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
-
Permalink Reply by Cllr Rosie Latchford
-
Hi everyone.
After I met with residents a couple of weeks ago, I took the questions that came up in our meeting to the council. I have just heard back, and thought best to share with everyone here.
I have also submitted a FOI request to TFL about their conversations with Clarion about this pocket park.
I will write in our opposition to the substation this week too, coming from myself and Jo Kuper my fellow councillor. Mark is the third councillor for Harringay but sits on the planning committee so isn't able to comment.
Here is what the council has told me:1. Land ownership
Officers have reviewed the Land Registry records to establish ownership of the land (the car park site) in question with the relevant title, AGL497513, showing that a 999-year lease was granted on 5 July 2019 to London Underground Limited. The registered proprietor of that leasehold interest is Places for London Limited, however we were not able to identify the owner/ freehold title. The above therefore demonstrates that London Underground Limited have a legal interest in the land for the purposes of carrying out operational development proposals.
By way of background, planning application HGY/2016/1807 for the Colina Mews residential development included a Certificate B identifying parties with an interest in the wider landholding, including LJ Green Lanes Ltd, Highways and Transport for London (TFL). However, this does not provide conclusive evidence of the current freehold ownership of the car park site itself.
2. Pocket park proposals
The treatment to the smaller portion of land in question were approved via approval of details application HGY/2019/2782 in 2020 discharging condition 4 attached to the original 2016 planning permission and as per drawing L1092 C3 and show a permeable surfacing to this area with 4 parking spaces.
Whilst noting the approved details, it is obvious that the proposal was in conflict with TfL's longer-term intentions for this part of the site. Although Clarion Housing Group leased the land for a temporary site office during construction of the residential development, TfL's intention was always to bring forward proposals for a power transformer room under permitted development rights in connection with the Piccadilly Line Upgrade, and it is understood that Clarion Housing Group was aware of these plans.
On that knowledge TFL submitted a non-material amendment (NMA) application in 2021 under application ref: HGY/2021/3583 ’…to amend the description following Transport for London's request to take back ownership of their land on the site, previously proposed as an area for car parking’ which was approved in May 2022 with a further Non-Material Amendment application, ref. HGY/2023/0698 approved to make minor changes to the approved scheme, including reducing the parking provision from 14 to 13 spaces, amending the location of short-stay cycle parking, and revising the window arrangement and elevational design of the development.
It is also understood that during this time TfL were looking to end their lease with Clarion Housing Group. It is understood that it was TfL’s intention to start works for the transformer building around 2025. Ultimately, it is unknown to the Council what other discussions happened between Clarion Housing Group and TFL back in those earlier years.
3. Certificate of Lawfulness application and opportunities for public involvement
A Certificate of Lawfulness application differs from a planning application in that the Local Planning Authority is required to determine whether the proposed development is lawful based on the relevant provisions of planning legislation. The assessment is therefore a legal one rather than an assessment made on the planning merits of the scheme. As such, there is no statutory requirement for public consultation in the same manner as would apply to a planning application, where we advise the community of the application having been received so they can comment, given we can consider matters in our assessment such as impact on neighbours’ amenity. We must determine the certificate application based on the facts of the case and the applicable legal tests. Residents may write to Officers with comments on how they consider the proposal might impact on them, and we will read them; but unfortunately we cannot take them into account in deciding if the proposal is permitted development or not as that is purely based on law. Our recommendation/decision will either confirm, or otherwise, that the proposed use/building operations are lawful for planning purposes.
Whilst accepting that a decision on the Certificate of Lawfulness application has not yet been made, and assuming the relevant criteria are satisfied such that the development is deemed to be lawful, we would ultimately not be able to prevent TfL from exercising such their permitted development rights. However, we would wish to discuss this matter with TfL to encourage a more sensitive approach to the design and siting of any structure, having regard to its impact on the surrounding street scene. Whilst we cannot compel such engagement we will seek to engage with TfL on this matter and can provide you with a further update in due course.
Thanks,
Rosie
-
Permalink Reply by Nigel
-
I thank Cllr Latchford for her explanatory posting above.
It is clear that she has consulted the planning officers and possibly the Council's Monitoring Officer, who is a solicitor. Regrettably, she appears to have been misinformed as to her duties and the legal position and the duties of decision-makers at the Council.
Most of what she writes is correct as a matter of law, in particular:
"As such, there is no statutory requirement for public consultation in the same manner as would apply to a planning application, where we advise the community of the application having been received so they can comment, given we can consider matters in our assessment such as impact on neighbours’ amenity. We must determine the certificate application based on the facts of the case and the applicable legal tests......." and
"Whilst accepting that a decision on the Certificate of Lawfulness application has not yet been made, and assuming the relevant criteria are satisfied such that the development is deemed to be lawful, we would ultimately not be able to prevent TfL from exercising such their permitted development rights "
However, it is NOT correct in law or otherwise to say that:
"Residents may write to Officers with comments on how they consider the proposal might impact on them, and we will read them; but unfortunately we cannot take them into account in deciding if the proposal is permitted development or not as that is purely based on law."
The law requires the Council to decide whether, as a matter of fact the site or land the subject of the application, is in operational railway use.
Cllr Latchford, the Council decides that as a fact, not law, and the law requires that all relevant facts and matters are to be taken into account in so deciding. If a resident or anyone puts that fact in issue to the notice of the Council, the decision in Tameside and the long line of cases following holds that the Council must inquire into the actual position in fact and familiarise itself with what is needed before deciding. You and the Officers that serve you may not ignore
As I wrote before, it is basic admin law is that all relevant facts must be taken into account. The Council may not fail to take evidence of relevant facts into account. That will vitiate the decision. The absence of a formal, statutory comments procedure does not obviate that duty.
