Stamford Hill neighbourhood forum a front group for councillors, claim campaigners
Cllr Linda Kelly (centre) with other members of the new Stamford Hill Neighbourhood Forum committee
Council plans to allow residents in Stamford Hill to create a local body to influence planning policy have been slammed as a ‘front’ for councillors to manipulate ethnic and religious divisions to their own advantage.
The proposal to introduce a neighbourhood forum in the north of Hackney under the provisions of Localism Act was opposed in a scathing report by campaign group Hackney Planning Watch, which called on Hackney Council to refuse the application.
“We view this proposal as an attempt by local Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians to manipulate existing ethnic and religious divisions for their own short-term advantage and to the disadvantage of the wider community,” said the Hackney Planning Watch report.
It went on: “The proposed body has no history or tradition as a community organisation, but is instead a ‘front’ for current or former councillors from minority parties.”
Hackney Planning Watch said the area the Stamford Hill neighbourhood forum would cover transcends Stamford Hill to include Stoke Newington, Clissold Park and Upper Clapton. It suggested that the forum is inconsistent with the purpose of the Localism Act 2011 and could breach the Council’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
It also said the proposed forum “reflects party political ambitions rather than an interest in the views of the local community.”
Hackney Council said in a statement this week that applications for neighbourhood forums are being considered for Stamford Hill and Chatsworth Road. It also detailed how residents can apply for Council approval to set up their own forums.
These new bodies will be able to create ‘neighbourhood plans’ and have greater influence over planning policy on matters such as building schools and loft extensions, both long time issues of contention in Stamford Hill.
Hackney Planning Watch said in their report that the orthodox Jewish community in Hackney is a minority of the population in Stamford Hill and is not a homogeneous group. It said there are divisions within it over planning issues, and requested that the Council work with Hackney Planning Watch and the orthodox Jewish community to create a ‘cross-community’ forum to address the planning needs of all residents.
The Stamford Hill neighbourhood forum has been in the works for several months and is chaired by Cllr Linda Kelly, who defected to the Conservatives from the Labour party in 2011.
Cllr Simche Steinberger, who represents the Conservative Party in the forum, said he is “gobsmacked” by the accusation that the forum is a front group for minority councillors.
Cllr Steinberger said: “This forum is for everyone no matter their colour or religion or age, and I encourage people to join.”
“I don’t know where politics comes in to this,” he said. “Because I’m a Conservative, I’m not allowed to be on the forum?”
Cllr Steinberger said the forum has been in existence for over a year and has been in dialogue with Hackney Council for much of that time. He said that individuals from the Polish, Muslim and African communities were involved, and encouraged Hackney Planning Watch to join the forum so the group will have more influence.
Cllr Steinberger also said the forum was “not to do with one particular thing” such as loft conversions, and would work on other issues including green spaces.
A six week consultation is currently under way on the plans and will end on 4 February.
Read the Hackney Planning Watch report here.
For more on the consultation go to Hackney Council.
Related:
Residents start Stamford Hill Neighbourhood Forum in advance of Localism Bill
There will be a meeting of the Lordship Ward Forum to address this matter this Monday, the 21st January 2013 from 7pm at the Lordship South Community Centre on Lordship Grove. Lordship Grove runs off Lordship Road between Grazebrook Road and Edwards Lane. Everyone is welcome.
I don’t know if the Stamford Hill neighbourhood forum can be said to be a conspiracy, but if it is, it’s a conspiracy that includes the Council and the Labour group. The forum was founded in 2011. Since then, the Council and in particular, Daniel Stevens, Labour councillor for Lordship ward, have been heavily involved in meetings with them. But Councillor Stevens has never chosen to mention this at ward forums or on his website even though the proposed area covers all of his ward, including the north side of Church Street. He has only now, under pressure, agreed to address the subject, two weeks before the consultation period ends. As for the Conservative ward councillor Bernard Aussenberg, he has apparently written to selected sections of his constituents asking them to support the forum and left others in the dark. I have asked him to attend the ward forum but he has declined on personal grounds.
It used to be that the people of Stoke Newington had proper neighbourhood forums (old style) which were advertised long in advance and had their minutes published. Anybody could put questions in advance and an official reply would be given, often by the mayor in person. It is true that they were sometimes poorly attended but they could be lively and they provided an opportunity for local people to put their grievances and concerns and share them across the area. Many meetings were lively and important especially those that addressed the Clissold Pool problems, the introduction of bendy buses and the dog control orders. All that has gone. Here in Lordship they are stage-managed by the Labour group, presumably in an effort to avoid dissent. We don’t even know if our Conservative councillor gets a say in their organisation. He has never, to my knowledge attended. And last Wednesday (the 16th) the Council’s website only listed one ward forum in Stoke Newington with a date (Clissold). Even the arranged meeting for Lordship ward was not mentioned
When Jules Pipe stifled debate on the Veolia matter at the last council meeting he said, among other things, that it was an issue that would divide our communities. It is hard to imagine anything that would cause more division than this forum proposal. And, as with the Veolia affair, the administration’s culture of secrecy increases divisions. It is clear that the Council sees the forum as a dangerous row and does not want its role in it publicised.
