Report by Ben Locker of 2007 planning meeting in Stamford Hill

I'm republishing this courtesy of Ben Locker who wrote a blog called Hackney Lookout until 2008. He also wrote a piece in the Hackney Citizen with Charedi blogger "The Shaigetz" called The Goy next door 

June 27th, 2007

Whose law is it anyway? (pt 3)

About 15 years ago, I read a study that found racist attitudes were eroded when members of different groups came to live together in the same residential block. Partly this was because people got to see each other more often, began to share the same concerns and - the reason I thought most resonant at the time - because everyone enjoys having an audience when they’re complaining about how badly-treated they are by their boss, landlord or whoever else is in authority over them.

If there’s one thing that would help community cohesion in Stamford Hill at the moment, then it’s a bout of close-harmony whingeing about the many ways we have all been shafted by Hackney Council over the last decade or more. But one other thing’s for certain: if the various groups on the Hill continue to use shoddy and dishonest tactics themselves, no matter how admirable their motives, we’re not only sending a gilt-edged invitation to that local authority to shaft us some more, we’re going to find this place turned into a tinderbox.

That much was clear to me yesterday evening, when I went to a meeting organised by Hackney Planning Watch at Stamford Hill Library. I was two minutes late and skipped signing the register so that I could be one of the last allowed in. I bagged a spot by the wall where I could stand and not only get a good view of the speakers and everyone in the room, but could see out of the window and into the glass lined corridor opposite.

I’ve worked with Civic Societies before, and most would have been astonished by (and envious of) the number of local people who turned up to discuss a planning issue. There were about a hundred people in a room laid out for seventy, and there was a crowd of at least thirty more outside the door noisily demanding entrance. I could see quite a few trying to get a view of the meeting from the corridor.

So why the passionate interest? Put simply, the Council has released a document that contains suggested alterations to the regulations that control residential alterations and extensions in parts of the borough. If these suggestions are adopted, different planning laws will apply to residents in three areas: Queens Drive in Finsbury Park; Cricketfield Road in Hackney Downs; and 38 streets that comprise the core of my own area, Stamford Hill.

The new regulations are being proposed in Stamford Hill for a number of reasons. Firstly, the area is home to a long-established Orthodox Jewish community, members of which belong to families with an average of 5.9 children. Living space is in short supply and, to accommodate such large families, many have built extensions on the fronts, sides, tops or backs of their houses - and sometimes have done all four. A high proportion of these extensions would (under normal circumstances) have fallen foul of planning regulations but, for one reason or another, have been approved by the council. A significant number have been built with no reference to planning laws whatsoever, and have still not been awarded permission.

In other words, the extensions are a short-term solution to meet the needs of one rapidly-growing section of the community. Its members have been angered by a Council that is now more likely to refuse extensions and, with not a little justice, complain that it is unfair to crack down on these developments when they have been tolerated (or ignored) by the Council for years.

However, many of these extensions have angered other people who live in the Stamford Hill area. Some residents complain that the developments block the light that reaches their own properties. Others point to the noise nuisance that is exacerbated by larger numbers of people living in bigger properties near them. Many are angered by the fact that a good number of developments have wrecked the streetscape and damaged the original shape of Victorian and early-Edwardian terraces. Still more make the point that the developments are storing up trouble for the future, making Stamford Hill overcrowded, encouraging cowboy developers, giving people the incentive to carve up properties into flats and bedsits, and creating urgent problems with structure and flooding.

And underlying all this is a growing resentment nurtured by some people who feel that the Orthodox Jewish community appears to be given de facto special treatment under planning law. No wonder it was a crowded meeting.

Sadly, in such circumstances, good sense often takes a back seat when one’s own interests are at stake. For example, I was very grateful to Hackney Planning Watch (HPW) for calling the meeting, especially as I had no idea that there had been a consultation on the proposed regulations, let alone that it had closed. However, the first thing that I did after reading HPW’s leaflet was to go and find the planning document on Hackney Council’s website (it’s here. What this document does propose is changes to the regulations to front roof slopes, rear roof slopes, and rear extensions. What it does not do is “abandon our streets to unregulated property developers”, as HPW put it. Nor does it cover those developers who “are even applying to build three story houses in residential back gardens”. Nor was it appropriate - at all - for someone from the table to say to Councillor Coggins that “it was your party who sold off our social housing”. I happen to agree, but it was unfair and antagonistic to one of only three councillors who made the effort to show up.

That said, what the proposals are suggesting - and this is the thorniest point for me - that residents within three defined areas of the borough should be subject to different regulations than their neighbours a few streets away. For that reason I thought it highly disingenuous of Councillor Odze to argue that we will all still be subject to planning regulations. Yes we will councillor, but different ones: that is not equality under the law.

