We’ve been clear that we are committed to delivering the new homes, jobs and community facilities that local people have told us they want to see. The partnership will enable us to build 6,400 new homes and create thousands of new jobs, as well as delivering a wide-ranging programme of community projects - such as re-built state-of-the-art schools; new parks and open spaces; training and apprenticeships, and health and wellbeing projects - that will enable everyone in Haringey to take advantage of all the opportunities this could bring.
Following the decision taken by Cabinet in July 2017, establishing the HDV remains the Council’s agreed approach to providing much needed homes and jobs on its own land and Lendlease remains the Council’s preferred partner.
Last week, the Leader of the Council, Cllr Claire Kober, explained that she does not intend to take the final decisions required for the setup of the HDV prior to the start of the pre-election period which begins on 26 March. Whilst we are very pleased that the court has supported the Council’s position, we are still working on the basis that the final decision to establish the HDV will be taken by a future administration."
Full judgement published here [pdf]
From Haringey Council Website
Thursday 8 February 2018
Zena's been in meetings most of the day. (Osborne Grove earlier. That's another appalling and cruel misjudgement by this out-of touch Council Leadership).
So Zena won't have seen your request. I'll pass it on to her in a few hours. (If you are a Haringey ward resident or Labour Party member from elsewhere you may prefer to have a phone conversation with Zena. Quicker & easier.)
By the way, I strongly dislike and would ask people to refrain from any "witch is dead" stuff. Disagreeing with a bad, harmful, risky policy is not about wishing ill on anyone.
My own view for what it's worth is: 'eyes-on-the-prize' and the main prize was and is opposing and ending the HDV. There are many more potential prizes. But first let's see what the elections bring.
P.S. Kotkas you may prefer to read the judgement which does not say what Haringey claims.
(Please see this page for my political declaration required by HOL rules)
The main prize should be improving the housing situation in the borough. This is what the StopHDV campaigners fail to grasp - we have thrown the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. This oppositional mentality is what brought about Brexit and Trump. Let's see what the council's 'repeal and replace' motion delivers!
Have you actually sat down, listened to and and talked with anti-HDV campaigners, Kotkas? Have you read the Scrutiny Reports?
The HDV is not aimed at building housing on empty or redundant sites. It would begin by demolishing people's existing homes, schools, nurseries, etc. The residents are not "bathwater". They are human beings. many with real children.
Opposition to a plan for housing which begins by destroying huge numbers of homes in order to create what are in effect brownfield sites, is not a "mentality". It is dissent from a policy people disagree with and have set out the reasons for that dissent.
Roll the thinking back to what the issues are
Any scheme needs to address these issues. It may well be that the best options do include public/private partnerships. It may be that they do not.
The for me HDV as it is has two problems.
It puts all the risk into one, single project. Given the bad experiences of some, but by no means all, previous public/private partnerships that would seem a rash and poorly considered route to take.
The second problem I personally have with what the HDV proposes is that it focuses on property and land, not people. Buildings do not make communities, people do. At the heart of any scheme needs to be what the people affected want and need. They need to be at the heart of the decision making process.
Wasn't there a property show called "Location, location, location"? I don't remember one being called, "Nice bathroom, miles from work".
This is wrong. The people on the estate have been hoodwinked by a very coy consultation. They have no voice unless it's given to them. Nora Mulready found one lady who followed her promises but anyone else who finds out that those promises are NOT IN THE HDV DOCUMENT smells a rat and rightly so. Stop HDV have given them a voice and just look around 99% of the media on a LOCAL issue which was far more juicy last time as they involved the police and see the coverage the pro HDV group are getting.
If the residents are balloted and agree with the proposal IN WRITING, then I'm good. I agree with demolishing and densifying a lot of the spaces in Haringey. Shepherd's Cot would make a good place to build first...
Well there has been a LOT of dishonesty, even fraud, from the HDV lot. More than enough grounds to distrust them even without the SILENCE that comes when you ask them which page of the HDV document that promise they just made is on.
John, it's pointless. You're shadow boxing with someone who makes up a name. Someone who may not be the same person each time.
Someone who appears to be playing a game like "Mornington Crescent" with pretend rules where the fun is riffing on the pretence and keeping going as long as possible.
A game which can ignore any evidence. And dispense with the solid reality of the lives of the people affected.
Solid reality like the fact that the most talented, big-brained lawyers in England - assuming tenants on Northumberland Park estate could ever afford them - won't any time soon, be offering a legal opinion to a resident on the basis of a contract with some 1000+ pages hidden/exempt/redacted.
Which is the still how the draft HDV is right now.
And then look at the guarantees - cast iron guarantees - or maybe solid gold / platinum / Director's Special Reserve / Premier crus guarantees offered by the likes of Strickland, Kober and the rest of them. People who won't anyway be around should the excrement meet the revolving ventilation device in the future. And if they are around will certainly not be available for suing.
Oh, but we don't need to worry these residents, do we? They can be trusted to flip through the thousands of pages of legal documents. Why should any outsiders' opinions trump that? Especially as we can all read Haringey People magazine and trust every word, can't we? And absolutely trust the property speculators and their councillor dining-club pals. They have only the very best interests of residents at heart.
To assume otherwise is an "absolute textbook reinforcement of marginalisation". Personally I've always relied on my ability to remove my own appendix should the need arise.
Thanks for your post. I will be replying in full later. Just acknowledging I've read it. I have an appointment this afternoon in South London so will post later that.
Sorry for the delay
Could you give me a call so I can explain it to you.
My council mobile number is 07812677 710
Cllr, Harringay Ward
It's important to be clear that the the judgement is purely a legal one. It is made clear that the merits of the case, beyond the confines of the legal situation, are not considered.
In his third point, Mr Justice Ouseley has the following to say:
I am not concerned with the wisdom or merits of the decision. I am concerned with the issues of law about the powers of the Council and the lawfulness of the procedures it adopted.
© 2023 Created by Hugh. Powered by