Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Spurs abandon promise of £16m deal for riot hit Tottenham
Tottenham Hotspur has broken its promise to invest £16m in regenerating the riot-torn local community.
Spurs signed a contract with Haringey Council under which it agreed to plough money into a community that was ripped apart by the August riots.
Now it seems that the club will go back on its promise to invest £16m in regenerating the community to make way for its new £400 million stadium.
The club looks set to break that vow after deciding that it could not afford the money on top of the £400m it is spending on its new 60,000-seat stadium. Planning approval was given for the stadium in 2010.
Paul Phillips, Tottenham's project director, said: "All major regeneration projects require a level of public sector support, especially in areas with such high levels of deprivation and need."
It also seems likely that Tottenham's future investment in improving Tottenham Hale station and its surrounding roads will be waived.
Haringey Council and Mayor of London Boris Johnson have agreed to subsidise the plans to spend just £9m which will be paid entirely by the taxpayer.
Haringey's cabinet member for economic development, Alan Strickland, said: "The council's investment will be £9m, but with funding from the GLA [Greater London Authority] and Spurs, north Tottenham is set for a £400m regeneration."
Spurs's plans include a club superstore and a series of homes half of which they have promised will be affordable.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Julia Bell on
-
God, this makes me so angry . . . the whole thing had been an utter farce of bad faith, bullying big business and clueless local planning. I suppose we should be grateful they're not abandoning Tottenham all together but . . . rage . . . Hugh do you have a link to the story I want to post this on my FB page . . .
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Hugh, I can't find the original article on International Business News. But what you quote seems largely misleading.
As I understand it, last year and the year before Spurs were negotiating with Boris Johnson and Haringey on Section 106 (Planning Gain) payments. These would have partly covered the costs of new infrastructure needed to cope with the many thousands more supporters (i.e customers) who will visit the new stadium and its facilities.
There was some disagreement on the amounts required, for example, about how much Transport for London was asking for upgrading Tottenham Hale Station. It would also have helped cover the cost of road improvements. Plus an extension of the match day Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) to prevent an even larger slice of the area becoming one huge Spurs carpark on weekends and evenings of home games.
This money was nothing to do with "ploughing money into the community". Nor with "vows" or "pledges" to a "community that was ripped apart by the riot". Whatever that tabloid gush means.
What's changed since the riot, is that instead of paying a reasonable amount in Section 106, the plan is now for Spurs to become a net recipient of public welfare. As I understand it, the Section 106 obligations will be excused.
Had Leona Helmsley lived in Haringey she would no doubt have said: "We don't pay Section 106. Only the little people pay Section 106."
________________
Note for the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary. The word 'Regeneration' has been redefined. It now means using public money to regenerate the bank accounts of large companies, football clubs and property developers.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Here's the link, Alan and here's the same issue in the often overlooked Journal.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
I wonder if any of the local White Hart Lane Ward Councillors were involved in this business?
(not speculation, just a question)
-
-
Clive, despite the Spurs ground being called "White Hart Lane", it's not actually in that road, nor even in that ward. The football ground is to the east of High Road Tottenham and the area to be developed by Spurs is bordered on the north by Northumberland Park N17 and on the south by Park Lane. You can see it on Google Earth.
The three Northumberland Park ward councillors are Kaushika Amin, John Bevan and Sheila Peacock who have no "involvement" in Spurs' club. I can tell you that all three work hard in their ward. (Not something I could say about every councillor.) They've been vocal in raising concerns about the impact of these developments on both local residents, and on the buildings nearby.
There's also a plan to improve/regenerate/improve/redevelop (pick whichever word you like) the land to the west of Spurs stadium. Here's a plan showing the area affected. It's also in Northumberland Park ward.
-
-
The new deal with Spurs was struck last night (13 February) at Haringey Planning Committee. Updated report in the Journal here. It reports Daniel Levy as "delighted" - as well he might be. There's a photo of him looking like the cat who can't believe he's been let into a Jersey creamery.
Please notice the rapid adoption of the fantastic Regenero-burble phrase: "potential to kick-start the regeneration of..."
On 2 February the Journal reported Daniel Levy saying the Spurs scheme "had the potential to kick-start the long term regeneration of north Tottenham". While the latest Tottenham Journal report quotes Cllr Alan Strickland that it has ". . . the potential to kick-start the wider regeneration of Tottenham".
The magic dust of kick-starting is quite kick-startling. It was only two years ago that the Masterplan (by BDP) made the far more modest claim that the tower blocks near Tottenham Hale Station would "kick start the regeneration of Tottenham Hale".
