Agenda item

Tottenham Hotspur football stadium and associated land - Bill Nicholson Way, 748 High Road, Tottenham, N17 0AP

Proposed demolition and comprehensive redevelopment of stadium (Class D2) with hotel (Class C1), retail (Class A1 and/or A3 and/or A4 and/or A5), museum (Class D1), offices (Class B1) and housing (Class C3) together with the associated facilities including the construction of new and altered roads, footways; public and private open spaces; landscaping and related works. Details of “design” and “scale” are reserved in relation to the proposed residential and hotel buildings.

Please note, it being a special meeting of the Committee, under the Council’s Constitution, Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 17, no other business shall be considered at this meeting.

Minutes:

The Chair gave an outline of the procedure to be followed at the meeting for the benefit of all present.

Marc Dorfman, Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Economy, gave an outline of the contents of the addendum report to the main document pack, which included a revised list of plans, amendments to the wording of the recommendations, errata for clarification of aspects of the original report, and a replacement section 27 of the officer report, summarising the Section 106 and 278 Heads of Terms.

Sue Cooke, Head of the Tottenham Hotspurs Development Project, gave a presentation on the form of the applications, the consultation undertaken, the site as existing and as proposed, the policy context, the proposed scale and elevations of the supermarket and stadium, the outline of the new southern development, landscaping issues and impact on the High Road, the Southern Terrace and retained historic buildings.

Marc Dorfman gave a presentation on the transport issues, the Section 106 and Section 278 agreements. Mr Dorfman explained that transport issues centred around the increase in the stadium capacity, and how this increase in visitors could be accommodated. The presentation looked at parking issues, the existing and proposed modal split, explained as the different means of transport used by people in getting to the stadium, the impact on the underground and rail, proposed bus diversion routes, proposed improvements to the bus network, the match day controlled parking zone (CPZ), the existing and proposed vehicle trips, proposed junction of the High Road and Northumberland Park and before and after images of the site.

Mr Dorfman also talked the Committee through the amended Section 27 of the officers’ report, as tabled, which was the summary of the Section 106 and 278, and Heads of Terms. Mr Dorfman highlighted at point 1.2.3 of the revised proposed Heads of Terms that the form of section 106/278 guarantee would be agreed before any development on site begins. Mr Dorfman explained that, in relation to the consultation response received from TfL, all of the issues raised had been agreed, except for the amount that should be paid towards the Tottenham Hale Interchange improvement and its trigger. Mr Dorfman outlined TfL’s position on this matter and advised the Committee that the recommendation was to approve the contribution of £2m offered by Tottenham Hotspur (THFC) and that if agreement on this issue could not be reached between the Council and THFC then this would be decided through the Stage 2 referral to the Mayor/GLA. The Committee was advised that the Mayor could support the Committee’s decision, direct refusal or take the decision away from the Local Authority to determine himself. The Committee was asked to support the officers’ recommendation on this matter and not to reduce the amount of S106 contribution.

Mr Dorfman talked the Committee through the rest of the proposed s106/278 aspects as set out in the addendum report, including the Local Area Wide Management Plan (LAMP) for the prevention of crime, antisocial behaviour and litter on matchdays and the mitigation of the impact of visitors on foot for residents and local businesses, heritage building and area improvement, employment and skills, business improvement and town centre management and area planning and regeneration action plan, community health, education and other contributions.

In response to a question from the Chair, Mr Dorfman explained that Section 278 was for essential highway works and that Section 106 enabled the Council to ask for contributions to appropriate community benefits in line with the scale of development. In response to a question from the Committee regarding the impact of the proposed supermarket on local traders, Mr Dorfman advised that research demonstrated that local firms could benefit by complementing the supermarket provision and that the site had been identified as an appropriate location for a supermarket under Haringey’s planning policies. It was also reported that the development would attract increased footfall to Tottenham High Road, and away from out of town facilities. In response to a question on whether the s106 contributions for education could be ring-fenced to benefit schools in the North Tottenham area, Mr Dorfman advised that education contributions went into a pooled fund for the whole borough, and that research showed that as much funding from s106 agreements in the west of the borough benefited schools in the east of the borough as the other way around.

