Planning+-+Archive+-+Communities+First!+Planning+Conference+Sept+2004


 * Haringey Federation of Residents Associations**

=**REPORT OF THE 'COMMUNITIES FIRST' RESIDENTS CONFERENCE**= =**ON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT**=


 * __September 25th 2004 - Wood Green Library__**


 * Organised by The Haringey Federation of Residents Associations. Supported by Haringey’s Friends of Parks Forum, Agenda 21, The Tree Trust, Joint Conservation Area Advisory Committees, Community Empowerment Network, Bio-diversity Partnership, Living Streets - and Planning Aid for London**


 * Haringey residents call for the needs of the community to**
 * have priority in all planning and development decision-making**

On Saturday 25th September at Wood Green Library 80 Haringey residents from 49 local organisations and groups from all over the borough took part in a historic 'Communities First!' residents conference on planning and development issues - the first such event ever held in the borough. Participants included residents associations, 'friends of parks' groups, conservation societies and environmental organisations, as well as individual residents.

The conference was organised by the Haringey Federation of Residents Associations in response to the many local concerns and controversies of recent years. There have been a wide range of local community campaigns and protests as communities have acted to try to protect the positive features in their neighbourhoods, and to oppose unsuitable developments.

The aim was to enable local residents to learn how the planning system works, to discuss planning policies, and to share local news, views and experiences. The event coincided with the 6-week consultation over the Council's revised 'Unitary Development Plan' which sets the official planning policies for the next 10 years. The plan was discussed in depth, and many organisations were due to be responding in the following weeks to some of the proposals in it.

There were also discussions on how to respond to planning applications; conservation of notable buildings and areas; opposing 'backland' housing sites; protection of parks and green spaces; influencing major development schemes (including 'Heartlands' in Wood Green); and positive ideas for the kind of neighbourhoods which local people really want.

The message that came out of this highly successful event was that we, as residents, want to protect and enhance our local neighbourhoods and environment, and improve community facilities and services. At the same time we're angry that more and more developments, especially house-building schemes, are placing an ever greater burden on our already over-subscribed schools and inadequate health services, and threatening our green spaces. All manner of schemes are being pushed through by private developers, supported by local and central government, against the wishes of local people.

At the end of the conference a resolution [full text overleaf] was unanimously passed calling for community needs to take priority in all planning decisions and procedures.

It seemed to conference participants that local concerns, controversies and protests are going to continue to increase throughout the borough. Hence residents in every neighbourhood were to be encouraged to organise together to stand up for their interests.


 * //Note://** //The Haringey Federation of Residents Associations is the umbrella organisation for all the local residents and tenants associations throughout the borough (currently numbering about 120)//


 * The Conference discussed, amended and passed the following resolution:**


 * Communities First!** We recognise that there are a wide range of highly diverse planning issues, projects and applications - that each one needs to be considered on its merits, and there may be a mixture of views. However, regarding those which may impact on community life, we believe the following general guidelines may help express the interests of local communities.

1. We support developments that improve the local neighbourhood and the lives of the residents

2. We support the conservation of all notable buildings and areas, and the natural environment.

3. We oppose developments that are inappropriate or against the interests of local communities and neighbourhoods.

4. We oppose developments that overburden local services, such as education and health.

5. All permitted developments that impact on local neighbourhoods or communities should have strong conditions imposed that protect the interests of those communities

6. We call for greater openness in the planning process, including adequate notification to all those who may be affected, better communication and fuller consultation of local communities.

7. We call on Haringey Council to provide adequate resources to the Planning Service to ensure that the above objectives are addressed, and where necessary, enforced.

//__Some further explanation of the 5 of the 7 points:__//


 * 1.** We support developments for example which increase open space, improve the environment or local amenities, help create a safer and friendlier street scene, or reduce housing density or traffic volumes etc
 * 3.** We particularly oppose inappropriate developments in, or bordering, residential areas
 * 4.** Some developments clearly overburden existing services and facilities, especially in areas where there is already a recognised problem or deficiency, eg. overcrowding, over-development, not enough school places, health facilities or open space, or too much traffic or street clutter etc
 * 5.** Under current 'Section 106' provisions, conditions can include creation of additional open space, greenery, off street parking, affordable housing, employment of local people; restrictions on opening hours or noise, and a requirement to clear up any litter generated etc; and financial or other contributions to improving local public facilities, education, health, street scene, parks etc
 * 6.** For example there should be public notices in the local press, and full information provided on request.


