Press+-+Haringey+Independent+-+Wards+Corner+battle+lost

=Wards Corner battle lost= Charlotte Gray - Haringey Independent (Tuesday 18th November 2008)


 * Wards Corner market traders and businesses will be forced to abandon their homes and livelihoods to make way for a "yuppie" housing development.

Haringey Council controverisally approved plans by a narrow margin yesterday for Grainger Plc to build 200 new private homes on the Ward's Corner site in the Seven Sisters area of Tottenham. There were allegations of racism and cries of shock from the 200-strong crowd in the gallery as plans to demolish 42 buildings on the market site were approved by a vote of 5-4. || || The plans, which were first proposed in 2004, will see 197 private flats built along with “high quality national stores”. Critically there is no provision for affordable housing on the site, leading to claims residents will be segregated from the surrounding poverty of Tottenham.

Councillor Bob Hare, who opposed the plans, said: “I am concerned we are creating quite a closed community of a particular sort. It seems fundamentally wrong when good advice is that in a development we should have a mix of all sorts of people.”

To smooth the process, Haringey council has promised to provide affordable housing on the Apex House site across the road when it comes to developing it in the future. Moaz Nanjuwany, chair of Tottenham Residents’ Association, owns one of the businesses affected. He said: “I’ve been here for nearly 30 years and up until now I was very proud of Haringey because it was prepared to welcome people from all over the world.

“Over the years the council has neglected this site and despite this the traders have survived. Surviving businesses have been here for a very long time.

“There is no provision for these small businesses to return.”

Council accused of racism
Councillors and officers were accused of racism and bias for their decision as four of the councillors supporting the proposal failed to ask a single question of expert officers during the four-hour meeting.

Wards Corner Coalition co-ordinator Candy Amsden said: "That was the most biased chairing I have ever seen in my life. Some of the councillors didn't even bother asking any questions.

"I feel so defeated by it. They don't understand they have made people homeless."

Assistant Director of Planning, Marc Darfman, led to cries of racism when he said the traders should know how to survive. He said: "The market traders that are successfully trading there have moved once already. It is not as if they don't understand how to move around London and survive."

Vice Chair of the meeting Ray Dodds, who supported Grainger, also caused outrage when he said Wards Corner “is a dump, was a dump and has been a dump for years."

Market trader Victoria Alvarez will have to leave her home and business behind for just £1,000 compensation. She said: "Most of us have come from different backgrounds here. But to say we have moved around is rubbish.

We are here to work and earn a decent living. We are not planning to live on benefits.”

Director of development at Grainger, David Walters, said: “Grainger didn’t take the decision to demolish buildings lightly. We are all committed to ensuring the necessary business advice and assistance to all market traders.”

"You've ruined our lives"
Victoria Alvarez, who owns a money transfer business El Cafetal in Pueblito Paisa, will have to leave her business and home behind for just £1,000 compensation.

This is the amount Grainger developers have offered traders to move out of the market while building work, due to last three years, is completed.

For many of the Latin-American traders this will be the death of them as they will not be able to survive the move, or afford the higher rent of the new spaces when they are ready.

Ms Alvarez has 10 different families relying on her business and a personal loan of £12,000. She said: "The money they have offered in compensation will not be enough.

“What the council is doing is betraying us. It's unbelieveable. You can't imagine how sad we are.

Close to tears on Monday night, Ms Alvarez continued: "It's going to ruin our lives. These are people who are going to lose homes, businesses and families. For the past two years this has been a nightmare.

“I believe there would be more respect for animals. Instead we're being treated like products. This is the time Tottenham needs to wake up and realise what kind of people are ruling us. It is unbelievable this is happening in a civilised world.”

Grainger admitted the traders were an afterthought but insisted it was doing the best it could to protect them. Mr Walters added: “The market is a success today and during this period we have identified people within the market who are interested in the future of Seven Sisters.

“We are delighted to be able to include [the market] in the plans and that’s as a direct result of consultation with local traders.”

He added Grainger is offering the traders the statutory amount of compensation to leave while building work takes place.

YOUR SAY

justinhinchcliffe@hotmail.com, Tottenham says...

