Probably a top ten LBH spin entry

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John D on March 18, 2015 at 23:37

Not LBH spin, but Labour election flyer - "Nigel Farage wants an American-style healthcare insurance system, not our free NHS "

Where did they get the idea that the NHS was free? What happened to my taxes and National Insurance contributions ?

( Not a UKIP supporter btw  )

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pamish on March 18, 2015 at 23:57

free-at-the-point-of-delivery, but then Mr BinJuice is claiming his version will be that too. So I allow this  one entry to the list.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Philip on March 19, 2015 at 11:50

How about selling off most St Anne's hospital site to 'improve mental health services'

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Philip on March 20, 2015 at 9:45

ok but the planning sub committee voted to approve the redevelopment plan, which means inadequate provision of mental health services has been given the go ahead.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vanessa Rickett on March 20, 2015 at 9:47

St Ann's does count because haringey granted the planning permission to change the use of the site contrary to the current Haringey Site allocation which is for "predominantly community uses" as well as a school and " an element of housing". They also allowed the NHS Trust to offer a meagre 14% affordable housing (which of course doesn't actually mean affordable) when Haringey policy is for 50%. The public rely on such policies when casting their vote.

They failed to require the Trust to demonstrate that it had carried out a detailed analysis of alternative options, that would have allowed a greater percentage of affordable housing whilst still enabling the much needed new mental health wards to be built. This is public land.

Yes,it should count.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vanessa Rickett on March 20, 2015 at 13:05

Clearly the committee is bound by the law. I too heard the advice of the lawyer. He informed the committee that he would give his advice having heard the submissions of the planning officer to whom I also listened carefully. Before the committee I sought advice from those with greater knowledge of planning law than I. I saw no point in making representations if the committee had no discretion to refuse. I was surprised and concerned by the legal advice given. However, it seemed to me from the demeanour of the majority of the committee throughout the proceedings, their minds had already been made up, although Councillor Rice was clearly influenced by the legal advice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pamish on March 20, 2015 at 14:30

I went to the Meet the Mayor thing last night in the hope of raising the nonsense at StAnns (among a few other issues).  Sadly despite my almost exploding with hand-waving they passed over me.  Health was not on the agenda at all.  Lots on housing, cost of, but not WTF is the plan for 20000 extra dwellings going to do for us. 

I left written questions, as did many others. Not holding my breath.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 20, 2015 at 16:53

Is this based on your own experience, Joe?  Do you live in a towerblock?

Do you know people who only briefly disliked them?  Or did you; your family members or friends "soon get used to it?"

Years ago I had a lot to do with Chalkhill in Wembley Park, and Stonebridge near Harlesden?  If anything people's experience seemed to be the opposite.  Initially they were pleased to move into a bright new flat with lots of space - sometimes from dreadful slum properties which were demolished by Brent Council.

So I'm unclear of the relevance of "impact bias". What I saw wasn't about forecasting but people's lived experience. 

Permalink Reply by pamish on March 20, 2015 at 17:09

I'll never get used to that enormous shadow falling over my home.

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 21, 2015 at 9:19

Joe, please try to accept that opposition to the KoberTory plans for a forest of towerblocks - mainly in East Tottenham - is not the "bit grumpy"  viewpoint of a few "low-rise neighbours".

I'm glad you achieved your aspiration of a garden flat. And that in the past you've had tours of London estates. It's interesting as well, that you have no strong views on the towerblock issue and are even now considering living in one of the slabs at Tottenham Hale. 

Athough as you take a neutral view of towerblocks, I'm puzzled why you're bothering to comment.

As you may have guessed, I live in a house with a garden near High Road Tottenham, between Bruce Grove and Tottenham Hale stations. It's in the ward of Tottenham Hale - not the fake "village" near the the station. Even so I am far from neutral about what happens to my neighbourhood. On the contrary, I am deeply worried about the plans for a forest of towerblocks being proposed by our KoberTory Council.

Which will not meet the pressing housing needs of local residents, but is part of a social engineering experiment to reduce poverty in Tottenham by removing many of the poorer people. In the process selling off publicly owned land - often on Council estates.

This is linked to my concerns about the social cleansing agenda being pursued by our Council. Admittedly a Tory policy being followed by Councils across London. (The destruction of homes in Barnet is just one nearby example.)

You asked me what's happening on this part of the discussion thread. To clarify, I responded to a comment you posted before Pam mentioned her worry about shadow of the new 20 or 22 storey Apex House. It wasn't about Pam herself getting used to the new tower. But "people"  in general.

"Lastly, have a read of 'Impact bias'; briefly, people might think a high rise will make them miserable but, in reality, they soon get used to it." 

Obviously our experience differs.

You mention McAslan's view that tall buildings are "suitable" at transport hubs. This is hardly surprising. McAslan seem to use the "halo effect" to present themselves as social benefactors in the Third World. (Haiti, Malawi, Tottenham.)

Translating this is into plain English it simply means that developers and their architects are keen to make pots and pots of money by building towers for commuters around interchange stations

They're good at dressing-up such commercial ventures by calling this "place-making" in a new "Urban Centre".  They may give developments reassuring faux historical names like "village" and "quarter". Or the names of historical figures who had little or nothing to do with the place being developed, "Emily Bowes Court" next to Tottenham Hale Station is a good example.

If and when you move to "Hale Village", please say "Hi" to Emily and do let us all know how it goes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Philip on March 21, 2015 at 9:27

Nice post Alan.

Permalink Reply by StephenBln on March 21, 2015 at 9:30

Yes, that's all very well Alan. I accept your points on the developers spin, but apart from the nimbyism, what are your alternatives to living in multistorey buildings?

With sharp rise in population growth, the terraced house option is not now viable for most Londoners. It is a particularly wasteful use of land, in a city where space is at a premium.

Surely what needs to be done is to teach people how to live in multi-occupancy buildings. Something 'us continentals' seem to do much better. Even on the 'going up' ladder, many residents have absolutely no idea of living in a community and show no consideration for their neighbours. So what would you suggest?

I have to say, after being a suburban wilderness for most of the 20th century, Tottenham might just be better off with a forest of tower blocks at the Hale.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page