Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
FIVE more years of Events in Finsbury Park?
HARINGEY Council prepares to commit to another 5-year
commercial exploitation deal for Events in Finsbury Park:
—————————————————————————————
At the Cabinet Member Signing at 1PM this Thursday, Cabinet Member Arkell or a substitute will lock the council into another half-decade deal with Festival Republic, the UK subsidiary of US giant global live-music monopoly, Live Nation.
The public are not ordinarily allowed into these little meetings, but at Agenda item seven, this is a specific exclusion (link above):
"Exclusion of Press & Public"
Just before item eight:
This EXEMPT item may discuss how the council will deal with the recent ruling in the High Court case involving Brockwell Park and how they will get around it.
For 11 years, intense and damaging commercial exploitation of Finsbury Park has been council Majority Group policy.
Tags for Forum Posts: 5 years, Cllr Ahmet, Cllr Arkell, Events Team, Festival Republic, Finsbury Park, Grime, Haringey Council, Live Nation, commercial, More…
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
ALAN, I agree about this principle.
There would seem to be two points here.
The attached document are submissions by interested parties at the outset of the current five year deal. The first two pages are carefully considered comments by Stroud Green Councillor Alex Worrell, comments which are still pertinent and relevant in their own right.
However I'd draw attention to the period in the heading:
"… Festival Republic park hire applications — 2023-27".
- This implies that, including this summer, the current deal has two summers yet to run. Which in turn, suggests that there is no urgency for the Cabinet Member Signing (by Lead Member for Parks, Cllr Arkell)
- After last night's LCSP meeting, I learnt that "Purdah" begins the day after the Cabinet Member signing.
Therefore, it does appear that the timing of the Cabinet Member Signing—12 months before it might be needed—is a cynical device by the Events Team to bind the hands of the next council. For five years.
The council Events Team is doing all in its power to (a) tie the council—to be elected in six weeks time for five years, and (b) to mount a "consultation" that is not worthy of the name. Initial enquiries suggests that several consultees never received a notification. This includes at least one local councillor and local organisations.
Responses were limited to a little box to be submitted to something called The Events App.
It hardly needs repeating that the Events Team have no interest in any objections, on the contrary, and have made a careless consultation, consistent with their goal of railroading the deal.
- Attachments:
-
Permalink Reply by Park on
-
I've been asking for improvement for wheelchair access in the park for years, but the festival's needs are always prioritised in works in the park.
For example, they have replaced a small section of the horribly ratty and dangerous road which loops around the park, but only where the krank brother festivals happen.
The lorries that set up the festival churn up the road and create dangerous potholes for disabled people, cyclists and pedestrians alike, which then require remedial work, which only tends to happen just before the festival season starts and in limited areas which don't address the full damage.
You can see the degradation of the park in action. For example, the tough mudder festval 3 year ago has left areas of grass still ruined near the baseball pitch where they had a huge water tank set up.
So the access needs of residents are ridden roughshod over to appease corporate giants who just paid their way out of a monopoly case in America, where they were accused of corruption on a huge scale.
It all stinks to high heaven and we pay the price as residents for the council's cash cow with grubby business interests.
Why can't more events be hosted in Tottenham Stadium and not imposed one on our local public asset?
-
-
the festival's needs are always prioritised in works in the park.
YES!
- In 2004, the regular privatisations began in with the Majority Group's Major Events policy
- The policy was handed to a small group of council employees ("the Events Team")
- I understand that all hire cash is paid to and held by, the Events Team
- Events Team control all spending in our park and, as you say, prioritise their customers
- All normal park staff have been side-lined
As you point out, most recently the prioritising can be seen in the north east sector. In Krankbrother's korner, the karriageway has been re-sealed on behalf of the private kustomer … but the "footway" alongside—which still tends to be used by residents—remains in a rough state. Despite £10 million pounds pouring into Event Team Koffers, over 10+ years.
On a previous Earth Day, Events Team bosses ordered the ripping out of some 200 sapling trees planted by volunteers. The council claimed that had nothing to do with Events.
-
-
It looks like none of the current cabinet live within cooee of Finsbury Park. Though one member does represent Harringay ward.
Did or do all cabinet members vote to allow the signing of this agreement?
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Clive, My suggested way forward:
(1) Postpone the decision for as long as practically possible. (From what you tell us, there seems one or maybe two years before the current contract runs out.)(2) Postpone most further steps to a decision until after the election and the meeting of the new councillors and after they've had a full briefing from senior officers.
(3) Remove the decision process from the control of Park staff. However professional, honest and objective they undoubtedly are, a different arm's length group of people whose jobs are not dependent on the money, will be seen to be independent.
