Agenda item

Councillor Kober, Leader of the Council, invited Paul Burnham to put forward 

is representations in relation to item 10, Housing Review.

Deputation 1 – Paul Burham

Mr Burnham began his deputation by asking Cabinet to not agree the recommendations of the report and consider its long term ramifications on the availability of Council housing and secure tenancies.  He felt the findings of the review would lead to new estates being transferred to private companies by  stealth and demolition with tenants placed on private rented tenancies. Private landlords would have financial rather than social interests as their main aim and this would also had a detrimental impact on equalities.

The deputation disputed the findings of the tenant consultation and contested how it had been conducted and framed. They contended that the consultation was not adequate with any choices between the housing management options put forward to tenants.

The deputation continued to make the following requests:

• That Cabinet close down the ALMO to prevent future privatisation of this housing management service and to consider alternative options.
• Consider the future financial housing situation which indicates that there will be a lack of funding for maintaining and investing in estates.
• Lobby government to reverse the Right to Buy policy as this will have a detrimental impact on the future social housing available for residents.

• Consider the political climate and contribute towards a movement against the Conservative Housing polices coming forward.

• Ballot Council and Homes for Haringey tenants on the retention of the ALMO.

The Leader of the Council further asked the deputation party about what their solution would be to the Government’s new enforced regulation that will require all local authorities’ to sell high value home assets. This would have a significant impact on the future availability of affordable housing in the borough. All London councils were working together to find solutions to mitigate against  future decreased availability of social housing.

The deputation party responded by condemning this Conservative policy but contended that there were still choices for the Council to make and this should not include demolishing homes and replacing them with private rented homes.

Councillor Strickland was invited by the Leader to respond to the issues raised by the deputation.

Cllr Strickland began by emphasising the long examination given to the future of housing management, investment and regeneration in the borough, culminating in the findings and recommendations of the Member Housing Review Steering group. The process had begun 9 months ago with a cross party steering group including a tenant representative considering tried and tested models for housing management. They had also visited a range of Councils around the country to discuss these models and  get first hand experience of them.

In terms of new regeneration estate housing ownership, the Council had continued to be explicit in not yet having a view on this. This was still subject to financial considerations and tenants views .The recent Love  Lane estate transfer of tenants was referred to as a positive experience for the residents  which was as a result of early engagement and understanding of their needs.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration clarified that this was a 10 year agreement being sought with the ALMO with a 5 year break clause which would allow the Council to consider the arrangement and how it was working.

It was further made clear that no Council decision had been made on a development vehicle; this was subject to a separate report to Cabinet which would be examined carefully in the same way as all Cabinet reports.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration reiterated that, as a Labour Council, they were trying new innovative ways  to deliver housing to residents in the difficult context of government housing policy which against social housing. The Council had also publicly spoken against the RTB policy, arguing that this is not a good deal for social housing.

There had been an extensive consultation exercise with tenants, as part of the review process, showing that ultimately tenants are expecting good housing management service  and maintenance of their homes.

Deputation 2 - UNISON

Chris Taylor of UNISON was invited by the Leader of the Council to put forward his deputation on behalf of UNISON.

Mr Taylor began by speaking against the recommendation to continue with the ALMO. This was out of step with neighbouring boroughs which had agreed to bring the housing services back in house.

UNISON felt that there should be a ballot of tenants on whether to continue with the ALMO as this was a significant change in direction from the original reason of having an ALMO. [Access to decent homes funding ,which had now ceased.]

Mr Taylor felt that that Homes for Haringey should not have been allowed to have a meeting with the Housing Steering Group  as they were given an unfair advantage by being allowed to pitch for this service against other potential providers.

There was reference to the proposed transfer of Council staff to and from the ALMO which would have an impact on some staff terms and conditions.

Mr Taylor further argued that the review did not make a strong case for either the in house option or ALMO and therefore there was no reason to continue with the ALMO.

Cllr Strickland responded to the issues raised by Mr Taylor and thanked UNISON for their participation in meetings, discussing the future housing options, and acknowledged that the recommendation on the ALMO continuation  was against the national Union view but the steering group had approached the  review from the perspective of a best possible solution for tenants.

Cllr Strickland continued to make the following responses the deputation:

• The tenant survey which had received thousands of responses  and a whole range of housing issues had been considered with a myriad of different housing arrangements analysed. The group had looked at Councils with supposed in house arrangements and discovered that these were not all straight forward arrangements. Newham had an in house housing management service coupled with a commercial based lettings agency.

• There was no precedent for holding a ballot on the ALMO. With the policy feedback received, and the cost of a ballot considered, the steering group had debated this issue and decided against this course of action.

• The Steering Group’s meeting with the ALMO was appropriate  and sensible course of action given they were the current housing management provider they should be able to put forward their future offer. The Steering Group also had access to performance figures of the ALMO which they could use to benchmark against other ALMO’S and Council run housing management services. Therefore their proposals were subject to intensive scrutiny.

·         There were no plans to change staff terms and conditions