Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

Tapas Bar, Wightman Road - Application for a Veranda/Deck to go with the New French Doors

There's an application [HGY/2009/0661] to construct a deck to face onto Wightman Road adjacent to the junction with Railway Approach:

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...

Is it a good idea? Well, presumably, it's on land belonging to the restaurant - are there any rights of way around the corner? It will involve narrowing access and vehicles will no longer be able to mount the pavement there [a good thing but not for the shop]. Clearly, there'll be tables on the deck in the warm weather for the smokers and Cafe Society eating - potential for noise issues with drinking and late opening, not good if you need to sleep and there are loud goodbyes and car horns at 12:30am. Are there any pollution issues? Mainly for the inhalation of exhaust fumes I would think. Will it create an improved ambience on the corner? Possibly. Will the appearance be aesthetically pleasing? Have a look at the plans! My intuition is that I'm positive about the idea subject to very tight conditions around noise and niusance, what do you think?

Tags for Forum Posts: la vina

Views: 743

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

james walshPermalink Reply by james walsh on June 14, 2009 at 23:10
Very good points made by AOE
why can't these possibilities be explored ? (raised pavement area etc)
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on June 16, 2009 at 14:42
True, Adrian, the proposed deck area is (almost certainly) land within the property area of No.3, as indeed the continuing frontage of Nos.5&7 is within their property - in much the same way as all our walled off front 'gardens' belong to us.

However, my argument in favour of M.K.&Sons at No.7 would be more one from 'use and custom' over 20+ years in their case, and that of their predecessors back to the time of Messrs Dawes at No.7 and Messrs Durant at No.3 a century earlier. In the case of M.K.&Sons' Grocers that use and custom has consisted of two or three weekly deliveries from the wholesalers using their own van. I think that has established the 'prescribed rights' on which the brothers have based their objection and on which I have made mine.

A look at three of the paired photos of this stretch of Wightman Road in Hugh & Alistair's Then & Now Album may be of interest. Clearly this short 'mall' of shops, like those opposite (from the Railway bar/Shelton Hotel to Umfreville Rd and between Umfreville & Atterbury Rds) has been devoid of any fixed obstuction or extension since the area was built 120+ years ago. Instead what we see are three uninterrupted and well-paved frontages with a succession of attractive shop fronts each shaded by an equally attractive awning.

Surely a strong 120+ year-old argument, ab hac urbe condita, for not allowing some tatty permanent obstructive extension now ?

At least two of the above posts argue for allowing La Vina its decking as a means of safeguarding the future of a local business. Precisely my reason for opposing their decking as an obstruction to the future of a local business.

M.K.&Sons Grocer/Off Licence/Newsagent is the last "corner" shop serving the Wightman Rd community until you reach the Ser Aydin "supermarket" a kilometre away at No.280 on the corner of Hampden Rd. (The nearest shop is the newly named 'Istanbul' Greengrocer/Off Licence across the (very steep) railway bridge on Quernmore Road by Stroud Green Library.)

No doubt all three of those local 'malls' have fallen on evil days as far as external appearance and vibrant business is concerned. (I wonder why!) No doubt, also, La Vina is the most attractive and vibrant of the whole lot. Let's make sure their plans for their own success (by attracting smoking diners) doesn't make life and business more difficult for their longer established neighbours.
btw: Is there any budding business(wo)man out there who would like to rent or buy No.5 Wightman Rd for some venture to appeal to the discerning residents and the passing commuter trade? Your success could help spur both La Vina and M.K.&Sons to raise their game.

Finally, Adrian, we are not going to remove those other parking 'obstacles'. They are the only two mature trees surviving over several hundred yards of Wightman Road!
Permalink Reply by DavidJ on June 16, 2009 at 16:46
But delivery vans can park on Station Approach.

