The+Community+Plan+-+Wards+Corner+-+Minutes+-3+October+2007


 * DRAFT REPORT**
 * The Future of Wards Corner - Public Meeting**
 * 3rd October 2007 at Mango, 263 High Road, N15**


 * //Those present included://** Jeremy, Nick //[Chair],// Frances, Judith and Wendy //[Note-taker]// (Fountain Area RA); Joy (Resident, Bruce Grove Area); Dave (Chestnuts Northside RA); Candy and Sue (Clyde Area RA); Joanna (Maze West RA); Hazel (Blenheim Rise RA); Gloria, Jacinth and Beth (Tynemouth Road RA); Toby (One Southside RA); Alison (Conservation Area Advisory Cttee and Bruce Grove Residents Network); Matthew (Tottenham Civic Society and Tower Gardens Residents Group); Rowan (CAAC); Quentin (Tottenham & Wood Green Friends of the Earth, and Ferry Lane Action Group); Joyce (TCS and HFRA) A Angel (F Bouanja); Sade, Ariel & Bernadette (LBH NMT); Victoria, Oscar and Sandra (Seven Sisters Traders); Ricardo (Architect for Seven Sisters Traders); Isabella, Carlos, Rita and Alexjandro (Pedro Achata Trust); Jill (Seven Sisters Market stakeholder); Linda (North London Business); Roy; Shifa (Planning, Haringey Council); Cllr Amin (Cabinet member for Regeneration), Cllr Diakides (Cabinet member for Housing), Cllr Lister, Cllr Vanier, Cllr Mallett and Cllr Hoban; David Schmidt (LibDems); Stephen Moore (Tottenham and Wood Green Journal); Lionel, Adolfo and Shelley (New Deal for Communities); Audrey (Pembroke Road). There may have been another 10-15 people… **//Apologies://** Ibilola (Tiverton Tewkesbury RA), Ruth & Yolande (Chestnuts Northside RA), Rita (FARA), Melissa (FARA), Paul (Heron Wharf RA), Anne (West Green RA), Ruth (CARA), Robert (FARA), Liz (FARA), Sean (Black Boy Lane RA), Pat (Bruce Grove RA), AM Gray (West Green RA), Gilly (One Southside RA), W Livingstone G (One Southside RA), Alison S (Gardens RA), Mike and Cordelia (Local Residents), Cllr George Meehan, Cllr Canver, Cllr Lorna Reith, Cllr Sheila Peacock, Cllr Bob Harris, Cllr Claire Kober, Cllr Emma Jones, Cllr John Bevan, Cllr Robert Hare, Cllr Brian Haley, Cllr Matt Davies, Cllr Patrick Egan, Cllr Alan Stanton.


 * Nick Rau - Fountain Area RA** Nick chaired the meeting. In his introductory remarks he reported that Grainger’s proposals for the site were now well developed since consultation on the Development Brief in 2004. Since July 2007 we were again in consultation and many concerns about the proposals had been raised. Nick said that it is important that we as the community are heard in what gets delivered for the site. He explained that 5 local residents associations, a number of community groups (Tottenham Civic Society, CAAC, Tottenham and Wood Green Friends of the Earth, Sustainable Haringey) and the traders of Seven Sisters Market had a meeting on 11th September 2007 and the outcome of the meeting revealed that we were all not happy with the existing proposals.

Hence the meeting tonight had been called to communicate the common aims and vision embodying the community’s aspirations for the site. We hoped to list what we would like to see for the site and engage others who did not have a chance to make those meetings to put forward their views. We are seeking to find out how we might take the vision emerging from these meetings forward, how we might engage with the Council positively and constructively.

Nick outlined the Agenda for the meeting: - Matthew Bradby of Tottenham Civic Society will talk about conservation issues - Quentin Given, Friends of the Earth, will talk about issues relating to environmental concerns - Seven Sisters Market Traders on the merits of the Latin community’s presence as market traders and an audio visual presentation of their alternative vision for Wards Corner through restoration. - Questions and answers - General contributions and discussion

Nick summed up by saying that we share aims and aspirations, want to be proud, it is the gateway of the area. We want a landmark, something distinctive that will embrace the rich diversity of the area. That is not what is in these proposals. We want to discuss how to take this vision forward. We would like what we as a community want to be addressed. We are still in consultation, we want things taken forward. Matthew reported that the Tottenham Civic Society (“TCS”) and all they had spoken to; at the Tottenham Carnival, at the Lordship Rec Festival, were all in favour of retaining the Wards Corner Victorian/Edwardian building. He cautioned that Edwardian buildings were not being given enough credit in Haringey and that the TCS were applying for Wards Corner to be nationally listed.
 * Matthew Bradby - Tottenham Civic Society** Matthew outlined the 9 main points to come out of a meeting between Tottenham Civic Society and Grainger on 11 September 2007.

Matthew drew our attention to the 2 residential blocks planned to flank the corners of the site. He said these were too large and in effect 8 stories; 6 stories on top of two and in effect 8, is too large. He also pointed out the inappropriate design of the flats where balconies directly overhang 6 lane traffic.

He also drew attention to the need for careful retail planning so that Wards Corner did not become another Turnpike Lane and Wood Green populated by William Hills, Weatherspoons etc He pointed out that the market was a thriving asset and that markets signify regeneration; a sign that an area is “on the up”.

Matthew pointed out that people’s opinions of new builds were bruised. Corporate art for buildings, like the lights Grainger propose, will cease to work, be too expensive to fix and fade with the hype that got the building built. He drew attention to the Bull Ring in Birmingham and the similarities to Grainger’s design, to the Turquoise monstrosity and other recently-built local buildings too large and disruptive of the area’s generally 2/3 story properties of beauty.

In short, Grainger’s design is not inspiring and doesn’t justify demolition of Wards Corner. He noted that there were mixed views about Suffield Road, and this may be where people would be happy to compromise.


 * Quentin Given - Friends of the Earth** Quentin drew our attention to the need for a fundamental change in how we behave today. If architects and designers are to build at all for the long term what is built must withstand the dramatic climatic conditions we will invariably face in the future. Not only do the buildings have to withstand these changes but they also need to adapt how we behave today.

Quentin spoke of new developments being an opportunity to do something which is in line with the future. Building carbon neutral buildings were as real as you and me and through the Building Research Establishment this is now demonstrable. Quentin urged we act to build carbon neutral buildings now before the 2016 deadline set by government because of the urgency to adapt and mitigate the worst consequences of climate change.

Quentin spoke of the need for new builds to incorporate Combined Heat & Power energy schemes to displace the use of fossil fuels. He also encouraged the installation of photovoltaic panels to provide a large chunk of the energy needs of the units. Buildings in the future are going to be subject to higher temperatures and need to be kept cool and this should be integral to the design of any new build. Extreme rainfall needs to be accounted for, car use discouraged through reduced car parking space, car parking space being mostly for disabled use or electrically charged cars. Design in facilities for bikes. Quentin said there were positives and negatives in keeping old buildings relative to building new. That the possibilities to build carbon neutral often offset the difficulties raised by adapting old buildings to being energy efficient.


 * Carlos Burgos – Pedro Achata Trust on behalf of the Seven Sisters Traders** Carlos urged that Wards Corner is retained and restored. He said that when building we should be creating places and building communities not just the preserve of business. The vision put forward for Wards Corner would be one which offered both social and community services; a community building in the full sense with a voluntary management committee run for the benefit of the community. Wanted to see a mix of vendors.

Internal design instrumental to desired uses ergonomically enjoyable; clean, green and safe; design wrought through consultation, participation where users seen as part of the action. Want a sustainable community, economic development linked with environmental protection and social welfare. For this vision to succeed it is essential to work with local organisations and residents, and use exiting conditions, e.g. infrastructure Wards Corner.

Carlos emphasised the importance of restoring Wards Corner so that it was a green building: energy efficient, which would include a waste plan, well planned recycling scheme, minimise transportation impact, reduce habitation, use natural ventilation.


 * Ricardo Pelayo - Architect for Wards Corner Restoration** Called for us to stop building buildings which don’t work, which don’t add to the area. Ricardo urged that the market had major potential and was in keeping with the building. He painted a picture of a building used for community activities, where street clutter was reduced/got rid of, that had a Latin American flavour and where the character of the inhabitants and the character of the building were retained and valued. He spoke of space to the rear of Wards Corner and how the festival had shown other potential uses for this area’s regeneration: said they would design in a link with the front and back, connecting both spaces and making lively use of the outdoor spaces: in the front for, say, eating and drinking and the rear for market stalls, eateries, dancing and music. Said the interior design for the market would be homogenous, and aesthetically organised in height, colour, size of units.


 * Kaushika Amin - Cabinet Minister for Regeneration** Kaushika Amin said that this was an important meeting and she was impressed by the work the Seven Sisters Traders had put into their presentation. Said she would think about the meeting and what had been put forward. Didn’t think that anything the residents had put forward was unreasonable. She said that she would take away with her what the residents and seven sisters’ traders had done today and look at how the views presented can be incorporated in what happens. She added that English Heritage is looking at current design proposals and will be invited to discuss the proposals that go forward.


 * Cllr Wayne Hoban** Cllr Hoban said that he shares the interest in Wards Corner, feels that we have one chance to provide a good quality development in Tottenham, that the past has not served Tottenham well and now want a good quality development. He praised the seven sisters traders for a very good presentation, recognised that we have a vibrant local community with something special which we would want to retain and he assured the community that he would work to ensure that their views are taken into account.


 * Hazel London - Member of Blenheim Rise Residents Association** Hazel wanted clarification on how long we had to consult (from June until November 2007). She wanted assurance that the communities’ views would be taken into account and that they would have a very real input into the proposals. She said that regeneration for Tottenham could only happen if the Council could show that they had listened to the community and thought about their views in detail.


 * Dave Morris - Member of Chestnuts Northside RA, and Secretary of the Haringey Federation of RAs** asked the question “who owns the land”. **Cllr Amin** answered that it was largely Grainger, but that a small portion is owned by the Council and then there are a number of different owners. **Cllr Lister** wanted clarity on the link between the Wards Corner development and the Apex House development. He felt that the plan to build 100% private housing on Wards Corner and 100% social housing on the Apex site would not wear. The Council are progressing with the development with Grainger on the basis that they can only get the 100% social housing on the Apex site if they allow 100% private housing on the Wards Corner site.


 * Shifa Mustafa Assistant Director Planning** Shifa identified a range of issues which needed to be taken into account, including: the site’s official Planning Brief (which guides development), design, affordable housing %, do we accept Wards Corner be all private, mixed ownership of land on the site, LBH is landowner of Apex House opposite, the London Mayor will test whether housing mix is acceptable.

//**Response:**// In response it was commented on that the local authority should lead the consultation, but the impression is that it is Grainger leading consultation and residents are not being taken into account. Yet they are surely the main stakeholders?

This is pre-application so it is now the time to be hearing local views. The question was raised about Grainger’s claim to have a signed, written agreement with the council about this site. **Shifa Mustafa** answered that there was nothing unusual about this and that the agreement does not hold until it has gone through the planning process, a report goes to the planning committee and planning permission has been granted.


 * Dave Morris** said that the reality was that if you have these behind-the-scenes agreements with developers you will get outcomes like that in Wood Green where a building the community wanted to protect (the Lordship Lane chapel, Wood Green’s oldest public building) was secretly sold by the Council to a private developer, suddenly demolished without warning and a 13 story twin-tower block proposed in its place. Developers can ignore the public’s views and develop what they want as long as the Cllrs on the Planning Cttee pass it. In the case of Wards Corner they want to get rid of the market, destroy the heritage of the site at Tottenham’s most significant interchange and completely ignore the public’s wishes. He urged the public to really fight for what they want as these developments are happening all over the borough and the public’s views are being completely ignored.

