Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Wards Corner alternative plan launched - planning meeting looms
The Wards Corner Community Coalition has now lodged its own plan with the Council’s Planning Department.
The wordpress website is now ‘live’ and all documents relating to the community plan can be viewed here. See drawings of how the buildings can come back to life, and details of proposed management structures and funding.
Meanwhile more nifty moves from the council friends of Grainger the developer shows that they are more determined than ever to push through the wholesale demolition of the area. They have added an extra Labour Party member to the planning committee, so now there will be six Labour to four Liberal Democrat. Last time, with nine on the committee, it decided by five votes to four, to reject the Grainger plan.
The meeting on the new railroaded-through Grainger plan is on Monday 25th June, 7pm, at the Civic Centre in Wood Green. It's not too late to add your comments about the plan, they will be circulated to the members of the committee. See here, click Comment on Application. Reading through others' comments will give you some idea of the issues involved.
Tags for Forum Posts: grainger, planning, seven sisters, ward's corner
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Neville Collins on
-
Surely this gerrymandering by the council is illegal? They refused to uphold Grainger's second application which is currently on appeal. It is as if they are inviting legal action.
-
Permalink Reply by Candy on
-
We now find that the Council have skewed the planning meeting on Monday 25th, by top loading labour Councillors. The committee is now ten instead of the usual nine.That means six labour and four lib dems!!! What puzzles me is why do the council want to railroad this through at such breathtaking speed? Is there an agenda that we have no knowledge of?
If the Grainger agreement expires in August, what is stopping the council leaving it to expire by voting against this new proposal. After all we know this is not a new proposal at all, but just a more insulting rehash of the previous plan. The Council, quite rightly, and for good reasons, turned it down before.
So who is driving this forward and with such desperation? Councillors or council officers or threats from Graingers? Will we ever find out the truth. It would be truly dreadful to discover that undue pressure is being put on the planning committee as we all know that they should be independent and vote according to what is morally the correct thing to do.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
It seems that this planning proposal, into which the council has invested so much (including a big donation to a large listed property company) is going to be decided not on its merits, but strictly along political party lines.
I have seen before this kind of abuse of process with a deciding committee.
When the council applied to itself for a permanent gambling premises licence at Alexandra Palace, originally it was to go before a Licensing Sub Committee.
At a late stage it was realised that there might be a slight chance of it not being "approved" and it was switched to a Full Licensing Committee (who still only numbered five and were even out-numbered by formal objectors present).
In order to guarantee approval, the publicly pro-Casino-at-Alexandra Palace Councillor H. Lister was made chair and he dominated proceedings.
It's hard to imagine a more biased, skewed and unfair process, but its not unusual in our Borough. Will governance ever improve?
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
Last time the Grainger plan came before the planning committee, with five Lab four Lib, one brave Labour councillor voted against the plan. Obviously this shocked the gang that runs the Labour group so they are now stacking it even more against the people of N15. But what will happen if the vote goes 5-5? Penalty shoot-out?
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
"Obviously this shocked the gang that runs the Labour Group".
Nobody I spoke to was shocked, Pam. And it was nothing to do with "bravery". Cllr Joanna Christophides made her decision, I assume, like everyone else on the committee. She read the reports; listened to the views of people who spoke; and to the professional advice given. Then formed her judgement as an individual. Good for her!
As I recall there was a suggestion (from one of the opponents of the Grainger scheme) that dire things would happen to her. More nonsense.
-
-
"How am I to get in?" asked Alice again, in a louder tone.
"Are you to get in at all?" said the Footman, "That's the first question, you know."
Your question has a disputed presupposition, Pam. So the first question should be: are the two political groups following the law on proportionality in the allocation of committee places? (As you know, there are now two independent - formerly LibDem - councillors.) This is a matter of law, not of party choice.
-
-
But Alan, was the "law" on proportionality not being respected before this move?
"Shocked the gang" is probably a little emotive, but it probably did come as a shock to some that a majority group member exhibited some independence.
Are we expected to believe that the announced new extra presence of the Labour Party Chief Whip on the committee has nothing to do with ensuring that no such wayward-thinking occurs again?
(PS sorry for the absence of an apposite literary analogy, or indeed any literary analogy)
-
-
Clive, membership of Council committees for the municipal year was agreed at the Council Annual General Meeting on 21 May 2012. If you think you have spotted an error based on the proportionality rules, can I please suggest you draw it to the attention of Cllr Monica Whyte the Chief Whip of your party, the LibDems.
But nobody is asking you to "believe" anything. And you certainly don't need any literary encouragement "to believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast".
-
Permalink Reply by JJ B on
-
Graingers "new" aplication lodged on the 8th of May 2012.
Haringey's Baby Planning scandal. We'll see...
-
-
-
Alan even Alice in Wonderland might recognise that we've drifted some way from the merits (or otherwise) of the Proposal.
Few people would argue that nothing at all should change on this landmark site by the tube station. Do you think that the Grainger Proposal is the best possible solution for the site or do you think this is a mediocre plan and that the people of Tottenham deserve better?
Since that, in effect, the jury has been nobbled and the outcome is a forgone conclusion, do you now feel able to give your honest, straight forward opinion of the Grainger Proposal?
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
