Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Sandero
I don't get it.
From the Haringey planning page it seems they put an application to convert a travel agents into a coffee shop and install a new extractor flue in the private yard at the back. The application is refused. So what do they do? Convert the travel agent AND the rear yard into a restaurant complete with seats, tables and (natch) smoking in the rear yard.
Anyone know what is going on here?...
From the Haringey planning page it seems they put an application to convert a travel agents into a coffee shop and install a new extractor flue in the private yard at the back. The application is refused. So what do they do? Convert the travel agent AND the rear yard into a restaurant complete with seats, tables and (natch) smoking in the rear yard.
Anyone know what is going on here?...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Stuart on
-
Are you sure the actual licence has been granted? To me, that clearly says a licence will only be granted once certain conditions have been satisfied (and compliance will be checked periodically thereafter). Those conditions include
- That the premises will be constructed in accordance with the plans submitted.
- That all of the conditions recommended by the Noise Team be implemented, in particular the condition that all ventilation and extraction systems shall be correctly maintained and regularly serviced to ensure that it is operating efficiently and with minimal disturbance to neighbours arising from odour.
Have you looked at the plans? Has the restaurant been built in accordance with them? Doesn't sound like it from this thread. And what about the Noise Team recommendations? Have you seen them? Are they complying?
Sounds like that would be worth pursuing - the longer you can persuade Daliah these things have not been done, the longer they won't get their licence. And it's probably also worth seeing if they are serving alcohol in the meantime - if they are, are they not guitly of serving alcohol without a licence? Can you get the police onto that one?
I wouldn't give up just yet.
-
Permalink Reply by john e on
-
hmm well I dont know Bushy, Daliah Barrett seemed to resent my calling her and I must say that the cards seem stacked against the residents here.
Sandero breaks all the rules, has no planning permission or licence- so what- nothing happens and they subsequently apply and are granted what they want. There were over 10 strongly worded objections to the licence but it made no difference.
Meanwhile whilst all this rumbles through committees the smoke of cooking meat fills a residential street and its business as usual. I expect the garden extension will be passed as ok by planning soon !
-
Permalink Reply by PaulG on
-
Hold on.
Look again at Austin's (extremely helpful) post:
"The existence of the rear (and now front) extensions is being handled separately. The planning officer is issuing an enforcement notice today/Monday telling them to remove both extensions. They will then have 28 days (plus a few days for the enforcement notice to come into effect) to comply or lodge an appeal.
If an appeal is lodged, the matter will be open to public consultation at which point all interested parties who have left their details with the council will be contacted to seek representations. If you'd like to be on this list, you can call the planning officer:
Lorcan Lynch - 0208 489 5505.
or email: planning.enforcement@haringey.gov.uk"
Now I have no problem per se with Sandero existing or trading as a restaurant. I have no objection to it serving alcohol or having a bit of music.
What I do object to is them opening a restaurant after planning permission has been refused and then tacking on both a back yard extension open to the street and a hideous front deck without any further application being made.
They had no right to convert their back yard into a restaurant extension. Their plans showed no such extension. The extended LICENCE will - it has been decided - ONLY be issued if the building complies with the plans. As I read it, then, the garden's gotta go.
They do have a chance if they can successfully appeal against the enforcement notice that should by now have been issued. That means we need to give our names now (those who have not done so) as objectors.
I will be emailing planning enforcement this weekend and urge others to do the same.
-
Permalink Reply by Betty Careless on
-
I am cross that the licence went through. However I am even crosser that they have published my objection online along with my name, address, and personal signature (I notice they've done that with a few people, so anyone else who put in an objection might want to check). I've just written them a very cross e-mail:
I recently sent in an objection to a licence application from a restaurant two door down from my house. I am utterly appalled to see that you have scanned this entire document and put it up on your website complete with my name, address, and signature:
http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/Published/C00000136/M00004433/AI...
I should not need to tell you that this is a huge breach of the Data Protection Act. You had absolutely no right to publish my personal information online without my permission. If you wished to put my objection online then you should have blacked out my personal details (as I note you have done with other forms). Under the DPA I should not have had to specifically ask for you to do this, it is you as data controller who have the duty to ask for explicit permission to display personal data.
By publishing my name, address, and personal signature online you have put me at risk of identity fraud. You have also potentially put me at risk from the owners, staff and patrons of the premises I objected to. I cannot believe you have acted in such an irresponsible and unprofessional manner.
Please comply with your duties as a data controller under the Data Protection Act and take my personal details and signature down from your website immediately.
Hopping mad!! They've published all my personal details on a public page, and I'm going to continue to have sleepless nights and a house that stinks of burning flesh - thank you very much Harringay council!
-
-
I think Paulie's right; this isn't great news but it's not terrible news either. The "plans submitted" in question are here (about 3/4 the way down) and they do not include either of the exterior extensions. As far as I read it, this means that Sandero is not entitled to a licence until the extensions are removed.
However, they clearly have no intention of removing them because as I write, they have two men on the roof of the rear extension installing what looks like a rather massive skylight.
I will be contacting planning on Monday for an update but I can only presume what Locran Lynch told me would happen has happened, and Sandero has been served with a notice to pull down the extensions. What I would say is that anyone who hasn't been in touch with the planning people should do so ASAP to register a complaint. The more there are, the stronger the case.