The Committee suggested that it could be conditioned that the supermarket car park could be used by those visiting other local shops, as a means of supporting and promoting ‘shop local’, and Mr Dorfman agreed that this could be added. The Committee also asked that in relation to the proposed LAMP, an opportunity for consultation with local residents be included in the development of the LAMP. Mr Dorfman agreed that this could be incorporated, but would need to be facilitated within a time frame to enable the s106 agreement to be signed by the anticipated date in December 2010. In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Dorfman clarified that TfL’s suggestion to bridge the gap between their assessment of the amount needed for the Tottenham Hale interchange and the amount offered by THFC was to reduce the contributions proposed elsewhere, for example not having York Stone paving around the stadium as stipulated by English Heritage, or reducing the amount of local signage. Mr Dorfman reiterated that the Council was satisfied with THFC’s proposed contribution of £2m for the Tottenham Hale interchange and that it was not recommended that any of the other s106 contributions proposed be reduced.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding the impact of traffic on match days, Maurice Richards, Transportation Planner, explained that the proposed expansion of the match day CPZ would reduce congestion in the immediate area of the stadium, enabling buses to move more freely in the vicinity of the stadium. Mr Dorfman advised the Committee that research had been carried out into the impact of the anticipated match day afternoon ‘stress point’, and the road systems proposed were designed to cope even were traffic permanently at these very high levels. In response to a question from the Committee regarding why it was not proposed that all the social housing should be provided on site, Mr Dorfman advised that in order to balance the guidance provided by national planning policy and the Council’s Housing Strategy and Sustainable Community Strategy, the Council had proposed that it would be happy to consider a cash contribution for affordable housing to be pooled for use across the borough and it was clarified that were this to be agreed, the Council could negotiate with the developer that, should social housing units be provided elsewhere in the borough, it would the same number of units as would have been provided on site, irrespective of any difference in land prices. The Committee asked why the number of affordable units proposed had reduced from 500 to 200, in response to which it was reported that the number had been reduced on the basis of what could be accommodated on the site as details of the scheme were worked out. In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Dorfman confirmed that details of the hotel and residential accommodation would be referred back to the Committee for approval, as it was an application for outline permission only in respect of these elements of the scheme before the Committee at this meeting.

The Committee expressed concern regarding the pavement width proposed and whether this would be sufficient to cope with the anticipated increased footfall, as issues had been raised in respect of this at the site visit. Mr Dorfman acknowledged this concern, and advised that THFC had been asked to produce a management plan in respect of access and egress for the supermarket to demonstrate that the proposed 4–4.5m width would be sufficient and that if the Council were not satisfied that this had been demonstrated, a requirement for a wider pavement would be imposed.

The Committee expressed a concern regarding the match day CPZ proposals and the prevalent use of informal car parks on private land near the stadium. Mr Richards advised the Committee that it was anticipated that the extension of the match day CPZ would significantly increase the price of private car parks near the stadium and as a consequence reduce the demand for such facilities. It was reported that it was the intention of the CPZ to mitigate the impact of match day parking and to reduce the proportion of visitors travelling to the stadium by car. Any proposed CPZ would be subject to consultation with local residents and if introduced would also be subject to monitoring on a yearly basis to identify any areas affected by displacement parking and to address these issues. In response to a question from the Committee regarding enforcement in relation to parking issues, Mr Dorfman confirmed that the Council would work with the Police to look at how to address any such issues as part of the LAMP.

The Chair invited the objectors to address the Committee.

Father Luke Miller addressed the Committee and expressed his concerns that the regeneration proposed in relation to the current scheme would only affect the periphery of the site and surrounding roads, and would not benefit the whole community. Father Miller also expressed concern that local groups might not be able to operate alongside the new stadium as existing problems, which already affected the ability of his youth club at St Mary’s to operate on match days, would be exacerbated. Father Miller requested that the Committee defer consideration of the application until the LAMP was finalised, so that the scheme could be made to benefit the whole community.

