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 Hugh on
-
It's not a naive question, Laura. It's a very good one. As things stand the Council has rather limited traditional powers to shape what's in the high street. This is particularly true with betting shops. Unfortunately, the last Government introduced new legislation that has made it extremely difficult for either the community or the Council to influence whether there are betting shops in an area and how many there are.
Having said that, there are councils who are using a range of imaginative approaches to shape their high streets. In one area, the Council offers a range of support to encourage 'high quality' tenants, including temporary rates relief, marketing support etc. Really it's up to the Council. They need to decide how important our high streets are and work with businesses and locals to find solutions).
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Laura, since the Gambling Act (2005), neither courts, councils nor communities have any meaningful say on preventing the opening of unlimited numbers of betting shops.
The theory behind the misguided Act, is that betting shops should be limited only by the marketplace, i.e. competitive pressure between betting shops. In Green Lanes we are heading for 10 betting shops with possibly one not renewing their lease. Tipico will have a real prime site, which could take enough business enough "business" from the others to tip one over the edge of loss.
We are at the point of super-saturation.
The Act directs Licensing Authorities to aim to permit. This makes as much sense as directing driving test examiners to aim to permit, instead of passing some objective test. If a learner driver doesn't actually kill others in the test, they should be awarded a licence. I suppose that if putative premises were between a kindergarten and a sheltered workshop, there is in theory, a slight chance that a Licence could be declined.
However, the award of Licences has overwhelmingly become a rubber stamp exercise. The cost of hiring a barrister to help put their case is a relatively trivial cost of establishing the business.
IMO, harassing Kinleigh Folkard Hayward would be a waste of time, and barking up the wrong tree. It's important to remember that currently, both they and Tipico are acting perfectly legally and we have the Act to thank for that.
-
Permalink Reply by L F T Snowflake on
-
Which is why the target should be Tipico. They have to be persuaded that we don't want another betting shop in the area - thats if we don't.
-
-
We should certainly seek to influence Tipico. However, only experience will tell just how responsive a Maltese company with most of its operations in Germany will be.
-
-
Tipico may well already know that most locals don't want another betting shop in the area. I don't think they're any more likely to be dissuaded than the average business would be, if offered the chance of making a fortune - lawfully.
Having doubtless carefully researched the area and having seen what a honey pot it is for nearly one dozen premises, they will be smacking their lips at the prospect of the shed loads of money they will 'earn' after they get their licence.
The legal advice this overseas concern will also doubtless prudently have taken, will have been that, thanks to the Act, the award of a Licence is all but certain.
They will end up with the most high-profile, prominent "betting" shop on the Green Lanes Gambling Strip. IMO, their Application should still be opposed.
-
Permalink Reply by 1p2elqvr6fe2z on
-
Clive and Veggie Reggie,
May I differ here, KFH is deffinitely worth contacting at director level and going to their Putney HQ. They do a lot of business in MH and CE and a campaign is worth mounting. They are or were certainly one of the better letting agencies. It's their lease they re subletting.
Boycotting KFH would affect them at this unsettling time and all community pressure and press pressure should be mounted.
Best wishes
Lynne
-
-
I tend to agree, but its got to be a whole campaign, not just against them, but also Tipico and indeed any planning consultants they use, etc, etc. Go back to the comments I made about the Walterton Estate. The campaign was often reported to have been co-ordinated by Militant Tendency and they were ruthless.
If the people here are determined to stop this betting shop, then they have to take the gloves off.
-
-
Because the ground floor is zoned A1 and A2, there is no change of use and therefore, under current legislation, there are no planning issues.
If taking the gloves off means undertaking illegal actions, then this will only help the Applicant, Tipico, who have done nothing unlawful and who are likey to be scrupulously careful with their Application.
It is likely that most, if not all, councillors on the Licensing Committee will privately sympathise with residents. But their hands are tied.
The Licensing Committee will be (or have already been) advised by the council's legal officers, that they must approve the Application. The process is a farce and a charade. Any refusal would almost certainly be appealed by Tipico, with the council losing and high costs awarded against them.
The law is 99% on the side of the gambling "industry".
But this Application should not go unchallenged.
-
-
No, no illegal action is being proposed here!
-
Permalink Reply by Protheroe O'Shea on
-
Is there any possibility in doing and HOL petition and passing it on to KFH?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
