Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!



select "comment on application"


Dear friends and neighbours,

The ongoing heartbreaking saga of WARDS CORNER continues ... Grainger recently submitted a THIRD application to demolish the whole area between seven sisters road, suffield road and west green road, crushing long-standing local businesses in our seven sisters community. The proposed monstrous structure will take away any sense of historical significance to the street, not to mention how generic the design is!!! We pride ourselves on local run business, we don't want McDonalds and Pizza Express!!! The shop rents will be far too high for any wiped-out business to return. A kind of social cleansing appears to be proposed.

TFL have now also opposed the plans citing structural risks to the underground system.

HARINGEY COUNCIL have arranged a meeting TOMORROW:

Wednesday 30 May 2012, 7pm, The Moselle
Room, Tottenham Town Hall, Town Hall Approach, Tottenham Green N15 4RY

This is our first and possibly last chance to address the many issues directly to GRAINGER and to our Council.

If you don't live in Seven Sisters, please consider coming along to show your support. I sense there will be a lot of disruption, even riots if this proposal goes ahead so it's in everybody's best interests to support the campaign against the development company.


Tags for Forum Posts: corner, council, meetings, seven, sisters, wards

Views: 1481


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Disruption and even riots if you don't support this campaign?

(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)

Alan the substantive issue is Grainger's proposal. What's your view on it please? 

The immediate substantive issue is the planning application.

But Alan, for current intents and purposes, "planning application" is equivalent to "Grainger's Proposal".

Are you avoiding addressing the substantive point of my question? I'm sure you wouldn't want to appear to be a slippery politician!

Please play the ball and not the man, Clive. I'm well  aware that the current planning application is by Grainger. I'm not ducking your question but giving the legal facts as I understand them.

I said the immediate substantive issue is the Planning Application. Though of course, there also appears to be a technical issue about the Victoria Line tunnels which will need to be resolved.

The planning application will be decided by the Planning Committee or by a Planning Inspector. I was told some time ago that there is still a pending planning appeal against the last decision to refuse permission. (This may have changed.) If the new - amended - application were to be refused Grainger could decide to appeal once more.

Crucially the decision by either the Planning Committee or an Inspector must be based on what are known as material planning considerations. This was explained on HoL before and if people are interested they can look it up. In broad terms It means that whether people like the new scheme or not, the decision of the committee must exclude many of the factors raised on HoL. 

I sometimes sat on the Planning Committee as a substitute although I've not been asked to sit on this application.  If asked I read all the documents, listen to the varying views and then make up my mind on the evening. But it has to be on the basis of the planning considerations for the particular application. 

It was though, kind of you to ask my view. You're the only person who has done so.

Alan if Planning was purely the legal-technical process that you imply it is, the whole thing could be left to officials to decide, couldn't it?

It isn't clear from your comments what politicians add to Planning Committees. Why involve elected representatives of the public on them?

Do aesthetics form any part of the Planning process?

A lot of the time that is exactly what does happen - it's called "delegated authority".

I'm not sure where you're going with this train of thought, Clive. And I'm not an expert on Planning  Law. However, if you're interested  in the general issues, have a look at the website for the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) and Planning Aid for London. The first is a bit Pollyanna-ish. The second has some useful free publications downloadable in PDF format.

You might also like to re-read a comment posted by Michael Anderson four years ago. (Though he may prefer to update it.)

There are some wider questions. Not least, who actually sets the direction for planning in Tottenham; and where people mean when they refer to "Tottenham". For a brief period I attended a working group on the Local Development Framework but I stopped going as it was obvious that it was entirely officer-led and following outdated and highly dubious ideas from twenty years ago. These usually centred on Spurs: the development of the so-called Hale Village, and the idiotic idea to have a "Cultural Quarter" around Tottenham Green.

Following the riot there is now a body called Tottenham Task Force which appears to be calling the shots. (I've asked for all the papers.) I've seen a very rough first draft which seems to have emerged from this process. It has a couple of interesting ideas; some aspirations; and a load of stuff which didn't work in the past.

Which doesn't mean it won't work in the future. But we may need Denzel Washington and a time machine.

(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)

If, as you suggest Alan, that this is strictly a legal-technical process, are not politicians redundant?  Are they not just rubber stamps for "officers'" reports? 

Or should the people's representatives exercise independent judgement and leadership?

So far it appears that you don't have any particular view – that you're willing to share – on the Grainger Proposal, beyond the fact that is subject to a process (some of us knew that much already).

Do aesthetics form any part of the Planning process?

I'm glad you feel comfortable with a question about your view of the Proposal; I'd still be interested in hearing it. I have always respected your belief in the virtue of plain English.

HI there Alan,

I think you've deliberately (?) misunderstood my meaning there. I'm sorry if i have not made myself quite clear. To clarify, i meant that if the Council does not listen to the community-at-larges' concerns, the local people ARE going to be very unhappy. The potential threat of bulldozing homes, businesses and historical landmarks is very upsetting. 

I am not a member of any organisation, merely an interested party and my opinion is that of mine only.

Fair enough.

I get angry about many issues. I'd never criticise someone who cares about and argues passionately about the area where we live and what should and shouldn't happen here.  But I also believe that we'll get further with reasoned discussion and trying at least to understand the range of different views.

Ha thats funny - understand a range of different views..............and then completely ignore them!!! You've got previous for that haven't you councillor.

You see Alan all this could have avoided if you'd actually paid attention during the original application rather than nodding it through.

1) Perhaps you'd like to enlighten everyone what merit you saw in the proposal that made you choose to back the scheme despite the opposition of your council colleagues for Tott Green.

2) Perhaps you'd like to explain the reasoning behind giving a private developer a substantial amount of cash approx £1.5M before planning permission was even granted.

3) Perhaps you would like to explain why you fudged this question in the link re. minutes - when the answers were literally far closer to home?


And and don't for a minute think this is political, it's not, its to do with having a 7 storey building over looking my back garden. Makes your opposition to the Tottenham Hale development look rather hypocritical and NIMBYish doesn't it.


 Oh and here's another councillor showing her contempt for us mere minions. At least wasn't as sweary as her last out burst.



© 2018   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service