Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Land Grab at Down Lane Park
Currently there are some worrying proposals which could result in one third of Down Lane Park (near Tottenham Hale Station) being built over. Although Harringay Ward residents are unlikely to be affected directly, the issue is really of concern to anyone who lives in the Borough, because of the importance of the principle that parkland should never be built on, as otherwise local authorities would always be tempted to build over it.
Details are set out in a letter which I have written today to the Council's chief executive and which is set out below.
Further details are available on the web site of the Friends of Down Lane Park at http://www.fdlp.org.uk/index.htm
Please contact them to offer your support. Also, you can help by signing the petition on my website, www.davidschmitz.org.uk
Although as Liberal Democrats we are campaiging against the proposal, it is only fair to point out that opposition also comes from activists in other political parties, and that these include some Labour councillors.
My letter to the chief executive reads:
Dear Dr. O'Donovan,
I write in connection with the proposals, referred to in Item CAB 41 of the cabinet meeting of 21st July 2009, for the appropriation of part of Down Lane Park for housing development.
Although this is a matter which is understandably of great concern to those immediately affected, it will also be of concern to people throughout the Borough. The reason is that if the proposals were to be approved, they would entail the breach of a very important principle, namely that park land must be sacrosanct: for if it is not, local authorities will always be tempted to find an excuse to build over it.
Although the particular proposal purports to provide that there will be no net loss of open space, it does not achieve this objective. This is because the land which would be said to count as retained open space, if the development were built, would include streets and car parks. It would also include land immediately next to the proposed new buildings - land which because of its location would be subject to so many restrictions as to prevent it from being regarded as parkland or open space in any meaningful sense.
A further and even more serious concern is that it is proposed that the site of a recycling centre at the northwest corner of the site should be incorporated into the Park for the purpose of meeting the requirement that there be no net loss of open space. Leaving aside the question as to where the recycling centre is to be put (will it cover open space elsewhere?) the land is of doubtful suitability in any event for inclusion in the Park. I refer in particular to the fact that land which has been used for recycling for many years may well be contaminated and dangerous to those who might use that site.
Whatever ones views may be as to the various matters which I have raised in this letter, therefore, it is imperative that a report be obtained as to the presence of contaminants on the land before any steps are undertaken which might be predicated upon the possibility of incorporating the recycling site into the Park.
Yours sincerely,
David Schmitz
Chairman, Tottenham Liberal Democrats
Details are set out in a letter which I have written today to the Council's chief executive and which is set out below.
Further details are available on the web site of the Friends of Down Lane Park at http://www.fdlp.org.uk/index.htm
Please contact them to offer your support. Also, you can help by signing the petition on my website, www.davidschmitz.org.uk
Although as Liberal Democrats we are campaiging against the proposal, it is only fair to point out that opposition also comes from activists in other political parties, and that these include some Labour councillors.
My letter to the chief executive reads:
Dear Dr. O'Donovan,
I write in connection with the proposals, referred to in Item CAB 41 of the cabinet meeting of 21st July 2009, for the appropriation of part of Down Lane Park for housing development.
Although this is a matter which is understandably of great concern to those immediately affected, it will also be of concern to people throughout the Borough. The reason is that if the proposals were to be approved, they would entail the breach of a very important principle, namely that park land must be sacrosanct: for if it is not, local authorities will always be tempted to find an excuse to build over it.
Although the particular proposal purports to provide that there will be no net loss of open space, it does not achieve this objective. This is because the land which would be said to count as retained open space, if the development were built, would include streets and car parks. It would also include land immediately next to the proposed new buildings - land which because of its location would be subject to so many restrictions as to prevent it from being regarded as parkland or open space in any meaningful sense.
A further and even more serious concern is that it is proposed that the site of a recycling centre at the northwest corner of the site should be incorporated into the Park for the purpose of meeting the requirement that there be no net loss of open space. Leaving aside the question as to where the recycling centre is to be put (will it cover open space elsewhere?) the land is of doubtful suitability in any event for inclusion in the Park. I refer in particular to the fact that land which has been used for recycling for many years may well be contaminated and dangerous to those who might use that site.
Whatever ones views may be as to the various matters which I have raised in this letter, therefore, it is imperative that a report be obtained as to the presence of contaminants on the land before any steps are undertaken which might be predicated upon the possibility of incorporating the recycling site into the Park.
Yours sincerely,
David Schmitz
Chairman, Tottenham Liberal Democrats
Tags for Forum Posts: parks
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David Schmitz on
-
Some more news on this.
First, I have had an answer to my Freedom of Information Act request that the Council "inform me whether Council officers or independent consultants engaged by the Council are considering, or have been instructed to consider, the building of housing on any parkland or open space within the Borough other than in Down Lane Park." The answer, from Mr. Simon Dingomal, Senior Complaints Officer, Urban Environment, reads, "I can confirm the answer is no."
While we can never be sure that the Council isn't hatching some sort of plot, we can still take comfort, from this assurance, that at least no-one is sitting on the eggs. Having said this, I think it would nonetheless be wise to repeat the question every so often just to make sure that nothing has changed.
