Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Furniture store being advertised for Queen's Head despite planning conditions
I've just picked up a tweet from John McMullan with the following text and picture:
Ha ha! Queen's Head Harringay kept as a pub... and I laughed and laughed and laughed.
My understanding is that planning permission was granted with provisos that included:
the applicant retain the use of the ground floor of the building as a public house. A feasibility study would have to be conducted using a team approved by the council if the applicant wanted to, in the future, change the use of the ground floor
At the very least, it appears that the developers are acting in bad faith.
I've been on the phone to planning and was told that the decision has yet to be published with these provisos.
Perhaps our councillors might intercede on this if possible.
Tags supplement: More conversations on this topic in the Friends of the Queen's Head Group
Tags for Forum Posts: queen's head
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I'm sorry Alan, do you disagree with me or are you trying to make me look farcical? How about you tell me why you think planning law is set nationally.
Why is it that our local hairdresser is powerless, despite his influence with the council, to stop competitors opening their own shops? I'm sure he would like to know too...
-
Permalink Reply by William Booth on
-
I'd actually rather it was a small number of flats without parking if it can't be a pub/cafe. A shop selling big items is just going to add more traffic to Green Lanes (already one of the busiest streets for its width in London I believe) when planning should be able precisely to reduce traffic through decisions like this.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Mr Hoyle, I'd really appreciate if you would read what I write a little more carefully and didn't misrepresent me. Or perhaps you really haven't understood the difference between national planning legislation and a decision at a local planning committee?
-
-
John, I have no idea whether or not we agree. Because I simply don't follow the points you're making.
Why do I think planning law is set nationally? See an outline on Wikipedia. I'm sure it's stuff you broadly know.
The law on types of "Use" and changing from one use to another is the "Use Classes Order". I assumed you'd know that as well. Anyone who wants a quick summary can find one on Google. (Here's the first one my search turned-up.) Basically it means premises within a Use Class can change to another business within the same Use Class. (e.g Florists and hairdressers fall within Use Class 1.)
Do you think the law should be changed so as to allow local Planning Committees to limit competition among different local businesses? It's an important debate. George Monbiot seems to think so when it comes to Tesco and other large retailers.
I really don't understand what you mean by a "local hairdresser" having "influence with the council".
I hope I'm not naive and gullible. We have a subscription to Private Eye and read what some councillors get up to across the U.K. And over the years I've met people in Haringey without a moral compass. Although bad decisions by the Council are far more likely to be the result of inadequate information, poor judgement and stupidity, rather than dodgy dealing. And of course the dysfunctional "cabinet" system doesn't help.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by Ruth on
-
I thought that whole area around Ducketts Common was up for major changes with a pedestrianised bit and different traffic flow etc. Allowing a shop to set up right now, that needs parking and traffic access to busy main road seems a bit odd when the proposed changes are still being discussed (or have they been shelved?) I don't see any joined up thinking- it's all a bit of this, a bit of that, and see what happens. The 'bigger picture' for Haringey seems a planners dream whereas our daily reality is we never know what is going to be set up on our street corners.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
The Duckett's improvements won't be happening in the foreseeable future, Ruth. It's been decided they'd take too big a part of the TfL funding for Harringay.
-
Permalink Reply by ant on
-
Oh thats a shame. Does it also mean no pedestrian crossing at Frobisher Rd either?
-
-
-
Ah, right. Thanks Hugh, I remember now you told us that before. Shame. So we are stuck with things the way they are.
-
-
-
Thankfully not, Ant. The crossing by Frobisher was the one thing in the original plans that has been accepted as being widely supported by the community so will almost certainly go ahead.
-
-
-
A shame Ruth, but in my view it's the right decision. I think to have spent most of the money on that project would have been folly.
-
-
Permalink Reply by ErinS on
-
While a change of use within a class is permitted (assuming that they both fall into Class A - A1 shops and A4 drinking establishment), surely planning conditions attached to planning consent should be enforceable and where there they are blatantly disregarded, it is the role of the Local Planning Authority to enforce these conditions?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
