important
3. this sounds bizarre and shouldn't be happening. More chance of pests getting into their outside store/prep area with access to their stored food.
4. not suitable and will be difficult to keep clean and will therefore end up attracting pests
5. important for hygiene
6 & 7. they do need their paperwork in place as this is the only way any of us, including inspectors, can have any confidence that they are doing things correctly.
A restaurant operation cannot be compared to a domestic kitchen as they are dealing with a higher volume of food (prep ,storage & cooking). Looking at the above they are leaving themselves open to problems occurring in the future unless they make the recommended changes.
-
Permalink Reply by The Black Lark on
-
Hi Tris
Apologies for not having responded. I haven’t been following these threads.
But, as residents, we are continually badly affected by the smells of burnt cooking oil, chilli, garlic, permeating our flats - my children’s bedroom is particularly bad. Incidents are logged by the council, and visits to the flats made by inspectors; but the problem continues.
Currently there is an enforcement notice to remove the structure and ventilation that has been built in the lightwell (shared with 6 flats/12 bedrooms). This, I think, expires on 22nd April.
The space that the restaurant occupies outside is essentially a yard, that connects to a rear alleyway shared by all the shops, that is clogged with dumped refuse. We have problems with mice; hopefully the restaurant doesn’t.
To cut a long story short, the half-shop premises is unsuitable for a hot food business as there is no means of suitable ventilation extraction that doesn’t badly compromise residents bedrooms (as found in the planning application refusals).
The reason it was able to open as a restaurant is the ‘Flexible Change of use under Class D of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Existing Use Class A1 to Proposed Use Class A3’ which trumps previous planning permission requirements and process eg. no local consultation (and gives permission for an initial 2 years).
I hope that answers some of the questions (from our perspective).
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
