Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey's Warehouse Districts Under Threat?
An item at tonight's Council Cabinet meeting has thrown into question the future survival of Haringey's two warehouse districts and the artistic communities who live in them.
Both the Harringay Warehouse District and the Fountayne Road community now face an uncertain future following the publication of a Haringey Council report, "Tackling Unauthorised Living in Industrial Areas". (Report attached)
The report, which was discussed at the full cabinet of the Council today, recommends a two-year project costing £600,000 which will seek to deal with "the growing problem of unauthorised residential and live work uses in and around (the) Industrial Sites" in Haringey. The recommended process is "to establish a special multi-disciplinary team to fully investigate and address the problem through a combination of regulation, improvement, enforcement and, where necessary, prosecution".
The alarm bells were ringing for me since earlier in the week I had discovered that these areas are earmarked as being amongst those that will "will accommodate the majority of development in the borough over the next 20 years".
In Facebook and Twitter conversations this afternoon, warehouse residents shared their fears that the vibrancy their communities bring to the borough will be overlooked and their communities sanitised and destroyed.
In response to my Twitter requests to Council Leader Claire Kober this evening to protect these communities, Cllr Kober sought to offer some reassurance:
@harringayonline some people in unacceptable conditions. My concern is for safe, decent properties. No intention to undermine communities
@harringayonline no intention to damage what's good. Priority is to go after rogue landlords just as we do elsewhere in borough
When I asked if she would ensure that warehouse residents will be involved, the Council Leader replied:
@harringayonline don't see any problem involving residents. Will ask officers to consider how best to achieve
I very much hope that the approach the Council takes in this project will support these communities rather than beginning the process of whittling them away.
Tags for Forum Posts: local plan, local plan 2014, site allocation plan, warehouse district
- Attachments:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Moreau on
-
Oh and if you think those plans are shocking wait till you hear about the redevelopment of Alexandra Place Station which will see a new station built for HS2 railway, the green land turned into car park and again homes lost due to compulsory orders.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
I've just reread this discussion thread - something I think is well worth doing. It gives a much fuller picture than I got from reading a few comments at a time as it grew. More interesting, balanced, and suggesting some ways forward.
Has anyone else done this and maybe come up with some fresh ideas? There are a lot of thoughtful comments which benefit from reading again and mulling over. I'm particularly thinking of several long helpful comments by Tris. For example: 1, 2, and 3. But many other people make comments and suggestions which are useful and positive.
I haven't put it together in a coherent plan. But from my rereading and in a very rough and ready way, I'd like to make some preliminary suggestions.
One immediate idea is that - if it's not already happening - people from some of the "warehouse"/former factory buildings who've posted here, try to set up an offline get-together with other local residents and residents' association reps. The aim would be to see if some sort of working agreement can be made to tackle the practical problems of noise, rubbish etc. Not necessarily excluding Council staff; though nor waiting for them, either.
Another tentative suggestion is for people interested in the area beyond the short term to start collecting key documents and other pieces of information relating to the future plans and ownerships and sharing them - online would be the cheapest and easiest means.
It seems that Council officers have done a lot of this with regard to land ownerships and the different companies. This is public information and can and should be shared with and be available to residents.
A third suggestion, again if this hasn't already been done, is for everyone concerned to have access to information about any risks with the buildings. Plus work done to identify these and put things right, by council staff, landlords, and by other agencies such as the Fire Service.
The last thing anyone wants is a fire or other tragedy. People living or coming on these sites need to know the risks, be aware of eg. fire exits. And to report breaches which could put lives at risk - e.g. fire doors locked.
That's a few quick top-of-my-head examples of practical can-do things that might be done jointly by residents living inside and outside the warehouse / former factory premises. A post by Ingo suggested they are already being done. if so, what's been achieved could be built on.
-
-
FPR, every human home has "live/work elements". Has had since the dawn of time. Work doesn't equal paid work.
One of the "drivers" in these so-called warehouses is the "profession" known as "property developer" linked to another line of employment known as "rentier capitalism". They are backed up by "workers" such as lawyers whose job is company formation and land assembly.
A minor - but significant - bunch of labourers or operatives in this little vineyard are London and local politicians (pols) whose "job" involves the buying and selling of votes and the winning of elections. (So it's really a win-yard) This live/work involves the clearance of the "wrong" sort of people and businesses off desirable land "needing" development. But the pols also need to keep the people to be cleared happy for at least as long as the pols need their votes. (The delightful poet e.e. cummings wrote: "a politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man".
All for fun and profit. So perhaps some "creatives" will turn this little tale into art which some investor can keep safe "for the nation" in a bank vault.
-
Permalink Reply by Ruth on
-
I think for many women over the centuries, homes have had a higher element of work than live on the home front.
-
-
On every work front, I suspect, Ruth.
I seem to recall the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins describing a village society where men did the important work of sitting in the shade under the palm trees and making decisions; while women continued to cook, clean, and care for children, animals and crops.
-
-
Absolutely. Lots of micro businesses being run from home in many countries/societies, work/living spaces the norm but people on the breadline.
Sorry- don't want to sidetrack this discussion which seems to be raising fundamental questions about housing, democracy, development, globalisation, local community and many others that need urgent attention in our increasingly crowded, diverse, fragmented, modern world we live in.
-
-
I think the issues are linked, Ruth. Reminded me of a 1970s cartoon where a woman is saying to a long-haired hippy man, something like "... and who exactly do you think cooks and cleans in this commune?!"
Did you see the article in the Guardian on this issue. almost exactly a year ago? "Artists warn Pickles' homes policy may price them out of their studios.
Critics say allowing landlords to convert workspace into housing without planning permission will damage creative industries."It quotes Jules Pipe, Mayor of Hackney. saying that this "could tear his borough's creative cluster apart" ... "almost as soon as it has put down roots, and could have a huge impact on local jobs". He said it risked "turning the borough into a dormitory village full of luxury apartments that do nothing to tackle the affordable housing crisis".
I wonder if the Kober/Strickland impending planning disaster will give us the same? Or worse? How many will be partially empty investment properties?
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by ingo pless on
-
Alan. To my mind this a good plan.
-
Permalink Reply by Takaokagiejin on
-
Reading the discussions it seems we are circling around two points: the validity of the democratic process in Haringey's planning decisions and the impact the current tenants are having on the area. I read many of the the views here as : "the planning process is corrupt & will deliver something we don't want, so we should allow the illegally converted homes to remain because we like the occupants." My concern is that this approach undermines the democratic process even further, the Russell Brand "they're all rubbish so I won't play" version. While our democracy is flawed it's what we have and, in my view better than the alternatives. I have no argument with the people living in the units, this is not about the "type" of people they are. It is about their living in an area not designated for housing. But imagine if the units had been occupied by 700 Roma families fleeing persecution in hungry. Do you think the reaction here would be the same and do you think cynicism towards the democratic process would be towards those enforcement officers working to remove them or the planners keen to create new, safe homes which people could apply to live in through a clear and transparent process?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
