Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Eruv arch at Harringay station
The United Synagogue have submitted a planning application to facilitate the creation of an Eruv which will take in Muswell Hill, Crouch End and Stroud Green.
Planning application HGY/2022/1906 -www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/PKID408652
My understanding of what an Eruv is that it is an area within which Jewish religious law can be ignored in order to facilitate movement etc. on the Sabbath.
The Eruv is marked out by erecting poles and connecting these with thin nylon string. The planning application includes a map which shows the location of the poles.
At Harringay station it is proposed that instead of poles and nylon string there should be an eight foot high arch erected at the start of the footbridge on the Quernmore Road side. See the attached photo from the planning application which shows the proposed arch. Anyone wanting to use the bridge from the west side will have to pass under this arch.
The only publicity, so far, has been a planning application attached to a lamp post in Quernmore Road, as far as I know there has been no other attempt from the applicants to publicise their proposals.
Any comments on the application have to be sent to Haringey’s Planning Services by 1 September.
Tags for Forum Posts: eruv, harringay station
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Konrad B on
-
The consultation end date has been extended to 1 September. Planning web site:
http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Thanks, Konrad. for letting people know.
Plainly there are sensitive and thoughtful residents who have suggestions to improve this scheme. (Michael Anderson's just above is only the latest on HoL.)
-
-
The consultation period for this planning application ended on 1 September at that time there were 86 comments recorded on the council planning web site (I have a web archive dated 5 September which shows these). The vast majority of these comments were objections, there were no specific messages of support. The 86 comments were received by the planning department over a period of about 4 weeks.
I kept an eye on the planning web site as I wanted to know what the decision was - not yet made. I got a surprise yesterday, the number of comments had increased to 124, there is now a block of 34 messages of support. Given that on 5 September, four days after the consultation closing date there were 86 comments it would be interesting to know when this block of messages was received - were they received after the closing date?
-
-
Konrad
" . . . four days after the consultation closing date there were 86 comments it would be interesting to know when this block of [14] messages was received - were they received after the closing date?"The answer to your indeed interesting question stands a better chance of being answered if it is directed to Haringey Council rather than posted on this website. I'd go further and suggest that posing it as a Freedom of Information (F.o.I.) request would place the Council under a legal obligation to give an accurate and timely answer and in some cases even assist you in posing the question.
I'd also suggest using the free independent website WhatDoTheyKnow.
Of course I do realise that in the past Haringey has had something of a track record in delay, obfuscation, and less than wholehearted enthusiasm in responding to this particular legislation.
And sadly, not all staff and even councillors always appear to have read and understood the Nolan Principles of Public Life.
-
-
Alan,
Thanks for your comments. I didn't really expect an answer to my question, it was a rhetorical question.
Since I posted my comments yesterday another eleven comments have been posted on the Planning web site - eight in support, three against.
So it seems that the Planning Service are continuing to allow the receipt of comments even though the consultation ended on 1 September. If that is the case then the Council are misleading the local residents as the web site states quite clearly that the consultation end date was 1 September. The significance of this is that after 1 September anyone looking at the web site would naturally assume that the consultation was closed and that they could no longer submit a comment. However, if one knew that the consultation was not in fact closed, one could then ask people to submit comments, which is what seems to have happened.
The beauty about the Planning web site is that the casual viewer would have no idea of when these comments were received as dates are not given, so would assume that they were all received by the 1 September.
I have made an FOI request for the dates that comments were received by the Planning Service. It will be interesting to see in particular when the latest 11 were received. If the Council say that they were received by 1 September then why did it take 22 days to appear on the web site?
-
-
Two more supportive comments posted this afternoon on the Planning web site.
Just what do the Planning Service think that they are up to? The Planning Service web site states quite unequivocally that "To ensure that comments can be included in the officer's report for an application, they should be received by the Consultation End Date...." That end date was 1 September.
-
-
Since my last posting on Friday 23rd, the Planning Service have accepted another 33 consultation comments even though consultation ended on 1 September. Since 1 September the Planning Service have accepted 86 comments which should have been rejected as they were submitted outside of the consultation period. Following 1 September, the Planning Service should have closed the consultation online form instead they have chosen to keep it open. One can only speculate on the motives of the Planning Service.
Since 1 September the vast majority of the comments have been in support. It looks like the applicants realising that up to 1 September they were not receiving any support have asked their followers to submit supportive comments hence the submissions. Looking at these it is noticeable that very few come from Haringey residents or from people who live anywhere near the proposed eruv line. Of the 24 comments which appeared today, most were from Edgeware; Barnet; Hendon; Golders Green, even one from Greenwich, only one from a Haringey resident in N10. Whilst the people who submitted these comments have the right to their opinions, I think that it is totally wrong that the Planning Service should have facilitated the submission of these comments when the consultation period had ended, by doing so the legitimate comments (mostly objections) i.e. those submitted up to 1 September have been swamped. What is the point in having a consultation if the Planning Service don’t even obey their own rules.Time for a complaint to the Council.
-
Permalink Reply by Don on
-
Sadly, this appears typical of so many council “consultations” (not just in Haringey), which are only undertaken for form’s sake and may then be ignored if the council decides to do so. If you feel this one has been compromised, I suggest you complain initially to your local councillors (as well as the planning department) and then to the council leader.
-
-
Hello again, Konrad.
Partial quotes from your latest post.
"Following 1 September, the Planning Service should have closed the consultation online form, instead they have chosen to keep it open. One can only speculate on the motives of the Planning Service."
. . . . . . . . "What is the point in having a consultation if the Planning Service don’t even obey their own rules.
Time for a complaint to the Council."
Fair querstions. And surely asking is better than speculating? Have you sent the Freedom of Information request you planned? Is it now on the 'What Do they know' website? Apologies If I missed its posting, but could you please copy the online link.
The more I think about this Eruv - and the growing patchwork of nearly imaginary walls marked by poles and lines - the less it seems to be a planning issue and the more it spills over into a wide and fascinating range of other issues. To give a few examples; land ownership; and who gets to control and make a profit from public & semi-public spaces; public safety; and maintaining and fostering neighbourly relations.
Theories such as Professor David Harvey's "Right to the City" seems to cut across all of these. As does research on the "Feminist City".
Other HoL embers may be able tell me about the extensive work on this topic by King's College Professor Davina Cooper which I've only just spotted today
Lastly, I was failing to find a famous line about fences and neighbours by the poet Robert Frost. Then I realised I'd made a very silly error. I'd typed: "Good bridges make good neighbours". Of course that was unFrosty. But closer to a line in my mind: "Build bridges not walls", by sometimes poetic Jeremy Corbyn.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
-
Thanks Michael. I'm glad you picked that Poetry Foundation link. It adds to the pleasure of "Mending Wall". Partly by including a 1957 photo of Robert Frost. Plus later comments from Frost himself when the poem became a classic which he read publicly and was asked questions on.
Another thank you Michael for nudging me simply to re-read the poem with care; ready to be surprised again at meanings I'd missed or forgotten. And modern meanings, especially given the drive to building new, higher and more strongly fortified walls, gates, borders and larger prisons.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
