Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Locals Call for Haringey to Give Residents Vote on all Major Development Proposals
A group calling themselves the London Progressives are calling on Haringey Council to give all residents living in an area a vote on "all current and future Major Development Proposals which the Council wishes to authorise / deliver on". The group say their focus is both "large scale major developments and small scale major developments".
To gather support they have set up a petition on change.org.
If you would like to get involved they are meeting at the Gönül Café, 1 Turnpike Parade, Green Lanes, London N15 3LA (Next to Turnpike Lane Station) on Thursday 5th January at 6pm.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Antoinette on
-
How utterly ludicrous. An election every time a new development is planned?
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
They do say 'major developments'.
The way I understand this is to frame it alongside the sentiment that led to Brexit - a feeling of loss of control. It's on a smaller scale, but the feeling seems similar to me. Whilst very pro-remain on the Brexit question, I do have some sympathy for locals who might be feeling overwhelmed and ridden roughshod over, particularly those living in the east of the borough. It's not inappropriate to ask if the balance of decision making ought not to be tweaked.
Developments need to happen, but they could be managed in a way that is more genuinely consultative.
-
-
Development would grind to a total halt and I think you know in your heart of hearts it would be a farce.
-
-
Where I come from - yes. Control of the language through terminology is a key item from the liberal playbook (e.g., pretty much all "phobias" and all "isms").
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
If the council did honest consultations instead of their fake things, this would not be necessary.
The horrible sense of powerlessness despite some of their ideas being, simply, wrong, is what leads to despair and/or rage, and contempt.
-
-
And if the Council had to bow down to residents' comments (as seen for an application on my road to build 2 x 3 bed houses) that we're already "over-crowded" and don't need any more housing, then nothing would ever get built. They also said it would cause friction over available parking (just 2 houses this is) and would bring down the value of his own house. None of these are valid reasons for refusing planning applications for much needed homes.
-
-
It's Antoinette, and I was just providing one example that sticks in my mind of the types of non-arguments residents give for not wanting development of any kind.
-
-
Non-arguments are indeed bad arguments, Antoinette, but bad arguments are also bad arguments.
We all know that some objections are driven by very self-centred motives, but not all are and some are well founded and not taken account of by planing authorities. It would be as daft to suggest that the planning authorities always get it right as it would be to assume that all objections are justified. What I've observed is a system that needs rebalancing. Planning authorities have too much of the whip-hand and are able to ride roughshod over residents. (I'm not concluding that the suggestion advanced by the Progressives is necessarily the answer, but it does point to a real issue.)
(Apologies for getting your name wrong last time. Apple miscorrected my typo.)
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I would welcome anything that even attempts to rebalance the planning system. At the moment applicants hold almost all the cards. They can withdraw applications that look like they are going through be refused (to avoid a refusal decision notice) change the application all the way to the decision stage, change the nature of the development after decision, appeal against refusal (a process that doesn't cost them a penny but which we pay for from taxes). We get a bit of consultation and no right to appeal against a decision unless we go down the costly and potentially financially ruinous process of a judicial review. The planning system as it stands is there to enable development, not to manage it.
-
-
The financial inequity is part of what sucks so much. There is no ££ support now for Judicial Review, or to challenge a CPO, so it's represent-yourself time. It gets worse the higher you go - for example right now, Grainger, total assets £2.8billion, vs the asset-free (apart from goodwill) Wards Corner coalition.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
