Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Big new TfL Substation to be built on Green Lanes - but community voice silenced
Today's planning list shows that the space in front of the Piccadilly Line ventilation shat building is to be used for the construction of a new electricity substation.
I do not object to that but it is very odd that the application is being made as a certificate of lawfulness rather than as a planning application. This means that the public has no right to comment.
I oppose the way it is being handled for a number of reasons. I explained this to the responsible planning officer Anna Anderson (anna.anderson@haringey.gov.uk) in an email I sent to her today. I copied in one of our new councillors, Jo Kuper. I have also spoken with Ian Sygrave at the Ladder Community Safety Partnership who has said that he will raise it at this week's meeting and also write to Anna Anderson.
My email is reproduced below. Any resident can write to Anna about this matter, despite the attempt to cut out community involvement. The decision date is due to be 26th August.
Dear Anna,
Re: Planning Submission for Colina Road site (HGY/2026/1854)
I am a resident of the Harringay Ladder.
Today I noticed the above reference application. It is for a significant building which covers a good part of of the part of a plot that has been unbuilt on for almost 100 years.
I see that is had been made as an application for a certificate of Lawfulness. Can I ask why Haringey has agreed to handle this application this way rather than as a full application?
The site is a significant and prominent one which for that reason alone ought to be open to community scrutiny.
There are two aspects in particular which concern me.
1. The level of noise for nearby properties already flagged in the application,
2. The impact on visual amenity in this prominent site. This is not addressed at all in the application and there are no visuals to suggest that visual amenity has been taken into account.
In HGY/2016/1807, the applicant for 590-598 Green Lanes London N8 0RA (which you should note includes this site), made a specific reference in his application to the site in front of the ventilation shaft building that is the site for HGY/2026/1854. The 2016 application specified:
"..we are proposing to create a 'Pocket Space' on the corner of Green Lanes and Colina Mews. This space will be partly used for a few parking spaces allocated to the NHS facility, but the rest of the space during the week and the entire space at weekends could be used for a community led activity such as a pop-up cafe."
They included the following diagram.
This site therefore has a very recent planning history and I assume since the front of the 590-592 plot was not excepted from the decision its use as a pocket park was also given planning approval.
This makes it even more odd that the current matter is being handled under a certificate of lawfulness.
Yours sincerely,
Hugh
Replies to This Discussion
-
Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh -
Thanks, Zena.
-
Permalink Reply by Nigel
-
Thanks seconded. Reservation: Except this transport provider is not entitled to such an advantage in respect of this site.
-
Permalink Reply by Rory
-
I personally emailed Clarion about a year ago regarding this space, which has been an absolute eyesore since their development went up. You'll be surprised to hear I received no response from them.
-
-
A new wooden fence has already been erected around this location, which before reading this post led me to believe that the previously promised improvements to this site were about to be actioned.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Pike
-
Mind the Gaps... because there are still some very big gaps in TfL's story over the proposed Colina Carbuncle.
"Development by railway undertakers on their operational land, required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail falls under Schedule 2, Part 8, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015... However, I would like to reassure you, we will review the concerns you have expressed... Please do allow me some time to discuss in detail with my area managers and a fellow planning officer who I know has strong knowledge about the site's context, history and local residents."
Firstly, thank you to Anna for taking the time to respond to Hugh. I genuinely welcome the fact that LB Haringey under the Greens is prepared to look again at the site's history and local context.
But here's the thing, nobody is disputing that Part 8 Class A exists. We all understand that Parliament has given railway undertakers permitted development rights to build infrastructure on “operational railway land” where it is required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail in this case the much-delayed Piccadilly Line Upgrade (PLU). Legislation isn't the issue but the evidence is. It brings into questions about whether this particular site satisfies the tests that TfL says it does.
Gap No. 1 – Why this site?
TfL's own Piccadilly Line Upgrade documents explain why extra electrical power is needed. They identify four new substations, including Turnpike Lane. What they don't explain is why this corner of Green Lanes and Colina Road was chosen. Where is the engineering options appraisal? Where is the site-selection report? Where is the assessment of alternative operational sites? Where is the evidence that other TfL land around Turnpike Lane and Wood Green was considered before selecting one of the most prominent gateway sites into Harringay’s Green Lanes high street area? I've looked. I can't find it. If it exists, TfL should publish it.
Gap No. 2 – Is this really operational railway land?
TfL describes the application site as an "existing operational railway compound."
Really? That isn't how local residents have experienced it.
Before Evergreen this wasn't an operational railway yard. It was occupied by commercial uses including BDC, later the Hawes & Curtis warehouse, associated parking and, for a period, a hand car wash. The ventilation shaft has always occupied the neighbouring plot with its own dedicated access point, but that's a very different proposition from saying this entire corner functioned as an operational railway compound.
