“This is the right decision for the local area and its residents. The victory is testament to the local campaigners and the Wards Corner Community Coalition who have worked tirelessly against these plans.I am glad that I have been able to be part ofthis community-led resistance to plans which local residents did not want.”

Cllr David Schmitz and I together with one of local activists, Asha Kaur have launched a campaign to get the council to address this and explore the possibility of putting a pedestrian crossing here. I have asked them to look at the number of accidents at this location and to explore possible funding streams.

The junction is very busy with traffic coming from three directions at once, often at considerable speed. There are seldom any gaps to allow people to cross.

Large numbers of people from the Harringay Ladder going to Finsbury Park and residents coming from Stroud Green going to Green Lanes cross here.

We want the council to do something about this very dangerous junction before there is fatality here.

Please support this campaign by signing our petition using the link below:

http://campaigns.libdems.org.uk/alroyroad

If you attended the festival last year you will know what a huge success it was and we are sure this year will be just as successful, if not more! This year the festival kicks off on the 17th September with the main event on the 18th, starting from 12 noon. Plans are now well under way with festival organisers taking bookings for street stalls from tomorrow.

If you are interested in taking part or setting up a street stall  please contact the organisers via their website. Don’t miss out on the opportunity to be a part of this truly spectacular day – book your street stall now!

See the Harringay Food Festival website for all the latest information.

With this meeting less than a week away we need everyone to throw their weight behind the campaign to save Ward’s Corner and the neighbouring Pueblito Paisa Market. There are a couple of quick and easy things you can do to help.

1. You can show your support for the campaign by coming to the planning committee meeting on Wednesday 21st July at 7pm in the Haringey Council Civic Centre, Wood Green High Road. The more people who turn up, the better. This will show the Council that the local public fully object to Graingers plans to demolish the building.

2. Post your objections to Grainger’s plan on the Haringey Council Planning website and encourage as many people as you know to do the same. Cllr David Schmitz has submitted his objections to Haringey Council – you can read them here.

3. Tweet or post this article on your facebook to let as many people know about Grainger’s abhorrent  plans and what they can do to help stop this.

Together we can save Ward’s Corner!

However, Graingers PLC have now re-submitted their plans to demolish Ward’s Corner to Haringey Council.

Cllr David Schmitz, who has campaigned tirelessly with the Ward’s Corner Community Coalition (WCCC), to save this vital community asset which makes Seven Sisters a uniquely diverse place, is submitting his objections to the application for permission to demolish the Ward’s Corner Store and the neighbouring Pueblito Paisa Market.

Below is the full text of  Cllr David Schmitz’s written  submission to Haringey Council:

“ I urge you to reject the application for permission to demolish the Ward’s Corner Store and the neighbouring Pueblito Paisa Market, for the reasons given by the Wards Corner Community Coalition.

In this submission I will give reasons to rebut any possible suggestion that your discretion to refuse permission is in any way restricted. Secondly, I will make some comments in rebuttal of the Applicants’ case with regard to the merits of the application.

Dealing firstly with your freedom to refuse the Application, there are three points of principle which must not be lost sight of.

1.         The previous planning permission given for the proposed development was quashed. Having been quashed, it is null and void, and must be treated as if it never existed. You are therefore free to decide all questions which arise in this application and are in no way bound by the decision of the previous panel. Note that planning inspectors, who publish the reasons for their decisions and thus build up a body of precedent, are entitled to form their own views on an issue and to depart from the decisions of their predecessors on matters of fact, opinion and planning expertise – Rockhold Ltd. Secretary of State for the Environment and South Oxfordshire District Council [1986] J.P.L. 130. That is even more the case with a planning committee, which is in no way concerned with building up a body of law or precedent.

The applicant seek to may rely upon the fact that of the two planning permissions that were given, only the principal planning decision was quashed, while the decision to give conservation area consent was left undisturbed. This fact is of no significance for two reasons:

(1)     the policies relating to conservation areas have changed since the first decision – PPG 15 (which was applied during the first application) has been replaced by PPS 5. The applicant recognises the need to apply the new Circular because it has gone through the motions of so doing by commissioning the “Conservation Area Statement Addendum” produced December 2010 by its surveyors, Messrs. Cluttons.

(2)     even if the principles governing conservation area consent had not changed, the committee would still be able to consider all relevant matters, including the appropriateness of the development to its setting and the undesirability of losing heritage assets. The extant conservation area consent might make it difficult to refuse for conservation reasons alone, but it would be perfectly proper to take conservation reasons into account with other factors, such as, in this case, the loss of a market which is of importance to a large section of the population.

You are therefore both free and obliged to come to your own view on all issues concerning this site, whether with regard to the question of the retention of the Ward’s Corner store, or with regard to the preservation of the Pueblito Paisa market.

2.         You may be told that the Community Scheme, which is a rival scheme for the land that retains both the market and the Ward’s Corner Store, is irrelevant to this application. You may be told, further, that it is not proper to reject a scheme which is unobjectionable in planning terms, simply because a better scheme is possible. This is to distort the position.

It is correct that if a scheme is not objectionable in planning terms, then it should not be rejected simply because something better is available.

However, where a scheme contains elements which are undesirable and therefore objectionable in planning terms, and where those advocating the scheme say that these elements must be included because it is not practicable to exclude them, it is proper, and indeed essential, to consider whether there are rival schemes, because the existence of viable alternatives bears directly on the question of whether it is practicable to have a development which excludes the undesirable features of the application.

In such a case, the argument is not about whether something good should lose out because something better is available. Instead, it is about whether something bad has to be accepted because there is no alternative. If there is an alternative which excludes the bad, this is highly relevant, whether the alternative is ready to build, or whether it is simply something which has not yet been properly explored.

The proposed development contains features which are clearly undesirable.

•          The buildings are too high.

•          The scheme involves the demolition of a locally listed building.

•          The scheme is unsympathetic to the conservation area which it adjoins.

•          It imperils a market and neighbouring independent shops which are depended upon by large sections of the community.

The rival scheme does none of these things, yet neither the developers nor the local authority have made any serious attempt to deal with its viability, and you are fully entitled to take that into account.

3.         You may be told that you are not concerned with speculations about whether the Grainger scheme is financially viable because that is not a proper planning consideration. That is indeed the case. However, if, as is the case here, the developer contends that the scheme, despite its drawbacks, is justified by various benefits which it supposedly will bring to the area, you are fully entitled to ask how realistic the suggestion is that these benefits will in fact flow from the scheme. If you are concerned about the risk that the building may be knocked down, and that thereafter no-one will want to build anything which provides these supposed benefits, or if you are concerned that after the development is built no regeneration will follow, whether inside it or beyond it, you have every right to decide that you are not persuaded that the scheme can produce the benefits which the applicants say that it will, and to decide that these supposed benefits do not override any of the objections which have to it.

I will now make a few points about the planning merits of the application, in rebuttal of the Applicant’s case.

1.         The “Town Centre” of which this development is to form the hub, is small in comparison to other Haringey town centres. It is therefore over-optimistic to believe that any major retailer will wish to have a presence there. In contrast, a unique local attraction would encourage businesses to locate here. The market, especially with the attractive setting provided by a restored Ward’s Corner store, will provide that attraction in a way that a modern shopping development will not. These considerations are of special concern at a time, like the present, when multiple retailers are downsizing. Market stalls and neighbouring independent shops, often run as family businesses, have the flexibility to withstand current trading conditions in a way which larger businesses cannot. They are a safer bet for the area.

2.         The Planning Statement Addendum (“the Addendum”) put in by the Applicant following the Court of Appeal ruling is flawed in a number of respects:

(1)     It says that an Assessment has been undertaken concerning the worth of the heritage assets which it is proposed to destroy. See Paragraph 5.39. In fact the “assessment” has been conducted by Cluttons, who are the applicant’s surveyors and who also prepared the Addendum. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the assessment, it is by no means independent and is instead self-serving.

(2)     The Addendum misquotes the Council’s Development Brief in a vital respect, saying:

“The Brief generally envisages the complete redevelopment of the site and concludes that the buildings at Wards Corner make only a neutral contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area ….”

