Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Objection to Advertising Signs In Haringey's Green Spaces
The following from Haringey Federation of Residents Associations. I'll be interested to see if those folks who criticised our objecting to the McBridge advertising feel as unconcerned about this advertising:
We understand that the Council is considering [in its Pre Business Plan Review 2009-12] increasing the number of large, invasive advertising signs in planters and other green spaces in Haringey's street scene, and extending the controversial measure to parks sites. The adverts consist of oblong boards between three quarters of a metre and a metre wide, raised a foot or two above the ground. They dominate and ruin the green space within which they are constructed.
We would strongly urge against this policy which:
- seriously disfigures green spaces and is a threat to their integrity
- makes a laughing stock of the Council's 'Greenest Borough' publicity (which claims to promote green spaces and aims to remove environmental clutter)
- undermines the work of Friends groups and others who try to green their local streetscape and green spaces
- is an insult to the intelligence of the borough's residents
Earlier this year The Haringey Friends of Parks Forum, supported by the Haringey Federation of Residents Associations, opposed the original proposal for these adverts. The Haringey Friends of Parks Forum were told then that the scheme would not be used in any of the borough's parks. The current proposal therefore breaks a promise made to the Forum.
The Parks Department has successfully worked in partnership with many local groups and individuals as part of a borough-wide campaign to enhance our green spaces. Local people are proud of this. Encouraging advertising in these areas goes against this policy and will leave people angry and demoralised.
Proposal 1. We call for all current signs to be removed, and the whole policy to be scrapped. This section should be removed from the Review.
In addition we note that the core funding for the borough's parks is wholly inadequate, and is almost the lowest 'relative to nearest neighbours / London (14)'.* According to the Review, Haringey's budget is only around £13.63 per resident compared to the range of £12.81 - £29.42 allocated by other London boroughs. Yet the Review proposes to reduce this even further, for example suggesting an '8-10% cost reduction in grounds maintenance'.** It is clear that unacceptable efforts to make money from adverts in green spaces is a desperation measure to compensate for unaceptable cuts and the lack of adequate core funding.
Proposal 2. We call on the basic parks budget to be significantly raised to ensure adequate maintenance and management of all our open green spaces. Such an increase should be added to the Review.
Sincerely,
Joan Curtis - Secretary, Haringey Friends of Parks Forum
Dave Morris - Secretary, Haringey Federation of Residents Associations
* Pre Business Plan Review - Part 6 / Performance Section. p36 para 4a
** Pre Business Plan Review - Performance Section. para 4b
We understand that the Council is considering [in its Pre Business Plan Review 2009-12] increasing the number of large, invasive advertising signs in planters and other green spaces in Haringey's street scene, and extending the controversial measure to parks sites. The adverts consist of oblong boards between three quarters of a metre and a metre wide, raised a foot or two above the ground. They dominate and ruin the green space within which they are constructed.
We would strongly urge against this policy which:
- seriously disfigures green spaces and is a threat to their integrity
- makes a laughing stock of the Council's 'Greenest Borough' publicity (which claims to promote green spaces and aims to remove environmental clutter)
- undermines the work of Friends groups and others who try to green their local streetscape and green spaces
- is an insult to the intelligence of the borough's residents
Earlier this year The Haringey Friends of Parks Forum, supported by the Haringey Federation of Residents Associations, opposed the original proposal for these adverts. The Haringey Friends of Parks Forum were told then that the scheme would not be used in any of the borough's parks. The current proposal therefore breaks a promise made to the Forum.
The Parks Department has successfully worked in partnership with many local groups and individuals as part of a borough-wide campaign to enhance our green spaces. Local people are proud of this. Encouraging advertising in these areas goes against this policy and will leave people angry and demoralised.
Proposal 1. We call for all current signs to be removed, and the whole policy to be scrapped. This section should be removed from the Review.
In addition we note that the core funding for the borough's parks is wholly inadequate, and is almost the lowest 'relative to nearest neighbours / London (14)'.* According to the Review, Haringey's budget is only around £13.63 per resident compared to the range of £12.81 - £29.42 allocated by other London boroughs. Yet the Review proposes to reduce this even further, for example suggesting an '8-10% cost reduction in grounds maintenance'.** It is clear that unacceptable efforts to make money from adverts in green spaces is a desperation measure to compensate for unaceptable cuts and the lack of adequate core funding.
Proposal 2. We call on the basic parks budget to be significantly raised to ensure adequate maintenance and management of all our open green spaces. Such an increase should be added to the Review.
Sincerely,
Joan Curtis - Secretary, Haringey Friends of Parks Forum
Dave Morris - Secretary, Haringey Federation of Residents Associations
* Pre Business Plan Review - Part 6 / Performance Section. p36 para 4a
** Pre Business Plan Review - Performance Section. para 4b
Tags for Forum Posts: PR, haringey council communication
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
I sent the email below to Haringey Recreation Services - copying my colleagues.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
All councillors received an email from Joan Curtis and Dave Morris objecting to advertising signs in Haringey Parks and Green Spaces.
