Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Your Neighbourhood Name: whose right to choose?
The rebranding of our neighbourhood is about to become a live issue again with the Council asserting its claimed right to choose what we're called for the signage to be erected as part of the 2013 regeneration work.
The tussle over Harringay's name has been going on for over a hundred years. Throughout that time it seems to have featured a struggle between the Council, on the one hand, claiming a right to choose and the local people, on the other, demanding a right to self-determination.
Over a hundred years ago, and long before the creation of Haringey borough, Hornsey District Council decided to change the spelling of Harringay Neighbourhood to Haringey. Local people took exception at this imposition from above and resisted the change. The opinion was expressed by, amongst others, the Harringay Ratepayers Association who represented the people of one of three Harringay Wards. Theirs was in part of what is now St Ann's Ward. The legacy of the struggle can be seen today in the signage along the Harringay Passage.
Local people won the day then and our name was safe until the latter part of the last century when the Council administration decided they had a right to change Harringay's name. Haringey Councillor and cabinet member, Nilgun Canver explained a couple of years back:
Too much emphasis on Harringay confuses everyone with the borough Haringey and I’m afraid it refers to the Harringay ward and excludes the Gardens
It's odd to see the modern day Haringey Labour party, erstwhile representatives of the people, following in the footsteps of the Tory burghers of Hornsey Council. Moreover, I'm afraid this argument just doesn't wash with me. The inhabitants of countless other London boroughs seem to manage perfectly well with boroughs and towns that bear the same name. Islington, Hackney, Camden, Enfield and many others all survive. Perhaps the real issue is that a name was chosen that doesn't share the same name as the Council's chosen administrative capital as it is the case for all the other London boroughs I've mentioned. Their vanity perhaps requires that it should do so. But is this reason enough for us to be stripped of our historical name?
For many people, this whole issue may seem esoteric and rather irrelevant. However, I'm not alone in taking a rather different view. My belief is that for our neighbourhood to thrive and for people to identify with it, it needs to have a single name. Right now, as the traders magazine posted through your door just before Christmas bears witness, we have at least three names. How can our identity and distinctiveness be developed when this is the case.
I said just now that I wasn't alone in taking a stance on this. In New York, Democrat Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries thought the principle involved in the issue was so important that he introduced the Neighbourhoods Identity Act, requiring New York City to develop a community-oriented process of community agreement before neighbourhoods can be rebranded or boundaries redefined.
I'm with you Hakeem.
So then, which name? The current variants are:
- the original Harringay
- Harringay Green Lanes
- Green Lanes
Others have been suggested including Harringay Park and Harringay Village.
My choice is simple. I stick with Harringay. Why? Two reasons. Firstly, that's the name we've had for 130 years and I see no need to change it. Secondly, the other names don't work for me. Green Lanes is a road that runs from Newington Green to Enfield. If avoidance of confusion is the aim, this doesn't do it. Harringay Green Lanes is a three word name. Three word names don't stick. Most of them tend to get abbreviated to the first word of the name anyway. Kingston-upon-Thames for example is more commonly called Kingston. St Martins in the Fields is known as St Martins, and so on.
I suppose there is a third reason for me and that's just that I don't like people asserting rights over me that I don't believe they have. I don't believe that the Council or the Green Lanes Strategy Group have the right to change the name of the place I live in, no matter how much good work they may do. That just bridles. No, I'm with the thoroughly democratic instincts of Congressman Hakeem Jeffries. Even if I am a voice in the wilderness, I say if there's any need to tinker with the name of our neighbourhood, then let the community decide what it should be.
In 2013, as things stand the Council and the Green Lanes Strategy Group will assert their right to brand your neighbourhood as they see fit as part of the Harringay regeneration project. I was promised that the community would be given the right to choose and to influence the way that choice was made. In a few recent email exchanges I have detected the possibility of more than a little back-pedaling on this issue.
So, once I have written this post, I will email Councillor Canver, Chair of the Green Lanes Strategy Group to ask for her public commitment that the community be given the determining voice in what our neighbourhood is called.
Amendment
The following paragraphs were added as a comment to this thread by the original author on 5th Jan 2013. Since they cover key issues, and I have been told the comment is hard to find, I have copied them in below:
Having picked up on Alan's suggestion to refer to the legal situation for changing an area's name, a relatively quick spin through sources available has turned up some interesting information.
