To note the Scrutiny Review recommendations and agree the Cabinet response to the recommendations set out in appendix 2.
Minutes:
The
Chair of the Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel, introduced
the review of the Haringey Development Vehicle governance
arrangements by setting out the context, origins and scope of the
review which had been tasked with adding value to the organisation
by providing recommendations on the Haringey Development Vehicle
governance arrangement.
During the process, the Scrutiny Panel had felt that they could not
make recommendations about the governance structure of the proposal
without addressing the overarching question marks which were coming
forward on the risks of embarking on the development vehicle scheme
which was of a significant scale with uncertainties around the
financial arrangements.
The Panel felt that to ignore the potential risks of a scheme that
the governance arrangements were intended to mitigate, felt
eventually to be counter intuitive.
This was particularly pertinent for a Panel whose role was
primarily to carry out oversight and to present critical thorough
constructive challenge to decision makers.
The Panel felt that tight governance could mitigate against risks
for the public sector, however in a partnership which was equal,
such as the Haringey Development Vehicle, there were concerns about
how to enforce these, simply because the Council would be in a
position of negotiation rather than having an ultimate decision
making role.
The overarching questions that remained did not deter the panel
making recommendations on the governance of the Haringey
Development Vehicle.
The
Panel Chair strongly believed that the critique of the proposed
Haringey Development Vehicle rests largely on risk and mitigation,
and it would have been irresponsible of the Panel not to recommend
protections, if the proposal went ahead.
The Panel would be continuing their work on the Haringey
Development Vehicle, and had agreed the parameters both at the
Panel meeting and the main Overview and Scrutiny meeting.
The
Panel Chair felt that that many of the answers to the questions
posed to officers and other authorities came back with answers that
simply left the Council with more and new questions.
Questions had arisen around certainties, guarantees and commitments
that the Council could deliver at this stage. Ultimately the Panel
felt that what it needed to always consider the Council’s
primary function and aim and purpose as a local authority. This was
mainly about providing certainty and security to vulnerable
families who had faced years of temporary accommodation and
uncertainty.
The Panel and the main Scrutiny Committee were unanimous in its
view that the prudent course of action was for the Haringey
Development Vehicle process to be stopped allowing for further
necessary scrutiny.
Councillor Strickland thanked the Scrutiny Panel for their work on Haringey Development Vehicle, governance process and addressed the issue of enforcement of the Haringey Development Vehicle objectives which was a cultural question and further provided assurance, that although this was an equal joint partnership, decisions by the Haringey Development Vehicle board would only be taken forward if reached by a consensus. The Council would have a powerful blocking vote if proposals were not acceptable to them.
The Cabinet were accepting 11 of the recommendations and part accepting 4 but could not accept delaying preparations for the establishment of the Haringey Development Vehicle which was expected to come forward, for decision by Cabinet, in the summer. During the intervening period of 5 months, there would be a good opportunity for Council with the preferred bidder resolve the details on governance and the function of the Board. Both Councillors and residents would be able to discuss and tackle the concerns regarding the governance process.
If the process was stopped then this would also prevent answers to the issues raised coming forward and it would then be difficult to restart the process in a time where new homes and affordable housing was greatly needed.
In terms of housing for existing tenants, the Council would be striving, with the development partner, to reach a good deal for tenants. The task for the next 5 months was to secure this as Cabinet recognised that Councillors and residents need to get assurances before a decision is made on the Haringey Development Vehicle.
In relation to the role of Councillors on the Haringey Development Vehicle Board and potential conflicts of interest, there were already examples of Councillors sitting on various Boards such as the Alexandra Park and Palace Board where they were acting as trustees and considering a range of complex issues.
It was emphasised that Council-nominated Members of the board would be acting within the parameters of the Cabinet agreed business plan so there was significant democratic control. If there was any change to the agreed business plan, then this would need to come back to the Cabinet for agreement.
Councillor Strickland thanked the Panel Chair and provided assurance that the 5 month delay in establishing the Haringey Development Vehicle would provide the opportunity address the concerns highlighted in the presentation.
The Leader invited questions from non Cabinet Members and there were issues raised in relation to:
In response to these questions, the following information was noted:
Further to considering the summary of the scrutiny review, the Cabinet Members response and responses to member questions, Cabinet
RESOLVED
Reasons for decision
On 17 January 2017, Overview and Scrutiny Committee approved the report of the Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel (HRSP) on the governance arrangements for the proposed Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV), a joint venture between the Council and a private partner to support local housing and regeneration ambitions.
In developing its report, the HRSP held a number of evidence gathering sessions and taken evidence from local stakeholders including Council officers, community group representatives, other local authorities, Investment Partners in other joint ventures and expert independent opinion via the Chartered Institute of Housing. The HRSP then made a number of recommendations.
Alternative options considered
As set out in the HRSP’s report, in view of the Panel’s objection to the Haringey Development Vehicle it could have chosen not to make any recommendations about the governance arrangements for the Haringey Development Vehicle. If it was not to make any recommendations however, the Panel felt it may miss the opportunity to influence ongoing procurement discussions with the preferred bidder and so decided to make recommendations.
Supporting documents: