Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Owners of Proposed Triple Restaurant in former Fairline/Class A Premises Finally Come Clean
The owners of the almost complete new restaurant in the former Fairline/Class A premises have been pretending for the last year or so that their project was anything but a new restaurant. They even had their agent come on HoL to protest their innocence with regard to any such move.
Of course anyone with half a mind didn't believe them for a moment and they've now finally come clean and have applied for retrospective planning permission.
There are very sound grounds for objection to this development given in Haringey's planning policy and one hopes that the Council will make proper and fair use of these in making their planning determination.
Local objections, particularly those that can be linked to policy are taken into account and do make a difference. Any resident can object. I am attaching a copy of the LCSP's objection which makes clear which policies can be referenced for your objection.
If you'd like to object, or support, the application, you can do so via the planning pages of Haringey's website here, using the "Comment on Application" button towards the bottom of the page. (EDIT: I made a comment essentially just supporting the LCSP's statement in its entirety).
See the tag below for all other related posts.
Tags for Forum Posts: fairline
- Attachments:
-
-
972730.pdf, 75 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alice on
-
Interesting to learn this. I'd previously let our letting agency of the building work so will be doing so again. My main concerns are regarding safety above all else but it is useful to have this knowledge should we ever get to a discussion on that front!
-
-
Yes- on Michaels advice I'm going to get in touch. I've (luckily) never had a scenario like this so was unaware it was even an option!
-
-
Hi tris- its some relief to learn this. There's a distinct metallic smell when I've had my window open on and it's active. I'm hoping if it is sealed as you mention, it's because it's new and working overtime in the current hot weather but I'm glad it not exposing us to anything untoward by design.
-
-
This "change of use" does have a direct impact on you in the sense that residential properties above restaurants are often unable to get insurance because of living directly above kitchens. Similarly, mortgage companies won't loan money against those properties. You should also alert your landlord to this aspect and make sure they complain too. I agree with Michael that cracked skirtings and dodgily fitted a/c are Building Control matters not Planning matters.....
-
-
Thanks Antoinette I wasn't aware of the insurance impact so this is good to know. I have let our letting agent know of these issues previously but will be doing so again. I wanted to make mention of them in my comment of the application purely to emphasise the evidence of bad practice but knew there was probably a more appropriate channel to do so as well. I'm lucky to not have been faced with a scenario like this before so I'm really greatful for the knowledge and suggestion I've received here!
-
-
There was reference to the shop front being in breach. What was that in respect of, does anyone know?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Can you give any more detail Andrew? Was it in this thread somewhere?
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
The owners made an application in respect of the shop front last year. The Council's decision notice explaining the reasons for refusal is attached. They seem to have pretty much done what they were told they couldn't do anyway. Go figure.
- Attachments:
-
-
891561.pdf, 30 KB
-
-
-
Thanks, so they were looking to put folding doors right across the front and it was refused.
It was interesting reading the Officer's report, the reasons they give for declining the application would largely apply to this current application too.
"There does not appear to be separate doorways for each unit which suggests a single, integrated use for which the site(s) do not have planning permission. In addition there is no break between the units including the fascia signage which extends across the units in one large strip sign, contrary to the above SPD which states that ‘new shopfronts should be contained within the width of the building they occupy and should not extend over two or more original plot widths’ ... the proposed single shopfront across three units (without separate entranceways) would facilitate a ‘significant break’ in the A1 retail frontage and as such is contrary to Saved UDP policy TCR3."
-
-
Thanks. So even as far back as June 2016 they were applying for permission for a single, three unit business even though they continually maintained that the three units were self contained!
-
-
Yes it's been ongoing. They even had someone join HoL a year back to present their case. It was palpable nonsense, but I left him be whilst he was being civil and kicked him off when he started being unpleasant.
-
-
Remember the chap. Charmer.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