This is the point that, more than any other, needs answering and I think that members of the Orthodox community recognise that it is the biggest obstacle to the proposals becoming law. I can think of no other reason why, instead of answering that question, most of the arguments in favour of adopting the new regulations fell into the “Oh go on, we’re nice” category; most notably when a girl of about 12 stood up to make a prepared speech about how her own home was too crowded for her to do her schoolwork properly, how her family faces pressures that arise from her brother’s serious lung disease and how she did “not feel we have been accepted or given space.”

I sympathise, but there are many people across London with similar problems. Should the new regulations apply to them too?

Similarly, I was astonished by the argument one person put forward that Stamford Hill has a miniscule crime rate, thanks to the Orthodox Jewish community: even going so far as to say “when did you last hear of someone mugged by an Orthodox Jew?” Apart from the fact that it ignores a problem with unrecorded crimein the Haredi community, what on earth has that got to do with planning law?

To return to the wider point, though, there was much that was positive about the meeting that could be used as a basis for us all. By and large, all communities on the Hill are sympathetic to (and often adore) large families. Most of us agree that we need more space to have a happier family life (I know I would like a lot more). I also think we all agree that the council’s past inaction and its approval of certain developments have stored up trouble that is now bearing ill-fruit. And I think that, deep down, we all know that allowing inappropriate extensions will only provide a short-term solution for a small proportion of families.

What we need to be asking is what we do about the problem long term. And for that we should be asking ourselves some hard questions, such as whether allowing our planning system to become a communal issue is ever going to be for the wider good, no matter what the motives behind it.

We should then be turning to the council and asking some hard questions, like: Why hasn’t there been a proper consultation on this measure?

Why were the new regulations only published after the local elections?

Why did no member of the council’s ruling party attend last night’s meeting to listen to the citizens’ concerns?

And when we’ve got their answers we can get started on that close-harmony whingeing I was talking about. It will do us all a lot more good than finger pointing, jealousy or diluting the rather limited protection that planning law already gives us.

Maureen Middleton: true blue in red sea

Conservative councillor Maureen Middleton died of a heart attack last week aged 68. She was, I've been told, born and bred in Hackney and one of the borough's longest serving councillors having been elected in 1998.

Apparently her interests included health, social care and housing - particularly Woodberry Down which was mostly in her ward - and leaseholders' issues.

I never got to speak to her but I've been told she was a right-to-buy leaseholder herself and fought against leaseholders having to pay too much for repairs. As a leaseholder who has been overcharged by Hackney Homes for major works - the bill had to be corrected to the tune of thousands - I know where she was coming from.

With her seat in the New River ward Cllr Middleton represented a large ultra orthodox Jewish population - there was a brief tribute to her today in the Jewish Chronicle with a quote from former Hackney Mayor Joe Lobenstein who said she understood the Stamford Hill Jewish community.

Not surprisingly she was not a great fan of Jules Pipe, Hackney's Labour administration or the Blair/Brown government.

Here's a taste of the old days from N16 magazine circa 2002: When the council proposed taking rubbish collection back in house: "This enraged Tory Councillor Maureen Middleton and she threatened that 2,500 tenants from Woodberry Down estate would chain themselves to the railings of the Town Hall if their Sunday bin collection was stopped. She was denounced by Jules Pipe, the Council Leader, who is seeking voluntary redundancy from that job to run for the post of Mayor with its much better pay and prospects...."

Her belief in right-to-buy, people having to stand on their own feet, and in the ownership of property was classic Conservative territory. Apparently she was also a supporter of motorists' rights and there was standing joke that she didn't like cyclists.

Cllr Middleton's debating methods were seen by some as aggressive - she did not pull any punches - despite this there is a consensus that she was honest to her own beliefs and fought hard for the people she represented.

Labour Councillor Luke Akehurst said: "Despite some sometimes heated exchanges in the chamber I always found Maureen very easy to get on with when we met socially, and I know that she was always motivated as a councillor by wanting to fight for the best outcomes for the residents of her ward. Like all the members of the Tory group she treated me with great kindness during my recent illness. I had only just started to work more closely with her on the Health in Hackney Scrutiny Commission and had been looking forward to working with her. She will be greatly missed, particularly by residents of New River Ward."

Hackney Gazette reports 2 minute silence for Maureen
Council statement
Hackney Citizen reports Lib Dems joining the Maureen Middleton fan club
I asked for comments from here Conservative colleagues but have not yet received replies.

BY ELECTION: This is likely to be held at the beginning of October. Some believe that the most likely Conservative candidate will be Harvey Odze. Any ultra orthodox Jewish candidate is likely to do well - (the high voter turnout for the combined General, Mayoral and Council elections have been blamed for the Conservative failure in New River in the last election) - but there could be a back lash from the ultra orthodox Jewish community which will be hit hard by the coalition government's housing benefit caps.

