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.

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 smokes democracy

Mayor Jules Pipe sounded so convincing when he rubbished democracy improving attempts by Hackney and other councils it hardly seemed worth revisiting the subject. But a quick look at some of the data available suggests he may have been cherry-picking.

At 29 April's full council meeting Pipe said that past efforts to interest Hackney residents in grass-roots budgeting had failed. He also said that this route for improving local democracy could end up costing taxpayers on several fronts as budgets were left unspent and pavements in disrepair led to increased insurance claims.

The mayor said that there was no evidence that past and ongoing experiments in devolved budgeting had led to improved democracy or interest in how the borough was run.

He said it had been tried in 1990: "Five neighbourhoods were given £100,000 and every year we ended up with the money unspent in a number of neighbourhoods." He said that this and other attempts to devolve budget decision making "didn't strengthen democracy in any way whatever."

One of the examples he used to strengthen his argument was Kirkless Council's devolved budget scheme and many of the negative figures he used - £600,000 was unspent in 2007/2008, some wards have £2m back-logs on pavement budgets and projects are often held back by disagreements between different parties in the same wards - were discussed in this Kirklees Council document: Safer Stronger Communities Scrutiny Panel

The final line of the documents findings is: "In the main, the practice of devolving decision-making to wards has been useful and in most cases the full allocation has been spent." Not at all the view of Mayor Pipe.

His negative view of these projects was based mainly on the belief that they didn't create the desired democratic interest.

However the report in the above link appeared to state the opposite - with cross party bickering causing problems, not disinterest. More to the point Kirklees is a Labour/Liberal led council and more likely to face these political disputes than Labour dominated Hackney. Unless Pipe thinks this process might cause rifts between his councillors.

The growth in democratic understanding also seems to be backed by this report from 2006 : "Many councils have established relatively small-scale (generally under £100,000 per area) local project budgets to be allocated by area committees. These have proved popular with councillors and community representatives alike as they represent direct decision making by frontline councillors with their communities. But they can be problematic in that they can detract frontline councillors into time-consuming allocations of small funds rather than working to influence mainstream decision making."

No doubt Mayor Pipe's response was well researched and probably based on more up-to-date information. But judging by the superficial google-searched documents I could find it looks like he's just plucked a few bad bits out to make a point he wanted to make anyway. If so, why?

If these projects don't work, where's the proof? Or is he saying that Kirklees Council can't accept that their project has failed and its leaders are deluding themselves?

Pipe was responding to a question from Conservative leader, Cllr Coggins: "What is the Mayor's attitude to 'ward budgets'? (see for example the arrangements in Brent, Westminster, Eastbourne and other authorities).

Pipe said he wanted to encourage people to understand the council decision making process and that "we are developing our approach to participatory budgeting" but it would depend on those people who want to get involved having a better understanding.

But he said the main hurdle to getting this process underway was a technical one: "We haven't done participatory budgeting sooner because this council sets it budget extremely late, usually the paper work is available in January and it would need to be available around October to be able to go to the public with ideas and gauge their reaction and involve them in the decision making process."

So no plans for grass-roots democracy in Hackney at the moment.

23,000 Hackney tenants used as a bargaining chip, Mayor claims

Someone was definitely playing politics at last night's full council meeting - but who?

I've got a feeling that the following report may be focusing on what Mayor Pipe wanted everyone to focus on - his allegations - rather than the passing of a controversial policy on housing extensions. According to some at tonight's meeting, this piece of local legislation has jammed up swathes of council officers for at least three years. (I don't know, most of this stuff was new to me)

It was also claimed that the council's position on this issue could prompt legal challenges from representatives of Stamford Hill's orthodox Jewish community who have been calling for looser planning rules in their communities to allow large families to modify their homes.

The council's position has been described as racist in the past - although such claims were not made last night, but feelings were high.

However the strongest comments came from Mayor Pipe, who accused Cllr Simche Steinberger - one of the champions of the orthodox cause - of abusing his position as chair of the borough's overview and scrutiny board.

In his statement to the council Pipe said that he had had to invoke emergency mayoral powers to ensure that 23,000 hackney house holds had their rents cut in line with government guidelines. The cuts will see these households save an average of £140 in rent per year.

Pipe claimed that efforts to push the decreases quickly through the council could have been hampered by Steinberger who, Pipe said, had refused to include the item in the formal council process unless certain conditions were met.

Pipe told the council that Steinberger refused to help unless his concerns about the handling of the controversial Residential Alterations and Extensions policy were addressed.

Pipe said that Steinbeger had been prepared to "withhold money from 23,000 households" in what he described as an "incredible abuse of his position." He said: "23,000 people could have had their rent decreases delayed and you used that as a bargaining chip." He asked what would have happened if he had not had special powers allowing him to by-pass the process.

Steinberger said: "What Mayor Pipe said is not what happened. I got a call in the morning saying what about this item. I hadn't seen any paper work and I asked officers what it was about." He said that Pipe had not returned his calls.

Cllr Coggins defended his fellow Conservative saying that Steinberger had a legitimate complaint about the way the council had dealt with the Residential Alterations and Extensions Policy. He said that he did not know that the item in question was related to rent decreases.

The council passed its recommendations on the extensions policy but not before a recorded vote was called. 34 passed the recommendations, 11 voted against and there was one abstention.

Guardian: Do Stamford Hill Jews need intergration?

And there's an interesting, but old debate at http://theshaigetz.blogspot.com/ in a piece called Yellow Brick Road.

Other stuff:

The deputy business editor of the Times thinks Hackney has made good progress and believes it is a beacon for enterprise: The success story that Labour is writing off.

And then there's the government commendation for the borough's homelessness team.