Connecting Crouch End and Hornsey with news, views and information
Hi there lovely local people,
Here on Bradley Road we're worried about Haringey's chaotic development plans.
We're really concerned about Caxton Road, Lendlease and so much more.
We're asking the Council to provide written answers to our questions.
Please help us, sign our petition and share it if you share the same concerns
I've just now signed the petition and I'd encourage others to read it and to consider signing it too. Wood Green "Regeneration" of course, overlaps with the controversial, over-ambitious and over-reaching, Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV).
Out of 19 Wards in Haringey Borough, only one Ward (Fortis Green) is unaffected by the HDV, with Northumberland Park Ward being the most impacted.
Over here in Northumberland Park we are also very concerned about the HDV and the 'preferred partner', Lendlease. The red-lined area there includes several streets of owner occupied houses, as well as the council estates.
A group of residents were invited into the lion's den last Saturday. We visited Elephant Park, to mix animal metaphors. Lendlease gave a polished presentation but in response to a question admitted that of the former tenants & leaseholders of the Heygate estate, only three are now living in the new build... The justification they gave was that there had been several years between demolition and the completion of the first area of Elephant Park, during which people may have settled down elsewhere. Lack of affordability was not mentioned as a possible reason!
Later we toured Myatt's Field Estate, where there are a few more original residents. There, the rep from the property management company tried to stop a couple of feisty ladies from telling us about the problems they have had in the new development. These include leaking roofs, smelly bin chambers directly outside people's doors, poor sound insulation, enormous heating bills, and the fact that the flats don't have solid walls behind the plasterboard so you can't hang things without using fiddly toggle fixings. For clarity, I would point out that Lendlouse are not involved in that scheme.
The controlling groups in Southwark and Haringey Council certainly share a liking for Lendlease, but talk to other developers too. It seems that if you have your home demolished by our Council, there are two possiblities for redevelopment:- either a gleaming new place that you can't afford, or a slightly more affordable place to live, but one with serious problems right from the start.
Hi there Bob,
How interesting and thanks for getting in touch to share this. Goodness, it all sounds so unwholesome. Those red lined streets on maps are so worrying because they are so vague. From reading about Lendlease they use a clause that enables them to prove they're too poor to deliver socially affordable housing (which we know is a questionable term anyway).
I've sent our petition to Strickland and another 2 councillors, plus our MP Catherine West. But the former haven't replied and West basically batted it back and said it wasn't her problem but the Councillors.
What action can we take next? When do you guys have your next public meeting? I know lots of people here on Bradley Road would be interesting in attending, we just aren't all hooked up to the meeting dates.
Do you know when the next public meeting is? Also how did you manage to get a meeting with Lendlease? Do you think that others of us can too?
Many thanks again, Cat
I don't know if you have seen the planning application for part of the indoor market, plus the site on the corner of Caxton Road and Mayes Rd that used to be a petrol station? It's proposed that it would become an Aldi with car park, apparently. Application HGY/2017/1189 - the consultation end date is Friday.
The planning application is quite interesting. The Aldi Wood Green planning statement says
"The only elements requiring planning permission relate to the laying out of the new car park and provision of amended access onto Caxton Road, provision of new escape stair and changes to the elevations of this part of the shopping centre. The remainder of the works are internal and relate to the reconfiguration of existing retail floor space and do not involve change of use or the creation of additional floor area."
So half the existing Market Hall can be removed at the stroke of an architect's touch screen drawing package.
Most of the objections are depressingly irrelevant and not planning literate, except a very thorough analysis from "Designing Out Crime" the sub text of which might be 'this is a dodgy area and you are making it no better"
I'm probably alone in this - but the only reason I ever step into the Mall is to buy something cheap from the market hall. Otherwise I happily avoid it, and the rest of Wood Green, from one month to the next. A situation unlikely to change if WG becomes a building site for 10 years, followed by a windswept half-empty post-retail monument to Council vainglorious folly.
Meanwhile, I suspect the only route for objectors to this proposal is to discover the original commitment (and covenants?) to providing market trading space in the original Shopping City back in the 1970s - and then demand equal space be found.
I wouldn't know where to look.
Dear Haringey Borough Council,
Please can you tell me are there any still enforceable commitments and/or covenants to provide market trading space in Wood Green's Shopping City based on proposals adopted when it was built.
Of course having read this back, I should also have asked where are they recorded and please can I have a look at them
It's a good idea to have done the FOI, Adrian. My apologies for not posting about this sooner.
As I read the plans, the small shops in the Market Hall would remain, but the higer level part with two cafes (and shop units facing Mayes Road) would become an Aldi store.
The small shops would however probably face steep rent rises once the store was open, on the assumption that they would have have greater footfall. Then they might have to close if their actual turnover hadn't increased proportionately.
They don't seem to have been notified in the distribution list.
followed by a windswept half-empty post-retail monument to Council vainglorious folly
A possibly taller monument to the glory to which you refer, is a brand new Council headquarters intended to go, I believe, where the current Wood Green Library and Customer Service Centre is situate.
This would cost £33,000,000. But don't worry, this sum is already ear-marked and would come from the Council's Capital Account (as opposed to the Revenue account) and the Capital Account is awash with money (in sharp contrast to the other account).
Yes you're right, getting hold of the original commitment/covenants to provide market trading space would probably help. It's so strange the way London doesn't respect local businesses that have survived for years. The Mall is a brilliant if unromantic place! I think it just needs a bit of investment, and to be frank there's nothing wrong with new vendors and artisan entrepreneurs, it's just a shame if they're going 'delete' all the current vendors. I think the whole thing needs to be more organic, and involve more community funding. There are some real gems hidden in the Food Market, I hope they get a chance (aka a discount in the new place).
I have had a reply to my FoI request about covenants relating to market space. It reads:
This information is not held. You will need contact HM Land Registry to obtain the documents they hold on the title deeds and any associated covenants.
On the one hand I am inclined to become indignant. Haringey are the freeholders and the instigators of the entire Mall concept. But now claim not have the records of what conditions were imposed on the use of the premises.
On the other, now that the car park has been refused because it messes with Haringey aspirations (a site allocation, not actually a proposal to develop anything) then Aldi might very well not bother.
I'm sure you know, Adrian, but maybe other people don't, that all Councils had - maybe still have - a master land record called The Property Terrier. (The word descends from Norman French.)
When I was councillor I found the staff who ran the Terrier helpful and informative. It showed for instance, land which the Council once owned. It had maps which were often a lot more accurate and useful than Land Registry maps.
Long long ago I stopped working as a solicitor. But I still remember and understand some bits about the importance of tenure and covenants and who owns what land. So as a former councillor trying to solve problems - literally - on the ground for residents often meant getting a clear basic grasp of the legal ownerships and rights.
As I recall, Haringey is within its own rights to refer you to other public sources of information. Also I don't know whether or not Haringey's "Terrier" includes particular details about covenants on particular parcels of land.
But I do know that what now passes for a local Council representing the residents and electors of Haringey has become a body which mainly represents the interests of property developers and large landowners.
Aided and abetted by a small group of ambitious incompetent nonentities grouped around Cllr Claire Kober and her allies, courtiers, sycophants and general lickspittles. Who think Haringey Council exists for their ambition and self-aggrandisement.
After Claire Kober & her chums are a bad memory, clearing up their mess will be a giant task.
One of the many key jobs has to be restoration of openness and transparency. Sunshine and fresh air. Which must include Freedom of Information.
Residents pay for records to be maintained. If the Council's Terrier records include the maps and covenants you have requested, then I think you and other residents should be allowed to know.
The secretive diseased Kober culture needs to end.