Five-a-side plans for Finsbury Park

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Liz on January 13, 2010 at 12:04

Agreed!
There is a fundamental issue here about the public losing free access to a flat space to use in a multitude of ways that are not controlled to a commercial organisation who would have to the right to restrict access and control what goes on there.

Its not about WHAT the space is used for (and I think the love of the beautiful game is obscuring the issue here) but the fact that public and free access land will be taken away from us to do with as we wish, be it model cars, riding bikes or working out, and our right to access it determined by our ability to pay.

Furthermore, whose voices are we hearing in this plan? Will the council make money out of this? Does that make it okay? Well, why is this okay and not banners on street furniture? Adverts in the rose bushes? You are in effect, privileging one commercial organisation by allowing them to set up in the park and advertise themselves.

Is everyone being heard by the council? Where will the model car people, the guys who can't afford a gym etc go? Not away but perhaps to a part of the park that they are not tolerated in as there are precious few flat places in the park.
Tidy up the area with a bit of landscaping by all means, but as the 2 Johns say, don't accept the commercialisation of our parks and loss of our right to access all parts of it. This is no different to the land grab at Down Lane. Profit from our land will go to private hands and we will be thrown a few scraps like cheaper fees at off peak hours (whatever they are)

Permalink Reply by Birdy_Too on January 13, 2010 at 13:11

Ahh rather like how local authorities sold off all their divisions (including gritting road services) to commercial companies to the detriment of the council tax payer. Costs more, services worse. Keep it owned by the borough I say.

Nows who's up for a game a Snow Football?

Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on January 14, 2010 at 0:20

The facilities that the schools have, are massively underused. They are normally only for their own pupils, and closed for 3 months a year. Their facilities should be available for a greater part of the community, obviously teaching must take priority, but when not being used for teaching, why not open them up more? (I'm not suggesting that the teachers have to supervise the extra-curricular activities, and the caretakers should not be expected to take on a greater workload without additional support)

As for the dog logs, it's time that enforcement did what the name on their tin suggests. I empathise with all who have gone for a stroll, game of footie on the the grass etc., only to come away with a canine deposit into the bargin. The same also goes for the 2 legged ones who leave glass and cans etc. behind.

Before LBH start a new project they should make sure that they can maximise the benefit of what they already have responsibility for. God knows how much they take from us for their 'services' already.

Permalink Reply by Liz on January 13, 2010 at 10:12

Fair point, new facilities would be welcome (btw there are some excellent, often free footie things run at Wolves Lane sports centre which lots of lads turn up to on Saturday mornings and in the evening, where there are trained coaches as well They also run great girls football sessions too)

but

would the youth be able to access this facility at any but the most inconvenient hours.
Would they be able to afford to pay what the company charges?
What kind of deals will the council do to ensure that local youth will be given opportunities to use the facility for nothing or a minimal charge?
How will they be treated if they turn up to play as a group? (cf trying to go to the cinema in Wood Green?)
Will local males be willing to step in and create clubs for them if the company decides they don't want unsupervised youth in their changing rooms?
The provision of car parking suggests that the target market is not local youth but older folk (with the cash to pay). If you build open pitches, then anyone can walk on and play, but if you fence them in and put a charge on it, chances are the very people who you feel would benefit the most will be excluded.

What of the running track? Would it not be better to develop that and make provision for some football where there are already changing rooms, a gym etc?



John, you know they run Wii sessions for youngsters at Wood Green Library.
Cricket is badly treated around here. Back in Leicester, there used to be loads of cricket related stuff for kids but in this part of London, its a poor relation.

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on January 13, 2010 at 11:26

I was just trying to poke Birdy into action.

Permalink Reply by f1nsburyparker on January 13, 2010 at 11:45

As someone who plays 5-a-side regularly at the Sobell Centre I'd welcome the provision of pitches in the park. Demand far exceeds supply for the pitches at the Sobell and there are few other places to play organised football in this area.

A few concerns would be the provision of parking, the size and adaptability of the space, and the commercial element.

Parking provision, I assume, would be operated on a profit-making basis. It galls me that they let so many cars into the park already when there is such good public transport available.

There is no reason why the plan couldn't be changed to a multi-sport venue, such as the astro pitches in Battersea Park are. Personally, I'd like to see a return of cricket to the park, and it would seem that this development would be ideal for slotting in a couple of nets. Though my ideal solution would be to turf out the Baseballers and return the cricket pitches to their former glory.

Also, why the obsession with youth using this space? Adult recreation is just as important for public health as youth recreation, and sports teams can often be a key way of creating social networks. If it wasn't for football and cricket I wouldn't have met half of the friends I have made since I came to London at the age of 20.

The people I play 5-a-side with aren't plutocrats from Finchley who tool up to the Sobell in their 4*4s. They're just regular blokes who get the tube or the bus there and want to have a good run around for an hour in a competitive way. I think there's room in the park to accommodate people who want to do that, young or old.

Permalink Reply by Helen Riley on January 13, 2010 at 11:56

Rather than just having a 'commerical element' it will be a wholly commercial operation sited in public space. It will represent the loss of part of the park and that to me is the key point. Suggesting a sports-based use for the land creates a slight smokescreen that it's still somehow part of the park and healthy and useful but if there's going to be a land grab then they may as well put up houses there or a factory. Same difference. I would support the provision of any number of public football pitches in appropriate places but this is a private operation.
Incidentally, the tarmac is a bit grim - but useful and well used - but the view across it over the railway and into Islington is beautiful and to block this with floodlights, wire, club houses etc would be another great loss.

Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on January 13, 2010 at 23:53

Was any provision made for sports and leisure facilities in the planning for Haringey Heartlands? If not, why not?

Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on January 14, 2010 at 0:01

The proposal on the LBH website also suggests that there could be a bar/social area associated with this development.

How does this square with the idea of healthy life styles. Will LBH award it the usual 24hour licence? It'll be poplar with the perennial drinkers who can often be seen sitting on the benches in the wind shelter by the running track, no doubt!

Permalink Reply by matt on January 14, 2010 at 7:24

The council has not put out any detailed plan yet for development as it doesn't yet have a commercial operator. We do need to see a detailed ground plan and proposal for public comment.

Powerleague are more than likely the 'operators' the council has in mind. They are probably already in talks. Powerleague have 44 centres around the UK. They operate centres in Tottenham and Barnet. Both these centres are on marginal land (ie. in industrial estates or next to the North Circular). Whilst Powerleague provide good pitches and reasonable facilities, they aren't inexpensive at £60/hour per pitch.

The above two sites have betw 10 - 12 pitches. I'd like to see how many pitches are being proposed for Finsbury Park. The proposals shouldn't exceed the current underused and shabby tarmac area. The proposals should not take any grass area/gardens/trees away from other users. Parking for '50 - 80' cars is excessive and unnecessary and would require loss of parkland in excess of the tarmaced area.

The current tarmaced area may fit betw 2 & 3 pitches which doesn't sound like a viable commercial proposal. Sounds like the council haven't done their homework or they're not telling us something ... or both!

Permalink Reply by f1nsburyparker on January 14, 2010 at 9:01

I'm also sceptical at the amount of pitches that could be squeezed onto that site. As a point of info the Sobell charges 68 pounds per hour.

Permalink Reply by Hugh Hayes on January 14, 2010 at 12:59

Haringey Council's yearly budget for Finsbury Park includes impossible income targets (£333200 in 05 /06 when actual income was £144092). The parks department are under pressure to come up with ideas that will provide this income - in the 90's it was music events and beer festivals, then they tried markets, parking space for Arsenal coaches, Mohamed Abdel Moneim Fayed's helicopter when Fulham play Arsenal and film companies, whatever income they can get. This is the latest in these schemes.
Parks are one of the few free places to go in London now (George Monbiot has written eloquently about this). Finsbury Park was created with money from Londoner's rates for the people of North London to use for free. The park is designated as Metropolitan Open Land so it is difficult to build on it unless for clear practical use such as maintenance buildings and changing facilities. There are already changing facilities at the running track, recently refurbished.
The area Haringey want to lease is the concreted area between the railway line and the road round the park. It has always been used for recreational activities ever since the original decision not to build houses on it due to a massive petition from locals in the 1870's. There has never been a charge for using it as far as I am aware.
In the Vision for Finsbury Park local people put together with wide consultation a few years ago, we proposed (amongst other things) a new centre for the park on the footprint of the current staff buildings that would provide upgraded facilities for all the park needs and cut down on park buildings. We pointed out funding sources to pay for this. Haringey barely acknowledged the document.
As the present Labour-led council is almost entirely Tottenham based, they have little care for the extremities of the borough, particularly Finsbury Park, one of the major London parks, since they inherited it when Thatcher got rid of the GLC. As far as they are concerned, Finsbury Park is used mainly by Hackney and Islington residents who have no democratic say in its upkeep. Most local councillors are Lib Dems and therefore ineffective.
My experience of Haringey's "consultation" as chair of the Friends of Finsbury Park for six years 2000-2006 was that they would always attempt to make it difficult for people to respond to their proposals and the word "consultation" meant "information imparting". They never listen to the local community as they do in Tottenham. They believe they have been voted in to make the decisions and only if there is a massive rejection of a proposal will they change tack.
This is a blatant commercialisation of the park. Instead of free usage as a kickabout, volleyball, rollerskating, five aside area that it could be if properly maintained (but of course this costs money), Haringey will lease it off to a company who will charge us all for the privilege of using our park. The buildings, once built, will be added to the footprint of buildings in the park. They say that the present users of the area can be moved down to the old netball area by the tiny skateboard park. This is ridiculous as it is about one sixth of the size.
interestingly the park is legally meant to be shut at dusk - they have allowed the running track to run later on Tuesday's and Thursdays but this is probably illegal. It will be interesting what they propose to do about this commercial proposal as it will want to run in the evenings with floodlights.
It will also bring in more cars - In the "consultation" we did for the Heritage Lottery improvements they promised they would only allow parking for 100 cars. They immediately broke this promise as they need the money from parking.
There will always be requests to use the park for something different as the pressure on space in London is so intense, but I believe that we have to stick with the original intentions of those who built the park for the local people of North London. Finsbury Park should be free and have less buildings on it, not more.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page