Agenda and minutes

Please note that this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method. Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting. Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on. 

By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair drew attendees’ attention to the notice as shown at Item one of the agenda.

None.

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

It being a special meeting under Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 17 of the Council’s Constitution, no other business was considered at the meeting.

None.

The Committee received a deputation from Nick Martin-Clark from the Haringey Leaseholders Association and Paul Burnham from Defend Haringey Council Housing. NOTED:

1. On the day prior to the meeting, the High Court had granted permission for a Judicial Review around a leaseholder specific issue, on the grounds that the consultation process was flawed and that Homes for Haringey (HfH) did not have a valid contract in place with Haringey Council. The issues raised around consultation and accountability could be applied to the proposed Haringey Development Vehicle,  particularly because the issue that was the focus of the Judicial Review and the HDV related to the Future of Housing Review. There were also direct legal challenges being made to the Development Vehicle.
2. The HDV reflected the Government’s estate regeneration programme, which was accompanied by minimal public funding and instead encouraged local authorities to secure funding from the private sector instead.  
3. There were significant concerns around the protection of resident’s rights of return and, despite verbal promises to the contrary, protections were not reflected in written Council policies.
4. The  process of developing the HDV should be halted to allow further scrutiny.

The Committee received a second deputation from Adrian Weir, of the Unite trade union, accompanied by Danny Spencer of the GMB union. NOTED:

1. It was surprising that Haringey had chosen Lendlease as its preferred bidder. Lendlease had a history of anti-trade unionism and blacklisting construction workers, which had had a devastating effect on affected workers and their families. They had also been found to have over charged on public sector contracts in America and had had to pay significant compensation.
2. In 2013 trades unions launched High Court proceedings against a number of construction employers over blacklisting claims. A number of out of court settlements were received in 2016; however a number of issues remained outstanding.
3. Lendlease were one of the companies that had proceedings issued against them and it had been confirmed in the construction press that Lendlease had settled their cases. Blacklisters should not be rewarded with public contracts.

In response to the deputation, the Committee sought clarification on whether it was Lendlease that undertook blacklisting or whether the cases referred to related to Bovis, which had since been taken over by Lendlease. Mr Weir responded that these cases referred to did refer to Bovis, but Lendlease must have been aware as part of the due diligence prior to the takeover. In addition, there were more recent accusations of blacklisting against Lendlease relating to the Bluewater shopping centre. 

Cllr Alan Strickland, the Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning responded to the deputations. NOTED

a.    The consultation on the Future of Housing Review was a consultation on tenancy management and did not look at wider issues of regeneration, and was not a direct precursor to the Development Vehicle. Tenancy consultation in areas like Northumberland Park, including on estate renewal and regeneration, started before the Future of Housing Review, and before the then Prime Minister’s announcements on estate renewal.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

a.         Report of the Monitoring Officer TO FOLLOW

b.         Report of the Director of Regeneration, Planning and Development TO FOLLOW

c.         Appendices:

-       Copy of call-in

-       Excerpt from the draft minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 14 February 2017

-       14^th February 2017 Cabinet Report –  Approval of Preferred  Bidder for Haringey Development Vehicle

Following an outline of the process and possible outcomes for the call-in meeting, the Chair invited Councillors Hare and McNamara to present why they had requested the Cabinet decision to be called in and the alternative action requested.

Cllr Bob Hare set out his reasons for the Call-in and stated that he did not claim that the decision was outside the budget or policy framework. Cllr Hare did not agree with the assessment made in the officers’ report on the call-ins that the proposals bear no resemblance to the recent Heygate development by Lendlease in Southwark and had significant concerns about social homes being replaced with private housing. Cllr Hare also raised concerns about Lendlease, given their historical involvement with blacklisting and overbilling clients in the USA. He was concerned whether council tenants and lease holders would be guaranteed the same rights and would be offered similar homes in the same area. Further concerns were expressed at the lack of adequate consultation, that part of the report was exempt from publication, and that there was a lack of value for money; particularly given that the Council would be entering into an agreement with a private company who were ultimately accountable to their shareholders. His call-in sought to have the decision referred back to Full Council so that the whole Council had an opportunity to debate the issue in public.

In response the Chair clarified that referring the decision back to Full Council would effectively be the Committee absolving itself of its own role in scrutinising the decision, and transferring the responsibility to scrutinise to Full Council. Furthermore, the options available to Full Council would be to either refer the decision back to Cabinet (as the decision maker), or let it proceed – it could not go beyond the decision being called in or take the decision itself.

Cllr Stuart McNamara set out his reasons for the Call-In and stated that he did not claim that the decision was outside the budget or policy framework. His reasons for the Call-in included: a failure to undertake proper Equalities Impact Assessments, potentially meaning the decision may well breach the Council’s public sector equalities duty; a lack of engagement with residents and leaseholders, potentially meaning legal challenge to the decision as a result; the potential for a conflict of interest arising from the proposed construction exclusivity clause with the preferred bidder; and the risk that any variance to the terms of the partnership beyond those originally agreed would require a re-opening of the procurement process. Cllr McNamara contended that the decision should be referred back to Cabinet with a recommendation that the decision be delayed pending further scrutiny work.

In response to a question, the Committee was advised that there was a wealth of information involving similar approaches to development that had failed, including Tunbridge Wells, Croydon and the Heygate Estate, which had resulted only 74 social homes being built. In response to a request for further clarification, the Committee hear that the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

None.

Item 8 is likely to be the subject of a motion to exclude the press and public from the meeting as it contains exempt information as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972; Para 3 – information relating to the business or financial affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) and Para 5 – information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

RESOLVED

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the rest of discussion as it contained exempt information as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972; Paragraphs 3 & 5 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) and information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained.

To consider exempt information pertaining to the call-in

The Committee discussed information pertaining to the exempt section of the report and the Cabinet Member and officers outlined some of the key issues that had arisen as part of the negotiations with the preferred bidder.  

The Coomittee considered the work programme update.

The following terms of reference were agreed for the HDV stage 2 scrutiny programme.

1.    To establish and provide recommendations on the feasibility of the proposed joint venture model of council tenants being re-housed on rent matching that of an equivalent council property and on the same terms, either on the estate or elsewhere in the borough, according to their choice.

2.    To establish and provide evidence and recommendations on whether the HDV can deliver a tenancy and evictions policy which protects vulnerable tenants in the same way as council tenancies do.

3.    To establish and provide recommendations on whether overcrowded tenants can be offered a replacement property of a size that meets their needs.

4.    To further establish and provide recommendations on whether the financial arrangements of the proposed HDV adequately protect the Council’s interest.

5.    To further establish the risks of the venture and make recommendations on whether these risks can be adequately mitigated.

To consider any items admitted at 3 above.

N/A