International Development minister Lynne Featherstone writes a monthly column for one of her local newspapers. Here is the latest one…..
I declare an interest in Hornsey High Street. My constituency office is based there, above the Three Compasses pub! As such, I spend a lot of time on the High Street – popping into the shops and cafes and talking to local residents.
The old Depot site on the High Street (almost opposite the pub) has been a point of contention for many years. Parts of the site have been derelict since 1998 and the land is desperately underused, as Labour-run Haringey Council has continuously failed to strike a suitable deal with a developer.
Now, a new developer is on the scene. St James has put in a planning application to build a Sainsbury’s supermarket, 400 homes, a car park and a gym on the site. A development of this scale will have an impact on our local area, and it’s vital that local residents and shopkeepers get to have their say.
That’s why I called a public meeting, held last Friday, to give residents a platform and a chance to put their views to both Sainsbury’s and one of the project architects. St James and the Labour councillor in charge of planning were invited to attend, but both declined – a shocking decision in my opinion.
Despite this, almost 150 residents attended. It is clearly an application they feel very strongly about, and Sainsbury’s and the architect faced some very tough but valid questions.
There were some serious concerns about the effect of the development on local trade. Thankfully, the plans for a Sainsbury’s cafe have already been withdrawn, but the traders were still concerned that the supermarket alone will pose a threat to their livelihoods.
Residents were also concerned about the increase in traffic, and whether local services such as doctors’ surgeries and schools could accommodate hundreds more adults and children. There are also issues with the height of the development and the views of Alexandra Palace it will block.
I asked a question about the quality of new accommodation. New housing is much needed, but it must be built to last. St James built the New River Village development, and worryingly, I am currently fighting for residents there who are experiencing damp and flooding in their properties.
Based on the strength of feeling at the meeting, I think all of these concerns need to be addressed before the local community will support this development.
The Development Control Forums – which Haringey Council and St James have to attend – are taking place on the 26th and 27th of November at Grieg City Academy. This is the next chance for residents to find out more, voice their opinions and get some answers.
Labour-run Haringey Council will then make the final decision on the application, most likely in January.
The Haringey Liberal Democrats and I have been asking residents for their views already, and will continue to do so. We have recorded the views from the public meeting and will be representing them in our response to the planning application consultation. To add you voice – contact me.
* Lynne Featherstone was the MP for Hornsey and Wood Green from 2005 to 2015, and served as a minister in both the Home Office and Department for International Development. She is now a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords and blogs at www.lynnefeatherstone.org.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Full slate of Lib Dems in council by-elections
Getting things done - West Port #dundeewestend
Payback time
The Joy of Six 1274
Gasping Local Government.
The Chagos Islands, Mauritius and the ICJ
Honouring the Real Thing and launching Black History Month in Liverpool
Peter Martin
Peter Davies
Dave Tate
David Evans
19 Comments
Giving resisdents a say on development = Nothing gets built.
This whole thing just is just dripping with nimbyism.
Every development everywhere is faught by existing homeowners, always on “traffic concerns”, always on “will services cope”, build more roads then, build more services, the new residets will be paying taxes, what are taxes for if not to fund services.
This is what we did decades ago, when we had large scale house building, we didnt sit there saying “but traffic, but schools” why is it such a suprise housebuilding is at such a low figure now?
*”I asked a question about the quality of new accommodation. New housing is much needed, but it must be built to last. St James built the New River Village development, and worryingly, I am currently fighting for residents there who are experiencing damp and flooding in their properties.”*
Well then maybe building control departments should be strung up for incompence, if they can’t perform their basic function, issues such as these are 99.99% of the time design issues.
@fake
Had a planning application refused?
Glad to see you’re so obviously not a nimby – could you let us know where you live, as it would seem your neighbourhood could be just the place to site one of the new nuclear power stations that we’ll be building in the next couple of decades…
“Thankfully, the plans for a Sainsbury’s cafe have already been withdrawn, but the traders were still concerned that the supermarket alone will pose a threat to their livelihoods.”
If I opposed the opening of a football club on the grounds that it would draw people away from the cricket club, I would be told that it was none of my business to choose for other people what they should do in their free time and I should behave towards both in an even-handed manner. It is interesting though that as soon as money is involved the requirement to be fair and even-handed goes out of the window and suddenly wanting to choose what cafe your neighbours should be allowed to frequent becomes compatible with liberalism.
“Had a planning application refused?”
Nope, I would just like younger generations to be able to afford housing, and not see new build refused on spurious grounds. People don’t want housing built, because they like it as it is, or in internet speak “GOT MINE> F**K YOU”. Allowing trafic concerns or service concerns to even be considered part of planning refusal is wrong, council provide services, they get paid tax to do so, the new residents will pay tax, GET ON WITH IT. These issues are being used by people who bought their nice house near fields, and don’t want them built on, (despite that their housing was once fields).
