Where the *UCK did our park go?

  • By Brian Leveson
  • •
  • 27 Jun, 2021
  • •

Last Thursday (24th June) the green bit of play space on Elizabeth Place, off Lawrence Rd, Tottenham, Haringey was boarded up without notice, without planning permission, without consultation, without any warning whatsoever - is planning a meaningless "tick box" process? ***NEW (29/06/21) Updated with Section 106 decision & council meeting minutes Planning Subcommittee Thursday 3rd November 2016 - is it still our park - owned BY THE PEOPLE OF HARINGEY?????*** And if not who was given the power to sell it? THIS HAS NOW BEEN SORTED BY PERAY AHMET

THE BOSS
WHAT THE BOSS SAID
Here's the playground green space, seen OUTSIDE the site boundary, in the Construction Management Plan which received planning consent 12 March (HGY/2020/2843)

Where the *uck did it go?

Sources from twitter state that

[The] council & developer made a "private" arrangement to do something completely different [than what was put in the planning application].

How much is the lease fee?
The hoardings where the green play space used to be
The view from the railings into the basket ball court of the building site and building activity. At the moment that is a load of demolition and rubble.
You can see what is currently happening where the green space used to be - it is now a building site, visible from behind the basket ball court.  I am not convinced that this is a secure site as I am sure it is not impossible to scale the fence at the back of the court.  

But I also question how much fun playing next to a building site with all the dust and rubble and noise will be.  i also wonder how much dust this will generate - and if the builders have to wear masks then so should any children playing in the play space.
Site safety sign: SITE SAFETY STARTS HERE: NO MASK NO JOB
Not our park any more?

The tree I looked in lockdown year - but could not go near

This is the view from my back window. I looked at that tree during lockdown as my bit of green. It's in the segregated bit of the development that social housing tenants cannot access
As the parent of a severely disabled child, my family have been housed in social housing alongside many other vulnerable families with family members with complex disabilities.

We have been very strictly shielding for a year and have been aware that people with learning disabilities have been SIX times more likely to die of COVID that the rest of the population.  We have been fighting for our child's right for equality for over a decade, so when the pandemic started we were already acutely aware that the rationing of scarce resources was very unlikely to extend to us - and we were unfortunately so very very right in that prediction.  

Green spaces, parking allocations and gym use - all out of bounds for the poor.

We have been unable to access green spaces on the 'mixed housing' development where we live. This is where private owners of houses live alongside social housing tenants from housing associations. We do not have access to the communal gardens because social housing tenants are not allowed access to those green spaces; this is alongside not being allowed to access the gym and the private car parking spaces.

We have been allocated and pay for a disabled parking bay - one of only 2 spaces in a development with far more than 2 disabled people - and through what seems to be a act of 'double accounting' despite paying for the space, we do not have exclusive access to it, as there are no other disabled spaces for the development.

As more housing is thrown upwards on our road, we expect this situation with parking for people with disabilities, who CANNOT use public transport, to worsen.

We are used to the contempt from the officers of Haringey Council

We are well used to the contempt the officers of Haringey Council have for the people they serve.

This park was taken from us with no notices put up, no consultation and outside of the normal planning processes.

It's no change the operations of the local authority - no coproduction, no irritation parents of disabled children askig for play space.

CANCELLED Protest Planned at the site, 6pm Friday 2nd July 2021

The cat gets it - me and the cat are planning to dust off the placards
Me and the cat and the wheelchair bound son are planning a little protest at the site: Elizabeth Place 'used to be a' play area on Lawrence Road N15, Tottenham, this Friday 2nd July 2021 at 6pm.

Me and the cat and the wheelchair bound son WERE planning a little protest at the site: Elizabeth Place 'used to be a' play area UNTIL THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL STEPPED IN AND SORTED IT

How to view this planning application "HGY/2020/2843"

1. Go to the online planning service portal: Online Planning Services: Application Search (haringey.gov.uk)
2. Search this reference: HGY/2020/2843
3. Click on the reference number for further information and detailed plans

What we found - the plans do not include taking the play ground, not even in the construction phase.

Plans submitted for approval clearly show the playground - and that it is NOT taken

Condition 22 - Construction management plan

No mention of the playground to the north of the site being a constraint
13.3 Identifying deficiencies in the planning management
15.1 Any particularly sensitive works (like stealing a playground) or issues should be dealt with in a professional and accountable manner - so? erm? where is the accountability there then..

Condition 22 - Construction management plan - Appendix D - Demolition Phase

The demolition phase drawings show the Playground - still intact

In order to have confidence in local government, people have to believe what officers of the local authority say - here the planning process seems to have been a meaningless "tick box" exercise

What's this all about? If you view the above planning application you will see it is linked to another ref HGY/2016/1213 - which has an S106 Decision attached

What is an S106 Decision?

According to the Haringey website (link: https://www.haringey.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning/planning-policy/planning-obligati...)

As part of the planning process a local planning authority and a developer may enter into a legal agreement to enable any adverse impacts of a development to be offset, to enhance the physical environment or to contribute to local facilities where this is not possible through planning conditions.

This agreement, known as a Section 106 agreement (the legislative basis for planning obligations is Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) is a delivery mechanism for the matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms

Looking at the S106 Decision for Elizabeth Place

To look at the S106 Decision for Elizabeth Place go to the bottom of the Application Search for the older application - 

HGY/2016/1213. (link:http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=289524)

You need to look at the document S106 Decision (1).pdf

Excerpts from the S106 Decision for Elizabeth Place

Will we ever get the park back in my lifetime? The developer is responsible for the maintenance of Elizabeth Place Park for the lifetime of the development

So, here the developer is responsible for the maintenance of Elizabeth Place Park for the lifetime of the development

... and the Elizabeth Place Park Footpath

Council meeting minutes Planning Subcommittee Thursday 3rd November 2016

Meeting of Planning Sub Committee, Thursday, 3rd November, 2016 7.00 pm (Item 48.)

