| . |
p12
Dear N16
My mother's family came from Stoke Newington and I have been researching them for several
years. Members of the family have 'gone missing' and I am hoping that if you include this
in your magazine they may recognise themselves and get in touch. Mum's
great-great-granddad was called Robert Debney Lovett married to Elizabeth and they lived
at various addresses in Green Lanes, Stoke Newington between 1868 to Elizabeth's death in
1893. They had six children, Robert Debney (married Alice Metheringham), Elizabeth
(married Henry James Budd), Albert George (married Emily Jane Wood) granddad, Thomas
(married Mary Hall), Richard (married Ada Elizabeth Gaylor) and Alfred.
Last known addresses I have are: Ada Elizabeth Lovett at 8 Burns House, Stoke Newington in
1961, daughter R Phipps at 39 Browning House N16. Previous address for Ada was 84 Spencer
Road.Alice Lovett at 13 Seal Street, Stoke Newington in 1942, daughter C O'Meara at 19
Perel Street, Hackney. Previous to this Alice lived at 3 Hindle Street, Shacklewell Lane.
If anyone knows any of the above families or what happened to them I would very much like
to hear from you. My address is Mrs C Batsford, 19 Church 'Vale Road, Bexhill-on-Sea, East
Sussex, TN40 2ED, email carolbatsford@freeuk.com.
Thank you in anticipation that you can help.
Dear N16
I am just emailing to inquire whether you are covering the Council's proposed scheme to
close roads in south Stoke Newington -to stop them being used as a cut-through, in the
main, between the High Street and Newington Green. As you may be aware, there has been
recent coverage in another of the local press -Hackney Today, I think -which implies that
residents in these streets are largely opposed to the Council's proposals, on the grounds
that they are restrictive of their access to their homes. I am sure there are some pro-car
residents who will maintain that their freedom to drive through the area is paramount,
regardless of the environmental cost. However, this view is by
no means shared by many residents, some of whom as you know have been campaigning for
years against the existing volume of traffic on streets which do not have the capacity to
cope with it. Road closures must be the only way of reducing traffic to a more acceptable
level, as most of these streets have existing traffic calming measures such as speed bumps
in place - which clearly do not work.
I must declare an interest as I live in Prince George Road, which is in the 'ladder' of
affected streets. In the 2 years I have lived there my car has been damaged several times
whilst parked (and as commercial vehicles and mini-cabs make up a substantial proportion
of the vehicles using my street as a rat-run, it is perhaps not surprising that no details
were left). I have nearly been knocked off my bike cycling into my street from Cowper Road
by vehicles travelling far too fast for the locality. Not to mention the regular annoyance
of trying to drive down my street towards my house -near impossible without having to
maneuver round vehicles coming in the other direction. In fact, the road closure proposals
would be hardly more restrictive of my access.
.
As you are aware, it seems the Council is now taking steps to implement the CPZ into this
area, so residents will have to pay for the privilege of parking near their - houses. This
will be adding insult to injury indeed if nothing about the present traffic situation is
done.
Alison Millar
Prince George Road, N16
Dear N16
Poor sad Gabrielle Starkey. The reason why Stokey is so great is because it DOESN'T have
Islington and Hoxton pretensions. Get a life or go to the Manor. I hear they do late
licences and a disco so go and pull there.
Sarah Raine, Sarah.Raine@freeuk.com
Dear N16
I wish to respond to the letter of Kristin Heimark published in the N16 Summer 2001 issue.
Dear Madam
Thank you for your response (N16 Magazine, Summer 2001) to my Right to Buy article. While
it is pleasing to provoke a response, it is not pleasing to be misquoted. If you read my
article, you will see it stated a Purchaser under the Scheme was to retain ownership for
(the discount period) -and I quote -'on pain of having to refund the discount to the
Council'. You therefore misinterpreted that part of the article. merely plucking out part
of a sentence and putting it in a context supporting your supposed standpoint. To give
your letter the same treatment - Heimark states 'it is little wonder these council tenants
turned home owners'. Distorting, isn't it?
You correctly indicate the article was promotional. The article was not written by a
politician, social worker or do-gooder, but by somebody in practice who deals with the
mechanics of Right to Buy purchases as part of his daily routine. It was never intended as
a definitive authority on the Right to Buy Scheme as to do so was not possible in the time
and space allowed. Furthermore, inquiries could be (and in fact have been) dealt with by
myself, as I provided my contact details within the article. Added to this were the
official contact details laid out at the end of the article. should people require further
information or assistance.
Your letter sadly develops into a hysterical opinion-fest that comes across as a knee-jerk
reaction to anything that might be considered vaguely capitalist, in other words, your
letter is reactionary and it only serves to confuse.
If you feel so strongly about, for example what you refer to as 'dodgy lenders', then why
don't you actually do something about it, rather than (in your final paragraph) inform
readers precisely where they can locate adverts of non-High Street Lenders - Well done!
That issue is a topic in its own right.
To clarity an important part of the Right to Buy Scheme -a person buying a property under
the Right to Buy Scheme, can indeed sell the property within the discount period. The
discount period varies from time to time and from borough to borough. Currently within the
borough of Hackney, it is three years from the time of purchase. However, if that buyer
sells within the discount period, he or she will have to refund some or all of the
discount received. The earlier during the discount period the property is sold, the higher
the amount of the discount that will have to be refunded to the Council. As one might
imagine, this element of the Scheme is intended to avoid public funds being used for
profiteering. The Scheme is meant to help genuine buyers who live in the property in
question and who intend to stay there for at least some years to come.
It might interest you to know I have had other people react to the article. That is to
say, they reacted to the actual article rather than pick up on a few key words and launch
into a long-winded diatribe more it akin to what you would see at Speakers' Comer on a
Sunday morning, than in a considered response.
Anyway, good luck with revolution.
David Greaney
You can contact N16
at
26 Shacklewell Lane, E8 2EZ
or email to info@n16mag.com |
|
EW
|
Quailty Painting
& Building |
All building work undertaken
Interior and Exterior Painting and Decorating
(Including Shopfronts)
E WHITE
Call 020 8806 7358 or 0790 159 2277
|
|
|
. |