The law goes further. If the Council makes an error of fact material to its decision, that decision will be unlawful and liable to be set aside by the Court: see E v SSHD [2004] EWCA Civ 49 and the line of cases following.
The E test, amply fulfilled here, has 4 conditions: the mistake must be on a existing fact (including mistake as to the availability of evidence on a particular matter); it must be uncontentious; if challenged, the claimant must not be responsible for the mistake; and the mistake must have placed a material part in the decision-maker’s reasoning. Conditions 1,2 and 4 are amply fulfilled and if it went to court, condition 3 would be too.
So please, Cllr Latchford, Cllr Kuper and "Cllr Mark"do be careful; you all now know the site is and has not been in railway operational use for years and years, if ever. It is your duty to ensure that the decision-makers do not think otherwise. Don't be fooled into thinking that "sensitive design" or "engagement with TFL" or some consultation will suffice - on the plain facts known to Councillors, TFL is not entitled in law to the Certificate it seeks. The Council would expose itself to judicial review is it decided otherwise.
Please pass this note on to your colleagues, particularly members of the planning committee. Meanwhile, I would be happy for the Monitoring Officer to comment and tell you - and me - if I have the law wrong, with authorities in support of course.
-
-
Hi Nigel,
Thanks so much for this.
Just to be clear, I was just passing on a response we got back from council officers on the questions residents brought up in our meeting on this issue - so what's said isn't my opinion!
You raise a very important and salient point which others have stressed to me too so thank you again for your response. I am writing in our objection as local councillors today and will include this, and have made clear to council officers this point on the use of the site and therefore appropriate use of the certificate of lawfulness.
-
-
Thank you, Cllr Latchford.
Please would you copy us in here on that objection.
At the risk of boring you and everybody on the point, unless the Council finds as a fact that the site is operational land, it cannot issue a Certificate of Lawfulness to TFL.
NK
-
Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh -
Thanks for passing that on, Rosie, but the officer's response seems to be predicated on the assumption that the building of the substation is being challenged. I and some others have expressly said that this is not necessarily the case. My original post complained at the lack of opportunity for residents to comment on the development and made two particular points. One was about the vibrations for the nearby residents; the other was about the negative impact on visual amenity.
The council's lack of response to me and others who have written to them suggests that at this point they're really not very interested at all and what the residents think. That's a real pity. I'd hoped that the new administration might mark a change in respect.
Secondly, whether or not the council allows formal comments, they can choose to act informally on behalf of the residents, representing their views and working collaboratively with TfL to persuade them to mitigate the downsides.
Do you think that you and the other local councillors would be willing to go into bat on our behalf and urge the council to work with TfL to address the issues?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter
-
Hugh, a couple of related power-points from your's and Nigel's replies:
go into bat on our behalf and urge the council to work with TfL
The actual Council comprises the residents' elected representatives. What is often referred to loosely as The Council, is usually intended to mean the staff of the council or the council's employees.
One past Haringey Councillor would sometimes say to me "I work for the council", which was a misunderstanding of the role.
You and the Officers that serve you may not ignore
Real officers exist in the Army, in Customs and in the Police. I appreciate that the council's staff do style themselves as "officers". They are not really officers, but they are employees of the council. Including the CEO who is 100% an employee of the council. And CEO's have been let go in the past. Many council employees are helpful, competent and knowledgeable.
Impertinence
After I wrote to one previous CEO "I'm not sure that you read my letter carefully and less, understood it", they let it be known that they thought I was "impertinent".
However, in the aftermath of a serious internal failing, my impertinence was rewarded with a complete and satisfactory conclusion. The CEO knew they'd been caught out.
———
After decades of one-Party rule, this blurring of the structure of power suited the employees and it has become embedded. In a council currently with no-overall-control, senior employees are likely want to keep this blurred situation, if not exploit it.
I hope that Rosie and her colleagues will be able to be assert impertinence on this and all matters on behalf of residents!
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson
-
An officer is the term used widely for local government employees. When I was an estate manager in Camden Town and attended court the listing and my evidence statements named me as an officer of the London Borough of Camden. My trade union until 1993 was NALGO (founded in 1905), with the O standing for officers. Until not long ago the government pay scales for local government employees were divided into Officer pay and a Manual Worker pay. The term Officer for an employee of a local authority appears in the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835. It was again used in the acts that founded modern elected County Councils in 1888. I run a small anal cancer charity of which I am the Chief Executive Officer. The CEO of Haringey who you mention is of course the Chief Executive Officer, which is a term used for this post by government and part of the legislation contained in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
-
-
Thanks, Michael. No relation to the planning officer Anna Anderson, I trust.
-
-
No, but I worked in planning in Camden in the late 90s/early 00s running their planning advice service for residents.
-
-
I see.
Clive, if I may continue being a pedant, the term "officer" remains proper and current: see eg s21(13) and (14) of the Local Government Act 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2008. Of course, they are all Council employees too, as you point out.
-
-
Nigel, it's a term that is certainly current and widely used, but I would argue that council "officers" are employees first and foremost and well before they are "officers".
I don't say they are self-styled, but it is a styling can be used to talk down to elected Councillors. Let alone mere residents! It can produce arrogance and a sense of inflated importance.
Too often, it leads to an impression of us versus them. Using our money, they're supposed to be working for our representatives and indirectly, us!
Respect should not flow from employee job titles, no matter how long. Real respect is earned. I will not embarrass the Haringey staff members for whom I—as a former councillor—had genuine, not artificial, respect.
Incidentally in the hierarchy of (non-military) proper officers, Customs Officers outrank Police Officers as the historical senior service, in certain and significant respects.
-
-
So, it seems, can being an ex-councillor
-
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
