Say 'No' to knocking down Rowan's

Arkady

Your local Lib Dem councillors have taken note of the concerns about these prospective plans for the Rowans site, and have set up a survey to try to get a feel for what, if anything, should happen to the site.<br><br>If you would like to express your view then you can do so here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1nMUnHpOMbfC3V_MiyIYvP0H77hHTQ5amTANvvgv5QJA/viewform<br><div><br></div>;

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Arkady

As with most any survey it will ask for an email address to discourage multiple submissions, and a postcode to determine where you are in relation to Rowans. The other fields are optional. You may well be contacted by email, but it takes one click to opt out if so.

NorthNineteen

At least it isn't now suiggesting to get rid of the bus station!  Good to see the site opposite Vista has been enlarged and included in the SSA DPD.<br>

Ali

Your also  asked  (optional)  how you might vote in the local and national elections - can't make pretty reading !

JoeV

@Arkady - I have a question for you. I skimmed the plans and it seems that <span style="font-size: 10pt;">not only is the network rail site on SGR targeted for development but every other transit infrastructure site in Haringay seems to be as well, such as the bus depots in Tottenham and Wood Green, network rail sites in Hornsey. It's not like these sites are derelict land - they are in use. So where will these functions be relocated to? I'm just curious. It may be noted in the document but I didn't see it.</span>

Arkady

@Ali: not so, you will be displeased to hear.  The incumbency factor remains strong, not least because <br>Lib Dems work in the wards all year round, not just at election time.  Labour Haringey officially being the worst-run borough in London helps, of course.<br><div><br></div><div>@Joe: Good question.  I know that the number of bus depots is being <a href="http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/firstgroup-announces-sale-of-8-london-bus-garages/">consolidated</a>.  I understand that Network rail have indicated that some land, such as the SGR site, will no longer be required once the Thameslink works are finished.  But in general what people should remember is that the document is a 'what if' big-picture planning strategy, suggesting what the council would like to do.  This helps to facilitate development by building consensus between the community and developers.  It doesn't mean that the sites will necessarily come forward for development.</div>

NorthNineteen

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the DPD (Development Planning Document).<br><br>It's purpose is to outline what kind of development Harringay council would find acceptable on a given site if the owner decided to develop it.  There is a general understanding that Network Rail are hoping to release some of their sites to create an additional funding stream so it makes sense for the council to outline the type (residential vs retail vs commercial), form and scale (floorspace/storeys) to enable any promoters to understand how much money the may get for selling the site.  It will then be up to Network Rail/bus operators to relocate services to other locations.<br><br>What the document isn't doing is saying the council will compulsory purchase the land or force the owner to build a development as described in the document.<br><br>And of course, this is only a guide.  If the owners of Rowlands wanted to build a cinema complex or a 20 storey tower they are perfectly within in their rights to put in an application.<br><br>Hope that helps.<br>

andy

@NorthNineteen - all this 'voice of reason' stuff, and 'using facts' is going to give the internet a bad reputation.

Papa

I was stood in the bus station with some friends from out of town waiting for a bus the other day and explained the street plaza plan to them. They were suitably dumbstruck at the stupidity of such an idea. <br><br>On a similar note I see that the narrowing of the busiest bit of Tollington Park by the Park Tavern in order to improve traffic on the road is now taking place. <br><br>And on a more relevant point, the thing I found worrying in that Haringey document is that it cites City North as a reason to allow very high buildings by the park - this is presumably how the creep starts.<br><br>'Building heights should respect the sensitive nature of the site adjacent to the significant area of open parkland to the north, and take into account the railway embank-ment to the west and the City North development to the south. Therefore heights of 4-6 storeys along the park edge should be possible, with considerably higher to the centre and north-west of the site; possibly 10-15 storeys.'<br><br><br>

Arkady

The policy of encouraging new tall buildings, in clusters over transport hubs, goes back to Ken Livingstone's first iteration of the London Plan, and <a href="http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/policies/4b-09.jsp">survives today</a>.  London Borough development plans have to comply with the London Plan.  City North was built in compliance with both - so it's not a 'precedent' in the usual sense, but a result the Mayor's vision for London.  

NorthNineteen

@andy I'm equally happy to talk about cats or bacon if that helps?<br>

JoeV

Thanks for the explanation Arkady and NorthNineteen. Obviously, as most people, I'm not a planning expert. When the council produces very detailed plans essentially 're-zoning' huge swaths of the borough quite radically, with maps and detailed survey analysis that encourage replacement of existing, useful buildings, it looks like more than a suggestion to me.

