Issue - meetings

Deputation – Stop HDV Campaign and Haringey Defend Council Housing – Sue Hughes and Paul Burnham.

Sue Hughes presented the deputation and made reference to the 1500 page documents provided to the public, one week before the meeting, which she considered did not provide adequate time for people to read the information provided.  Ms Hughes contended that the information provided, made clear that Lendlease had their own housing policy, which sought to move away from affordable tenures, resulting in social cleansing for those who could not afford to pay.  Tenants had been promised the right to return, however the deputation felt the documents implied that tenants would be discouraged from doing so.

Ms Hughes referred to the large viability gaps, and requested that the Council should pause and reconsider partnering with a company. Ms Hughes also asked whether the Council had spoken with any companies in Australia to find out if Lendlease had carried out works using combustible cladding materials, which were not in accordance with Australian laws.

In response to questions from the Cabinet, the deputation party outlined the following:

-          The proposal was highly political, and they questioned the intentions of Lendlease for supporting social housing.

-           The current political climate should be seen as a time of hope, and the Council should rethink the proposals, and not go ahead with this partnership.

-          One of the major issues with the proposal was that no arrangements would be made for those tenants on waiting lists.  The Council stated that they would be in a 50/50 partnership, however in Ms Hughes’ opinion, Lendlease would take over and control development, resulting in no Council homes.

-          The Council had made offers and concessions that people could return to their homes, however, the deputation contended that Lendlease would not facilitate a return to homes and that the Council could only do this if they pay a subsidy.  The Council should reconsider a partnership with a company who the deputation felt would not carry out Council policies.

Councillor Strickland responded to points raised during the deputation and subsequent questions from the Cabinet.  In relation to the documents provided, he informed the meeting that whilst other Councils had set up joint ventures or similar agreements, they had not released the same amount of information. The Cabinet Member had given a clear public pledge to release as much information as possible. and he was keeping to this commitment to be transparent.

Councillor Strickland explained that the development vehicle partnership would be bound by Council policies, such as the Housing Strategy agreed by the Council, and the Estate Renewal Rehousing and Payment strategy agreed by Cabinet. He stressed that that no major decision would be made by the company without the consent of the Board, which the Council had equal membership of. The Council was currently consulting on a revised version of the Estate Renewal, Re - housing and Payments Policy, and this made clear that there would be a guaranteed right to return. Only  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32