Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Spurs Stadium - Planning Committee on 16th December 2015
There will be a special planning committee on 16th December to make a decision about the Spurs stadium. It looks likely there will be no affordable housing on the site and that there will be no S106 money/CIL from the application for work in the local community.
A pretty big missed opportunity in my opinion. Doesn't seem right that a football club that can afford to pay its players exorbitant salaries can' t afford to put something back into the local community.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Thanks Karen. On the issue of housing I had a look in the Spurs website to see if I could find any more info. There is a reference (point 3 in the link below) but no numbers about tenure types or affordability. The quote is
"3. A different kind of housing market – improving existing homes and building new, high-quality homes to meet demand at a range of prices and tenures."
It may be somewhere, or not, in the planning application but the number of attachments to the application are vast and difficult to navigate via the brief descriptions on the Haringey website.
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/new-scheme/project-update/#planning...
-
Permalink Reply by Karen Alexander on
-
Well, trite it might be and I am not taking away the good work that Spurs do locally but this is a once in a lifetime project and not to include both affordable housing and S106/CIL money is a missed opportunity for the community.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Let's imagine Spurs did NOTHING for the area for a moment, just hypothetically. Do you think they would have been "allowed" to expand their stadium? I'm saying that Spurs do just enough to not be thrown out. They're like the boyfriend you mostly want to dump but occasionally he buys flowers.
-
-
You're right of course that Spurs do stuff for local communities but they are a huge, multi million pound business. I wonder when you consider what they do, money spent on local initiatives versus profits made, they do as much as any other business? Picked one completely at random below
http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/responsibility/our-values/making-a-pos...
-
Permalink Reply by Quentin Given on
-
Tottenham’s local Friends of the Earth group is calling on the Council’s planning committee to get tough with Spurs over their new stadium plans. London and Haringey planning policies call for major developments to provide 20% of their energy needs from renewables like solar panels – but the plans will only provide 0.3%, less than one sixtieth of the target.
At the same time, the plans reveal that the stadium will emit over 3,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year just to heat the pitch and make the grass grow.
If the plans cannot be improved to deliver more renewable energy on-site, then Haringey should demand two things:
- That Spurs provides on-site an energy centre to provide heating and hot water across its site and to neighbouring developments. This is a key way to cut the boroughs carbon emissions;
- To develop its own renewable energy off-site to compensate for missing its target. For example, to build a wind turbine that will generate as much electricity as the stadium uses.
With world attention focused on the climate talks in Paris, and with floods across the country worsened by climate change, this is not the time to lower our standards. Haringey should stand up for the future and demand that Spurs does its bit. Spurs’ motto is ‘To dare is to do’ but there’s nothing very daring about their climate plans.
-
-
Yes, 'Haringey 40:20 is an initiative of Haringey Council' it says here: http://www.haringey4020.org.uk/ .
"Imagine electric cars, state of the art buses and cyclists moving fluidly and quietly along Green Lanes and Muswell Hill Broadway. People walking and cycling to work in Tottenham’s thriving green business sector" (my bold) it says on the home page. Umm.....
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Please don't lose any sleep over the nitpickers Ossie. Everyone understands the fragile business model of a hard-up club. And why it needs to be bolstered by land speculation and the Council's removal of local residents and businesses. Haringey Council leadership have been supine for so long when it comes to Spurs, that it's dubious whether they could actually approach the club other than on their knees.
Though I'm curious about the "gazillions" brought to a pretty deprived area of Manchester. I assume you mean the Etihad Stadium. But wasn't the redevelopment of that area something to do with the Commonwealth Games, public money and a deal with Manchester?
A couple of years ago I tried to find some assessment of the benefits of what's called sport and leisure-led regeneration in different towns and cities. As I recall the evidence seemed to be equivocal at best. Have you come across some independent research which offers clear unambiguous positive evidence?
-
-
I have nothing at all against Spurs and like I said in my post I'm sure they do good. One of the thing the communities local to the football ground (and the thousands on the waiting list) are in desperate need of is decent places to live. As someone said in this thread, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to bring about change to the area but it has to be change that benefits not just the club, its supporters and visitors. I do think that it is change that is needed but what disappoints me is that I can't see the provision of high quality social housing on the table.