Could you please give me some information about details of this proposal, including:
● A list of parks, flowerbeds and any other open space sites currently being used for commercial sponsorship.
● A list of the new sites proposed.
● The current rates of sponsorship
● The income now being generated
● The additional income expected
Are they correct about the size of the new signs? Am I right in thinking these are significantly larger than the existing signs which appear for example, on one or two of the flowerbeds at the bottom of Muswell Hill? Are the proposed signs larger than here, for example?
I tend to agree with the general view put forward by Joan and Dave, as I believe there are already far too many billboards with commercial advertising in our streets, on walls, and on every spare corner of land where the advertisers can get away with it.
Haringey may not be Venice; but are we really going willingly and eagerly to invite this degradation into our public parks and green open spaces? Isn't this to risk obliterating the last remaining public spaces which commercial companies now can't own and colonise, to sell us their stuff.
It is a major problem that successive Governments have colluded with the billboard barons in their takeover of our streetscape. Local councils often appear to be ineffective in exercising even the small powers of control they do have.
Though it's noticeable in most of the larger UK cities I've visited, the more well-to-do residential areas suffer far less from billboard blight. Whereas in many of our poorer areas, the aim of improving the streetscape and conserving attractive buildings can sometimes seem a bad joke because the billboards obscure and dominate the buildings.
The hoardings grow larger. They acquire added gantries - often intruding into their neighbour's space; and onto public space. The companies first add external lighting; and more recently internal lighting shining out of the boxes - generating worse light pollution than most street lights. Currently, the technology is there for animated billboards; it will shortly enable billboards to project video. Buildings will become mere base units. (As in the film Blade Runner.)
It's interesting to compare different parts of London; and even different parts of Haringey. To take just one street in Tottenham Hale, it's very clear how the two ends of Monument Way are uglified by billboards. Whereas a short stretch in the middle benefits from their absence so the streetscape is grass, trees and brick.
I was very struck by how much the centres of Paris and Vancouver (at least in 2004) were enormously more attractive because of the lack of billboards.
There are alternatives.
Several years ago I raised the possibility of community adoption of flowerbeds. You were going to explore this. I believe there are other local authorities which have such schemes.
Amsterdam has them; as does Vancouver. In Vancouver they found that volunteers who looked after their "blooming boulevards' improved both public safety and community cohesion - simply by being out on the street.
Some friends who live in the suburbs of Washington DC told me about a similar scheme there.
Berlin seems to have a very extensive adoption of street gardens; with the city reaching an accommodation with people who 'take over' a nearby spot - for instance, round a tree; or a neglected patch of ground.
As I recall, several years ago I had to nag for months to get Haringey officers to take effective action against one company which illegally erected a billboard on a wall in Down Lane Park. Eventually this was removed. Now we seem to be welcoming the practice back - or at least the thin end of the wedge.
Our parks and streets may not be as beautiful as St Mark's Square. But do we really need to go down that route?
I may be wrong, of course.
_____________________________________
"Papa, what is the moon supposed to advertise?"
Carl Sandburg. The People, Yes.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Indeed, Hugh, it would indeed be interesting if Chris Arnold and his ilk defend the ' free speech' which he suggested ads on the bridge were when they are peppered all over the flower beds of Stationers Park or obscuring the views of the water fowl on Finsbury Park.
Do such people truly believe that their need to know what the latest mobile phone offer is outweighs the need to preserve the intergrity of our green spaces and indeed our old buildings? The billboards highlighted by Alan for example in Tottenham obscure lovely old houses and detract from all recent attempts to regenerate that area.
I find it extraordinary that a council that rightly prides itself on its green flag rated parks and spaces would even contemplate this. Does this not stand at odds with the beliefs of the Civic Society who administer this? I do hope that the council comes to their senses and dump this from their plan.
If they want to raise revenue why not take more advertising in the Haringey People which they send out to everyone in the borough? A quick glance at an issue shows a full page ad for the Mall in Wood Green and clearly room for many more. Perhaps any cabinet member who supports this idea would instead agree to have a small ad inserted into any photo op they take part in?
-
-
Liz, how about sponsored Council meetings and product placement?
"The Mayor's chain this evening is by Rand Fields Inc. Water jugs by Malvern. Speakers each have three minutes as timed on my Rollurist watch . . . . "
-
-
Exactly, perhaps the tech boys can insert ads into the webcasts?
When a cabinet member rises to speak there could be captions: Cllr Adge, recommends Teflon.
-
-
Not even Teflon could help with the stuff stuck to Adje!
-
Permalink Reply by frank demster on
-
I would like to know why the council can't get round to dealing with the disused (illegal?) billbords that are around e.g the two opposite Atterbury Rd on wightman Rd N4. These are just covered with flyposts and really drag down what is already a fairly bleak section of road.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
