Issue - meetings

To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.

The Leader advised the meeting that one public question and three deputations had been put forward for consideration. The public question was put forward by Mr Guy Levy.

The Leader further advised that Mr Levy was, unfortunately, unable to attend the meeting and she would read out his public question and the Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning would provide the response.

Public Question - Mr Guy Levy

Mr Levy claimed that that costs awards for unreasonable behaviour in planning appeals have been made against the Council. Mr Levy felt that such behaviour was a drain on the Council’s finances and the local economy. He asked, how the Council intended to reduce damages caused by the unreasonable behaviour of its planning and planning enforcement officers?

The Cabinet Member responded as follows:

For the period 2015 to 2018, out of the 286 decided planning appeals, less than 10 have resulted in successful costs claims against the Council. For the same period, from the 104 decided (or withdrawn) planning enforcement appeals, only two had resulted in costs awards against the Council. During the same period, the Council made four successful costs claims against appellants.

There was no discernible trend that the planning and planning enforcement officers are exhibiting unreasonable behaviours in the execution of their duties. The Council did not consider that it was a waste of officer’s time taken up defending appeals and cost applications.

The appeal process in both planning and planning enforcement was part of the development management function as enshrined in the planning legislation and formed part of the Planning Officers’ job description. Whilst the payment of costs was always regrettable, it was important that the Council defended the amenities of its residents.

Jacob Secker representing the Broadwater Farm Residents Association, standing in for Mr Blasebalk who was unable to attend - Deputation 1

Mr Secker spoke as a representative of the Broadwater Farm Residents Association. He, as well as the Haringey Leaseholders Association which Mr Blasebalk had been due to represent, had been involved in the consultation on the Housing Management Agreement with Homes for Haringey.

Mr Secker outlined that the consultation on the Management Agreement with Homes for Haringey had had to be re -run, as the first consultation was deemed unsatisfactory, following a judicial review.

In Mr Secker’s view, the second consultation had not been adequately run as well with mainly online access to consultation documents, some door knocking and telephone calls to tenants, meaning a full reflection of tenants views had not been gathered.

In Mr Secker’s view, the consultation had only highlighted the benefits of the ALMO and had, crucially, not highlighted that the management agreement with the ALMO would cost £500k more than keeping the service in-house. Mr Secker contended that the consultation was biased towards the ALMO and therefore invalid.

Mr Secker claimed that the ALMO option was only favoured by residents, participating in the consultation, because of the commitment to tenant participation panels. However, these had now  ...  view the full minutes text for item 143