In the mailbox this morning:
Most people would agree it is time something was done with the Hornsey Depot Site (north of Hornsey High Street – includes the recycling centre and the old Hornsey Baths and Washhouses Building which fronts the High Street). However, the current plans are all about what Sainsbury’s wants for its planned store and cramming in as much housing as possible in excessively high blocks (up to 8 stories) in the area left after creating the store car park (114spaces).
A new grouping (Hornsey Action Group), has started a petition against the Depot plans which focuses on retention of the Baths Building and saving the view Alexandra Palace as this is key to preventing many of the excesses of the current plans. The proposed design involves knocking down the Baths Building and creating a 3-lane entry/exit road to the site for supermarket traffic and delivery lorries.
We are writing to ask you to sign the petition below (follow link) that will help with this. (note: to sign the petition you must either live or work or be a student in Haringey).
If you would like a paper copy to help collect signatures let me know and I will forward to you. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
A summary briefing document of the planning application HGY/2013/2019 is attached - full details can be found at http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...
The petition is a bit technical in what it is asking of the Council, but it is important for the Council to recognise this view as an important local view, as this means a number of their own policies and national policies come into play which make it much more difficult for them to give permission to knock the building down. The developers clearly recognise this as they go to great lengths not to mention the view in any of the background documents despite it being raised with them during their consultation exercise by many people.
There is a long and complicated history behind this development, Sainsbury's actually obtained planning permission after a Public Inquiry in 2000 for a large store behind the high street (which was to be accessed via a new rear access road – subsequently built as part of the New River Development by St James). However, they failed to bring this forward, and continue to hold the whole site to ransom to satisfy their demands (they actually only own 30% of the site, Haringey Council own the other 70%). The planning application is being driven by the requirements of Sainsbury’s for an oversize supermarket with a “commensurate” surface level car park (114 spaces) that must be visible from the high street. This means the Baths Building must be knocked down to create a 3-lane entry/exit access road to handle “...the delivery vehicles and quantum of car journeys expected”.
Some Upcoming Significant Dates
3rd Nov (6pm) at 3Compasses pub on Hornsey High Street – Opening by the Mayor of Haringey of a photo exhibition of Buildings of Hornsey High Street (organised by HornseyN8 Group and Hornsey Traders and Stakeholders Association) to last for the month of November.
7th Nov (7pm) at St Mary’s CofE School on Rectory Gardens, Hornsey High Street – Public meeting about the Hornsey Depot Plans organised by Labour Party’s 3 prospective candidates for the Hornsey Ward in next years Council elections
15th Nov (6.30pm) at Greig City Academy on Hornsey High Street – Public meeting about Hornsey Depot Plans organised by Lynne Featherstone Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey & Wood Green
26th Nov (7pm) at Greig City Academy on Hornsey High Street – Development Management Forum organised by Haringey Council with Developers and Council Officers in attendance.
Here are the four pages of the document 'Hornsey Depot Public Consultation Update 2' which was given out at the recent public, Council-run meetings about this planning application.
Apparently objections/comments from the public on this application will be accepted into January but people were urged to get their concerns/opinions sent in to Haringey as soon as possible.
Moved from another thread:
Reply by Clive Carter 23 hours ago
I have always enjoyed the view towards the city
Michelle, I'm sorry to inform you that residents no longer have any entitlement to views.
This is my tentative conclusion after listening to "Officers" from the council's planning department when they considered Hornsey Depot – now to be waved through on 3 February by (effectively) whipped Labour politicians.
In the case of our view of Alexandra Palace from Hornsey High Street, the official, considered position of Local Government Officers, is the view is "Accidental".
The gist of their argument was that by rights, there should be a two or three story frontage there. Thus, our view is a mistake. This overlooks that some accidents are chance happenings for the good, or for public benefit. The use of the term in this bizarre way shows the lengths that 'officers' will go to defend private interests and to deflect objections.
Even some Labour Councillors (briefly off-leash piste) made a display of querying this ridiculous formulation.
Accidental? or fortuitous?
Planning perverts parlance
Reply by Chris Setz 22 hours ago
I notice the the Cttee has prominent Lib Dems on it - the Lib Dem leader of the opposition was the one who proposed deferring the decision. Here they all are http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=728
Half are Labour and half Lib Dem. The Lib Dems should have a major hand in this one, because it affects wards in which there are Lib Dem Cllrs sitting, and they do. This idea that somehow the Lib Dems have no responsibility and can only blame is tosh - the Lib Dems are very much part of the council, doing their job reflecting the issues and concerns. They go further in using the considerable experience some of them have to spot opportunities to improve the plan where possible.
The public? They dont give a stuff. If you were to hold a referendum on the Hornsey Depot in Hornsey, I reckon that less than 25% would even bother to fill in the form. They can't even be bothered to turn up to the meetings the Labour and the Lib Dems organised.
The plain truth is that the ConDems changed the planning laws to remove almost all barriers to property development however much local people don't like it. They gave property developers a right to develop.
It is because the ConDems fervently support property developers, funded by banksters, in their privatisation of public space. It is a ConDem tenet that the market will solve property problems. That is why Thatcher sold off all those council houses, only to see a third of them rented back to councils by private landlords. She got a few quid once, but the landlords profit forever. What a disaster that idea was!