Paul Smith, Planning Department Haringey Council, BY HAND

Dear Mr. Smith,

I am writing to object to the revised application, both in a personal capacity (as a local resident), and on behalf of Tottenham Conservatives; a registered political party with over 100 paid-up members in the Tottenham constituency, which is often supported by more than 4,500 residents from across Tottenham at election times.

There are so many reasons why you should reject this application. Please allow me to touch on some of them.

PRESERVING TOTTENHAM’S RICH HISTORY. Tottenham residents are extremely fortunate to be surrounded by period buildings. Plans were made to erect Ward’s Corner in the nineteenth century. It is a fine building of great architectural value and importance. It should be preserved at all costs. The Grainger plans are totally unimaginative and, actually, down-right ugly. Has the council not learnt anything from the mistake of allowing planning permission to be granted to the hideous-looking Apex House, which was erected in the same area in the early nineties? Tottenham should not become another ‘Clone Town’ with bland, unattractive monstrosities.

RESTORATION. This is not a dream, but a reality. A number of big commercial and voluntary organisations have expressed an interest in adopting the Restoration Plan put forward by the Ward’s Corner Community Coalition (WCCC, a lobby group supported by people of all political colours and none, local business, heritage and conservation bodies and many others). Their plan was drawn up by local resident experts, including professional architects. Restoration would be relatively cheap and straightforward. Organisations such as English Heritage and the Edwardian and Victorian societies would work with Haringey Council to return the building to its former glory. Once restoration is complete, a commercial plan could be put together to safeguard the livelihoods of the traders and allow income to be generated from using the area above the market, by letting it out to, for example, the Prince’s Trust which, I gather, is looking for a suitable building in the area and are very keen on using Ward’s Corner.

SUPPORTING TOTTENHAM’S SMALL BUSINESSES IN THE FACE OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC MELTDOWN. The majority of Tottenham’s businesses are small, friendly, family-run businesses, often catering for Tottenham’s rich and celebrated ethnic makeup. The Council says that is keen to support such businesses, however, now is the time for them to produce the goods. The traders in the market, and on Seven Sisters and West Green Roads are the lifeblood of the local economy; they employ local people, and encourage people to visit Tottenham by providing expert, friendly and competitive services and products. This is something that the big chains cannot always provide. Many of the small businesses and traders have decades-long roots in Tottenham – supporting the local economy and providing local consumers with choice in good times and bad. Now it is time to reward them, by safeguarding their futures, charging subsidised rents and rates and even encouraging the Council and their many partners to directly support them by buying their goods and using their services.

I understand that Grainger’s is close to bankruptcy. It could well be the case – that should you grant them planning permission – that it could go into liquidation soon afterwards? This would either leave the building in the same sorry state (which is indeed thanks to years of neglect!) or create a building site, reminiscent of the area where the Twin Towers stood after 9/11.

Even looking on the ‘bright side’, which big chain would want to open up a new store at a time when they are closing existing ones – like Woolworth’s did in Wood Green – and laying off hundreds of thousands of staff to survive the recession which all the financial experts agree we are heading into? The local traders are tried and tested. We should have faith in them to deliver for the area and to continue to play a key role in keeping Tottenham’s fragile economy afloat.

NOT ADDING TO HARINGEY’S GROWING HOMELESSNESS LIST. Put quite bluntly, approval of Grainger’s plans will not only destroy businesses that have been built up over many years, it will make a good number of people, especially the traders on Seven Sisters and West Green Roads, homeless. Compensation monies made to those affected would simply not be enough to purchase or rent (at a market price) alternative premises AND rent or buy new homes. Do we really want to add to Haringey’s homelessness list, which is already at full capacity?

AVOIDING SOCIAL/FINANCIAL SEGREGATION AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AREA’S LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT AN INCREASE IN THE LOCAL POPULATION. The idea that we in Tottenham should tolerate – let alone support – a housing divided based on residents’ wealth is failing to understand how and why Tottenham is the way it is today. Only the ‘well off’ would be able to afford the luxury properties that are being proposed. We should not be entertaining the idea of a small, gated and exclusive development. For over 100 years, people of all backgrounds, classes, colours and incomes have lived in harmony with each other. This is what makes Tottenham so great today. We should not support anything that could change the character of Tottenham. Plus, any increase, however small, in the local population numbers could not be matched by quality and spare infrastructure. It is already difficult, sometimes impossible, for existing residents to register their children at local schools and register with key health providers, such as doctors and dentists.