 * The following workshop discussions were held:**

applications? What is the best way to respond? What’s the procedure? Who makes the decisions?
 * 1.** **How to object or contribute to a planning application.** How do we find out about
 * Contributors:** Carol Ryall (Planning Aid), A representative of the Town and Country Planning Association, Simon Fedida (Ave Gdns RA)

conservation important? How many areas and buildings are protected? Is this effective? What can we do to protect historical features in our communties?
 * 2.** **Conservation of the built environment: protecting notable buildings & areas.** Why is
 * Contributors:** Marian Janes (Conserv. Area Advisory Cttees), Jacob O’Callaghan (Hornsey Historical Soc)


 * 3. Housing sites and design.** The Council are proposing a massive expansion in house-building – 20,000 more homes. What effect would this have on our communities (including ‘backlands’ sites), and our local services etc? What can be done?
 * Contributors:** Bob Maltz (GLC-RAG), Sam Ewart (St James’ Lane RAC), Colin Kerr (Ave Gdns RA)


 * 4. Parks and green spaces.** Are our green spaces as valued and protected as they should be? How do we ensure they have the public facilities we need, but are not built on? What about protecting trees and informal green spaces, such as front gardens? **Contributors:** Joan Curtis (Friends of Parks Forum), Grahame Pearce (Wildlife Trust), Friends of Woodside Park


 * 5. How to campaign against a planning application or development project.** How can local residents organise together to influence planning decisions? How do we get publicity? And how can we successfully promote our interests and defend our communities?
 * Contributors:** Ofer (GreenN8), Bob Maltz (GLC-RAG) and Sam Ewart (St James’ Lane RAC)


 * 6. Major development schemes eg Heartlands, Tottenham Hale & Wards Corner.** Major schemes can have a huge affect over a wide area of the borough. What are the issues? How can affected communities have a real input, and a real effect on the decision-making process?
 * Contributors:** Laurie Owen (PMRA & HEART), Judith Hanna (CARA & Wards Corner group)


 * 7. The Council's Unitary Development Plan (and the Mayor's London Plan).** What is the ‘UDP’, and why is it so significant? How do residents respond during the consultation period? How can we ensure the needs of communities are reflected in planning policies?
 * Contributors:** Colin Kerr (Ave Gdns RA), Quentin Given (FOE/Agenda21)


 * 8. Neighbourhoods-we'd-like - planning for the future.** What physical improvements would we like to see in local neighbourhoods? What kind of services and facilities, and local environment? How do we work towards what we really want, not just oppose developments we don’t want?
 * Contributor:** Dave Morris (Chestnuts Northside RA)


 * W1. How to object or contribute to a planning application**
 * Contributors:** Carol Ryall (Planning Aid), Simon Fedida (Ave Gdns RA)
 * Chair:** Pat (Bowes Pk CA) **Note taker:** John Crompton (MH&FGA)


 * W2. Housing sites and design**
 * Contributors:** Bob Maltz (GLC-Res Act Grp), Sam Ewart (St James’ Lane RAC), Colin Kerr (Ave Gdns RA)
 * Chair:** Colin Kerr (Ave Gdns RA) Note taker:


 * W3. Parks and green spaces (+ trees and gardens etc)**
 * Contributors:** Joan Curtis (Friends of Parks Forum), Grahame Pearce (Wildlife Trust), Friends of Woodside Park
 * Chair:** Jane Laporte (Woodlands Pk RA) **Note taker:** Pat Ayinde (BGRN)


 * W4. Conservation of the built environment: protecting notable buildings & areas**
 * Contributors:** Marian Janes (Conserv. Area Advisory Cttees), Jacob O’Callaghan (Hornsey Historical Soc)
 * Chair:** Joyce Rosser (Warner Estate RA) **Note taker:**


