Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
513 (The old Nationwide Bank) Green Lanes- another betting shop?
This in from the LCSP:
You may recall that in July the LCSP alerted residents to the proposed change of use at the above address (formerly Nationwide). The previous permission, dating from 1979, only allowed building society use within the A2 category, and the applicant sought an ‘open’ A2 use instead (HGY/2009/1091).
The LCSP opposed this on the grounds that it could then become a betting shop. Taking into account the LCSP’s comments, LBH Planning (to their great credit) only allowed A2 use for Financial and Professional Services, thereby excluding betting shop use.
However the applicants are now appealing against this decision via the Planning Inspectorate. This can only mean that they believe they have a good chance of letting the premises as a betting shop or - worse - that they even have such a client lined up already.
If you are concerned by this prospect, please object (see below)!
Best wishes
Ian Sygrave,Chair LCSP
Appeal Reference: APP/Y5420/A/09/2114900/NWF
Objections to:
By post: The Planning Inspectorate, 3/01 Kite Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN
Must be sent in triplicate (ie 3 copies) by 30 November (submissions received after this date will not be accepted), explaining reasons for objecting and quoting the numbers above.
Internet:
Look for the section on appeals and enter the appeal reference (last 7 digits only, follow the instructions, they seem quite clear).
Points to bear in mind when writing your letter of objection:
- This is a Planning Appeal: reasons for objecting must therefore be on Planning grounds. These do not include issues such as effect on property values, personal opinions or moral/religious arguments about gambling, which is a lawful activity.
- strictly speaking, over-supply of gambling outlets in Green Lanes in not a Planning issue either, but with 7 betting shops and an Adult Gaming Centre already there, a case could be made for a ‘tipping point’ in terms of loss of amenity.
- the strongest focus in planning terms should be on the character and appearance of the area, noise and disturbance, effect of viability/vitality of shopping centre, loss of amenity for local residents, possible noise, light pollution, gathering of customers outside premises (smoking etc).
- we strongly support LBH Planning in limiting the use to Financial and Professional Services only, as being more in keeping with the needs of the local area.
You may recall that in July the LCSP alerted residents to the proposed change of use at the above address (formerly Nationwide). The previous permission, dating from 1979, only allowed building society use within the A2 category, and the applicant sought an ‘open’ A2 use instead (HGY/2009/1091).
The LCSP opposed this on the grounds that it could then become a betting shop. Taking into account the LCSP’s comments, LBH Planning (to their great credit) only allowed A2 use for Financial and Professional Services, thereby excluding betting shop use.
However the applicants are now appealing against this decision via the Planning Inspectorate. This can only mean that they believe they have a good chance of letting the premises as a betting shop or - worse - that they even have such a client lined up already.
If you are concerned by this prospect, please object (see below)!
Best wishes
Ian Sygrave,Chair LCSP
Appeal Reference: APP/Y5420/A/09/2114900/NWF
Objections to:
By post: The Planning Inspectorate, 3/01 Kite Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN
Must be sent in triplicate (ie 3 copies) by 30 November (submissions received after this date will not be accepted), explaining reasons for objecting and quoting the numbers above.
Internet:
Look for the section on appeals and enter the appeal reference (last 7 digits only, follow the instructions, they seem quite clear).
Points to bear in mind when writing your letter of objection:
- This is a Planning Appeal: reasons for objecting must therefore be on Planning grounds. These do not include issues such as effect on property values, personal opinions or moral/religious arguments about gambling, which is a lawful activity.
- strictly speaking, over-supply of gambling outlets in Green Lanes in not a Planning issue either, but with 7 betting shops and an Adult Gaming Centre already there, a case could be made for a ‘tipping point’ in terms of loss of amenity.
- the strongest focus in planning terms should be on the character and appearance of the area, noise and disturbance, effect of viability/vitality of shopping centre, loss of amenity for local residents, possible noise, light pollution, gathering of customers outside premises (smoking etc).
- we strongly support LBH Planning in limiting the use to Financial and Professional Services only, as being more in keeping with the needs of the local area.
Tags for Forum Posts: 513 Green Lanes, betting shops
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Green Lanes is also a residential area, there are large numbers of people who live on it as well as shop and work on it. They may argue the same thing that they do not want an increase in litter, noise and other things that affect their quality of life They may also feel they have a right to expect a certain standard on their streetjust as much as on the side roads.
-
-
N, I used to go in them before I had kids. I used to bet on the dogs and play the bingo game. I used the William Hill and the Ladbrokes up near Umfreville (now gone). I can't provide photos but I used them. I don't now. I have no money for a start.
I spent many Saturday mornings in them, I don't have a personal distaste for betting shops, just 4 of them at the bottom of the road. You are making assumptions again.
I hate litter full stop. I never cease complaining about it. Take a look at my blog pages! I write to complain about all litter. I am a community volunteer campaigning for cleaner streets for and from all.
You may be right about our arguments not being strong enough but that will not stop me trying.
-
Permalink Reply by DavidJ on
-
No-one is suggesting getting rid of all the betting shops - but it does seem entirely clear that we don't need any more. We need more diversity on Green Lanes, not less.
-
-
It sounds like you are conceding that protecting and promoting diversity of amenity is a planning issue.
Most of us probably feel that reducing this kind of activity no bad thing either:
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/whereilive/northlondon/tottenham...
http://cms.met.police.uk/met/boroughs/haringey/04how_are_we_doing/n...
I can't imagine why anyone not involved in the trade would think that more betting shops is a good thing. I personally like book shops, but I can see that we don't really need more than 4 on our bit of Green Lanes.
-
Permalink Reply by Mei Wang on
-
Hello,
I picked up your discussions on gambling which I found interesting as you were both personally averse to gambling but have opinions from opposing sides of the spectrum.
