Issue - meetings

The Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager to report that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the 2^nd of March 2017 on consideration of two Call Ins of the Cabinet’s decision of the 14^th of February 2017, minute number 184, resolved that the decision relating to the agreement of a preferred bidder for the Haringey Development Vehicle be referred back to Cabinet to reconsider the decision before taking a final decision within 5 working days in light of the views expressed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee .

Part Four Section H(Call In Procedure Rules) Paragraph 10(b) of the Constitution requires that when the Overview and Scrutiny Committee decides to refer a decision back to a decision maker then the decision taker has 5 working days to reconsider the decision before taking a final decision.

The following documents are attached:

a)    Report of the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny setting out the recommendations of Overview and Scrutiny Committee to Cabinet following consideration of the Call In forms, verbal representations considered at the Overview & Scrutiny Call In meeting, the Cabinet reports, minutes and exempt information, relating to the Cabinet decision on a Preferred Bidder for the Haringey Development Vehicle

Additional information

b)    Copy of the two Call In forms

c)    Excerpt from the draft minutes of the Cabinet held on 14^th February 2017

d)    The public Cabinet Report on the Preferred Bidder for the Haringey   Development Vehicle 14^th February 2017.

e)    Report of the Monitoring Officer considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Call in meeting.

f)     Report of the Director for Planning, Regeneration and Development considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Call in meeting.

The Leader referred to the agenda which set out that this was a special meeting of Cabinet convened, within the constitutionally required timescale of 5 working days, to re-consider the February 14^th Cabinet decision on the “preferred bidder for the Haringey Development Vehicle”. This was following the outcome of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting, held on the 2^nd of March to consider the call in of this key decision.

Councillor Wright, Chair of Overview and Scrutiny, was invited to introduce his report and he spoke in relation to the six recommendations, agreed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. These had been compiled following a lengthy meeting which had enabled a full airing of the issues raised by the Call Ins and also allowed representatives attending the meeting from GMB and the Northumberland Park residents association to put forward their concerns.

These recommendations were centred around: protection for all communities, guaranteeing right of return for residents to their homes following development, ensuring the principle of value for money was maintained in the construction exclusivity arrangements , maintaining target rents and 50 % affordable housing provision on sites that are developed, in the partnership agreement, having mitigations in place to deter any blacklisting activities ,and ensuring the company arrangement provides local employment opportunities, especially for disadvantaged groups.

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning responded to the 6 recommendations as follows:

Recommendation 1 - That Cabinet make a firm commitment that there be no allocation of any sites to the HDV without a full Equalities Impact Assessment being undertaken for each site.

Councillor Strickland reiterated that any site given to the HDV would be presented to Cabinet for approval. As the normal procedure for key decisions, the site decision would need to be accompanied by an Equalities Impact Assessment.

Recommendation 2 - That Cabinet agree that any allocation of Category 1 sites include specific policies, including around eviction, to guarantee a right of return for residents and leaseholders on the same terms and conditions. This is to be agreed with the tenants and leaseholders affected, and to take into account the housing conditions and requirements of those residents.

Councillor Strickland stressed that, as discussed at Cabinet and Overview & Scrutiny Committee previously, there was a clear commitment on right of return. The leaseholder offer would be different to reflect the different issues facing leaseholders. There was already ongoing regeneration consultation with tenants and leaseholders on the category one sites and as with the Love Lane Estate development, there would also be subsequent detailed consultation on these particular re -housing issues.

Recommendation 3 - That Cabinet ensure that there is no agreement with any HDV partner without effective arrangements to ensure value for money in respect of any construction exclusivity arrangements, on a site by site basis, including undertaking an independent assessment to demonstrate its value for money to the Council.

Councillor Strickland clarified that the exclusivity agreement arrangements would not entail a hundred percent of construction contracts being awarded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 204

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 note the Scrutiny Review recommendations and agree the Cabinet response to the  recommendations set out in appendix 2.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 183