NorthNineteen

The DPD is intended for planning experts, land-owners and developers and no-one is suggesting any re-zoning. (we don't have anything zoned firstly - unlike the USA)<br><br>So should there never be any technical documents or maybe these kind of things shouldn't be consulted with the general public? You admit you aren't an expert but then give your opinion of what it all means to you.... I sense a contradiction.<br><br>More details here:<br>http://haringey.gov.uk/site-allocations-dpd<br><br>But if you have specific concerns about one of the locations you should raise it, this is an opportunity for you to have your say.<br>

Sutent

Thank you Arkardy for this and N19 for clear concise explanation.I think I would, and others I know would accept affordable housing to be built on that piece of land. After John Jones I accept how horrible blocks look but with the benefit for the local community a housing block would be acceptable. I suspect the council will be in it for a quick buck and most the housing will be for those who can afford £500,000 flats as its so close to the station. 

Arkady

I think the current Haringey policy is:<br><br>"Housing developments capable of providing 10 or more units will be required to include a proportion of affordable housing to meet an overall borough target of 50%. The proportion negotiated will depend on the location, scheme details or site characteristics. <br><br>The Council will use planning agreements and planning conditions to secure the provision of affordable housing."

Sutent

@Arkardy what is the Lib Dem policy on affordable housing? 

yagamuffin

What is 'affordable housing' anyway? I keep hearing people say we need more of it but what is it?<div>If, as I understand it is housing designed only for certain people within the community then I would say it is wrong. We don't need more affordable housing, we need more housing full stop that people - all people - can afford to buy.</div><div>The idea that certain groups should be given a leg up while others are left to fester in rotten rentals is just wrong.</div>

miss annie

Isn't affordable something where you can buy a little bit of it, and rent the rest? It's still not affordable if you work in retail, or are a waiter, cleaner or any one of the numerous ground level occupations that keep London grinding on.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Arkady

Morning Sutent<br><br>Nationally, it seems to be ‘build as many new houses as possible, with as many affordable as feasible’. There’s an infographic <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/building_more_homes">here </a>that gives a gist of the current take on things. No doubt there will be some headline announcements as we get closer to May 2015, but I'm guessing that new garden cities will remain on the Lib Dem agenda.<br><br>Locally, the emphasis has been on campaigning for Haringey to build more council homes rather than ‘affordable’ homes which, as has been highlighted here, aren’t necessarily all that affordable at all. The Lib Dem's proposed a budget amendment that would have built more council homes (paid for with savings made elsewhere - mostly stopping millions of wasteful payments on agency staff). This sensible amendment was, of course, voted down by the Labour majority. Equally unsurprisingly they later changed their mind after we made a big fuss, and we should see the first new council homes in Haringey since the 1980s.<br><br>Otherwise, the local emphasis is on making sure that council homes are not left empty (Labour have been appalling at this), ensuring that all council homes meet the government’s decent Home Standard (ending Homes for Haringey's shameful neglect and blame culture), and introducing a landlord registration scheme for private landlords to ensure that the 34,000 households living in privately rented property in Haringey have a decent home.<br>

miss annie

Well done on the council houses!

Arkady

Credit to Cllr Strang, and Stroud Green's own Richard Wilson on that one.

Sutent

I can't believe I am saying but you are tempting me to vote Lib Dem!

Arkady

Whatever your ideological position, it can’t be denied that Haringey Labour are incompetent, free of ideas, and after 40+ years desperately in need of a period in opposition. That would be true of any party that had been in power that long. It’s a long time since they were of service to the tribalist vote on which they depend, as the council house issue demonstrates.

Mirandola

Well, since we are playing hustings. Arkady (or any other candidates reading this): Suppose you were made Secretary of State of a new powerful housing Department, what would you keep and what would you alter of current central Government housing policy? In particular, where do you stand on the new definition of affordable housing and on the bedroom tax/spare room subsidy? Do you think local councils should be allowed to borrow to build? How many new houses is 'as many new houses as possible'? Where would they go and what role would local authorities play? Would a Lib Dem government overrule a local council that didn't want new houses built?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Arkady

Heh!<br><br>I think, if you don’t mind terribly, that I will choose not to bite on some of those questions. I’m standing for Haringey Council, not for national government. I have no ambitions to do the latter.<br><br>In the most general of terms: It’s clear that we need a lot more housing, and my personal preference would be for that to be targeted at brownfield sites and existing under-developed sites, rather than on the green belt. <br><br>I am on record as saying that I don’t think that people have the right to be subsidised by the taxpayer to have a spare room when so many people are on waiting lists, and there is a strong *to each according to their need* case to be made here. However, there needs to be so many exemptions and caveats to that to make it fair that I’m far from convinced that the current policy is equitable – it’s not a Lib Dem manifesto policy, and I was pleased to see the Lib Dem president argue in favour of pledging to scrap it in our 2015 manifesto.<br><br>Yes, councils should be allowed to borrow to build as long as they have a strong business plan. Councils need much stronger revenue-raising powers in general.

Arkady

Misscara, as with your student accommodation complaint what you forget is that any new purpose built accommodation, whether student or council, relieves the pressure on the ordinary private housing market, making it more affordable to buy or rent. Many people who would have been council tenants in the past are instead being paid for to live in private accommodation - that you might otherwise be able to afford - due to the lack of council housing.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.