Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Wards Corner Campaigners win in Court of Appeal
Equality considerations were unlawfully ignored in approval of multi million pound development
Campaigners fighting to prevent demolition of businesses and homes on the Wards Corner site over Seven Sisters tube station were today celebrating victory in an important Judicial Review test case. The Court of Appeal handed down a ruling that Haringey Council had acted unlawfully by not properly considering the impact on Tottenham’s diverse local community of planned new housing and retail developments. The case is the first to decide that local authorities must assess impact in race equality terms before authorising major developments.
Giving the lead judgement, Lord Justice Pill said:
"on the material before the council, there was sufficient potential impact on equality of opportunity between persons of different racial groups, and on good relations between such groups, to require that the impact of the decision on those aspects of social and economic life be considered…There was no analysis of the material before the council in the context of the [Council’s equality] duty. I would allow the appeal and quash the permission."
Janet Harris, the local campaigner who brought the challenge said today:
"I am delighted with the outcome of the case. Developments of this kind erode the social fabric of communities like mine in Tottenham. If they are not checked, people will eventually look around and wonder why the place where they live is no longer special and vibrant."
Mital Patel, one of the campaigners whose family would lose their home and livelihood if the development goes ahead, today said:
"The Council was told in no uncertain terms that it needed to assess impact taking into account the opportunities that would be denied to ethnic minorities in the community were their businesses and homes replaced by yuppie flats and chain stores. It ignored this request. The Court of Appeal has agreed that this undermined the planning decision, root and branch. The community is hopeful that the Council will review matters and open its mind to allowing a development that safeguards and celebrates what is unique about Haringey, rather than persisting in trying to replicate what can be found in shopping centres up and down the country."
John Halford from Bindmans LLP who is representing the campaign today said:
"The Council’s attitude towards the local community was quite scandalous. It flagrantly breached the legal duty to weigh the impact of its decisions in terms of equality of opportunity and community good relations, a duty that Parliament specifically imposed to dispel institutional complacency over race equality. This ruling sends the clearest signal that, however persuasive a wealthy developer may be, its voice must not drown out those of local people."
The case was supported by the Legal Services Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Its barrister, Helen Mountfield QC appeared in the Court of Appeal alongside Ms Harris’ barrister, David Wolfe. She argued that if the Council’s arguments were right:
"it would mean that the Council’s Race Equality Policies never actually had any impact on the ground, at the point when the actual decisions which affected people’s lives were made."
Also, see the report in the Haringey Independent.
Tags for Forum Posts: ward's corner
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Thanks for posting this Hugh. I followed this case with interest. I was surprised (in the lower court Hearing) that the Chair of the Planning Committee was found not to have been biased and even more surprised that the earlier judge found the council had not ignored the Race Relations Act – despite the absence of evidence they had performed any form of impact assessment. At least this latter mistake has been rectified.
There were parallels with the council's attempt to sell our charity's main asset (Alexandra Palace). The common factor was absent or inadequate consultation coupled with a determination to bulldoze through a property deal. It does seem that the more minor something is, the happier is Haringey to consult and the more important something is, the less willing is Haringey to consult.
In the Wards Corner case, an arrogant council was happy to pay lip service to the notion of race equality, whose principles Haringey is prepared to go along with ... just so long as it is convenient to do so.
A wise council would learn from its mistakes and pay heed to the comments of judges.
An important precedent has now been set and the decision may influence planning in other places.
.
-
-
THE huge subsidy that the council gave prematurely to Grainger is an example of the free-spending days that need to end.
The donation of our tax pounds to the giant listed property developer Grainger (44 per cent rise in first-half sales to £79 million and half-year pre-tax profits of £3.5 million) made a mockery of the deliberations of the Planning Committee:
The assumption had to be, that Grainger's development would go ahead, regardless of community objections – certainly regardless of the pesky Race Relations Act – in fact, regardless ... of anything else. The Planning Committee would be a rubber-stamp. Haringey seems chronically incapable of understanding the concept of Conflict-of-Interest.
This is not the only case whereby Haringey's bulldozer has been stopped only by the courts. It is a failure all around when it gets to this stage and suggests dysfunction. Who in Haringey will step forward and admit responsibility?
-
-
I understand the big
bribesubsidy was to pay for the strengthening of the roof of the shallow tube station below.
Putting aside the suitability of demolishing Wards Corner, and just on the narrow point of the bribe/subsidy, if the project was unviable for Grainger without the subsidy-bribe then the project was unviable, full stop.
I am all for public subsidies for useful things like public transport, from which we all benefit.
But the notion of our taxes going to a company that boasts assets of £2,100,000,000, in order that they can make a private profit – is at least daft and looks irregular.
-
Permalink Reply by Jo Foster on
-
I think the term "regeneration" has been hijacked. It was originally conceived as a way of helping people in run-down neighbourhoods and city centres improve their environment and livelihoods, encouraging creative participation. It now seems to result in bland pedestrianised shopping centres, with identical chain stores and chain junk food outlets and pubs, encouraging bad behaviour at weekends.
