Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Land Grab at Down Lane Park
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
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
Tags for Forum Posts: parks
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
David, I don't mind at all 'doing battle' alongside you and anyone else about Down Lane Park. However, I really think your post is “politicking”, and bends – if not breaks - the HoL rule.
We met in Down Lane Park last Sunday at the Summer Festival organised by the Friends of Down Lane Park (FDLP). It was a lovely day and a good-humoured event.
There were no party political stalls. But there was a FDLP table at which I and many other local residents spent the afternoon talking to people and asking them to sign two petitions. One is about the children’s Playground; another opposed the proposals to build on the southern part of the Park - supposedly with an equal-sized extension at the northern end.
You and I chatted and you signed the petition about the Park. So I’m a little disappointed you feel a LibDem petition is needed. I also think it was ungracious of you to refer to: "activists in other political parties, and that these include some Labour councillors".
In fact, all three Tottenham Hale ward councillors attended; and you know our names.
But the “activists” you mention were in fact a very wide range of people, most of whom – as far as I know – aren’t members of any political party. They were not there to push a party line, or claim party credit, but because they care deeply about our neighbourhood and our local park. People worked extremely hard for many weeks to organise and run this event.
The campaign continues, with FDLP members scrutinising and criticising the arguments and documents behind the Consultants’ proposals for the Park. When we win, it will not be a victory for a political party but for local democracy as a whole.
Sincerely,
Alan
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by David Schmitz on
-
Dear Alan,
I'm pleased that you are joining me in bringing this issue to the attention of Haringey residents who live outside of your Ward. It's important, I think, that we should do this because of the broader issues involved.
You are right to point out that the event which you mention was good-humoured and pleasant (not least because it gave us an opportunity to become acquainted). It is also true that many of the campaigners are non-party-political.
Unfortunately, however, because the leadership of the Labour group appears likely to endorse proposals which involve the partial destruction of a park, and because my party is campaigining against this, the matter has become a political issue.
Having said this, I feel that it is right to point out (as I sought to do yesterday) that some members of the Labour group have been standing up to their leadership. I did not mention you by name, because I knew that you would be willing and able to speak for yourself on HoL about the issue - which thankfully you have now done.
Best regards,
David
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
I first saw this story in The Independent about the plans to build on parkland. The plans to concrete over part of Tottenham Park is a symptom of a much wider problem and anyone that values open space in Haringey, or London, should be concerned about it.
This proposal surely reflects the constant pressure on open space in this big city from commerce and there is no consistent countervailing pressure. (I wonder also to what extent it also reflects the previous Mayor's demands for housing densification?).
I'm sure the efforts of local councillors are needed in this and other instances and they reflect the public's view of the value of open space. I wish politicians of all stripes luck in defeating this proposal. Efforts in general to keep open space are democratic but often disorganised, reactive and sporadic.
In preserving open space and parkland in particular, there are no extra jobs, profits or taxes. In a word, there's no money in it and yet the public values it. There is no organised, funded support for open space, much the opposite.
We have seen this with school playing fields over many years. Alexandra Park is a fraction of its original size and still the pressure is to nibble at it in various ways. Parts of Finsbury Park are temporarily privatised, regularly. Haringey council proposes selling off their vacant car-park behind Hornsey Town Hall for property development. Wholly regrettable in my view and land that is ideally suited for a green park.
In a big city there is a ratchet effect operating whereby open space is only ever lost and it is hardly ever added to. As more open space is lost and developed, pressure increases on whatever is left. When it's all gone, it's probably gone for at least our lifetime and we will be the poorer for it.
In respect of Down Lane Park, the signs are not good: The council leader has announced a Haringey Council Consultation (which often means an exercise in cynical contempt for the public) but nonetheless, I still hope they will abandon this scheme.
.
-
-
ACCORDING to the Down Lane Park website, Cllr Kober (council leader) says the proposal still stands but an alternative will be offered in a public consultation. Will the alternative, in essence, be the original plan with a few minor tweaks? It appears that, one way or another council officers want this development to go ahead. A council-officer drafted consultation may be loaded and offer limited options, none of which will be "no thank you!"
Regardless, if past consultation on CPZs is anything to go by, if the council doesn't get the answer it wants, it will simply ignore it. Consultations are not binding and are often a farce and a waste of money. The cabinet member for CPZs is said to have been heard saying "we need to be seen to be consulting".
If they have the courage of their convictions, perhaps the official People's Representatives, should draft and circulate their own alternative consultation about Down Lane Park, where they themselves draw up the options? Would it be too cheeky to have expanding and improving Down Lane Park as one of the options?!
If Alan (Cllr Stanton) was quoted correctly, he said "I don't know how plans got to this stage." I think this is telling and suggests a bureacracy that is out of control (BTW, council officers once planned to close down Stroud Green Public Library, without telling local councillors, one of whom happened to be Deputy Council Leader at the time).