New River is the worst affected ward with 239 housing benefit claimants currently paying rent that will be above the new caps (It used to be completely Conservative but Maureen Middleton just was the only Conservative councillor left after the last election)

Springfield: 227 affected (Now represented by two Conservative councillors and one Labour)
Cazenove: 210 affected (Now represented by three Lib Dems)
Lordship: 164 affected (Now represented by one Conservative and two Labour)

This means that the majority of the councillors representing these wards come from the parties which have imposed the cuts.

The Labour party will have to choose a candidate but the front runner is Yusuf Kilinc who fought in the May election and only narrowly lost, winning more votes than Harvey Odze.

A tale of two Labour Parties? Conservative implosion

A TALE OF TWO LABOUR PARTIES?

Hackney Labour Councillors now outnumber opposition councillors by more than 6 to 1. The number of opposition councillors has fallen from 12 to 7 while the number of Labour Councillors has risen from 45 to 50.

Labour's gains were achieved without fielding any ultra-orthodox Jewish candidates - an impressive feat considering the size and political clout of this community in Hackney. In addition, Jules Pipe and his Labour group appear to specifically avoid making deals with ethnic/religious groups.

Meanwhile, in neighbouring Haringey, Labour councillors staved-off the threat of a Conservative breakthrough by pushing through planning concessions that will help large families - a demand that has been made by the ultra-orthodox Jewish community in Hackney, with the support of the Conservative group - but which was refused by Hackney Council.

The reason for the deal making in Haringey appears to have been the by-election in the Seven Sisters ward last year when the Conservatives fielded an ultra-orthodox Jewish candidate who lost by just 64 votes.

But the planning deal may have been unnecessary. Last week's elections saw a massive turn out for Labour in Seven Sisters with all its candidates more than 1000 votes ahead of the Conservatives - including the same ultra-orthodox Jewish candidate who nearly won last year.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Before the elections Rabbi Abraham Pinter told Blood and Property that the Seven Sisters ward in Haringey would prove or disprove claims that ultra-orthodox Jews will only vote for candidates from within their community. The claim was made by Jewish historian Geoffrey Alderman and the leader of Hackney's Lib Dem Group, Ian Sharer.

However it is unclear whether Pinter or Alderman and Sharer have been proved correct by the election result. The huge London-wide turnout for the Labour Party swamped local subtleties.

But, whether it needed to or not, it appears that the Haringey Labour Party specifically sought the support of the ultra-orthodox Jewish community and it did so by offering planning concessions. This seems to be exactly the kind of deal making that Hackney council avoids and the last election seems to have put Hackney Council in a stronger position to resist the race-based politics that Geoffrey Alderman believes will eventually take over. (Stop worrying and learn to love race politics)


CONSERVATIVE IMPLOSION?

The Hackney Conservative Group has been reduced from 9 to 4. There are no longer any Green Councillors. However the Lib Dems gained one seat - Abraham Jacobson - who replaced Joseph Stauber (a Lib Dem who defected to Labour). (ALSO, A CORRECTION IS REQUIRED IN RELATION TO Cllr Jacobson, I referred to him as an ultra-orthodox Jew but he is modern orthodox. He left a comment at the end of this post.) The Lib Dems now have three seats.

The Conservative group's most obvious problem was in the Lordship ward where the party lost two of the three seats it held.

Ultra orthodox Jewish councillor Bernard Aussenberg was the only Conservative who held his seat in the ward, doing so with 1,401 votes. The other seats were taken by Labour candidates Edward Brown - took the most votes with 1,827 - and Daniel Stevens who took 1,378.

This left the leader of the Hackney Conservative Group, Matthew Coggins, in fourth place with 1,261 votes, too few to regain his seat.

The other Conservative seat in the ward that had belonged to another ultra orthodox Jewish councillor - Simon Tesler. But Tesler was deselected by Lordship Conservatives. His replacement, Alexander Ellis, failed to win enough votes.

There was some kind of dispute over Tesler's deselection which was intensified when Tesler stood as an independent. Coggins told the Jewish Chronicle: "Mr Tesler was deselected not because of the time he spent representing the strictly Orthodox community but because of his lack of attendance at council meetings. "

The cost of this dispute may have been at least one seat. Coggins won 1,261 votes and Ellis 1,079.

They were beaten by Labour's Daniel Stevens who took 1,378 votes.

Simon Tesler won 467 votes.

Although 118 votes is pretty clear margin at this level, Coggins will probably wonder what would have happened if the disgruntled Simon Tesler had not decided to stand as an independent.

Who stood,
Who was elected
Hackney councillors

Democracy problem in Stamford Hill?

Is there a pact between Jewish politicians in Stamford Hill not to stand against each other in elections?

