Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Your Neighbourhood Name: whose right to choose?
The rebranding of our neighbourhood is about to become a live issue again with the Council asserting its claimed right to choose what we're called for the signage to be erected as part of the 2013 regeneration work.
The tussle over Harringay's name has been going on for over a hundred years. Throughout that time it seems to have featured a struggle between the Council, on the one hand, claiming a right to choose and the local people, on the other, demanding a right to self-determination.
Over a hundred years ago, and long before the creation of Haringey borough, Hornsey District Council decided to change the spelling of Harringay Neighbourhood to Haringey. Local people took exception at this imposition from above and resisted the change. The opinion was expressed by, amongst others, the Harringay Ratepayers Association who represented the people of one of three Harringay Wards. Theirs was in part of what is now St Ann's Ward. The legacy of the struggle can be seen today in the signage along the Harringay Passage.
Local people won the day then and our name was safe until the latter part of the last century when the Council administration decided they had a right to change Harringay's name. Haringey Councillor and cabinet member, Nilgun Canver explained a couple of years back:
Too much emphasis on Harringay confuses everyone with the borough Haringey and I’m afraid it refers to the Harringay ward and excludes the Gardens
It's odd to see the modern day Haringey Labour party, erstwhile representatives of the people, following in the footsteps of the Tory burghers of Hornsey Council. Moreover, I'm afraid this argument just doesn't wash with me. The inhabitants of countless other London boroughs seem to manage perfectly well with boroughs and towns that bear the same name. Islington, Hackney, Camden, Enfield and many others all survive. Perhaps the real issue is that a name was chosen that doesn't share the same name as the Council's chosen administrative capital as it is the case for all the other London boroughs I've mentioned. Their vanity perhaps requires that it should do so. But is this reason enough for us to be stripped of our historical name?
For many people, this whole issue may seem esoteric and rather irrelevant. However, I'm not alone in taking a rather different view. My belief is that for our neighbourhood to thrive and for people to identify with it, it needs to have a single name. Right now, as the traders magazine posted through your door just before Christmas bears witness, we have at least three names. How can our identity and distinctiveness be developed when this is the case.
I said just now that I wasn't alone in taking a stance on this. In New York, Democrat Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries thought the principle involved in the issue was so important that he introduced the Neighbourhoods Identity Act, requiring New York City to develop a community-oriented process of community agreement before neighbourhoods can be rebranded or boundaries redefined.
I'm with you Hakeem.
So then, which name? The current variants are:
- the original Harringay
- Harringay Green Lanes
- Green Lanes
Others have been suggested including Harringay Park and Harringay Village.
My choice is simple. I stick with Harringay. Why? Two reasons. Firstly, that's the name we've had for 130 years and I see no need to change it. Secondly, the other names don't work for me. Green Lanes is a road that runs from Newington Green to Enfield. If avoidance of confusion is the aim, this doesn't do it. Harringay Green Lanes is a three word name. Three word names don't stick. Most of them tend to get abbreviated to the first word of the name anyway. Kingston-upon-Thames for example is more commonly called Kingston. St Martins in the Fields is known as St Martins, and so on.
I suppose there is a third reason for me and that's just that I don't like people asserting rights over me that I don't believe they have. I don't believe that the Council or the Green Lanes Strategy Group have the right to change the name of the place I live in, no matter how much good work they may do. That just bridles. No, I'm with the thoroughly democratic instincts of Congressman Hakeem Jeffries. Even if I am a voice in the wilderness, I say if there's any need to tinker with the name of our neighbourhood, then let the community decide what it should be.
In 2013, as things stand the Council and the Green Lanes Strategy Group will assert their right to brand your neighbourhood as they see fit as part of the Harringay regeneration project. I was promised that the community would be given the right to choose and to influence the way that choice was made. In a few recent email exchanges I have detected the possibility of more than a little back-pedaling on this issue.
So, once I have written this post, I will email Councillor Canver, Chair of the Green Lanes Strategy Group to ask for her public commitment that the community be given the determining voice in what our neighbourhood is called.
Amendment
The following paragraphs were added as a comment to this thread by the original author on 5th Jan 2013. Since they cover key issues, and I have been told the comment is hard to find, I have copied them in below:
Having picked up on Alan's suggestion to refer to the legal situation for changing an area's name, a relatively quick spin through sources available has turned up some interesting information.
1. A neighbourhood name has no legal status.
2. The closest approximation for any legal status is contained in quasi-legal or "official" gazettes, such as the Royal Mail's PAF Gazette.
However, even though the information they contain is official rather than legal, it's fascinating to see what lengths the Royal Mail has to go to in order to change the name of a neighbourhood.
Their guidance details a three month consultation process in order to allow changing the name of a neighbourhood in its gazette. The process includes writing to every address affected as well as the MP and other official bodies.
