Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Sign against the Council taking money out from Harringay and Noel Park areas
Hi neighbours,
I've just come across a consultation from the council which I think we all should comment on.
Long-short, the council has collected some money from the developments happening in the Noel Park/Harringay area (Clarendon, the new building plans in the high street...), so WE have £1,251,384 which can be invested in road/footpath improvements, playgrounds, CCTV, lighting, new trees, or other infrastructure projects.
The council wants to change the current legislation to be able to spend this money in any other areas within the council instead of our community.
This is important for us if we want to see any improvement fight against fly tipping and other crimes with cameras and have a nicer high street and surrounds.
You can consult the map of the areas and full document here: https://www.haringey.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning/...
Please give your opinion here before the 3rd March: ncil@haringey.gov.uk
Thanks
Elena
Tags for Forum Posts: cil, consultation
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mich Tka on
-
As a principle I'm not opposed to this. It makes sense that the money should be spent were its needed the most, or to spread evenly.
Plus Harringay might benefit from this in future years, when tottenham is fully regenerated for example?
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Why did this law exist in the first place? Don't tell me that unscrupulous councils were spending money from developing rabbit hutches in poor areas of town on the wealthier and better connected parts of town? Goodness...
I thought this was to provide for schools or will the rents be so exorbitant the occupants will not be able to afford to have a family?
-
Permalink Reply by Arkady on
-
The intended purpose of this levy was that 15% of it should be spent on a very local basis to mitigate the immediate impact of new development. The government's written guidance says that the 15% is aimed at parish council level, which isn't administratively relevant for London - however Neighbourhood Areas (NA) under the Localism Act replace parish councils in the guidance, and where the NA has adopted a Neighbourhood Plan the levy to be spent locally goes up to 25% - and cannot be spent elsewhere.
At the moment Highgate, Crouch End and Finsbury Park & Stroud Green all have designated NAs. Highgate already has an approved Neighbourhood Plan, and the others will follow. What that means is that not only will the neighbourhood part of the levy not be redistributed from these areas even if the policy is changed, *more* of it will be spent on a local basis than elsewhere. Instead, the levy from developments in Harringay will more likely be spent on high-profile easy wins elsewhere, and perhaps for political reasons rather than actual local need.
The Council is legally entitled to spend the remaining 75-85% of the levy anywhere in the borough on a very wide range of things - redistribute that all you want - but this part of the levy is meant to be spent locally. For instance, spending the CIL money from the new development by Hornsey Station on getting the nearby pedestrian crossing lights working - which the Council said they had no money for. Or properly addressing the many other problems that Wightman Road has. This is also good for transparency and getting buy-in from locals for new developments.
If this proposal is agreed to, local residents and local councillors will have less ability to control the money gained from these highly profitable developments, and that would be contrary to the spirit of the law and a big step back in the cause of localism and community engagement. It should be opposed vigorously.
It's also even more evidence, if it were needed, that Harringay needs a Neighbourhood Forum and a Neighbourhood Plan.
-
-
Good explanation, thanks for that. Seems odd that if it's government guidance that the council can change it themselves? What do other councils do in regards to this?
-
-
The levying authority (i.e. the boroughs, in London) have room for manoeuvre where there is no parish council or Neighbourhood Plan. Haringey are seeking to take advantage of that, contrary to the spirit of the levy.
-
-
Absolutely bang on. It's an absurd change. To compound matters, since the AAP has stalled/disappeared our area of the borough doesn't receive the necessary funding it vitally needs.
-
-
Well... Peray and Emina are two but they're actually from there so I presume are champions of the area. It looks like the third is Khaled Moyeed. More here.
-
Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on
-
Absolutely agree with you Arkady? I shall be completing the consultation and opposing the motion. We are always told for example there is no money to replace trees that are removed. Now that the annual ward grant has been abolished there's nothing in the pot for local groups to improve the local scene. Harringay could well do with a bit of sprucing up.
The sums for Harringay & Noel Park admittedly do look eye-watering by comparison, but as develoment occurs elsewhere in the borough, they will, or have already had their infrastructure levies, and presumably spend them likewise.
I urge everybody to take part in the consultation, and oppose it. Arkady do you know if the spend is time-limited?
I hope our councillors will also oppose the change.
St Ann's should be due a big pot when the hospital site is developed in a few years time, and other areas likewise.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I agree with about the need for a Harringay NF, Arkady. The issue is an absence of people willing to step up. The only resident organisations we have are singularly uninterested. Perhaps it will take a completely new group to challenge the lack of interest from the heritage resident groups.
-
Permalink Reply by Jonas on
-
I believe there is no 'easy' way to oppose this plan.
One has to send a personal email or letter.
In order to encourage people who might be put of by this I will include the text of the email I have just sent below.
But - I feel you may well be able to come up with more effective wording. Could you please post an opposition email - template - which could be used by others (with a little editing for personalisation).
Thanks
My email:
As a resident of Area 4 - Noel Park and Harringay I oppose changing the NCIL for redistribution to other areas.
Noel Park and Harringay area is in desperate need of the funds and will be suffering the most from the lack of infrastructure to cope with the rampant private development from which funds are derived.
I vigorously oppose all the proposed changes to the CIL Governance document/rules.
-
Permalink Reply by Adrian Hackney on
-
Haringey has suggested that you should refer to a particular area of the NCIL map. I think one shouldn't. The objection should be in principle across the borough. I write this as a resident in the Crouch End Neighbourhood Area, which, for the time being, seems to have escaped the grab.
It might also be worth pointing out that the table of amounts is very time sensitive. The figures will be wildly different next year.
As a resident of Haringey - I am content that 75 - 85% of all CIL is entirely and properly under the control of the council. This very large proportion of the money collected can be directed at will by the council to wherever it is deemed most appropriate.
But when any area is subject to a large amount of development it will be in immediate need of funds to address additional demands on its infrastructure. It seems far more fair that the little remaining 15% (or in rare cases 25%) should be retained locally, as clearly intended in the legislation.
I therefore, rationally and calmly oppose all the proposed changes to the CIL Governance document/rules.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
