Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Shelton hotel puts in another planning application to expand
Some of you may remember that earlier in the year the Shelton Hotel (Burgoyne Road/Wightman Road junction) put in an application for permission to add an extension to the hotel (four levels, 18 rooms plus 5 car parking spaces in a garage). See here for more details. It got turned down. If you look at this page here and scroll down to the bottom you can see the various responses that the application got.
Not to be put off, they've just put in another application. This time for a three level extension (11 rooms plus 5 car parking spaces).
The loss of 7 rooms certainly doesn't change my mind about it. If you object too, please do so to Haringey, via their online comment facility here.
. Please join me!!
Not to be put off, they've just put in another application. This time for a three level extension (11 rooms plus 5 car parking spaces).
The loss of 7 rooms certainly doesn't change my mind about it. If you object too, please do so to Haringey, via their online comment facility here.
. Please join me!!
Tags for Forum Posts: Wightman Road, hotel, planning, shelton
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
How annoying. Have just emailed as well, saying that they need to make it clear if there are problems with the site - so far there are only 3 comments (2 from Birdie!) even though I know others have been submitted (mine included). For what it is worth, this is what I've said.
I object to this application, as I did to the previous application (for a larger number of rooms/parking spaces).
I do not think that the site is suitable for expansion. It is at a very busy junction and would only increase traffic in the area and create disturbance for local residents. The hotel seems to be of very low standard (as shown by the terrible reviews it has on tripadvisor.com) and its previous attempts to expand have met considerable opposition from local neighbours. It should be maintained at its current size and not allowed to expand any further.
I note that the freehold for this property is still for sale. Is this planning permission request simply a way of increasing the value of the freehold?
-
Permalink Reply by Phil M on
-
I argued along similar lines (was tempted to repeat the more lurid accusatons that are on tripadvisor, but thought better of it):
As a long-term resident of Burgoyne Road (I've lived there since 1996), I would like to object to the proposed expansion of the Shelton Hotel, which strikes me as remarkably similar to the one turned down earlier this year.
Since it became a hotel, when the old Railway Tavern pub shut, I have only rarely seen guests entering or leaving. This is not indicative of a thriving business, so it raises questions as to why an infrequently used hotel would want to expand in such a dramatic way.
Further, a cursory glance at some of the comments left on Tripadvisor.com (http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g186338-d583505-Reviews-Lon...) reveals that previous guests describe it as "disgustingly dirty" and "filthy" with "unhelpful" staff. Indeed, the reviews are almost entirely negative and paint a very poor picture of the hotel's management.
As it stands, the building is an eyesore, with its fake, pseudo-classical columns and ramshackle lean-to reception (the latter of which has doubled variously as a dry cleaner and pizza place over the last few years, with little success in either venture). I see no reason why a hulking great extension is going to make it look less out of character with the rest of what is essentially a residential neighbourhood.
Such a major building job is inevitably going to have a big impact on local residents, with increased noise and dirt, not to mention more traffic on the already busy Wightman Road and increased strain on the road's limited parking.
Finally, as the father of a small baby, I do not want our lives blighted by the noise and dirt of a major building site on our doorstep.
-
-
Am I right in thinking that any objections to this need to be made within 21 days? If so, time is up on Monday (17 Nov).
From personal experience, if you have tried to register a comment via the council's planning page, it might well have disappeared into the ether. So if your comment isn't appended to the bottom of their page, it might be best to email your views directly to customercareteam@haringey.gov.uk
-
Permalink Reply by Pugface on
-
I have just lodged my objection on design grounds and need (will check LBH website to see it is lodged).
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
In the LCSP meeting on Thursday, Ian Sygrave (chair) said he has also written a letter from the LCSP to object to this application (and also that they have no planning permission for any of the previous work they've carried out such as the portico, the lean to on the side or change of use to a restaurant).
-
-
The LCSP letter is up on the planning page - and makes for a very persuasive argument
-
-
Any news as to whether the application was successful? It was meant to be decided on 21 Dec (I know, that was a Sunday, so perhaps unlikely) but I can't find anything on the council's website...
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Still showing as pending a decision - http://is.gd/eqrI
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on
-
Check out response no 015 from David Lammy asking if the council can give this "due consideration"! Apparently the owners have contacted him. Hah! So THAT's something he bothers with, whereas when I needed help with my 5 years of HMO noise hell he could not be bothered. Nice to see he's got his priorities right. "Dodgy hotel vs sleepless, scared resident. Tough call. I think I'll take the hotel so we can oincrease traffic and noise in the area".
David Lammy should be ashamed of himself.
Karen Alexander has also written a good obbjection (013)
The application is still undecided, btw.
-
-
The same David Lammy who thought there was a cheese called blue Leicester? (On "Celebrity" Mastermind)
Good to see he's doing all he can for his constituents.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
