(UPDATED with meeting details) Travellers moved into Millfields Park this week and the number of caravans on the site has increased since the first wave on Wednesday.
Showing posts with label council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label council. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
UPDATE: Mabley Green travellers now on Millfileds?
(UPDATED with meeting details) Travellers moved into Millfields Park this week and the number of caravans on the site has increased since the first wave on Wednesday.
Monday, 27 February 2012
Blood and Property interview with Rabbi Abraham Pinter
Rabbi Abraham (Avraham) Pinter answered a number of questions about the Charedi Community in Stamford Hill and its effect on Hackney.
Sunday, 26 February 2012
Schools without planning permission mainly in Stamford Hill
Hackney Council has provided details of seven schools in the borough which are operating without planning permission, the majority of them are in Stamford Hill and appear to be ultra orthodox Jewish or Charedi schools.
Thursday, 19 January 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, 15 January 2012
Charedi community must tolerate inconvenience like everyone else
This is the statement made by Labour Councillor Ned Mulready at Hackney Council's planning sub committee on Tuesday 10 January.
He is talking about a private school for ultra orthodox Jewish pupils at 91 Amhurst Park which is one of many schools set up around Stamford Hill without planning permission.
"The judgement of whether or not to grant planning permission for a school comes down to the need for the school versus the harm it causes to the amenity of residents.
I’ll first address the need for the school. There is absolutely no need for this school to be on this specific site. The school has been built because a group of parents in the local area have decided to opt out of state education for their kids.
Now that is their right but it is a choice. They might see it as an obligation but, in law, it isn’t. It’s a choice. And we must see it as such.
The fact that there is a large group of people in an area with a preference for religious schooling over state education, in my book, doesn’t mean there is a need for a religious school, just that there is a desire.
Now, I can see how it could be argued that if there is a desire for a certain specific type of education from a large part of the local community - a type of education they have a right to choose for themselves - then you could say there is a need for a school which would provide that sort of education.
I wouldn’t agree with that definition of need.
But I can see how you could get to it.
So if we take that as given. Assume that there is a need for a school of this type (I refute that but lets just go with it).
We then come down to the judgement of where the school needs to be. Or rather, where there is a need for the school to be.
There is absolutely no reason why this school has to be built on that site or even in the Stamford Hill area.
You don’t have a right to a school on the same couple of streets that you live on. There is absolutely nothing in any law or regulation that says you do. You have decided that none of the local state schools are for you and that you are going to build your own. Fine. That’s your right.
But the onus is surely on you to find appropriate land to build on. And if you can’t find that land in the small area of Stamford Hill then you move out a bit until you do. And if the site you find isn’t perfectly located for the children who will go there, then you just have to deal with it.
And I think this is something that the Charedi community generally will have to come to terms with as the number of children in the community grows exponentially.
I travelled for two and half hours everyday I went to school there and back. That was a massive inconvenience. But I don’t think for a second that I have a right not to be inconvenienced.
I am aware that there are Charedi customs and traditions regarding having schools and synagogues in the vicinity. And I make no judgement on that. We are a religiously tolerant society and I would hate for that to be threatened.
But we are not a religious society and in law we see those who follow religious customs and traditions as doing so through choice. Therefore the fact that there may be Charedi customs and traditions regarding this should have absolutely no bearing on the assessment of need."
Cllr Mulready sits on the planning committee but was not allowed in the room during the vote or to take part in other discussions after declaring a personal interest in this planning application. Some of the issues here were addressed in the last piece: Does school row expose 'Charedi coup'?
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Should you avoid ψηφισάτω (666) on Halloween?
Until this post was written Blood and Property had a symbolically significant number of posts in its archives.
It provides an excuse to revisit October 2009 when Blood and Property asked Hackney politicians if they had ever had a brush with the supernatural. Should the operation be repeated?
Back in 2009 several Hackney politicians replied but some have moved on, like the former leader of the Conservative group who had ghost troubles in a property in Stoke Newington.