Long before now, a consultation should have gone on with the local councillors. I think that this speaks of a lack of leadership and a lack of communication. So often the council is secretive about their plans, and suspicious if not contemptuous of public opinion.
.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Here's another loss of green space story that's been on the local wires of late. Thames Water have been planning to sell the land which is currently home to allotments in Fortis Green. Although it seems like local action may have created some hope.
More here....
And there's a petition you can sign here.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Latest on this story from the Tottenham Journal
-
-
Just to update you on this:
We are at the moment distributing a letter, with petition, to all households in the area immediately affected, in order to encourage maximum participation in the forthcoming consultation (which begins later this month), to provide publicity to the Friends of Down Lane Park and to give a further opportunity to residents to express their opposition to the proposals.
In addition, I have written again to the Chief Executive.
Firstly I have sought an assurance that the open space to be offered as a part of any new development will be independently assessed and that any decision to build will be revoked if the assessment concludes that the new open space would be of less value to the public than what exists at present. In this connection, I have mentioned that space which is enclosed by housing and space which does not stretch for the full width of the park cannot be as valuable to the public as the space which now exists.
Secondly, I have sought an assurance that the land now occupied by the recycling centre will not "count" as replacement open space unless funding for its immediate decontamination is secured. The danger is that without the securing of such funding, it may be fenced off for years until such funding eventually becomes available.
Thirdly, I have asked whether the Council is considering the building over of any other park land in Haringey.
Because I have not yet had a reply, I have made a Freedom of Information Act request on this last point.
Once again, I urge people from all over the borough to involve themselves in this issue, because to allow building in park land would be to create a dangerous precedent that could be applied anywhere within the Borough.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Tell them to do this in Crouch End! There's loads of empty park space that is only used in summer by cricketers and is already surrounded by housing. Or are they scared that the cricketers will put up a better fight?
-
-
I have now heard further from Ita O'Donovan, the Council's Chief Executive. Her letter in full is at the bottom of this posting.
In brief, she confirms that no land will be released for development unless and until the substituted open space is made available to the public. By implication, this must mean that the new space would be decontaminated before any other land could be built upon. This is a welcome development because it allays our concerns that the substituted open space might be fenced off for years pending decontamination.
Dr. O'Donovan also says that the results of the consultation together with a "planning assessment" will be presented to the cabinet in 2010, after which a decision will be taken. This stops short of the commitment which I sought that there should be an independent assessment to determine whether or not the character of the whole of the open space, after development, would be of equal benefit to the public as the present configuration is. We shall continue to press for this.
Dr. O'Donovan says further that there are "no current proposals for development of other areas of public open space in the borough." This is not a sufficient assurance. The plans now being considered for Down Lane Park are "current proposals".
My question is about whether anything is being hatched elsewhere in the Borough which might lead to such a proposal as now threatens Down Lane Park.
The exact terms of my question are "whether Council officers or independent consultants engaged by the Council are considering, or have been instructed to consider, the building of housing on any other parkland or open space within the Borough."
I will be pressing for the necessary clarification.
Finally, I would draw attention to what Dr. O'Donovan says about the forthcoming consultation and about the publicity to be given to the proposals. I would everyone to take part.
David Schmitz
Text of Dr. O'Donovan's letter and of my letter to which it was a reply.
My letter:
Dear Dr. O’Donovan,
Thank you for your letter of the 27th August.
It is unfortunate that the Council has not yet decided to rule out its scheme to build over the Down Lane Park. As I have mentioned before, parks must be treated as sacrosanct, lest local authorities suffer constant temptation to build over them. What follows is without prejudice to my insistence upon this important principle.
If I may turn to your letter itself, I am afraid that it raises some serious issues which it has not addressed.
Firstly, it remains unclear as to what characteristics a piece of ground, within or immediately adjacent to the new development, will have to possess in order for it to “count” as open space for the purposes of assessing whether or not there will have been a net loss of open space.
Secondly, your letter appears to contemplate that the decision in principle of whether or not to build (which is to be made after consultation in October) will be reached before the open space is to be designed “to any meaningful degree” and therefore before “we can debate any concerns regarding the usefulness of the new space.” This leaves open two questions, namely (a) who are the “we” who will be debating this, and (b) if it appears that the usefulness of the space is inadequate in comparison with the facilities which are at present available, will the Council be prepared to go back on its decision in principle to build on the park?
Thirdly, decontamination of land costs money. If houses are to be built on the site of present recycling depot, the decontamination would have to take place immediately as a condition for the approval of the building works. If, however, the site were to be devoted to parkland, the decontamination could be postponed indefinitely until funds became available, and the land could simply be fenced off in the meantime.
In view of the above considerations, I would be grateful for a commitment on the part of the Council to the following principles:
1. There must be no net loss of open space.
2. For the purpose of determining whether any scheme involves such net loss, the characteristics of any land which is to count as open space within the new development must be set out before the consultation takes place. In particular, land must not count for this purpose unless it is contiguous to the remainder of the park and unless it stretches for the entire width of the present park. Thus, land must not count as open space or parkland if it is to be partly enclosed (whether on two sides or three) by housing. This is because any such partially enclosed land would eventually become subject, at the insistence of residents of the new housing, to restrictions which do not normally apply to parkland (e.g. restrictions of the “no ball games” variety); Moreover, such partially enclosed land would tend to be appropriated as an amenity for the residents of the new housing, rather than used for the benefit of the community at large, as is now the case.
3 There must be, independently of the Council, an audit of the detailed plans with reference to the question of whether those plans will detract from the existing landscape, which the park furnishes at present, and as to whether those plans will detract from the public’s use of the park.
4. If, following the making of any decision in principle to build on the park, (a) it shall become apparent that a proposed scheme would entail a net loss of “open space” in the restricted sense of that expression set out above, or (b) the independent audit shall determine that a proposed scheme would detract from the landscape of the park or the use to which it is put by the public, then the decision in principle to build on the land shall be revoked.
5. If it shall be determined that the scheme will not cause a net loss of “open space” in the restricted sense give above, and if the scheme shall include the incorporation of the present recycling depot, then the scheme shall not be confirmed unless the decontamination of that site is fully costed and the funds for effecting the same are allocated out of the Council’s budget.
Finally, and returning to my first point, I wish to know whether the Council’s apparent willingness in principle to build on parks and open spaces is to find expression anywhere else in the Borough. I would be grateful therefore, if you would tell me whether Council officers or independent consultants engaged by the Council are considering, or have been instructed to consider, the building of housing on any other parkland or open space within the Borough.
Yours sincerely,
David Schmitz
Liberal Democrat Chairman for Tottenham
Dr. O'Donovan's Reply
Dear Mr. Schmitz
Thank you for your email of 1 September and I apologise for the delay in replying.
As agreed by the Cabinet, we are undertaking a public consultation on the Greater Ashley Road proposals and, in particular, the development options of building on the southern part of the Park (and extending the Park to the north) or promoting more development on the current Ashley Road depot site leaving the park as existing. Both options follow one of the fundamental principles approved by Cabinet to underpin development proposals that there must be no net loss of publicly-accessible open space.
In the Cabinet report in July, it was clear that the ideas for development on the southern part of the Park were indicative. Since then, more work has been done on the option of building on the southern part of the Park and a design has been done that reconfigures the Park as one continuous area of open space. This produces a very slightly larger area of publicly-accessible open space than existing. This design will be included in the public consultation leaflet to be distributed in the week commencing 19 October and at the exhibition being held at Marcus Garvey Library starting on 23 October. The Planning Service will send you a copy of that leaflet.
The views expressed in the consultation on both the 'land swap' and 'no land swap' options will be presented to Cabinet in 2010 alongside a planning assessment to inform Cabinet's decision on which option to pursue in building the new homes and infrastructure needed in the borough. If the 'land swap' option is ultimately chosen, then work on the development programme will be based on creating the new area of open space (including any required remediation measures) before the existing open space is released for development.
The Council is currently working on a new plan for the borough - the Local Development Framework - where land allocations to meet required growth targets will be identified for public consultation. Having said that, there are no current proposals for development on other areas of public open space in the borough.
Yours sincerely
Dr. Ita O'Donovan
Chief Executive
-
-
David, thank you for posting this.
Dr. O'Donovan says further that there are "no current proposals for development of other areas of public open space in the borough." This is not a sufficient assurance.
I would go further: the statement is worthless.
The formulation “no current plans to do x” is one of the most empty statements that can be made by anyone in power. This "assurance" can be voided the next day, week or month. It is tantamount to a warning that “the situation could change anytime.“ There are no current plans to have a casino in the Borough, for example.
Regardless of any supposed compensatory arrangements, is there now a general acceptance that building over open space at Down Lane Park will, must and should happen? I hope not.
.
-
Permalink Reply by seamus carey on
-
Clive
Glad to say that there is not an acceptance that building will take place on Down Lane Park. Friends of Down Lane Park are continuing to campaign and we are confident we will succeed.
We are collecting signatures , 420 as yet rising soon to 600 and will try to cover as much as possible of the area around the park with leaflets and information. The nursery are also gathering petitions.
We are setting out our case on our website www.fdlp.org.uk which has just been updated.
We hope to create a local grassroots campaign to stop the building on the park. We are calling instead for Haringey to get on with renovating facilities in the park starting with the childrens playground and youth facilities. Many people are very angry at the lack of any improvement to the run down facilities in the park over the years and now the final insult the threat to build on it.
We appreciate any support /advice etc we can get to see off this threat. This development is completely at odds with the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and we will fight it on this account too. As you have observed Clive , were they to get away with it, this could affect many others down the road.
Seamus Carey Co-ordinator , Friends of Down Lane Park
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
