Big new TfL Substation to be built on Green Lanes - but community voice silenced

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on August 14, 2026 at 11:26

So, it seems, can being an ex-councillor 

Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh on August 14, 2026 at 11:31

Clive, really?!?! It IS the used term. May I suggest moving on.

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on August 14, 2026 at 17:48

Chaucer used the word Officer in the 14th century to describe people holding a public administrative post .  Its use in a military sense did not start until the 16th century.

The Shipman’s Tale

And eek an officer, out for to ryde to see hir graunges and hire bernes wide,

And also an officer, to ride out to see to their granges and their capricious barns.

I knew studying mediaeval literature for A level would come in useful someday.

Permalink Reply by Cllr Rosie Latchford on August 14, 2026 at 10:15

Hi Hugh, 

I think there might be a mix of opinions on whether the substation itself is being challenged just based on conversations I have been having with residents but yes totally hear you on this - I have conveyed and will continue to convey the points you've mentioned to officers. 

I have also been very much pushing for the council to work with TFL on this, to my knowledge they are in conversation and I will push to be a part of that myself too to advocate on behalf of all residents affected.

I really am sorry for the lack of response from council officers, unfortunately that is out of my control in the short-term as a councillor - but I will ask they get back to those who have emailed in, and as a new administration we can look to tackle this as a broader issue. And just to stress, I myself remain committed to working with residents on this issue.  

• ▶ Reply

Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh on August 14, 2026 at 10:21

Thanks, Rosie. I’m sure you’re right about the range of opinions, from challenge to outright objection. I understand the limitations of your role, but perhaps this is a great opportunity for you and your colleagues to really make your mark as a new broom!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nigel on August 17, 2026 at 21:38

Would Cllrs Kuper and Latchford please post on here when the TFL application for a Certificate of Lawfulness is next to come before the Council or Cabinet, and when they expect to see a paper containing the executive's summary of the facts and recommendation as to grant or otherwise? 

Would they also identify by name for us both the elected councillor and the senior official  (pace Clive Carter) responsible for planning matters? 

Thank you. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on August 19, 2026 at 8:03

NIGEL, in the list of Cabinet Members, there are only two references to planning.

There is "Planning policy (Local Plan)" (Councillor Hymas) and "Emergency planning" (Councillor Beckford).

In this context the (Councillor) Chair of the Planning Committee may be relevant.

At some point, a new layer of 'Corporate Director'-administration was added, superior to all the existing Directors. Thus, between the CEO and all the 'standard' Directors—including the Director of Planning—there is another layer:

• ▶ Reply

Admin for testingPermalink Reply by Hugh on August 19, 2026 at 12:19

Yesterday I received the followig email.

Dear Hugh,

I am writing to you in relation to the Certificate of Lawfulness application for the proposed transformer building at Colina Road (HGY/2026/1854) and your recent correspondence with the Case Officer regarding this matter.

I would first like to advise that this case has passed to a different officer, Neil McClellan, given in part current workloads across the service and the fact that Neil previously has a pre-application inquiry relating to the site and is therefore familiar with the background to the matters raised.

I appreciate from the planning portal that residents have raised concerns regarding the proposal, particularly in light of the site's planning history and the uses previously envisaged for the land. However, I would highlight that the Council's role in determining a Certificate of Lawfulness application is limited to assessing whether the proposal is lawful under the relevant planning legislation and whether a formal determination of whether such rights exist or not can be issued.

That said Officers recognise that the relationship between the current proposal and the site's planning history requires careful consideration and in turn the Officer's Report will address the relevant historic consents and set out the Council's assessment of their relevance to this Certificate application, including any matters of legal interpretation and relevant case law, with legal advice sought etc.

I would point out that officers will not be able to engage in ongoing discussions regarding the legal merits of the application with third parties, including local residents or Ward Cllrs as rather this Certificate application must be assessed through the formal determination process, taking account of the submitted application, relevant legislation, planning history, case law and representations received to date or subsequently submitted. In turn the Council's position on such matters will be set out in the published Officer's Report and decision notice.

Separate to the matters above, and following initial advice previously provided by officers, we are seeking to set up a meeting with TFL regarding the design of the proposed substation should it proceed. Whilst accepting that design and appearance are not matters that can be determined formally via the outcome of the Certificate application, officers want to explore whether improvements can be secured to reduce the development's visual impact on the street scene, specifically siting the structure further back from the street frontages to allow for landscaping and planting, and/or incorporating green walls, with it also intended to be made clear to TFL that such structure should not have a large advertisement sign attached (itself requiring advertisement consent).

Should TfL agree to design amendments following these discussions, we would hope to share those changes with Ward Members and local residents and so can provide a further update in due course.

Regards 

 

Matthew Gunning - MRTPI

Team Manager - Development Management

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nigel on September 1, 2026 at 11:55

Well, almost there now. 

I first note that the previous Officer's report which stated that the TFL application was compliant with the statutory requirements and recommended approval is not mentioned. The reference to a future Officer's Report, to be published, is consistet with a re-start of internal consideration. I suggest this be clarified. 