Wikipedia gives some of the background on the source and meaning of 666. However none of it's that scary, at least not in a supernatural kind of way.
But with Halloween impending and Blood and Property sounding like the title of a horror movie it seemed sensible to push past the number of the beast.
Back in 2009 several Hackney politicians replied but some have moved on, like the former leader of the Conservative group who had ghost troubles in a property in Stoke Newington.
Now there are lots of new faces on the benches in Hackney Council and their supernatural views remain uncharted meanwhile older hands may have updates. (Today's Financial Times 'exposed' a potential Conservative MEP as a ghost hunter and expert on the paranormal).
So would it be in the borough's best interests to recalibrate the ghost index? Or did Meg Hillier have the right attitude to Blood and Property's idiotic questions?
Latest on Hackney occult
Otherwise Ancient Hackney is keen to address the devil's work in your area. The most recent post (a lengthy piece of research into an advertising campaign for New Age Games on Hackney Downs) contains this reassuring comment: "It never surprises us when we discover occult symbolism contained within government literature, so on seeing The Venus Map... our response amounted to nothing more than a raising of the eyebrows."
And something on Hackney UFOs too: http://hauntedskies.blogspot.com/2011/10/hackney-ufo-1970-source-material.html
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Questions for Gardeners Question Time and Hackney
De Beauvoir Gardeners will be hosting the BBC's GQT (that's Gardener's Question Time) in the crypt of St Peter's Church in De Beauvoir Square with tickets selling for £2 for people who aren't members of De Beauvoir Gardeners.
I read about it in the Gazette and it's on 7th June hopefully tickets are still for sale - although I couldn't find it on the BBC's website (that doesn't mean its not there) or on the St Peter's website for the crypt.
I can't go even if there are tickets. But if anyone's looking for questions...
Firstly, are gnomes ok? I used to fear them but not enough to remove my predecessor's collection, now a lost village of gnomes usually hidden in my back garden.
But is there a Hackney angle to the garden debate? The politics of gardening presents some ideas. This essay contained lots interesting ideas and was based on Hackney City Farm. Among the many points it made was that Hackney doesn't have enough allotments: 'While there are over 30,000 active allotment holders in London, (Garnett 2005) there are only 124 remaining allotment plots in Hackney (Hackney Council, 2008), home to some 212,200 people (Ibid., 2010)– nowhere near 4 acres per 1000 people.'
And: 'These socio‐political histories had the effect of restricting garden use and urban land cultivation to wealthier classes by limiting access to a large part of London’s green space to those with private transportation, private gardens, or access to government licensed allotments.'
Otherwise there's less cerebral problems like the Hackney blogger Glamorous Gardener's occasional run-ins with the authorities (The older problem with passion flowers and dead rosemary and the more recent camomile lawn and clematis trampling incident.)
Or last year when the Council wouldn't let gardeners do voluntary work in Hackney parks and public areas unless they paid £1000. This might have changed - apparently Jules Pipe was onto the legal department about it - and there seems to be a full schedule of stuff going on in Hackney parks ranging from consultations over BBQs in London fields and dodgy dogs to actual plant care lessons.
So, what questions?
I was hoping to find something useful about gardening in Hackney as opposed to anywhere else. It hasn't really happened.
Although it would be helpful if they know of any fox-repelling plants.
Otherwise, can a gardener give anything away about their politics (or anything else for that matter) in their garden or gardening style? These looked they might be interesting, both (1 and 2) from the USA about gardening and what it's about and this, but nothing that interesting.
Sunday, 27 March 2011
Random Hackney bits and pieces
Hackney is one of the few districts in the UK that has is now 100% completed 100% on Open Street Map according to Suprageography
Launch of City Safe in Hackney - zones where shopkeepers report 100% of all crime and antisocial behaviour: "As part of the action, teams of young people, teachers, neighbours visited shops on Upper Clapton Road to start building relationships in the view to get them to sign up to the scheme."
Winnie the Pooh on the banks of some murky Hackney waterway...