 * W5. How to campaign against a planning application or development project**
 * Contributors:** Ofer (GreenN8), Bob Maltz and Sam Ewart (GLC-RAG)
 * Chair:** **Note taker:** John Crompton (MH&FGA)


 * W6. Major development schemes eg Heartlands, Tottenham Hale, Wards Corner..**
 * Contributors:** Laurie Owen (PMRA & HEART), Judith Hanna (CARA & Wards Corner group)
 * Chair:** Joyce Rosser (Warner Estate RA) Note taker:


 * W7. The Council’s Unitary Development Plan (and the Mayor’s London Plan)**
 * Contributors:** Colin Kerr (Ave Gdns RA), Quentin Given (FOE/Agenda21)
 * Chair:** Pat (Bowes Pk CA) **Note taker:** Peter Thompson (MH&FGA)


 * W8. Neighbourhoods-we’d-like – planning for the future**
 * Contributor:** Dave Morris (Chest. NRA)
 * Chair:** **Note taker:** Jane Laporte (Woodl. Pk RA)

- **GreenN8** about local mass opposition to a proposed concrete factory - **St James etc RA, N10 (?)** on how local residents have objected to a ‘backlands’ housing development - **Woodlands Park RA, N15** on a campaign for the removal of scores of illegally-erected billboards in the West Green area
 * Plus presentations from:**


 * The planning process and objecting to a planning application**
 * [Report of Workshop 1]**

applications? What is the best way to respond? What’s the procedure? Who makes the decisions?
 * How do residents object or contribute to a planning application?** How do we find out about


 * Contributors:** Carol Ryall (Planning Aid), Simon Fedida (Ave Gdns RA)
 * Chair:** Pat (Bowes Pk CA) **Note taker:** John Crompton (MH&FGA)

The Council is obliged to consult those who would be directly affected by an application and it would appear that Haringey is better than some councils in how it interprets this. Site notices and advertisements in the local newspaper are used in the case of applications in conservation areas.

The letter will state the deadline for receiving comments. Get your comments in well within the deadline - the Council is not going to remind you and will go ahead with the application regardless of whether or not they have heard from you.

It is helpful to make a note of all the ways in which the application might affect you but in the letter to the Council concentrate on what are known as material considerations. This is quite an exhaustive list and there is no point at all in mentioning non-material considerations such as that it might reduce the value of your property.

Relations with neighbours vary, but they may well show you the drawings and listen to your ideas as to how any adverse affects could be reduced. In any case the drawings are available for inspection at the council offices at 639 Tottenham High Road. The name of the planning officer dealing with the case is stated on the consultation letter and if an appointment is made you can see him or her and ask for an explanation of the proposal and how it will affect you. Use this opportunity to sound him or her out as to how he thinks the applicant would regard making changes. There are a number of sources of advice about the planning system such as your local Councillor and Planning Aid for London. But bear in mind that if your local Councillor is on the Planning Applications Subcommittee they will not be able to comment in public on an application beforehand.

The council will judge the application in relation to national legislation and local plans in particular the Unitary Development Plan.

Remember at all times that there is a presumption in favour of development so unless the application is deemed to seriously fall foul of planning policy the chances are it will be granted without any further contact with the objectors. It might therefore be a more constructive use of the time available for comment to suggest changes. Most applications are dealt with under delegated powers by the Council officers. Only major schemes or ones where there have been a large number of objections are considered by the Planning Applications sub Committee. The applicant and objectors are given a few minutes to address the meeting.

Planning permissions are granted with a number of Conditions and these will include some which may be of assistance such as stipulating the hours of construction. There may also be Conditions regarding the way in which the use is to operate. Do not assume that the Council will monitor any of this or will check that the building is being constructed exactly as per the plans. So if make a detailed note or take photographs of anything amiss which you can submit to the Council so that they can take enforcement action.