SUPPORTING TOTTENHAM’S – AND LONDON’S LATINO – COMMUNITY AND MARKET. The Latino community, which is estimated to be 100,0000-strong across London, chose to make Tottenham their home and trade here; it is something should that be noted, supported and cherished. They not only support their own community living in London (and in doing so attracting more people to the area) but they provide affordable and friendly advice, services and products to the wider community. In the market, local residents can have their bikes repaired, have haircuts, drink coffee made from fresh Colombian beans and purchase quality meats – all at very affordable prices. They have also integrated well and are now a part of Tottenham’s wonderful multicultural fabric, which we all wish to preserve.

AVOIDING TRANSPORT CHAOS. Should the Grainger plans be approved, this, according to experts at Transport for London, would lead to the closure of the main entrances of Seven Sisters Station – home to the Victoria line, arguably London’s busiest line, for years to come. This is because the Ticket Hall is only a metre or so below the Market and any major works carried out – let alone demolition – would lead to the closure of the Ticket Hall, thus the main entrances. The small entrance on Seven Sisters Road – a 5-minute walk away – is not big enough to cope with extra capacity, especially over such a long period of time.

CONSULTING WIDELY AND FAIRLY. Unfortunately, this is something you did not do well in my opinion. It is a view shared by the vast majority of traders and residents that I have personally spoken to. There was a feeling – one which remains – that this was a ‘done deal’ and that the Council was merely paying ‘lip service’ to the consultation process. Many people, myself included, thought Haringey Council had already made up its mind – a view borne out by the New Deal for Communities for the Seven Sisters area, a key strategic partner of the Council’s, giving £1.5.m to the private developer before either the consultation period had ended OR planning permission sought.

RESPECTING THE VIEW OF THE DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECT ED MAYOR OF LONDON. The new Mayor was, amongst other issues, elected on a pledge to save and restore Ward’s Corner and the Market. This is something he still wants to see happen. In his ‘Stage One’ report, he said he wanted the Market and the building saved in its “entirety”. Grainger’s new application does not do enough to address this request. On this issue, he commands the support of the entire community.

CONCLUSION. I think it is criminal to vandalise a building of such architectural and historical value and importance; evil to put hard-working traders out of their livelihoods and homes; morally wrong not to support our small business – the backbone of our local economy – at a time of great economic uncertainty; and extremely dangerous, and foolish, not to listen to local people. Again in both a personal capacity and on behalf of Tottenham Conservatives, I urge you to at best reject the Grainger application or, at worst, reject both the WCCC plan AND the Grainger plan and start from scratch. Yours sincerely,

Justin Hinchcliffe Chairman, Local Resident & Tottenham Conservatives [|www.tottenhamconservatives.com]

David Schmitz, Tottenham says... It is important that the very real objections to the Grainger scheme continue to be borne in mind. Firstly the Mayor of London has powers to intervene, both as a planning authority and (through Transport for London) as owner of much of the land on which it is proposed that the scheme should be built. Secondly, the planning sub-committee's decision may well be challenged in the courts. If the challenge is successful, the whole issue will again become "live."

My own most recent contribution to the debate can be summarised thus:

The Grainger application is premature for two reasons. 1. The proposal still involves the demolition of the Ward's Corner store, which is an iconic building in a conservation area. This should not be allowed unless it appears that there is no alternative but to demolish the building. This has yet to be demonstrated. In particular, the although the Ward's Corner Community Coalition has produced a detailed plan which would enable the building to be retained, the Council and NDC have done nothing to help develop this community plan. A feasibility study could, at no great cost, demonstrate that it would be an attractive business proposition for the store to be renovated and let out and for there to be high quality new-build (not high rise) to take place elsewhere on the site. The lack of help given to the community stands in contrast to the very large grants of public money given to Grainger in aid of the development of its proposal. A hopeful sign for the viability of the community proposal is that the Prince's Trust for regeneration has expressed interest. It would be perverse to allow for demolition without following this up.