Gunning's response at para 3 " ...the Council's role in determining a Certificate of Lawfulness application is limited to assessing whether the proposal is lawful under the relevant planning legislation and whether a formal determination of whether such rights exist or not can be issued" is correct. 

Similarly, Gunning para 5 is correct in saying that " ...this Certificate application must be assessed through the formal determination process, taking account of the submitted application, relevant legislation, planning history, case law and representations received to date or subsequently submitted" . That necessarily includes representations made by residents and councillors, in particular as to fact. (However, there remains no basis for the refusual to enter into correspondence, and Gunning's reply itself rather undercuts that claim.)

The remainder of the letter is puzzling unless it is an informal entry into detailed planning and development discussions between TFL and the Council by consent. If TFL was entitled to a Certificate of Lawfulness, there would be no need for it to enter into such discussions. I would add that by showing willing on design and development characteristics, TFL may not legally boost its chances of obtaining a Certificate, and Messrs Gunning and McLellan should be told that we are alive to the point.

In fairness, Gunning does say that those discussions are "Separate to the matters above". Regardless of those discusssion, if TFL does not prove that the site marked red in its application is operational railway land, it cannot be granted a Certificate and the planning of the site must go through the usual process, including the requisite public consultation.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Pike 9 hours ago

A simple rewinding of Google Maps by any idiot shows it is not operational railway land. All the way back to when it was an electrical warehouse. Before this I wonder if Hugh's local history sluths have any more photos of the corner plot and can find any railway uses? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Pike 9 hours ago

I think Matthew Gunning's response is actually quite helpful, because it clarifies where the Council believes the limits of this process lie. But it also leaves some very important questions unanswered.

Let's be clear: residents understand that this is a Certificate of Lawfulness application and not a conventional planning application. We are not asking Haringey's planning officers to determine whether they personally like the carbuncle cup substation, or whether residents would prefer a garden.

We are asking whether TfL has actually demonstrated that the development falls within the permitted development right it is desperately relying upon in its shambolic PLU.

The relevant provision is Schedule 2, Part 8, Class A of the GPDO, concerning development by railway undertakers on their operational land which is required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail.

Those aren't incidental words.

So there are two obvious questions:

1. Is this actually operational railway land?

2. What evidence demonstrates that this particular building on this particular parcel is required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail?

The Council has now established that London Underground Limited was granted a 999-year lease over the parcel in 2019, with the leasehold interest now registered to Places for London. Fine. But a new property interest does not automatically answer the question of operational status.

Places for London is TfL's property arm. The fact that TfL has a lease does not, by itself, tell residents how this parcel was being used operationally. And the site's history matters.

Before the Evergreen development this wasn't an operational railway compound. It was commercial land, including the BDC electrical warehouse and subsequently the Hawes & Curtis warehouse, with associated parking and, at one point, a hand car wash. When those buildings were demolished, the developer used the land for site huts during construction. The huts were eventually removed and the land remained behind Evergreen/Clarion hoardings.

For years it became a neglected plot subject to rough sleeping, graffiti, fly-tipping, anti-social behaviour and other problems.

Only shortly before this application appeared did the Evergreen hoardings disappear and the current close-boarded fence appear.

So if TfL is now relying upon the status of this land as an existing operational railway compound, residents are entitled to ask for the evidence and chronology behind that description.

• When did TfL actually take control of the land?
• When did it become operational railway land?
• What operational railway function was taking place on the parcel?
• What records demonstrate that?
• And importantly, what exactly was meant by the 2021 Non-Material Amendment covering letter when it said that the amendment followed a request from TfL to "take back ownership" of land previously proposed for car parking?

The NMA was submitted by Savills on behalf of Clarion and approved in May 2022.

The Council has now told us that TfL's longer-term intention was a transformer room and that Clarion understood those plans. That's precisely why FOI is important. We need to see what was actually discussed between TfL and Clarion, what Labour led Haringey knew, and when.

---

And then there is the other half of the legal test

Even if the Council accepts that the land is operational land, where is the evidence that this location is required? This is where the enormous gap in TfL's story remains. TfL's own Piccadilly Line Upgrade (PLU) material identifies new substations as part of the programme, including infrastructure associated with Turnpike Lane.

There is significant TfL/London Underground land around Turnpike Lane and elsewhere along the Piccadilly Line. I am not a railway engineer and I am not claiming that Turnpike Lane is definitely technically suitable. But surely TfL should be able to demonstrate what sites were considered and why they were rejected in favour of one less that 3m from family homes and doctors surgery. 

• Was there an engineering options appraisal?
• Was there a site-selection report?
• Were alternative TfL-owned sites assessed?
• Was Turnpike Lane assessed?
• If so, what were the technical reasons for rejecting it?
• If not, why not?

This isn't asking Haringey to substitute residents' opinions for railway engineering. It is asking the applicant to produce the engineering evidence behind the location it has selected. If that evidence exists, let's see it. If it doesn't exist in the public domain, let's ask why.

---

The design issue hasn't disappeared either

Matthew is quite right that design and appearance may not be determinative of the Certificate itself. But that doesn't make the design issue irrelevant. It simply means it needs to be addressed through a different route.

