Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Friends of Finsbury Park to Mount Legal Challenge to Wireless
The Friends of Finsbury Park want to stop the Wireless Concert occupying "a third" of the park for two week in mid-summer
The Friends of Finsbury Park have set a course to mount a legal challenge to Haringey Council's renting out Finsbury Park for the Wireless Festival
The Friends say of the Wireless Festival, "It is almost impossible to comprehend its vast scale and the impact it has on Finsbury Park. Last year’s Wireless Festival covered almost one third of the size of the Park, surrounded by an oppressive 8ft high green metal barrier to keep Park users out, in some areas stretching as far as the eye could see.
"Many local residents don't have gardens so the park serves as a vital outdoor amenity, and as events such as Wireless Festival take weeks to set up and take down the public is denied access to what should be public space.
"Last year’s Wireless Festival, which was held over two summer weekends, attracted crowds of 50,000 per day causing massive disruption, damage, excessive noise, and antisocial behaviour in streets surrounding the Park.
Relationships between the Friends group and the Council have long been frosty. But now it appears they are breaking down altogether with meetings being cut short or cancelled and now a legal challenge. A spokesman for the friends group said "We've tried everything to get Haringey Council to enter into discussions with us, but they refuse to listen, stopping all public consultation and ignoring stakeholder groups, local residents and park users".
The group is now launching a legal challenge to stop the Council staging the festival and similar major events in Finsbury Park. I am not clear at this stage what the basis of the legal challenge is, but I'm guessing the clue might well be in a recent statement:
Finsbury Park is a public park that was formed by virtue of the Finsbury Park Act 1857; it is registered as a Grade II Historic Park and Garden and is also Metropolitan Open Land.
The group say they will have to pay up to £35,000 plus VAT for issuing the proceedings and having a one day hearing in the High Court. To raise the required monies, a crowdfunfing page was set up on Monday. As of today the page has attracted over £5,000 funding, about 12% of the total amount they may require.
Alongside the preparations for the legal challenge, the friends group have also lodged an official objection to the festival.
Tags for Forum Posts: finsbury park, finsbury park events, wireless festival
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Penny A on
-
I really don’t understand this vitriol against an accountable and constituted organisation that gives its time voluntarily to improve and guard against unreasonable exploitation of Finsbury Park. As I understand it, FoFP aren’t against Wireless per se but the scale of this event. I agree that such events need to be available for the young people in the borough (my daughter loves it) who do not have access to ‘residential’ festivals, however these events need appropriate scale and better management. I would be interested in seeing the full range of income that Haringey Council gets from hires and events in the Park and to understand the scale of damage by Wireless last year that required a making good by Wireless to the tune of £90,000.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Plainly, Penny and Henry, there are strong disagreements over this issue. And unfortunately a few people involved appear to see only one side. Some of them also choose to put their views using ad hominem arguments. (As it's often paraphrased, 'playing the player and not the ball'.) Rather than engaging with the very real underlying issues, they attack the motives and integrity of others.
I'm puzzled why they choose this method, since it adds nothing to the discussion and doesn't help achieve any constructive outcome.
Although, we don't live near Finsbury Park or use it regularly, we do have several local parks. So we worry about the Council getting the balance right between local people having proper access, and commercial operators taking over a park for substantial periods.
Like other people I hope this issue doesn't go to court as the main beneficiaries will be the lawyers. Which, in my view, should mean the decision-makers in a reasonable local council ought to be looking for a win-win outcome if one is at all possible. It would involve both the Council leadership and the Friends Group being willing to meet, and talk, and keep the channels of communication open.
What I hear - and I hope this is wrong - are claims that the Council may have been somewhat intransigent and perhaps failed even to reply properly and fully to emails.
I've suggested - again I may be wrong - that if this does go to court a judge may be influenced by whether or not the Council leadership has been "reasonable". Which, of course, doesn't mean rolling over and agreeing with everything the Friends Group says.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Alan, you made a very good point in an earlier post on this thread. Real engagement often means talking to people you don't agree with and who don't agree with you. What I would hope to see is to move forward from what feels like very set positions on both sides to something where some form of agreement can be reached on a balance between the best use of the park (and all of the other parks in the borough) and the need to have the money to run them and improve them. At the moment its feels like those staged pre-boxing match things you see on TV where both participants square up to each other and growl.
One thing I don't think can be ignored though is that there is simply no money in the council's budget to go back to not having commercial events. The question surely should be what those events are, how they are best managed and how the money is spent.
