OpinioN8

Connecting Crouch End and Hornsey with news, views and information

Rileys Ice Cream Parlour/ Links Homes estate agent - which would you prefer

Rileys ice cream parlour was recently refused planning permission, it having started trading without going through this formality.

The full details of the decision can be found here. The key extract from the officer's recommendation is 


The Council’s survey reveals that the percentage of A1 use along this frontage has fallen below the require threshold of 65% provided for in Policy TCR3 above.

An earlier decision a few yards came to a different conclusion. Number 7 Broadway Parade is now trading as Links Homes Ltd. This business was granted a change of use from (A1) Shop to (A2) Financial and Professional Services despite the terms of TCR3. The relevant quote from the officer's recommendation reads


The applicant has provided documentation indicating that the property has been on the market, with no offers being made. The site is located within the main primary frontage of Crouch End where the number of retail units is now down to 59%. A change of use would therefore be contrary to policy TCR3 ‘Protection of Shops  in  Town  Centres’  above.    It  is  however considered that the Inspector’s decision of a previous appeal (APP/Y5420/A/09/2113316) for a change of use of the above premises to A5 overrides this principles as in it, it was noted that the retail function would not be harm by the proposed change of use. It would then be appropriate to grant permission for the change of use.

 

Which demonstrates a number of things:

1) the extent of the discretion planning officers exercise in making recommendations

2) the probable fear of the expense of being taken to an appeal and losing

3) the influence of the fact that Kingfisher Travel vacated the site absolutely ages ago

4) the extent  to which the 65% guideline has now been breached

For myself I'd rather have Riley's.

I also suspect that the huge advertising hoarding above the estate agent's is in breach of both planning regs and the estate agents' code of conduct

 

Tags: Rileys, cafe, estate agents, restaurant, retail

Views: 644

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Definitely prefer Riley's. Why on earth didn't they get planning permission before they ploughed everything into it? Will they have to close or can they appeal?
I suppose so but I didn't think you could apply for planning permission retrospectively. Hence you get told to knock things down if they don't comply.
Many people apply retrospectively. I supported the lady in the house opposite mine in her retrospective application for an extension. There is something to be said for a fait accompli.
Ah, well that's good to know. Hopefully they'll get it.
Did that new milkshake shop have to get change of use planning? Was it a beauty parlour before?
Milkshake shop?
Shake My Shake on Park Road next to Pizza Bella - opened last week.  Haven't been in yet as I'm not a big fan of milkshake but I think they do smoothies too.
Adrian, do you know whether and how locals can show their support for the ice-cream parlour and help them get the planning permission they need? I've had a message from someone saying she wants to support them.

Their icecreams are indeed lovely and it is a nice change to have an owner-operated shop there rather than a hairdresser / beauty salon / mobile phone shop.

 

Also am surprised though that they didn't get the permission first before setting up, and when I looked on the Haringey site their plannning permission application is really shoddy, hand written and just looked like they thought it would just go through on the nod. 

 

Happy to show support for them though so as @CrouchEndCupcake says if anyone can find out how to support their appeal would be interested to hear. 

Appeals against planning decisions have much less to do with Haringey than the original application. Fairly obvious, I guess as there is now a dispute and a need for an independent arbiter, so the appeal goes to the planning inspectorate. Haringey documents the process here via various external links. The July list of appeals lodged does not include Riley's, so far. I am in contact with Haringey about a better way of making known what has been applied for and what has been appealed, but I'm not holding my breath.

A Planning Inspector will be interested in planning considerations, so the fact that the TCR3 65% A1 limit (see above the percentage of retail in CE is now less than 59%) is already severely  breached owing to earlier dispensations will weigh heavily with him/her.

Nevertheless if Riley's are going to appeal then they should organise a petition. I'd suggest a book on the counter for sticky fingered customers to sign, and an entry on the Haringey e-petition page.

I can remember two previous occasions on which such a petition has been organised, as the result of which Spiazzo still does not have decking, and there is no Gaudi shop front in Muswell Hill

I had a chat with Riley's owner today and asked if there was anything we could do in way of support. It transpires that they were turned down for a permission they didn't actually require! There was some misunderstanding of the type of permission they were seeking so they are looking into it at the moment and will come back to us for support when they know what they need to do.

RSS

© 2022   Created by Adrian Essex.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service