The Hackney Post reported £30 million of Hackney council taxes remain uncollected: "In Hackney, 7.6 per cent went uncollected last year from an estimated net collectible debt of £68.3m, meaning £4.9m was left owing". Hackney gets an extra shot of news (for short spell each year as far as I can tell) from the Hackney Post which is run by post graduate students at City University London.
Hackney Secular Singers: a punk choir
Sunday, 6 February 2011
Hackney Council only breaks the law 15% of the time?
Judging by the number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests being dealt with by Hackney Council it's not surprising there's a bit of a backlog. There have been 237 requests via Whatdotheyknow.com alone.
According to Hackney Council there were 883 requests over the 12 months up to September 2010 (assuming it relates to the date the request was made: September 2010.)
By it's own admission Hackney Council says people are interested in using the service. (The council said: "An increase (in FOI requests) in the lead up to national and local elections was expected, but has continued as a result of interest in the Council’s reaction to cuts in spending and as a result of increased awareness of the legislation. The number of complex requests also appears to be increasing.")
But is the council setting its targets illegally low when it comes to how long it takes to answer these FOI questions?
The council's performance has been improving but it has set itself a threshold allowing it fail to respond within the legal time limit in 15% of cases.
In an FOI request on Whatdotheyknow.com Jed Keenan asked: "I notice that the target for requests being replied to within the statutory standard of 20 working days is set at only 85% rather than the statutory standard of 100%. Is this because this is considered the minimum that this local authority is capable of achieving?"
The Council replied: "The council's target is to provide information requested under the Freedom of Information Act within 20 working days. 85% is the Council's minimum."
Keenan (who has been criticised for bombarding Hackney with FOI requests - currently 59) said that this response "seems to imply that the Council’s minimum target is to break the law only 15% of the time" as the FOI Act is legally binding.
Ultimate responsibility for FOI in Hackney lies with the borough's head of legal services, Gifty Edila. Hopefully she's got enough staff to check whether or not the council is acting within the law - unless of course they're busy doing other bits and pieces.
Sunday, 28 November 2010
UPDATE (and apology): Parking, PR, and should the council answer questions?
UPDATE:
Polly Rance, Hackney's head of media and external relations, has provided a response to some of the questions posed in the piece below.
Here's what she said: 'Just to let you know that I have not resigned from my role at Hackney and have every intention of returning to work on 3rd May 2011. The conjecture in your e-mail and your article is entirely incorrect, and whilst my employer was quite right not to share HR details with you as a journalist I am more than happy to put the record straight in a personal capacity. By the way, my piece in PRWeek to which you have made several references is not about Hackney Council but making a more general point about the industry. I would no doubt write it differently in the context of the current cuts situation, but my overall point stands, that backroom services such as comms have to strive doubly hard to prove their worth in hard financial times. Please amend your blog so that it no longer implies that I have left my job.'
So apologies to Polly and thanks for the reply.
Original article:
Head of hackney parking, Seamus Adams, had his car returned by his staff after it was towed away and his fine reduced. I think it was a Hackney Gazette story (although it's not on the paper's website yet so here it is from the Daily Mail).
The council leapt to the defence of this officer. (Adams appears to have been happy to collect cash from other people and not return it unless ordered to do so by a court (Check out this freedom of information request worth a story in its own right!) which didn't seem to be what happened to him.)
Meanwhile Hackney's "interim assistant chief executive, communications and consultation", Carl Welham, had recently told Blood and Property that: "The council does not answer questions relating to individual members of staff."
Blood and Property had asked if Polly Rance, head of Hackney's PR and Communications had left her job.
Carl Welham wouldn't answer and added: "I hope in future that you will confine your questions to matters of council business."
This wall of privacy (Not there for Michael Sobell and Seamus Adams) was in place even though Polly Rance had aired her views in public. There is no suggestion that she has done anything wrong, just that she is probably an important figure in Hackney's policy making.
See Carl Wellham here on YouTube saying that councils face major cuts and work has to be done to "make sure communications is not a casualty of that by proving we are an essential part of the business and not a nice to have add on."
