Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
BIG news on the London public park-protection front
IN the past 24 hours there has been significant news from PBP (Protect Brockwell Park) ~
Like Haringey, Lambeth Council engages regularly in intensive commercial exploitation of a big public park.
Lambeth's full-scale retreat from the Court of Appeal Hearing (scheduled for next week) may have implications for London Parks in general, including Haringey Council's wretched, damaging 10-year policy of hiring out Finsbury Park for major Events.
Haringey's policy began under New Labour Leader Claire Kober. Park hiring is continued and promoted, in particular by leader Cllr. Peray Ahmet & Parks Cabinet Member Cllr. Emily Arkell.
London Centric article
By understanding the possible legal implications of success in the Courts, The Friends of Finsbury Park supported and contributed toward the defence by Protect Brockwell Park.
The best or perhaps the only way to halt delinquent and irresponsible conduct by local councils in our parks, is by pan-London action.
——————————————————————————————————————
From PBP:
*APPEAL WITHDRAWN AT THE LAST MINUTE*
Tags for Forum Posts: Brockwell Park, Emily Arkell, Finsbury Park, Haringey Council, Major Events, Peray Ahmet
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Park on
-
Can the accessibility of the park please be part of the legal considerations and planning, please? Currently, the festivals have often blocked my way through the park in my wheelchair, blocked dropped kerbs and damaged surfaces, making them non-level access. Their obligations under the Equality Act should also be part of the planning as they seem to have low regard for it currently.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
It seems that the victory is that Lambeth will need to submit a planing application for events rather than approve them under permitted development.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Michaels
-
That's about as correct a conclusion as can be drawn from the largely legally irrelevant information in the OP.
So that means the council has to ask itself for permission to do what it wants to do. I look forward to seeing such a planning application refused by a career bureaucrat who knows on which side his bread is buttered.Some victory for the plaintiffs at the High Court.
The only interesting part of this story (if any) is that the Lambeth Council withdrew its case on appeal. I would speculate that the Lambeth Council mid appeal accidentally brought in an honest and forthright solicitor that warned them of the risk of taking this to judgment and what precedential jurisprudence might arise out of it: "What possible better outcome can you get on appeal than having to ask yourself for permission to do what you want?"
-
-
And now they have cancelled the annual Lambeth Country Show. Revenge, eh?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter
-
LAMBETH appear to share much of the same kind of conduct about public parks as our council. Yesterday, Brixton Buzz carries the following story:
Protect Brockwell Park makes statement in response to the cancellation of the Lambeth Country Show
-
Permalink Reply by Adrian Hackney
-
The change that has come into effect here is that the number of days counted towards requiring a planning application has become cumulative. Previously, each of the events was considered in isolation, and each of the events in isolation occupies the park for less than 28 days. Cumulatively, they occupy the park for more than 28 days each year. This means that planning permission is required for all of them. And planning applications bring into effect a very different set of rules than those for a simple licensing application.
There was a previous occasion when a planning application for a structure in the park was submitted. This would have given rise to the presence of a pub in the middle of the park for consumption of alcohol on and off the premises. The intention was that this structure should remain in place for more than 28 days. It therefore required planning permission.
The planning application gave rise to 179 consultation comments.
https://publicregister.haringey.gov.uk/pr/s/planning-application/a0...
for example, this one from a neighbouring local planning authority.
https://publicregister.haringey.gov.uk/pr/sfc/servlet.shepherd/vers...
And this from a sports club based in Finsbury Park.
https://publicregister.haringey.gov.uk/pr/sfc/servlet.shepherd/vers...
the complete register of comments on the application can be found here.
https://publicregister.haringey.gov.uk/pr/s/planning-application/a0...
In the face of these objections, the application was simply withdrawn.
-
-
ADRIAN, thanks for this context.
I expect you're referring to what became known as the pop-up pub-in-the-park. The pub was promoted by the council's Events Team on behalf of the council and would have lasted over the summer of 2021.
In this video, activist Martin Ball walks us through from the Childrens Playground to the site of the proposed "temporary" pub.
The promoters withdrew their Application at the 11th hour.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul K
-
The reply by Adrian Hackney is, I think, not quite correct. The judgment was based upon one crucial fact. The infrastructure which changed the use of the park would have been erected and used for the specified event for 22 days: permitted. However, it would not have then been de-rigged but was to remain in place for the Lambeth Country Show, so the change of use of the park [by fencing it off] would have been for a continuous 37 days: not permitted. IF the infrastructure had been de-rigged within 28 days but then re-erected later for another event the council would have been acting lawfully as the judges in a case in 2002 pointed out their decision reminded "those concerned with planning matters the crucial importance of land reverting to its normal use … after each occasion of temporary use". What this does mean is that the cost of rigging and de-rigging each time might mean individual events are less commercially attractive [incidentally this may be why the Lambeth Country Show was an unintended victim of the decision]. But in any event, change of use for more than 28 days can still be allowed via the planning process - which may be why the Council did not bother pursuing the appeal as they and their commercial partners simply have to fill in different paperwork to achieve the same result, although that process will be more complex and the council would have to consider the objections, but given their past performance they may stil allow the applications which would have to be expensively challenged each time in the High Court. Not quite the comprehensive victory local residents might have wished for, but at least a temporary reprieve.
-
-
Thanks. I'm sure the Friends of Finsbury Park will test this further.
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
