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
-
Hi Alan.
First, I have now obtained permission to forward to you the exchange of emails that may reflect on the stress on the council's betting shop licensing function. I will send these to you shortly.
Second, I do not know if the Court of Appeal Judgement is online yet but I believe that regardless, the Wards Corner Community Coalition (WCC) will shortly be posting it on their website.
Third, who is it that spins at the Council?
Sometimes the spinning is farmed out to separate PR companies with which the Majority Group has political connections, such as Lexington Communications. If the spinning is internal, then I believe it is the responsibility of the "Communcations Department". This is the same group who publish Haringey People magazine which, in one of your most lucid moments, you recommended to me that I use as lining for a cat litter tray.
I am minded to get a cat in order to conform with your instructions.
-
-
Court of Appeal Judgement, attached below, is also now on the WCC website.
Appellant: The Queen on the Application of Janet Harris
Respondent: LBH
Interested parties: Grainger Seven Sisters Ltd; Northumberland And Durham Property Trust Ltd;
Intervener: The Equality and Human Rights Commission
. - Attachments:
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Thanks Clive. Not that lengthy (just over 10 pages) And clearly written.
I recommend to those HoL members who prefer their news without editorial.
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Penny on
-
In November 2003 I led a deputation from Seven Sisters market and concerned residents to the Council's Regeneration Scrutiny Panel about the Wards Corner redevelopment proposals. We asked for:
- a re-run of the recent poor consultation on the proposals and a guarantee ot proper consultation in future
- the thriving multi-cultural Seven Sisters market community to be celebrated and supported
- restoration of the elegant and distinctive Wards Department store.
The Council took hardly any notice of our views and now an enormous coalition of residents and traders has overturned the Council's plans.
Its a pity they didn't listen to us in the first place which might have saved a lot of wasted time and public money.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
Dear Everybody, Paaaarty
Please join WCC at a party/barbie/film show to celebrate the Appeal Court's doing the right thing and throwing out the LBH/Grainger Plan for Wards Corner. This Sunday, 8pm at the market. Seven Sisters tube, South Tottenham rail, or many buses get you there.
There will be dancing in the streets. It will be vibrant.
-
-
£212,000: the high cost of Haringey hubris. Story in the Haringey Independent; expect to see full and further coverage in Haringey People magazine.
Not!
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I'm new to this story and somewhat confused. Let's see if I've got this right.
Haringey gave planning permission to a developer to demolish Wards Corner for redevelopment. They (Haringey) then gave them £Xm.
This is my confusion. In most large scale developments, it is the developer who gives the council money or in kind benefits in the way of something called a section 106 agreement (perfectly legal and done by all councils and normally either a guarantee that a % of a residential development will be affordable housing or money towards a specific outcome like educational contributions or environmental improvements)
Why the other way around here? As far I as can see the developer would have absolutely minted it if the development went though.
-
-
Haringey gave planning permission to a developer to demolish Wards Corner for redevelopment. They (Haringey) then gave them £Xm
Michael: the only fault with your interpretation is the sequence, which actual sequence makes the council's conduct worse.
To the best of my knowledge, LBH first gave either £1.5m or £2m of taxpayer cash to the developer, Grainger. as a subsidy towards redevelopment at Wards Corner that would involve the demolition of an Edwardian Dept. Store and much else. It was opposed by most of the local community. The subsidy was in order to make the redvelopment profitable for Grainger PLC (a huge listed company with huge assets).
NB. Then came the planning permission.
Clearly, the assumption was that planning permission would necessarily follow, exposing the council's planning committee decision process as a farce and as a rubber-stamp. One of the two grounds of the first Judicial Review (not accepted by the lower court judge, despite the evidence) was that the planning chair was biased. Whether or not there was bias in a strict legal sense, council arrogance is evident all the way through.
Councillor Isidoros Diakidies resigned as a board member on the Bridge New Deal for Communities project. Isidoros claimed that the board members had "seriously mishandled" the Wards Corner development.
As far I as can see the developer would have absolutely minted it if the development went though
They were certainly keen on the first plan that the council wished to bullzone through. The huge subsidy was, as I understand it, to pay for a concrete raft over the ceiling of the shallow Seven Sisters tube station.
Once again, we have seen that property deals and Haringey do not mix. It's just another on the list of irregularities over Haringey's property deals.
More information here at the Wards Corner Community Coalition website In the interests of balance, I should point out that the council/property-developer's PR/prospectus spin-page is here
-
-
I don't know the details of these transactions, Michael. But from the written answer to a question at the Council meeting on 19 July, the position is considerably more complicated. (And includes funding from The Bridge New Deal for Communities - NDC.) The total of £2m is described as "gap funding" - and returnable "if the Agreement is terminated by the developer or returns a profit to the developer".
If you'd like details and background information, I suggest you write to both the Council and to the NDC and ask.
-
-
Nope - still don't get it.
The development is residential and commercial (with the units presumably for sale or rent) and so profit making (it's not like they were developing a school or a community facility like a sport centre) so I still can't grasp why £2m was paid the the developer as they stand to make a lot of money from the scheme.
Don't think the local council chipped in for the Westfield development even though major transport changes accompanied it.
-
-
Michael I recommend that you get in touch with WCCC to find out more. I understand that a recent meeting with the council, including council leader Clare Kober, sounded more positive, with an expressed wish to work with the community. It would be nice if the council would now consider the genuine community-generated alternative.
As for the original proposal, I believe Grainger received £1.5m cash plus a considerable non-cash benefit. I understand that a number of properties under council control or ownership were passed on for the development (that Grainger would own) at prices well below market levels.
The circumstances of these transfers appear to be such that in slightly different circumstances – i.e. had the prices been recommended to the vendor by an estate agent related to the purchaser – an estate agent might be liable to prosecution for fraud.
As Alan says, the situation is complicated – I would also say murky. This property deal seems to have a number of irregular aspects and another example of how the council does not look after community interests in its property deals, let alone the taxpayer. In case after case, the council has been shown to be less than competent in its property dealings.
I see it as significant that Councillor Isidoros Diakidies was moved to resign from the NDC over this. He's quoted as describing the situation as "seriously mishandled" and one wonders after the Court of Appeal's judgement, if he is not entitled to feel vindicated.
-
-
I've no idea about the Westerfield Scheme, Michael.
By all means follow Clive's suggestion and ask the WCC for their views and information. But at the same time, do put in a request to Haringey for information on the issues you want to raise. The cabinet councillor for Planning & Regeneration is Toni Mallett. ( Toni.Mallett@haringey.gov.uk )
As I'm sure you've realised, the redevelopment of this site is a highly contentious issue, with different views strongly held. Though often with more heat than light.
The question about Grainger at the last Council meeting is shown in the minutes here. It's Written Question 8 on pages 5/6.
As you'll see, contrary to Clive's 'understanding', the answer given states that:
"To date the Council has not sold any land to Grainger".
If Clive has come across evidence suggesting fraud I would urge him to report it to the Police. Similarly, evidence about "irregularities" in property dealings should be passed as soon as possible to the Auditors, Grant Thornton.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
