SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
Really? And where did you get this notion from?
New Stadium Details And Discussions
- Thread starter fozzi44
- Start date
Really? And where did you get this notion from?
davidmatzdorf
Front Page Gadfly
- Jun 7, 2004
- 18,106
- 45,030
These parochially-obsessed splinter groups drive me mad as well, but the notion that many residents will be forced out of London is very realistic. The fact that the campaigners are embarrassing, rigid and obsessed with ideological minutiae does not mean that every word they say is without foundation.
It is a strict cause-and-effect consequence of the current government's 'bedroom tax', its persecution of people who rely on benefits (especially people with health problems or disabilities) and the Mayor's ludicrous insistence that rents at 80% of market levels are 'affordable' in London that thousands of people who are living in council and housing association accommodation are being forced to leave London to find a place where they can pay the rent. Then, when they get there, they discover that they have to commute hours a day into London to get a (badly paying) job.
Where the scaremongers are blatantly lying is where they insist (as they always do) that tenants who are compelled to move because their flats will be demolished will have to pay these unaffordable rents. They won't and they never do. It is universal practice with regeneration projects that tenants who have to be moved have their rents protected, as long as they remain in affordable housing. As long as the tenants opt to be rehoused in the regeneration project or elsewhere in Haringey, they will keep their historical rents.
And every time, without fail, the opponents insist that rents for existing tenants will rise. They know it's a lie, but they say it in every instance. It's a pity, because it discredits their more general points about housing politics, which are often accurate.
Mister Jez
Well-Known Member
- Sep 4, 2008
- 1,002
- 2,014
spursfan77
Well-Known Member
- Aug 13, 2005
- 46,707
- 105,015
It's difficult to know how true that is or whether it's just the reporter stirring and trying to make a story.
THFCSPURS19
The Speaker of the Transfer Rumours Forum
- Jan 6, 2013
- 37,901
- 130,571
"The report from a public inquiry led by planning inspector David Nicholson last March - handed to Mr Pickles but never published - argues the local community won’t benefit enough from Spurs’ £450million redevelopment of the site to justify forcing family business Archway Sheet Metal Works off its land."
There's just something about this paragraph which is so utterly ridiculous and hilarious.
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
I checked this some while back when the ECHR was mentioned. I'm pretty sure Archway would have recourse to it only if they had been offered derisory compensation.
Last edited:
beats1
Well-Known Member
- Feb 22, 2010
- 30,041
- 29,639
davidmatzdorf
Front Page Gadfly
- Jun 7, 2004
- 18,106
- 45,030
It's a bit out of context. The Planning Inspector's concerns, as indicated quite clearly in the DCLG's decision, related specifically to the omission of the affordable housing from the 200 flats in Phase 3 of the development. It's a valid point and, if not for the fact that the entire NDP was going down the pan after the banking crisis, leading directly to the renegotiation of the S.106 Agreement, I would agree with it. For a development of this size to have zero affordable housing is unacceptable under English planning policy.
But in the circumstances, we ended up where we are and arguing in 2014 that we should delay the entire regeneration of Tottenham by refusing a CPO over <100 units of affordable housing - and that this would benefit the local community more than getting on with the job - is plainly daft.
Ossie'sAardvark
Well-Known Member
- Aug 20, 2013
- 2,073
- 2,210
I don't think human rights can get involved in this. The Spanish tell people they're going to build a road through their house and just do it.People have complained to HR but have lost out, HR's policy is regeneration/necessity is a country/state's decision. This very thing happened to a friend of mine. Not fair...maybe, but the decision has been taken.
CoopsieDeadpool
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2012
- 18,257
- 70,419
There's also something about that paragraph that makes it almost exactly 'word for word' what Peter from Archway was saying to me on twitter last week. Constantly saying that the stadium isn't important to the area, and that the area doesn't need THFC, whilst completely ignoring the fact that the stadium (I believe) is absolutely central the the outside funding (Government & Council etc) and the whole NDP as a whole.
I'm absolutely certain that there were PDF's put on here a while ago that outlined the Government's almost £1billion regeneration of the area, with that almost £1billion project including the £400mil Stadium build?
worcestersauce
"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
- Jan 23, 2006
- 27,020
- 45,348
The no social housing point is a little misleading as Tottenham will be gaining a great number of new social housing with this scheme, there may be no extra, I don't know, but they will be new and upgraded better places to live.
As for the infringement of human rights claim, this is a misunderstanding of what the CPO is, basically it is a lawful and legally supported right, for the benefit of the community, to infringe someone's human right to own property, or at least a certain specific property, and so that is no grounds for appeal.
As for the infringement of human rights claim, this is a misunderstanding of what the CPO is, basically it is a lawful and legally supported right, for the benefit of the community, to infringe someone's human right to own property, or at least a certain specific property, and so that is no grounds for appeal.
Spursidol
Well-Known Member
- Sep 15, 2007
- 12,636
- 15,834
Agree with all that.
However Spurs are somehow linked into Brook House (the Cannon Rubber site) and one or two other sites, often with Newlon as some form of 'partnership'. Brook House has (I think) about 230 flats, some designated as affordable housing, some as shared equity etc. Do you have any knowledge of the projects Spurs are involved with and the number of flats/houses which have been delivered - solit between say 'affordable housing, shared equity, 'normal sales' ?
Have we seen the January 2014 Unilateral agreement to deliver 100 units of affordable housing ? Do we know if these will come from more projects with Newlon or from the blocks of flats which is Phase 3 of the NDP ?
