Agenda item

[Report of the Strategic Director for Planning, Regeneration and Development. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Social Inclusion & Sustainability.]

Cabinet are asked to note the outcomes of the Wood Green AAP consultation report, and agree the consultation of an updated draft Wood Green AAP document.

The Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Sustainability introduced the report which set out the response to consultation on the previous ‘preferred option’ AAP consultation, how these have informed the revised draft AAP, and the key changes between the current and the previous version. Cabinet approval was sought to publish the revised ‘preferred option’ draft for a further round of consultation (Regulation 18) prior to confirming the final draft of the AAP (Regulation 19) to take forward for independent examination.

The Cabinet Member further clarified the following:

• The Wood Green Area Action Plan set out the vision for the local area, responding to resident’s aspirations and was not predicated on the HDV coming forward.
• The Challenge facing all town centres due to changing shopping patterns means the shopping centre needs to change to remain competitive in a changing market.
• The Wood Green Area Action Plan was different to Tottenham Area Action Plan and focussed on an economic development plan to bring jobs and work spaces to the borough.

In response to questions from Councillors: Strickland, Ibrahim, Ahmet, Engert, and Carter the following information was provided by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Sustainability.

• In relation to arranging a meeting with Page High Residents Association to discuss the future of the estate and to help work up options with the residents; Cllr Goldberg was happy to facilitate the meeting with officers. It was Important to hear residents’ concerns when discussing change. The Caxton Road changes demonstrated how the Council had listened to resident’s views and carried out further studies, and in this case, concluded that the vision could still be achieved without including these homes in the plan. The Plan had been revised accordingly and put forward for further consultation as a result of this action.

• The Cabinet Member reiterated that Sky City and Page’s High housing estates would be treated separately and the Council would work with the Housing Association landlords and their residents to find the right solution for each family. It was further important for all stakeholders/ partners in Wood Green to work with residents on plans going forward.

• Priority should be given to the provision of affordable housing rather than retaining the Civic Centre site for Council use in Wood Green Town Centre.

• It was important to read the Wood Green Strategic Regeneration Framework in conjunction with AAP as this set out the economic benefit of the AAP for residents. This document responds to challenges on: liveability in Wood Green, the fear of crime in the area, need to increase public spaces and job opportunities for people in the local area.

• People wanted better homes and jobs and the Council were listening to the residents of Noel Park. There was currently £23m investment in decent homes

• No meetings with organisations or resident’s groups in Wood Green had been refused. It was important to note that the AAP was not a plan for demolition but a Plan to enable development to come forward.

• Any future development/refurbishment plans for the Mall or Sky City and Page High would follow statutory planning requirements and will involve consultation with residents.

• It was important to keep in mind that the AAP and SRF was designed to set out what the best future looks like for Wood Green. It creates a framework for Planning Committee to act within and a framework for developers to engage with and understand the Council’s expectations of Wood Green, including the priority for investment in people.

• The Council had consulted properly on the Wood Green AAP and the Cabinet Member would continue to go to consultation events and have discussion with residents, as the AAP process continues. It was important to note that this was a staged process with discussion and review.

• It was correct for the Council to be ambitious, in relation to Crossrail 2, and have a plan that responds to external scrutiny. This also enabled a minimum threshold of housing to be included and not put jobs at risk. The Plan enables the Council to increase housing and job numbers whether or not Crossrail 2 comes forward.

• Agreed that the cost of running the second round of consultation, be provided to Cllr Engert outside of the meeting.

• Wood Green is a metropolitan town centre and residents have been clear about the need for a better choice of retail and leisure. There was potential, through the AAP, to have a change in retail offer in Wood Green and see new and old brands come back to the area, alongside office space to support this retail offer.

• The opportunity to deck over the bus garage is identified in the AAP, there are precedents for this happening elsewhere and would potentially deliver significant housing and job opportunities.

• Agree that there are opportunities for water sports on the filter beds, the SRF includes a proposal for an outdoor swimming offer.