Mr Jason Hoyte, local resident, addressed the Committee to express his concerns. He asked how the arrival of an additional 20,000 fans could be managed, when the problems associated with the existing number of fans had not yet been fully resolved after many years. Mr Hoyte also expressed concern regarding the design proposed and that it did not take into account local environmental factors. Mr Hoyte advised that the design should be improved to make Tottenham a better place and that the Committee should reject the current application. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Hoyte stated that rejection of the current application would enable a better application, with greater consideration of the visual landscape and sustainability amongst other issues. He also advised that he did not object to the increase in capacity but that elements such as standard widths for pavements should be reconsidered, as the proposed site was non-standard use.

Ms Jemma Hechavarria addressed the Committee to express concerns in relation to the proposed 24 hour supermarket, although she was in favour of the development in principle. Ms Hechavarria stated that the proposed supermarket would have a detrimental impact on those residents of Northumberland Park living in the immediate vicinity and would lead to increased traffic including heavy goods vehicles, would overlook the neighbouring properties, would increase noise and pollution and would affect residents’ safety. In response to questions from the Committee, Ms Hechavarria stated that her primary concern was that the proposed building should be further recessed so there was more space between it and neighbouring residences, and also that screening should be introduced to protect residents from noise.

Cllr John Bevan, Cabinet Member for Housing and Ward Councillor for Northumberland Park, addressed the Committee. He stated that the proposed design was of very high quality, but expressed concern that in other large projects, the architects had been replaced once planning permission had been granted, and suggested that an informative be added that the current architects be retained to completion of the scheme. Cllr Bevan also requested on behalf of the Housing Service that an informative be added that a foyer be considered for inclusion in the housing scheme, and that this be on site and not off site. Cllr Bevan advised that at public meetings, views had been expressed that £30k per year was too low for the monitoring of the Transport, Highways, Parking and Travel Plan, that the proposed provision of three public toilets in the podium was insufficient and that the walking routes to the stations should be included for litter picking and cleaning on match days.

Sgt Simon Willmott of the Metropolitan Police responded to questions from the Committee. Sgt Willmott advised that the Police were not concerned that increased capacity at the stadium would lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour, and in response to the concerns expressed by Father Miller earlier in the meeting, Sgt Willmott reported that he would speak to Father Miller outside the meeting to address his concerns and the issues he was experiencing in relation to youth facilities. In response to questions from the Committee in relation to the Police’s formal response to the consultation on the application, Sgt Willmott reported that the Police were no longer requesting number plate recognition cameras in the car park, as the introduction of other measures had been agreed, and that the design of the proposed scheme meant that the Police were satisfied that an effective and safe segregation of home and away fans could be achieved.

The Chair invited supporters of the scheme to address the Committee. Gary Ince, North London Business, addressed the Committee to state that the proposed development would bring regeneration benefits for the area both on non-match and match days, and represented significant private sector investment in the area against a background of financial difficulties. Mr Ince felt that the scheme would boost the area, assure local businesses of the future of Tottenham and bring employment opportunities and a vibrancy to the area that would have a knock-on effect on local traders. It was also felt that the proposed hotel would address a current lack of accommodation, conference and banqueting facilities in the area and would meet the needs of businesses and individuals. Mr Ince also welcomed the improved public realm element of the scheme and the restoration of currently redundant historic buildings. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Ince reported that the intended reduction of the number of visitors to the stadium by car would provide more opportunities for visitors to spend money in the local area, for example in local restaurants, and that elements such as the public realm and hotel would attract more visitors on non-match days.

Burk Gravis, Haringey Sports Development Trust, addressed the Committee on the outstanding support the Spurs Foundation had given to the Trust in enabling more young people in the borough, including young people with special educational needs and those not in the education system, to participate in sport and the great benefits the Club brought to the community. Nicky Price of the Tottenham Traders Partnership addressed the Committee and stated that the Club was essential to the running of local businesses, who relied on match days for trade. Mr Price felt that the development would bring economic benefits to the whole area and would be a catalyst for regeneration, bringing new jobs, business opportunities and footfall. It was felt that the proposals would bring life to the area and improve community spirit locally, as the scheme would be used every day of the week, and not just match days. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Price advised that local businesses such as bars and small retailers would benefit from the increased footfall the development would bring.