//By John Crompton - Muswell Hill and Fortis Green Association, N10//


 * Parks and green spaces**
 * [Report of Workshop 3]**

__Definitions of green spaces__ v includes waste ground, recreations grounds, cemeteries and woodlands, but not railway embankments v there is a grey area of definition; some spaces that are green in Haringey are unregistered and unclassified (note: Belmont Recreation Ground is not designated as a green space in the UDP) v many green spaces in Haringey are not viewed positively by LBH but are seen as “spare” spaces

=Problems= v St Thomas More school wants to fence in part of White Hart Lane Recreation ground to make an all-weather, flood-lit sports ground. Action and petition and protests currently under way. v there is a possibility of a nursery school being built in Chestnuts Park; school expansion generally is an issue in terms of threats to parks and green spaces v there is a planning appeal happening about the green space at the rear of Laudedale Road. v Ivate Way Green should be designated a green space as it is not suitable for building.

=Successes= v there was a project suggested to build a service road through Albert Recreation Ground; this has now been dropped v the guardians of Wood Green Common have prevented the Common becoming part of the Heartlands building development; they have taken a proactive role and done local planting of plants v Friends of Railway Fields report that this area is now protected and has been designated a local Nature Reserve by English Nature; a project Officer is to be appointed, who will try to secure money for the area v there is a Haringey-wide Friends of Parks Forum that meets regularly and co-ordinates information amongst all the Friends of Parks groups

=Funding= v there is not much money allowed for parks and green spaces in LBH budget v security in parks is a major issue that comes back to funding. Some parks get less used than they might because people feel afraid when there is no park keeper; but the budget does not allow for paying park keepers v funding from outside bodies such as Active England tends to have to be used for games/sports developments v piecemeal funding results in piecemeal development

=Other issues= v the Conference pack includes a paper on the hidden benefits of parks and green spaces, including all the ecological spin-offs from plants and trees v the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) is referred to in the UDP; it is a statutory document written by local residents and the Conservation Officer and it has the same status as SPGs v LBH considers that there are adequate safeguards in present legislation to protect parks and green spaces - the legislation requires that if land is taken from a park or green space for (eg) building, an equal amount of land has to be given over to green usage. However, this is concerning because it may not happen and if it does a green space taken in one area could be replaced in different part of Haringey. As there is already a discrepancy in the amount of green space in different parts of the borough it is essential that we continue to monitor our parks and green spaces. Additionally, if a mature tree is cut down in one place, the sapling that might replace it will take years to come to maturity and will not meanwhile sustain the biodiversity that a mature tree does.

//By Pat Ayinde – Bruce Grove Residents Network, N17//

[Report of Workshop 2]
12 attendees.

Chair was Colin

Colin should have a full list of attendees

The chair introduced the session.

The attendees introduced themselves.

Bob Malz spoke about the problems of new developments in backland:

1) Any backland development behind terraced housing contradicts the urban structure.

The nature of terraced housing is public formal fronts and private informal rears where relaxation occurs. Backland is currently used as green space, garages and workshops which are informal buildings. New developments are formal and cannot fit in with the backs of existing houses.

2) Design quality is also relevant

Design of new houses should fit into surrounding but the fronts of new houses cannot fit with the backs of existing houses.

3) Trees and Wildlife

Backland areas have great bio-diversity often more so that gardens. This is destroyed by new development.

4) Loss of Economic Diversity

Loss of workshops, garages etc. Until recently there were 5 car-repair garages on backland in Crouch End. Now there is only one. This means that Crouch End residents have to drive to have their cars serviced which causes congestion and pollution.

There is parking pressure in many parts of Crouch End and loss of garages adds to this and causes parking danger where cars are double parked and parked on street corners.

5) Dereliction

Planning department sees house building as a solution to dereliction of land. This means that developers leave land derelict on purpose. This also saps local opposition. The system rewards neglect. What can be done by the council to prevent this?

Colin: SPG draft suggest steps should be taken to investigate existing use e.g. garages must be advertised for 1 year with no takers before they can be considered unwanted.

Bob: Says how for example a transport survey was made by the developer and its results not contested by planning.

Represenentive of RAC (St James’ Muswell Hill): Planning is not a fair process. Even after asking if new documents would be shown at the Planning Sub Committee and being assured that there were none a new sunlight drawing was produced.

Unknown: What can the council do. Planning officers see themselves now as being on the side of the developer but design is poor. E.g family flats with no gardens.

Representive of a backlands site which now has planning consent sitting to the immediate left of Colin: The decision to give planning permission in her case taken in 2001 was purely political as two new Lib Dem councillor had been appointed to the sub-committee.

