An ongoing public inquiry is hearing evidence from Tottenham residents served compulsory purchase orders by Haringey Council, reports Simon Allin, Local Democracy Reporter

Campaigners against the CPO outside the inquiry venue at the Bernie Grant Arts Centre in Tottenham — Campaigners against the CPO outside Bernie Grant Arts Centre

Tottenham residents battling Haringey Council’s bid to buy up their homes and businesses to allow a regeneration scheme to go ahead have made their case at a public inquiry.

The council wants to use compulsory purchase powers to buy properties earmarked for demolition under the first phase of the High Road West scheme – a development that will ultimately provide nearly 3,000 homes in blocks up to 29 storeys high.

Although the council won planning permission for the scheme last year, it has been unable to persuade some property owners to sell up. It claims the only way to ensure the development’s “timely delivery” is to use a compulsory purchase order (CPO) – a legal tool allowing it to buy land without the owner’s consent.

But the council received a number of objections to the CPO, and on Thursday (16th) opponents were allowed to make their case to a public inquiry chaired by planning inspector Richard Clegg at Bernie Grant Arts Centre in Tottenham.

Mary Powell, a resident leaseholder who lives on the 297-home Love Lane Estate, which has been earmarked for demolition, told the inquiry “social cleansing” was taking place.

She said the way the estate was seen by outsiders was “prejudiced” and claimed the council had led it “through a period of managed decline since 2012 if not earlier”, with some maintenance and upgrades not carried out.

Mary added that the council had “no business” seeking to buy her home before planning permission was granted in August last year, that correspondence received from the council was “intermittent and poor quality”, and that it had “unreasonably accelerated” the process after residents had spent “more than a decade in limbo”.

Claiming the CPO notice was “premature”, she said there had been “no specific attempt” to talk terms with her “let alone offer any sort of price” until April or May this year – after the notice was issued.

Mary said her resettlement options appeared “superficially inviting” but the costs and phasing of the development were “more likely to drive me and other resident leaseholders out of the area”, adding: “We are the wrong sort of homeowners and do not belong in the new vision of High Road West.”

She told the inquiry that she currently owned her home, was “mortgage free” thanks to “hard work and frugal living” and did not want to take on debt to buy a more expensive new home on High Road West.

Mary explained that she may be able to afford a one-bedroom flat on the new scheme but it would be “much smaller” than her current home. She said she did not want to consider an equity loan to bridge the “affordability chasm” because it would mean she would not own the property outright yet would still be liable for service charges and other costs, and would be unable to choose who to leave it to in her will.

Pointing out that the council was the landlord, acquiring authority and planning authority, she acknowledged this “may be entirely legal” but claimed it allowed “social cleansing to take place, and for a property developer to move in to take their as-yet unknown required return”.

Private tenant Adrian Sherbanov told the inquiry he had not been notified about the CPO by the council or his landlord and had not been contacted about any consultations.

He said the council had effectively disregarded him and his family and claimed that failing to take account of private tenants was a breach of the Human Rights Act.

Alecos Tryfonas, whose family owns several Tottenham High Road properties earmarked for demolition, including takeaway Chick King and a flat occupied by his elderly parents, also gave evidence to the inquiry.

He said the properties were “all we worked for and what we own as a family”, and he would “never be able to replicate that anywhere”.

Alecos said the experience of the regeneration project was not something he would wish on anyone, adding: “Just to wake up and be told one morning by the local authority that shops are going to go, my property is going to be demolished – and there has never been any consultation or option to retain the property.”

Alecos pointed out that a petition against the demolition of High Road shops had gained more than 4,500 signatures.

The council has said it is committed to working with businesses “to find suitable relocation options”, which could include commercial space within the new development. However, businesses relocating within High Road West would be offered leaseholds, not freeholds.

Asked by a lawyer representing the council whether he would want a unit in Moselle Square, which people would likely use as a “direct route” through the scheme, Alecos said he would not. He explained: “I can’t take a unit when I don’t know what it is going to be like in five or six years’ time. I know what the High Road is now […] There is no guarantee, no certainty.”

Alecos said accepting a new premises would come “at the expense of me losing my freehold and the rest of my properties – losing everything we have as a family: our freeholds, the rest of the business, my mum’s house, my sister’s house and everything else we have”.

The public inquiry will continue to hear evidence and is expected to conclude on Wednesday (22nd).

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, or one-off donation.