Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey's Warehouse Districts Under Threat?
An item at tonight's Council Cabinet meeting has thrown into question the future survival of Haringey's two warehouse districts and the artistic communities who live in them.
Both the Harringay Warehouse District and the Fountayne Road community now face an uncertain future following the publication of a Haringey Council report, "Tackling Unauthorised Living in Industrial Areas". (Report attached)
The report, which was discussed at the full cabinet of the Council today, recommends a two-year project costing £600,000 which will seek to deal with "the growing problem of unauthorised residential and live work uses in and around (the) Industrial Sites" in Haringey. The recommended process is "to establish a special multi-disciplinary team to fully investigate and address the problem through a combination of regulation, improvement, enforcement and, where necessary, prosecution".
The alarm bells were ringing for me since earlier in the week I had discovered that these areas are earmarked as being amongst those that will "will accommodate the majority of development in the borough over the next 20 years".
In Facebook and Twitter conversations this afternoon, warehouse residents shared their fears that the vibrancy their communities bring to the borough will be overlooked and their communities sanitised and destroyed.
In response to my Twitter requests to Council Leader Claire Kober this evening to protect these communities, Cllr Kober sought to offer some reassurance:
@harringayonline some people in unacceptable conditions. My concern is for safe, decent properties. No intention to undermine communities
@harringayonline no intention to damage what's good. Priority is to go after rogue landlords just as we do elsewhere in borough
When I asked if she would ensure that warehouse residents will be involved, the Council Leader replied:
@harringayonline don't see any problem involving residents. Will ask officers to consider how best to achieve
I very much hope that the approach the Council takes in this project will support these communities rather than beginning the process of whittling them away.
Tags for Forum Posts: local plan, local plan 2014, site allocation plan, warehouse district
- Attachments:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by jenny on
-
Can I ask you something..Why did you move there if there has been no permission for residential use-Did your landlady/landlord inform you of this when you moved in?
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Thanks for commenting, Tom. It's great to hear another warehouse perspective on the situation.
I don't know if any of the Arena residents are taking part in the Warehouse Film Festival. I've just been with Alay hearing all about it and it sounds like it's going to be excellent.
I really hope you guys can connect with the Council and find a way of persuading them that the current set-up can be adapted to meet housing targets that currently seem to be pointing towards its destruction.
-
Permalink Reply by Takaokagiejin on
-
Hugh, please forgive me, you know I love what you have done with HOL but I am deeply perplexed by your support for this iillegal creation of HMOs by a number of commercial interests. The change of use from commercial to residential has had significant negative impact on the area as described by Sharon and I. It has also ridden roughshod over planning laws. What confuses me is why you support this while wholeheartedly opposing any increase of bedspaces through the creation of either HMOs or conversions on the ladder. Why do you see these as different cases?
-
Permalink Reply by ingo pless on
-
I love what you have done with HOL Takaokagejin. Cough.
-
-
Genuinely meant ingo, I am hugely impressed by what Hugh has done and continues to do for the community through this site. My question is also put to Hugh, in genuine confusion. why actively support illegal HMOs in one area while opposing them in another?
-
-
Fair question, T. First, let me say that through your comments and Sharon's I have learned about tensions and disturbances of which I was previously unaware. So, my support is not unqualified. As Tom, and others have pointed out, not all warehouse dwellers are the same. We'd be as wrong to lump them all together as we would to lump together Ladder residents or Woodberry Down residents. Where there are inconsiderate residents making life miserable for others, change is needed. People like Tom and others recognise that and would, it seems, be the first to support some way of doing that.
Having clarified my position on that, let me try and answer why I'm a supporter of the Warehouses being used as homes. I guess, for me, there's a huge area of Harringay which was developed as light industry and manufacturing well over a hundred years ago. In the 21st Century, we're faced with very complex choices about how the area gets used. My understanding is that when the warehouse scenes began in East London and here, people were moving into unused buildings. Typically what began in East London, then here, and is now starting in Leytonstone is that communities moved in with a high proportion of residents with creative backgrounds, putting unused space to residential use. Where these communities huddle together and look inward and their presence is only felt through disturbance to their immediate neighbours, of course one has to question its desirability. However, if we have a community prepared to embrace those amongst who they are living and create a vibrant environment which it shares locally then I'm all for it - but not, as I said at any cost. What would I rather have on my doorstep, a declining industrial area, another Woodberry Down or a warehouse community creating a vibrant environment? I guess my answer is self-evident.