These words do appear in the Brief itself. However, they are immediately followed by the words “although the Wards store itself has some merit”. In other words, there is nothing in the brief which detracts from earlier wording (in fact quoted in the Addendum) which says, “any development scheme should reflect,

and retain, the architectural features of the store, if at all possible.”

(3)     The assurances given as to the future of the market give no comfort whatever. They provide – see Appendix A to the Addendum – that the obligation to provide a market will lapse unless a “Market Lease” is entered into “six months before practical Completion of the development.” There is a serious problem with this.         “Market Lease” is defined as “a lease of the New Market Area to be entered into … in a form incorporating the Heads of Terms and otherwise as proposed by the Developer and Approved by the Market Operator (both acting reasonably.” This wording does not compel the Developer and the Market Operator to agree anything at all. The provision that they shall agree something reasonable is legally uncertain and no Court would ever give effect to it. The Court would never create a complete agreement which the parties had never themselves struck, and in any event, against whom could the Court ever make such an order?

(4)     Unaffordability of new-build to market traders. It is not possible to have any confidence that either the present traders or anyone carrying on a similar line of business will be able to afford the new market rents. The reason is that if the present market building is demolished and wholly replaced, there will be, for all practical purposes, no restriction on the features which the replacement building might possess and which might as a consequence attract rents far in excess of those which independent market traders could afford. If the existing building were to be refurbished, as is clearly desirable, the standard of accommodation would rise and the open market rents would rise accordingly. There would, however, be less of an opportunity than there would in the case of a complete demolition, to create premises which would command rents that were out of the reach of the present traders. The inability of planning conditions to protect traders in the event of a demolition and rebuilding is a good reason to reject the application.

3.         The only Equalities Impact Assessment on the Council’s website is an Assessment prepared by Cluttons for the benefit of the Applicant, rather than by the Council. It is for the Council to form an independent view of the equalities impact of this proposal, and although it is legitimate for the Council to consider the contentions made in that Assessment, it must on no account rely upon it. Any suggestion that the Council has not properly gone through the exercise itself, rather than by proxy, will land this case straight back in the courts. Cluttons’ Impact Assessment is itself defective in the following ways:

(1)     It concerns itself largely with the impact in a limited geographical area, namely the LSOA depicted at paragraph 3.3. The market is an institution which is used by members of the Latin American community who form a substantial section of the population of North and East London. The geographical scope should have been wider.

(2)     No attempt has been made to assess the impact of the loss of the market on the people who use the market as opposed to the people who trade there. See paragraphs 6.27 to 6.34. If there had been any such attempt, the results would have appeared there. This is a particularly serious omission of which the Committee must take note in the light of the Council’s duty, under Section 149 (3) of the Equalities Act 2010 which provides, “Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity … involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—…  (b)   take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it.”

(3)     The impact of the loss of the market is said to be amaeliorated by the expected presence of a new market. As shown above, however, this is likely to be illusory. For centuries new arrivals in this country have established themselves through family businesses. This is an essential element of social cohesion. The loss of this market and the neighbouring shops will deprive a substantial community of their way up out of deprivation.

(4)     The suggestion that the development will reduce the fear of crime is unfounded. Firstly, the evidence is patchy and out of date. Secondly, any refurbishment of the area would reduce any fear of crime to which the present state of the area might give rise. The proposed scheme is not unique in that respect.

4.         The Applicant has contended that it is not possible to retain the Ward’s Corner Store, because buildings of the height which they desire to erect elsewhere on the site cannot be physically supported unless supports are driven into the ground at the site of the Store itself. That may be correct. However, it does not follow from that fact that the Store should go. If the retention of the store is incompatible with high-rise development, it is for the Applicant to make a case as to why high rise development is so beneficial that it justifies the loss of a prominent building with architectural merit. The Applicant has not done this.

