Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Tricky dealing as Kinleigh Folkard Hayward rides roughshod over community interest
The claims of estate agents Kinleigh Folkard Hayward to being upstanding corporate citizens and even community champions are ringing very hollow in Harringay today.
Despite the proud boast of Kinleigh Folkard Hayward to be "bringing your city to life", the tricky dealings by the London estate agents seem to suggest that community interest and community wellbeing are of little concern to them.
Back in July this year, Salisbury boss Dave, heard rumours that the office premises next to Tesco, on the corner of St Ann's Road and Salisbury Road (originally leased for a KFH office), was to be sublet by Kinleigh Folkard Hayward to a betting shop operator.
There's strong awareness in the neighbourhood that we have about as many betting shops as any high street could bear. So I was keen to find an alternative letting solution. I'd heard about a couple of London examples recently when the community had approached either a betting shop operator, or a landlord and persuaded them not to open a betting shop. Given the case to be made for Green Lanes having a surfeit of betting shops, I suggested to Rob Chau of Harringay Traders that an approach be made to KFH.
I felt that there must be a solution that would satisfy KFH's legitimate commercial requirements whilst also delivering on community interest.
Rob picked up the baton and passed things over to the GLA team involved on the Green Lanes regeneration project. As summer progressed and turned to Autumn, all seemed to be going well. GLA supported plans had been hatched to let the shop and use it as a community pop-up space for an interim period.
About a week ago Rob told me that negotiations had progressed well and that the arrangements for a community pop-up shop were about to be finalised. Then out of the blue yesterday, the Haringey Council licensing team received an application for a licence to operate the premises as a betting shop.
My first thought was that perhaps the betting shop operator had made a speculative application in the hope that they would come to terms with KFH. I haven't completely abandoned hope of this being the case. We don't know for sure that it's not. But, when I spoke to Rob Chau early this morning he told me, "It's 90% certain that KFH have decided to lease to the betting shop. You don't submit a licensing application unless you're certain you have a premises to licence". Then Councillor Nilgun Canver told me, "Kinleigh Folkard Hayward abandoned our proposals and the licensing application is being progressed".
It seems like bad news. It seems like KFH could reasonably face accusations not only of riding roughshod over community interest, but also of what might at best be described as a rather tricky approach to negotiating with a local community.
Rob Chau commented, "I'm very disappointed. No one from KFH has bothered to visit. They just don't care. This is only a commercial issue for them."
"They've been very two-faced. They put on a community face and got involved in drawn out discussions and negotiations; with the other face, they did a deal against community interest.
I asked Dave at the Salisbury what he thought of the way KFH had conducted themselves, "I think it's disgusting. It's really disgusting. We really don't need another betting shop. I'm not happy at all"
Those of you who caught my angry tweets last night might suspect that I'm keen to see if we can get together as a community to fight this. You'd be right! I respect KFH's right to make a commercial decision, but there must be a way, where between them, the GLA, the Council and the community we can come up with a solution where we're all winners.
If KFH truly have shut the door on negotiation, then there are a range of options open for fighting this. More over the next few days.
Tags for Forum Posts: betting, gambling, kfh, kinleigh folkard hayward
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Eddie I reckon you're right that the applicant is Paddy Power.
They were seen off from Everybody's Music, opposite Seven Sister's tube station. That was another prime site, on a corner of two busy roads. The only sticking point was that it represented a (Planning) change of use. PP were so keen to get it that they appealed to the Planning Inspector but were still turned down. The inspector supported the council's original refusal.
It's a sign of the times that Paddy Power, a listed company, did surpass the Bank of Ireland in market capitalisation.
The Coliseum ground floor premises aren't a change of use and it won't be subject to Planning legislation: only subject to the the bookie-friendly Gambling Act: the last government's great gift to gambling.
I understand the Coliseum is a mixture of rented and long-leasehold. Most or all are likely to oppose this latest move by the gambling "industry".
PP should not be allowed to say at a later date, that no one objected. Even though the result of any Hearing is, for the reason above, a forgone conclusion, I am convinced this Application will be the subject of much scrutiny and publicity - and criticism.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
We see things differently, John. I think the right decision was made at the time. There was a chance that a negotiated outcome could have been reached where we all would have been winners.
My default position isn't to open discussions with a gun held to the other party's head.
We tried. It failed. We move on.
What we could have achieved through pressure then, we can achieve now. We've not lost anything. KFH have. They've lost the chance to show that they are serious about being decent corporate citizens. If they've done what I'm told they have, then to me they look shabby and wholly disreputable.
-
-
Hugh I'm not quite sure why your focus is largely on KFH. Pehaps you can expand.
I accept that in introducing a betting shop as a sub-lessee, KFH are not acting in the community interest but rather, in their own interest, as we should expect. KFH are a for-profit enterprise and not a charity. If KFH have ever implied or claimed they act in the community interest, this can always be laughed off as PR marketing flannel. There is no reason to expect anything different from estate agents. It's a lawful commercial deal.
I hold no brief for KFH or for estate agents, but surely KFH are simply acting as agents for KFC and in particular, are acting lawfully? Moreover, Paddy Power - if it is they and much as I find them distasteful - would be acting lawfully.
At a Hearing, the Applicants and their expensive briefs will appear earnest and sincere, but will privately be smug as can be.They will get their Premises Licence for the simple reason that the law is 99% on their side. We know that any Hearing is a charade and that the council's licensing team are obliged to go through the motions.
Until the Gambling Act receives deep reform we can, unfortunately, expect more of the same. David Lammy MP may be able to help in this regard.
Meanwhile, we don't have to make it easy for new betting shops. I will try to help Objectors as much as I can.
-
-
The reason is quite straightforward, Clive. Your primary interest is seeking longer term change to the legislative framework that allows situations like this one to occur. Whilst, as you know, I share those goals, the immediate issue for me here is the wellbeing of our neighbourhood.
The ship of state will not be turned quickly enough to achieve that end. A privately owned company has the free will to deliver us from the downsides of yet another betting shop.
My views and expectations of private companies also differ from yours, Clive. You seem to expect corporate decisions made in spite of 'community interest' as a default position. I see things less darkly. There is a good part of the corporate population that, for a variety of reasons, understands the benefits of a shared value approach, and tries hard to be in tune with 'community interest'. From the information I have at this point in time, KfH do not appear to be of that group. However, let us all hope that on Monday we are shown to be wrong, that this is all a misunderstanding and in fact the commercial team at KfH are poised over a contract with the GLA ready to sign a lease for 11 Salisbury as an interim community pop-up shop and then to work hard with us to find a longer-term win-win solution.
If the company has behaved, as I am currently led to believe that it has, then we can only hope that a lack of understanding has led to this poor decision. If so, this should be easy to remedy. Should that prove not to be that case, since we won't change Government policy before Christmas, we can only hope that we might find a way to persuade KfH to support a local community with which and in which it works so hard to do business.
-
Permalink Reply by L F T Snowflake on
-
I think you will find they have already taken steps to prevent that.
-
Permalink Reply by Rory Bergin on
-
To stay in business on Green Lanes, presumably KFH need residential customers. Is there anything unlawful about residents deciding en bloc not to use their services for sales or rentals, and to refuse to allow anyone to buy their properties through them. Estate Agents need residents to view them positively to promote sales activities and this will be a massive own goal for them if it goes ahead. We need to let them know that we are all very unhappy about this but do so in a way that hurts them financially.
-
Permalink Reply by Karen Alexander on
-
Another betting shop! Feeling as disappointed and angry as everyone else about this. Will write to KFH and support any campaign to make the community's views known to KFH. The worst thing for all of us, including me as an elected representative of this community ,is the knowledge that because of this blessed Gambling legislation there is very little we can do. Maybe an onslaught of people power again KFH will get the message across that Harringay is a community not to be messed with!
-
-
I don't think there's anything to prevent a boycott of Kinleigh Folkard & Hayward if residents felt inclined. But then, for all I know, KFH may be excellent as estate agents and, what would be the point of a boycott?
KFH are just a bit player in the bigger picture. If it hadn't been KFH who'd been the agent, it would likely have been some other estate agent.
Paul Simon, who own the building, currently have a large hoarding up on the side of the building advertising commercial premises, so it's unlikely KFH was the sole agent in any event.
Presumably, the present and pressing need of Kentucky Fried Chicken, is to find a sub-lessee for the commercial premises, zoned A1 & A2. If KFH disappeared, another agent would likely replace them and they would be happy to have the business.
Due to the prime location and the obscene profitability of addictive Fixed Odds Betting Terminals, the top dollar can and will be paid by premises licenced for gambling.
Regardless of whichever firm of estate agents happens involved, sadly, these premises are always likely to be used as a betting shop, under current legislation.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
You are right Clive but isn't the alternative just to do nothing bar protest against the application in the knowledge that it will be fruitless? Personally I think it is worth showing landlords that their decisions have consequences for the local community.
-
-
Clive, I think you may misunderstand. KFH aren't just the agents here. They are the lessees. They are acting as agents on their own behalf. They are subletting space which they originally leased for use as KFH offices. Even if they asked another agent to act for them, it is still they who are lessors in this instance and they, and only they, who decide the identity of the lessee.
I hadn't realised you weren't aware of that, but also see that I wasn't completely clear on this fact in in my original post.
-
-
Hugh, where do Kentucky Fried Chicken fit in? Are you saying that Paul Simon originally leased the space to KFH (another estate agent)?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