3. Street names and numbers are governed by law, as Alan was told. The relevant legislation is the Public Health Acts Amendment Act of 1907. It says:
The local authority may, with the consent of two-thirds in number of the ratepayers, and persons who are liable to pay an amount in respect of council tax, in any street, alter the name of such street or any part of such street.
So, there is no law that governs the naming of neighbourhoods, but there are principles of justice aplenty that should guide the Council in how it behaves in a situation when it seeks to change an area's name.
As Planning Organisation, Planning Sanity puts it, a neighbourhood is:
" an area where inhabitants live and that it is their state of mind as to what constitutes their neighbourhood. A neighbourhood should not be seen to correspond to any legal or physical division, but more as a social concept, the evidence for which may be given by the people who live there."
If we take as a precedent the principles enshrined both in law and official practice and the opinion of urban experts, I can find no precedent or reference to any principle of justice which suggests that a name change can or should be imposed from above by a person, group of persons or body. At every turn I find evidence confirming my belief that the naming of a neighbourhood belongs to the people who inhabit it and should only be changed with painstaking consultation. It seems extraordinary then that any elected member or officer should even be considering taking it upon themselves or a small semi-official body to rename a neighbourhood however well meaning might be their intent.
In other areas where a change has been sought, consultations have been the norm. Staines is the most recent example.
It's difficult not to wonder, if a Council is prepared to cut corners on allowing local people self-determintaion in less weighty situations such as this, where else are such 'efficiencies' made at the cost of democratic justice?
I remain convinced that unless and until we have a proper process whereby local residents approve a change, the Council should in all documents refer to Harringay as Harringay.
Tags for Forum Posts: glsg, harringay name
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ant on
-
I'll go ask Nilgun that now.
She's replied to me (thanks!) not answering that question but instead encouraging us to get involved with the LCSP - "build on what we've got and if need be make it work even better rather than setting up a new thing".
-
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Why does a Community Safety Partnership have a view on the name of this neighbourhood ? Will renaming it make it safer ?
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Quite.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I think it's totally appropriate for the LCSP to have a view, but I don't think that on issues like this it's right for it to be treated as if it has mandate to represent the whole Ladder.
In many instances, the Council deals with the LCSP since it's the only Ladder-wide group representing residents' interests. I have no issue with that. It is the same all round the country and we must be thankful for the work it does. My request is that the Council representatives in particular and the GLSG in general should review where it actively seeks broader involvement from a wider group of people.
We all know that it can be tough getting people involved. I recognise that, but given the opportunity I suspect that some people will step up. It may be that new forms of involvement need to be considered, but where there's a willingness that should't be a barrier.
-
Permalink Reply by Zena Brabazon on
-
I've read this thread and would add there is no proposal to change the name Harringay to anything else. The people involved in the Green Lanes Strategy Group have been plugging away for some ten years now to improve the area. Winning £3m+ from Transport for London and the Greater London Authority was a fantastic achievement, especially now when money is so tight, and I think those involved deserve some local praise and strong support for their efforts. At the recent meetings I’ve attended the discussion has focused on ensuring local consultation on the plans and on ensuring good project management. I don’t know why the name of the area has become such an issue when it isn’t an issue.
From my point of view as a Tottenham councillor, and I’m sure this is shared by Nilgun, there are really huge problems facing local residents and the Council. One is the need to better control Houses in Multiple Occupation. For this to happen Haringey is consulting on an Article 4 direction which can then be agreed by the Council so we can submit our final application to the Government. Haringey's consultation ends Jan 11 so if you want to see the Article 4 in place please write in urgently if you haven’t already done so. It’s aimed at controlling the proliferation of HMOs in Harringay, Haringey, Tottenham, the Gardens and on the Ladder. The LCSP has drafted an excellent response which will be posted separately.
The other big issue is the benefits cap. Haringey was told by the Government just before Christmas that it is a pilot along with only three other authorities. We know from the press that even the government is anxious about what they are planning as April draws nearer. They have deferred it elsewhere, but are determined to press on with our residents as guinea pigs. The implications of the benefit are massive for Tottenham, the Harringay area and Haringey as a whole, since there is such a large number of private sector rented properties. Please forgive me if I do not spend anymore time on the non-issue of the name of Harringay which is not to my knowledge as a Councillor in any danger of being abolished.
Zena Brabazon
Cllr, St.Ann's Ward
-
-
So Hugh, HoL, at the start of this post says "I was promised that the community would be given the right to choose and to influence the way that choice (of the area name) was made."
Zena Brabazon, Cllr and GLSG member now says "there is no proposal to change the name Harringay to anything else."
Nilgun, CllR, and GLSG Chair in an email to Alison says "we settled to call the area as 'Harringay Green Lanes'"
Andy, GRA and GLSG member tells me "we (the GLSG) agreed on Harringay Green lanes"
Ian, LCSP and GLSG member, has an agenda item on his upcoming 10 Jan meeting about "Naming the area"
How in the world are poor residents expected to be able to make any sense from this of what is or isn't going on???
-
Permalink Reply by Pete Thorniley on
-
Yes, it is a little confusing that some Cllrs deny anything is happening while others confirm that it is. One Cllr appears to avoid the issue by arguing that "The Council" doesn't do anything, and possibly doesn't even exist, but I think we can put that to the side for the time being.
Since the solution offerred by some seems to be obfuscation, perhaps we should be a little more specific about what we are asking for. At the very start of this post, Hugh explained why this was an issue now - "the Council asserting its claimed right to choose what we're called for the signage to be erected as part of the 2013 regeneration work". Can somebody confirm that this signage will say "Harringay" since that is the name of the area and apparently no-one is trying to change it?
Signs referring to "Harringay Green Lanes" don't count.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Perhaps Pete I'm the councillor "arguing that 'The Council' doesn't do anything and possibly doesn't even exist." In which case I am happy to explain what I mean and why this might be worth saying. Or perhaps you're not interested, and just enjoy poking fund at one of these silly confusing councillors.
Do let me know.
-
-
Alan, yes I'm afraid so and in retrospect it was a little snide and unnecessary. I'm new to the area (I hope that doesn't mean my opinions don't count!) but it's clear from HoL that you've been engaged on many issues and supported a great deal in the local community. A close friend of mine is a Councillor in Hackney and I do in general recognise and appreciate that it's hard and important work which often doesn't get any great thanks. All those who put their time and effort into the local community, either serving as councillors or by involvement in community groups (including the GLSG), have my genuine respect and support.
I do feel nevertheless that this debate has become tied up in semantics at times. Are you removing "Harringay" if you use "Harringay Green Lanes"; is it wrong to refer to the "council" for its actions over period of time if you are including its predecessor organisations; is HoL "representing" views or just allowing them to be expressed, and so on. The point of my post above was that if we focus on the detail then we can avoid the ambiguity that seems to have crept in.
Being realistic, we all know that those signs are going to say "Harringay Green Lanes" and those of us who don't like it will just have to lump it. Life will go on, but I happen to think it's a shame.
-
-
Thanks for your comments, Zena.
Just in case anyone should infer from your comments that this is the wrong issue on which to focus, we should be clear that attention is being paid on and by HoL to Article 4 and the benefits cap too.
I made numerous postings calling for the adoption of Article 4 back in 2010 and 2011 and explaining in detail why, at a time when Haringey Council was saying it wouldn't be required.
Liz recently drew attention to the benefits cap on what has since become a very active thread.
None of that means that this name issue is unimportant, but if what you mean is that we should just leave the name as it has always been and move on to focus our energies elsewhere, I agree.
I also agree that the GLSG have done good work, as I've said several times above and elsewhere numerous times on this site. (See the many very well used threads on the current trader-led GLSG/London Assembly regeneration initiative for example).
There are also other local groups who aren't members of the GLSG who plug away year in year out and deliver fantastic achievements too. I hope they are not forgotten.
But none of this means that the GLSG, or any other group is beyond challenge. Neither does it mean there shouldn't be room to discuss other issues.
As to whether the name Harringay is in any danger of being abolished and why it became an issue, I'm sure that you're well aware of what I'm talking about. As I've said countless times, in all official documents of which I'm aware Harringay is referred to by the Council as 'Harringay Green Lanes' or 'Green Lanes'. The Chair of the GLSG has told me categorically that Harringay refers only to the ward. No sign on the bridge has since 2001 been allowed to show just 'Harringay'.
I think the word 'abolition' (which I've never used) is inaccurate. A slow and steady rebranding, whether by accident or design, is what's been happening.
I agree that it needn't have become an issue, though. If the GLSG outputs and the Council could please just leave things as they've been since 1880 and start using 'Harringay' in our signage and when referring to us on documents, we could all move on. Alternatively if the group wants to use signage bearing a different name, please follow good practice to secure a local mandate for the change.
-
Permalink Reply by Stuart on
-
Spot on Hugh - on every point you make. If only our posting councillors could approach the issue with such clarity and plain talk. Their contradictory, obfuscatory, sometimes disingenuous (in the case of Nilgun) and (in the case of Zena's 'why don't you focus on x-issue instead') frankly irrelevant comments on this thread appear to show a wilful disregard for tackling your points head-on. Please persist with your persistence.
-
-
Nilgun used that argument on me on Twitter so count her in there too. I used it on an Essay in Phil 102 and didn't lose any points but I did get a massive diatribe in red ink from the person who marked it basically saying that because you could always say that there was something more important (gay rights vs. the starving in Africa for instance) depending on your point of view (i.e. subjectivity) that it was not to be used and next time I would lose marks. Patronising I know but please stop using the "we have more important things to do" argument.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