I can see this Spurs deal being a model for lots of other welcome and positive kick-startings. For example, other developers may be queueing-up to have their section 106 agreements smilingly vanished away.
What about less elevated residents and traders? Here's a model letter which they can try:
Dear Haringey,
I very much welcome your decision to allow Spurs to abandon its legally binding commitments to pay £15.5 million "Planning Gain" to help meet the costs to the local council and Transport for London which will be incurred when Spurs get their bigger, better, shinier, and far more profitable new stadium.
Like Spurs - though on a much smaller scale of course - my own business/home/converted garage, is not profitable enough to make it viable to pay my Business Rates/Council Tax this year - or indeed in future years. But like Spurs, my business/family are committed to developing a world class business/household, associated developments with the ensuing benefits of employment opportunities, economic uplift and community gains.
Therefore I confidently await your decision to waive my Business Rates/Council Tax/other/ in the certain knowledge that this will kick-start the regeneration of our new kitchen/car/holiday in Bermuda/other.
Very sincerely
Proud of our roots in / temporary residence in /occasional visits to Tottenham.
-
-
And perhaps both people who read this thought I was joking?
Not so! Anyone who watched the BBC news this evening would have seen (on the London segment) Michael Polledri speaking to Kurt Barling. Mr Polledri's company, Lea Valley Estates, signed an agreement to pay several million pounds in section 106 Planning Gain in respect of the out-of-scale out-of-place slabs breathtakingly beautiful masterpiece called "Hale Village". As Mr Polledri told Kurt Barling.
"One needs to feel that the local authority share the same agenda. We need an overarching view of investment and, frankly, the local authority need to welcome us and to make life easy for us. Not to burden us with issues which means the schemes are not viable."
Of course we do! So does anyone owe Haringey some rent? Or have an outstanding bill to the Council? Or a Parking ticket? Just ring up tomorrow and explain slowly and patiently that you and the Council share an overarching view. That they really should make life easy for you. And stop burdening you with their silly little issues.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
The message clearly is: 'be grateful that we're staying or else we'll leave' - which has been the message all along as far as I can see . . .
Thanks for all this though Alan. Julia
-
-
THERE are good developers and less good developers.
I favour the former; some of the latter are too greedy by half. Some developers have been able to run rings round our local council. But when a developer is too greedy by a factor of 10 or 100, sometimes the public notices and things go awry.
A significant example of such a developer (who even now, attempts to sue our council for £6,200,000) is Firoka, headed up by Firoz Kassam – of Oxford United Football Club notoriety.
Disgraced Cllr. Charles Adje was found to have brought our council into disrepute, by concealing a Briefing Note from his fellow Trustees. One part of that Briefing Note gives an insight into the chutzpah of some of these characters:
If Kassam were to accelerate the process he claims this would save
the Trust some £250,000 over a three month period and he has
requested we use that funding to support him and reflect the
additional risks he would assume over the interim period
The above "process" referred to accelerating the sale of our charity's main asset, the Alexandra Palace building to Firoka. The "saving" (?!) to the council would be used as "funding to support him".
Additional risks? What additional risks?
Even the eyebrows of the then general manager lifted at this (i.e. Keith Holder, who wrote the Briefing Note).
In consequence, largely due to the suppression of the Briefing Note, between £1.5m and £2m of our taxes (probably more) from this relatively poor Borough, was transferred into the account of a company controlled by one of Britain's richest men.
Nice work if you can get it.
-
-
You're resting on your laurels, Clive.
Pink Floyd can issue remastered versions of their greatest albums. Leonard Cohen can hoarsely recycle songs with a backing choir and an army of musicians.
But unfortunately you're not an ageing rock star. So while "Charles Adje & the Standards Committee" was an undoubted hit and many of us clapped and sang along, you now risk losing your fans. You need some sparkling new material.
-
-
I happen to think that Firoka is a particularly good and relevant example of a bad developer.
Not resting on laurels at all. Tomorrow evening (Thursday), I present formally to the Alexandra Palace Trust Board, my Proposal about UN World Heritage site status.
I'll belt out some sparkling new material.
You're welcome to come along and listen.
19:30 at the Transmitter Hall, AP.
-
Permalink Reply by Seema Chandwani on
-
Peacock is vice chair of the planning committee that voted to approve this plan on Monday, although it says on the council site she sent her apologies.
Not saying they are not concerned, just responding to the no "involvement" part
Hope you are well Mr S x
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