Tony Millard, Deputy Headteacher at the Vale School, addressed the Committee regarding the opportunities the Spurs Foundation had provided for the pupils at the school, coordinating sports activities for disabled students and providing coaching in school as well as giving young people the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister, Minister of State for Education, Premiership footballers and other opportunities, none of which would have been possible if the school had not been in the vicinity of a Premier League football club. In response to a question from the Committee regarding the application, Mr Millard reported that enabling the club to develop would, as a business, improve their success and enable them to continue and build on their community work. Mr Martin Laheen, a local community volunteer, addressed the Committee to say that the development was fantastic for the area and would bring the important historic fabric back into use for the community. Mr Laheen asked the Committee to approve the application to bring regeneration to the area and provide local young people with the opportunities they needed.

The Chair invited Paul Phillips, Stadium Project Director for Tottenham Hotspur FC, to address the Committee in his capacity of applicant. Mr Phillips advised that the application before the Committee was the culmination of 3 years work, during which time there had been constant dialogue and consultation. Mr Phillips believed that all the agencies were broadly in support of the proposals. Mr Phillips told the Committee that the area was in need of significant investment and that the proposed scheme would bring jobs and increased spending power and would benefit local businesses. The scale and quality of the development and range of uses would make the scheme a vibrant area, 365 days a year. In response to concerns raised during the meeting, Mr Phillips advised that THFC would be happy for a consultation process to be undertaken before the details of the LAMP were finalised. Mr Phillips also stated the club’s position in relation to the issue relating to the contribution for Tottenham Hale interchange; that the club felt that the interchange was a higher priority that some other aspects covered in the s106, and that if the money already agreed could be reallocated, this would resolve the issue. The club was not prepared to increase the current contribution of £2m. £2.4m was on the table should TfL and Haringey be prepared to reallocate other existing funds. Mr Phillips advised that a third party organisation had scrutinised the environment plan and they THFC were confident that this was robust, and also that the visual impact of the scheme had broad support from CABE.

In response to the concerns raised by local residents in respect of the proposed supermarket, Mr Phillips advised that THFC had offered to remove the proposed taxi rank from the scheme, to increase the amount of planting in front of the development and to involve those local residents living immediately opposite in the final choice on colours and materials specification for the supermarket façade. Mr Phillips advised that THFC intended to retain the current architects and were happy to discuss this with the Council. In response to the concerns regarding the amount of public toilet facilities offered in the podium, Mr Phillips clarified that this would be three blocks of toilets and would be in addition to over 1,000 toilets within the stadium itself. Mr Phillips advised that discussions were taking place regarding the provision of toilet facilities near stations, as it was accepted that long queues did form at the stations on match days.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding the concerns raised by Mr Hoyte in respect of the design of the scheme, Mr Phillips advised that THFC had discussed the application with Mr Hoyte, who had a high level of environmental expertise, but that all aspects of the scheme had been closely scrutinised and that THFC were happy that the scheme was robust. The Committee asked about the extent of the proposed match day CPZ, and Mr Phillips clarified the area to be covered and commented that THFC felt that the proposed area would be a sensible starting point. Mr Phillips refused to comment on questions from the Committee as to whether THFC were intending to submit a bid for the Olympic stadium.

The Committee asked about the width of the footpaths in front of the supermarket, and also whether the incorporation of elements of the historic buildings to be demolished into the supermarket façade had been considered. Mr Phillips advised that the proposal was to increase the width of the footpaths from the current 3 metres to 4 metres, and that the front of the proposed supermarket had been recessed a further 0.5 metres at ground level. It was felt that the proposed pavement width was sufficient. Mr Phillips acknowledged residents’ valid concerns in relation to the pavement width, and suggested that it would be sensible, as part of the operation of the supermarket, for the area outside the store to be monitored to ensure it was not cluttered or obstructed. Mr Phillips advised that THFC had looked at the retention of the facades of the buildings to be demolished, but that in this instance it was not felt to be workable. In respect of a question from the Committee regarding the possibility of introducing local consultation into the development process for the LAMP, Mr Phillips agreed that this would be a sensible approach.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding TfL’s suggestions for bridging the perceived gap in contributions for the Tottenham Hale interchange, Mr Phillips reported that THFC considered that the negotiations in respect of the York Stone, agreed with English Heritage, should not be reopened. In respect of the potential for reduction in signage and footway improvements, it was felt by the applicant that there could be some movement in respect of contributions for these elements, as they were seen as lesser priorities than the Tottenham Hale interchange. The Committee expressed concern that, given the scale of the development as a whole, the scheme could be put at risk were permission granted and this issue not resolved.

