New opening on Green Lanes - Class International

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by 3ncap90nicrsp on February 22, 2017 at 22:54

My concern was clarified early on, Hugh. It related to your presentation of opinion or hearsay as fact. I called it out and you decided to change your original post and then respond to my concerns as though the edited post were the original. You then had the gall to actually suggest that you had no concerns about the statements you made. Had there been no concern, they would not have been changed.

I think you know full-well that the difference between your original post and the edited post is not 'wording' alone. A 13-yr old would not buy the lame  'auto-correct' excuse as even kids understand the different algos behind such features.

You have, well after the fact, changed the tone and content from a statement of fact to "well, I'm just passing on what I heard." Thereby relieving you of any responsibility. It's quite cowardly and more than a bit slippery. Other edited comments are usually marked as edited. But Google cache is our friend. You didn't respond to being called a liar (it wasn't a single word edit), but chose to respond only when it was clear that evidence of your deception existed.

That your site has subsequently posted misinformation about another business on Green Lanes does little to dissuade me from the view that you have interests that are less than transparent and benign. You have allowed allegations of corruption to remain on your site. Implicit in these allegations are that Council officers and local businesses are committing a crime. You have no evidence, yet allow and actively encourage people to follow up these accusations. Were someone to make similarly unfounded accusations about one of your advertisers, I wonder what type of response you would make?

Permalink Reply by 3ncap90nicrsp on February 22, 2017 at 23:02

Paul, I responded to the organ-grinder.

What's the real issue? That business owners have promoted Green Lanes as being 'different' and therefore requiring different treatment. The Council is giving this treatment based on the idea that Green Lanes is defined by its Turkish restaurants.

So you and Hugh disagree...and some existing kebab restaurants now disagree. So what? Have it out with your peers. They defined Green Lanes while you stood by doing nothing and not daring to object.

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 23, 2017 at 0:22

I'm quite happy for people to decide for themselves as to whether the changes I made were ones of substance or clarification on the basis of the cache you added. As far as my gall is concerned, it remains as stalwart as it was a few days ago. I'm very happy to stand by the changes since nothing of substance was changed and my intentions were solely to clarify. I can't see why you suggest that my changes go anywhere near the issue of hearsay or fact. Given the source I'm happy to stand by them as reported fact.
As far as tone and openness are concerned, Cem, I notice that yours is getting more and more unpleasant and that you're still unwilling to share your real interest in this matter.

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on February 17, 2017 at 6:56

Haringey planning refused the application for 14-15 Grand Parade to be granted change of use because the premises was over 150 sq m. That was on 25 November 2016. Two seperate applications for change of use were then applied for (one for 14 and one for 15) and these two applications were granted on 2 February this year.

Can you confirm that 14-15 Grand Parade is being returned to two seperate business premises and the works being carried out at the moment are to reinstate them as such?
Thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alexander on February 17, 2017 at 10:42

If anything from looking through the shutters they are knocking down walls not building them... I guess it needs a proper inspection

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Picoletta on February 17, 2017 at 11:28

I agree Alexander, the premises is very large and by the look of things it's going to be one huge space.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 3ncap90nicrsp on February 17, 2017 at 17:02

Michael, I don't bear that burden of evidence and neither does the council in this case. Normally, those making accusations of wrong-doing are expected to provide the evidence. The point I wanted to make is that without finding out the facts, it is unhelpful to make assumptions. Applications are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It is not the council's responsibility to question the veracity of the information provided on the application form. If the applicant wants to lie or commit some for of fraud, that becomes an issue for enforcement. There are several other restaurants along Green Lanes who have multishopfront restaurants as separate operations. (eg. Selale, Devran, Antipliler). The council could and should reasonably expect the same thing to occur at this site. If it doesn't, then enforcement can get involved. Until then, gossip and hearsay seem to be the basis of your case.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on February 17, 2017 at 17:42

You are of course quite right that there are multi fronted restaurants on Green Lanes and an application was made to add 14-15 Grand Parade to them and this was refused, so how or why "the council could and should reasonably expect the same thing to occur on this site" is beyond me.

So to return to my original question, will 14 and 15 Grand Parade operate as two seperate businesses?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 3ncap90nicrsp on February 17, 2017 at 18:20

Michael, "multishopfront restaurants as separate operations". So, the examples I gave have multiple shopfronts, owned by the same company or individual, but not operated as a single large restaurant.

And again, if you can not provide the answer to your own question, then I think it's fair to suggest that you take a little more care when making assumptions or accusations. If I were inclined to find out the answer, I'd speak to the operator of the restaurant.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 17, 2017 at 18:14

You  seem to have a good grip on planning law, Cem. Are you a lawyer?

As I understand it, when determining a planning application, provided it has regard to all material considerations, it is for the local authority to decide what weight is to be given to the material considerations in each case. If the authority decides that there are facts suggesting that the three premises will be run as a single business, it is perfectly within its rights to take those facts into account and to give them the weight it deems appropriate. 

As to enforcement, my understanding is the same as yours. A breach must be observed before it can be enforced against.

Given these circumstances it's particularly important that the authority makes the right determination in the first place. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Harding on February 18, 2017 at 22:10

I think Cem might be a letting agent..?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Antoinette on February 21, 2017 at 16:27

Hi Michael,

When I looked at the two applications that have been approved, the plans definitely featured walls not just boundary lines!  If those walls aren't in existence when the business(es) start trading, does that mean they are in contravention of their planning approval?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page