Currently there are some worrying proposals which could result in one third of Down Lane Park (near Tottenham Hale Station) being built over. Although Harringay Ward residents are unlikely to be affected directly, the issue is really of concern to anyone who lives in the Borough, because of the importance of the principle that parkland should never be built on, as otherwise local authorities would always be tempted to build over it.
Details are set out in a letter which I have written today to the Council's chief executive and which is set out below.
Further details are available on the web site of the Friends of Down Lane Park at
http://www.fdlp.org.uk/index.htm
Please contact them to offer your support. Also, you can help by signing the petition on my website,
www.davidschmitz.org.uk
Although as Liberal Democrats we are campaiging against the proposal, it is only fair to point out that opposition also comes from activists in other political parties, and that these include some Labour councillors.
My letter to the chief executive reads:
Dear Dr. O'Donovan,
I write in connection with the proposals, referred to in Item CAB 41 of the cabinet meeting of 21st July 2009, for the appropriation of part of Down Lane Park for housing development.
Although this is a matter which is understandably of great concern to those immediately affected, it will also be of concern to people throughout the Borough. The reason is that if the proposals were to be approved, they would entail the breach of a very important principle, namely that park land must be sacrosanct: for if it is not, local authorities will always be tempted to find an excuse to build over it.
Although the particular proposal purports to provide that there will be no net loss of open space, it does not achieve this objective. This is because the land which would be said to count as retained open space, if the development were built, would include streets and car parks. It would also include land immediately next to the proposed new buildings - land which because of its location would be subject to so many restrictions as to prevent it from being regarded as parkland or open space in any meaningful sense.
A further and even more serious concern is that it is proposed that the site of a recycling centre at the northwest corner of the site should be incorporated into the Park for the purpose of meeting the requirement that there be no net loss of open space. Leaving aside the question as to where the recycling centre is to be put (will it cover open space elsewhere?) the land is of doubtful suitability in any event for inclusion in the Park. I refer in particular to the fact that land which has been used for recycling for many years may well be contaminated and dangerous to those who might use that site.
Whatever ones views may be as to the various matters which I have raised in this letter, therefore, it is imperative that a report be obtained as to the presence of contaminants on the land before any steps are undertaken which might be predicated upon the possibility of incorporating the recycling site into the Park.
Yours sincerely,
David Schmitz
Chairman, Tottenham Liberal Democrats