I'm, not sure that the argument that the development should be blocked on the grounds that we want vehicles to be able to drive on the pavement is all that appealing.
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on June 17, 2009 at 18:44
It should come down to the opinions of those living opposite and around La Vina. On one hand anything that improves that horrible area of cracked tarmac outside should be welcomed BUT there area is residentially dense. Would those in the housing association block opposite next to St Pauls, those in Mermaid Court and the people on Wightman Road find this intrusive? Peronally I'd love it but I live a five minute walk away!
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on June 18, 2009 at 11:53
Michael, I'd agree with you that normally objections to planning applications should be entertained only from residents, traders etc in the immediate neighbourhood. My main concern was to highlight, as part of this thread, the strong view of La Vina's immediate neighbour and to support their case as a long established family business serving the area. I trust that Council Planning will have consulted residents of Dixon & Mermaid Courts in the usual manner two months ago.
Permalink Reply by Birdy_Too on June 18, 2009 at 12:12
Oh the pain it must cause to carry a few boxers of Quavers an extra ten-foot to Station approach.

I am not in the immediate vicinity but from the arguments put forward so far, I think the pros far outweigh the cons, just my opinion mind.
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on June 17, 2009 at 19:18
No need to apologise, Adrian. Similarly, no need to suspect my real motivation. This springs from the fact that I speak to the shopkeepers every day, and that I agree with them that a permanent extension (tatty or tidy or a pavilion of Kubla Khan proportions) on that spot would be, unlike the parked car, an obstruction to their occasional deliveries.
As for my little forays into Wightman history, or flights of imagination, they just come from my long held feelings for the section of road I live on and its dwindling assets (including our 'corner' shop). My real motivation, of course, was that the planning application should be discussed, as WightmanPaul intended. So thanks for joining in.
Permalink Reply by Caroline on June 16, 2009 at 16:55
I've still got some dry cleaning in number 5 .....rather moth eaten by now I expect
Permalink Reply by WightmanPaul on June 18, 2009 at 13:31
The planning application for the current work seems to be:

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on June 18, 2009 at 17:03
Well, Paul, at least their extension is on the back lower ground floor. Shouldn't interrupt their neighbours' deliveries!!
With one more cafe/restaurant biting the dust, all the more important to support our own La Vina - not by extending the front but by making sure it's crowded out every night. Now, if they'd just open up at lunchtime, with a limited menu from 12 to 2.30, reduced for OAP's or even OAE's, and open for Sunday lunch, I'm sure they'd find it worthwhile. Meanwhile, I hope everyone who has doughtily defended their deck extension patronises La Vina at least as often as I do (about ten or twelve times a year, usually with family or visitors) ???
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on June 18, 2009 at 18:52
Hear hear
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on July 15, 2009 at 15:00
Latest on La Vina's deck application (HGY/2009/0661):

Letter from Paul Smith, Head of Development Management South, dated (curiously) 13/07/2009:

". . . . . after taking into consideration relevant planning policies and the comments of local residents the Council has on 14/07/2009 REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The proposed decking, due to its size and placement, would detract from the freeflow and safety of pedestrian movement as well as impede access to Harringay Station. This would (be) contrary to Policies UD3 'General Principles', M2 'Public Transport Networks', M4 'Pedestrian and Cyclists' and M5 'Protection, Improvement and Creation of Pedestrian and Cycle Routes' of the Unitary Development Plan 2006.

2. The proposed decking, by allowing patrons to be outside during opening hours, would result in increased noise disturbance to nearby residents contrary to Policies UD3 'General Principles' and ENV6 'Noise Pollution' of the Unitary Development Plan 2006. . . . ."

So then, permission refused - though not for any of the arguments advanced by me or my Newsagents' Corner Shop. Truly, the gods of Haringey Planning and Regeneration write exceedingly straight on crooked lines! Over to La Vina for the Appeal.

With all due respect to my bicycling roadsharers, I hope the reference to the 'Improvement and Creation of Pedestrian and Cycle Routes', coupled with the current ongoing lowering of footway kerbs on Wightman, does NOT mean that our footways are now the new Official Cycle Paths.

RSS

Advertising

© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service