I suspect we've done a reasonable amount and/or committed to deliver quite a lot (and some through partnerships rather than outright) - alrhough it may be short of the original s106 target
Spursidol
Well-Known Member
- Sep 15, 2007
- 12,636
- 15,834
David's response is spot on. The Planning Inspector''s comments related to no affordable housing in the s.106 (with Spurs then commiting to 100 affordable flats) and the reduced amount Spurs need to pay for local infrastructure upgrades - both points Pickles dealt with at length in his CPO approval letter (posted half a dozen pages back). 'Peter' is taking the points out of context and 'simplifying' them as you might expect, and ignoring the fact that the THFC development is a catalyst for the redevelopment of Tottenham and a mainstay of the local economy in the first place (as a small example Spurs employ over 500 part time staff when matches are on - a big number by anyones standard - and of course fans buying food/drink on the way to/back from matches) - so if Spurs go into decline from not having a large stadium the local economy can equally expect to go downhill as we are that central to the local economy.
CoopsieDeadpool
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2012
- 18,257
- 70,419
Thanks Spursidol
.. No matter how much I pointed out precisely what you've just said (the stadium being the catalyst for the whole development) all I'd get in response was "the area can still be regenerated without Spurs building a new stadium". From what I've seen since this whole NDP was announced, absolutely nothing has suggested that the regeneration of N17 would be going ahead if it wasn't for the plans THFC have?
davidmatzdorf
Front Page Gadfly
- Jun 7, 2004
- 18,106
- 45,030
But the point of a S.106 Agreement for a residential developmebnt is that the developer has to subsidise the affordable housing, i.e., either build it and sell it to a housing association at a discount price that will enable the HA to charge below-market rents, or give some of the land to the HA for free, so the HA can build their own housing.
There will be affordable housing in the overall regeneration scheme, but it will be subsidised, if at all, by the taxpayer, not by the developer. That is what was bothering the Planning Inspector, who rightly reckoned that the developer should be subsidising the affordable housing. All this is a bit rich from my point of view: one less-publicised, but huge, cut made by the current government after the financial crisis was to terminate capital subsidies to housing associations to build new affordable housing - yet another case of robbing the poor to pay off the banks for fucking up the economy.
The article states that the Planning Inspector works for the DCLG. This isn't so. The Planning Inspectorate is a largely-independent body, not a department of government. Basically, it's a 'quango'. So it's actually inconsistent to the point of hypocrisy for the Mayor to overturn the Inspector's objection, which was based on the presence of taxpayer subsidy, when the Mayor was heavily implicated in ending the system that had delivered those government subsidies since the Housing Act 1974.
I don't know anyone at Newlon or I'd ask. As I wrote just above, there's no certainty that THFC is actually putting any subsidy into the Cannon Rubber development and I'm not really sure what the partnership with Newlon consists of.
I've not seen it and I suspect that it is attached to the planning consent for the Cannon Rubber development. If so, it may on Haringey's website. Let me take a look...
If there were any affordable units in the NDP Phase 3, then the CPO decision would have said so, so I think there must not be.
Last edited:
davidmatzdorf
Front Page Gadfly
- Jun 7, 2004
- 18,106
- 45,030
Thanks Spursidol
Mr Josif is being either naive or disingenuous and I'd favour the latter. Where's the bloody money supposed to come from? There are virtually no grants anymore, as they've all been cut by the government. Nothing happens without the private sector dominating the show nowadays, even to extent that some of our 'regeneration' schemes bear more resemblance to Halliburton's work in Iraq than they do to the tax on development which is what a S.106 Agreement is supposed to impose.
What other ideas does Peter Josif have to lever in half a billion quid of inward investment to make the Tottenham regeneration scheme viable? ... ... I thought not. THFC is the only game in town: no Spurs stadium, no regeneration. I don't have to like it, but that is how the politics of development work now.
Spursidol
Well-Known Member
- Sep 15, 2007
- 12,636
- 15,834
http://www.newlon.org.uk/2014/05/09/ledley-king-leads-double-celebration-tottenham-regeneration/
I couldn't find anything about the partnership either - but I assume Spurs would need to have put something substantial in to get 'partnership' status with Newlon on Brook House - maybe we bought the site cheap ?
davidmatzdorf
Front Page Gadfly
- Jun 7, 2004
- 18,106
- 45,030
The S.106 Agreement for the Cannon Rubber site is here:
http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=619174
It is dated 7 Feb 2013. The parties to the agreement are Newlon Housing Trust, LB Haringey and 'Canvax Ltd'. Canvax's registered address is shown as Bill Nicholson Way, 748 High Rd, which is the stadium, so I think it must be a Special Purpose Vehicle set up by THFC for this development.
The agreement notes that Canvax owns part of the property and 'is a party to this agreement to consent to its terms'.
There is a mention of Canvax that requires both Canvax and Newlon to permit rights of way to be created across their land in connection with the overall regeneration scheme and not to make a charge for this.
I've skimmed the whole document and I cannot see any reference to Canvax or THFC paying any money or subsidising the affordable housing (there are also private housing units) in any way. Indeed, all of the financial contributions are shown as being due from Newlon.
I'd conclude that the 'partnership' exists because the club owned some of the land that was needed for the development and therefore had to be a party to the S.106 - it is always the case that all landowners of a development site and any of their lenders who have a charge on the land all have to be parties to the S.106.
The S.106 has been signed on behalf of Canvax by one Emma Barry, Director. I add that in case anyone knows the name and can confirm that she works for the club.
That still doesn't tell us what the Jan 2014 Unilateral Undertaking (which is basically a S.106 Agreement, except with only the developer signing) was about.
CoopsieDeadpool
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2012
- 18,257
- 70,419
Excellent post, David. Remember one thing...... We're talking about a man who says/believes "N17 doesn't need THFC"..
Wine Gum
Well-Known Member
- May 14, 2007
- 593
- 2,118
Yep Canvax Ltd is 100% owned by TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR PROPERTY CO LTD.
