These two frontages have been unfinished for quite some weeks now. On the left is Dave Chu's former much-loved hardware shop and on the right, the frontage of the new build in Dave's old yard. Both look a mess and I would like to know what the timescale is to finish them off to a high standard.
You need to be a member of Alexandra Park Neighbours to add comments!
To add a post - click on +Add new Post at top right (if it is not there, you are not signed in - see link at top of page); fill in the details, then click on black button below.
To later edit it, click on the post header to display it, then on +Edit at top right.
If you wish to give somebody your contact details, you may prefer to do so by personal message (click on little envelope at top of page, then on +Compose) rather than putting it in a post which is visible to everyone.
Click on an advert for more info.
FORUM CATEGORIES
Click on a category to display all posts that have been allocated this category:
Sharing stuff other than tools
Items offered / wanted - for sale or for free
Campaigns and community action
How-to Guides to using this website
Traffic, roads, public transport
Policing, community safety and anti-social behaviour
Local shops, cafes and businesses
Gardening - help, advice, issues, news
Recipes - Food
Recipes and tips - Health and Beauty
Schools, health, caring and parenting
Parks and wildlife, palaces and communal spaces
Replies
Hi Anna - yes, the notice was raised during the licencing process. I was told that ' The notice will require physical alterations pertaining to the removal of the shutter, and shop front alteration. It will also require the reinstatement of the previous layout. The notice will not affect its current use as a gym. These issues do not impact on the application for the use of a sauna.'
The licence was for the use of a sauna in the premises. Officers have reported no alcohol serving or other licencing activities take place.
Bumping this thread to say that I noticed Haringey appear to have recently served a planning enforcement notice for unauthorised works on no. 20 (Dave's former shop, black door in picture above): ref A-10936. If it's re: the destroyed frontage, it's only taken 3.5 years! There's no information about the actual enforcement at that record - does anyone know any more?
In the meantime, it's recently acquired a painted sign across the top...
Would welcome updates from those in the know about whether the current occupants' alcohol licence was granted - I remember seeing Cllr Rossetti mention the application, but Haringey's latest licence listing document, dated 1st May 2025, doesn't seem to include it.
It's on my route home from the station, and walking by when it's open, after dark, involves navigating groups of men loitering outside, and their huge vehicles, sometimes idling, left dangerously on double yellow lines and across street corners.
It continues to be hugely disappointing that a once-thriving characterful local shop is now a blank frontage, apparently accessible only to an exclusive group of people, seemingly operating only at night (incongruous in the context of this parade of shops, in a residential area). At the very least it would be great to see Haringey insist on the reinstatement of the vandalised frontage.
(Maybe one day they'll even finish the other no. 20, Dave's Yard!)
I'd also like to know when the frontage of Dave's old shop is to be fully reinstated. I want to see the frontage of the new flats next to Dave's old shop finished off to a high standard. Perhaps Alessandra can give us an update on both. It is careless and shoddy to leave buildings on our high street in a shabby state, and it feels disrespectful to local residents who have to live with them in that condition.
Attached is a photo of what Dave Chu's shop used to look like.
Oh gosh, Annabel, that makes me cry... How far we've fallen, and how we miss him!
Further to Terry's comment, I pulled together the relevant references from the Haringey planning records in case anyone was interested (see below). NB: Later edited as it's easy to confuse no. 20 (formerly Dave's shop) with the yard next to no. 20 (formerly Dave's yard) - both appear as no. 20 on Haringey planning.
As a general summary - one of the conditions of the 2019 approval for the development of no. 20 (Dave's yard) is that drawings showing the proposed facade of the new building should be submitted and approved before work commenced. This eventually happened when an application to restore the frontage (including traditional features, tiling, and central doorway, as before) was submitted and approved in spring 2023. Some of the works have now taken place.
Meanwhile, the original frontage of Dave's shop was destroyed some time in the summer of 2021. A planning contravention noticed was drawn up in July 2021, seemingly ignored (I think I remember seeing it posted to the front/shutters). Planning permission for the works was later submitted and refused in winter 2021, with the officer noting that the works had already taken place. This was appealed and refused again in June 2022. No application appears to be on record for its restoration.
