Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
BIG news on the London public park-protection front
IN the past 24 hours there has been significant news from PBP (Protect Brockwell Park) ~
Like Haringey, Lambeth Council engages regularly in intensive commercial exploitation of a big public park.
Lambeth's full-scale retreat from the Court of Appeal Hearing (scheduled for next week) may have implications for London Parks in general, including Haringey Council's wretched, damaging 10-year policy of hiring out Finsbury Park for major Events.
Haringey's policy began under New Labour Leader Claire Kober. Park hiring is continued and promoted, in particular by leader Cllr. Peray Ahmet & Parks Cabinet Member Cllr. Emily Arkell.
London Centric article
By understanding the possible legal implications of success in the Courts, The Friends of Finsbury Park supported and contributed toward the defence by Protect Brockwell Park.
The best or perhaps the only way to halt delinquent and irresponsible conduct by local councils in our parks, is by pan-London action.
——————————————————————————————————————
From PBP:
*APPEAL WITHDRAWN AT THE LAST MINUTE*
Tags for Forum Posts: Brockwell Park, Emily Arkell, Finsbury Park, Haringey Council, Major Events, Peray Ahmet
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Park on
-
Can the accessibility of the park please be part of the legal considerations and planning, please? Currently, the festivals have often blocked my way through the park in my wheelchair, blocked dropped kerbs and damaged surfaces, making them non-level access. Their obligations under the Equality Act should also be part of the planning as they seem to have low regard for it currently.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
It seems that the victory is that Lambeth will need to submit a planing application for events rather than approve them under permitted development.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Michaels on
-
That's about as correct a conclusion as can be drawn from the largely legally irrelevant information in the OP.
So that means the council has to ask itself for permission to do what it wants to do. I look forward to seeing such a planning application refused by a career bureaucrat who knows on which side his bread is buttered.Some victory for the plaintiffs at the High Court.
The only interesting part of this story (if any) is that the Lambeth Council withdrew its case on appeal. I would speculate that the Lambeth Council mid appeal accidentally brought in an honest and forthright solicitor that warned them of the risk of taking this to judgment and what precedential jurisprudence might arise out of it: "What possible better outcome can you get on appeal than having to ask yourself for permission to do what you want?"
-
-
And now they have cancelled the annual Lambeth Country Show. Revenge, eh?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
LAMBETH appear to share much of the same kind of conduct about public parks as our council. Yesterday, Brixton Buzz carries the following story:
Protect Brockwell Park makes statement in response to the cancellation of the Lambeth Country Show
-
Permalink Reply by Adrian Hackney on
-
The change that has come into effect here is that the number of days counted towards requiring a planning application has become cumulative. Previously, each of the events was considered in isolation, and each of the events in isolation occupies the park for less than 28 days. Cumulatively, they occupy the park for more than 28 days each year. This means that planning permission is required for all of them. And planning applications bring into effect a very different set of rules than those for a simple licensing application.
There was a previous occasion when a planning application for a structure in the park was submitted. This would have given rise to the presence of a pub in the middle of the park for consumption of alcohol on and off the premises. The intention was that this structure should remain in place for more than 28 days. It therefore required planning permission.
The planning application gave rise to 179 consultation comments.
https://publicregister.haringey.gov.uk/pr/s/planning-application/a0...
for example, this one from a neighbouring local planning authority.
https://publicregister.haringey.gov.uk/pr/sfc/servlet.shepherd/vers...
And this from a sports club based in Finsbury Park.
https://publicregister.haringey.gov.uk/pr/sfc/servlet.shepherd/vers...
the complete register of comments on the application can be found here.
https://publicregister.haringey.gov.uk/pr/s/planning-application/a0...
In the face of these objections, the application was simply withdrawn.
-
-
ADRIAN, thanks for this context.
I expect you're referring to what became known as the pop-up pub-in-the-park. The pub was promoted by the council's Events Team on behalf of the council and would have lasted over the summer of 2021.