5.         The Council and the NDC have made very substantial contributions, in the form of grants to the Applicant together with options entitling the Applicant to purchase parts of the site at considerable undervalue (appended hereto is one such option agreement for the sale of 12, 18 and 20 Suffield Road and 713 Seven Sisters Road for a total price of £184,000. Yet neither the Council nor the NDC nor the Developers have made any attempt to attract a tenant to the Ward’s Corner Store. There is therefore no evidence to support the suggestion that Ward’s Corner Store must go because there is no potential demand for it. The Council and the Applicants simply have not tried. Even if there were no other objections to this scheme, the application should therefore be refused and should not henceforth be granted unless and until credible evidence is put forward to prove that this fine building is not wanted.”

To view and to add your comments to Graingers PLC planning application for Ward’s Corner visit the Haringey online planning website here and enter the following planning application number  HGY/2008/0303

More to come….

And so to celebrate this The Tottenham Civic Society in conjunction with The Bernie Grant Arts Centre laid on a fantastic day of festivities that included performances by drumming and dance groups, live music, backstage theatre tours, film screenings, displays from local artists and crafts people and from what I hear, very tasty barbecue food!formation stands from local envir

But best of all was the unveiling of a life-size steel bus designed by artist Sokari Douglas Camp CBE in honour of the Nigerian environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, who was executed in 1995  for speaking out against the environmental damage to the Niger Delta caused by Shell Oil. The sculpture is on show at the Bernie Grant Arts Centre until next year and I would highly recommend catching a glimpse of it!

If Civic Day confirmed one thing for me it is that I am extremely proud to be a resident of Tottenham and I would urge all to come and see for yourself that Tottenham is a place well worth visiting!

We in Harringay ward look forward to more such events that celebrate the fantastic array of diversity, culture, architecture and history this community has to offer.

To find out more about the work of the Tottenham Civic Society and future events visit their website. I would also suggest checking out the Bernie Grant Arts Centre website as they often showcase up and coming local talent.

Background

The council is proposing to close a number of drop in centres/luncheon clubs in the borough.  The one that affects Harringay ward is on Willoughby Road.

The current situation with the Willoughby Road Drop-in Centre is that the council does not own the site and the current lease is nearing its end. Cllr Schmitz has been arguing that if the council has no further use for the site then it ought to let the people who are on the committee for the centre run it with support from Council officers. This would provide a stop-gap as they search for other premises. Another possibility is that it could eventually link up with the Woodside Centre, which is reasonably accessible by bus for those who can manage to get there under their own steam, but which could also be reached by the mobility scheme vehicle for those who cannot – though clearly this would not be ideal. Council officers are particularly keen that the service is not lost and the political leadership seems to be receptive to the idea of encouraging the committee to run the centre for a limited period during the remainder of the lease and to the idea further of assisting them with advice and support from council officers.

The chair of the committee for the centre will be invited to any meetings regarding the future of the site. This follows on a request by Cllr David Winskill to let the more knowledgeable users of the centres know that their contributions will be much welcomed in the forthcoming discussions.

A recent development, namely last week’s report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, that the rights of older people receiving care at home in England are being overlooked, makes the preservation of this service all the more important, as to remove it would be to remove a safety net of which there is increasing and serious need.

Cllr Schmitz and Cllr Alexander will be liaising with local groups to find alternative premises and organisations in Harringay ward if the council upholds its decision to cease to run the centre itself.

Decision on the Call-in by Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 27th June 2011

The Chair MOVED a motion that the decision taken by the Cabinet in relation to Drop-In Centres on 7th June was inside the Council’s policy and budget framework and that further action should be taken. This was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED

1a. That the decision taken by the Cabinet in relation to Drop-In Centres on 7th June was inside the Council’s policy and budget Framework.

The Chair MOVED a motion that no further action should be taken and a vote was taken and unanimously rejected.

Councillor Diakides MOVED a motion that the matter be referred back to the Cabinet with a recommendation that the Cabinet defer a final decision for a further 6 months in order to allow the completion of the detailed exploration of alternatives and of possible extra support and finance, that the department was currently already working on. This was seconded by Councillor Ejiofor.

A vote was taken (8 members voted for the motion and 1 member (Cllr Weber) voted against) and carried.

Cllr Weber asked for it to be noted that her reason for voting against the motion was that she would have preferred for the decision to be referred to full Council.