The latest, as Terry says, is that Dave's old shop was supposed to become a gym. NB that the plans included in the application to do this (Nov 2023) show the destroyed shop front, with relocated door. As of June 2024, it appears to actually be currently used quite differently - not a gym. And the frontage remains flagrantly unrestored.
A couple of questions: 1) Can the current owners be compelled to restore the illegally-destroyed frontage of Dave's old shop? At least three years have passed since it was destroyed, and two since the planning application to keep the destruction was refused. 2) Is the current apparent use that Terry mentions below known to the council/relevant licensing authorities? 3) Is it licensed/permitted? Cllr Alessandra Rossetti can you help/do you know?
HGY/2018/3155 20 Crescent Road (formerly Dave’s Yard)
Submitted 26/10/2018, decision 16/04/2019
Full planning permission for development into 3-storey mixed-use building
Approved with conditions (no. 4 of which was the submission of drawings showing the proposed front elevation of new no. 20 for approval before work commenced – see HGY/2022/4294).
HGY/2020/2377 Crescent Hardware, 20 Crescent Road (formerly Dave’s Shop)
Submitted 01/10/2020, closed without decision
Application to determine if prior approval would be required to change shop to cookery school and studio with retail outlet
Closed without decision – but of interest to see what prior plans had been for the space.
June 2021 – thread on this forum by Cllr Nick da Costa notes that residents have reported that original frontage of Dave’s shop at no. 20 has been destroyed. July update says that a planning contravention notice was being prepared, and managing agents contacted and advised to stop works.
HGY/2021/3503 Shop, 20 Crescent Road (formerly Dave’s Shop)
Submitted 15/12/2021, decision 27/01/2022, appealed 02/22, decision 06/06/2022
Alterations to shop front including new glazing and relocating entrance door
Refused – decision notice notes that at the time of the officer’s site visit, development had already been carried out, although hidden by grey security shutter. Also notes that level access has been replaced by stepped access, and that traditional features including timber frame and tiles have been removed.
HGY/2022/4294 Shop, 20 Crescent Road (formerly Dave’s Yard)
Submitted 02/12/2022, decision 27/04/2023
Approval of details of conditions attached to planning ref HGY/2018/3155
Approved. Application includes references to matching details at no. 18 (currently Radiator Emporium), including green tiles and shop front frame.
HGY/2023/3175 Shop, 20 Crescent Road (formerly Dave’s Shop)
Submitted 27/11/2023, decision 05/02/2024
Certificate of lawfulness for change of use from a shop to a gym
Permitted development rights – council found change from shop to a gym would not constitute development under Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Hi Anna, sorry for this delayed response, I did not received any notification of your query. I will follow up with the Planning Department about the frontage and other planning application. As Michael says there's been a lot of correspondance with the Council about the activities taking place, if licenceble or not, and the increased amount of rubbish generated, which as can be seen from the picture has required a second waste box.
Thank you Anna for your careful work setting this out. It is distressing that both frontages should be left in such a mess for local residents to put up with. I would like to hear from the council what steps are planned to enforce the restoration of the frontage to Dave's shop in particular, as per the successful application from spring 2023.
Thanks Susie - I've edited it slightly as keeping the two sites (Dave's shop and Dave's yard) separate on Haringey planning, where they both appear as no. 20, eluded me first time around! In fact, no plans to restore the destroyed shop front of the old no. 20 appear to have been submitted. The plans to match no. 18 were submitted for the new no. 20, built in Dave's yard.
It's a sauna. A men-only orthodox Jewish sauna. Myself and Tom P-S have been chasing the council on noise and nuisance grounds, as groups of men hanging around has been intimidating for some, and they all drive (to the sauna...) in large cars to get there (because of course there is no public transport in London).
There are perhaps a number of issues which need addressing:
- The destruction of the frontage
- The lack of signage (which is perhaps Susie's original point here?) for the businesses.
- The conditions in the HMOs. For example, where are their bins? Surely there is minimum requirements for recycle bins for flats? They have none. Safe fire escapes?
The whole thing's highly suspect - Buckthorn Investments (now changed their name to Buckthorn Developments) taking us all for a ride and raking in the dosh. As housing is a priority for the new government, perhaps they'll actually tackle rogue landlords?
The new building on the yard has I think been bought by a guy who is perhaps marginally less dodgy than the Buckthron lot, but it would of course be nice if he actually used it.
When are we getting the PGRA back together to deal with all this stuff?
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next