Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey 3rd highest loss of houses from conversion to flats over last four years
Whilst my interpretation of this data needs checking, the Focus on London report, appears to show that Haringey is experiencing some of the highest levels of conversions of houses to flats in the capital. (See Table 11 on page 161 of the chapter on Housing from the Focus on London report).
As some of us are beginning to look more deeply at conversions in Harringay, it raises the question in my mind of why this is happening in our borough. Are there good social or economic reasons or is something else driving these stats?
As some of us are beginning to look more deeply at conversions in Harringay, it raises the question in my mind of why this is happening in our borough. Are there good social or economic reasons or is something else driving these stats?
Tags for Forum Posts: hmo, hmos, housing, illegal conversion
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by VIX on
-
Greedy landlords out to maximize rental potential from family homes and a slack (or even worse) corrupt planning system has opened the flood gates to poor conversions in Haringey. Some parts of Haringey are at the tipping point of being permanently scarred by second rate conversions. This cannot be allowed to coninue.
Haringey is a conversion 'hot spot' because word has got round that the generous profits from conversions far out way the risks of being caught and Haringey Planning is 'soft' on illegal conversions.
The income from converting a two bed family home into say four bedsit units way exceeds the maximum penalty fines if you are caught. This is where the weakness in the law system lies and it need to be addressed.
The council and planning departments have been snoozing whilst slum landlords/developers have been indulging in a frenzy of convertions, visibly turning some parts of Haringey into Bedsit villages.
If these developers faced heftier fines based on how long it takes them to comply with the council's court notices and to return their houses back to family homes i.e. that the profits made are confiscated as part of the fine, you would see a swifter compliance to re convert back (this can take years presently) and would act as a stronger deterrent to convert in the first instance.
Making false oaths and submitting fake utility bills to gain their COL's need to be met with Police fraud investigations and prosecution. This needs to be clearly stated on the planning application forms.
(rant over!)
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
Excuse me asking.. but your 'family homes' bit irritated me a bit...
'Singles' have just as much right to find a home as families do and bedsits are often all they can afford..
That doesn't make them lesser people - just because they've left their family 'in the provinces' - also I see nowt wrong with converting a two bed family home into two flats.. In fact, these houses were built with exactly this is mind and if you look at the censuses of 1901 & 1911, you'll see that is what they were used as..
Not everyone can afford to buy a home and anyway who decreed this area should just be for home-owners?
The gentrification of these streets and the colonisation of the area by the middle-classes to the exclusion of those with less money doesn't appeal to me at all.
Of course, I'm not supporting the landlords and it's up to the council to see that something is done about them.. But I'd like Harringay to remain what it always was - not become an 'East Crouch End' or Lower Muswell Hill..
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
As I said, in my street 70% of the housing stock is for singles and couples with no children. All we're saying is that this is enough, and it is.
-
-
But yours is the exception isn't it?
It doesn't effect me either way - but the thought of all the streets being 'only' owner-occupiers with 2,4 kids i.e. Family Homes.. is not how I imagine Harringay to be.. If you want to live like that, then choose Purley or Barkingside..
There is of course no doubt something has to be done about the landlords and there seems to be an undertone that something - let's say - 'not quite right' is going on.. That also needs to be sorted out...
I just find this assumption wrong, that people living in smaller units - which is ecologically more efficient, is not good.
-
-
North of me towards Turnpike Lane is the same. Further south I don't think it is quite so bad. People with no children are notoriously lazy and don't want to walk too far to the tube each morning with a hangover ;)
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
But Steve, areas must have a mix of people including families.
If families can't find decent affordable houses, and Harringay still had family houses that were within a working person's reach, especially in the Gardens, when I bought mine, they leave the area. Growing up in a big city like London can be a little stressful at times but it is also a place of great opportunity and families should be able to find places to live near enough to the centre to take advantage of it. Why must families move to the arse end of nowhere like bloody Purley?
There is certainly not the degree of gentrification you suggest on my street. The gradual creep of multiple occupancy homes up my street suggests the very opposite. In fact I can't remember the last time I saw a family move in to my bit, just lots of single people with a couple of suitcases.
As John says, the pendulum is swinging way too much in favour of 'studio flats' i.e. bedsits. You must have seen the discussions on here, you've seen my photos on Flickr
These houses are not being converted into pleasant flats as starter homes for young people or manageable housing for the elderly, they are being converted into hovels, cramming the vulnerable, the very poor and the homeless into stinking little rooms, infested with all manner, with the beautiful houses that you care about as much as we do being allowed to fall into severe disrepair.
This is not about gentrification, Steve, this is about Rachmanism, with a weak council allowing it to happen and sheltering behind bad legislation to absolve themselves form blame.
-
-
Thanks for clearing that up Liz.. I also think that 'a mix' is better than one thing or the other.
As I started off saying - the term 'family homes' irritates me .. I don't want to get into 'what is a family ?' because that is quite hard to define these days..
As I said, there obviously needs more to be done about 'the Rachmans' .. and of course I accept your word that it is getting out of hand.
But I'd hate to see Harringay become like Purley, which is one of my pet hates.. that's why I mentioned it.. and Barkingside? Well, you're only allowed to buy a house there if you've got a taxi
-
-
@Ben lol - I wasn't complaining about taxi drivers - I had some as friends..
I was just stating a point - If like me, you've ever lived in the LB Redbridge - you'll understand exactly what I mean.
-
-
You can all spend the time thinking about the extra 12 million pounds a year that TfL has just estimated that BoJo's bendy-bus fanaticism is costing..
That's funding for the Wightman Road bus for 12 years - nice onewally! Boris -
-
-
I was addressing the issue of illegal conversions as this is causing the main public backlash and objections to bedsits/HMO's.
I have nothing against good studio bedsit developments nor single person dwellings. I have lived in a good flat conversion myself. Of course not everyone renting a bedsit is a bad person.
Having for two years now lived next door to a bad illegal bedsit conversion -a family house divided poorly into four tiny bedsits i think I AM speaking from experience and not getting overtly work up on this topic.
Believe me, we are not trying to gentrify Tottenham!
I lived for many years in Tower Hamlets and then Hackney before moving to Haringey to find an affordable family home. I have seen what 'gentrification' of these other boroughs has done to the local communities.
We are just trying to stop our part of the borough becoming a bedsit slum. Tottenham Hale ward has the highest concentration of bedsit conversions than any other area in the borough and it is visibly spreading.
Re "if you look at the censuses of 1901 & 1911, you'll see that is what they were used as.."
People did not own noisy home stereos and televisions back then, and generally neighbors respected each others right to a bit of peace and quiet and took pride in their local envirioment.
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on
-
100% agree with Vix, she's got it completely. Also, the reason people move on is because the area they live in is a dump, and it's just not worth it to work you ass off to pay a mortgage when your enjoyment of your own home is ruined by surrounding illegal HMOs and their inhabitants. I can only speak for myself, but I am seriously looking at moving, this is not a place I want to stay forever. This is 80% down to the, once illegal, now with a COL, HMO opposite, and the concil's total failure to help me and sort it out and make this a nice place to live.
I for one will be looking to upgrade as soon as I can. I love my house, hate where it is. And it's a direct result of the illegal conversion that seems to be rife around here, teamed with the lack of enforcement and general protection offered to people who are not housed by the council.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
