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 Alan Stanton on
-
Various unpleasant remarks have been posted on this website about Ian Sygrave and his own supposed role and that of the Ladder Community Safety Partnership in a "plan" to banish the name Harringay from the area.
We're now told by John McMullan that as chair of the LCSP, Ian Sygrave has added this topic to their agenda for discussion. This seems a perfectly reasonable response by the chair to the criticisms made.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Alan, is that first paragraph in italics a quote? I can't see where it came from. Neither do I know what it's referring to. Please can you point me to any unpleasant remarks so that I can remove them immediately.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I looked for them too, it's just Alan painting this thread with more misinformation.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Alan, I don't recall seeing anything unpleasant on the site about Ian. I know him personally and admire his commitment and dedication - and bloody hard work.
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
Thank you hob; good summary of a summary. So it still leaves the question of whether or not 'the ladder' part of Harringay needs a new body to represent resident's views, one with a constitution and an elected committee. A body that could also utilize HOL to galvanize opinion/thoughts on various issues but makes decisions in minuted meetings. Is such a body needed and would it work?
And maybe just as interesting, what would this body/organisation be called?
-
-
I do think the Ladder needs a residents' association. The LCSP does excellent work but by definition has a focus on crime. If you look at the great stuff that has happened in the Gardens over the last few years I doubt there would have been as much impact without a strong RA. Who wants to take up the baton though?
-
-
Agree Michael but it's just too big. Splitting it up would be problematic also. The Harringay Gardens are a good size for a residents association. In 2008 there were people who wanted HoL to be an RA, I was not one of them. I think an RA might be able to take some issues forward with the council but look what the Gardens RA managed to do to the Ladder (gating, traffic).
-
-
No, I don't think the Ladder is too big to encompass in a single RA. I think you select an area based on a commonality of interests. Bearing in mind what the main issues are for Ladder residents, I don't think anything less than an all Ladder RA would make sense.
For many years, I've cautioned against setting up a Ladder RA whilst the LCSP is working, but it may be that we accept that the LCSP does what it does really well, but that it's different from the GRA and if Ladder residents want a group that does all the things the excellent GRA does, it's time to think about other options. Perhaps that's a different discussion for a different day.
Therese, I think the Council processes for making decisions on traffic management in Harringay have been deeply flawed, but that's another discussion. One thing I think it's worth saying here though is that this issue shouldn't be a cause for division between the different parts of Harringay. It is the Council who have got us to where we are and it is to them to whom we should look for a remedy.
-
-
Permalink Reply by ant on
-
There has been a lot of great stuff happening in The Gardens but there has also been lots over here too. With the Gardens most happens within the GRA whereas outside of the Gardens is fragmented into multiple groups so its not so obvious for one person or group to get credit like in the Gardens.
Friends or Fairland Park do lots of activities which are quite comparable to what goes at the Gardens Community Garden. Friends of Ducketts Common have helped make lots of improvements there over the last few years. HoL isn't just a discussion forum and has done real tangible terrific things for the area. And there have been lots of more informal things happen, some organized here on HoL, that if had happened in the Gardens probably would have been credited to the GRA. Ian and the LCSP have done lots of useful stuff too.
What doesn't seem right though is that with all the good stuff going on the only ones who are real GLSG members are Ian/LCSP and the GRA. Everyone seems to acknowledge that the GLSG is a powerful and influential group that gets stuff done so having just the LCSP represent the Ladder area just doesn't seem right to me particularly when the LCSP participants seem like quite a separate and isolated group from those other active people around here.
I don't think making HoL an RA is the right approach but I disagree with you John that its just too big an area. Doing things online makes supporting a wider area more practical than the more traditional church hall based RA approach. Having all the existing smaller groups also helps make a bigger area more feasable.
One thing we don't really know though is if there was another community group here would it actually get to be a real member of the GLSG? I'll go ask Nilgun that now.
-
-
Do you not think Hugh would have been offered a posting on the GLSG by now if that was the case? Hugh and Liz are often invited to the first half of the meeting, but are asked to leave for the second half. I've been along to the first half of a meeting thinking I would somehow brazen myself into staying for the secret bit but was actually more than happy to get out of there.
The ladder is a mile from top to bottom, I think that's too long. I've seen no evidence that the council want to deal with an RA that is primarily online. The deals that can be made in a secret meeting with a select few people are much more their style.
-
-
-
Do you not think Hugh would have been offered a posting on the GLSG by now if that was the case?
No, as has been mentioned already on this thread HoL/Hugh or Liz have no mandate from something like a democratic election to show we want them to represent us.
I've seen no evidence that the council want to deal with an RA that is primarily online.
I've no idea if Nilgun, the GLSG, or the council will want to deal with another RA, online or otherwise.
One of the things i've found so interesting about this thread is how much its uncovering about the LCSP and GLSG and how they work.
I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with the requests for membership lists, minutes, and how to become a member. Worst comes to worst at least it will more clearly expose the failings with current situation, but it might also help with how we can make things better.
-
-
-
I'm all for focussing on finding good ways forward. I think it's important to start from the point of recognising that all those involved in local residents' groups are giving their time to help make things better. All are good folk. We may all have different approaches, but I'm in the school that says they can all be reconciled.
I feel quite sure that the GLSG would welcome any new residents' group as a member. I can't imagine there would be any barrier put up.
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
