Deputations/Petitions/Presentations/Questions
To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, paragraph 29 of the Council’s constitution.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
At the outset, the Chair outlined the role of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC), highlighting their powers and the options available to them. The Chair then invited the representatives of the Deputation to address the OSC.
Before introducing the Deputation in relation to the Call In, Mr Jacob Secker clarified the Deputation was on behalf of Haringey Defend Council Housing and he, along with Mr Paul Burnham, were speaking as their representatives.
The Deputation sought the OSC to refer the decision to demolish Tangmere and Northfolt without a GLA compliant ballot back to Cabinet.
Mr Secker argued that, as the Council was seeking to attain funding for new council housing through the GLA, it must, therefore, abide by the GLA rules. The decision whether to demolish Tangmere and Northfolt should only be decided through a GLA compliant ballot. This would give the residents the final decision and oblige the Council to enact any commitments made during the balloting process or risk losing the GLA funding. He claimed that under a section 105 consultation, as was carried out, there was no obligation for the Council to commit to any promises it had made.
Mr Secker also claimed there were no details of what the Council was planning to do following the demolition of the two blocks. He stated that under GLA rules, during the ballot stage, it would be required that a master plan be created to inform residents of the Council’s intentions for the estate.
Mr Secker felt the treatment of the residents during the 28 day consultation had been disgraceful and that residents were misled. He noted paragraph 4.1.3 of the report, and argued that it was incorrect to say that it was impossible to fix the water leaks. He argued this was not supported by any structural reports and that information regarding this claim had been requested from the Council but had yet to be received.
Regarding Northolt, Mr Secker claimed the residents had not been informed that re-piping would take place on the estate if demolition did not occur. He argued that residents were misled into concluding that the only viable option was demolition and the Council undemocratically withheld information. He claimed the Council had acted like a rogue private landlord.
Mr Secker disputed claims in the report prepared by Officers for the Call In and countered that it was still possible for the Council to hold a GLA compliant ballot. Citing paragraph 4.41, he claimed that GLA guidelines state that a ballot could occur following residents being moved out through a postal ballot.
Mr Secker claimed the amount of money being offered by the Council was not enough and would force residents to move out of the borough, and therefore lose their right of return.
Mr Burnham next spoke for the Deputation. He made the following comments: