4.+What+we+asked+Boris

** 27th November 2008 ** ** City Hall **
 * Meeting: Sir Simon Milton and WCC **

Sir Simon said that Ian Clement would be taking the decision but that he was there for continuity. He was the person who had seen Grainger and the Council and it was therefore only fair that we should be seen. [Sir Simon satisfied by this meeting that Grainger's new plan incorporated the market as was Boris's stipulation]

Said Boris prior to being Mayor had prejudiced himself in relation to deciding this application, having expressed a bias. He had therefore delegated his position in this case to Ian Clement.

He said that he had come to listen.

­ Into to WCC Have demonstrated that there is a large opposition to the Grainger proposal i. plan impractical i. needs not acknowledged ii. no evaluation of the losses/nothing weighed up i. area remains derelict ii. blighted iii. no provision for site to be supported iv. Tottenham cannot afford to be run down any more
 * Ruth **
 * Grainger application does not satisfy in a number of ways: **
 * 1) London Plan
 * 2) 2004 Development Brief
 * 3) UDP
 * 4) Emerging policies, especially on sustainability
 * 5) Consultation
 * 6) due process not observed
 * 7) planning committee
 * 8) council/NDC/applicant
 * 9) planning officers
 * 10) Locally listed
 * 11) Conservation area
 * 12) Errors in positive contribution claimed
 * 13) English heritage against
 * 14) Revised plan: Assurances to businesses/the market are inadequate
 * 15) market not preserved in its entirety
 * 1) no protection of wider businesses
 * 1) lead-in time of 2.5 years means:

Carlos
 * 1) Wards Corner is part of district town centre
 * 2) occupied mainly by businesses
 * 3) 10s of residents, some are traders
 * 4) interfering with composition of the area will have serious impact on this town centre
 * 5) no consideration given
 * 6) Studies not based in fact
 * 7) did not interview local people to gather information
 * 8) information used inaccurate
 * 9) as much as we have tried to present the case, not taken on board and therefore faulty in presentation of the plan
 * 10) Guidance and references used to support the planning application approval decision has serious omissions
 * 11) social economic assessment 3.25
 * 12) meaningful work to prevent loss of facilities specialist shops 3D.3
 * 13) no evidence new build will strengthen diversity
 * 14) range of premises to match, esp. small business/social enterprise and community development 3D.1
 * 15) respecting social context, character and amenity
 * 16) no work with local communities
 * 17) not based in local distinctiveness
 * 18) preserving, enhancing local social, economic, environmental part of town centre
 * 19) development not sustainable

i. town centre that will struggle to compete with counterpart Tottenham Hale ii. hard to let = vacant properties – both residential and business iii. prime entry point blighted by a plan with no benefit to the area, unloved/unwanted iv. Wards Corner is a prime entry site into Tottenham, works begin 2011, Tottenham will not benefit from Olympics, timing will see site either derelict or under construction.
 * Major Developments in Tottenham **
 * 1) Tottenham Hale and Haringey Heartlands may benefit from development such as proposed at Wards Corner, but Wards Corner won’t – it is not suitable/appropriate to this district town centre
 * 2) in spatial terms the approach is wrong:
 * 1) Wards presents opportunity to do s/thing different/enhance Haringey as a whole/complement Tottenham

i. half million Spanish and Latin speakers expected to come to Olympics – no place with their cultural atmosphere: best place for this is Wards Corner ii. Haringey Harrods and Tottenham Big Ben iii. can repair/renovate within 6 months iv. create as tourist attraction v. Spanish/Latin commerce represents huge percentage of London economic activity vi. 30 year derelict but not because no-one wanted to rent: even today get 2 enquiries per month about letting upstairs vii. funding sources attracted to WCC plan stifled by campaign and lack of council support
 * Isaac **
 * 1) Opportunities presented by Tottenham’s history and its community – Latin quarter/cultural quarter
 * 2) Cultural and commercial impact on area
 * 3) Planning committee did not see the upper floors of the building before making their decision
 * 4) Cannot move traders around without destroying the market
 * 5) Haringey is close to the Olympics


 * Russell Smith, Parity Projects **
 * 1) specialist in renovation
 * 20,000 to demolish a house vs. 10,000 to convert a house to saleable conditions and be environmentally sustainable/carbon neutral
 * 1) worked for city of London
 * 2) won awards – observer ethical awards, sustainable city award, award for sustainable refurbishment
 * 3) making maximum value and minimum impact using assets you have right now
 * 4) identify pros and cons
 * 5) infrastructure assessment
 * 6) exp working with TfL - put costs together for Crossrail for signing off by GB
 * 7) asset management
 * 8) If Grainger cannot use the building, TfL still required to maintain – can TfL afford to maintain over next 2.5+ years – key risk Grainger have not looked at
 * 9) WCC want access to ascertain
 * 10) maintenance issues
 * 11) renovation not overtly costed
 * 12) need clear plan of each side of the assessment
 * 13) want access to construction drawings to these buildings so can make evaluation
 * 14) £20,000 to demolish building/£10,000 to make carbon neutral renovation
 * 15) Requested assurance that if we put together costing SM would read it


 * WCC on Grainger: **
 * 1) Grainger scheme backward looking.
 * 2) Not even a good version of itself.
 * 3) Not sustainable.
 * 4) Don’t want dinosaur.
 * 5) Want boost to Tottenham.
 * 6) We are a change lever.
 * 7) Can deliver change much more quickly than Grainger which is what we all want and need.

__ Planning Committee Meeting __
 * Moaz **
 * 1) Grainger say they have done consultation. They haven’t. Have not spoken to me.
 * 2) Area has been neglected. Council not paid attention. Traders survived nevertheless.
 * 3) Grainger only responsible to shareholders. The small businesses that have survived in this area are responsible to their communities they serve.
 * 4) Big companies are the ones who have got us into the problems we have.
 * 5) Grainger plan has been railroaded in. Businesses leases have been run down/out. Cleverly masterminded. Business asked to pack up and go. Grainger’s history of engagement in this area suggests no interest in the community rather interest only in their profits and shareholders.
 * 1) A farce
 * 2) Full of unrecognised objectors
 * 3) Chair and committee member biased
 * 4) Undemocratic
 * 5) Open plan again so not shambles but real consultation
 * 6) Grainger plan corridor into central London and demolishes community – no service to community

__ Economic Aspect __ i. ridiculous to destroy successful local economy for what is proven to not work
 * 1) Model out of date/old fashioned:
 * 2) assumed Grainger development will bring big companies into area that will regenerate
 * 3) reality; brings in less or none
 * 1) Businesses on the site are inter-dependant

__Building/Wards Corner IS wanted__
 * 1) Grainger, the Council and NDC are treating this site as though it were an empty site/brownfield/non-productive
 * 2) The lease-holder of the ground-floor of department store (Jill Oakley) still to this day has two requests per week to use upper floors = myth building is not wanted is false Interest is high e.g. Prince’s Regeneration Trust

i. London plan is not being observed
 * Market not provided for/No 106 gains/TfL/housing **
 * 1) Inadequate assurances given on the continuation of the market
 * 2) 106 agreements: Developer should be giving beyond the statutory
 * 3) 106 agreements – terms Grainger pay traders – paying to traders individually and problems therein (walk away, break market)/compensation for disturbance/footing/twice rateable value – not significant
 * 4) Rent hikes leading to un-affordability – lead to unrecognisable market
 * 5) Large amount of public money paid to Grainger and very cheap options to buy land
 * 6) Whatever the planning decision, Boris Johnson as TfL owner can still turn is down. Mayor is a politician
 * 7) Affordable Housing: no provision
 * 8) Assurance by Local Authority as a housing authority to do its best to provide affordable housing on the Apex House site but NO GUARANTEE, no money assured to bring forward
 * Development site **
 * 1) Site is larger then Wards Corner, whatever happens here will impact else where
 * 2) Development Brief: site is larger
 * 3) Spent time with Glasshouse to look at WHOLE site


 * Simon Milton - What can do and can’t do **
 * 1) Thank-you for an extremely well-coordinated meeting
 * 2) Underlying what we can and can’t do
 * 3) Boris (GLA) concerned with strategic matters not do borough’s job for them: For good or worse there will be less intervention than before - devolution
 * 4) Boris assigned Ian Clement to decide plan because declared interest in promise made before election
 * 5) Must say what complies with the London plan
 * 6) points made by Carlos will be addressed by officers and bring report forward
 * 7) fact of different scheme cannot be considered – only look at scheme to be decided on
 * 8) we will provide combined note of points raised in this meeting and that with the developer and publish so transparent – put decision out for wide comment to do justice
 * 9) each to be considered separately


 * David Schmitz **
 * 1) In asking if plan acceptable in planning terms sometimes do need to look at alternatives. Does this building have to go? This building is in a conservation area.
 * 2) Need consent to demolish
 * 3) There must be no alternative, must show benefits outweigh the loss of heritage building. WCC submit not.
 * 4) Need access to building to do studies, like the ones mentioned by Russell Smith.


 * Wendy **
 * 1) A 2.5 year lead-in will blight area by same malaise as experienced for last 30 years – uncertain future.
 * 2) Need conditions that allow temporary uses.
 * 3) For this need collaborative approach.
 * 4) WCC called for collaborative approach all along
 * 5) They will always meet with us, but not collaborate (never used/demonstrated language of collaboration).
 * 6) Blocked by council/Grainger.
 * 7) If Grainger build when say, 2011 area will lose out on benefits from the Olympics – the regeneration this area is supposed to gain from this development is not based in accurate facts or consultation.
 * 8) The development site is much larger than wards corner. It includes Apex and Seven Sisters Rd to Westerfield Road.
 * 9) All parties have not got round a table together to look at what interests they have in the site and how the site might deliver those interests, what options are yet to emerge. Potentially a large number of options. It could all be really easy.