Some Hackney politicians have commented on this - unfortunately most of it was off the record. One suggested that there may be a pact between the Lib Dems and the Conservative Jewish candidates not to stand against each other.

But this week Cllr Matthew Coggins, leader of the Hackney Conservative group denied this.

The evidence suggests that Orthodox Jewish candidates don't oppose each other, whichever political party they represent. If this due to a comfortable arrangement between politicians in opposing parties, it would be antidemocratic.

But the conspiracy theory - and its implications for democracy - is not the only explanation.

1. A religious principle?

One non-Jewish councillor said: "The main reason they won’t stand against each other is a reluctance to promote division within the community. They don’t want to encourage that.
At the same time they are not terribly interested in it. There are religious principles about not having these arguments publicly."

The same councillor claimed that there may be a scriptural justification for this avoidance of conflict. Asked if there was some specific text that dealt with this he said: "There is, yes, but I’m not entirely clear about what it is. But it is not a rule."

Ian Sharer, leader of the Lib Dems said there was no religious reason why candidates from the Jewish community couldn't stand against each other: "It is not a scriptural thing. The basic thing is that the Jewish community votes for Jewish councillors. They don't care which party you're in. They support you if you're Jewish."

2 Not enough candidates:

One councillor said: "Another reason why they aren’t standing against each other is that there aren’t people there who want the job."

He said that parties didn't have Jewish candidates queuing up and said that Labour had been looking for an OJ councillor for years before Joseph Stauber defected from the Lib Dems.

But Ian Sharer said that having more than one Jewish candidate in an election made it "confusing" and that these conflicts could get "nasty and a bit silly". But he didn't say there was a formal agreement not to stand against each other, adding that it had happened in the past.

3. Conspiracy:

That Jewish candidates agree not to split the Jewish vote and so do not stand against each other.

The evidence is simply that Jewish candidates very rarely stand against each other. I've been told - but haven't checked - that the last time Jewish candidates stood against each other was in the New River by election in 2005 when Harvey Odze (Conservative) and Mani Silver (Lib Dem) stood against each other.

But prior to that there is a long gap going back to Abraham Pinter - who became a Labour Councillor in the 80s/90s.

Pipe: The message must be clear, not true

Hackney's politicians kicked-off last week's Full Council meeting with an argument about the minutes of the April meeting. This was in relation to Mayor Jules Pipe's accusation that Conservative Cllr Steinberger had abused his position as chair of Hackney's Overview and Scrutiny committee. The Conservatives wanted to change the minutes.

Later, during a seemingly pedantic exchange between Mayor Pipe and Conservative Cllr Harvey Odze, Odze attacked the Mayor's long-running claim that Hackney has no tube stations, pointing out that Manor House tube is in the borough.

Pipe replied that while Odze was technically correct and that, yes, a few staircases from underground stations did surface on the fringes of the borough, he thought it best not mention them in case it confused the clear message that Hackney has no tube stations.

Pipe could be forgiven for maintaining his 'clear' message but there was something disturbing about the ease of his confession that Odze's facts would only have confused newspaper correspondents and government officials who needed persuading. These facts did not fit in with the image of Hackney that he was promoting. It would be interesting to know where else Pipe may have applied this clear message policy.

May be his speech at the council meeting was an example. The Mayor spent his alloted time telling councillors the good news about Hackney as set out in - Place Survey England - Headline Table Results 2008 which appeared to show that Hackney residents love their borough.

Some of the survey findings that weren't mentioned by Mayor Pipe were that: 47% of Hackney respondents think there is a problem with people not treating each other with respect and consideration; 56.4% of respondents "think that drug use or drug dealing is a problem in their local areas" - exceeded only by Newham and Tower Hamlets (60.7% and 60.5%); 41% of Hackney residents think that drink and rowdy behaviour is a problem in their area and 37% think that anti-social behaviour is a problem in their local area.

And yet the survey then claimed that 71% of Hackney residents "are satisfied with their local area as place to live" (In comparison to 56% in Newham and 69% in Tower Hamlets - 90% in Kensington and Chelsea and 92% in Richmond Upon Thames.)

In Hackney only 27% of the people who were asked to take part in the survey, took part. The report said: "where response rates are low (less than 30%) and confidence intervals are wide (outside +/- 3 percentage points) some caution may be necessary when using the results to set performance targets (for example as part of local area agreements), particularly when the target is linked to a financial reward." So may be the Hackney figures can't be trusted.

But the survey - and the Mayor's interpretation of it - should provide an antidote to figures published earlier this week by the Office of National Statistics which apparently show that Hackney kids, along with those in Tower Hamlets and Newham, get the worst start in life and are likely to be obese and living in households where every adult is unemployed.

Meanwhile comments made by security minister and Hackney resident Lord West of Spithead - that it is not safe to walk around Hackney with an iPhone - might not have fitted in with the borough's official image management either.