Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Fairview Beauties Garner Support for Monster Development with Smiles, Pretty Pictures and Half-truths
Having been made aware of a website set up by Fairveiw with the sole purpose of garnering support for the monster development at Hampden Road, I learned that all the comments gained through it came form a door-knocking exercise. Of course it's little surprise that the only comments they passed on were those where they were able to persuade a resident to support the application.
On my way past one of the roads involved today, I knocked at two of the addresses where residents have made comments of support through the Fairview site. Both signees were men and the initial comment of both was that the developer had sent round very attractive young women with an electronic device and lots of pretty pictures.
I spent 2 or 3 minutes talking to each. After listening to me for that short time, both said they felt that they hadn't been given the full picture but had been attracted by the pretty visualisations and the talk of lots of green space.
The first said to me, "I wish I could take it back. I'd still support housing but not that design. I just thought all the green space was better than the steel yard."
The second said, "Oh, okay. No after hearing the full picture I don't support. Cancel my support".
Having got that far I thought I had enough of a sense of what Fairview are doing. I'll flag this up in a comment on the application and move on.
I'd say this process of theirs is probably legal but it certainly suggests questionable ethics and an attempt to dishonestly influence the planning process.
Should you object to this attempt at corporate "vote-rigging" and support the idea of housing on the site, but you're not in favour of the scale of this development, you can submit an objection simply saying that you object to the building because of its height. Should you be so inclined you can add that the application is not in line with Haringey's tall buildings policy since it's not in an area designated as suitable for tall buildings.
Tags for Forum Posts: hampden road, hampden road development
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ben on
-
I feel you are now splitting hairs on terminology, and deferring to the council will not deviate this conversation, nor the points made in it.
You have had two people offer their opinions along the same lines with regard to your approach and you have clearly buried your head in the sand and therefore alienated yourself and your cause.
This has become a waste of my time as you want people to take your points but have no intention of learning anything from feedback.
Of course the council are not being nimbys, they probably take a different tone with their delivery.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I have no idea what point you're trying to make, Ben. I'm very happy to learn from any opinions that offer insight. Your opinion and Tris' basically said I was offering a biased opinion. You questioned nothing about the developer's behaviour and so gave the impression that you believe that they have acted acted ethically.
Through my posts on this topic and in my response to you both I've gone to considerable trouble to understand the planning policy issues involved and i have tied my principal objections to planning policy in every case.
I have raised objections about Fairview's behaviour when it has deviated from the open and transparent. They have intentionally sought to hide facts from both those who will make the planning decision and those they have encouraged to comment on it. In complete contrast whilst I have made my opinion clear, I have at every turn made the developer's viewpoint readily available to any who care to click.
I have owned up to using slightly tabloid headlines and I have explained that under the circumstances where I'm facing the corporate might of Fairview a few emphatic sentences help just a little to even up the field of play. My tone in my prose is completely temperate and tied in every case to evidence.
I can see that you're frustrated that I don't agree with you Ben, but I'm afraid that you haven't presented anything that might cause me to change my mind.
-
-
A further slug of ten support submissions has just been made to the planning application. Exactly as with the last batch this one is geographically clustered, this time in in Turnpike Lane. Exactly as with the last batch, this set have a simple I support comment, with an occasional addition of something along the lines of because it's good for my business and will bring me more customers. So, I'm assuming that this time it's the shop keepers of Turnpike Lane who've been approached. What's different this time is that the identifying url of the Fairview website doesn't appear. That could either mean that Fairview have read my observations and have ensured that it is removed prior to submission, or possibly the traders have organised it between themselves, which would be completely legitimate. If I get a chance I'll try and find out.
-
Permalink Reply by Finsbury Park Ranger on
-
I would expect such a slick marketing operation to be attempting to manipulate a local forum too. In fact it's common for PR companies these days to initiate corporate espionage on behalf of their clients, which can be quite heavy on fishing for email accounts and voicemails of individuals causing their client the most grief and it looks like the company has earmarked a PR budget, so be warned.
My friend that runs his own PR company for an international brand, says he can't believe that the journalists got such a sole drubbing for hacking when the PR / Corperate world does it on such a grand and fairly obvious scale too ...
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Good point but even the Labour Party are scared of engaging on here. It's not exactly full of idiots, is it?
-
-
Just a word of caution. If this is a company or they are employing a company who's game is gaining planning permission and developing large scale sites, time after time, expect their tactics to be well honed is all I'm saying and that will include more than pretty girls wiith iPads.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
As a general issue I find it interesting to read that people think its normal (and okay?) for corporations to try to influence social media websites and the legal consultation process in this way.
Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant(s). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection." (Source: Wikipedia)
When the Chinese Government does this, people are usually critical.
As for "the Labour Party [being] scared of engaging on here" , as you know, John, councillors on the Planning Committee need to make their decisions openly and give no grounds for anyone to suggest that a particular decision is biased, partial or not properly considered. So posting on a local website to give their view isn't a sensible idea for any committee members.
-
-
Fairview have not even finalised the design of these buildings yet. I bet they're kicking themselves that they didn't go for taller because I bet they were expecting the council to chop a few floors off.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
Remember that the 23 storey tower at Apex House - the LANDMARK as a Gateway To Tottenham - was not going to set precedents? How they laugh.
-
-
The gateway to Tottenham appears to be Woodberry Down if it's supposed to be twin towers.
-
-
Still nothing finalised and nothing available to buy off-plan yet....
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