Then came Clarion Groups Evergreen development. Most people would agree the redevelopment improved this part of Green Lanes. The scheme was approved and most of it was built. This corner wasn't and people have questioned why including past ward councillors. This part of the site was intended to provide parking for West Green Surgery together with landscaped public amenity space.
The planning permission was subsequently quietly amended through HGY/2021/3583, submitted by Savills on behalf of Clarion Housing Group and approved by the Labour-led London Borough of Haringey on 26 May 2022. The parking and the landscaping will delayed permanently.
Instead, residents were left with years of Clarion Housing Group Evergreen-branded hoardings surrounding an abandoned site. We witnessed rough sleeping, graffiti, repeated fly-tipping, drug related anti-social behaviour and neglect. The neighbouring ventilation shaft—apparently critical to the operation of the Piccadilly Line—was even broken into and left unsecured for days. If this was genuinely an actively managed operational railway compound, why did it look and function like this? Then, only weeks before this application appeared, the Evergreen hoardings disappeared and a new close-boarded fence went up. For the first time in years meaningful activity. Again, perhaps there is a perfectly good explanation. If there is, let's hear it.
What agreement existed between TfL and Clarion? Why was the approved Evergreen scheme never completed before the NMA? Who was responsible for managing the site while residents dealt with years of nuisance?
When did TfL regain possession or control of this land again? Because their data gathering appears to have been at the peak of ASB on site. They have been happy to have cosy per-application discussions with planners. Planners have simply waived through a Certificate of Lawfulness.
Gap No. 3 – The planning history
The key NMA to the Evergreen scheme was approved by the previous Labour-led administration. Was there already an understanding that this corner would eventually return to TfL for railway infrastructure? If so, where is that recorded? Was it ever explained publicly? Did ward councillors know? Were local residents told? If the answer is yes, let's see the documents.
If the answer is no, then that raises equally serious questions.
The Council has now changed and Haringey is led by a Green minority administration. This is an opportunity to demonstrate that planning decisions involving major public infrastructure will be transparent, evidence-led and properly scrutinised more so than with Labours flimsy approach.
Haringey's own planning policies place enormous emphasis on high-quality design, protecting residential amenity, improving townscape and creating better public spaces. Those principles shouldn't suddenly disappear because the applicant happens to be TfL or because it relies on permitted development legislation. Check out the plans and elevations. There are serious problems with monolithic brick block that extends above the line of parapets and windows of the residential block. To hide the vast Green Lanes brick elevation, they propose an equally vast ugly advert hoarding. In case you miss it the previously promised public realm will finally arrive – two very small SUDs planters. Now if you want to know how much TFL cares about landscaping here check out the fly tipped plastic strewn bushes around the existing shaft.
I'm not saying don't build the Piccadilly Line Upgrade. I'm saying:
Show us the engineering; Show us the alternatives; Show us the planning history; Show us why this location is the only realistic option. Try harder with scale, massing, townscape...
Because until that happens, we're still being asked to Mind the Gap—the very large gap between what residents are being asked to accept and the evidence that has actually been placed in the public domain.
If you've got photographs, planning documents, local knowledge or memories of this site, please share them. The more evidence we can gather, the stronger the case for asking the questions that should have been asked in the first place.
-
Permalink Reply by Zena Brabazon
-
Hello Rob
Your raise many searching questions. Posting on HoL is very helpful, but if you are looking for answers why not submit a Freedom of Information request which formalises your concerns and requires a response.
Zena Brabazon
-
Permalink Reply by Anna Abela
-
Hi Rob,
Thanks for raising these questions.
I can answer one of them, as I was asked by the Evergreen Development residents to advocate for them with Clarion and TfL executives when I was a Labour local councillor (2022-2026).
The timing of the removal of the hoarding is not linked to TfL's planning application. The hoarding was taken down by Clarion after I asked for this to be done in two meetings I convened with Clarion's executives and in a letter I sent to Clarion's CEO Clare Miller. If memory serves me well, the hoarding was taken down shortly after I received a reply from Clare Miller's Chief of Staff. I took this initiative because the residents who live in the Evergreen Development felt the hoarding was unsightly.
Hope that's helpful context.
Best,
Anna
-
Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh -
Thanks for this very helpful reply, Rob. Ian has agreed to include this item in tonight‘s LCSP meeting. Unfortunately, I can’t be there, but if you’re able to attend, I’m sure your contributions would be helpful.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter
-
Hugh, I attended last night's LCSP AGM and this subject was aired there. I'm not familiar with this matter and did not comment. However the meeting heard criticism from several quarters about the performance of personnel in the council's Planning Department.
-
-
Hi,
As an ordinary homeowner on the Ladder, I am entirely in favour of any and all improvements to the Piccadilly line service. However, I must say this scheme looked rum to me. Is TFL trying to avoid the delays and strictures of proper planning control? It is an ugly proposal, which, if properly planned, could provide both what TFL wants and a better corner for Green Lanes.
