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 John McMullan on
-
Would you go back to the "lap-dancing club in Crouch End" posts and help me out there too? We're just talking ONE itty, bitty, titty bar.
Cheers.
-
Permalink Reply by David Jones on
-
I think we need to look at why this has been happening over the last few years. Why is it that Green Lanes is suddenly such a magnet for betting shops? The answer, I think, lies in the communities that live here. There is a gambling culture that alrady exists in the cafes up and down Green Lanes (just peep through a window when the curtains are open). The betting shops know this and that's why they want in. It is a cynical opportunity for them to exploit a bunch of (mainly) men, who haven't got much money but will throw what they have on the turn of a card, a horse or a pull of a handle of a machine.
The betting shop owers don't actually give a damn that they are feeding the addiction of people who simply can't afford the drug they sell. They just don't care that individuals and households are left broke.
Green Lanes is seen as a money pot by them. That's why I object to those that already operate here and will do everything I can to stop any other opening.
This isn't about our moral stance, it's about the complete lack of morality of these businesses and that they'd happily see you lying in the gutter so long as they have your last quid.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Banking is not fundamentally socially corrosive nor is it addictive; with appropriate controls, it is socially useful. Except for the "casino" banking tendency, encouraged by extraordinarily slack legislation and enforcement. The casino-banks have made fools of governments throughout the Anglo-Saxon world.
The sine qua non for the Green Lanes gambling strip has been the permissive legislation under the current government. This was pushed for mainly by gambling company interests outside the majors and was argued for in terms of management-type justifications, such as breaking up the big monopolies and promoting more competition.
It is fascinating to see existing gambling operations lodge objections to new gambling Applications.
The grounds for objection to new Applications were narrowed considerably, doubtless under pressure from the gambling "industry". Especially, that the level of demand was something that was to be determined by the market place only and not by any estimation that there was already saturation of this cynical enterprise. It's easy to talk about market forces when you're dealing with a service you know tends to be addictive. -
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I'm not sure whether its the people who live here David or the people who use Green Lanes - not completely the same thing as I understand it.
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
I still think a Credit Union might be even more useful than our late lamented Building Society - and more attuned to our "lower socio-economic" area. It would be a community asset which presumably would not involve any change of use.
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on
-
Wow, have been reading through this, and am left speechless. How can someone not see that oversaturation of any business in an area is bad? Especially morally suspect ones, who preys on the weak and the vulnerable, who attracts undesirables, who has a large number of men hanging outside, smoking, throwing litter, spitting and generally being intimidating and disgusting? Go on, twist that around and tell me I am a snob. I'll happily admit that I am, and I am not interested in living in an area that's slowly turning into a gambling induced slum of crime and exploitation. We can’t have more betting shops here. If another one opens up you will see me on the news, one way or another, I can promise you that.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
