Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Impassable Park
The implication of these two gates, at either end of the path beside the railway, is that at some time, the park will be impassable North south. Has this been the case in previous years?
Or is it a land grab By the festival promoters.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter
-
LITTLE of the money raised on the back of our park is spent on repairs (much or most of the gross receipts are siphoned off).
The council charge their customers a derisory Damage Deposit of just £15,000.
The damage done sees little of this paltry sum until c. 10 months later, just in time before the council's following "Events Season".
A good example was the major repair to the southernmost drain in the park, that was completed just days before Festival Republic began to set up.
In any event, not all damage is repaired. Those repairs that are made are sometimes performed poorly or partially.
As for the gradual customising of our public park to better suit the needs of the council's corporate client, it is unclear who pays. It's probably Festival Republic, but Haringey's negotiating ability is such that it would not surprise me if council-tax payers foot that bill.
After 10 years of receipts ex-the Land Use Agreement, there is still not a public water drinking fountain.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh
-
This post brings to my mind research I was doing on the origins of Endymion Road and the Park some weeks ago. Various Acts of Parliament dealt with rights of way through the park. Most of the Acts are referenced in my article here and I've given some idea of the rights of way that were involved. A diligent person could check through the Acts and see if those rights reman to this day. The rights may have been removed by the 1875 or 1874 Acts, but may not have been. I don't remember the details and don't have the time to check, but it would certainly be worth a motivated person checking up. (I should point out that the Haringey Public Rights of Way map doesn't show any through Finsbury Park;- or indeed any of our parks, which seems odd and warrants checking. Copy of map below - click to enlarge) - taken from https://www.haringey.gov.uk/streets-roads-travel/rights-way/public-....)
-
Permalink Reply by Park
-
According the BBC, disabled gig goers were trapped in an area by security and not allowed to leave last night, even though the festival had finished, leading to some people trying to force their way out as they were so panicked about being trapped.
Wireless and festival republic have such a bad track record when it comes to disability, they have been forced to commit to improvements by the EHRC: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/live-nation-commits-improve-fes...
Trapping disabled people doesn't really seem to fit into this order from the EHRC.
Hugh, great stuff on the footpaths, where would one start to establish if there is a historic right of way please?
-
Permalink Reply by Konrad B
-
I haven’t had the opportunity to read through the 1874 and 1875 Acts however, I do have a copy of Hugh Hayes “A Park for Finsbury” - a history of the park and this states on page 43 (2nd edition, 2019, pub. The Friends of Finsbury Park) that “The Board* also had the rights of way through the park cancelled by Act of Parliament in 1874 and was able to break up the existing roads through the park. ………. The temporary oak fencing was put up around the whole perimeter. The Justices agreed that the park could be shut at night.”
The fact that the park was enclosed and locked at night meant that there was no unobstructed access to the park which meant that no new right of way could be claimed. This situation continued until about 15+ years ago when the Council decided to stop locking the gates and allowed 24 hour access, so it is conceivable that in the near future new rights of way could be claimed for some of the paths.
With regard to other parks and open spaces in the borough such as Priory Park and Highgate Wood, the fact that they are enclosed and locked at night prevents rights of way being claimed.
*the Metropolitan Board of Works</9>
-
-
Thanks Konrad. That's as I expected, but it was worth checking. I have a copy of the 1875 Act, but for some reason the 1874 one didn't seem to be available at the National Archives, legilsation.gov.uk or the British Library (online or off). I'm sure we can trust Hugh Hayes, but I've too often found historians relying on inaccurate secondary sources. So, it would also be nice to see the Act itself.
-
-
Konrad, as I said in my last answer, I was previously unable to get hold of a copy of the 1874 Act. The National Archives have been very helpful and following my email to them yesterday, they replied today to say that all of the Acts not currently included on legisation.gov.uk are being scanned and it so happened that they have the 1874 Act ready to go and my interloctor was kind enough to send me a copy of it.
The main purpose of the 1874 Act was to allow the creation of a road through the park from Seven Sisters Road to Green Lanes to preserve a right created by Section 20 of the 1857 Act. As I described in my Endymion Road piece, that road was never built.
From what I can see, the only parts of the 1874 Act relevant to passage through the park are Clauses 9.4 and 9.9. Here's what those clauses say. The first refers to the completion of the proposed new road from Seven Sisters Road to Green Lanes :
"(4.) The certificate of two justices to the effect that the road is complete shall be conclusive evidence thereof ..."
"(7.) On such a certificate being granted, section twenty of the Finsbury Park Act, 1857, shall be repealed, and the Metropolitan Board of Works may close Finsbury Park at night, and at such other times as they think expedient."
I'm not clear where Hugh Hayes took the information from to conclude that. "...“The Board also had the rights of way through the park cancelled by Act of Parliament in 1874...". I couldn't see it. Perhaps that's what he or his secondary source took from Clause 9.7, or did I miss something else? I'm attaching the Act for anyone who wants to check.
Given that the proposed new road was never built, I wonder if that certificate referred to in both clauses was ever issued. If not, then Clause 9.7 has no legal standing as far as I can see. (However, that is not to say that subsequent legislation didn't cover-off these issues).
Even if the certificate was issued, the Act says that the Board may, "...may close Finsbury Park at night, and at such other times as they think expedient.". I think there would be be a strong legal challenge as to whether this convyed the right to close off parts of the park, still permitting access to a certain group of people only, i.e ticket holders".
Quite apart from the 1874 Act, I have looked again at the 1857 Act that created the park. Clause 17 says the following:
"It shall be lawful for the Board, and they are hereby authorized and empowered, during the forming and enclosing the said Park and Approaches, to stop up or cause to be stopped up all or such Part of the Carriage or Foot Ways of any Streets, Roads, or Ways which shall be necessary for the Purposes of this Act, and for that Purpose to put up or cause to be put up sufficient Bars, Posts, and other Erections, and to make such Orders for regulating the Passage of all Carts, Carriages, Horses, and Foot Passengers as to them shall seem proper."
On the face of it, it sounds like it might possibly have given the Board the right to terminate all ancient rights of way, but proper legal expertise would be required to interpret whether this clause unequivocally bestowed the right to terminate any and all rights of way.
If I was challenging the festivals, what I've learned so far suggests that rights of way may (or may not) have been terminated in 1857. It is not clear to me whether the 1874 Act had any effect, but given that the whole purpose of the Act was to permit a road through the park that was never completed that certainly needs checking. As a festival challenger, I'd certainly be doing some more digging around.
- Attachments:
-
Permalink Reply by Lauren
-
Aftermath of the festival last night: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMFlZr
-
-
I hope the person in the car isn't too badly injured.
This is disgraceful violent disorder. It's not even the first time we've seen violent rioting. Why do we keep tolerating the festival?
-
-
HARINGEY council would try to distance itself as far as possible from the stabbing, that was possibly an attempted murder. Others may see that, the kind of major event favoured by their big customer in our park tends to attract gangs and criminality, as well as the expected aggression, mysogeny and homophobia. The current council leader has previously publicly promoted Grime ("working class struggle").
-
-
EARLIER this evening, Festival Republic's effects on Finsbury Park on BBC London News from 15' 30".
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