So, prompted by Robert Pike's point 2 and Zena's note, I had a quick look at the documents on the Haringey Planning Portal with a view to the question of whether this site is or could reasonably be decided by the Council to be a "development by [a] railway undertaker on [its] operational land" per Class A of Part 8 of Sch2 to the GDPO 2015 as the TFL submission claims, so that it may be entitled to a Certificate of Lawfulness under s.192(1) of the TCP Act 1990, which would enable it to develop for operational purposes outside the usual planning regime.
Assuming that the land is TFL's, the short answer still seems to be "probably not", contrary to the view of the Council's planner Anna Anderson in her reply to Hugh below. The documents and the planning history do not support such a conclusion.
The key is that this is a question of fact which does not depend on ownership alone but also on use, helpfully also evidenced by permitted use.
The HOL responses below indicate that this particular site actually has not been used by TFL or its predecessors for operational purposes for many years, at least since the ventilation shaft was completed, if at all. It is not, at the date it seeks to establish lawfulness, in such use by TFL.
On permitted development and use, the documents on the Portal show that the current, prevailing planning permission for this particular site is as part of the "new development" of 590-598 Green Lanes, the land to the north and west granted under HGY/2016/1807. The permitted use of this particular site then granted was for car parking and landscaping in connection with that development.
In 2021, when TFL indicated it wanted to "take back" this particular site, as shown on its application documents, it obtained permission to remove those user restrictions: HGY/2021/3583.
So far, the CPLUD Supporting Statement for the current application is correct [at paras 4.3 and 4.5 on pp7 and 8 - there seems to be no para 4.4].
But HGY/2021/3583 was obtained by and granted to TFL as a non-material change in the description of development - ie the development permitted under the 2016 permission: see the permission and documents on the Portal for that application. Page 2 of the Savills' covering letter filed in support expressly confirms this:
"Planning Considerations
The Finney Judgement ruling prevents a change in the description of development when making minor material amendments to an application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended). The current description for application reference HGY/2016/1807 is overly restrictive and restricts
minor amendments and design development to the approved proposals at 590 – 598 Green Lanes.
A change to the description of development can be permitted so long as the change proposed is ‘non-material’.
The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that there is no statutory definition of non-material. “This is because
it will be dependent on the context of the overall scheme – an amendment that is not material in one context
may be material in another.” In this instance the application is merely seeking to amend the description of
development of the outline permission allowing for greater flexibility for future design work. As a result, no
changes are actually proposed to the approved scheme. The amendment to the description is therefore clearly
non-material." [emphasis added]TFL was therefore only granted permission for uses which (1) would not change the approved scheme for 590-598 Green Lanes and this adjoining site, and (2) required only design changes.
Paragraph 4.6 of TFL's CPLUD Supporting Statement for its current Certificate of Lawfulness application may be correct in stating that the planning permission to use the land as a car park for the new development was "never implemented". But it is quite wrong to say that " Therefore the land remains associated with the function of the Piccadilly Line". It is not. It is part of the non-railway development permitted at 590-598 Green Lanes.
Likewise the claim in paragraph 6.3 of the Statement and the Conclusion at para 8.1 that the "development proposed on the land adjoining the ventilation shaft head house would be lawful as per Class A Part 8 of Schedule 2 to the GDPO."
If I am right, TFL cannot claim lawfulness for a development and railway use on this site without obtaining planning permission. It cannot pretend that the site is currently in railway operational use, for which Class A is designed, when it is not. That would not be lawful. In order now to develop on that site and to put it to operational railway use, TFL must obtain planning permission.
The Council's planners and Monitoring Officer will wish to ensure that the Council does not act unlawfully.
All IMHO, of course. Readers and the LCSP have my permission to use this in any comments they may wish to make on the application. I gave up trying to file it online!
-
-
The Council's planners and Monitoring Officer will wish to ensure that the Council does not act unlawfully.
———
Indeed.
In this and similar regards, I was pleased to see—as one of the last acts of the Starmer Government—that Parliament passed a bill that will impose a Duty of Candour on local and national government.
While this duty has—I understand—long applied to the NHS, it probably did not apply to employees in Local Government.
After this Bill receives Royal Assent, it should require even more honesty on the part of employees of Haringey Council.
I hope the Monitoring Officer will impress this on staff.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton
-
Thanks, Clive for adding a focus on the application of the excellent "duty of candour".
It was the last century when I worked as a lower level employe in a local Council. ( Elsewhere in London.) But I was also then well aware that some of my staff colleagues avoided "rocking the boat". Neither could they always be candid. At the time they had mortgages to pay and families to worry about. While I didn't have those responsibilities.
I also I knew I had the backing of my Trades Union. Plus some decent and principled bosses. So speaking truth was far less risky.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
