Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nell Riches on August 21, 2013 at 13:03

We have just commented on this planning application - our comments should appear soon, which will give everyone more of an understanding of this new building and how it has and will impact our business and the local area.

We definitely do share your concern Eddie and we really need everyone to join forces to make Myddleton Road a better place and this includes taking the time to object to cynical developments like this one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsey Berthoud on September 27, 2013 at 15:49

I eventually did too. But I've only just seen your Tweet and link to this 

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/details/30070559

I'm incredulous that they've got a planning application in for a live/work recording studio and they're blatantly advertising this. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsey Berthoud on October 11, 2013 at 16:18

Just got an email to say the permission for 97 has been refused for these reasons: 

"1. The building by reason of its siting, design and footprint has an unsympathetic relationship with adjoining sites and properties failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area and detrimental to the residential and visual amenities to the neighbouring occupiers; contrary to policies 7.4, 7.6 & 7.8 of the London Plan 2011, policies SP11 & SP12 of the Haringey Local Plan 2013, saved policy UD3 of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG1a and SPG2 and 'Housing' Supplementary Planning Document.

2. 2. The structure in question is considered to represent an over intensive use of this site within a restricted conversion area and provides a poor standard of accommodation for occupiers particular in relation to floorspace standards and the levels of daylight, sunlight and outlook from the windows to this dwelling; contrary to policies 3.5, 7.4 & 7.6 of the London Plan 2011, policies SP2 and SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan 2013, saved policy UD3, HSG11 of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan and 'Housing' Supplementary Planning Document."

Result! But I wonder what will happen next?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Caroline Simpson on October 11, 2013 at 16:25

That is Good News.

They will probably Appeal .  Then it will go the Planning Inspectorate. 

Then we all have to write to the Inspectorate to support the Council's decision.

Then we keep fingers crossed that the Inspector will dismiss the Appeal.

Then the applicant has to do what he is told to do by enforcement.

A long process...... but this is a move in the right direction.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Caroline Simpson on July 29, 2013 at 11:59

This reply is a bit at a tangent.... but 127-9 was opened in the winter as a church - with no change of use permission etc.

They applied for planning permission in the spring and it was refused.

They re-applied recently and it has been passed.

The two officer's reports make interesting and contrasting reading. And it is perhaps especially interesting to note that the Property Agent who wrote to the council on the second application to say that the property had indeed been marketed was none other than the owner/agent on no 97........  Say no more. 

So if you have any interest in another of the wider planning matters on the street.  Do look at:

2013/0107

 

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...

 

2013/0987

 

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...

 

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Suellen edgar on September 27, 2013 at 20:21

Yes Edward, I agree entirely with your comment. Haringey Council must be in breach of rules and regulations for this conservation area, this was on my mind this morning, before reading your post. Is there anybody who can advise us how to make a stand against the council to highlight illegal breaches in planning ?

Where does one start and as stand alone protests will not be as effective as having a professional legal advisor helping to fight our cause.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Caroline Simpson on September 28, 2013 at 17:38

It is great to read that so many people are keen to help things get better on Myddleton Road, and that people like the area as one to live and shop in.

Things appear to be hotting up in that road.  There have been 4 new applications in the last week to ten days.

 If you do care about the road and what happens, you must tell the council by commenting on the planning applications.

 HGY/2013/1955 is for 112A , which is just beside the Christopher Place flats (soon to have yet another 2 flats made from the car-ports!).  To convert the disused thing at the end to 3 flats

HGY/2013/1918 is for 122 which is currently a disused shop on the ground floor and he got Cert of Lawfulness for a flat on the ground floor back in Dec last year.  Now applying to convert a 3 bed flat upstairs to one 2 bed and one 1 bed. ((Why wont the owner let the shop to one of the people who say they are looking for a shop to rent?  Is someone living behind the shutters like at no 100?))

HGY/2013/1908 is another app for no 95, the one next door but one to Mr Moore's.  A critical one for the road.  Smaller extension than was refused earlier in the year.  But why any extension at all?  The existing extension is big enough for living and kitchen combined, and still have 3 beds upstairs.  No need for two lots of stairs to the first floor unless the intention is to then apply to divide it into 2 flats.  What is really important here is for the Conservation Dept to be involved in the façade – for example, I think and hope that lovely stained glass exists above the shop window similar to that at no 66 on the opposite side.

HGY/2013/1935  is for 51 Myddleton, a domestic property, one up from the Palmerston corner, still in conservation area, conversion from 2 flats to 3 flats.

 And you still have time to send your comments in to the council about no 97, HGY/2013/1626, that shed turned into twee bungalow in under a month.   

 Basic questions about the road, and the area as a whole,

1. do we want any more decent-sized family flats and houses converted into smaller ones – many without gardens?

    2.  do we want any more back gardens built over?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsey Berthoud on October 2, 2013 at 8:40

If I'm reading 51 Myddleton's plans right, it's meant to be 2 flats but has been used as 5 separate units for the last 8 months. Enforcement action is being held in abeyance pending approval of this current plan to convert to 3 flats. So instead of enforcement action the owner will potentially be rewarded by being able to turn the place into 3 lucrative flats - is that right?

And looking at the drawings, why does the top floor studio have a study? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Caroline Simpson on October 2, 2013 at 11:29

Just about right.

Has been unlawfully used as 5 units.

Enforcement action taken, which will be held until the results of this application are known.  NOT until it is agreed, as that is NOT the enforcement officer's decision, and he wouldnt have said so.

It is up to Planning to decide whether they will allow the current lawful use (2 flats, one 3 bed and one 2 bed) to be converted into 3 flats, of which one would be in the attic, with what is called 'a studio' for living and cooking etc, tiny bathroom and tiny room called 'study' which could perhaps squash a small bed into.

If you think that it should stay as it is, 2 OK sized flats, then say so. Object to 2nd floor flat.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsey Berthoud on October 4, 2013 at 11:30

The application for 112A is all mixed up. Conflicting addresses on application and plans, and the application is for 2 x 2 bed + 1 x 1 bed, yet the plans show 3 x 2 bed flats. And no plan of the existing 'recording studio' is given (HGY/2013/1955)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Caroline Simpson on October 4, 2013 at 12:09

Well spotted Lindsey!

How funny (in its way) that they have used the 112D Christopher Place address on the plans!  That is the 2 flats that got permission the other week - having previously been served with enforcement notices as they should never have been there in the first place etc etc. That was a really bad planning decision, and made nonsense of planning enforcement actions over the years  and officers and any decent policies for the road as a whole. 

Some connection perhaps?

You are right that the drawings show 3 x 2 bed flats, and the application says 2x2 plus 1 x1 bed.  So Sigma Design and Build are wrong again.

What I feel is most important is that we should notice what the windows to the side elevation - the bedrooms, actually look out to.  They look out to a 1 metre gap and then 2 metre fence which divides it from what exactly?   I guess the private back garden of no 6 Northbrook Road.  I wonder if they know? 

Looks like a site which could manage 2 decent one bedroom flats.

What is also odd... is that on the Site map, which is a coloured map of that part of Myddleton Road, the site of no 97, (that new bungalow without permission etc) is also highlighted in outline in red.

Some connection perhaps? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsey Berthoud on October 18, 2013 at 16:35

North London Samaritans have submitted their planning application for the Tin Tabernacle/Shaftesbury Hall development. It's HGY/2013/2121. 

Please do comment to show your support if you approve of the plans. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page