1. A neighbourhood name has no legal status.
2. The closest approximation for any legal status is contained in quasi-legal or "official" gazettes, such as the Royal Mail's PAF Gazette.
However, even though the information they contain is official rather than legal, it's fascinating to see what lengths the Royal Mail has to go to in order to change the name of a neighbourhood.
Their guidance details a three month consultation process in order to allow changing the name of a neighbourhood in its gazette. The process includes writing to every address affected as well as the MP and other official bodies.
3. Street names and numbers are governed by law, as Alan was told. The relevant legislation is the Public Health Acts Amendment Act of 1907. It says:
The local authority may, with the consent of two-thirds in number of the ratepayers, and persons who are liable to pay an amount in respect of council tax, in any street, alter the name of such street or any part of such street.
So, there is no law that governs the naming of neighbourhoods, but there are principles of justice aplenty that should guide the Council in how it behaves in a situation when it seeks to change an area's name.
As Planning Organisation, Planning Sanity puts it, a neighbourhood is:
" an area where inhabitants live and that it is their state of mind as to what constitutes their neighbourhood. A neighbourhood should not be seen to correspond to any legal or physical division, but more as a social concept, the evidence for which may be given by the people who live there."
If we take as a precedent the principles enshrined both in law and official practice and the opinion of urban experts, I can find no precedent or reference to any principle of justice which suggests that a name change can or should be imposed from above by a person, group of persons or body. At every turn I find evidence confirming my belief that the naming of a neighbourhood belongs to the people who inhabit it and should only be changed with painstaking consultation. It seems extraordinary then that any elected member or officer should even be considering taking it upon themselves or a small semi-official body to rename a neighbourhood however well meaning might be their intent.
In other areas where a change has been sought, consultations have been the norm. Staines is the most recent example.
It's difficult not to wonder, if a Council is prepared to cut corners on allowing local people self-determintaion in less weighty situations such as this, where else are such 'efficiencies' made at the cost of democratic justice?
I remain convinced that unless and until we have a proper process whereby local residents approve a change, the Council should in all documents refer to Harringay as Harringay.
Tags for Forum Posts: glsg, harringay name
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ant on
-
Or even better as a starting point would be the GLSG meeting minutes for the meetings where "we settled to call the area as 'Harringay Green Lanes' as the town centre strongly desired to be identified like that" was discussed and decided, and then the minutes from groups like the LCSP meetings around then to see what if any consultation happened. I've just asked Nilgun for those GLSG minutes and once i have those will ask Ian for the LCSP ones, and I'll post back here if i get them. Would also be interesting if Gardens and Woodlands Park people could find out and tell us what happened in their RAs.
-
Permalink Reply by Protheroe O'Shea on
-
Not a bad idea at all ant. Perhaps they can add the minutes to their LBoH website.
-
-
I have now received the minutes for the last three GLSG meetings which i've attached to bottom of the HoL GLSG wiki page.
Not so much in there but i found them quite fascinating and i've now asked for the minutes for all the old meetings.
One thing in there relevant to this naming thread is:
October - Hugh Flouch noted that residents should be consulted as to what the gateway is called. Nilgun Canver stated that this would be incorporated as part of the consultation process.
November: With reference to naming Green Lanes, this will not form part of the formal consultation, but will be undertaken informally. Harringay Green Lanes will be the default name.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Guess I must have missed the November meeting then!
Yup - just checked the minutes - I did miss it. And, having checked, this is the list of attendees who at that meeting consented to changing our neighbourhood name by default / non-consultation consultation:
Cllr Nilgun Canver (Chair)
Francois Bally (FB)
Cllr Zena Brabazon (ZB)
Tony Kennedy- LBH (TK)
Rob Chau- Traders Association (RC)
Alex Smith- East (AS)
Shefik Mehmet (SM)
Emma Davies- LBH (ED)
Ian Sygrave (IS)
Andy Newman (AN)
Mary Hogan (MH)
Kat Hanna - David Lammy’s office (KH)
- Two St Ann's Concillors
- Two Gardens RA reps
- One LCSP rep
- Two Council officers
- Two Traders
- One urban design consultant
- One policy officer from our MPs office
- One rep from Railway Fields
All wonderful people doing great work, but that is not a group I'm afraid who have or who should feel they have the right to rename our neighbourhood.
