You are here

Agenda item

Wards Corner Compulsory Purchase Order 2015[Seven Sisters Regeneration, Tottenham - Compulsory Purchase Order 2016 - "London Borough of Haringey (Wards Corner Regeneration Project) Compulsory Purchase Order 2016".

[Report of the Director for Planning, Regeneration and Development. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration.]This report seeks approval for the Council to use its Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) powers to acquire the land required for the Wards Corner development, following on from the 14th July 2014 Cabinet Report which approved in principle the CPO.


The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration introduced the report which sought approval from Cabinet for the Council to use its Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) powers to acquire the land required for the Wards Corner development.  The report further included the rationale and reasons for Cabinet authorising the CPO of this key regeneration site in Tottenham.


Cabinet had already agreed, in July 2014, to the principal of the CPO, subject to pre – conditions being met. The Cabinet Member reiterated that this was a critical development for Tottenham delivering housing and employment.


The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration further drew Cabinet’s attention to an addendum to be considered with this report. This included an updated Statement of Reasons and corresponding updated recommendations, following the recent DCLG guidance on CPO’s produced in late October. This had been produced after the report was finalised and it was necessary to now consider the updated statement of reasons to ensure the Council were complying with the latest government guidance.


A deputation request from the Wards Corner Coalition had been received after the constitutional deadline and therefore not been accepted .They had put forward further written representations which were tabled for Cabinet member’s consideration. 


Councillor Strickland continued to respond to the issues raised in the deputation letter.


  • The Wards Corner Coalition contended that they had not been communicated with about the likelihood of a CPO decision going forward to Cabinet in November. In response to this, the Cabinet Member advised that there had been a previous indication of the CPO decision in the earlier report to Cabinet in July 2014 and this key decision had been notified on the 1st of October in the Council’s published Forward Plan.


  • The public benefit of the CPO, the case was made within the report and the Statement of Reasons and would be tested at a public enquiry, if necessary.


  • Lack of engagement with them about this process - Cllr Strickland explained that at this stage of the process the Council were not required to engage with the Collation. There would be stakeholder engagement as part of the CPO process.


  • The CPO process was a statutory process and people were free to oppose this through the set statutory process.Councillor Strickland outlined that  the EQIA at Appendix 5 of the report pack also identified the existing social and economic value of the site in relation to protected characteristics. It concluded that any negative equality impacts of the CPO will be mitigated by the measures outlined in the S106 Agreement, including further engagement with the affected stakeholders.



  • Representation of the Ward’s Corner Coalition community plan in the report, there was a clear reference to the plan and objective assessment made in section 8. This was clear that the Coalition’s community plan does not deliver the regeneration needed in this area.


  • Community value – ASV was not dismissed and dealt with in the draft Statement of Reasons.


  • Cabinet was not required to consider likelihood that CPO will be opposed.


  • The opposition by London Underground was noted. Cllr Strickland advised that this was being completed as a protective measure by London Underground and prior to them settling terms with Grainger. This was clearly not viewed as an action contrary to the proposed scheme and there was not an opposition to the overall scheme and objective for this area which was increased housing and jobs.


  • Assurance was further given by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration that points raised by the Collation have been covered in the report.


Cllr McNamara reminded Cabinet of the previous efforts of the Planning Committee in ensuring the improvement to the design of the scheme and preservation of the physical heritage aspects. Issues with access points had previously also been resolved.


In response to Cllr Carter’s question, it was noted that the provision for the existing market had been dealt with in the section 106 agreement and they had protected funding to relocate. There was not previously affordable housing included in the approved development following the viability assessment of the scheme.


Following a vote of Cabinet Members  -




  1. To note that the pre-conditions for the CPO as set out in the Cabinet Resolution of 12th July 2014 have been met and complied with and that Grainger has confirmed that the pre-conditions contained within the Development Agreement of the 3rd August 2007 (as varied) have either been met and complied with, or can be met and complied with (as set out in paragraphs 6.11 to 6.29 of the Cabinet Report).


