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 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
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter
-
Zena, sorry that figure of [one] quarter million pounds was wrong and entirely my mistake.
That should have read at least three quarters of a million pounds. Part of which is spent on the Events Team although, because of council secrecy, we don't know how much.
We also don't know how much is really spent on Finsbury Park in total.
Are you able to confirm that, the council agreed or arranged, that half of at least one EventsTeam salary is paid from Event income?
i.e. rather than from public money. And if so, would you agree with me, that this could create a conflict-of-interest?
Because of the chronic absence of transparency, there has been no way to check that the council abided by the High Court ruling, that all cash raised on the back of FP must be spent for the benefit of Finsbury Park.
A past email from the Head of Parks was gobbledegook.
The council's overall accounts are not reliable. That is not my opinion.
It is in effect the formal Audit Opinion of the independent, objective external Auditors for several years running. "Disclaimer" Audit Opinions are produced when the accounts are in such a state that they may or may not give a true and fair picture of the finances.
In my view, former leader Peray Ahmet gave insufficient attention to the basics.
I hope the Green administration will maintain the parks better and that next year's contracted Wireless will be the last.
Because Haringey Council has over many years proven itself to be a poor steward of FP, my longer term hope is that control is removed from LBH.
-
Permalink Reply by Nigel
-
It was reassuring to read above that Zena agrees that apportioning the income from the Park may be considered.
She will, I hope, forgive me making the point that the cost of "development, organisation and administration" of those three services (as opposed to the direct cost of their delivery) and others has not been cut sufficiently to enable the Council to balance its books. Hence so little money is left for maintaining the Park, and other services.
That is not "the result of austerity" but the result of deliberate choices as to how and where available money was and will be spent.
Those choices now mean the Council is millions of pounds in hock with no present prospect of repayment or even servicing the debt.
We understand that it is not easy for elected councillors to require the staff on whom they depend to draw up the budgets which would reduce those costs - even, perhaps, thin out their own ranks - but if you [we] cannot afford to pay out that much there is no other responsible option.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
