Shelton Hotel - Update

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on February 2, 2009 at 18:57

I'm in my ex-planner mode here. I used to submit applications for approval to the planning committee for approval all the time (you never submit an application for refusal - you just refuse it). The councillors have the final say and did overturn my recommendations now and then (no comment on the quality of my decision making of course) so it really is up for grabs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on February 3, 2009 at 14:23

Curious that David Lammy's letter locates the Shelton Hotel at 60-62 WHITEMAN Road. I wonder if I write to him at Black Boy Lane will I get a response to our concerns about Wightman Road traffic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 2, 2009 at 16:32

I just rang Ian at LCSP to make sure he knew the meeting was cancelled and he mentioned to me that the same Planning Officer, Oliver Christian, who just recommened approval, recommended declining the application last year.

The difference in the applications is that this one is for 11 rooms instead of 18 and 3 floors instead of two. Do the reasons he used to explain his decision to refuse last year REALLY not apply any more?

Read his report from last year and let us know what YOU think. Birdy's already attached this year's report above.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alison P on February 2, 2009 at 17:13

Good question Hugh. I've had a look at the two verdicts. In case it helps, here is a summary of the differences this time vs last time. Comments from me IN CAPITALS!

Previous application:
The current proposal seeks the erection of rear extension to existing Shelton Hotel to create one basement level of car parking and 4 levels of hotel accommodation comprising 18 new hotel rooms with a narrow atrium space, and 5 new car park spaces which are accessed by a car park lift.

Verdict:
That the development was 'excessive' and results in 'overdevelopment of the site'.
That 'the proposal would result in adverse amenity impact on adjoining properties and the local area in general contrary to policies UD3, UD4, SPG3a & SPG3b'.

Current application:
The current proposal seeks the erection of rear extension to existing Shelton Hotel to create 3 levels of hotel accommodation, comprising 11 new hotel rooms with 5 extra car parking spaces. SO HAVE LOST ONE LEVEL AND REDUCED NUMBER OF ROOMS FROM 18 TO 11.

Verdict:
'Although the building and extensions is located on a prominent position at the junction of Burgoyne Road and Wightman Road, the proposed extensions are not considered to be excessive or to result in overdevelopment of the site.' SO THE KEY POINT HERE IS THAT THE SCALING DOWN OF THE PROPOSAL HAS MEANT PREVIOUS OBJECTIONS ABOUT SCALE ARE SEEN TO NO LONGER APPLY.
It is considered that the proposed design and alterations would not result in adverse amenity impact on adjoining properties and the local area in general, according with the aims of policies UD3, UD4. THIS CONCLUSION SEEMS TO REST ON THE BELIEF THAT THE SCALING DOWN OF THE PLANS HAS OVERTURNED RESIDENTS' OBJECTIONS ABOUT THINGS LIKE NOISE, LITTER, TRAFFIC ETC. THIS IS THE BIT THAT I DON'T BUY - THOUGH THE SCALING DOWN MIGHT BE BETTER IN TERMS OF ARCHITECTURAL MERIT (ho ho) IT STILL MEANS A HUGE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF ROOMS FOR THE HOTEL, AND SO STILL HAS CONSIDERABLE IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS.

I noticed too that the new verdict also includes a section about the fact that the hotel is close to public transport links, something that I don't think was covered in the previous report.

SORRY FOR SHOUTY CAPITALS.

For info:
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY
UD3 “General Principles”
UD4 “Quality Design”
CLT4 “Hotels, Boarding Houses and Guest Houses”
SPG 3b Privacy, Overlooking, Aspect, Outlook & Daylight, Sunlight

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 2, 2009 at 17:39

Good work Alison. You should stay at home more often!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alison P on February 2, 2009 at 19:29

Shh! (Thanks).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on February 2, 2009 at 18:50

I'm in two minds about things like this. Don't we want to encourage businesses bringing revenue into the area ? I understand the concerns about litter, noise etc, but there are mechanisms for dealing with these.

I've always wondered how many people book in under the impression that it's the London Hilton ? :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alison P on February 2, 2009 at 19:38

That's a very good point John, and I'm sure that it is one that the Council want to consider. I've two reactions, put quickly because him indoors is getting cross with me.

The first is to consider the nature of the revenue being brought into Harringay. I've no idea where the owners live (but doubt is quite this local?) so lets assume by revenue being created we are effectively talking about visitors to the hotel spending money around here and/or local people being employed as staff there. The latter point may well be relevant - perhaps a couple more jobs for cleaners and other staff? The former point I don't reallly buy - I imagine most people stay and use it as a base for central London, so can't quite see the logic for arguing that lots of dosh being brought here.

The second point is the need to balance any revenue being brought into the area with the impact that its expansion on local residents... Even if something does create jobs, is that worth a negative impact on people's lives? I'm shouting my mouth off to be honest, as I don't live on Burgoyne or any of the roads immediately aroudn it. I feel strongly about it, because I'd hate it being at the top of my road, but I'm sure there are others better placed than me to talk about the negative consequences of living near the Shelton.

Do also bear in mind that from the accounts we've seen on places like Tripadvisor and from people who live very near to the hotel, the quality of the place itself is pretty bad - so I doubt you've got that many people leaving it with a loving feeling about good ol' Green Lanes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Birdy_Too on February 2, 2009 at 20:00

From what I have seen they do a roaring trade in local authority accommodation at our expense. If they were to offer good budget accommodation I wouldn't be complain.

The trip advisor reviews are appalling, two exerts:
Avoid this place like the plage!
This 'hotel' is awful!
The hotel comes 956th out of 1178 hotels in London

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alison P on February 3, 2009 at 13:39

Is that right B2, your point about the B&B accommodation funded by local authorities? I've heard it said often enough but wasn't sure how true it was. If it is true, then might that explain Haringey's about turn, a desire for more accommodation??

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alison P on February 21, 2009 at 20:56

Just a belated note to say that permission for the extension was declined again.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 22, 2009 at 1:04

Thanks for letting us know Alison.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page