Agenda and minutes

Please note that this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method. Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting. Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on. 

By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred those present to agenda Item 1 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at the meeting and the information contained therein.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Connor, and Councillor Engert was in attendance as a substitute.

It being a special meeting of the Sub Committee, under Part Four, Section B, Paragraph 17, of the Council’s Constitution, no other business shall be considered at the meeting

None.

None.

The Committee received a deputation from Faruk Tepeyurt and Nick Oliveri, business owners from the Peacock Industrial Estate.  NOTED:

-           There were many businesses operating out of the estate, and the types of businesses represented the multicultural nature of the borough.

-           The masterplan proposal to close the estate needed to be re-thought in order to minimise the damage that it would cause to small businesses.

-           Whilst regeneration was important, it was also important to consider the needs of the people and businesses which would be affected.

-           There had been two public consultations on the proposal but these had been aimed at residents and housing, not businesses.  There had been no feedback from the Council on employment.

The Committee received a second deputation from Paul Burnham, Haringey Defend Council Housing.  NOTED:

-           The scheme fell short of 40% affordable housing, and would result in a loss of dwellings and Council properties.

-           The Equalities Impact Assessment was defective as it did not include a proper assessment of the wider impact of higher rent.

-           The new properties would have increased rent and service charges, and residents would not be provided with a proper right of return.

a.         Report of the Monitoring Officer (to follow)

b.         Report of the Strategic 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  12^th September 2017

-       12 September  Cabinet report High Road West Regneration Scheme – Selection of a Development Partner and Next Steps

Following an outline of the process for the call-in meeting, and the possible outcomes, the Chair invited Councillors Carter and Hare to present their arguments for why they had requested the Cabinet decision to be called in and the alternative action requested.

Councillors Carter and Hare set out their reasons for the call-in.  The main points raised in the call-in were the impact on current residents of the Love Lane estate, the lack of affordable housing which would be provided, the doubts over whether residents had a true right of return.  Councillor Carter added that he questioned the decision to place more regeneration work with Lendlease, when Cabinet had made the decision to award the HDV contract to them.  Councillor Hare referred to a number of businesses on the Peacock Industrial Estate and shared his concerns that the area would lose a number of local and diverse businesses.  They requested that the Committee refer the decision back to Cabinet.

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Planning, Councillor Strickland,  responded to the call-in.  He explained that by choosing Lendlease as the preferred bidder, it would be possible to provide a significant amount of council housing.  This housing would be managed by Homes for Haringey.  He informed the Committee that the scheme would provide 539 homes, with a number available at London affordable rent, as well as providing homes specifically for Love Lane tenants at 500 White Hart Lane.  It was the priority of the Council to provide as much choice to residents as possible.  In relation to the Peacock Industrial Estate, Councillor Strickland advised that all of the businesses had been met with, and a number had indicated that they had wanted to relocate from the site.  There was a dedicated team and support fund in place to work with these businesses.

In response to questions from the Committee, Councillor Strickland and officers informed them that there would be 3000 construction jobs provided, and 500 permanent jobs, and that a number of businesses would be retained at the Peacock site.  The original masterplan had made it clear that businesses would not be relocated out of the area, and a support team had been set up to ensure that as many businesses as possible could stay. 

Councillor Strickland informed the Committee that there were currently 212 social rented properties, and 145 would be re-provided at Love Lane, with a further 29 in the Newlon scheme at 500 White Hart Lane.  Overall, the scheme provided 750 affordable homes.  All residents who currently paid a service charge, would continue to pay a service charge in the future, and this would be managed by Homes for Haringey.

Clerk’s note – at this point in the meeting, the Committee passed a motion to exclude the press and public to allow them to discuss exempt areas of the report, and left the room to do so.  The meeting then reconvened in public session.

Having discussed the call-in both in public and private session, the Committee

RESOLVED  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

RESOLVED

That the Press and Public be excluded from the rest of the meeting by virtue of Paragraph 3, Part 1 of Schedule 12 A of the Local Government Act 1972.

To consider exempt information pertaining to item 6 of the agenda .

The Committee considered exempt information pertaining to agenda item 6.