Notes on Meeting of Monday 17th March

Present: Mital, Ruth, Sara, Bigio, Phil, Wendy, Carlos, Paul, Diane, Hazel, Mrs Patel, Rita, Vicky, Oscar, Jeremy, Elizabeth, Lagu, Pam, Jacki, Elize, Candy, Manuel, Blanca, Martinez

Meeting of 18th March.

This meeting was called for by the WCC on 12th December at a meeting with the Council, NDC, Grainger and WCC. The request was made so that the community could begin to have meaningful consultation with the NDC, Council and Grainger about the development for the area prior to Grainger submitting their plan. Grainger expressed concern about this consultation happening prior to their application being submitted, but Cllr Amin over rode the objection and assured WCC this would be arranged. This meeting was never arranged and Grainger submitted their application.

Ruth Allen from WCC continued to pursue Cllr Amin and the offer of a meeting has now come up, not conveniently to the WCC. Cllr Amin has arranged that the meeting will be chaired by herself between WCC and Grainger. WCC do not feel that this is at all useful. We have requested a neutral chair, an agenda, that the meeting address the issues of consultation and community involvement in the regeneration of this NDC area.

WCC interests in the meeting:
1) Why the NDC cannot work with the community?
2) why have we not been approached by the NDC?
3) why is the coalition being treated as though it did not exist and not part of NDC?
4) challenge documents evidencing consultation with the community brought forward under FOI
5) What is the Council and NDCs role in all this?

Development Control Forum

It was explained to Ruth by Planning that the Development Control Forum was a free-flowing discussion about plans. The meeting has no direct bearing on planners decision making.

WCC to use the meeting to (1) promote the community plan and (2) object to the Grainger plan

Making the most of the time

10 mins to each side to speak then each has questions from the floor to the panel made up of applicant/architect/developer

Coalition to prepare questions to be put about the Grainger Plan:

Community Facilities
Housing
Sustainability
Crime and Safety
Employment
Health and Well Being

Regeneration – not buildings, people – real people/real lives/real stories – for those who live/work in the area and not brought in to cleanse area

Stacking up our plan is not a planning issue but political issue and can be reasonably and realistically discussed when the Council and NDC start to work with us.

Community Facilities
What community facilities offered by the Grainger Plan? How does this development grow community? What are the design features that realise this?

. . . some premises of Grainger Plan

Crime ridden – address misrepresentation with real figures
More costly to renovate than rebuild – challenge (esp given difficulties of site and grainger’s complex and costly solution)
Bring in large/outside business – improve, work on, assist, grow existing business
Big business will be attracted into area - already businesses are pulling out of Wood Green, why will they come here?
All housing units will sell - the market is on a downturn and developers are not selling their units. Why will Grainger sell all theirs? Why should we believe these will not be empty blocks of flats and large retail units once built?

Housing
Grainger propose 197 residential units made up of 5 x studio; 37 x 3-bed; 48 x 1-bed; 107 x 2-bed. Whatever Grainger are saying about affordable housing it is not true. Majority of housing they are to build is 2-bed. These are costed at £240,000. That is not affordable. This is for profit.

Housing cannot be affordable because foundation needed to build their blocks too expensive

Housing needed is 3 bed and social housing. Not deliverable with this plan.

Crime
40% winter light loss – doesn’t bode well for crime stats
Crime misrepresented in the area (actually is 1/3 of that in the borough) – using as rationale to pull WC down – challenge

Demolition will result in a boarded up construction site for years as exit tube. South Tottenham will be dirty, derelict, dangerous and local business killed off. This will grow and entrench crime in the area over the years the site remains derelict.


It was reported that not everyone who had written to the Planning Department in favour of the Community Plan and/or in objection to the Grainger Plan had received notification of the Development Control Forum. This is contrary to the procedure that should be followed and WCC to take this up with planning.

It was also reported that the HC planning website has been down for 2 weeks and that objections that people have submitted are not showing on the site.

Wendy to send out notification to all of Development Control Forum.

Wendy to request all to copy her and local clllrs their objection letters that are not showing on the HC website and to give alternative Council email address for sending objections letters to

Wendy to arrange with CONEL room for a meeting with Mayorial candidates 1st week of April – discuss Wards and other issues relating to their candidacy

Bigio to invite mayorial candidates to talk at CONEL where WCC can put their concerns to them.

GLA to be contacted