Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
The "Usual Objectors"
On another thread about a potential housing development, a HoL contributor wrote "..are all the usual objectors to large scale developments still going to be complaining...".
I didn't want to respond on that thread and so hijack it from the original poster's purpose, but given that I have been recently involved in objecting to a local development, I thought I'd offer a short response.
I'm not sure if I'm the right person to make a response however, since I've only ever objected to a housing development once that I can remember. But saying this also makes my point. I'm not aware that there is a set of usual objectors in Harringay. I understand why people might sprinkle this throw-away phrase into a quickly tapped out comment on a forum, but as far as I understand it is made without foundation locally.
The reason I made the objection about the Hampden Road development is not because it is my predisposition so to do, nor that I am against housing development. I objected on the grounds of its scale, the very grounds on which Haringey's building height regs, as they apply to Harringay, the development is apparently rendered unpermissable.
I've written previously about the casual and antagonistic throwaway use of the phrase 'nimby'. Were there but world enough and time I might be similarly drawn to write on the throwaway use of 'the usual suspects' (for which I'd have wag my finger at myself) and 'the usual objectors'. For now I'll say just this. There are those in any neighbourhood who spend immense amounts of time looking after our interests (and I don't mean blokes that run websites). In most cases we all owe them a tremendous amount of gratitude for the positive influence they have. Sometimes, they overstep the mark and need to be called to account. In these instances let us make our calls with understanding and respect, and not with dismissive side-swipes.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dick Harris on
-
Well said Hugh. Interestingly, in this case a lot of local people did object when large scale housing proposals were tabled for St Anns with the result, I believe, that the outline planning permission was for a restricted number of housing units. The supporters of Start include many of those early objectors and it is this very fact that gives this initiative a good chance of being widely supported by locals (whether not they are usual objectors).
-
Permalink Reply by 0n59eal4meshz on
-
Hang on Dick. The application to build housing at St Ann's was opposed because - according to the objectors - the land was needed for health services! Accordingly they wanted 0 homes built.
Start are proposing a remarkably similar level of housing to the approved application, but, strangely, without any opposition so far!
-
-
As it happens, my own response when first consulted was to oppose any housing at all on this site. It is quite clear however from the responses to the 2012 public consultation and the 172 responses to the planning application (see case no. HGY/2014/1691) that my view was not shared by many people.
-
-
This is a difficult issue. I am a founder member of StART and also objected to the original planning application, partly on the grounds of health. The problem is that we can't force NHS England and local NHS Trusts to provide health facilities at St Ann's. For example there is a GP crisis but this is mainly because there aren't enough GPs, not because there is nowhere to put GP practices. It would be great to have a walk in centre but the NHS, as I'm sure you are aware, is not in a position to finance this. it is this crisis in the finances of the NHS that has put the Mental Health Trust in the position of having to sell, to fund the desperately needed renewal of their impatient facilities. StART would welcome health facilities on the site, health came out second only to housing in our survey, but this is not something in our power to provide, although the plans that came out of the consultation have a strong health element. However we certainly do not close the door to NHS providers.
-
Permalink Reply by Lesley Ramm on
-
Well put Hugh. Nothing to stop people putting the effort in to support huge developments if they can be bothered. I for one am grateful to those who object and hold the council's planning dept to account. I do this myself when I feel a proposed development is out of place or scale. Such as Smithfield Square and Heartlands both of which will blight many people's lives
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
Don't want to hijack this thread but posts containing slogans warning about immigration should be objected to - childish in their logic, covertly prejudiced. I guess nobody could be bothered to object but therein lies a path where this sort of prejudice is 'accepted' or normalised.
Maybe this stuff appeals to people with the sort of personality that makes them dislike 'others' - people who are not 'the same'. Prejudiced views are a choice - you can think differently if you want to. Any gig by this guy will help you understand what I'm saying:
Consider these instead:
1) There are more bedrooms in the UK than people.
2) Immigrants enrich the UK - they put in on average 10 times more they take out.
So we don't need to build a new city each year - that is UKIP claptrap. You can have it both ways - you can have more immigration (I'd like that) and have a better, richer society.
That's what's already happened here in the UK in my lifetime and I welcome it - we've allowed more people in and we're all richer because of it.
Remember 'No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs'? We've begun the long process of exposing the layers and layers of prejudice we're covered in - prejudice against every form of difference - notably against women by men.
If immigration were curtailed our society would be significantly poorer and worse off. Fortunately the Govt cannot control immigration - Brexiteers believed the lies - serves you right!
Allow in anyone legal and we get a better, richer country.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
What are you talking about, Chris. it's just been objected to, within 11 hours - by you. There is a post-Brexit immigrant-bashing jag a large. A few days ago there was a bit of immigrant-bashing on another post at which I sternly wagged my finger and a number of people chipped in with three cheers. This time you've pointed a finger and I'm offering three cheers. (I just wish you'da climbed off your high horse before so doing!)
-
-
Help me Hugh - I don't intend to be on a high horse but obviously appear to be - is it the tone that gives that impression, the 'grandioseness', the writing style or what? I need to change but I am not aware of doing it so it's hard.
-
-
For me it was this erroneous assumption that (staying with the equine metaphor) got the bit between my teeth
I guess nobody could be bothered to object but therein lies a path where this sort of prejudice is 'accepted' or normalised.
-
-
Thanks - I can see how insulting that is, sorry.
-
-
Which part of 'immigrants contribute more than ten times what they receive' do you not understand?
Were there less immigration, we'd have less money to spend on public services.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