-
-
Exactly. And possibly worse. I wonder who really wants to live near a huge stadium which operates as a leisure destination 365 days a year?
That's the ambition of the Spurs plan. Which of course is why they very sensibly wanted to move to the Olympic Stadium in Stratford with all the infrastructure built - including investment at public expense - and why the Etihad Stadium is in East Manchester.
Positive change which broadly and on balance will benefit existing residents of the area?
It's possible that my gloomy forecasts prove to be largely or completely wrong. In which case I will be delighted to print-out my words on blue and white paper (recycled) and eat them at whatever subsidised hipster restaurant our Council is then throwing money at .
Until now, nobody on the Council has produced - at least to my knowledge - a fair and balanced assessment of the possible downsides as well as the advantages of the Spurs development and everything that goes with it. Anyone remember SWOT Analysis? You're supposed to include weaknesses and threats as well as strengths and opportunities.In 2012 when I took the photo above and several more, I wrote that:
"I'd not seen the slightest indication that leading councillors and Council staff were doing or intended to do a careful and rigorous job on behalf of the local community, by subjecting the wider development plans to critical analysis and scrutiny. It appeared to me that the work of staff engaged in the consultation was aimed simply at selling the development to residents".
Nothing has changed except that the buildings they do grow higher.
-
-
I wasn't asking specifically for a Cost Benefit Analysis. I was suggesting that Haringey professional staff should have given proper advice to councillors and to the public about possible downsides of a scheme which has been presented - as far as I know- as an unqualified benefit.
None of this is just "perception". There is solid independent academic research available across London and other cities about the wider development/ regeneration agenda underway. Which has been "sold" locally as if such a critique did not exist."If you get priced out clearly not [a good thing]. if you're in a position to hang on then clearly yes [a good thing]."
One aspect this completely ignores is that "a good thing" doesn't only depend on the value of your home. Maybe Cllr Clair Kober and her chums think Tottenham will transform into Stoke Newington or Dalston. But actually some people (like me) enjoy and like Tottenham because it is a mixed community and we don't want to live in Stokie, Tottie, Crouch Endie or whatever the baby-word expression becomes. We're not into social cleansing of the priced-out residents so we can make a killing on our property prices.
The priced out residents will also include thousands of people in middle-class jobs currently renting and paying a high proportion of their earnings to landlords and property speculators. Including slum landlords some of whom become millionaires on the basis of housing misery which is damaging individuals, families and children.
In my view the issue is not simply gentrification as such. The idea that the arrival of more middle class people in Tottenham is either something new or that - as Stuart Lipton wrote in his Report after the Riot, that we need "a better balance of housing" to achieve a "mixed community" is at best inaccurate and self-serving propaganda for the developers. These are euphemisms for an attack on social housing - whether owned by the council or housing associations.
Paragraph 2 of your comment is special pleading on the basis that a "world class" football club going to the next level is far too hard-up to abide by rules that other developers must meet. Nobody is suggesting "wholesale lavishing" by Spurs. What Spurs were asking for - the Stratford stadium - was entirely the other way. People can read David Conn the Guardian journalist who sheds light on the "fragile finance" and the possible use of tax havens. Here's one of his articles.But before you post again, OssiesDream, perhaps you'd like to tell us who you are and where you live and on what basis you make such confident assertions. And to assure us that you have no conflict of interest in this situation through personal or business links.
-
-
I find it very irritating that some members of this site, if they encounter a well argued point contrary to their own, sometimes attempt to undermine them by casting suspicion on their motives. We know very little about the motives and background of most people who use this site. I've even seen a rather ludicrous suggestion on here that members need to in some way divulge who they are when they sign up.
-
-
I'm finding the one-post-per-item-for-sale stuff going on irritating. I'm one of the people who questions anonymous users when they're having really, really forthright opinions. I've been a victim of arguing with puppets of other user's accounts twice now and it's more than irritating.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