RESOLVED

2a. That the decision in relation to Drop-In Centres be referred back to the Cabinet to reconsider the decision before taking a final decision within 5 working days in light of the views expressed by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

2b. The Cabinet be recommended to defer a final decision and continue to fund drop-in services for a further 6 months in order to allow the completion of the detailed exploration of alternatives and of possible extra support (including facilitating capacity building within the voluntary sector, to assist the voluntary sector in filling the void that the Council¹s withdrawal from Drop-in Centres will have created) and finance, that the department was currently already working on.

In making this recommendation the Committee took into account evidence that:

• There was a universal perception that drop-in services were generally well run and popular; also that their proposed withdrawal, in advance of putting adequate alternatives in place, would have an immediate real impact on the quality of life of a large number of vulnerable people in the borough who were currently using them. It would also undermine the current system of preventative measures in the borough which was likely to lead to further future costs to the authority as well as avoidable distress to numerous low income residents.

• The vast majority of those affected were low income people, with significant proportions from vulnerable groups; whilst almost any reductions in Adult Services was likely by definition to also have a disproportionate impact on low income and vulnerable groups of local people, there were concerns expressed that at the corporate level the outcomes of the recent consultation exercises and Equality Impact Assessments had not had the chance to influence the broad brush allocation of cuts between different services.

• There were promising possibilities for partly re-providing some of these services through different means, of securing alternative sources of funding or support for certain aspects, of reducing costs in some cases through the introduction of a small voluntary levy on users and of enabling in some cases the users and other support organisations to take them over and continue them at a minimal or no cost to the authority. It was evident that the department had been working hard on most of these possibilities, but also that little concrete agreement had as yet been secured, mainly due to the short timetables imposed and the need to proceed carefully at each stage.

• The savings involved, especially in the remaining of the current financial year were relatively small and a delay in finalising the decision to the end of the financial year could be contained within the current year’s contingencies. Such a delay would have no impact on the long-term financial plans of the council, i.e. the base budget and therefore it would not derail the integrity of the current budget process.

The proposals as they stand had started undermining the confidence of at least some of the users, potential users and their advocates in the future ability of the Council to provide an adequate service to low income and vulnerable elderly residents. Since maintaining the public’s confidence on the service is essential component of delivering an efficient service in this field, it would appear that allowing a bit more time for officers to work with users and other organisations to concretise some of the alternatives and enable a smooth transition would demonstrate the authority’s determination to listen to the concerns expressed and to minimise the impact of the proposed cuts on the ground.

Well we know that most burglars are opportunistic – all too often homes are broken into because they are presented as an easy target. According to the Metropolitan Police homes that, “presents itself as unoccupied and insecure is far more likely to be targeted than one which is properly secured.”

The Harringay Safer Neighbourhoods Team (SNT) has rather helpfully put together a list of factors that contribute to the likelihood of your home being burgled as well as some easy, simple steps that can significantly reduce the risk of your home being burgled.

The full article can be found here http://www.harringayonline.com/forum/topics/help-stop-burglaries but see below for an excerpt

“1. Front doors not properly or double locked.

2. Valuable items e.g. laptops on clear display through the window.

3. Laptop wires left on show with laptop put away in a nearby drawer.

4. Garden tools left outside which were used to force entry.

5. Leave lights on in rooms at the front and back, not just the hallway light.

Please use your mortice locks

When you leave home please consider what can be seen on show in your home from the outside, including from your rear garden.

Make sure rear doors and windows are fully secured.

Make sure all garden tools are locked away and the garden shed is secure.

Register all your valuable items on www.immobilise.com it’s a free, totally secure system that you can repeatedly update and amend and which we use to identify stolen items and restore them to their rightful owners.

Anything with a serial number can be registered. Take photos of any valuable items without a serial number and upload them as well e.g jewellery, pictures, collector’s items etc.

If you hear any banging please take the time to have a look and if you believe it’s suspicious, call 999 and give the operator any information you can such as a description or which way they went etc.”

Finally book yourself a free crime prevention survey of your house by emailing harringay.snt@met.police.uk or call 0208 721 2677 and you will also receive a £10 discount at local hardware stores

Remember, it is better to be safe than sorry.