York Way Kebab Take-away Appeal is Refused

Cafesorriso This news just in from Sean at Regent’s Quarter:

Dear all,

You may recall the unit at 2 York Way turned into a kebab shop and applied for an open shop front, late night trading (after 23:00) and an illuminated facia sign.  This was application was rejected, but then they appealled the Council’s decision (Click for earlier story).

They are tenants of Regent Quarter but unfortunately despite our concern that this was not a suitable business for a regeneration development, our freeholder’s managing agents offered no support.  However, many were not happy about this, so a number of local residents tackled the problem via the council route and the unit’s planning application was refused. Download 2B York Way Appeal Decision

The leaseholders appealed and I can confirm that the appeal was also rejected.  Please see attached if you would like to see the detail of the appeal rejection! 

Thanks to Paul Convery – our local councillor – for his continued support.


This is another example of residents working together to make their neighbourhood confirm to their wishes!  It can be done!

This entry was posted in Planning, Licensing and Regulation. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to York Way Kebab Take-away Appeal is Refused

  1. Matt says:

    “This is another example of residents working together to make their neighbourhood confirm to their wishes!”

    OR it could be seen as an example of jeopardising once livelihood for inconsiderate and arbitrary reasons and out of superficial intentions. I understand that there can be an objection against un unsightly shop front but contesting a small shop owners license just because we feel a kebab shop is not the right representation for our new Kings Cross area is simply intolerant. What about the Play-2-Win business or Ladbrookes across the street? Businesses who profit by deceiving credulous and desperate people by making them believe they can make money there? And how is MacDonalds, a multinational corporation paying their workers national minimum wage in London and having one of the worst environmental and social responsibility records any better than a smal individual kebab shop? Why not challenge those businesses to be in Kings Cross? Because it’s to difficult? Rather focus on the more vulnerable where the success is more likely?

    Food for thought…

  2. Stephan says:


    Thank you for your comments. I am pleased that you have taken a view on this matter, in fact I actually agree with your overall opinion about some of the places in this area that we do not need!!!

    For your information, I filed an objection to the latest application for yet another betting shop in the area (the one in the old police building on Euston Road),(see earlier posting about this:

    In addition I problably would have even objected to McDonalds, but this was before I took a more proactive role in our area. Did you file any objections?

    It’s one thing to take a position verbally, what counts is putting your pen to paper and seeking the help of like minded folks to make their position clear. That’s what these folks did in objecting to this application. Did you file in support of this application? That would have been the path to take – rather then finding fault with those who objected.

    I look forward to seeing your name on any future planning or licensing matters that come forward – for or against – at least you will have participated activly as compared to passive disapproval.

  3. sean says:

    Hello Matt.

    The reasons we objected were:

    1) The leaseholders installed a light box sign that broke the conservation guidelines for the area. Its light pollution was extreme and overall specification was poor. The light box has now been removed.

    2) The leaseholder took away the approved shop-front and installed an open ‘street market’ style counter. Again breaking planning rules.

    3) There was inadequate extraction, meaning residential units would be impacted by cooking smells.

    4) We also objected to after 23:00 trading as we believed the area is well served with late nigh take-aways. Another late night unit will simply saturate an area already struggling to to cope with rubbish clean up, sick on pavements etc. It’s about balance.

    We support all local business who support the community and who don’t take the p+++ by ignoring planning rules and huge of amounts of effort by many people to make the area clean, green and a pleasant to be.

  4. James Melly says:

    Cafe Sorriso is currently shut with its windows painted over. Not sure if it’s permanent or being refurbished.

  5. Andrew says:

    New planning application for this shop….P111594, comments due 20th October….

    “Change of use from cafe (A3 use class) to hot food take away (A5 use class) and installation of new shopfront including awning along with extract ducting to rear. (Amendment to previously refused application P100224). This application may affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Town and Country Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended); section 73.”

    Also note that there is an application posted in the window for selling alcohol (can’t get details from Islington site due to error…)

  6. sean says:

    Hello all,

    I’ve checked with Islington planning and the unit at 2 York Way *is* able to re-apply for similar planning changes after 1 year *and* any objections have to be re-submitted. For anyone who does not believe another after 23:00 take-away with an alcohol license is desirable, please send your feedback to planning@islington.gov.uk The deadline is October 20th.

    I’ve pasted below the relevant reasons we gave last time which can still be used.

    It’s worth saying that I and my neighbours want to support local business, particularly the independents but we also want to ensure KX does not go the way of Shoreditch where late at night the community is dealing with bar saturation. This is even more relevant when our council and community support teams have less resource to deal with the clean up and ASB.

    The reasons we gave before and that are still valid:

    a) Illuminated sign not in keeping with the character of the building or the adjoining frontages on York Way and having an adverse impact on the adjacent conservation area [contrary to UDP 2002 (Env 11)]

    b) Use class (takeaway hot foods) will result in high incidence of litter, detritus and encourage people to eat foods in open space, outside doorways of residential accommodation on York Way thereby reducing the amenity of local residents; and will diminish the quality of public realm on York Way and by creating a poor quality of environment adjacent to a key regeneration area and in the vicinity of Kings Cross station and the proposed station square [contrary to UDP 2002 (Env 4 and Env 17)]

    c) Proposed hours of operation will cause disturbance late at night to nearby residential neighbours from arrival and departure of customers [contrary to UDP 2002 (Env 17)]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s