Secondly, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the Council has just been told that the period of consultation will run from the 23rd October to the 3rd December.
I would urge everyone to take part.
David Schmitz
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
THANK you for posting this. I would qualify the answer you've been given David, with the note at the end here. I remain appalled that the council is considering building on Down Lane Park. If there is a need to build more housing, then it seems to me that a lot more thought needs to go into where it should go.
The cheap and easy thing to do it seems is build on current open space, even if that happens to be a park. Greenfield sites are all very well outside the metropolis but surely greenfield sites inside the metropolis are rare, precious and ought to be sacrosanct.
Surely there are any number of brownfield sites that ought to be considered. That might require more effort and money, but the alternative of building on parks really ought to be ruled out in my opinion.
Open Space Deficiency Far from building over existing parks, the council ought to thinking of improving existing parks or planning new parks. The council created an excellent diagram of open-space deprivation (GIF file above) showing distances from open space: 280m and 400m. In other words, the islands or pockets shown are areas of open space deficiency and ought to be used as a guide to planning new parks. The areas marked with yellow boundaries are the most open-space deprived.
In the middle of the Borough there is an island of open space deficiency. Behind the Grade II * listed Hornsey Town Hall, there's a council car park behind the Library that would make an ideal green park in the middle of the island of open space deficency. And what does the council plan to do with this unused, community-paid-for asset? Flog it off to a property developer for housing. (incidentally, Cllr Charles Adje is on the Hornsey Town Hall "Community" Partnership "Board).
-
-
Existing parks in the Borough
Note the paucity of parks in the eastern half:
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Message from the Friends of Down Lane Park:
Haringey officials are holding a public meeting tonight (4th November) at Kemble Hall, Tottenham at 7pm to demonstrate their plans for building housing on the park and on the recycling centre when it is moved.
Last Monday night many residents gathered in the Welbourne Centre where Haringey officers had models on display of what they plan for the area including the park. One by one & collectively residents let Haringey’s planners and Cabinet Councillor know in the strongest terms what they thought about their plans.
Please all come along and make sure you get your voice heard for the good of our local community
Friends of Down Lane Park (FDLP)
www.fdlp.org.uk
Email: fdlp99@blueyonder.co.uk
Contact: Seamus Carey
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Just to add to Liz's post. Both Lorna Reith and I (ward councillors) were at Monday’s meeting. It was very helpful, though perhaps not in exactly the way council officers (and the inevitable consultant) had in mind. There was lively debate and some extremely frank words were spoken. I hope local people also got some hard information which they didn't have before. I certainly did.
Having a public meeting was very positive – rather than the traditional format where a line of local people have individual chats with Council officers. As I’ve mentioned before on HoL - referring to Clay Shirky’s views on social media - real public engagement needs opportunities for people to listen to and share information with one another. Plus an open honest dialogue between residents and the professionals.
One revealing aspect of the 'consultation' about Down Lane Park is that residents are asked to choose between 2 options. At Monday’s meeting it become clear that, for any meaningful choice, people need some key facts - which were not available. For example, we lack substantive information about plans to move Pavillion Nursery, and what this would involve or cost. (At the meeting, the chair of the Nursery's Management committee gave some candid comments.)
It was also fascinating to learn that Haringey officers had limited the consultation to two options as an attempt to clarify the issues. I’ve no doubt this was done in good faith (And I’m not writing tongue-in-cheek.). The Friends of the Park group are asking people to support a Third Option: Save Our Park; Improve Our Park. But as someone at the meeting pointed out, there could be four, five or more options.
Again I was reminded of Clay Shirky’s view that inviting successful participation requires the people with power to be genuinely open to fresh, creative, surprising ideas.
“And the key is to make an incomplete contract of the sort that invites the user in, and lets them know that you understand that they want to - and you want to help them – make those surprises as creative as possible.”
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
This is all very interesting but as I've said before, and Clive has pointed out, there is a lot more green land to build on in the west of the borough and this is all "owned" by the same entity (Haringey Council). WTF is a Labour run council doing crapping on its own voters when there are plenty of Lib Dems in Crouch End to crap on? Do they really need four cricket clubs and two tennis clubs (I am being slightly tongue-in-cheek here)? Do they think the Labour voters in the east don't appreciate good quality parks?
And before we say "this is the council, not Labour" doing this, building on parkland is definitely a policy/political matter. I don't see the point in voting if the current Labour majority in the council can't stop this. Well, I assume you're all against it...
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
You could always vote Liberal (for example ) and try to achieve a LibDem majority in the Council ?
-
-
I just wonder if Labour are caught up too much with the "we must house all these poor people as best we can".
Would the LibDems build in Crouch End? Would they say "no more poor people who rely on the government for housing in Haringey"?
I've been thinking more on this and perhaps there is a case for them to demolish and create park in one spot and build over parkland in a better spot for the houses (transport etc) but they just don't have the political capital to draw on. Nobody trusts them unless they build the new park first and I don't see a reason why they can't.
I'm sort of sticking my oar into someone else's business so I'll bow out now.
-
-
Developers out and thousands of pounds improvements for Down Lane Park, says Haringey Council website
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