Chris Warburton: There is a problem with housing intensification e.g. the water works was originally approved with local backing but has now been increased to a far higher number of units. It’s unlikely that local services will be able to cope. Are we building the slums of the future?

Quentin? Friends of the Earth There is a problem with overcrowding in Harringey. More affordable housing is needed. How does the council become involved?

Unknown: Proposing double facility housing i.e. 2 bedrooms with 2 kitchens allowing parent and child to live together with their own facilities. This would require fewer units overall than two one bedroom flats.

The group agreed that they were not opposed to housing per se but it needs to be appropriate to the site.

Bob Malz: Density is only considered on land area of site not including the surrounding land. This is wrong particularly for backland and is different to the situation in other countries.

Afforability of housing never seems to be a planning consideration.

PPG3 says that councils should ensure mixed and balanced communities. The planning department have enough legislation to enforce this point already but they choose not to in favour of a desire to increase the number of buildings.

Colin: Revised UDP says housing should be biased towards more rental in the west and purchase in the East in order to balance out the borough.

Chris: Pointed out that there are deprived areas in the West too.

Unknown: Double facility housing would help with care of the elderly too.

GreenN8 representative: Brief discussion on the proposed concrete factory. Is it not only new housing that can affect the existing community.

//By Matthew Walker - Back Site Fight Campaign, N8//

Conservation of historic buildings and the built environment [Report of Workshop 4]

//This workshop was chaired by Joyce Rosser (Warner Estate RA) and the main contributors were Marian Janes (CAAC), Jacob O’Callaghan (HHS), David Frith, Geraldine Marks (Queens Avenue and Fortis Green Rd RA) and Peter Thompson (MHFGA) who took the notes. The meeting started at about 2.30pm//

1 At the invitation of the Chair, Marian Janes explained the role of Conservation Area Advisory Committees (CAACs), which are active in the west of the borough. Although there are conservation areas in the east the CAACs there no longer function. There is no statutory base for CAACs but the Planning Committee, when considering a planning application in a conservation area, is bound to take their advice on matters of historical interest, architectural merit and the character of the neighbourhood. CAAC members are local resident volunteers with expertise on these issues. Their advice is usually, but not always, followed. David Frith spoke in favour of them and said that there were plans to institute a borough wide CAAC which would cover the east of the borough too. He also pointed out that the Council has a Conservation Officer who is a good contact point if residents have notice of a controversial development in a conservation area. Marian Janes had prepared a very good 2 page note on the role of CAACs and it was agreed that copies should be made available for distribution to those attending the Conference.

2 Jacob O’Callaghan is a member of the Hornsey Historical Society with a particular interest in buildings which have historical connections. He was asked by the Chair to explain how to go about having buildings listed by English Heritage, whether in a conservation area or not, and thus give them additional protection against inappropriate development. He said that such applications can be made by anyone by simply writing a letter and that he personally had made a successful application for the listing of Alexandra Palace, in the face of opposition by Haringey Council! We all agreed that CAACs and the Listing of Historical Buildings made valuable contributions to the conservation of notable buildings.

3 The group then moved on to other aspects of conservation in Haringey. Geraldine Marks made serious criticisms of the failure of enforcement officers to have developers prosecuted for the destruction of a building in Queens Avenue which was subject to conservation. She also expressed concern at the supine attitude of planning officers in the face of unauthorised changes eg to front gardens and to shop fronts. The Chair mentioned the “Gaudi” development in Muswell Hill Broadway which had been allowed to proceed without permission. There was a general feeling that a sound policy on conservation was being subverted by a lack of will on the part of the Council to sustain it.

