Issue - meetings

Deputation in relation to item 9

Jacob Secker, Secretary of the Broadwater Farm Resident’s Association and Chris Hutton as Chair of the Broadwater Farm Resident’s Association addressed the Committee in relation to item 9 – Broadwater Farm rehousing.

Mr Secker raised a number of issues in relation to the purchasing of leaseholder properties and the limited options available for those residents in Tangmere and Northolt blocks. Mr Secker highlighted that the leaseholders were not willing sellers but being forced to sell their homes due to defects in the blocks and the deputation’s core objection was to the terms of the leaseholder offer that had been made.

The deputation contended that a more equitable solution for the leaseholders was to at least have been offered a sum of money that would have enabled them to buy a comparable alternative accommodation, locally at a market price in Tottenham, rather than just at market price in Broadwater Farm. These property values had been depressed by the lack of maintenance or lack of investment over the years and in the deputation’s view, it seemed unfair to punish leaseholders by awarding such low values.

The proposal to extend the equity loan was welcomed by the deputation and this would include enabling leaseholders to buy properties outside of the borough. This would certainly ease the burden on some but it did not help those leaseholders that wanted to stay in the locality of Tottenham.

The deputation contended that the finance offers to leaseholders in Northolt, Tangmere blocks of between £150,000 to £160,000 was too low, and there was not the choice of housing to enable them to move. The lengthy time period that the moves were taking demonstrated this.

With regards to offering social tenancies to leaseholders in Tangmere and Northolt, the deputation noted that leaseholders in financial need can be offered: a new social tenancy or housing association tenancy and 25% value of their flat or awarded the money they paid under right to buy. The deputation welcomed the offer to those in need and recognised that this must happen as the leaseholders needed to move out from the blocks .The issue was that 25% offer was too low and  offering leaseholders the amount they paid originally was also not adequate. The leaseholders  had not been  consulted on this proposal and this was not enough funding to move. The leaseholders felt that their finances were not being considered or the capital amount and interest rate payments made by them over the years. The leaseholders had also over, the past few years, paid for major works such as carpark resurfacing and door entry systems in defective blocks and this also needed to be taken account of.

The deputation wanted the Council to follow the Southwark model of offering 100% the value of their flats to leaseholders, or home loss payment and social tenancy. Leaseholders were aware of this offer and wanted the same. The Council were offering 25% of a property value of £160,000, which would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 258