Finsbury Park Forum Changes Its Mind and Renews Claim on part of Harringay

After its last boundary survey results, the nascent Finsbury Park Forum announced a boundary which claimed half of the park and none of Harringay (see attached). They've just circulated a newsletter in which they now claim half (yes just half) of Endymion Road. 

If it wasn't ridiculous enough to claim one road separated by Finsbury Park from the rest of the area they claim, it's bonkers for them to include just half a road. One wonders if they're looking for justification for including the whole of the park within their boundary.

So they've moved from this in February: to this in April:

They say:

Through more door knocking, street stalls and publicising of the online survey, we now have almost 900 responses. The image below provides a summary of the latest position, with areas requiring further consultation highlighted in orange.

Though it's not clear on what logic they think warrants including half a road, nor is the basis on which they include the park.

For me it's fairly evident that it's a daft move to include just a sliver of Harringay. The interest of the people who live there are clearly more aligned with Harringay than they are with Finsbury Park. I'm also very cautious about making the park subject to their control when it's a resource that's shared between all the neighbourhoods that surround it.

Here's what the government guidance says about neighbourhood forum boundaries:

What could be considerations when deciding the boundaries of a neighbourhood area?

The following could be considerations when deciding the boundaries of a neighbourhood area:

• village or settlement boundaries, which could reflect areas of planned expansion

• the catchment area for walking to local services such as shops, primary schools, doctors’ surgery, parks or other facilities

• the area where formal or informal networks of community based groups operate

• the physical appearance or characteristics of the neighbourhood, for example buildings may be of a consistent scale or style

• whether the area forms all or part of a coherent estate either for businesses or residents

• whether the area is wholly or predominantly a business area

• whether infrastructure or physical features define a natural boundary, for example a major road or railway line or waterway

• the natural setting or features in an area

• size of the population (living and working) in the area

I can't see any basis for including any part of Endymion within this guidance. I'm not clear what the process is to object, but I'll be looking into it.

See previous posts on this issue here.