Re. attendance at the licence hearing, from what I understand after taking advice, it is better if only a couple of representatives speak for what amount to very similar objections we all had. I think we did all we could and I'm not surprised a licence was granted. Our issue really is a planning issue and we should now focus on that side of things.
I know some are concerned with the licence being granted full stop however. For those people, I recommend reading in full the notes of the Noise Team which the licence endorses. They are on the same link as the plans (above).
There are a lot of restrictions including that the outside area must be cleared by 22:30; that "The licensee shall ensure that no music played in the licensed premises is audible at or within the site boundary of any residential property"; that only "background music" can ever be played outside; and that whilst music is being played, customers must enter/exit through a lobbied area to minimise noise breakout.
The licence is granted on the basis that the Noise Team's recommendations are upheld so again, if Sandero does not comply, they are operating outside their licence.
So, as I say, I think mixed news on the licence front but not all bad. We now need to make sure planning are doing what they should be doing. I note that the planning recommendations to the licence committee were disregarded because they were not made in the required format (they weren't phrased to be in one of the four categories).
We all got this right, so if planning couldn't, that may be rather bad news. I think the more people who call them the better. Again, you have complete anonymity with planning (unlike licensing) but if in doubt - say you don't want your details passed on.
Betty, I think you're completely right about your details being published online. The signature really is the icing on a very sour cake. Can't believe they did that. Let us know how the protests progress.
-
-
I got this reply back:
Madam,
We have not acted in an irresponsible manner. The notices in respect of any Licensing Act 03 application states that the information will be shared with the applicant. The legislation itself promotes transparency and as such all documents are in the public domain.
If you at anytime request that you wish to have your details withheld we will do our best to oblige such a request.
We are sorry, that you have been aggrieved by this on this occasion.
Regards
Daliah Barrett
She is wrong. If personal data is going to shared with anyone one they have an explicit duty to let you know that will be the case, and there is absolutely not justification for publishing names plus addresses and signatures online. It does not give a very good impression of the efficiency of the Licensing department, and suggests they have a complete lack of respect for the public.
Still furious - and being addressed as 'Madam' has not helped matters!
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I'm not au fait enough with the DP Act, but legal duty or duty of care, one way or the other I think it ought to be writ large if your details are going to be shared in a potentially sensitive situation like this.
I can't remember, but I take it that no warning given when you submit?
-
-
At the top of the form it says 'representations will be made available for applicants to view' but it does not explicitly state that this will include the sections with your personal data. It most definitely does not say anything about publishing your name, address and signature online! I have made a complaint to the Information Comissioner (the government office in charge of enforcing the DPA) - we'll see what happens!
-
Permalink Reply by Ed Gorman on
-
although i am sympathetic to your situation and agree that it is not best practise to publish details of opponents to certain planning applications, i do however feel that the council is within it's rights to allow details of objections to be seen by the applicant otherwise there could well be malicious objections from parties who may have a financial interset in the application not going ahead.
with regards to whether these details should be published on their website is another matter, but one which i believe is covered by the disclaimer on the "comments" page of the planning site
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/housing_and_planning/planning-main...
which clearly states:
"We will only consider comments where the name and address of the person making the comments is given. Anonymous comments will not be taken in to account. Letters and emails of comment (including petitions) will form part of the public register of planning applications and will be published on our website in their entirety.
You should not include any personal information in your letter or email which you are not happy to have displayed on the website. Your name and address must be given, but other information such as your telephone number, email address or signature is not required. If you wish to submit comments by email but do not want your email address made public, you should send the comments as an attachment to the email to avoid publication of your email address."
having seen some of the other objections to this proposal and noticing how personal details have been blocked out i can only assume that those objectees (is that a word?!) specifically requested that their details be omitted from the public website.
-
-
You're right Ed but the website does not make it clear that you can request anonymity on your objection. I had to call up and ask specifically about this. Given the line "Anonymous comments will not be taken in to account" the website makes it sound like you just can't register an objection without having your details published which isn't the case.
You're also right about the other objectors - I presume we all asked for anonymity. But look how easy it was for the process to continue without our details being published. The council knew who we were and that we weren't all one guy from a competing restaurant so why publish anyone's details at all?
These may be complaints directed at altering the council's standard procedure and don't really help Betty. I would say that "in their entirety" may not be strong enough to let people know their signatures would be published; if you included your bank details and pin would they publish that? There may be something in the DP act making all this academic of course. We'll have to see what the Information Commissioner says...
-
-
I am not sure how this furthers the anonymity debate... but in an earlier post I was angry that when I asked for anonymity a few days after my emailed objection to licensing, I was told that it was too late and my objection had already been passed on to the applicant.
However when the objections were posted online my details had been blanked out.
At the very least licensing are inconsistent in their handling of objections and data. Obviously they wont take any notice over anonymous objections, the debate is over wether they should subsequently put personal details in the public domain.
-
-
Presuming an enforcement notice was served, Sandero clearly aren't taking any notice of it since they've just finished installing two big, open skylights in the outdoor bar area - even less noise insulation. No one from planning could look at this today and Lorcan Lynch is away until 26th. Anyone else had any luck getting an update?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