So St james (massive property company) will build a Sainsburys (their rep described the view as "incidental") and make a lot of cash doing it, creating rental income for centuries on which they will pay little or no tax. They might be persuaded to throw a few scraps at any locals who might otherwise make noise, but we are talking of millions and millions of pounds worth of revenue here that Council Tax payers throughout the borough will have to pay to service. And councils can do hardly anything about it because the law is clear - you are not allowed to put people first.
Will there be any "affordable" housing? The absolute bare minimum. How about family housing? One bed flats make more money so mind your own business. What about car parking? We will all get 90 minutes - car-free? On your bike! Nine storeys high? Nope, better get ready to make that eight so as you can be seen to be reacting. What if it harms surrounding local business (which many think is certain) - the law is the law.
You seem to be of the view that if the Hornsey Depot scheme is unpopular, it is Labour's fault. Your unprovable slurs against people exposes the weakness in your argument, doesn't it?
I can see the propaganda now:
If it gets slightly modified:
"Lib Dems force Labour to act sensibly"
If it gets through:
"Lib Dems force Labour to act sensibly"
Is the planning process fairly treating the Hornsey Depot issue Clive? If yes, please stop right there!
If no, what changes are needed? Fewer Lib Dems on the Cttee? More time for the developer to speak? What would the Lib Dems do if they were in power Clive?
Reply by Clive Carter 17 hours ago
Thanks for your detailed response. I'm not convinced you attended the planning meeting, as you imply, or enough of it. As a result, I'm afraid that you appear to have made at least two mistakes:
First, the motion to Defer came from Cllr. McNamara (Labour). It was then seconded by Cllr. Wilson (Liberal Democrat) and then agreed unanimously.
Second, while the committee members are evenly divided between the two parties (four and four) you overlook the role of the chairman. Do you believe he does not have a casting vote?
The chairman is a Labour Party appointee and anything but impartial: a defector to Labour who must repeatedly re-prove the new-found loyalty to the party line. (I noticed and was disappointed with his treatment of David Browne, a former Mayor and one of two councillors deselected in shady circumstances – a loss for Labour and for the public).
I'm sure you didn't deliberately assert untruths; I see them as merely part of what appears to be an over-zealous attempt to defend anything with the name "council" or "Labour" on the tin, regardless.
The public? They dont give a stuff. ... They can't even be bothered to turn up ...
I note your view of the general public, scores of whom attended public meetings, as did I, but not all of which you appear to have attended; Not even Labour Councillors would show this level of contempt for public opinion.
I agree with your implied general point, that these meetings are normally party political affairs. We shall likely see that on February 3, when the Labour-run council will enforce a charade of discussion, followed by the rubber-stamp decision to approve the flawed application (whipped-agreed beforehand).
You may find this council page helpful.
Watch out for the votes amongst those listed on link for Attendence details!
Hi Clive - any post that contains personal attacks should really be ignored but, from your writings in the past, you seem to me to be a fair-minded person who bases judgements on facts as objectively as you can. Granted, politics are matters of opinion and I guess I can only blame myself if I get you to see red, but that is not my intention.
I am sad that I come across as a Labour zealot - that is not my intent. I want to look at the situation fairly and remove as much of the party politics as possible, because the parties do not represent everyone, only those who vote. Ideally, every decision would be made for everyone.
As I am sure we both agree, this development matters for the same reasons that Ally Pally or Hornsey Town Hall matter - it directly affects local people and should therefore be of concern to them. It is also a test of our system - if we get it right, everybody wins, if not, it can severely damage us. So the extent to which it works has a direct bearing on our lives and the lives of our family and friends.
Apologies for the error of fact as to who proposed the motion to defer - the two men sat next to one another and have broadly similar voices - they spoke almost together and the Lib Dem guy agreed with the Labour guy and, as you wrote, the vote was unanimous.
I do not have contempt for people and I ask you to accept that you slur my good name. What I am saying is that people should accept their responsibility to vote. If they don't vote, it is hard for them to complain when their elected reps do something on their behalf. Their silence is taken as implicit assent. The least they can do is vote once every four years.
Your diatribe about the casting vote goes to the heart of what I see as your blind prejudice. You are saying that, whatever the issue, Labour will engineer to get their own way and that is wrong. It is not wrong for the majority party to get their own way, Clive. Are you saying that they are corruptly getting their own way? Are you saying that our system of local government is wrong, or that the version applied in Haringey is wrong? You mention whipping, are you saying that it is wrong of Labour to whip? Do you want whipping banned just for Labour or for your Lib Dems too?
The vote of the chair was irrelevant in this meeting but I think you are hurting because you probably feel that Labour always wins. I don't really mind if Labour win, but I do care that Haringey wins. They are in the majority so I suppose you could say that it comes as no surprise that they win, but how else could it be done?
You see a flawed application whereas I see one that is the best they can do.
You see where I am going with this Clive, surely the thing that is wrong is that you are not getting your way and you don't like that. I am totally with you in the burning sensation that they are all doing it wrong and you cannot stand idly by whilst they mess you life up, but unless we can actually influence the decision, what is the point?
I am afraid to say that, were you to stand for election, you would not be able to get your own way either - surely, rather than criticise Labour errors and misjudgements, you could give some attention to how to fix this broken system of ours, something you can actually do? You are not going to get the power to change things, but it might make you feel better if you know what should be done and how to bring change about.