As promised, here you go. This draft was agreed at the GLSG meeting last Tuesday 8 April. Sorry about some of the formatting!:
Terms of Reference for the Green Lanes Strategy Group
The Association’s aim is to work to make the Green Lanes area thrive economically, flourish socially, and be regenerated for current and future residents and businesses. The Association aims to foster an area where people are proud to live and work without fear of crime. In this it will be guided by principles of the Green Lanes Charter or superseding local plan.
The Green Lanes Area shall be defined as that area bounded to the south by Endymion Road and Arena Trading Estate, to the west by Wightman Road, to the north by Turnpike Lane and West Green Road, and to the east by Black Boy Lane and Warwick Gardens.
The key constituted umbrella organisations within the above defined area, (ie. Woodlands Park Resident Association (WPRA), Ladder Community Safety Partnership (LCSP), Gardens Residents Association (GRA) and Harringay Green Lanes Traders Association (HGLTA) as at April 2014) each with up to 2 representatives plus 1 deputy appointed by meetings of those organisations; and the elected ward Councillors of Harringay and St. Ann’s.
Metropolitan Police and Council officers will also attend as appropriate.
Remit of Green Lanes Strategy Group:
The following list is to act as a guide to the remit of the GLSG. It is not intended to be exhaustive.
Unless these Terms of Reference provide otherwise, any matter will be decided by consensus between the members.
If no consensus can be reached, the Chair may request a vote on the matter under consideration. Unless otherwise provided for in these Terms of Reference, the matter shall then be decided by a simple majority of the members present and voting by show of hands. The Chair shall have a casting vote.
I have attached a copy of the Neighbourhood Vision/Green Lanes Charter referred to above.
These Terms of Reference are open for comment until 15 June 2014.
They have been discussed at the LCSP meeting tonight, and will be on the agenda for the next GRA (June, not the AGM) and WPRA (14 May) meetings.
Feedback please to whichever you choose below if you can't make a meeting:
Adam Coffman for Friends of Harringay Passage, Friends of Fairland Park and Friends of Ducketts Common.
I would also expect any candidates to make clear an unequivocal stance on this before the election.
Not without a shot of vodka first
I wonder if they would be willing to change many of those things? As you've posted this Geoff could you give us any insights? Or any other GLSG members who're willing to comment here on HoL?
Unfortunately I couldn't make it. I did feel bad about that as i'd pestered Ian to include the topic but nothing i could do. Could anyone else who went give us a report?
Personal comments, I'm not speaking on behalf of the group.
I see no reason not to circulate agenda and meeting dates.
The way of dealing with the minutes in the current draft is exactly the same as that used by GRA, LCSP and WPRA. Critically, it does not involve waiting until the next meeting to get group approval before publication, which is how it's done at the moment.
The four 'umbrella' organisations are those approached by the council when the group was formed. With the exception of the Arena, the three RAs cover the whole area between them and have open membership. Hence 'umbrella'. As soon as other groups join, they have equal rights. Regrettably, it is wise to build in the option to refuse a group entry.
I did consider proposing 'HSG' but that would cause confusion!
Thanks for commenting Geoff.
Ok so why has it been so hard, requiring FOI requests and numerous emails and calls to get the minutes and still only the agendas AFTER the meetings have happened? Would you post here or send to me the agenda's of the next meetings as you get them?
Geoff how would you feel if the WPRA got told sorry WPRA can't be a member because the LCSP is your umbrella group? Or you got left out of this draft doc because "the LCSP was you umbrella group"? Thats exactly whats happened to the ones over here. And they have sizable participation - lets be honest, how many people came to your WPRA last few meetings? And yet you still get full membership.
The way i read the doc other groups outside of those 4 don't get equal rights - but ok, to set our minds at rest why not clarify it? You say the the 4 groups listed here is just historic from the origins of GLSG and others will be equal - the origin was years ago and all you GLSG members are now fully aware of whats around presently so why not publish a new draft of this doc and list these other groups as equal members - go on - FoHP, HRRA and the rest - come on publish another "final draft" with these other current groups you know about listed as equals.
Reverse the question.
How would you like it to be phrased?
Which groups would you like to see included?
You could leave the list blank in the draft to start with and put out an open request for groups?
As i've just mentioned some groups you could say here and now oh ok i'll go add FoHP and HRRA to the current draft and then ask are there any other groups we know of to add?
You could explain why FoFP and FoDC have been removed even though they were listed by the council last year as full GLSG members?
You could just openly and honestly say no HRRA (or any other Ladder group?) can't be because we decided the LCSP is their umbrella group? Which is what we know happened as we have had the GLSG minutes from last year where that happened posted on HoL already.
I don't have any hit list of groups I wouldn't want included.
As I think about it now, I would want to try to get even representation for the constituent areas. Would it be fair, for example, for the Ladder to have 8 reps vs Gardens and WPRA combined of 4 (imaginary numbers)?
Ok great - so by that definition of yours for fair this current draft is unfair because the east of Green Lanes has twice the representation (GRA + WPRA) as the west (just LCSP). Unfair right, or just fundamentally flawed as Phil suggests?
Fair cop guv!, but the way is left open for that imbalance to be addressed.
I don't think it is necessarily fundamentally flawed.
Let me suggest another scenario that came to me when I first saw Neighbourhood Forums come on the scene.
I thought something like: 'Well, here's a chance for a group of businesses (eg. estate agents, developers etc.) in a local area to set up an organisation claiming to represent the local area and adjust the planning policy to suit their own ends.' Shades of St Ann's Labour party??
The members of a Neighbourhood Forum are not necessarily accountable to anybody, as far as I can see.
I share the same misgivings as you about NF's, Geoff. In theory a nice idea but also very susceptible to entrenched capture. For that reason I don't have an issue with an 'strategy group' for Harringay, and the GLSG has done plenty of good in the past, but I'd welcome seeing more openness and transparency.
Interesting points, Geoff. There are various ways of looking at how the representative groups could be made up. Two possibilities are to do it by area or by population. If it were by area, then yes, each area could have, let's say 4 reps, but those could come from a number of organisations. I'm not sure why any single organisation needs to send 3 or 4.
If it were by population, the make-up would probably be quite different. In the area described in the TOR, we have all of Harringay ward (that's, what, about 10-11 thousand people), something like 50 - 60 % of St Ann's (so about 5-6 thousand) and something like a quarter of Seven Sisters (2-3 thousand). So, on this basis Harringay Ward should have at least as many reps as St Ann's and Seven Sisters Ward combined. As it is, St Ann's has double the representation of the Ladder.
So, I think where I come to with this is that, as the group is currently constituted, we perhaps ought not to worry too much about strict pro-rata representation. It may be better to look at welcoming those people who have a claim to be involved - and actually want to be involved - and allowing them to sit round the table.
(By the way, this isn't a bid from me!)