Are you against the use of the warehouses as homes at any cost, or just if their occupation leads to disturbance for other neighbours? Would a well-behaved warehouse community be preferable to Woodberry Down MkII or would you go for the modern housing development every time?
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Yes, and then "the creatives" are moved on. These "actors" in the drama are given leading roles by the "directors" - the owners of the buildings. But only for the first act. Because it's highly likely that their their script - and they are the main writers and own the rights to the show - is to establish residential use and then make a windfall profit.
By the way Hugh, which of these buildings were warehouses and which factories, offices or had other purposes?
Because it still seems to me that this "warehouse district" label is a borrowing from the U.S. where such areas get a cachet from their historical use, but in reality can have a mix of commercial, residential and office space. Gradually - or not so gradually - going upmarket.
e.g. http://www.charlestondailymail.com/Business/201402230125
-
-
So everyone who moves into a building or neighbourhood as their workplace gets to rewrite or invent their own "label"? Ignoring the the actual history of the place? Ignoring what their neighbours call it?
Not something I thought you favoured.
-
-
Let me respond to your concerns Anne and try and settle the minds of those who you feel might perceive that my integrity is lacking.
I don't really understand your first point. I'm not muddling anything up. I was asked why I supported the use of the warehouses as homes. The creative hub developed around the people who moved in. That's what I'm supporting.
Secondly, I've never said that I advocate variable standards in building control or health and safety. I've just got through trying to make clear that I don't support the warehouse-homes at any cost. So where things are broke, fix 'em, but that's no reason to advocate for their wholesale destruction.
Thirdly, I've never shown an "indignation" about the "non-conversion planning zone". It was a policy put in place for a good reason. I have argued for controlling the spread of non-compliant developments. However, what I have never sought is to revert what's already been changed. That's what this thread was about, the wholesale destruction of the warehouses as living spaces and their replacement with modern flats and houses. Were the argument to be advanced that all Ladder houses converted to flats should be reverted to houses and the occupants thrown out, I'd be manning the barricades along with the warehouse defenders.
As far as the name thing goes, my argument about the area name has always been about resisting the Council taking it upon themselves to supplant the historical name of our neighbourhood with a new name of their choosing. I fully accept how names develop from local usage. That's what happened with the Warehouse District and to some extent to the whole of Harringay. With the name I wanted on the bridge, I didn't seek to impose my choice; I found out what people wanted and advocated that (Harringay Green Lanes), even though it wasn't my choice. No inconsistency there, Anne.
As far as the future usage of the warehouse district is concerned, I'm quite prepared to consider choices other than those I mentioned in my last response, but the reality of the situation is that I'm not the one presenting the options. Right now it's the Council, driven by the GLA, who are presenting a stark choice with their local plan. By declaring the Harringay Warehouse District as a zone for housing redevelopment, they are making it quite clear what the choice is. So, I'm dealing with the reality of the situation we face today.
Finally, Anne, if you are demanding a louder voice than me because you live closer to the area, I'm very happy to concede that. If, however, you are questioning my right to comment on the issue because I live half a mile away, then I can't agree with you.
Could you share with us all what your solution for the area is?
-
-
This is how I would proceed:
I would support the enforcement action against the landlords being brought by Haringey. The units are unsafe and the area does not have the infrastructure to support this number of new residents (drainage and waste disposal to name but two). By allowing a landlord to repurpose a significant area by simply doing it and then setting the tenants against the rest of the community when they object would set a terrible precedent for the future. The current proposal by the council reinstates the legitimacy of the planning process as the only way to make change in the borough.
Those living illegally in industrial units should be given notice to leave at the end of their tenancy or in six months, whichever is sooner. It may sound harsh but in my view the current tenants must be aware they are occupying the premises illegally and so should not be surprised when this ends. Tom says rents are £500 - £700 per room and alternative accommodation is available at these rates. While this work is being done to restore the status quo, a formal consultation process can take place with the whole community.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
"If anybody is guilty of wrongdoing it is the landlords of these properties who it would appear have simply taken advantage of the Council's lack of planning enforcement action." BINGO!
Now tell us, which band are you in for council tax?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