He raised the issue of whether homes are being built for those who need them. Key policies in the London Plan were being systematically flouted by developers and the Council in Haringey and throughout London. The 50% ‘affordable’ housing and 35% social housing quotas for new housing are being ignored - in reality, according to the Council’s own official monitoring, of the 624 homes built in Haringey in 2005-6 only a pathetic 11% had been social housing out of a total of only 32% ‘affordable’. These figures are one illustration of how the Council often do not adhere to official planning policies when they conflict with the profits of private developers. Other flouted policies include housing densities and the need for more open space and play areas. The community needs to put up a fight for what they want as well as support the market traders.


 * Cllr Amin** assured everyone that she was just as involved as she lived here, her family and children live here and that she wants what is best as well and is not making it up for the community. She reiterated that they were building 30% social housing and 70% private housing as a means of regenerating Tottenham so as to get mixed communities, although currently they have agreed to 50/50 for housing over 10 units. She said that the priority was mixed communities and there was an attempt to increase the mix.


 * Cllr Diakides** Said Haringey had been congratulated on their housing targets and he did not concur with the Council’s official figures quoted by Dave Morris, saying that the figures may be disputed. Isidoros concurred that we need more and should argue for more but with respect to Wards Corner he felt that in the light of everyone agreeing that they were not in favour of the development at Wards Corner the important thing to do was develop a Plan B that would stack up. Only if Plan B stacks up can you negotiate with developers and owners.


 * Candy Amsden - Secretary of CARA** asked what the possibility was of saving Wards Corner as we would all like, if there were no alternative but to progress with Grainger given that they had categorically stated that Wards Corner could not be saved. Candy questioned some of the arguments being put forward to justify demolition of Wards Corner and ‘regeneration’ through its redevelopment.

A Cllr on the Planning Cttee had expressed a view that the market was crime ridden and should therefore go. But this was untrue - on investigation of police records this allegation proved groundless, that not one report had been made in the last year.

It was commented that it is the rule that any Cllr on the Planning Cttee who had expressed a prior view regarding any Wards Corner proposal would have to stand down from the Committee when it considered such an application.


 * Nick Rau** then said that he felt that everyone wanted the best for the site, did not want to see unnecessary arguments or personal disputes. People were to remember that this meeting was being minuted and cautioned about what was said. He urged everyone to make the meeting constructive and inspirational not confrontational. He added that Grainger’s are now the Council’s ‘preferred developer’ and that we would have to feed back to them our views on what would constitute improvement.


 * Shifa Mustafa** explained that there was still time for Grainger to change aspects of their design, heritage, environmental issues etc.


 * The seven sisters market traders** were concerned that if the development went ahead what would happen to them? Will they be considered at all either as preferred users of new building or who would provide help with relocation. They were referred to the North London Business and the London Development Agency. They were also made aware that they would have to meet whatever increased market rents the new build demanded.


 * Vicky Alvarezn** said that they were prepared to fight to stay and to keep the market, that people should be put before profit.


 * Matthew Bradby** said Grainger were property developers and exist to make money. The Architects only provide the plan. The developer can always sack the architects and go back to the drawing board. He sited the example of 315 Roundway where a controversial proposal had been opposed, the community had fought hard and put their views forward and a compromise was secured so that an 8/9 story build became a 5 story build. He urged that people fight for what they want at Wards Corner because without it we will get an elephant.


 * David Schmidt** wanted to know what the cost to the public’s purse this deal has so far been. He questioned the resale value of the Apex House site as opposed to what it could get if sold for mixed development. Wanted to know how much had been expended in consultation fees.