Which sounded remarkably similar to Polly in a PR Week piece where she made a case for maintaining the size of the communications department:"In a recession the need for clear, accessible comms is greater than ever, as residents seek advice on debt, jobs and housing."
Is it none of our business whether these public calls for more PR have been taken on board or been ditched? No suggestion that anyone has done anything wrong, just a question about council business.
(OTHER STORY THIS WEEK: INSULT OR INJURY TO HACKNEY?)
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Did gangs close Hackney youth centre?
A Hackney youth centre closed down last week, apparently due to gang activity. It had been open for a year.
Cllr Rita Krishna and Cllr Gulay Icoz told Hackney Council on Wednesday that the Blue Hut youth club had closed down.
I think it was Hoxton councilllor, Philip Glanville who added more detail. He started talking about gangs and the previously optimistic comments of Skyways, the voluntary sector organisation which ran Blue Hut. He appeared to be suggesting that Skyways ducked-out out of Blue Hut too easily. He said that voluntary providers also hadn't 'come up to scratch' in the borough (Hoxton Hall - also).
But in relation to Blue Hut, the implication was that Skyways didn't have problem with gangs six months ago but this changed... "One of the reasons they walked away is that they said that there were 'issues'"
I don't 100% know that's what was meant. I'll have to find out in the week unless someone can tell me.
Description of Skyway project in Wednesday's report including a recommendation to base other projects around its strategy. P. 184 of Council agenda:
Blue Hut - Peer Support Programme
The Peer Support Programme is a pilot project currently being run by SkyWay organisation at the Blue Hut and there has been huge interest from young people wanting to be involved in it. It is teaching the young people involved that they can give something back to their community and become positive role models for their peers. Through the programme, they can show there is an alternative to the gangs many young people will see on a daily basis and provide positive role models to the youngsters in their areas.
The programme has been running since October 2009 in its current form although a pilot project on a much smaller scale was run from March 2009 with 3 peer coaches.
In total there have been fifteen young people involved in the programme so far and their ages range from fifteen to twenty four
Page 184years, although most of the young people involved have been between seventeen and twenty one years.
The young people receive support through the development of an individual learning plan, and as part of this they received an in-depth initial meeting and then monthly one to ones which focus on their progress and development in relation to their individual learning plan. The peers specialise in one area, such as drama or sport, and they report to a specific member of staff who is trained in their area of interest and who can offer them continued support and advice. The peers also complete training which is both accredited and non- accredited.
The peers all complete a ‘train the trainer’ course, and this included units on safeguarding, working with young people, running activity sessions, equality and diversity, and confidentiality and data protection. They also completed an enterprise training programme over 4 days. The peers also complete training on working with young people in relation to drugs and alcohol.
Peers are recruited to support activities across all aspects of SkyWay’s programmes and therefore they have sports peers, media peers (music and film), youth work peers and bike maintenance peers. All of the young people involved receive training and paid work experience in the area they are interested, for example sports coaching, media sessions or youth work. The work that they do is constantly monitored and only once the workers are confident in the young people’s abilities and skills and they have completed the relevant training and have had an enhanced CRB check will they be allowed to lead sessions with other young people.
In addition to this, each peer will complete qualifications that are relevant to their interests and will be identified through their individual learning plan; this could include for example Level 1 or 2 in FA football coaching or Level 2 in Youth Work.
The Peer Support Programme has been increasingly popular with young people and it is currently oversubscribed. Staff at the Blue Hut said that the results so far have been very positive and they have seen a number of the peers grow in maturity & confidence, and the young people involved have developed communication, self reliance, team working and leadership skills.
The Commission members talked to one of the young people involved in the Peer Support Programme who told them he felt it was important to develop young people through the programme as it helps to bridge the gap between the young people and youth workers.
Page 185
Recommendation Three
The Commission was impressed during the site visits and through talking to young people by the range of training and qualifications young people are able to gain through youth centres and activities and strongly support and encourage these opportunities.