In response to concerns from the Committee that, even were permission to be granted, the development of the stadium might not happen were THFC to decide to bid for the Olympic stadium, Mr Phillips emphasised that the scheme tabled was the result of a very long process and that the club had invested significant time and money in the development of the application, and the Committee were asked to give the scheme due consideration. In response to a question from the Committee of whether it would be possible to condition that construction of the supermarket was dependent on work on the stadium also being commenced, Mr Phillips advised that were this to be conditioned, it would hamper THFC’s ability to deliver the stadium as the supermarket was to act as an enabling development for the stadium development. Mr Phillips further advised the Committee that the construction of the supermarket was also the trigger point for a number of regeneration benefits such as job brokerages.

The Committee moved to look at the model of the scheme on display, and to ask further questions of officers. In response to a question from the Committee regarding the boundary with the school, officers responded that the proposal was for a ‘green wall’, clarified as a planted wall with a solid structure, to replace the existing breeze block wall. Officers advised that it was a condition that further details regarding the landscaping should be submitted for approval. Officers also responded to questions from the Committee regarding the location of the service yard to the rear of the supermarket. In response to questions regarding the details of the housing scheme proposed, it was reported that details of this scheme would be referred to the Committee in a separate application.

Officers clarified that access around the podium area would be open to the public at all times, and would replace the existing cycle route. The Committee asked further about the proposals for cycle routes, in response to which Mr Richards advised that it was the plan for the new routes to link up with a more strategic green network. In response to questions regarding the arrival and egress of shoppers for the supermarket, it was reported that it was anticipated that most would be arriving from the west and south west, where there was a current lack of supermarket provision, and that an additional egress route from the car park had been included to feed onto the High Road. In response to concerns from the Committee that Chestnut Road might be used as the shortest route from the development back to Tottenham Hale station, Mr Richards advised that this could be addressed as part of the LAMP along with other smaller roads which might be affected, and that the Council would work with local residents on ways of improving pedestrian access and protecting local space for residents throughout the year. In response to a question regarding Park Lane, it was clarified that no changes were proposed and this would remain stopped up.

Samples of the proposed materials to be used for details of the scheme were on display for consideration by the Committee.

The Committee and officers returned to their seats, and the Committee had the opportunity to ask final questions of officers.

The Committee asked whether the boundaries for the match day CPZ could be fixed as proposed, in response to which officers advised that the CPZ boundaries were subject to consultation, and the proposals could be changed as a result. The Committee was advised that in accordance with the s106, if problems were identified on a road adjacent to the CPZ after a period of two years, funds would be available to address this issue. Mr Richards advised that the sustainable transport team would be examining where there was any overlap between the match day CPZ and the ordinary CPZ to provide clarification on this issue. In response to a question from the Committee regarding whether the Committee could approve part of the application only, Rosemary Lansdowne, Legal Services, advised the Committee that they could only approve or refuse all of the application before them. In response to a request from the Committee, Mr Dorfman agreed that the details of the proposed street furniture, landscaping and the supermarket façade would be brought back for consideration by the Committee.

The Committee asked whether it would be possible to add a condition that the supermarket could not be opened unless certain works were commenced in relation to the construction of the stadium. Mr Dorfman suggested that an informative be added that the club consider carrying out works on the stadium development before the opening of the supermarket, rather than a condition, due to the funding circumstances. Cllr Schmitz advised that he would not be satisfied with an informative, and moved that a condition should be added that the supermarket could not be opened unless certain works were commenced in relation to the construction of the stadium. The motion was not seconded, and the motion therefore fell.

The Committee considered the recommendations of the report and possible conditions.

The Committee agreed that paragraph 1.8.3 xi of the revised proposed S106/278 Heads of Terms should be amended to read “community safety, anti crime and anti social behaviour measures to support business premise, public realm and citizens inside the stadium, on the podium, on the walking routes to the stadium and in an agreed area with the proposed CPZ area will be assessed and implemented by THFC in agreement with the LBH, including St Mary’s vicarage and youth club”.

