Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Closure of parks depots
Has this issue already been discussed? it seems a crucial issue for the borough and its parks. Haringey parks are the strong point of the borough being a good place to live, and this cost cutting measure will be counter productive.
This is what I found on Google:
Haringey Council's plans to close or repurpose on-site park depots and staff bases have sparked significant opposition from local community groups and park staff. [1, 2]
The council has faced intense scrutiny over structural changes to how park buildings are managed, driven largely by severe financial and budgetary pressures. [1, 2]
The Core Issues Surrounding Park Depot Closures
The controversy revolves around three key developments affecting these worker bases:
- Closure and Repurposing of Depots:Under cost-saving proposals, the council has planned to close multiple dedicated parks depots or hand them over to street-cleaning teams. Local groups argue this removes the physical presence of dedicated park keepers. [1]
- Commercial Leasing of Park Buildings:Management of empty or under-utilised park buildings has been shifted from the Parks Service to Property Services. Around 32 park buildings have been flagged for new external leases. The Haringey Friends of Parks Forum has actively campaigned to ensure that any new commercial tenants provide community-friendly services rather than purely commercial operations. [1]
- Staffing and Budget Cuts: The budget changes include deep cuts to park maintenance, prompting an ePetition to Haringey Council calling for a halt to compulsory redundancies and the preservation of all existing on-site staff depots. [1]
Why Residents are Opposing the Move
Community advocates and park users argue that losing dedicated worker bases on-site will have severe consequences for the borough's green spaces: [1]
- Safety Concerns: Removing localized staff bases leaves parks unmonitored during the day, increasing the risk of anti-social behaviour. [1]
- Slower Maintenance: Forcing park workers to operate from centralized hubs rather than local depots delays immediate maintenance and landscape care. [1]
- Loss of Community Connection: Park keepers using these bases act as a vital point of contact for the public and local volunteering group
Tags for Forum Posts: depots, environment, health, leisure, park, parks
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter
-
CATHY, thanks for posting. Things seem to be going from bad to worse. I've alerted the FoFP.
-
Permalink Reply by Cathy
-
Apparently Finsbury Park will keep its depot. It's the other parks in the Borough that will suffer.
-
Permalink Reply by Jamie Harper
-
The 'friends' forced the council to ring-fence any commercial income from Finsbury Park and spend it only in Finsbury Park. The council has been covertly diverting some of these resources to help other parks etc.
The effective centralising of borough wide operations in Finsbury Park is the logical and very easily foreseen conclusion.
"With friends like these..."
-
-
A 2018 link to Michael quoting the FoFP's lawyers doing exactly as I described above.
Clive's dissembling and panicked arse covering below relies on Michael's semantic slip of suggesting the FoFP "went to court to..."
Revisiting the thread linked to above also shows us how foreseeable this problem was for those not counted as 'friends' of Haringey's parks.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson
-
Didn't the Friends of Finsbury Park go to court to ensure that Finsbury Park income went only to Finsbury Park rather than helping to subsidise those parks in need of money but with no income stream?
-
-
No, that notion may be have been spread by those who are no friends of public parks or of FP in particular; that was not the reason why the FoFP went to Court.
The idea that FP would subsidise the whole Parks Department was never at issue and not considered. That arrangement—probably unlawful—was contemplated only after the court cases. The FoFP sought JR to reduce the intense commercial exploitation of a public park.
In the Appeal, we were joined by The Open Spaces Society.
The judges did say that councils held parks in trust for the public (rather than own them).
10 years ago, it was the Court's decision that the council could go on exploiting as much of the park as they wished, but that all cash generated in the park, must be spent in the park. I think this was a rough read-across of the legal principle, that trustees should not make a profit from assets held in trust. FP could probably not absorb all the cash generated and the judges may have thought they were creating a natural ceiling on excessive exploitation.
FP has become steadily run down. It's fairly clear the council has not abided by Court-directed arrangement and this has been accompanied by municipal dishonesty. The only way that the (unsatisfactory) judicial decision could be checked or enforced, would be if the council published auditable accounts. This is likely the reason why the council has not done so, i.e. it might expose an unlawful subsidy.
The current situation is unsatisfactory and lends itself to conflicts of interest, as this is not the only peculiar aspect of FP financing. I am pleased that Green Councillors have promised less secrecy and more transparency.
-
Permalink Reply by Nigel
-
Clive, can you please post a link to the HC and CA judgments and to any Council public statement in response?
Thank you.
-
-
Nigel, the link to the CA judgement is above, under the word "Appeal". It should show up in your browser with a different colour to the text around it. The earlier HC judgement is here.
The JR was funded by residents and general public subscription. The FoFP were supported by Britain's oldest national conservation body, founded in 1865, The Open Spaces Society (also linked above).
As for council public statements of 10 years ago, you're as well placed as me to find them.
It was local New Labour leader Claire Kober's council in 2014 which instituted the huge lifting of the ceiling in numbers permitted to 50,000 ticketholders. If I remember rightly she may, unsurprisingly, have welcomed the Court's decision, probably on Musk's X channel, then called Twitter. The council's propaganda and self-congratulation channels probably also trumpeted their victory around the time.
-
-
Well considering we know they were at least £500000 down this year this seems to be an inevitable consequence.
-
-
This is what austerity means, reducing funding for Councils so that they have to make cuts in their budget. Councils have to cut park services rather than children services, but the reality is that parks are vital for children's health and wellbeing.
-
-
Cathy, over the past 10 years there has been more loyalty to the local Labour Group's WildWest park exploitation policy than to truth. A part of the chronic council dishonesty is that, due to Event-cash pouring in, FP is well- or adequately-funded.
Inside the FP depot, more than a quarter million pounds p.a. may be spent on the Events Team and other wages and salaries, but this is not reflected in the condition of FP.
Outside the building—around the council yard and offices—our park deteriorates and more ground is ceded to drug-dealing.
The documented damage to FP that is caused directly by Events hire during the EventTeam's "Summer Season", is less significant than the year-round reduced maintenance.
.
-
Permalink Reply by Zena Brabazon
-
Hello Everyone
I am responding in particular to Clive's last post as I think the comments about salaries linked to Finsbury Park are unfair, giving the impression that this is profligate.
The plain fact is that £250,000 would not fund that many posts. Assuming an average salary of £35k per year, the council also has to add on pension contributions, and employer's national insurance to cover the full cost. I may be slightly out of date, but my recollection is that an additional 25% should be added to the salary to ensure all costs are covered. So, the full cost of a £35k per annum salary would be £43,750. Working on that premise, £250k would fund 5.7 full-time posts.
How the income earned from the parks events is apportioned is a reasonable question to ask, but I would also add that running the park is a complicated matter and many people are involved in that endeavour - those working full-time looking after the park whose salaries would be funded 100% from parks income, but also those in management, development, organisation and administration who would spend a proportion of their work time focusing on Finsbury Park.
As Cathy rightly points out, 14 years of austerity meant that councils - not just Haringey - had to focus on the key statutory services. Three services in Haringey consume 80% of the budget - adult social care, temporary accommodation and children's.
As ward councillor for Harringay until May 2026 I know the huge effort which has gone into maintaining Finsbury Park and other parks, in these financial circumstances. In Labour's last budget for example, we agreed capital funding for several new play areas, including Downhills Park, Chestnuts Park and Bruce Castle Park - works which have been underway and which either have been or are now being completed. Anna Abela and I were also determined to secure funding for Ducketts common play area, which we did.
I would hope the efforts to maintaining the parks are being sustained by the Green administration.
Zena Brabazon
Labour Councillor for Harringay ward, 2016-May 2026
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
