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 Don on
-
There was speculation earlier that the de facto (and presumably illegal) change of classification of the premises to a restaurant could mean the owners made more money from selling them on than if the previous use as retail premises was still the relevant classification. So is this still a danger, even though Sira has stopped trading and the lease reverted to the landlords? Are we now destined always to have a mega-restaurant on the site, or does the planning category revert to the previous use?
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
Yes and seeing what Hugh has written below, don't think this one is going away. Maybe the restaurant owner & the property owner have a close connection ... new business/restaurant name, doors reopen quietly again in the new year, ... maybe.
-
-
Matt - I don't know who owned/ran Sira, but, as I say below, there does appear to be a close connection between the property owners and an existing restaurant business elesewhere.
-
Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on
-
The repossession notice appears to refer to #14 & #15 Grand Parade. The restaurant occupies #13,#14,. What is the current situation concerning #13, does anybody know? This has all the hall marks of a protracted saga surrounding it.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
The planning application for a restaurant across three shops was refused. This refusal applies to the premises not the applicant. So there can't be a legal restaurant across all three premises unless a further application is made and approved. A single premises restaurant is possible under permitted development however.
-
-
It seems quite odd. It’s 1.30 in the morning. All the places on Green Lanes are closed, but Sira’s signahevis still all lit up.
-
-
In the meantime, the planning application to extend both the commercial premises on the ground floor and the residential above has been approved. All very odd.
-
-
The planning application appears to have been made in the name of a property company, apparently worth many millions, and a named director who, amongst other things, is also a director of a company that operates (maybe owns) two restaurants, one in Winchmore Hill and the other in Harlesden. This might suggest that catering is intended to be a continuing element of the eventual development.
On the plans, the proposed flats on the Salisbury Road side do look as though they would improve on the appearance of the present rather grotty yard, but - s106 requirements in the permission and provision of copious bicycle spaces notwithstanding - I can't see them being at affordable prices. It's hard to see many people wanting to live above the vehicle service entrance to whatever the Grand Parade premises become next, and clearly Alice and others are already having to endure the unpleasantness of the existng set-up.
-
-
That planning application entirely passed me by. Interesting to note that in the documents they refer to the ground floor as Commercial A1 (shops) not A3 (restaurant).
All a bit curious though.
-
-
I only know from involvement with the council after the carbon monoxide affair that they were served a prohibition notice on use of the charcoal grill under the Health and Safety at work act after the Carbon monoxide readings taken registered above the advised limit for employees to be exposed to during a working day. This didn't prevent the restaurant from trading but they have been closed since the notice was served. I presumed the main cooking source being out of use, the impending planning enforcement to remove the shopfront in it's entirety as well as the inevitable expense of having to repair their extractor systems has resulted in their permanent closure. I am equally curious to understand what will happen to the frontage now - if it can just be sold on for this to happen again and who is liable for it's repair?
On another topic, we are struggling to get re-reimbursement for our rent for the period where the flat was uninhabitable because of the monoxide leak. The landlord has agreed to pay expenses (though hasn't yet) for additional accommodation (which we had to organise ourselves) but is claiming they aren't liable to reimburse rent for the period, despite the flat being uninhabitable. Does this sound kosher/stand from a legal perspective does anyone know?
-
-
To be honest I don't think there is normally a requirement to refund rent and also pay for alternative accommodation if the property becomes uninhabitable. It is normally one or the other, not both.
Have a look at your tenancy agreement, it will normally fall under Landlord's obligations or similar.
-
-
I concur with Andrew. You either get your rent refunded or alternative accommodation, but not both.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