Marc Dorfman summarised the additional conditions and informatives requested by the Committee as follows:

i) That an additional point xvi. be added to paragraph 1.8.3 of the revised proposed s106/278 Heads of Terms to read “Tottenham Hotspur Football Club will agree a LAMP community information and consultation process and plan to agree the final LAMP and review its progress annually by a report produced by Tottenham Hotspur Football Club to a specification set out by the London Borough of Haringey”

ii) That a condition be added in relation to ‘shop local’, permitting local shoppers to use the supermarket car park for a set time, in addition to supermarket visitors.

iii) That a condition be added to restricting the times at which service deliveries to and from the supermarket could be carried out to particular hours during the day in order to address the concerns regarding noise.

iv) That a condition be added to read “Tottenham Hotspur FC will provide a minimum 4.5m pavement space available along the supermarket building for safe and free flow pedestrian access, to be designed and agreed by the London Borough of Haringey”.

v) That an informative be added to request the club to retain the original architects for the period of the build of the scheme.

vi) That an informative be added requesting the club, in delivering 50% affordable housing for the residential scheme, to consider supporting a foyer scheme on site.

Mr Dorfman clarified that the LAMP would address issues regarding CCTV provision, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police, and would also address issues around litter picking. Mr Dorfman also advised that the issue of toilet provision near stations would be discussed further, as this was a recognised issue.

Mr Dorfman advised the Committee that the issues of street furniture, heritage landscape and supermarket façade would be referred back to the Committee for consideration.

In response to strong and clear concerns expressed by the Committee regarding the position in respect of the issues around the contribution for the Tottenham Hale interchange and the impact this might have on the progress of the scheme as a whole, the Chief Executive, Kevin Crompton, advised the Committee that the recommendations were to agreed the section 106 agreement as set out in the addendum report. Were the Committee to grant permission, it would be the expectation of the Council that the section 106 would be honoured as set out, and any outstanding issues would be for resolution in another place.

On the request of the Chair, Mr Dorfman clarified the recommendation set out at 3.3 of addendum B.

The Chair summed up the process so far, whereby the Committee had heard the officers’ report and asked questions, heard from the objectors and asked questions, heard from supporters of the scheme and asked questions, heard from the applicant and asked questions, had a chance to look at the model and ask questions, had asked further questions of the officers and received clarification on the section 106 and additional conditions from Mr Dorfman.

The Committee was asked to refer to the recommendations of the report, as set out in the addendum.

The Chair moved the recommendations and it was unanimously:

RESOLVED

i) That Planning Committee be “minded to” grant planning permission and conservation area consent and listed building consent for applications HGY/2010/1000, HGY/2010/1001, HGY/2010/1002 and HGY/2010/1003 subject to the completion of a combined legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Sections 38, 72 and 278 of the Highways Act 1980 and all other appropriate legal powers (together with an appropriate from of guarantee, for example a bond, for both the S278 works and S106 contributions) covering all the issues set out in section 4 and the Heads of Terms at Addendum D of the report, as amended by the discussions at the meeting and the conditions set out in Appendix 7 the additional conditions agreed at the meeting (PROVIDING THAT where details are not yet sufficiently advanced the legal agreement may contain provisions to complete additional Section 278 Agreements subject to the subsequent agreement of those details and appropriate restrictions of the development or the relevant part of it).

ii) In the event that the said legal agreement is not signed by Friday 17^th December 2010 the Director of Urban Environment shall consider whether or not to extend the period for completion of the said legal agreement or if there is no immediate prospect of the agreement being completed, the application may be reported back to the Planning Committee.

iii) That the application be referred to the Mayor for his final direction.

iv) That the listed buildings referenced HGY/2010/1002 and HGY/2010/1003 be referred to English Heritage under Section 14 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and in accordance with the requirements of ODPM Circular 01/2001.

v) That the planning application be referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.

vi) On the grant of the planning permission for the development, the Director of Urban Environment and the Head of Legal Services be authorised to take all steps and actions as may be necessary for either or both the making of an order or orders for the stopping up or diversion of highways pursuant to sections 247, 248 or 249 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or traffic regulation orders (or a combination of both) of the highways known as Worcester Avenue, Paxton Way, and Bill Nicholson Way and access way off the High Road between No’s 788 and 784 and 774 and 772 opposite Whitehall Street as shown on an agreed plan SUBJECT TO the developed indemnifying the Council against all costs and expenses in respect of making such stopping-up ordered.

vii) In the event of a public inquiry into any objections to the orders referred to at vi) above, the Head of Legal Services be authorised to take all action reasonably necessary to defend or settle such proceedings.

Planning Application Reference No.HGY/2010/1000

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING GENERAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER 1995 (AS AMENDED)

Location: Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, Bill Nicholson Way, 748 High Road N17

Proposal: Demolition and comprehensive redevelopment of a stadium (Class D2) with hotel (Class C1), retail (Class A1 and/or A2 and/or A3 and/or A4 and/or A5), museum (Class D1) offices (Class B1) and housing (Class C3); together with associated facilities including the construction of new and altered roads, footways, public and private open spaces; landscaping and related works. Details of "appearance" and "scale" are reserved in relation to the proposed residential and hotel buildings

The following conditions have been applied to this consent and these conditions must be complied with:

1. The housing and hotel elements of the scheme are granted in OUTLINE, in accordance with the provisions of Regulations 3 & 4 of the Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) 1995 and before any development is commenced, the approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be obtained to the following reserved matters, namely: b) external appearance and c) scale.

Reason: This condition is imposed by virtue of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2. The part of the development where full details are approved by this planning application, namely the 'Northern Development', 'the Stadium' and 'the Southern Development' (see plan A600 Rev 00), shall begin as follows:

a. The Northern Development shall commence within three years of the date of this planning permission;

b. The Stadium shall commence within five years of the date of this planning permission; and

c. The Southern Development (excluding those elements that are approved in outline only (namely the residential block and the hotel block) shall commence within seven years of the date of this planning permission.

Reason: This condition is imposed by virtue of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

3. In relation to the outline component (namely the residential block and the hotel block) application for the first reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this planning permission. That part of the development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of seven years from the date of this planning permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of the approval of the last reserved matters application, whichever is the later.

Reason: This condition is imposed by virtue of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

4. No development authorised by this planning permission shall be commenced until an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 substantially in the same terms as the Section 106 Agreement which binds the land has been entered into by all of the relevant parties and completed in relation to the relevant area of land.

Reason: This condition is imposed by virtue of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions. Housing and Hotel

5. The residential development hereby permitted shall not exceed 200 separate dwelling units, whether flats or houses.

Reason: To ensure a comprehensive and sustainable development in order to control the overall density levels within the development in accordance with the London Borough of Haringey's Housing SPD adopted October 2008.

6. At least 10% of the dwellings shall be capable of being converted for wheelchair access and 100% of the dwellings shall be built to meet Lifetime Homes standards, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure adequate accessibility for disabled and mobility impaired throughout their lifetime in accordance with policy HSG1 of London Borough of Haringey's Unitary Development Plan 2006.

7. Applications for the Reserved Matters approval in respect of the hotel and housing elements shall be accompanied by an Environmental Sustainability Plan. The Environmental Sustainability Plan shall demonstrate:

(a). how the proposed building design(s) realise(s) opportunities to include design and technology energy efficiency measures;

(b) the reduction in carbon emissions achieved through these building design and technology energy efficiency measures, compared with the emissions permitted under the national Building Regulations prevailing at the time the application(s) for approval of reserved matters are submitted;

(d) how energy shall be supplied to the building(s), highlighting;

i. how the building(s) relate(s) to the sitewide strategy for district heating

incorporating trigeneration from distributed combined heat and power;

ii. how the building(s) relate(s) to the strategy for using biofuel boilers to supplement the energy supplied through district heating systems;

iii. the assessment of the cost effectiveness and reliability of the supply chain for biofuels;

iv. any other measures to incorporate renewables.

(e) how the proposed building(s) have been designed to achieve a BREEAM and/or Eco homes rating of "very good" (or an equivalent assessment method and rating) or better;

(f) The incorporation of bird boxes, bat roosts and other wildlife features on buildings.