[quote]could you let us know where you live, as it would seem your neighbourhood could be just the place to site one of the new nuclear power stations that we’ll be building in the next couple of decades…[/quote]
I honestly wouldnt mind a nuclear site near me, they are safe and provide employement.
Nice try though, funny that you compare new housing to nuclear power sites, bit of a nimby are we?
@Fake – “bit of a nimby are we?”
My point was that we are all nimby’s in the sense that if someone wants to do something in our neck of the woods we want to know more about it, ask questions etc. etc. That desire and right(?) to know and engage is natural and should be encouraged rather than be snubbed through mindless name calling. Also just because someone wants to build something in a particular place doesn’t mean it is the right development for that place or that the place is the right place for that development.
I actually think it is very good that Lynne is getting engaged with her local community and planning department, as she is getting first hand experience of trying to engage with the planning process from the local residents viewpoint – something if you believe those who have shouted loudest is very simple to do and frequently results in applications being rejected etc. etc. when for the most part it isn’t like that. It will therefore be interesting to see what experience/evidence based feedback Lynne gives and puts into the localism agenda.
Just to clarify my sentence “Also just because someone wants to build something in a particular place doesn’t mean it is the right development for that place or that the place is the right place for that development.”.
What I meant is that developers will tend to choose to place a development on a particular plot because they happen to own it – the question Lynne raises is whether it is appropriate for a substantial supermarket development to occur in an existing high street. Whereas, a supermarket may be required, just that it may be more appropriate to locate it further down the road where there is better access etc… in Lynne’s case if there is a need for a new supermarket then there is no real reason why it couldn’t be located on a deck over the nearby railway line.
*Also just because someone wants to build something in a particular place doesn’t mean it is the right development for that place or that the place is the right place for that development.*
Possibly, but people try to abuse the system.
As I said, every development is objected to on concerns of traffic or services, the answer is build more roads, provide more services.
Either that or the people objecting to the new housing can swap their lovely nice housing, for the flat’s that young people are having to live in (no end of those being built).
We’ll soon see those objections about “traffic” and “services” dissapear like vapour.
*”Whereas, a supermarket may be required, just that it may be more appropriate to locate it further down the road where there is better access etc… in Lynne’s case if there is a need for a new supermarket then there is no real reason why it couldn’t be located on a deck over the nearby railway line.”*
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it!
*”There were some serious concerns about the effect of the development on local trade.”*
“the answer is build more roads”
I suggest you take a look at your own neighbourhood and ask yourself if the half dozen houses neighbouring your property were to be replaced by flats at modern densities, each with it’s regulation parking space etc. where would the additional access road go?
“the flat’s that young people are having to live in”
Don’t see an issue, space in cities such as London is limited and needs to be used wisely, suggest they spend sometime living in Tokyo if they think a London apartment is small…
Wow!
First, complains the site hasn’t been developed because “Labour-run Haringey Council has continuously failed…”
Next, complain when a developer comes along – OMG, it will have an impact on the area!
Does anyone wonder why developers are put off?
Of course local people need a say, and have raised issues that the planning authority already have a duty to consider. But what is a local council? … er … it’s a body that represents local people! Wow! And it’s elected too, by local people. OMG! Just think … local people already have say, through their elected representatives!
Perhaps it would help if the local MP stopped using this as a way to get at political rivals? The very first thing that should have been done was to say Welcome! to the developer and Well done! to the council.
Interesting how we interpret things in different ways:
“Labour-run Haringey Council has continuously failed to strike a suitable deal with a developer.”
I read this as a positive, ie. no scheme was worth the council taking forward. Hence developers need to improve on the quality of schemes they submit.
“That’s why I called a public meeting, … St James and the Labour councillor in charge of planning were invited to attend, but both declined”
From experience trying to get these people to attend public meetings outside of normal office hours is very difficult, so whilst disappointing a hardly unexpected outcome.
As for your point about “the planning authority already have a duty to consider.”, well yes they do have a ‘duty’ but without public participation they have no real measure of the relative importance of the issue and will in fact at times in their decision making totally ignore previous and currently active planning guidance and the tools available to them to check basic facts. Also you can be sure that the people who live in a particular area know it far better than a few people sitting in an office in the neighbouring town using Google Streetview (if you’re lucky) , for whom the application is just another set of plans to be assessed. Plus as a member of a planning authority would you pay more or less attention to a planning application which has received lots of media attention, but the planning department received no formal submissions from members of the public, or an application that has had a relatively low media profile but received submissions from 500 of the 800 houses in the area?.
But I do agree with your last point about getting at political rivals, I could list at length the failings of my local planning authority, which isn’t Labour controlled…
First, get the party to call for more houses ….