The Wards Corner victory should encourage communities across London fighting against their neighbourhoods and being destroyed and replaced with similar developments associated with transport hub improvements (Archway, West Hampstead).
-
Permalink Reply by andy thomas on
-
I absolutely agree with this sentiment - I'd rather keep the slightly tatty old buildings, with their patina of age and atmosphere of faded times past as they have something called 'character' and, in fact, gives this whole NE London area that same character.
The architectural style of the windows in the Wards Corner building alone should have secured it listed building status.
-
-
"Regeneration" has certainly been hijacked by Haringey. The ransom was paid, but the kidnappers have murdered the word anyway. The best example of Haringey word-murder was when Councillor H. Lister was Executive Cabinet Member for Regeneration. In this capacity, he promoted a casino proposal at Alexandra Palace. The casino was to be at the heart of community regeneration (?!). The final sentence of the Council's Casino Proposal was:
Such an impact [of a casino] would be of particular benefit to black and minority ethnic communities and socially excluded neighbourhoods
There are other terms hijacked by Planning and their developer friends. In these pacts with the devils (it happened with Ally Pally also), large amounts of public funds were thrust upon enormously rich organisations.
Planning has become perverse and perverted.
Over Wards Court, in common with other Council defeats in Court, I predict there will be no lessons learnt, much less an apology.
-
-
Will: Only reason its a dump is because the council have just left it to rot waiting till it was in such a state that the locals would be begging them to knock it down. –
A similar attitude has been part of the council's policy over our Charity's main asset, Alexandra Palace, for the past 15 years. The Trustees (the council) have been in more-or-less continuous Breach of Trust. -
-
-
Will@ Unfortunately Edwardian building quality is of a far higher standard than its modern day equivalent so the building refused to collapse.
When will councillors, "regeneration agencies", town planners, construction companies, et al understand that very often the reason people live where they do is because they like the place as it stands. They don't want it torn down and replaced with yet another dreary, soulless retail complex, they don't want their houses & flats replaced with the ghastly overpriced eggboxes you see in the Docklands (and in other parts of Harringay unfortunately) ; all they want is for the local authority to fix broken infrastructure (pavements, street cleaning, rubbish & graffitti removal), for property owners to look after their buildings (re-painting, re-pointing, etc) and for everyone involved to actually love the place they live in. -
-
-
Will@ Andy - because it is far cheaper to flatten the older buildings, fill the cellars and basements with concrete and put up a quick prefab block in half the time and cost it would have taken to sensitively restore the building.
Surely demolition followed by new-build is indefensible on 'green' grounds alone? The amount of energy used, materials and resources consumed as well as wasted (look in any builders skip and you'll see lots of brand new stuff in there) and a massive increase in landfill caused by this style of 'regeneration' must surely exceed the alternative of remedial works to the existing structures?
I'm not suggesting that Wards Corner be restored to gentrified Blackheath standards - just get any structural problems fixed and the surrounding area tidied up a bit. The rest of it will probably take care of itself once community faith has been restored. -
-
-
Perhaps I used the wrong word - I should have said "restored to Homes & Gardens magazine standard" (the glossy photo magazine that often graces the coffee tables of homes in Muswell Hill & Stroud Green). But restoring a splendid building and at the same time making it usable for the 21st century has got to be a step in the right direction.
(And I admit to being a fan of lovely architecture, the intricacies of social history and am definitely not a Labour supporter). -
-
-
The council has released the following spin in response to their defeat in the Court of Appeal (but nothing yet on how they intend to proceed):
"Judicial opinion was clearly divided over this issue. Our case had been upheld in the High Court but the Court of Appeal came to another view. We had no intention of not complying with the law and are grateful for this clarification.
"We welcome the court’s recognition of the desire in the borough for regeneration of the area. We note that, apart from some considerations, the Court of Appeal concluded that the council followed a thorough and fair procedure."
--
Judicial opinion was not divided in the higher court. The Court of Appeal didn't merely come to "another" view, they came to the view that shall prevail (unless Haringey waste more time and money and pursue an Appeal). The council pretends that there is not a hierarchy of courts and pretend that there is some equality of division over this issue: the lower court, which came up with a perverse decision by a single judge, versus the thorough examination by three (count 'em, three) judges in the higher court.
Haringey tell us they will comply with the judgement, as if we should be grateful for that. On the other hand, Haringey is unlikely genuinely to have the gratitude they claim for the Appeal Court's "clarification". They have been caught out yet again acting unlawfully and they know it. It's just a little more embarrassing this time, because their inconstant regard for the Race Relations Act is now plain.
The last bit "apart from some considerations" is like saying that, apart from WW2, Hitler was a decent bloke as he was fond of animals and a vegetarian.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Do you happen to have a copy of the full Court of Appeal judgement, Clive? Or a link where I can download and read it? This is not because I doubt your own summary and interpretation. Or speculate that it is anything other than fair, balanced, comprehensive, scrupulously factual and in accordance with the Court's judgement.
But if possible I prefer to read original documents and make up my own mind about who spins and who delves.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor>
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
