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 Michael Anderson on
-
Once the appeal is lodged there is an assumption of innocence on the part of the appellant until the case is decided by the planning inspectorate.
In the most extreme cases where there is irreparable damage to a property or the operation is causing major problems, an authority can issue a Stop Notice where the work or operation must crease immediately. It’s not something that is done very often (it may be done to prevent the demotion of an historically important building for instance) because if a Stop Notice was issued and trading ceased the owners may be able to make a claim to cover their losses during the period leading up the appeal decision if they won the appeal.
I think that perhaps a more effective route is the danger the operation poses to staff, customers and residents due to the discovery of carbon monoxide. Is it worth talking to the Heath and Safety Executive to see what powers there may be to investigate this?
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Michael, on a quick skim of the notice Alice linked to above, it looks like the restaurant missed the appeal deadline. Have I understood that correctly?
-
-
Should have looked more closely at Alice's post! Not even being able to submit an appeal in time makes me wonder about the agent who has been acting in this case (unless they were telling the applicant it wasn't even worth bothering with of course!)
The Planning Inspectorate's letter is dated end of last week so doubt it was looked at until Monday morning
I would suggest that Alice and others involved get ward councillors involved to push this as a priority case given the other factors and the potential for harm.
-
Permalink Reply by JulieB on
-
Thank you for the update Alice.
Like you I hope swift action is taken and the tenents can safely move back home soon.
-
Permalink Reply by Graham Charnock on
-
It's fairly incredible that tenants should be inconvenienced in this way. I wonder if they have any grounds for private litigation, perhaps if only to claim damages for mental anguish. If this was America I suspect Sira would be smacked with a big lawsuit.
-
Permalink Reply by 1vut8bf3om5m9 on
-
I wonder if they have any grounds for private litigation.
Possibly from the facts as presented--but this would also require confirmation of one other factual matter concerning who actually is the landlord.
It would not be a tort theory cause of action (what you call mental anguish). The only ostensible tort would be nuisance but that is one hard and expensive row to hoe. I gave it serious consideration once when a service garage next to my flat took to painting cars in the open air once upon a time.
Action on the eviction and, cheapest of all--the actions of government agencies are the best avenues.
BTW I don't hover over the premises like a buzzard, but when I do pass by I tend to observe it would seem to have a revenue problem. How long can the place stay open when it's clearly losing money?
-
-
I worry about the word 'eviction'. In was obviously not an eviction as such under common landlord and tenant law, which would have taken months to progress.The action of the Gas Board was obviously taken under Health & Safety considerations, in that they deemed the place uninhabitable and a health risk. They would have obtained some sort of order under whatever legal procedures were available to them. It's galling that they are not able to slap some similar process on the proprietors of Sira and close them down immediately. Okay they make not have gas (which I find unbelieveable), but other emergency health and safety procedures must be available to the council. Maybe conspiracy theorists will suggest it is because Sira has friends in High Places.
-
-
More likely.
-
-
My bad. Evacuation more appropriate.
Our letting agency (who deserve a medal for how long they’ve spent on the phone to the council throughout all this) took action right away to get us out and have rightly been unwilling to let us back until there is proper proof it is safe.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Spill the beans, who are your letting agency?
-
-
Hi Tris, I am a litigator of 20 years. Maybe there is some free service to make this or that claim, but I have found time and time again that a summons works better than anything else and I see more defendants on the face of these facts than just an insurer. And certainly a lot faster.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