-
-
Also, looking in the LCSP meeting agendas and minutes around then there was no mention of any of this so the LCSP can't claim to have consulted. I don't have access to any GRA stuff, does any one from the Gardens know if there was any mention in the GRA meetings or mailing lists.
-
Permalink Reply by Birdy_Too on
-
Sorry if this has been posted before but according to a Wiki page. HGL station has a history with the name 'Green Lanes'.
- Green Lanes (1880)
- Harringay Park, Green Lanes (1883)
- Harringay Park (18 June 1951)
- Harringay Stadium (27 October 1958)
- Harringay East (12 May 1990)
- Harringay Green Lanes (8 July 1991)
I cannot remember been consulted on any of them!
-
-
Yes. they're a right old pain those railway companies. Never could get them singing that democracy chorus.
Naming a station after a road is not unusual. Nearby we had or have, Turnpike Lane, Gillespie Road (now Arsenal) and Hollloway Road. These names do have a real impact on people's notion of what an area is called. Hence people now describe themselves as living "in" Turnpike Lane. As I've written elsewhere, I'm quite sure that Harringay Green Lanes Station has had an impact on how people refer to our neighbourhood (particularly, as another member pointed out elsewhere, since it's on the underground map, but Harringay Station isn't).
-
-
-
Another interesting thing in the November minutes, item 3 (the second 3, there are two item 3's) is that it looks like they decided that even with the new fancied up railway bridge over Green Lanes one side will still be for advertising.
-
-
@Hugh, just like HOL then, except I would imagine a panel deciding the name of the station rather than a dualocracy or even worse the 'naming' of the 'Warehouse District' by an individual!
If the efforts of cyber-world were put into real life practices the Ladder could have an an effective, democratic, constituted, representative residents association to be proud of, for some reason HOL is scared of this. I am sure that would have the backing of everyone on the Ladder. A representative could be chosen to attend meetings and you could discuss whether to call Harringay Passage a passage or a mews, should the committee want that of course! HOL possesses constitutions, it's not that difficult.
We all have to live and work here and all the groups need to work together.
I'm sorry but I have just about had enough of the constant berating of people who are democratically elected and are active in the real world locally and make a difference.
I look forward to my voting slip!
-
-
Birdy, you haven't taken any notice of me before when I've repeatedly said that I don't claim any right to choose our neighbourhood's name. Thanks to Ant's publishing of the GLSG minutes, you'll note that I'm now on the record as asking that "residents should be consulted as to what the gateway is called" - in actual fact I was asking for residents to be consulted on the neighbourhood's name, not just the "gateway's". So, that's in a committee's minutes - must be true, innit!
I'm not scared of HoL being used by a residents' group. In fact one of the first things I did when I set up the website was to put HoL at the service of the LCSP. It wasn't wanted then. It is equally at the disposal of any other residents' group current or future. However, it was not established to be an RA, but to make a positive impact on the neighbourhood. I do my best both online and offline to make it available to make a positive difference to the neighbourhood. Amongst all the other things it does, It quickly became apparent that the site is an option for people who don't get involved in traditional RAs, for one reason or another, but still want to be kept informed and have an input on issues that are the traditional ground for RAs. I will let others be the judge as to whether it's effective in general, but I've been surprised at how effective the site has been in acting as the catalyst and platform for a number of campaigns that have made a difference on the ground.
I'm quite sure that RA's could use it in different ways and I'm quite happy to help find ways to do that.
I've never berated residents' groups, as far as I'm aware. I've been at pains to point out that they do good work. What I'm doing is challenging their right to act on this issue. I've explained many times why I take that position. It's not clear to me why you see such questioning as wrong. Don't we all question and challenge MPs and Councillors? Don't we all question and challenge any person or group who claims to act in our name? Isn't that part and parcel of the democratic process? I'm not clear what you expect. You seem to imply that what we should do is not seek to challenge. Is that right? Or, you might say, get involved in the "real world"9By which I take it you mean offline); I am. I already attend the GLSG, the area forums, and at one point the LCSP, to name but a few. Yet I'm afraid I still believe I have a right to challenge.