2. The applicant has been professing its eagerness to consult with the Latin American Market traders in order to come up with a scheme in which they can have confidence for the creation of a new market for them. However, many details of what the developers propose remain unclear and therefore it is dangerous to rely upon their assurances unless further assurances and clarifications can be provided. If permission is granted without such clarification and further assurances, the traders will have no bargaining position in any negotiations which might later take place. In particular: A. Of the £96,000 which Grainger has promised to the traders as a condition to be attached to the receipt of planning permission (under a "section 106 agreement") in order to enable the market to continue in temporary premises during the construction works: (1) This is at present the total sum to be paid, and it is to be paid to the traders individually. That would not necessarily save the market because some traders may decide not to contribute their shares. Accordingly, there should be compensation payable to the traders collectively in addition to the compensation payable individually. There is nothing extravagant in requiring this. The traders will, after all, incur expenses in moving to the temporary market and then in moving back to the new, permanent market. They should be paid for this disturbance. (2) As it may be some years before the temporary market is needed, and as land prices may rise in the meantime, there should be a provision for the £96,000 to rise in line with an index of average commercial rent increases in the area. (3) Grainger has not given any examples of the sort of premises which are available now and which they say would be suitable as temporary accommodation for the market. It should give these examples.

B The rents for the new market are goingto be charged at market rates. The question which arises though is "with reference to which market?" If market rents are charged without restriction, there is a risk that the present traders and indeed the present trades which they undertake will not be able to afford the new rents, especially if the new market is fitted out in a manner intended to attract high class tenants. The continuation of the present traders and the services which they provide could be assured if there were requirements that a certain percentage of the market be occupied by locally owned small businesses, that a certain percentage be occupied by a locally owned café, that services of various other types be accommodated as well. Such restrictions would ensure that the market in respect of which they rents are assessed would be a market comprising traders of the type just mentioned, as opposed to (say) a market of concessionaires of national chains. Also rent increases for existing traders must be phased in over time. C. Although the market operator is to be chosen by the traders, it is not clear what his powers will be and, most importantly, what his obligations will be to the applicant which would fetter his discretion in (say) the standard of decoration and the rents to be charged. These points must be clarified. D. What promises of accommodation and phased rent increases are being offered to shopkeepers who are not amongst the market traders but who also belong to the same community of which the traders form part? Provision must be made for such businesses.

Generally with regard to the recent proposals, I would observe that the applicant is right in saying that it is offering more in compensation than would be available to the traders under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. However, it must not be lost sight of that a Section 106 agreement by its very nature requires a developer to give away more than he is strictly liable to pay under statutes which confer rights upon tenants. If all the developer were to do were to honour its statutory obligations, there would be no Section 106 benefit at all. Therefore, this offer by Grainger, though welcome, is not significant.

Although the applicant clearly is solvent now, we must remember that the applicant iteslf accepts that we are dealing with a timeline of several years. The committee must therefore consider the risk that the existing buildings might be knocked down, the applicant might fail and no-one might come along to fill the hole in the ground with a building such as might eventually be approved. There should therefore be a condition, if demolition is to be permitted, whereby the existing buildings must be kept in repair and no demolition must take place until the applicant or any successor has presented evidence to the chief financial officer of the Council which satisfies him that finance is in place to enable the development to be completed.

I would conclude by taking issue with what Cllr Dodds (Labour) said about the building (that it is and has always been a "dump"). It is true that the building is seriously dilapidated, and that keeping it that way is not an option. What the Cllr ignores, however, is that the building could easily be restored, and that once it is restored, it would become the gem that it once was. He also relied upon the fact that the building is not nationally listed, but that is to ignore another important point, which is that the whole point of conservation areas is to preserve the feel by preventing the demolition of buildings which, though not of national importance themselves, nonetheless give something special to the local area. If all we preserved were nationally listed buildings, we would have a merely a few buildings of note which were hemmed in by tower blocks, thus turning our country into an unappetizing mixture of a clone town and theme parks.

David Schmitz Chairman, Tottenham Liberal Democrats