  1. That (whether or not the pre-conditions for the CPO as set out in the Cabinet Resolution of July 2014 have been complied with) Cabinet resolve (taking account of the Guidance and both the Cabinet Report and the Addendum) to make a Compulsory Purchase Order to acquire all land and rights within the Site shown edged red on the plan in Appendix 1 for planning purposes pursuant to Section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to enable Grainger to implement its planning permission on the basis that this will facilitate the redevelopment of the Site and promote or improve the economic, social and environmental well being of the area.


  1. That delegated authority  be given to the Assistant Director of Corporate Governance, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Director of Property and Capital Projects (i) to make any necessary changes, if appropriate, to the draft Statement of Reasons consequent upon Full Council’s consideration of the emerging planning policy papers and Regulation 19 approval for publication and submission thereof and (ii) on receipt of the Developer’s Stage 2 Notice (as defined in the CPO indemnity agreement dated 23 January 2015) to make, serve and implement the London Borough of Haringey (Wards Corner Regeneration Project) Compulsory Purchase Order 2016, including dealing with consultation with landowners and objections to the CPO, and preparation for and representation at any public inquiry.


  1. That delegated authority be given to the Assistant Director of Property and Capital Projects to serve the requisite Demolition Notices as set out in paragraphs 8.9 to 8.11 of the Cabinet Report on 12 Suffield Road.



Alternative options considered

Not to support the Wards Corner development with the use of Compulsory Purchase Powers (business as usual).


The implications of this option are that Grainger would be unlikely to be able to acquire the land needed through negotiation with individual land owners alone, and therefore will not be able to progress the development and the regeneration objectives for the Seven Sisters area will not be achieved. The additional houses and jobs will not be provided and the opportunity to create a significant and landmark development at the Seven Sisters transport interchange will be missed.


The alternative planning permission for part of the site, obtained by the Wards Corner Coalition (WCC), could, with the necessary landowner consent and funding, come forward should the CPO not be made. This scheme does not provide any increase in housing or employment space on the site and is likely to compromise the comprehensive development of the rest of the wider site which makes up the Order Land (Appendix 1). As a result the capacity of the site to provide new houses, commercial space and jobs and to help to achieve the regeneration objectives for the Seven Sisters area would not be met.


There are also significant concerns about the deliverability of the WCC scheme, as there is no evidence that the development could be funded and the landowner, London Underground Limited, has entered into negotiations with Grainger regarding the disposal of their interest.


Reason for decision

Dealing with each recommendation in turn, the reasons for decision are as follows:


The Cabinet resolution of 15th July 2014 which agreed in principle to the use of compulsory purchase powers in regards to the Wards Corner development site was subject to Grainger complying with a number of pre-conditions which were set out in the same Cabinet Report. It is therefore required that the Cabinet note that Grainger have complied with these pre-conditions as set out in sections 6.8 – 6.9 of this Cabinet Report. This is the reason for the recommendation at 3.1 of this Report.


Grainger have been unable to acquire all of the outstanding third party land interests in the proposed Wards Corner development site through agreement and is unlikely to be able to without the use of a CPO. To enable the delivery of the Seven Sisters Regeneration Project and the economic, social and environmental benefits that this will bring to the area, the Cabinet is asked to resolve to make a Compulsory Purchase Order to acquire all land and rights within the Site. The Council is satisfied that there is a compelling reason in the public interest to make the CPO for the reasons set out in this Cabinet Report and the Statement of Reasons (see Appendix 3). This is the reason for the recommendation at 3.2 of this report.


A number of further steps will need to be taken to issue, serve and implement this Compulsory Purchase Order. In order to expedite this process the Cabinet is also asked to grant delegated authority to the relevant officers to undertake the actions required. This is the reason for the recommendation at 3.3 and 3.4 of this report.


Supporting documents: