Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Neighbourhood Forum
Out of interest, has anyone got the ball rolling to create a Harringay Neighbourhood Forum in line with the Localism Act? Or perhaps an existing organisation is putting itself forward for the role (as the Highgate Society are doing)? There are a couple of such initiatives west of the tracks, and I'm curious who else is doing so locally.
Ben
Tags for Forum Posts: neighbourhood forum, neighbourhood planning
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
The Highgate Lib Dems are reporting 'huge support' for the Highgate forum.
-
-
Here are some interesting snippets from a conversation taking place in one of the groups I belong to on Linked in. Each paragraph is taken from a different response within the thread:
Regard should be given to the fact that any Neighbourhood Plan must be based on a robust evidence base and therefore building the boundary of it by using Output Areas (OA) or Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA) will make data collection easier. As OAs and LSOAs are based on population/dwelling typology/etc of a similar type, and taking into account physical boundaries, such as railway lines, then they should provide for a sensible match with what the Neighbourhood Forum considers their 'Neighbourhood'.
A population of about 10,000 - 15,000 tends to be an upper limit (and 20,000 an absolute maximum), while where there is a lot of change, high need, more intensive intervention on a smaller area, such as 3-5,000, may be more appropriate. Other factors need to be considered such as known community boundaries; primary school catchment areas; shared boundaries with other existing initiatives; being practical and sensible.
Ward boundaries rarely make much sense on the ground in urban areas and are liable to change so shouldn't dictate neighbourhood boundaries. Similarly data should be fitted to the neighbourhood, not the other way round so looking at SOAs and post codes should be the last thing you look at.I had a meeting yesterday with an MP who has been involved in the Central Government end of this process and he could see that the detail was yet to be clarified around the definition or even guidance towards what might constitute a neighbourhood. In his view much of the governments thinking is predicated around the model of parish councils. The model therefore falls down when it comes to applying it into inner city areas.
-
Permalink Reply by Arkady on
-
How would one go about determining the population size within any given area?
-
Permalink Reply by Omotn on
-
I think I know that one - http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/
the ward (Crouch End) for the postcode N8 9hg contains this many people of working age
Variable Measure Crouch End 
Haringey (London Borough) London England All People (Persons)1 Count 3,600 62,794 3,805,655 22,376,120 Less than 20 years old (Persons)1 Count 111 2,245 120,518 1,126,061 20 to 29 years old (Persons)1 Count 721 12,828 944,847 4,486,880 30 to 39 years old (Persons)1 Count 1,143 18,345 1,143,851 5,972,510 40 to 49 years old (Persons)1 Count 834 15,012 828,408 5,240,955 50 to 59 years old (Persons)1 Count 588 10,693 589,413 4,314,052 More than 59 years old (Persons)1 Count 203 3,671 178,618 1,235,662
-
-
We seem to have posted at the same time.
I'm not sure which page you're looking at Adrian, but I come up with a Crouch End ward population of 10,762. Yours is about 3,500 shy of that.
-
-
I chose "working age" as my dataset. I get 10,762 as well for total population - here it is anlysed by ethnic group. What a wealth of potential confusion.
Variable Measure Crouch End Haringey (London Borough) London England All People (Persons)1 Count 10,762 216,507 7,172,091 49,138,831 White (Persons)1 Count 9,194 142,082 5,103,203 44,679,361 White: British (Persons)1 Count 7,189 98,028 4,287,861 42,747,136 White: Irish (Persons)1 Count 498 9,302 220,488 624,115 White: Other White (Persons)1 Count 1,507 34,752 594,854 1,308,110 Mixed (Persons)1 Count 377 9,846 226,111 643,373 Mixed: White and Black Caribbean (Persons)1 Count 94 3,205 70,928 231,424 Mixed: White and Black African (Persons)1 Count 45 1,551 34,182 76,498 Mixed: White and Asian (Persons)1 Count 123 2,329 59,944 184,014 Mixed: Other Mixed (Persons)1 Count 115 2,761 61,057 151,437 Asian or Asian British (Persons)1 Count 373 14,526 866,693 2,248,289 Asian or Asian British: Indian (Persons)1 Count 179 6,171 436,993 1,028,546 Asian or Asian British: Pakistani (Persons)1 Count 54 2,046 142,749 706,539 Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi (Persons)1 Count 50 2,961 153,893 275,394 Asian or Asian British: Other Asian (Persons)1 Count 90 3,348 133,058 237,810 Black or Black British (Persons)1 Count 613 43,377 782,849 1,132,508 Black or Black British: Caribbean (Persons)1 Count 281 20,570 343,567 561,246 Black or Black British: African (Persons)1 Count 281 19,879 378,933 475,938 Black or Black British: Other Black (Persons)1 Count 51 2,928 60,349 95,324 Chinese or Other Ethnic Group (Persons)1 Count 205 6,676 193,235 435,300 Chinese or Other Ethnic Group: Chinese (Persons)1 Count 91 2,444 80,201 220,681 Chinese or Other Ethnic Group: Other Ethnic Group (Persons)1 Count 114 4,232 113,034 214,619 Last Updated: 18 November 2004 Source: Office for National Statistics
-
-
Interesting. Stroud Green Ward has a population of about 10,000. SG Neighbourhood Forum might cover around half of Tollington Ward, which has a total population of around 12,000. None of the ‘lower layer super output areas’ seem to be very useful for defining borders – for instance the one that covers my post-code cuts right across the Stroud Green-Hornsey Vale border.
-
-
The lower level super output areas don't seem to make sense either. For instance, the Holly Park council estate is in the same one as Japan Crescent, one of the richest streets in the locality. I can't imagine what they are based on.
-
-
Look at the the national statistics website. You can get stats for various sizes of area. Play around with it and it'll probably make sense. From what I recall it's pretty straightforward. It's a year or so since I've used it, but if you get stuck with anything, let me know and I'll try and resurrect my knowledge of it.
-
Permalink Reply by David Browne on
-
This thread makes an interesting read but it’s time for a reality check.
The sections of the Localism Act relating to setting up a neighbourhood forum are to encourage development – that is, building and conversion – by providing a shortcut to planning permission. A neighbourhood forum under the Localism Act is not about public meetings, discussions and consultations as is an Area Forum. That’s another story.
A “neighbourhood forum” is a local organisation that wants to initiate and promote some development in its neighbourhood. The organisation can devise a development proposal and ask the Council to draw up a “neighbourhood development order”, which has the effect of granting planning permission without the need to go to the Planning Committee. This is clearly stated in Schedule 9 of the Localism Act.
A neighbourhood forum could be a residents association, a consortium of traders, a local partnership, a strategy group, a civic group of some other kind, which applies to the planning authority (the Council) for designation as a neighbourhood forum. This is in Section 61F of the Act. The planning authority (the Council) decides how much of the borough’s territory is relevant to the neighbourhood forum and designates the patch as a “neighbourhood area” (Section 61G).
To illustrate this in plain English: for example, the Gardens Residents Association could conceivably apply to be designated a neighbourhood forum for the purposes of encouraging development in its defined neighbourhood area, the Gardens roads.
Note that neighbourhood forums are intended positively to encourage development – they do not have rights to decide on all planning in their areas and they do not have a veto on planning applications – planning objections would still go through the full planning permission procedure.
As there is little scope or appetite for more development in the Gardens, the GRA is perhaps not such a practical example. But what about the Green Lanes Strategy Group? It has a proposal for development on Green Lanes that has planning implications. It could apply to be the neighbourhood forum and draw up a development order to give effect to the regeneration scheme that has won resources from the Outer London Funding bid. Hey Presto! No need to go to the Planning Committee.
The Green Lanes Strategy Group is a good example of an organisation that may qualify for designation as a neighbourhood forum under Section 61F sub-section 5(a),
“it is established for the express purpose of promoting or improving the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of an area that consists of or includes the neighbourhood area concerned (whether or not it is also established for the express purpose of promoting the carrying on of trades, professions or other businesses in such an area)."
The GL Strategy Group would also be a good example of how the Localism Act defines the membership of an organization qualified to be a neighbourhood forum, if it has a minimum of 21 members each of whom lives or works in the neighbourhood area concerned or is an elected member of the borough council (Section 61F sub-section 5(c) and has a written constitution.
That’s probably enough to digest for now. My point is that in the rush to aspire to creating neighbourhood forums all over the place, beware what you wish for.
They are intended to make it easier to develop and build by enabling a group of local people to cut through the bureaucracy of applying for full planning permission. I don’t see that as a problem in the Green Lanes regeneration case, but I urge you to think through the implications of what the Localism Act actually says before this discussion thread stays too far from reality.
-
-
Thanks for the comprehensive posting, David. It's very helpful to get our elected representatives involved in this conversation.
A question and a couple of observations arose from your post for me.
First the question. Do you know where in the act the role neighbourhood forum is prescribed? It seems to be mired in obfuscation right now. I've found the following passage:
Schedule 9, 61F (5):
(5) A local planning authority may designate an organisation or body as a neighbourhood
forum if the authority are satisfied that it meets the following conditions—
(a) it is established expressly for either or both of the following purposes—
(i) furthering the social, economic and environmental well-being of individuals living, or
wanting to live, in an area that consists of or includes the neighbourhood area concerned,
(ii) promoting the carrying on of trades, professions or other businesses in such an area,but that's clearly not the whole story since as a stand alone paragraph, it doesn't sound like it's limited to planning.
Whatever the situation, I wonder if we'll find that even though they're established for planning purposes, they become the de facto neighbourhood group with whom the Council is willing to do business.
We already something along those lines in many areas. A usually pretty small group of individuals gets together, constitutes itself as a 'formal' group by blessing itself with a constitution and becomes the primary conduit for a local council to 'consult with local residents'. In this, the existing system concentrates influence in the hands of what is often a tightly knit clique. Some councils use these as a short cut to claim that they've 'consulted with local residents'.
It strikes me that the Localism Act will serve to exagerate the power and infuence of small cliques rather than to extend it.
Now, don't get me wrong, many of these groups do stirling work and some are very open and welcoming, but my focus here has been on the issue of widening participation. I also fully accept the huge challenges that councils face in getting people involved. I know there is no easy answer, but it strikes me that this act hasn't even attempted to find solutions.
My other observation arises from the local example you cite of the GRA being eligible to apply for recognition as a neighbourhood forum. If this happens and it's replicated around the country, we'll end up with a situation where, potentially small groups are competing with sometimes conflicting agendas over the development of a single neighbourhood. The Gardens is part of Harringay and always has been. Surely it would make much more sense for the Council to encourage all parts of a community to work together in a single forum rather than to countenance or even encourage competing groups?
You also raise the possibility of the Green Lanes Strategy Group (GLSG) becoming a neighbourhood forum. Is this really what the Act intends? As I understand it, the GLSG is a council run and led group which isn't open to all locals. It publishes no account of itself and my understanding is that even some involved with it are not clear on its exact status. (Yet again, for the record, it goes without saying that it's done some stirling work).
PS: Apparently a Stamford Hill Neighbourhood Forum (including one Haringey ward) has already been set up.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