Sustainable communities require there to be balanced and careful consideration of different types of business for a thriving, vibrant and safe community. Gambling, while not uncommon across different communities, do pose various problems for a healthy community. Research has shown that gambling is an addiction that brings with it the same problems as alcohol and drug abuse. Areas where populations are affected by social deprivation is especially at risk with those most vulnerable likely to be susceptible to the negative aspects of gambling such as serious personal debt, breakdown in family relationships associated with addiction and anxiety or depression. All these lead to social breakdown and with it come poverty and crime. Please do have a look at http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/interim_g....
I personally would not like to see more gambling shops than there already exist in our community, whether along Green Lanes, Wood Green or any other part of Haringey. I also appreciate we will never be rid of them as they are licensed as legitimate businesses. However, if Haringey and its inhabitants are to have a fighting chance of building a safe and thriving community we should limit the negative elements such as gambling as much as possible. -
-
Permalink Reply by Chris brock on
-
I would happily get rid of all betting shops - but I acknowledge that is not relevant to this debate
-
-
Gentrified? Whats wrong with wanting to live in a clean safe diverse vibrant area? What would you prefer? deprived rundown chic !?
"a very specific tranche of society" includes me and you have absolutely no idea who I am.
"Wouldn't you want to think that you had thought something through.....", it doesn't take much thinking through....I walk out of my front door and I see a betting shop to the right of me, and another directly ahead, not to mention the one just around the corner, and if they put another in the old Nationwide I'll be surrounded. I'd prefer a to maintain a diverse, vibrant area that remains attractive to a wide section of locals and shoppers instead it being turned into a 'monoculture'.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
If we can (apparently successfuly ) oppose a lap-dancing club, why not a betting shop ? If that makes me a snob, then so be it. Nobody has explained why we need so many betting shops along one short stretch of roadway. Although banks seem to be no more than betting shops these days.
I agree with Mei Wang's worries although unfortunately people with a compulsive / addictive behaviour pattern will always find somewhere to satisfy it. One more or fewer betting shop will not change their behaviour.
I understand N's point about the grounds for opposing planning applications but perhaps he can suggest some other way of preventing Harringay being turned into Las Vegas ?
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
John D that's not true. Legislation around smoking has reduced smoking.
-
-
Relax dude. HoL is JUST a website. We cannot go to the planning office and say HoL says "X and Y", all we can do is post up information and call for collective action.
Planning law is EXACTLY the way these things are done. Legislation takes years (and we only live for so many). Why do you think Highgate is such a nice place to live? Sure it "started off" being nice but so did Harringay. They have sat on the council and made them enforce planning law in their (residents) favour every step of the way. Here we have apathetically just rolled over and taken some very shoddy (and sometimes illegal) behaviour with regard to LEGISLATED planning law.
There is absolutely no need to take the angle of attack you have taken here. Your views are represented simply by doing nothing. If you don't believe me look at how the campaign for a bus down Wightman Rd faltered on a lack of support in the form of online signatures. Feel free to comment but you've really gotten stuck into Liz and she's been nothing but nice to you. I really think you owe her a pint of Pride at the Christmas drinks.
-
-
Thanks Tom. I felt being called a snob and being told that I had moral issues with gambling were unfair. I don't have a moral issue with gambling. I do have an issue with a piece of legislation that has allowed one industry to swamp poorer areas and seek to destroy the character of an area.
I don't think it is fair to be labelled a snob for not wishing to have 4 betting shops at the end of my road all within 20 yards of each other to the detriment of my immediate area. I have 3 already. I make no apologies for being worried about the presence of a fourth. It is already an uncomfortable process negotiating my little strip of Green Lanes. If you and N, don't feel it is a problem then fine. Don't object. You are not obliged to agree with me but don't label me.
I don't feel that I made any personal statements against N. I used no language to suggest that I thought I knew what kind of person he was. I tried to anwer his points. For my pains, I was labelled snobby. That doesn't seem to me to be a fair judgement of my motivation. I invited him to meet me simply because in a forum, it is impossible to judge what a person is like.
The government themselves have acknowledged that the legislation is weak and we have very few grounds to oppose it on. Believe me the lawyers at the council have tried. The Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest in market forces does not take in account the damage done along the way to the high street. Many people are calling for a change in attitude to laissez-faire development. Recent concerns for example have been raised about the way town centres were given over to pubs and clubs and how as a result, they have become a problem. Other parts of the country seek to control development. Not sure why Harringay must always lay down and take everything that is thrown at it.
N is right that we cannot oppose this on any moral, social or even sustainability issue. I take his point. I made it myself in the original post. I don't think that bandying terms like snob about help anyone to feel dispassionate. It is a value judgement. It is wrong.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Let's not pretend that betting shops are just another kind of retail, like grocers shops or newsagents.
Like firearms, tobacco and liquor, society has deemed it necessary to exert some kind of control over this activity and it takes the form of licensing, which under the current government became lax indeed.
Unlike greengrocers and hardware stores, for some, gambling is addictive. If Class A drugs were able to be sold legally, I've little doubt that dealers would find a large market almost without limit.
Without even the current lax controls, we would probably have double the number of betting shops in Green Lanes. This is because the activity is abnormally profitable. Since gambling is a sub-zero sum game, there is obviously something not normal, or not regular going on.
N is right that we cannot oppose this on any moral, social or even sustainability issue – that is technically legally accurate if opposition means under the current legislation. But statutes can and do change. Regardless of the current legislation, there are moral issues to do with gambling and nobody should pretend otherwise.
Opposition to this blight on the community has nothing to do with snobbery and everything to do with resisting corrosion and social decline.
. -
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