-
-
HOL is the only unelected group that has any representation, and therefore an elected voice on the GLSG. The Daily Mail online doesn't have any representation in in the national cabinet either. You didn't take any notice when a constituted HOL group wanted to run a group democratically and not as a dualocracy. I have always argued that HOL, it's membership and it's arguments will never be taken seriously at the top level until it is or has a democratically, constituted group run by and on behalf of their membership in the catchment area and not for individuals. This fell on deaf ears many times.
Like it or not the LCSP members are elected and as representable unlike HOL. Folks have to work together, unfortunately there are too many agendas, egos and self interests to forget all that; residents, traders, RA, Police, councillors etc. I fully support a bolt on to the LCSP, a separate HOL group or an independent group from HOL that fully democratically represents the balanced voice of the Ladder. HOL, currently doesn't do that unfortunately, which in my opinion is a huge shame. You have the platform, the people, the will, the intelligence so now to make it a 'real life' entity. Why the scepticism?
I have said a million times that HOL is a great 'community asset', but it has it's restrictions in it's current format. We can go around in circles Hugh, as we are but this in my opinion this is the bottom line. Civil mobocracy will never be the way to have a say, democratic means will. It is perfectly acceptable to ask many questions, but some people don't like the answers given and will continue to disrupt until they get their own way. It is not about who shouts the loudest and the longest, it's about working together in a diplomatic, democratic way.
You can actually call where you live Harringay without being arrested, my official postal address is Hornsey N8, but as I am a bourjois anarchist I have always written Harringay N8, crazy huh?
Have a good day.
-
-
-
I do get where you're coming from Birdy. I agree that HoL representatives are the only ones who attend, unelected. I think the broader GLSG group are keenly aware of that and so the role we play and the weight our voices carry reflects it. Since the committee does much of what would be done in other parts of the borough by an area forum, however, I'm not sure that, as a local resident, I should feel particularly privileged for attending, nor awkward about so doing.
As I've said before, whilst welcoming the work that the RAs do, we should also remember that whilst some of the RA's do have a sizeable 'electorate', others don't and it's only the councillors who should be regarded as having a mandate to represent us.
I also agree that any group, HoL or any other, won't be accepted at the table of local democracy until it walks and talks like a representative group. Perhaps that's bang on the money. Why should it be any different?
But that's not what HoL was established to be, Birdy. I want it to help RAs, but not to be one.
I'll happily be part of any constituted representative group established to improve life on the Ladder and I'll put HoL at its disposal. But it won't be HoL. HoL is a website that offers a forum, events listing and some reporting. In any event, it could never be any sort of group for the Ladder since it's for the whole of Harringay, not just one part of it.
If/when I move out of the area, the community or A N Other within it will determine where HoL goes next, or indeed whether it survives. In the meantime, I do my best to deliver what I feel the community wants of it that I feel will work. It's not a democratic organisation, but it is a democratic tool that is openly available to local people impartially, without fear or favour, regardless of the interests involved (discriminatory groups excluded).
The group that I set up around HoL was very specifically to support the site's sustainability. What I resisted was any editorial control from the group. Here's its constitution, posted on the site many years ago.
I've don't try to use HoL to shout the loudest, Birdy. Generally my first recourse has been quiet co-operative diplomacy (such as I am able). Two recent examples of that.
1. The KFH saga - I became aware of the KFH issue in July last year, took my suggestions to Rob Tao and decided to leave quiet diplomacy to do its work. When I heard that KFH clearly were't on the same page, I took the issue public and sought to use HoL in a role as the 'fourth estate' to give local people a voice.
2. The issue that's the subject of this post - I've been quietly talking about the issue of our neighbourhood name as well a writing about it for five years. With the latest iteration as it concerns the current 'regeneration', I made my points at the GLSG on more than one occasion, but as Ant showed with his minutes and as emails I received proved, a promised consultation was put on the back boiler. So, again I used this website to explain my own views and offer the opportunity to others to do the same, because I don; think this is an issue that should be decided in darkened corners.
In neither case have I sought to be mobocratic or disruptive or loud. I've patiently put forward my views with clear detailed explanations.
BTW, I love the phrase bourgeois anarchist. Think I'l build that one in to my repertoire.
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