Reason: To ensure a comprehensive and sustainable development and to achieve good design through the development in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment, in accordance with policies G1, UD1, UD2, and ENV2, of the London Borough of Haringey Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2006.

8. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority the floorspace approved as part of Reserved Matter approvals pursuant to this permission and provided for use as a hotel shall include no more than 150 bedrooms in total

Reason: The development is the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment and any change to the development from the particulars assessed as above might have an impact which has not been identified and assessed. The requirements of this condition are to ensure a comprehensive and sustainable development, and to achieve integration, regeneration and good design, and accordance with the assessment and conclusions of the Environmental Impact Assessment, in accordance with policies AC2, UD6 and HSG10 of the London Borough of Haringey Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2006. Historic Environment

9. Before any works or development commence on the retained Heritage assets 746,748,750, Tottenham High Road , the following details in respect of each of the retained buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:

a. samples of all external materials comprising wall facing materials and cladding, window glass,

door and window frames, decorative features, rainwater goods and paving

b. elevational drawings, plans, roof plans, and sections at 1:100 scale of all the buildings, sample elevations and sections at 1:20 scale of bays, windows and doors, balconies, parapets and eaves

c. drawings at 1:1 scale of sectional profiles of the window and door frames, cornices, string courses and other decorative mouldings

d. detailed drawings of any roof mounted plant and equipment and screening measures

e. details of the architectural treatment of the northern and eastern elevations of the Old White Hart Public House (No. 750)

Reason: To ensure a high quality development to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the North Tottenham Conservation Area in accordance with policies CSV1,CSV3,.CSV5 AND CSV7,UD1, UD2, UD3 and UD4 of the London Borough of Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006

10. The repair and renovation of the retained Heritage assets 746,748,750, Tottenham High Road shall be completed in accordance with a schedule of works contained within the Section 106 Agreement, and to the written satisfaction of the local Planning authority before any major event takes place in the new stadium.

11. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the proper investigation and recording of archaeological sites within the Borough, in accordance with CSV8. Informative: The development of this site is likely to damage archaeological remains. The applicant should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form of an archaeological project design. The design should be in accordance with the appropriate English Heritage guidelines.

12. No works of demolition within the conservation area should take place until detailed drawings at an appropriate scale of the new entrance porch of the stadium, barriers, landscape scheme, steps, ironwork, public art, materials, and balustrades have been submitted and approved by the Council as local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure a high quality development to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the North Tottenham Conservation Area in accordance with policies CSV1,CSV3, CSV4 CSV5 AND CSV7,UD1, UD2, UD3 and UD4 of the London Borough of Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006.

13. Prior to the opening of the supermarket, the applicant shall submit to the Council as local planning authority for approval detailed drawings at an appropriate scale (elevations 1:20, plans 1:50) of the rear boundary works to the northern terrace, showing materials, and access arrangements.

Reason: To preserve the setting and appearance of the listed buildings, and to ensure a high quality development to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the North Tottenham Conservation Area in accordance with policies CSV1,CSV3, CSV4 CSV5 AND CSV7,UD1, UD2, UD3 and UD4 of the London Borough of Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006.

14. Before any development in relation to the stadium commences, detailed drawings at 1:20 of the landscape and boundary treatment for the forecourt of No. 744 High Road (Warmington House) shall be submitted to the Council as local planning authority for approval. The landscape and boundary treatment shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

15. Full details of the development, including samples of all materials to be used for the external surfaces of each phase of the development as set out in the agreed phasing plan included in the section 106 agreement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority before any development is commenced on that phase. Samples shall include sample panels, glazing and a roofing material sample combined with a schedule of the exact product references.

Reason: To ensure a comprehensive and sustainable development and to achieve good design throughout the development, in accordance with policies UD1, UD2, UD3 and UD4 of the London Borough of Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006.

16. All approved materials shall be erected in the form of a samples board to be retained on site throughout the works period for the phase concerned and the relevant parts of the works shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details.

17. The number of single day major non - association football events per annum (including music concerts) shall be no more than 4 of which no more than 1 shall be on Sunday and no more than 1 on a Bank Holiday (where a major event is a single day event attended by 10,000 visitors or more).