Then, complain when a developer wants to provide more houses …
Is there any wonder that LibDems have a credibility issue?
@Richard
You are overlooking who owns the land.
From the information supplied the owner would seem to be the local council, who I would expect, will be operating in both the community’s interest by ensuring the development of community owned land benefits the local community and being a hard nosed capitalist landlord, wishing to maximise their return, namely retain community ownership of the freehold, whilst obtaining the maximum income via commercial lettings and property lettings. Balancing these and getting right is a tricky balancing act. Yes Haringey council has a poor reputation, but Lynne hasn’t presented any evidence that they have so far mismanaged the commercial negotiations.
Ignorant outbursts like your’s only make those negotiations harder, tending to encourage the elected council to settle for less than the current market rate. From my experience supermarket developers don’t actually want to provide mixed developments, they prefer to build simple ‘barns’ because they are cheaper and quicker to build and hence there is a much shorter lead time between spending the money and beginning to get a return on it. It is the government through the planning gain process that is requiring the developer to offer a concession/sweetener (and that is what this is) of housing etc. The withdrawal of the plans for a Sainsbury’s cafe is a mere nothing, as once the supermarket is built, it is very simple to reinstate the cafe (I assume you have noticed all the in-store ‘costa’ and ‘starbuck’ consessions).
@Roland
You might like try re-reading what I have actually written!
Lynne has tried to turn this story into a critique of the local council. In fact, as a local MP, it has been her job too to find developers for that land, and her failure to do that is comparable to the council’s failure that she complains of.
@Richard Dean
“In fact, as a local MP, it has been her job too to find developers for that land, and her failure to do that is comparable to the council’s failure that she complains of.”
So you really think that is part of an MP’s job, do you?
And I suppose if a constituent suffers a water leak the MP should be round with his or her plumbers bag?
@Simon
Hello again. Yes, of course it is. A very major part of an MPs task is to find ways to brings jobs and prosperity to a constituency. LibDems need to recognize this if they are to survive as a party that matters.
Obviously this is rather more than fixing everyone’s individual plumbing issues. But the job does include identifying common problems and working to get them resolved.
Funnily enough, Lynne is doing well on the water leakage score, see her comment that “I am currently fighting for residents there [the New River Village development] who are experiencing damp and flooding in their properties”.
@Richard Dean
” A very major part of an MPs task is to find ways to brings jobs and prosperity to a constituency.”
No it isn’t (see http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/what/).
Having said that, I have sympathy with some of your other points (especially as I knew nothing about Hornsey but thought I’d be nose around).
“First, get the party to call for more houses ….
Then, complain when a developer wants to provide more houses …”
According to the New River Village Residents Association Website, 40% of the proposed 400 will be social and shared ownership units. On her website, Lynne Featherstone bemoans a 10k family waiting list for social housing, then puts part of the blame on Haringey council for not building any social housing for 25 years (this was posted on the same day as a version of the LDV article appeared).
The same RA website has details of the Public Consultation (including a copy of the original invite sent to residents). That original invite included opportunities to attend and exhibition and workshops where questions could be put to the development teams, this was way back in June (see http://www.nrvra.org.uk/2013/06/hornsey-depot-development-public-consultation/). So why wait until November to call a meeting (particularly if they were hoping to start in Spring 2014) , and should 150 people hold up a development that may provide social housing for up 160 people (plus the other 240 families who may buy the remainder of course)?
@Chris_sh
Yes it is! That link is hardly a job description. If you don’t believe me, I suggest you run candidates in 2015 who tell the electorate up front that they are not going to do anything about bringing jobs and prosperity to the constituencies they represent. That would be a lot of lost deposits, don’t you think?
Interesting research, and interesting points about social housing. Considering that Lynne’s pub office is “almost opposite” the development site, it’s curious that it’s taken her almost half a year to notice that something is being done at last.
Good on Lynne for organising the meeting. It is part of her role to help get people together to discuss major issues of local concern, especially if noone else does it.
Such meetings will always tend to get those likely to oppose the development, but their concerns should be heard. I see nothing in what Lynne says to suggest that the development should not go ahead at all. The explicit comments against the Labour council may be a little over the top, but the key factor is that they should facilitate the airing of views before coming to a decision. In my 11 yrs experience as a local councillor, I have found many cases where the issue is not whether a development should happen, but the nature of the development and local people should be able to influence that.
In a situation where developers have lots of money and power, local residents need to be helped to air their views, hear from council officers, politicians and the business community in order to have a broader understanding of the situation. Hopefully, through that process more people will see that they should not be opposed to development, but can influence how and where developments are allowed to happen.
Ok, William Nigel Jones, and what would be the explanation for the half-year delay, and the apparent ignorance of the public consultation that already occurred?