 * Cllr Amin** said that over the last three years they had paid 4 consultants and that £100-300,000 had been spent. She said that the Council were to make no money on this, rather that they were paying for this regeneration.


 * Joanna Monaghan, member of Maze West** **RA,** raised the issue of the proposal stacking up and being viable. She questioned if the Council had held out for the best deal and wanted consideration paid to what we would be asked to tolerate for redevelopment.

She was told that the site survey revealed constraints which meant development would be expensive, that the developer should expect a reasonable profit and anything which was unreasonable was to be paid to the community. She was told that stacking up was a detailed process which weighed many things such as the site being a conservation site, cost of materials, development, the constraints of the site etc


 * A Tottenham Resident in Suffield Road** spoke of the problems he currently experiences in Suffield Road and hopes that this is addressed and not made worse by new development. There are problems with car parking, urinating, dumping, traffic flow. Concerned that residents are not consulted and as he lives in Suffield Road is concerned what any new development might mean as well as during the period of construction of the new development.

He was told that rights of light, visual amenity, parking were all part of the planning process.


 * Jeremy Cassidy, member of Fountain Area Residents Association,** said that we needed reassurance that our opinions would be taken into account. He said that this proposal was against what everyone wanted, seven stories was too high, felt this was a red rag to a bull and wanted to know how the proposals got to this stage. Said that the proposal has antagonised everyone.The council seem to believe that redevelopment is the big thing, that with it they can mesmerise the populace but cautioned that we need to take a look at what is around us and develop on a human scale.


 * Shelly Choudhury, New Deal for Communities,** said £500,000 had been invested by NDC in this development proposal so far and more was scheduled.


 * //Response:// It was agreed that a meeting should be set up with the NDC - __action point__


 * Carlos Burgos** said that he felt that guidance from central government about development was not being taken into consideration or being implemented. The traders had proposed a very good alternative community plan.


 * A vote was then taken to determine who was against the development and in favour of the alternative community plan as presented earlier. It was agreed, with none against, to back the community plan.**


 * Dave Morris** said that the current proposal to destroy the whole site was totally discredited. We had been presented with a community plan, a positive proposal we can all work on constructively and get behind, including the Council and NDC. We are in a strong position as the council own some of the land (in effect our land) and they therefore have a veto they can use. Also the proposal relies on the NDC money, which is public money. The Council and the NDC should withdraw from the Grainger proposal, and get behind the community plan 100%. In addition, should the Grainger proposal get to go to the Planning Committee they should reject it, or impose conditions to preserve Wards Corner heritage, keep the market, and use any and all planning policies available to make this happen.

He said that this was the gateway to the area and if we all worked together we could do something really constructive and positive for Tottenham. He spoke of the good relationships between residents associations and that a meeting organised by residents associations about planning issues, like this one, had not happened in years. He urged that the wishes of the people not be bulldozed by profit. We have an alternative plan, how do we take that forward now? We need to present an alternative to NDC that they can back and get the NDC regeneration money to develop this alternative restoration of Wards Corner. A new, improved, publicly backed proposal could then be put forward for planning permission.


 * Cllr Diakides** noted that the chances of getting what we want are greatest if we can show that the NDC investment in Wards Corner restoration will generate income, be realistic and stack up. **Adolpho Rey** said that the NDC should try to engage agents, third parties, the community, put all the ideas together, see what stacks up. Any proposals need to be feasible and deliverable.


 * Cllr Hoban** questioned whether the agreement signed between the Council and Graingers represented a conflict of interest. The NDC holds money for regeneration on behalf of the public, but are answerable to the Council who have a signed agreement with Grainger whose design the public don’t like.

Matt from Tottenham Civic Society urged everyone to sign the online petition at: http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/14551.html
 * It was agreed that we arrange a follow on meeting, develop a viable and popular plan, seek public support, look at how to move forward from there, request the NDC board meet up with us etc.**

Nick thanked everyone for attending what had turned out to be a very constructive and important meeting. He also thanked Mango’s for kindly offering their venue for the event.