The Commission was particularly interested in the Peer Support Programme run by SkyWay organisation at the Blue Hut and its aim to develop young people to lead activity sessions with their peers and younger age groups.
The Commission recommends the Youth Service look at the Peer Support Programme currently being run by SkyWay organisation at the Blue Hut and consider adopting a similar model in council maintained youth centres in Hackney.
Sunday, 22 August 2010
Charity slams Hackney council staff: rude, lazy, unhelpful
I haven't checked out any of this but it looks pretty damning: http://piliontrust.blogspot.com/2010/08/borough-of-hackney.html
Pilion is a charity that works with Islington Council and seems to have recently won more funding from it.
The author of the Pilion charity's blog clearly hasn't had a happy time dealing with Hackney. He or she says: "Over the past two months my teams have been trying to support and advocate for a number of vulnerable people. I mean a young man with mental health and learning difficulties who is fleeing two youth gangs that want to kill him; A young 20 year old woman, fleeing domestic violence and pregnant; An old age pensioner who is illiterate and is being evicted by the Council for rent arrears, when her pension and benefits pay directly to the Council's Housing benefit department."
The author says Pilion staff had dealt with the Housing Department, Mental Health Team, East London NHS, The Homerton and Learning Disabilities saying: "All staff in all departments have similarities in so much as they are rude, abrupt, refuse to give information and are lazy unthinking, uncaring brainless fodder."
The blog posting also complains that managers were not interested in dealing with the complaints and politicians were no better: "All turn a blind eye and don't want to look at the problems being caused by the Public Servants they employ."
Hopefully this was just a bad day. If not then all Hackney residents should beware of lingering in the borough too long: "as all you will find are brain dead "Job Lotters" sucking the life blood out of those who cannot get out."
Other news - The Daily Mail reports that Hackney Council is on the verge of signing a deal with the US for use of London Fields Lido for the Olympics. The Mail said: "A source said: ‘The US team toured London and were surprised by the lack of quality pools. ‘Right away they recognised London Fields as best for training and were very keen. The British tried to get involved but it looks like they’re too late."
Pilion is a charity that works with Islington Council and seems to have recently won more funding from it.
The author of the Pilion charity's blog clearly hasn't had a happy time dealing with Hackney. He or she says: "Over the past two months my teams have been trying to support and advocate for a number of vulnerable people. I mean a young man with mental health and learning difficulties who is fleeing two youth gangs that want to kill him; A young 20 year old woman, fleeing domestic violence and pregnant; An old age pensioner who is illiterate and is being evicted by the Council for rent arrears, when her pension and benefits pay directly to the Council's Housing benefit department."
The author says Pilion staff had dealt with the Housing Department, Mental Health Team, East London NHS, The Homerton and Learning Disabilities saying: "All staff in all departments have similarities in so much as they are rude, abrupt, refuse to give information and are lazy unthinking, uncaring brainless fodder."
The blog posting also complains that managers were not interested in dealing with the complaints and politicians were no better: "All turn a blind eye and don't want to look at the problems being caused by the Public Servants they employ."
Hopefully this was just a bad day. If not then all Hackney residents should beware of lingering in the borough too long: "as all you will find are brain dead "Job Lotters" sucking the life blood out of those who cannot get out."
Other news - The Daily Mail reports that Hackney Council is on the verge of signing a deal with the US for use of London Fields Lido for the Olympics. The Mail said: "A source said: ‘The US team toured London and were surprised by the lack of quality pools. ‘Right away they recognised London Fields as best for training and were very keen. The British tried to get involved but it looks like they’re too late."
Friday, 9 July 2010
Credit Union and Citizen vs Council
Hackney Credit Union closure is discussed at length in the comment section of this blog post: Hackney Credit Union suspended on Paul Stott's I intend to escape...and come back.
Including such highlights as: "There are rumours of this being precipitated by £100,000 or some such sum going walkies. If there's any truth in that (not saying there is) it's likely to mean people have to wait even longer to get their money back"... and "Who has taken our money from what was in essence an empty charity-shop incredibly licensed to take people's deposits? Who was running this apparent 'ponzi scheme' openly operating on our high street? And who allowed them to prey on investors?"
