'Why was the community denied simple compromise in Spurs stadium walkway plans?’

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on April 9, 2014 at 16:52

As explained in the heading above, I received the following statement today forwarded by Dave Morris (Our Tottenham) from Patricia Pearcy one of the traders in North Tottenham who have been campaigning to oppose/modify the so-called regeneration plans. 

.

----- Original Message -----

From: Dave

To: ourtottenham_news@lists.riseup.net

‘Why was community denied simple compromise in Spurs stadium walkway plans?’

The co-chairman of the Tottenham Business Group asks why the best solution for everyone in the controversial Spurs walkway plans was scrapped before getting the oxygen of publicity.

"Basically, there is more money in smashing our shops and businesses to bits then turfing out the residents from Love Lane and smashing their homes to bits as well." Monday April 7, 2014

"There always has been an alternative to demolition, but it was not presented to the community in the High Road West consultation. That community was not given all the possible options."  Patricia  Pearcey

Overall, the Tottenham community welcomes regeneration schemes. But, based on what we now know, some of us regard the plans which include a new walkway to the Spurs ground - known as the High Road West scheme - as just a new-fashioned urban clearance programme promoted under the guise of 21st century heaven.

Why? Well, it was recently revealed that the planning consultancy firm Arup, who have drawn up several overarching plans for the area’s redevelopment, had provided an option to Haringey Council that saved businesses, High Road shops and the GP surgery from demolition.

It was not among the options recently presented to the community, though. Every one of the plans put forward publicly would have resulted in these community businesses being erased from the future.

But this previously unknown option contains everything that Haringey had earmarked as essential: the new station and the fans’ walkway from White Hart Lane station to the new stadium. There are just two simple - but very important - differences.

It places the new “community” building (which is in fact shops incorporating a new library) on the corner of Whitehall Street. That, we heard from an Arup design consultant, could have been combined with a mews-style development around the Peacock Industrial Estate.

So in fact there always has been an alternative to demolition, but it was not presented to the community in the High Road West consultation. That community was not given all the possible options.

From the start the High Road West community had clearly expressed, through a local petition of 4,000-plus signatures, that it was against demolition of local business. In November, Cllr Alan Strickland, the cabinet member for regeneration and housing, agreed to explore options to look at the retention of the shops and businesses.

In February, the Tottenham Business Group finally met with the council’s regeneration team, but compromise was not on that agenda. We were there to just listen to the rationale behind the council’s planning decisions. But it was during this process that the alternative option came to light.

"Making simple changes could fuse the current with the future. Allowing the threads of the old community to lend credibility and breathe life into the new."

We immediately asked the council’s cabinet why this was never presented to the community. This new plan for the High Road, combined with the suggested mews-style development around the Peacock Industrial Estate and perhaps the saving of some of the 19th-century shops in White Hart Lane, offered a compromise which was easily achievable; a fusion of the community’s wishes and developers’ demands.

But this option had been rejected by the cabinet, we were told, on two counts:

1. It did not optimise public open space between the High Road and the new station;

2. There was nowhere to keep the books while the library was rebuilt on the existing site.

In fact, placing the new “community” building on the site of the current Coombes Croft library creates more space, not less. This new building has twice the footprint of the existing High Road parade that it is due to replace. Building on the corner site would actually free up more public open space between the new station and the High Road.

Since the council currently owns the majority of the land around the current library site, it would also be a cheaper option. And the problem of storing library books has been met before; when the present library was extended a temporary library was set up in a High Road shop. The council now owns more of the High Road, so we see no reason why that could not once more be the solution.

Alternatively, two glazed Portacabins placed behind the existing High Road parade would also provide a successful temporary site for the library, accessed via Whitehall Street.

These are easy, very achievable adjustments which would satisfy the community. They leave the original council demands of a new station, a walkway and a “community” building in place but retain the bare bones of local business.

To reject this would confirm a real lack of transparency in this regeneration programme and a strong hidden agenda.

This council appears determined to create for Tottenham Hotspur what is referred to in the council’s Strategic Regeneration Framework - a document outlining the vision for the next 20 years - as a “premier leisure venue” in north Tottenham.

In a recent piece in the Evening Standard, Robert Bevan said the funds earmarked for Tottenham regeneration “offers a foundation of hope for one of London’s poorest areas”. What does that mean in real terms?

Does he mean a place to attract rich people who will help create a “decent”, “21st century” neighbourhood for us poorer Londoners to share?

New housing developments that contain no affordable housing have become notoriously common in similar London schemes. The absence of neighbours who are not as well-off make properties easier to sell to wealthy clients and investors.

That means, basically, there is more money in smashing our shops and businesses to bits then turfing out the residents from Love Lane and smashing their homes to bits as well.

From the ruins will rise “London’s premier leisure venue”, complete with towering blocks that will take years to construct with all the noise and disruption that entails. A cold, empty, lifeless chasm of a pseudo-place to create profit for the developers but doing far more harm than good to most local people.

Making simple changes could fuse the current with the future. Allowing the threads of the old community to lend credibility and breathe life into the new.

Keeping the Peacock Industrial Estate not only preserves truly useful start-up space for new business, it preserves jobs and skills which will not and cannot be replaced in the local area and which are vital to future youth employment.

Preserving the surgery maintains a vital social network and keeps a very necessary health facility. Preserving the small parade to the front of the Peacock Industrial Estate would frame the older buildings and save some turn-of-the-century shops.

There is great concern over the destruction of the conservation area. The facades of these shops, and those saved in the High Road, could then easily be restored to provide a pleasant, familiar frontage to the new ultra-modern development rising behind. This has been done very successfully in Brixton.

This community is fed up with the council’s perpetual PR spin, pushing forward its preconceived ideological “visions for Tottenham”. It’s time cabinet members remembered their responsibility to their constituents and engaged with us in an honest, genuine compromise.

Those of you reading this can show your support by actively canvassing your local councillors on behalf of local business. You can also follow us on Twitter @TottenhamBnessG and the Labour cabinet members Cllr Alan Strickland @AlanStrickland and Cllr Claire Kober @ClaireKober and have your say.

[Haringey blogger: Patricia Pearcy]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on April 9, 2014 at 17:14

I think the word "community" is not working. I think neighbourhood, whilst a little clumsier, is more empowering in that there is such a thing as a "community of travelers" who are on the face of it, quite portable. Just my 2p.

• ▶ Reply