• With regards to de-culverting the Moselle brook, deculverting is an ambition in the Local Plan but not a requirement, deculverting can only take place where it is feasible and viable on sites.

In considering the recommendations, the Cabinet noted the comments of the Regulatory Committee and agreed the officer updates proposed to the Wood Green Area Action Plan, since publication, as set out in the attached addendum.

RESOLVED

1. To note the findings of the February 2017 ‘preferred option’ consultation on the Wood Green Area Action Plan (“AAP”), as set out in the consultation report at Appendix A.

2. To note the key changes between the previous and the revised ‘preferred option’ versions of the AAP, as set out at paragraphs 6.6 and 6.7.

3. To approve the revised “preferred option” Wood Green AAP, as set out in Appendix B, for publication for public consultation.

4. To revoke the now out of date Haringey Heartlands Development Framework (2005).

Reasons for decision

The AAP is required to provide the planning framework needed to clearly articulate how the Council intends to regenerate Wood Green, ensuring public and private development and investment decisions are coordinated and deliver the strategic objectives sought.

Onceadopted, the AAP will:

·         Revitalise the town centre and surrounding area through the provision of development providing 4,000 new jobs and 6,400 new homes;

·         Safeguard Wood Green’s Metropolitan town centre status, by enabling an expansion of town centre floor space and uses, particularly for comparison retail, expanded and enhanced leisure, and the creation of an improved evening economy;

·         Enhance Haringey’s economy through new floor space for office and creative industries;

·         Enable a range of urban realm improvements including the creation of a new town square to provide the central focus of community life in Wood Green;

·         Optimise the use of Council-owned land to provide a catalyst for wider regeneration and to facilitate comprehensive development;

·         Secure enhanced east-west and north-south connections through the centre, making it more accessible and pedestrian friendly;

·         Co-ordinate new infrastructure in the regenerated town centre, to support the area’s increasing population;

·         Establish a set of Wood Green specific planning policies to ensure the right type of development comes forwards in the right locations to achieve the community’s aspirations for the future of Wood Green.

It was anticipated that Government would make a positive announcement about supporting Crossrail 2 in the last year. Unfortunately, neither the 2017 Conservative manifesto or successive budget statements have provided any certainty that Crossrail 2 will be funded. As a result, it is not possible or appropriate for the AAP to rely on the increased transport capacity that Crossrail 2 would provide that in turn would allow for increased development densities.

Since the growth assumptions (both the amount and mix of development proposed) in the previous ‘preferred option’ draft were predicated on the provision of Crossrail 2 serving the Wood Green area, it is not possible to progress to a Pre-submission (Regulation 19) version of the AAP without further consulting the community on the consequences for the Plan of not relying upon this strategic transport improvement. To do so would risk the AAP being found ‘unsound’ at the examination in public stage, resulting in reputational harm and significant delay and additional costs in bring forward this much needed planning framework. For these reasons, a further ‘preferred option’ round of consultation is necessary.

Alternative options considered

As set out in Section 4 above, it is not possible to progress straight to a Pre-submission (Regulation 19) version of the Wood Green AAP based on the 2017 ‘preferred option’ draft for the reasons outlined. This option is therefore dismissed.

An alternative option is to rely on the existing Local Plan to manage growth and change in Wood Green, in preference to preparing an AAP for the area. This option would see implementation of the proposals already set out in the Site Allocations DPD, which allocates the majority of development sites proposed in the AAP, making provision for 4,300 net additional homes. However, these site allocations in themselves do not provide the overarching framework needed to secure coordinated improvements and regeneration benefits across the wider Wood Green area. In this respect, initial consultation on the Wood Green AAP - the 2016 Issues & Options consultation - elicited significant public support for a high level of intervention and significant growth where this would secure a rejuvenated High Street, with a better shopping offer and improved pedestrian connections, more housing, including affordable homes, and greater local job opportunities. Given development in accordance with the existing site allocations are unlikely to deliver the community’s aspirations for the future of Wood Green, this option is not preferred.