Plans to knock down hundreds of homes and businesses in Tottenham to make way for a huge regeneration scheme have been approved by councillors.

The High Road West development, set to create thousands of new homes opposite Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, was waved through by Haringey Council’s planning subcommittee on Thursday.

Conceived after the 2011 riots as a way of improving the area, the scheme – a partnership between Haringey Council and developer Lendlease – involves bulldozing existing homes and business space to transform the area west of the High Road into a series of flatted developments that could rise, at their highest point, to 29 storeys.

Haringey Council says the development will bring “substantial” public benefits, including up to 2,929 new homes, of which at least 500 will be for social rent. It will also create parks, commercial space, a new library and a learning centre.

But businesses and residents’ campaign Tag (temporary accommodation group) Love Lane has slammed the scheme, claiming it will put their homes and livelihoods at risk.

Peacock Industrial Estate – home to more than 50 small firms to the north of White Hart Lane – will be knocked down to make way for new flats. Decades-old family businesses in White Hart Lane and Tottenham High Road also face demolition. South of White Hart Lane, the 297 flats in the council-owned Love Lane Estate, built in the 1960s, will be bulldozed.

Last year, the council secured £91million of City Hall funding to boost the number of social-rent homes on the High Road West scheme from 145 to 500, enabling it to offer a new home to all eligible Love Lane residents. Businesses could be given premises within the new development, and support will be offered to help firms that need to move elsewhere.

But many residents and businesses fear the promises will not be kept or will be watered down as the scheme is built in phases over ten to 15 years. Local firms have also complained that their existing freehold properties will be replaced by leasehold units and have demanded like-for-like replacements.

High Road West was deferred by the planning committee in March this year following a last-minute objection from Tottenham Hotspur Football Club, which raised concerns over heritage, a lack of employment space, and the safety of crowds moving through the development on their way to and from the club’s stadium. Speaking during Thursday’s committee meeting, planning officer Philip Elliot told councillors the issues raised by Spurs had been addressed.

Speaking against the plans, Paul Burnham, from campaign group Haringey Defend Council Housing, pointed out the civic centre’s own panel of experts had raised concerns over the scheme’s density and the light levels reaching lower flats.

A ballot of Love Lane residents held last year came out narrowly in favour redeveloping the estate. But Paul claimed residents had been given “false promises about rehousing” that had “already been broken” because 360 of the proposed council homes would not be delivered until “ten to 15 years’ time”.

Alex Tryfonos, who runs Chick King in Tottenham High Road, slammed the “injustice” of the scheme, which he said had “cast a dark shadow” over people’s lives. He added: “Our mental and physical wellbeing will never be the same again. No human being should be subjected to this. We have earned the right to be part of this development and remain where we are.”

Richard Serra, head of planning at Tottenham Hotspur FC, described the scheme as “disrespectful to the aspirations and hopes of our local community”. He warned it would lead to a net loss of 300 jobs and claimed crowd safety issues had still not been properly addressed.

Representing businesses in Peacock Industrial Estate, Faruk Tepeyurt claimed the scheme was “racist and discriminatory”. Asked to retract the claim by Labour councillor Reg Rice, he refused, saying businesses, many owned by ethnic minorities, had been left out of meetings with landowners and developers, and their alternative plans for the site had been “belittled”.

Supporters of the plans also addressed the committee. Bilad Dhoof, chair of Love Lane Residents’ Association, said the existing buildings suffered from disrepair, and the redevelopment would reduce antisocial behaviour. She added: “A lot of local people wanted the Love Lane scheme to go ahead and [are] asking me how soon work will be happening.”

Enid Henry said she wanted the new homes to be built “as soon as possible” and that she was “looking forward to the new facilities”.

Suzanne Wolfe, independent tenant and leaseholder adviser for Love Lane, read out supporting comments from three local residents, which included concerns that current estate tenants were suffering from overcrowding and other problems that would be solved by the regeneration.

Bek Seeley, managing director at Lendlease, said the replacement council homes would be delivered “early in the scheme”. She added that Lendlease had consulted with businesses over four years and was “committed to finding the best possible outcome for each businesses’ individual circumstances, including relocation within the site or nearby”.

Addressing crowd safety concerns, Bek said there would be more space to “accommodate fans more safely”. She added: “This scheme will make many things better for the communities who live and work there, and we are ready to move forward with building works later this year.”

During the course of the meeting, committee members raised a number of concerns over the scheme, including the potential for community and leisure space to be lost and doubts over council housing delivery.

Responding to a question from Labour’s Matt White, Robbie McNaugher, the council’s head of development management, admitted that the area within which businesses would be relocated had yet to be defined and could include other London boroughs.

Labour member Emine Ibrahim pointed out that the planning report said the scheme could deliver a net loss of 2,250 square metres in community and leisure floorspace. But Tom Horne, director at planning consultancy DP9, insisted there would be “no net loss of that space” and there would be “ample community facilities”.

Lib Dem member Luke Cawley-Harrison said the council was “propping the scheme up” by providing land and funding for social-rent homes, suggesting that it would be better for the council to build its own homes on the land.

Cllr White asked if a planning condition could be changed to ensure households relocating from the Love Lane Estate to their new homes would only have to move once. Robbie McNaugher said extra wording could be added to seek to “minimise moves as much as possible”.

Cllr Cawley-Harrison asked why there was not enough flexibility in the plans to allow the right to remain for some Peacock Industrial Estate businesses. A member of the applicant’s team claimed there would be enough space within the scheme for all the existing businesses on the site “if they requested to and wanted to return”.

Following the debate, seven committee members, all from the Labour group, voted to approve the plans. Two members, Labour’s John Bevan and Lester Buxton, abstained. The only councillor to vote against was Lib Dem Cllr Cawley-Harrison.

The committee granted outline permission for the redevelopment of the site, setting maximum and minimum parameters for the scheme. Detailed designs for all of the individual stages will be presented to future planning meetings. Detailed plans to knock down 100 Whitehall Street and Whitehall and Tenterden Community Centre and build 60 affordable homes were granted permission at Thursday’s meeting.