Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Local Development Framework
Has anyone had any thoughts about Haringey's Local Development Framework (LDF) or made any effort to respond to the consultation?
I know that greenn8 suggested some time agoGreenN8 discussion that it is important to respond, on the grounds that if we concerned citizens don't respond, then cunning advisors to evil forces will take us over, doing what they want rather than what we want. (A pessimistic view but probably not far off). But what should we say?
My view on the core strategy section of the LDF is that after complying with the list of directives in Appendix A then Haringey has about as much freedom of movement in its local decision making as the average Guantanamo detainee. Council Directive 2000/69/EC Second Daughter Directive, European Commission (1999) for example states exactly how much benzene should be in the air that we breathe, and apparently Ken wants to have some control over what we eat (BetterFood for London: the Mayor’s Draft Food Strategy, Mayor of London (2005)).
My response to the consultation would therefore be that we should do a global edit on the recently completed UDP, changing all occurrences of UDP to LDF and move on, enabling the team of 7 officers currently engaged on it to do something useful (such as issuing parking tickets perhaps).
As sensible as this suggestion is, I fear it would not receive a favourable response from the council. Does anyone have a better approach?
I know that greenn8 suggested some time agoGreenN8 discussion that it is important to respond, on the grounds that if we concerned citizens don't respond, then cunning advisors to evil forces will take us over, doing what they want rather than what we want. (A pessimistic view but probably not far off). But what should we say?
My view on the core strategy section of the LDF is that after complying with the list of directives in Appendix A then Haringey has about as much freedom of movement in its local decision making as the average Guantanamo detainee. Council Directive 2000/69/EC Second Daughter Directive, European Commission (1999) for example states exactly how much benzene should be in the air that we breathe, and apparently Ken wants to have some control over what we eat (BetterFood for London: the Mayor’s Draft Food Strategy, Mayor of London (2005)).
My response to the consultation would therefore be that we should do a global edit on the recently completed UDP, changing all occurrences of UDP to LDF and move on, enabling the team of 7 officers currently engaged on it to do something useful (such as issuing parking tickets perhaps).
As sensible as this suggestion is, I fear it would not receive a favourable response from the council. Does anyone have a better approach?
Tags for Forum Posts: consultation, housing, local development framework
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Thanks for bringing this up again Omotn. My reaction to this so-called consultation process is one of extreme disappointment. I imagine that the reaction of the vast majority of people who even look at the consultation portal will be an almost immediate departure from the site. The issues are not laid out clearly and the feedback required not clear. I would say that Haringey are running a very poor consultation process here. If you look at my Haringey Council's Plan for the Future - Call for Consultation post from the middle of last month, you'll see where I tried to pull out the key issues.
So my answer to your question about the approach would be to ask Haringey to provide a more meaningful, more accessible consultation. However hemmed in they may feel by the layers of legislation they may feel, they have a duty to carefully pick through it all and develop a blueprint that will help the area. They should make it easy for the residents to express their views as a key part of this process.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Blast you Matt, now I'll have to re write what I'm saying!
Have just visited the site and there are still no comments. Is this surprising when you look at it? Or when you consider the questions on which you may comment
ex: Should we resist design that fails to improve the character and quality of an area? Er...yes.
and there are 78 questions most of which the answer would be, er...yes and the final one is
Are there any issues and options that we may have missed?. Don't know...my brain is in meltdown...
The consultation ends on the 31 of March and it would take me that long to work through the material. Most people whose language skills were even up to it, (and if we are honest and with no judgement, the people who this would affect the most don't have the ability to wade through this.) would perhaps judge that their precious Sunday mornings are better spent playing with the kids or mowing the lawn...and who can blame them?
Regarding the handy guide to priorities, well who would disagree with those? This is not saying what do you want, its saying here is what we want and we hope you agree but it doesn't matter if you don't.
A local charter for Harringay, please
.
-
-
Perhaps I should post the above as my comment on the consultation on the Haringey website.
-
Permalink Reply by Omotn on
-
So far, then, a mixed response:
on the one hand there have been responses - which I find encouraging and gratifying - thank you
on the other hand -
- is Matt implying I need to redraft my comments in plainer English?
- Is Liz suggesting I should answer "Er. . .yes" to every question?
- Does Hugh not understand that LBH does not want us to understand the issues and make comments - they want us to get bored and go away, not to take part in a lively and interesting discussion with a meaningful outcome. And they would argue that there is no more accessible consultation than one posted on the internet managed by very splendid (and no doubt expensive) software from a company which makes its living selling consultation software to local authorities, for goodness sake.
So I'm still left with my original view that since there is little that LBH can do in the way of local planning, they should do as little as possible and reduce our rates accordingly. In contrast perhaps to Liz's philosophy "Nobody could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little" I would count it a great triumph if I could persuade LBH to do absolutely nothing.
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
> is Matt implying I need to redraft my comments in plainer English?
Why would I do that? I'm assuming the council needs to do this. Hey watch this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3E_8Hzh7O0
There's always a faster and more direct route to get things done! ;)
-
-
Completely off the point Matt - but thank you anyway. That looks incredible - if I had the nerve!
-
-
Yeah it is but hey, someone was going off at random so....
Ain't that bird fella nuts! (referring to youtube vid)
-
-
> there is little that LBH can do in the way of local planning, they should do as little as possible
So if councils don't deal with planning issues who does?
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
We (Londoners) have a Mayor. Planning should be their responsibility.
-
-
The document up for consultation is a Local Development Framework - my argument is that by the time all the constraints and prescriptions imposed by:
- EU law
- EU directives
- UK law
- The National Trust, English Heritage
- The Mayor
have been taken into account, there is so little scope for the setting of policy or flexibility in the local framework that we shouldn't bother. LBH deals not with planning issues (levels of emissions, housing density, listing buildings and so on) but it does deal with planning applications, the outcomes of which are determined by the rules set by all those higher authorities.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