//Peter Thompson – Muswell Hill & Fortis Green Association, N10//

Haringey UDP [Report of Workshop 7]

//This Workshop was run by the two main contributors Quentin Given (FOE/Agenda21) and Colin Kerr (Ave Gdns RA). About a dozen others attended including David Frith and Peter Thompson (MHFGA) who took the notes. It started at about 3.45.//

1 Quentin spoke first and introduced us to the concept of the Unitary Development Plan and the make up of the Haringey UDP. He showed us how it had been revised in the light of comments made on consultation. At a quick glance it appeared that there had been substantial changes both by deletions (text shown in red) and additions (text shown in blue). Those who were familiar with it confirmed that a lot of the points made by RAs had been accepted. Quentin warned that the Council might still backtrack on them in the final version so it was important to respond positively to the improvements. As for the passages which were still unsatisfactory Quentin encouraged RAs to have a further go, but not to try to introduce fresh objections and not to pursue fine points of drafting or detail. The main thing was to see that the Policy was stated in acceptable terms since compliance with the policy would determine the success or failure of future planning applications. This was of particular importance where policy was stated in relation to specific sites. The parts of the UDP which were described as “material considerations” were of less importance because although relevant to an application they would not determine the outcome. 2 Quentin went on to describe the Inquiry which would follow and reassured us that the Inspector would normally treat the interests of RAs with consideration and respect. He would wish to assist them, for example by marshalling the topics for discussion in such a way as to minimise the number of attendances. He would hold a pre-inquiry meeting in order to find out how best to manage the process. RAs would be well advised to co-operate by (a) taking a positive approach (b) not pursuing minor drafting points (c) combining with others to prevent the same arguments being put over and over. 3 Colin addressed the matter of the London Plan. He thought it was sensible that there should be an overall plan for London. It was now in final form, following its own consultation processes. There no point in trying to revise it now; and it was inevitable that the Mayor would expect individual authorities to work with rather than against his plan. He had power to call in schemes. The main danger that Colin saw was that local authorities, such as Haringey, would be mesmerised by the requirements of the London Plan and would act as if the production of a vast increase in housing (for example) was required by their own UDP when it was not. He urged RAs to see the UDP as a shield against unacceptable development and to use it accordingly. For this purpose it was necessary to study the final text carefully, particularly the relevant site-specific proposals and policies. 4 There was further discussion of the developments which were to be expected, whether high rise buildings would be coming back and how to protect communities, and diversity within communities, from housing overkill. The conclusion seemed to be that reliance on a well-drawn UDP was our best hope, combined, of course, with eternal vigilance.

Peter Thompson – Muswell Hill & Fortis Green Association, N10


 * How to campaign against planning applications and developments**
 * [Report of Workshop 5]**

Visit the **planning office** to see/get copies of the proposed development

Draw up **leaflets** to explain the proposed development, what effects it may have and how people can oppose it. Produce **petitions** for local residents to sign.

Leaflet & petition door to door in local area. Leaflet and collect signatures outside local schools etc. Leave leaflets and petitions in local shops. (Green N8 distributed 5000 leaflets to warn local residents of a proposed cement factory in their area).

As well as petitions it's also good to have draft **letters of objection** that people can modify to send in as their own objection, as the council may take more notice of individual letters than of petitions.

If the development is large or complex, and you have the skills, set up a **website** with more detailed information about the proposals.

Hold a local **meeting** to discuss what the plans entail and how people can oppose them. If it is a large development or if over 25 people sign a petition then the Council have to call a **Development Control Forum** where people can learn more and discuss the proposals. Otherwise call your own public meeting. Be inclusive - **find out everyone's skills** and get them involved. Ask people for any ideas or resources or other ways in which they can help/contribute.

You have only **21 days to respond to the proposals** - make sure people lodge objections.

Particularly if the development is large, it is helpful to **form a group** to share the workload. Good to have a co-ordinator to chase things up and bring things together. People can take on researching and writing up different issues (e.g traffic, noise, pollution, health implications, affect on community) so it's not too much work for one person, and then pull together a report to lodge with the council.

Phone **local newspapers** and tell them the story (numbers inside front cover of paper) This can be the key to quickly alerting local residents to what's happening. Can also be useful to do press releases to explain your objections, have a contact number for them to ring.

Finally, if all else fails **occupy** or block access to the site and don't let them build on it!

__Be on the alert__ Have a **planning application watch** in your area - someone regularly checking planning lists because often applications slip through without being noticed and 21 days is not long to object.

You can ask the **Planning Area Sub Committee** for copies of minutes. These are available a week before the next meeting and give details of plans plus also contain the views of the planning officer.

By Helen Steel, N15