-
-
We broadly, agree. Michael.
Though I haven't seen any of correspondence or emails and don't whether or not there may be "set positions on both sides", as you say.
Nor until a few minutes ago, had I seen Claire Kober's tweets below. (Posted by Clive Carter.)
To me it's one more example of her consistently poor political judgement. If I claim a "nuanced" position about a complex practical and political issue, then unless I am an accomplished haiku writer, Twitter is a near useless medium. Especially if I keep repeating almost the same message.
Perhaps Claire Kober's letters and emails to the Friends Group do set out those nuanced detailed views? And offer to try to find a way through or round the problem. Preferably one which doesn't involve enriching lawyers.
I don't know if Cllr Kober's colleagues read this thread. If they do can they suggest to her that she publishes her side of the nuanced correspondence. If it exists.
Claire Kober's tweets appear to me to hint that she thinks there's a real chance both that the Friends Group's challenge may be legally successful and that it could have a serious knock-on effect for large events.
If this is the case, then trying to construct some sort of middle way compromise was and is a matter of urgency. You don't wait till the house falls down to bring in the builders.
-
-
Isn't your final argument rather upside down? it's the Friends who have decided to bring the legal action, presumably understanding the possible consequences for all parks covered by the legislation. If their intention is to use legal action as a ploy to push for their position I despair that they are willing to take such a risk.
-
-
I make no presumptions about the motivation of the Friends Group. Nor about the requests they've made to Haringey Council for a smaller event.
My understanding is that they were using the legal process as a way of pressing the Council to seek a compromise solution. Not taking a very high risk; or actually aiming for the headlong crash.But maybe I'm wrong and the Friends Group has been making deliberately unacceptable demands. Pursuing a strategy which leaves the Council no genuine room for manoeuvre. If this turns out to be the case, and if Claire Kober has been reasonable and offered to compromise, then plainly I owe her a public apology. Which I will make.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Alan, I think this is a bigger issue than some contributors to this thread seem to understand. Wireless affects three Boroughs, especially the Hackney side of Seven Sisters Road.
Islington residents—who are relatively poorly off for parks—regards Finsbury Park as their local park. Their residents don't see the border between the Boroughs that to council officers, flashes bright red.
The issue of excessive commercial exploitation of our public parks has been brewing for a long time. It is bigger than Haringey and bigger than it's two north London neighbours. This is a London-wide parks issue.
There are several parallels with Wandsworth Council's exploitation of Battersea Park. The Statutes to be compared in the High Court will first be tested in respect of Battersea Park. Their case is now cleared for a JR Hearing; Finsbury Park follows close behind.
Battersea Park Save Battersea Park Friends of Finsbury Park
Haringey's Council Leader appreciates that there's much at stake. She has recently tweeted about it:
-
-
But she's right. You have to accept that successful legal action could well set a precedent. If the less than 10% or 1 acre rule is adhered to that's the end of the funfair and circus too, not just in Finsbury Park, but in all other parks covered by the legislation.
-
-
Michael, are suggesting that you think Claire Kober may have received legal advice that the Friends Group may have the law on their side? In which case why push a contentious and unresolved legal dispute into an unwelcome legal judgement?
Having once been a lawyer, I regarded part of my job as finding solutions which kept clients out of court.
A rugby playing friend once told me that the best play was to find ways around or through gaps between the opposing team players. Not to crash headlong into them.
-
-
Of course they have. The law hasn't been observed in almost all parks used for events, whether it's the festivals in Victoria Park or Pride in Finsbury Park or having to pay to get into the enclosure for fireworks at Alexandra Palace. The action will force a decision to be made which can then set a legal precedent that means any other such event could be challenged by anyone. Or it will force a change in the law giving no control. Is that really what they want to happen?
-
-
Thanks for that clarification, Michael.
Which, if the High Court agrees - always a big if - is the headlong crash into the problem I have in mind. One reason for my suggestion that the Council's aim should have been to reach a compromise.
And by the way, it would be interesting to know when Claire Kober asked for Counsel's expert legal opinion to be sought. Which, if you are correct, would have endorsed your view.
-
-
Are you really saying that holding gun to the council's head to get them to do what you want them to do, because it may impact not only on Haringey's use of open space but on every local authority run open space covered by this legislation, is a good tactic? If they are successful and this becomes precedent the implications for financial loss run into millions of pounds.
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