In this video, activist Martin Ball walks us through from the Childrens Playground to the site of the proposed "temporary" pub.
The promoters withdrew their Application at the 11th hour.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul K on
-
The reply by Adrian Hackney is, I think, not quite correct. The judgment was based upon one crucial fact. The infrastructure which changed the use of the park would have been erected and used for the specified event for 22 days: permitted. However, it would not have then been de-rigged but was to remain in place for the Lambeth Country Show, so the change of use of the park [by fencing it off] would have been for a continuous 37 days: not permitted. IF the infrastructure had been de-rigged within 28 days but then re-erected later for another event the council would have been acting lawfully as the judges in a case in 2002 pointed out their decision reminded "those concerned with planning matters the crucial importance of land reverting to its normal use … after each occasion of temporary use". What this does mean is that the cost of rigging and de-rigging each time might mean individual events are less commercially attractive [incidentally this may be why the Lambeth Country Show was an unintended victim of the decision]. But in any event, change of use for more than 28 days can still be allowed via the planning process - which may be why the Council did not bother pursuing the appeal as they and their commercial partners simply have to fill in different paperwork to achieve the same result, although that process will be more complex and the council would have to consider the objections, but given their past performance they may stil allow the applications which would have to be expensively challenged each time in the High Court. Not quite the comprehensive victory local residents might have wished for, but at least a temporary reprieve.
-
-
Thanks. I'm sure the Friends of Finsbury Park will test this further.
-
-
Adrian, there's more news on the park protection front.
A week is a long time in politics
Last week, hooligans on Lambeth Council waved through their own Planning Application. In their abuse and misuse of process and inability to recognise conflicts of interest, they're no less delinquent as cynical Haringey Council.
Our local council would have acted in parallel. The Haringey Majority Group has always been compromised, because regular privatisation has been New Labour policy for 10 years.
Our council claims that the park is essentially a gig venue and (falsely) claims also that it is a "world class" gig venue. I understand that all income from Finsbury Park Events is turned over to the Events Team and these business-getters control all spending in our park. Occasionally there is spending for public benefit in the park.
———
Today we learn that the Brockwell Park defenders—on behalf of public parks—have again succeeded in the High Court:
Oops … They Did It Again: High Court rules Lambeth Council acted unlawfully over Brockwell Live 2025 – for the second time
Haringey Council always prefers to mark its own homework. And tell us how well they are doing.
When outsiders mark their homework, they're not always top of the class. Haringey PR sometimes claims the council learns lessons, but they suffer from chronic learning difficulties. Municipal delinquency needs to end.
N.B. Grime-fan and council leader Peray Ahmet is the principal promoter of the "Events Season" privatising. Every summer, for weeks.
.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton
-
Thanks, Clive for that news. It's about time that London Boroughs accepted political responsibility for safeguarding our parks. It shouldn't matter which type of music a local Council likes. Nor how much councillors personally like or dislike any particular park, or what goes on in it.
Oh - first time round I typed "their" parks instead of "our" parks. I should of course have said "everyone's parks" as it's now the 21st century and even most Royal Parks are open to the public and should be thought of as common property and common responsibility.
Other than King Charles III there is however, another actor in the drama of park ownership since the Norman Conquest. Our parks appear to be in serious danger of becoming on the way to be corporation parks run for the benefit of massive companies making massive profit for commercial corporations. Like Finsbury Park with parent corporations in the U.S.A, calling the shots.
-
-
Clive Carter let's be generous and at least consider that local authorities might prefer to have enough money from the Government not to be forced to semi-privatise our municipal parks. ( Nor, incidentally, to run street parking as another money spinner either.)
When the Greens take over or work in alliance with Socialist Labour Councillors things might change. I hope they will rethink how our parks work with and for the people. (Which will need at least a substantial remnant of both sets of candidates to survive the election cull.)
I will fetch down my tiny Jane Jacobs and Jan Gehl books to brush up my ideas learned from them. Anyone else like to chip-in some authors?
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