And I welcome the Council saying it intends to talk to TfL about moving the structure back, landscaping, planting and avoiding a large advertisement. But look at what that tells us. Even before the Certificate has been determined, Haringey officers appear to now recognise what we have been telling them - that the proposal has a potentially significant visual impact and that there are opportunities to improve it. That is welcome.

But why should residents have to accept a poorly considered scheme first and negotiate improvements afterwards?

The original Evergreen planning application specifically identified this section of Green Lanes as having poor public realm and promised an improved streetscape, widened pavement, planting and a pocket space. The corner was supposed to provide amenity and parking associated with the NHS facility. That never happened. The surgery was built. The promised parking and amenity space were not.

And residents now face a substantial, largely inactive industrial-looking building on precisely the corner where the public realm improvement was supposed to happen. So yes, let's talk to TfL about better design.

But let's also ask whether this is actually the right location in the first place.

---

There is another issue which I don't think should be lost

The neighbouring Piccadilly Line ventilation shaft has generated its own serious concerns from residents. This isn't part of the Certificate application, but it is part of the physical context.

Residents have been reporting to former ward councillors and Clarion for years that black particulate material appears to be coming from the shaft and settling on external surfaces and entering homes. There have been reports of residents finding black dust inside apartments and concerns about metallic particles/tastes. That doesn't prove that the material is toxic. But it absolutely does justify asking what it is and whether anyone has properly investigated it.

• Has TfL investigated?
• Has Haringey Environmental Health investigated?
• Has anyone taken samples?
• Has the material been analysed?
• Has anyone assessed whether the emissions are reaching West Green Surgery?
• And if this has been going on for years, why has it apparently not been resolved?

Again, these aren't accusations. They are questions that require evidence. And the irony is difficult to miss. We are told this is important operational railway infrastructure.

Yet the neighbouring railway ventilation infrastructure has apparently been allowed to deteriorate to the point where residents have been reporting it belching out black deposits and being subject to security problems.

The ventilation building has been broken into and left unsecured which is hardly what you expect from a multi-million pound upgrade. The site is squatted - Someone is camping at the back even now. Its flytipped - many entries for the last Christmas tree contest can be seen through the rusting fence by all the electrical items. 

If the whole parcel is now being described as an operational railway compound, residents are entitled to ask who has actually been responsible for the total lack of maintaining and managing it. Who is there to now answer for the belching black smoke? 

---

So I think Matthew's response actually gives us a useful roadmap

The Council says it will assess the application based on:

• the submitted application;
• the GPDO;
• planning history;
• case law;
• representations;
• and legal advice.

Excellent! Then let's make sure the planning history and legal evidence are properly tested.

Residents aren't asking Haringey to make a political decision about whether TfL should upgrade the Piccadilly Line. We want the Piccadilly Line upgraded like all hard working class folks who rely on first class public transport. But there is a difference between supporting the upgrade and accepting that every site TfL selects automatically becomes an acceptable site. Through this poor decision making TFL now risk further delaying the PLU. 

The Council's own response confirms that the historic consents are relevant enough that the Officer's Report will address them. So let's see exactly how.

I would particularly like the eventual report to explain:

• What is the precise legal basis for treating this parcel as operational railway land?

• What evidence demonstrates its operational use?

• When did that operational status arise?

• How does the 2019 lease relate to that status?

• What was agreed between TfL and Clarion in relation to taking the land back?

• What was the intended use when HGY/2021/3583 was submitted?

• What evidence demonstrates that this particular substation is required at this particular location?

• What alternative sites were considered?

• Was Turnpike Lane considered and, if so, why was it rejected?

• What technical constraints prevent another TfL operational site being used?

And if the answer to these questions is that the evidence exists, then publish it.

Because at the moment the public is being asked to accept a very significant change to this site while being shown very little of the evidence behind the decision.

---

And finally, a point about the Council

I think it is important not to let this become simply a battle between residents and TfL.

The previous Labour-led Haringey administration approved the key 2021 amendment which removed this land from the Evergreen proposals following TfL's request to take it back. Clearly there has been pre-application discussions as well with officers which gave TFL the green light to enter a CoL. 

The current administration is different.

Haringey now has a Green minority administration, and this is an opportunity for the Council to demonstrate that community involvement, environmental quality, townscape and scrutiny actually mean something when a major public body is the applicant.

The question now is whether the Council will simply say:

"TfL has permitted development rights, so there's not much we can do."

Or whether it will say:

"Show us the evidence that you meet the legal test, and while you are doing that, show us that you have properly considered the community, the history of the site, the environmental conditions and the alternatives."

Those are very different positions.

Nobody is saying the Piccadilly Line Upgrade shouldn't happen.

We are saying it shouldn't happen by making residents accept the first location TfL puts forward without seeing the evidence. There are still some very big gaps in this story. So, once again I say: Mind the bloody big Gaps. Because the Piccadilly Line Upgrade may have severe delays in answering the questions residents are asking.

As a request who do we contact at the GLA and TFL as a whole? Who do we contact about the potential public health disaster? 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page