Council meeting minutes Planning Subcommittee Thursday 3rd November 2016 - says NOTHING about taking the park

Please feel free to browse the Meeting of Planning Sub Committee, Thursday, 3rd November, 2016 7.00 pm (Item 48.) 45-63Lawrence Road N15 4EN (HGY/2016/1213)

Representatives for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The schemes would provide new housing including a 19% affordable housing contribution across the two sites as well as in demand family housing.

·         Car parking provision would solely be for disabled access thereby allowing increased landscaping and tree planting, with a net increase of 12 trees across the sites.

·         New commercial floorspace would be generated which would be retained and managed by the developer, with part used as a headquarters.

·         Improvements would be made to Elizabeth Place Park and the open ground to the north at the lead of a steering group. (Nothing about taking it)

·         The QRP was in support of the schemes.

·         Internal balconies were proposed to reduce overlooking.

·         The footprint of the woodland area would be retained as an open landscaped area with significant trees retained and secured under condition.


Where is this 'steering group' from the planning sub-committee? Who are they? Where do they meet?  Where are the meeting minutes?

So THIS is what Elizabeth Place Park is going to look like?!

There are currently 10 members of this private Facebook group, set up by the developer: Is this the Steering Group (set up June 1st 2021)?

There are currently 10 members of this private Facebook group, set up by the developer: Is this the Steering Group (set up June 1st 2021)?

Was the park sold by an unelected official?

RESOLVED

·         That planning applications HGY/2016/1212 and HGY/2016/1213 be approved and that the Head of Development Management be authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to the signing of a section 106 Legal Agreement providing for the obligation set out in the Heads of Terms.

 

·         That the section 106 Legal Agreement referred to above be completed no later than 31/11/2016 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning shall in her/his sole discretion allow; and

 

·         That following completion of the agreement(s) referred to above within the time period provided for above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions

 

·         That delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended heads of terms and/or recommended conditions as set out in the officer report and to further delegate this power provided this authority shall be exercised in consultation with the Chairman (or in their absence the Vice-Chairman) of the Sub-Committee.

Meeting of Planning Sub Committee, Thursday, 3rd November, 2016 7.00 pm (Item 48.)

Vindictive bullying when a child dies

By Brian Leveson • 28 Sep, 2023
About 3 or 4 times a year we get the euphemistic message 'Parents please note we have put a letter in your child's bag' - its a world away from how a child's death was handled in my child's first school

10 stages of exponentially increasing incompetence

By Brian Leveson • 27 Sep, 2023
More of a trial by ordeal than a well organised clearly set out administrative process for moving the care of vulnerable young adults from Haringey's Children's Services to Adult Services. We have been failed at every stage of the process.

Active travel does not work if you are paraplegic and Transport for London seem to make the rules up as you (try to) go along...

By Brian Leveson • 24 Sep, 2023
Never EVER get on the bus without a camera running if you need the priority wheelchair space

Move your f-cking buggies from the wheelchair spaces on buses

By Brian Leveson • 17 Sep, 2023
The reality of using a London Bus in the teeming rain on a Sunday afternoon is no joke when the parents of a paraplegic person in a wheelchair clash with the self-entitled buggy-pushing parents of toddlers.

The barefaced lies of Haringey Council

By Brian Leveson • 13 Sep, 2023
At 3pm today I received some barefaced lies from Haringey Council Adult Social Care in response to a photograph I published online yesterday and the media interest it generated

Haringey SEND Transport: 17 year old obnoxious diesel fume spewing death trap on wheels - and Haringey knows it

By Brian Leveson • 22 Jun, 2023
Haringey SEND Transport are insisting that a 17 year old minibus with no air conditioning is a suitable vehicle to transport my paraplegic son in this heatwave. The appalling conditions inside the minibus inside the bus is something they knew about last summer, yet they have to date done nothing whatsoever provide a suitable minibus this year nor appropriately mitigate the temperatures inside the minibus.The conditions inside the minibus are so bad that they triggered multiple seizures during the heatwave as my son has epilepsy, which they SEND transport department know about and they also know that they are triggered by heat.It is not just son who is impacted: last year we know of one child who died on Haringey SEND Transport in the summer heatwave and another who had seizures.

Is this really NECESSARY?

By Brian Leveson • 03 Jan, 2023
I am simply asking a question - are we all absolutely certain that the road closure / travel restrictions (commonly know as LTNs) placed on some of the most severely disabled people who are wholly reliant on cars are absolutely necessary

Disabled people need permission to travel for every single trip!

By Brian Leveson • 02 Jan, 2023
Haringey's road closures exemptions policy for disabled people is not fit for purpose, unduly burdensome and intrusive - it's time to stand up against the pro-LTN lycra-clad cycling bullies

2 Wheels GOOD, Blue Badge Holders EVIL?

By Brian Leveson • 01 Jan, 2023
Is the argument for and against exemptions for disabled people in Low Traffic Neighbourhoods really a case of GOOD versus EVIL?

Should Peray Ahmet resign as Leader of Haringey Council and take her pro-LTN bullies with her?

By Brian Leveson • 31 Dec, 2022
Letters from Labour Grandees and survey results from Haringey Council show people who opposed LTNs are women, elderly and disabled. Yet Peray Ahmet has described anti-LTN people as homophobic, islamophobic, sexist, racist and xenophobic.
More Posts
Share by: