The+Development+Brief

(The full text of the planning brief adopted by Haringey Council for the Wards Corner site can be read online at http://www.haringey.gov.uk/wards_corner_development_brief.pdf This is a summary of -- and a commentary on -- its main points.)

The planning brief for the Wards Corner site -- technically, the Wards Corner/Seven Sisters Underground Development Brief -- was adopted by the council in January 2004 and sets out the parameters within which it expects prospective developers to situate their proposals. It applies to three closely related sites -- Wards Corner, the block bounded by the High Road, West Green Road, Suffield Road and Seven Sisters Road; Apex House, on the corner of the High Road and Seven Sisters Road to the south of Wards Corner; and Seven Sisters Underground Station and its entrance and frontages on Seven Sisters Road -- but focuses primarily on the first of these three as "the one most likely to come forward in the short term". At present, indeed, only the Wards Corner site is subject to a development proposal.

The Background and Regeneration Context sections of the planning brief (which given the date of its adoption would have been written in late 2003) state that Wards Corner is "widely recognised as a gateway location into the borough" but that "at the current time the area is dominated by a number of vacant and derelict buildings which present a real development opportunity to upgrade the environment of the area". In addition, "the area around the station is perceived as unsafe by the local community and suffers from a high degree of crime. The range of shops and facilities in the area is considered poor" -- statements which may well have had some truth to them in 2003, but do not properly describe the character of the area in 2007.

The planning brief sets out the Vision for the redevelopment of the area -- which is to "create a landmark development that acts as a high quality gateway to Seven Sisters, providing mixed uses with improved facilities and safer underground station access". How this vision is to be achieved is expanded upon in the Development Principles section of the brief, which sets out seventeen principles to which the council expects any proposals to adhere. These are grouped into Urban Design, Transport and Access, and Land Uses and Development as follows:

Urban Design -- Development must provide an attractive and high quality landmark and gateway to the Seven Sisters/Tottenham High Road area. -- New development should regenerate and improve the living and working environment and make best use of the opportunities presented by the site. -- Development must enhance the Page Green Conservation Area. -- Buildings should be of a distinctive and imaginative modern design with simple and robust detailing to provide a low maintenance and sustainable solution. -- Development should include active frontages, and visual variety and interest. onto the West Green Road, High Road and Seven Sisters Road frontages. -- Development should take its cue from the richness and diversity of the communities and small shops in the West Green Road area. -- Development should include significant and co-ordinated improvement to the public realm, including public art and street trees. A wide pavement and clear building line along the High Road should be maintained. -- Development should incorporate the principles of sustainable design including waste and recycling.

Transport and Access -- Development must be designed, in conjunction with the Police and the British Transport Police, to reduce opportunities for crime, especially around the Station entrances. -- It should improve access to the Seven Sisters Underground and Overground Stations, and achieve improved interchange between them. To achieve this, comprehensive development is promoted. -- The development should consider improvement to pedestrian access and safety in the area. Returning the gyratory to a two-way flow may facilitate this. -- Development should include improved bus waiting and interchange facilities. -- Some public car parking for the shopping centre should be retained. Private car parking should be minimised. -- Development should give priority to pedestrians and cyclists. -- Development should be accessible to all.

Land Uses and Development -- The development is suitable for a range of land uses, including retail uses to promote the vitality and viability of the West Green Road/Seven Sisters District Centre. -- Development of the Wards Corner site should take place comprehensively secured by compulsory purchase if necessary.

The Development Principles section contains a number of statements which are clearly crucial to any proposed development. For example, "on Wards Corner a development of 5-6 storeys may be appropriate, stepping down to three storeys on Suffield Road ... The treatment of the roofline will be particularly important"; "the former Wards department store building itself in considered to have some architectural merit and any development scheme should reflect and retain the rchitectural features of the store, if at all possible"; "diversity is one of the great strengths of the area. The development should add to rather than detract from this richness". It should be immediately obvious that the current proposals for the redevelopment of the Wards Corner site scarcely (if at all) meet these criteria, including as they do the destruction of the Wards department store building and the erection of two eight-storey tower blocks which are neither attractive, distinctive nor imaginative and will not remotely "enhance" the Page Green Conservation Area -- not to mention the almost certain destruction of the community's current richness and diversity because the existing traders and shopholders will be unable to afford the much higher rents the developers will have to charge to recoup their investment.

The Development Principles section also contains a number of statements which could be perceived as in conflict with the planning brief as a whole. With respect to Seven Sisters Underground Station, for example, it says that while the timetable for the refurbishment of the station is "not known at this stage" (and will now have been deferred indefinitely because Metronet has gone into administration) the brief must be taken as covering any plans which may be drawn up by London Underground although "piecemeal development will be resisted". But what is not piecemeal about a focus on Wards Corner at the expense of the other two sites, and how can this be reconciled with the principle of promoting "comprehensive development"? Further, the brief wishes to see the interchange between the Overground and Underground Stations improved, with priority given to pedestrians and cyclists and the existing gyratory system phased out "as these have higher speeds and more accidents, as well as creating an unfriendly pedestrian environment" -- but then acknowledges that all this is the responsibility of Transport for London and thus something over which the council has no control. Given this, one might ask why the site is being considered for redevelopment now, before the transport questions have been resolved, and thus before any changes which may be made to the area's transport facilities can be reflected in the proposal eventually adopted (rather than the changes which somebody somewhere hopes might be made at some unknown future date).

The remaining sections of the planning brief are largely technical in nature, but under the heading of Further Information comes this statement: "The council considers that the development scheme for the site should be the subject of a design competition, in order to secure high quality redevelopment that would lead to the overall enhancement and regeneration of the area". It is not clear whether "site" in this context means Wards Corner alone or all three sites which make up the "gateway location into the borough", but the stark fact is that the current development proposal has not been the subject of a design competition: the council's "preferred developer" has been chosen in without consultation with the public and is being presented to us as a fait accompli. Thus the council has breached, and continues to breach, its own planning brief.