On Thursday the Hackney Gazette suggested a less extreme scenario saying HCU "collapsed after its running costs outstripped money coming in with more and more people unable to repay loans."
The paper also reported concerns that the HCU collapse would cause a resurgence in loan sharks.
Commentators on I Intend to Escape didn't hold back on council bashing but the top prize for this goes to a guest spot on Hackney Citizen from Jack of Kent: "The improper and disgraceful conduct of Hackney Council" which exposes the council's daft threats against the Citizen as well as its failure to inform the Citizen that it had no intention of pursuing the issue any further.
Jack of Kent picks the council's legal arguments to pieces but could the catalyst for the council's course of action have come from its communications department? In comparison to its well-oiled and fully staffed comms team, the legal department is a Cinderella. (also see Hackney Legal department's recruiting crisis confirmed) and the council's claim that it was defending a junior member of staff looks more like an excuse to bully a critic (one that the Mayor happened to have publicly attacked)... meanwhile the legal team seems to fire wherever it is pointed.
Including such highlights as: "There are rumours of this being precipitated by £100,000 or some such sum going walkies. If there's any truth in that (not saying there is) it's likely to mean people have to wait even longer to get their money back"... and "Who has taken our money from what was in essence an empty charity-shop incredibly licensed to take people's deposits? Who was running this apparent 'ponzi scheme' openly operating on our high street? And who allowed them to prey on investors?"
On Thursday the Hackney Gazette suggested a less extreme scenario saying HCU "collapsed after its running costs outstripped money coming in with more and more people unable to repay loans."
The paper also reported concerns that the HCU collapse would cause a resurgence in loan sharks.
Commentators on I Intend to Escape didn't hold back on council bashing but the top prize for this goes to a guest spot on Hackney Citizen from Jack of Kent: "The improper and disgraceful conduct of Hackney Council" which exposes the council's daft threats against the Citizen as well as its failure to inform the Citizen that it had no intention of pursuing the issue any further.
Jack of Kent picks the council's legal arguments to pieces but could the catalyst for the council's course of action have come from its communications department? In comparison to its well-oiled and fully staffed comms team, the legal department is a Cinderella. (also see Hackney Legal department's recruiting crisis confirmed) and the council's claim that it was defending a junior member of staff looks more like an excuse to bully a critic (one that the Mayor happened to have publicly attacked)... meanwhile the legal team seems to fire wherever it is pointed.
Saturday, 19 June 2010
The politics of gardening in Hackney
This blog - Glamorous Gardener - appeared on a Google blog search yesterday (Saturday) and its latest post - called Hackney Council - is a polite but ruthlessly illustrated critique of Hackney Council's green fingers. Hopefully this is not an omen of some kind.
Monday, 17 May 2010
Blog across the border, some law stuff and a new weapon in Hackney
If you like your politics raw and dripping with blood then you'll enjoy the world of Tower Hamlets council as portrayed in Ted Jeory's new blog Trial by Jeory. Find out here why Hackney residents have a few things to be grateful for.
But, in Hackney, how are things settling down after the election?
Disappointingly in the legal department. Bambos Charalambous, in-house lawyer for Hackney Council was the unsuccessful Labour party candidate for Enfield Southgate (he lost to the Conservatives - 14,302 votes to 21,928). According to the Lawyer: "He was one of those who experienced the deflation of returning to the day job on Monday morning."
But, as the Lawyer explains, Bambos will still have his political hands full for a while to come: "For Charalambous, the night was one of mixed fortunes due to his local Labour group winning back Enfield Council from the Tories after eight years in opposition. The result means Charalambous has become acting leader of the council until the party can find someone with a less demanding day job."
But, in Hackney, how are things settling down after the election?
Disappointingly in the legal department. Bambos Charalambous, in-house lawyer for Hackney Council was the unsuccessful Labour party candidate for Enfield Southgate (he lost to the Conservatives - 14,302 votes to 21,928). According to the Lawyer: "He was one of those who experienced the deflation of returning to the day job on Monday morning."
