Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Fairview Beauties Garner Support for Monster Development with Smiles, Pretty Pictures and Half-truths
Having been made aware of a website set up by Fairveiw with the sole purpose of garnering support for the monster development at Hampden Road, I learned that all the comments gained through it came form a door-knocking exercise. Of course it's little surprise that the only comments they passed on were those where they were able to persuade a resident to support the application.
On my way past one of the roads involved today, I knocked at two of the addresses where residents have made comments of support through the Fairview site. Both signees were men and the initial comment of both was that the developer had sent round very attractive young women with an electronic device and lots of pretty pictures.
I spent 2 or 3 minutes talking to each. After listening to me for that short time, both said they felt that they hadn't been given the full picture but had been attracted by the pretty visualisations and the talk of lots of green space.
The first said to me, "I wish I could take it back. I'd still support housing but not that design. I just thought all the green space was better than the steel yard."
The second said, "Oh, okay. No after hearing the full picture I don't support. Cancel my support".
Having got that far I thought I had enough of a sense of what Fairview are doing. I'll flag this up in a comment on the application and move on.
I'd say this process of theirs is probably legal but it certainly suggests questionable ethics and an attempt to dishonestly influence the planning process.
Should you object to this attempt at corporate "vote-rigging" and support the idea of housing on the site, but you're not in favour of the scale of this development, you can submit an objection simply saying that you object to the building because of its height. Should you be so inclined you can add that the application is not in line with Haringey's tall buildings policy since it's not in an area designated as suitable for tall buildings.
Tags for Forum Posts: hampden road, hampden road development
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Speaking as someone who , on HOL, possibly lives closest to this planned development, I resent the fact that I have not been visited by these sirens. This is blatant discrimination and, possibly, ageism as well.
Consequently, I will object to the plans in the strongest possible terms.
-
Permalink Reply by Rory Bergin on
-
Nice..
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Tris, what I'm trying to do in my posts is to provide a counterweight to Fairview's unbalanced presentation of the situation. If you read all the posts I've written, you'll understand what I mean. Having said that, any comment made on the vehicle I provide (this website) is fully visible to anyone who cares to look. Fairview, on the other hand provide a vehicle which only transmits comments that suit them. Whilst my opinion on this particular development is clear, I haven't tried to conceal any materials the developer has provided.
Why, Tris do you feel sorely misled by me?
-
-
Tris, you're a crusader for transparency. That's what I'm seeking here.
I haven't said anywhere that developers are evil nor that tall buildings are bad. What I have said is that this development is not appropriate for this site. I've pointed out that Fairview have been misleading in:
1. Their presentation of a protected view by using a more favourable viewpoint than the one chosen by Haringey Council. If it is not challenged, busy councillors would probably assume the view they are shown is accurate (and this is a relevant decision point for them).
2. I've reported unembellished what I was told about their door-knocking exercise. I wrote that the people I spoke to told me that they hadn't been told about the building height and other salient facts. They both chose to lead with the fact that the callers were very attractive. They told me unbidden that having listened to a broader representation of the facts that they'd ideally want to make a different comment to the one they made.
3. I've reported that I've been told that some people told the Fairview door-knockers that they didn't support the development and that Fairview haven't passed those comments on.
To me that behaviour is both dishonest and unethical. Perhaps you'd characterise it differently?
If you feel that there are other elements of the development that cause you concern, go knock yourself out, air them on here or on the planning website.
John D who lives right by the site, has said that he's a supporter of the development. I respect his view and have neither sought to argue with him nor discredit his viewpoint.
-
-
As I would expect a prospective councillor to give a fair account and make a fair report of a local issue, so I would expect a private company intervening in a local democratic process to hold themselves to the same standard. I'd also expect the greatest efforts not to misrepresent any aspect of this important issue.
Perhaps you expect less ethical behaviour of private company?
If you're happy with the way they've behaved, say no more, but please don't hold others to the standards you settle for.
-
-
Whining about the Friends of Finsbury Park or developers is all part of the democratic whining and dining process, eh Tris.
