Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Grainger plan voted out!!!!!!
Four very long hours later at the town hall, surprise vote to chuck out the monstrous Grainger plan to destroy our local market+shops. One Labour member changed loyalties, have yet to work out who was who, but amazing that it didnt get nodded through like last time. They will appeal but we are now on the up.
Tags for Forum Posts: regeneration, seven sisters, ward's corner
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
Yes and can we buy back the homes sold by LBH to Grainger at somewhat less than the market price please?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
In slightly different circumstances, this would be fraud (here, the victim of the fraud would be the taxpayers of Haringey)
I am thinking of a local case some years ago involving a little old lady selling her house, a firm of estate agents and a related party and a sale recommended at well below the market price. I seem to remember someone did time for that.
-
-
But Clive, the houses are worth next to nothing as they are about to be demolished - [pause] - time to get some agents in to get some competitive quotes.
-
Permalink Reply by Protheroe O'Shea on
-
Don't worry Clive the revenue from letting out Harringay bridge will eventually pay it back
-
Permalink Reply by clyde on
-
I am not surpirsed cllr Basu voted for it. Wasn't he on the NDC so must have voted for the Ndc cash to be given over. Not a conflict of interest or bias at all. He was even at one of the residential votes to stop the cash being given to Grainger so would have known there was no NDC theme group support.
I don't think the 4 councillor owned properties have passed over to Grainger’s sub company yet, as the sale (£184k for nearly 2 million in property – er joke) option agreement was set to expire in August of this year. So unless it was renewed this would mean that Grainger have to get planning permission and own all the rest of the site by next month. If the appeal is dragged out by those protestors the site assembly will fail. Of course our council can decide to sign a new sell off public property cheap deal whilst still sacking teachers at any time. If is was renewed I would not like to be the cllr who agreed to it.
The best thing to happen now is that the council will have to take legal action again Grainger as owner of the burnt out buildings threatening the company with a CPO unless it brings their building back in to use as there is no plan on the table letting them off.
It does this all the time but the test is will be to see if the councillors have the guts for it. If they do they risk losing the Grainer plan and if they don't they risk legal action for allowing the conservation area building to decay.
So who can say what are the legal rules around the protection of conservation area building by the council i.e. what is teh council's duty of care to prevent decay in conservation area buildings and to protect the area from blight?
Still the WC building only needs 96k to make it usuable by adding in modern health and safty systems. It is not a huge sum and could be raised within 12-18 months. Then the market could expand.
-
-
That 96K according to the surveyor is just for the Wards Corner building and for health and safety measures which means people can then use/gain access, it is not for the while site or the whoe project. The roof might still leak after but the corner would be useable. My house roof leaked for years when I first moved in but I still lived there. Once the building can be accessed and used then it can start to generate an income which can be channelled back into the building. The fire damaged building can be repaired by the owner Grainger's. Afteall the counil threatens other ownr with CPO why treat this one any differently?
The corner building still gets many enquiries a week and if the planning blight is lifted then it will find a tenant. The big question is does the council want it to have a tenant.
It will happen if people want it to happen but so far the council has not had the will for repair just destroy. So the battle for Wards Corner will probably have to switch to those councillors who oppose restoration which is causing the planning blight as they employ the planners.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
If the officer recommendation was to agree the proposal it's because it ticked all the right boxes legislatively and was in accordance with Haringey's planning policies. Won't they developer just go straight to the Planning Inspectorate and get the decision overturned on those grounds (and probably go for costs and loss of earnings)?
-
-
If the "Officer" recommendation ... ticked all the right boxes ... what is the point in having a Planning Committee in any event? We might as well all be dictated to by the "Officers".
-
-
They don't dictate - they interpret law and policy. Would an surveyor who told you not to try building a brick house without using mortar be "dictating" to you or giving you a professional opinion? The Planning Inspectorate will do exactly that. Look at the reasons for refusal, look at law and policy and make a judgement on whether Haringey actually had the powers to refuse.
Almost all planning decisions in every local authority are made by officers (well over 90% in all and approaching 100% in many). The ones that go to committee are where there may be some element of doubt, the decision will have a major impact or where the public or political interest is great.All applications that go to a planning committee are recommended for approval - applications don't go to committee asking Councillors to refuse the application as there is no point. If the application clearly does not pass the law or policy test it gets refused without ever making it to committee.
-
-
I thought we were dictated to by the officers and councillors, well except in Highgate. I think it is great those WCC people stand up for the poorer areas.
You should have a read of the work from Birkbeck College University of London on the planning differences between the East and West of the borough of Haringey. It general implies that one gets consulted one does not. Go on guess which is which.
-
Permalink Reply by Neville Collins on
-
Before people start celebrating the decision, the negative impact of this is, whatever happens, the area around Ward's Corner will be left to decay for many more years and suffer from yet more planning blight. Even if Grainger appeals against this decision, they are not in a hurry to start carrying out any work.
Haringey Council hasn't won any brownie points for this. Time and again, from the cabinet to councillors down to officers, they have repeatedly abused their position of power in supporting Grainger's plans. When applications are submitted, they are supposed to look at them impartially, and local people need to be consulted regularly.
This isn't the end of the story. Expect the rebel councillor to be punished, and the decision to be overturned by the cabinet at a later date....
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
"Expect the rebel councillor to be punished"? Neville, why must everything be presented in terms of blame?
Why should it be difficult to accept that Cllr Joanna Christophides made her judgement based on reading the papers, visiting the site and - crucially - making up her mind on the night, after around four hours listening to all the points made - by the officers and the arguments for and against.
Why is it so difficult to accept that councillors on the Planning Committee cannot be "whipped" by their parties? And that - whether you and I agree with their individual decisions or not - they do their best to act in accordance with planning law and policies and the particular facts of the application.
(Labour councillor Tottenham Hale)
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