But, as the Lawyer explains, Bambos will still have his political hands full for a while to come: "For Charalambous, the night was one of mixed fortunes due to his local Labour group winning back Enfield Council from the Tories after eight years in opposition. The result means Charalambous has become acting leader of the council until the party can find someone with a less demanding day job."
A relief considering the problems facing Hackney's understaffed legal team. Hopefully his time in the legal department will be spent doing something useful... (possibly not pursuing a local community newspaper, as suggested in a comment at the bottom of this piece in the Citizen)
No doubt he'll be getting the same flexi-time deal as all those Conservative council leaders working in Hackney Council.
Thursday, 13 May 2010
Hackney PR disaster
One of the less terrifying entries on this spiky conversation about law on Stokey Talk provided a link to Private Eye's defence of the Hackney Citizen.
If you have a look you'll notice that Private Eye has published the conversations that Hackney Council is trying to censor - an issue which is discussed in Journalism.co.uk.
What is Private Eye's circulation? About 250,000? Is this what Hackney Council might call a PR disaster?
If you have a look you'll notice that Private Eye has published the conversations that Hackney Council is trying to censor - an issue which is discussed in Journalism.co.uk.
What is Private Eye's circulation? About 250,000? Is this what Hackney Council might call a PR disaster?
Monday, 10 May 2010
Is Jules Pipe behind legal feud with "lying little rag"?
The Hackney Citizen's decision not to buckle to Hackney Council's legal threats over a telephone conversation posted on its website has been reported by Journalism.co.uk.
Hackney Council told Journalism.co.uk that it was concerned about how the recording was made. Hackney Citizen replied: "We take the view that it is in the public interest to disclose the way the Council was dealing with the issue, as evidenced by the audio clips."
The last time the Citizen clashed with the council was when it reported an alleged £40m hole in the council's budget. This, combined with Lib Dem criticism of Hackney Today (the council's free newspaper) prompted Mayor Jules Pipe to publicly attack the Hackney Citizen in a full council meeting in which he called it a "lying little rag".
Could Pipe's wrath have had anything to do with the Citizen's apparent alliance with Pipe's mayoral rival, Andrew Boff? Keith Magnum, founder and editor of Hackney Citizen - and former Green Party candidate - told Blood and Property that this appearance was just a coincidence: Hackney Citizen: Boff-tastic or intelligence wing of the Green Party?
Hackney Council told Journalism.co.uk that it was concerned about how the recording was made. Hackney Citizen replied: "We take the view that it is in the public interest to disclose the way the Council was dealing with the issue, as evidenced by the audio clips."
The last time the Citizen clashed with the council was when it reported an alleged £40m hole in the council's budget. This, combined with Lib Dem criticism of Hackney Today (the council's free newspaper) prompted Mayor Jules Pipe to publicly attack the Hackney Citizen in a full council meeting in which he called it a "lying little rag".
Could Pipe's wrath have had anything to do with the Citizen's apparent alliance with Pipe's mayoral rival, Andrew Boff? Keith Magnum, founder and editor of Hackney Citizen - and former Green Party candidate - told Blood and Property that this appearance was just a coincidence: Hackney Citizen: Boff-tastic or intelligence wing of the Green Party?
Thursday, 11 March 2010
Apologies: The Mayor was answering those questions
This afternoon at 2pm today a very long reply to all of Blood and Property's questions arrived via email from Hackney Council. It is clear from the level of detail that these questions were being answered all the time. Due to the length of time it was taking I thought these questions weren't being answered at all - I was wrong.
Apologies. I'll post the full set of answers tomorrow morning.
Apologies. I'll post the full set of answers tomorrow morning.
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Hackney Council used anti-terror law to spy on staff
According to the Sunday Express, Hackney Council used anti terror laws to spy on its staff to make sure they weren't misusing disabled parking badges. The Express asked 300 councils if they had invoked the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. 33 councils said they had. One of them was Hackney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