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
Those ladies you talk about will be from Curtin & Co. working on behalf of the developers. They will also be monitoring this conversation and all others on HOL. They probably know where you live Hugh & what colour underwear you have on :) They're also the same company that helped sell the Queens Head pub to the current 'developer' ... furniture store etc.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben on
-
Don't want to make you feel ganged up on here Hugh, but I agree with what Tris is saying. One cannot complain about biased argument with either exclusive information or little information, and then do the same.
In order for people to make a fair judgement, they require information along the lines of type of property mix, open spaces, traffic volume adjustment, parking impact, skyline impact if any, impact on light etc and how the developer has addressed the issues.
Drumming up negative views may come across as nimbyish.
-
-
Don't worry Ben, I don't feel ganged up on in the slightest. However, I am hard pressed to work out what you mean about a lack of information and I'm amazed that you and Tris think that the developer needs resources to even up the dialogue with a bloke running a local website in his spare time.
Fairview has used its corporate might to present an exhaustive planning submission. Both the design and scale of their submission is self-evidently aimed at maximising the chance of their success. I have pointed freely to that submission.
What I have also done is to try and bring a little balance to the planning process. The way it works right now is that developers have a huge amount of resources with which to make their case. For their part residents have whatever time, knowledge and organisation is available to them. Very often all three things are running on empty and most often their voice is a tiny squeak that doesn't get heard or gives up the ghost before the finishing line.
I've tried to shine light on a parts of the case that might otherwise not get visibility and on the law that would otherwise stay unknowable. It's not my place to augment the ample resources of the developer. What I CAN do is to act honourably enough so as not to conceal the facts they present. This much I have done by freely linking to their submission papers. You'll note a the complete opposite approach from the developers however. Why do you think they set up a totally separate website?
I have a free and clear conscience as to what I have done. Please explain exactly what else you think I should have done.
Let me repeat once again my position on a development on the Hampden Road site. I'm in favour of it. But I'm not in favour of an inappropriate development such as the one that is currently in submission.
As to the casual slinging of accusations of nimbyism, please read my post from a few months back.
-
-
Good to hear it. I would not like discussions like these to put off individuals such as yourself who raise awareness of local issues to the community.
I would bear in mind that it is natural for any company to apply its resources to achieve its goals. Calling this corporate might may not attract people to your view as it represents a caricature of business, rather than the normal practice of it.
I did note your link to their site, good idea. You may wonder if this side discussion has any point.
My point is to urge you and other active members raising awareness to avoid terms and tone such as I (and others) have mentioned, as this will only damage impartiality, which is what seems to be the core of your points.
I have read your post on nimbyism, and recognise the validity of certain points. I do feel however, the initial post does feed into this term.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
"I would bear in mind that it is natural for any company to apply its resources to achieve its goals. " yeah... Wonga, British American Tobacco,Shell, General Motors... natural.
It's only become common thought in recent years that business should be unfettered.
-
-
I wasn't principally referring to my link to their website, but thanks for flagging that up. What I meant was my linking to the principal tool of democracy in this case, the planning website. In contrast, their website was designed to avoid that.
Of course it's 'natural for any company to apply its resources to achieve its goals', but I hope you wouldn't argue that both ethically and legally there are right and wrong ways of doing that. Recent corporate history in the UK tells the story. As 'natural' as their chosen route may be Fairview's actions in several respects certainly stray from the ethical path.
The tone deployed in my headlines is designed purely to act in lieu of a corporate budget in terms of grabbing people's attention. Whilst I make no bones about my point of view, the tone of my prose on this matter is in general pretty straight.
As to 'nimbyism', I'm not sure which post you're referring to as the 'initial post''. Whatever the case, across all I've written on this, I've made my objections clear. I accept the benefits of a large housing development on the site and indeed welcome it. However, for very good reason the Council has a policy which expressly forbids the development of tall buildings on that site. Are the Council nimbys too, Ben?
Whilst other council policies aren't as unequivocal on the matter as their tall buildings one, there are very strong cases to be made in several other areas on council policy alone.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