(4) Bring this issue to the attention of every candidate of every Party standing for election in Haringey. Who should be asked to give the public their own view.
(5) If any candidate refuses to give their view we should refuse to give them our vote.
(6) Postpone any public consultation until well after we know the outcome of the election. And abandon the use of rigid restrictive and unpopular so-called apps to pretend consultation. (We are not yet obedient robots who do everything on our mobiles via an app !)
-
-
Alan, thanks for your post. You won't be surprised that I agree with all the points you make.
I understand that local Green Party candidates are shortly to write to Cabinet Member Emily Arkell about this council's brazen attempt to bounce the local authority into a commercial deal would tie their hands for not one, but two administrations. i.e. past the 2030 council election.
I hope to be passed a copy of that letter and I would reproduce it here.
-
-
Alan, I've received a copy of the letter from the Green Party to the Cabinet Member for Parks. As it's a couple of pages, I've posted it in a new thread:
https://harringayonline.com/forum/topics/letter-from-local-green-pa...
-
Permalink Reply by Simon on
-
If the current deal has a reasonable amount of time to run there is no reason to take such early action. I have never trusted this council to act in the interests of ordinary people who want to use the whole park throughout the summer without being fenced out in the interests of commercial promoters. I would love to see the whole process carefully examined by an independent external body with access to all the paperwork etc.
-
-
there is no reason to take such early action.
There is no reason to do this from a good governance and democracy-respectful point of view.
The reason—from the POV of the council Events Team (with or without Leader endorsement)—is to legally bind the next two Administrations, i.e. up to and past the election in 2030. i.e. for the next seven summers.
-
-
Was the proposal sent or was it NOT sent to the consultees? It should be easy enough for some Senior Council officer representing the Chief Executive to check.
If it was sent to all of them, and nobody replied, why didn't this alert somebody to a possible glitch or flaw? At minimum it surely should have led to someone being concerned.
Did an officer (member of Haringey staff) insist on the internet App being used to reply?
If that's what happened by what authority did that person stipulate such a narrow restriction?
- a single way to respond to such a sensitive Public Consultation?Personally if I was wanting to get many responses that showed a reasonably wide public consultation I'd be chasing people to reply.
Though to be fair, if I had somebody restrict my form of reply, I'd ignore their restriction.
I'd phone and use my old=fashioned human voice-noises - It used to be known as talking or speech - to check that they'd still count my answers.Also to be fair, I might also ignore them if I believed they would take no notice of my views.
To be fairer I confess that I recently received a tickbox survey which was so badly drafted that I couldn't think of a way to answer it with any degree of intelligent reply. It was from a voluntary agency which I respect.OK Now back to the simple basic issue.
Labour councillors this is an own goal !Even if I agreed that it was regretfully necessary to take money from Live Nation for these events. it appears unnecessary to agree a contract On Thursday.
And doubly unnecessary to agree a contract that seeks to bind the new elected Council AND the next elected Council after that. That's at least two own goals.
If the glitzy glamour of Live Nation Corporation is so compelling then, Councillors, please apply to work for them.I'm an old man now and still have the quaint old fashioned idea that our borough Council is supposed to work for the people of Haringey.
I have the strange last ventury notion that a park is a park with stuff like live vegetation and seats and grass free to stroll and sit on. Pathetic and out of date, I realise.
-
-
I seem to remember the Events Team use something called The Event App (not "Internet App"). Did this glitch?
Such a ploy appears artfully intended to block, narrow or frustrate any responses in any event. Where is the record of previous comments?
The background is that the council (which means the Events Team) literally have no interest in external opinions on big cash deals.
There is no reason to suppose that any notice would be taken of any responses, even one had got through. Apparently none did.
Meanwhile, the local authority's event-app consultation is passed off as a genuine attempt to solicit "stakeholder" views yet with no responses.
If employees' jobs depend on making a recommendation to go ahead with a huge commercial contract, then they are unlikely to recommend otherwise.
-
-
Cpuncillor Peray Ahmet and her officials should know perfectly well what a genuine public consultation looks and sounds like.
It's not a bungled scramble on the last day before the coming election prevents a big contract deal.I have a dim memory that Cllr Ahmet was once a Trade Union representative. In an echo of an old rhyme: something red; something new.
What is programmed to happen tomorrow looks and sounds very like something old something blue. In other words continuing Tory-style privatisation of a large public park.I have been a Socialist since my teens. I too was once a Trade Union rep. I would like to believe that Cllr Ahmet and her Labour colleagues would prefer to reduce or at least minimise private sector involvement in our public services.
But what we are apparently witnessing is a frantic dash to give a fresh contract to a huge U.S. owned monopolistic Corporation. Long before the existing contract has come to an end.
And with no concern nor respect paid to democratic local elections.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
