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. I missed that info by not reading down another three lines.
Lacking the legal expertise of others, I've now taken the rogues route of asking ChatGPT. It suggests that a Judicial Review would be possible.
You may be in a better position than I to judge if it is of any use at all, if it even offers the grain of an idea.
- Attachments:
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Pike
-
Mind the Gaps… Haringey has granted TfL its certificate, but the questions haven't gone away!
The Council has now certified the proposed Colina Road transformer building as "permitted development". In doing so officers have have continued to hide behind existing legal reasoning, including the 1934 land transfer and the site's alleged relationship to the Piccadilly Line.
But let's be clear about what this decision does and doesn't mean. It does not mean the TFL engineers idea of a design has been approved on its thin planning merits. It does not mean residents' concerns about the loss of the promised pocket park, the impact on neighbouring homes, the existing ventilation shaft pollution or the lack of a publicly available alternatives appraisal have been resolved.
Indeed, the Council's own decision does at least recognise the original butt ugly design and public realm need improvement, at least if they are aiming to support their own SPGs and policies. It calls on TfL to explore setting it back, landscaping, green walls and public art, and makes clear that large-format advertising is not supported without the necessary consent.
Given that residents have no grounds to appeal and can only call upon a JR what happens now? Residents have been railroaded by the all stakeholders and those with an interest in the site. So, will TfL genuinely improve the design, or will residents be left with another empty promise?
Will the Council publish the evidence behind its legal conclusions and explain the full history of the land?
Will TfL finally explain what alternative sites were assessed and why this prominent residential corner was selected?
And will somebody finally investigate the black particulate matter residents have been reporting from the neighbouring ventilation shaft?
We are not opposing the Piccadilly Line Upgrade. We want it delivered. But residents should not have to accept unanswered questions, poor design, health concerns and years of environmental concerns simply because the applicant is TfL.
The certificate may have been granted. The need for transparency, accountability and a better outcome for Green Lanes has not disappeared. Mind the Gaps or fill them!
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter
-
What responsibility—if any—does the Planning Department bear for the pocket park condition?
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