As for the “forum” what what comes across most clearly is its breathtaking incompetence. According to it’s constitution it is supposed to meet twice annually and hold elections but there is no record in the application of it doing so. One committee member, for example, who was appointed vice chair in November 2011 tells me that he hasn’t attended a meeting since and is now no longer listed in that position.
A ccording to government guidance and the Planning Advisory Service ‘s guidelines for good practice, a forum must demonstrate that it is representative of a community. It will usually do this by holding open days with examples of its plans and objects. This forum hasn’t done this but has lobbied only one section of the community.
Again, a forum must engage with local community and business groups. This hasn’t happened in Lordship. I can confirm that it hasn’t contacted Stokey Local, or the Clissold Park Users Group for example and I can find no involvement with tenants and residents’ associations in my part of the ward. And the Stoke Newington Business Association has never heard of it.
A forum must also give special attention to heritage and conservation appraisals – it hasn’t. There are five conservation areas in the Forum’s boundary and the Stoke Newington Advisory Committee, at least, has not been approached.
The forum should also, in its application, identify suitable sites for development. This is, after all, its rationale. The forum has not done this. In fact, finding suitable sites to develop Jewish Schools, currently a source of friction, would be something a forum could very profitably address.
We have already, in Lordship, under the aegis of the Labour dominated planning committee, severe problems. There is over-development, such the Methodist Church on Green Lanes and the Avigdor site; there is inappropriate development in or adjacent to conservation areas such as the Manor Road school and the “pillbox” in Arbor Court; there are derelict buildings like St Mary’s Lodge. Any further relaxation of planning rules would be disastrous and would be likely to affect many residents who will have no say in what happens. In short, it is clear that the current proposal is unworkable and the composition of the committee undemocratic, secretive and generally unsuitable. What Hackney Council Planning Authority should say is that we need to go back to the drawing board and start again with public meetings and proper community involvement and with a transparent and public process.
It is very important that residents make their views about the forum known to the Council as soon as possible.
There is further discussion of the forum on http://www.stokenewingtonfirst.com
Tony Harms
Secretary of the Stoke Newington Conservsation Area Advisory Committee
Previously Co-opted board member of the Stoke Newington Neighbourhood Forum
Candidate for Lordship Ward (Lib Dem) local elections 2010
The elephant in the room is the Tory benefit cap of £26,000/year. Maybe it won’t force large families into inadequate housing or split them up. Maybe there are exceptions and work arounds and I very much hope that there are, but if not then the closest options are in the West Midlands and so no more up the Lane, it will now be up the Molineux to support the Wanderers.
From Family Action:
* A couple with four children and £400 per week rent could lose more than 77% of their disposable income as a result of the changes – leaving them with only £80 per week to live on.
* The welfare caps would affect Couples substantially more than Lone Parents. This would damage incentives to enter relationships and could break up families.
From the BBC:
Families on benefits were often “freed from” the decision of whether they could afford more children, Mr Duncan Smith said, and must “cut their cloth”.
Are Councillors on this incredibly serious issue loyal to their Electors, or to their Parties? Either way some of them will be forced out along with their families by their own Parties in October. As I say, I sincerely hope that with the help of the Mayors, Leaders, Assembly Members and Parliamentarians in our city a work around can be agreed if one has not yet been put in place, for all our sakes.
Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford. And we will continue to crack down on those who try to cheat the benefit system.
Perhaps if Andrew Boff et al spent less of their time stunting housing provision, rents wouldn’t be so astronomical in the first place?
Most working families can’t afford to live in the private sector unsubsidised either. That is the desperate state of affairs that the housing shortage has brought us to. And remember, that Housing Benefit goes to the landlord.
According to DWP figures, just 0.7% of benefit expenditure is overpaid due to fraud. The net gains of reducing rents in the private sector by significantly increasing housing supply (which would additionally boost the construction sector) are obvious. But it would appear that Andrew Boff, in true Tory fashion, would rather execute a witch-hunt against the poor and exacerbate the social cleansing of London – he thinks there’s more votes in it for some reason.
Apologies Benjamin, I missed out the quotes in my previous post. That was from the 2010 Labour Party manifesto.
Since I’m not a Labour man and Labour aren’t in power, I can’t see your point. It is current Tory policy. Why not address the points in my post – if you can.
I have. Ad nauseam. Might go into more detail if you had the bollocks to meet the people you accuse of being yuppies.
“I have”?
No you haven’t. You keep chickening out – like you’ve just done again.
The trouble is, Benjamin, that slum-lords seem to charge an awful lot for rent when they know housing benefit will pick up the tab.
I worked as a legal aid housing solicitor and people would tell me they were paying £250 a week for a studio or one bed place in Edmonton. We’d send a surveyor around to report on disrepair and half of these places were near enough unfit for human habitation.
You’d think that the market would force people on benefit to move out. I suspect they will just try to make ends meet with less, end up with high arrears and even less hope when they’re saddled with sky-high debt.
The solution is to deal with rip off landlords by way of rent caps rather than HB caps.
Make it less attractive to be a slum-lord. Give the rest of us a chance to buy.
Under the current system there is little incentive for any Landlord to improve their housing stock for those in benefits. Private tenants pay higher rent for quality homes . Rent caps would exacerbate the problem. For many years people have moved to London only because the housing benefit has paid the rent. Now the goal posts have changed they are stuck.
The LHA has set a sky high minmum rent in Hackney and tresidents are now feeling the repurcussions