Agenda and minutes

CALL IN, Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Thursday, 6th December, 2018 7.00 pm

Venue: Civic Centre, High Road, Wood Green, N22 8LE. View directions

Contact: Philip Slawther, Principal Committee Co-ordinator 


No. Item



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.

Additional documents:




Apologies for Absence

Additional documents:


Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Demir; Cllr Davies substituted.


Urgent Business

It being a special meeting under  Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 17 of the Council’s Constitution, no other business shall be considered at the meeting.

Additional documents:




Declarations of Interest

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:


(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.


A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.


Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct

Additional documents:





To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, paragraph 29 of the Council’s constitution.

Additional documents:


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:

  • The claim by the Council that this was not a regeneration scheme and therefore there was no need for a GLA compliant ballot was erroneous. He accepted this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.


CALL IN - Broadwater Farm Blocks pdf icon PDF 251 KB

a.    Report of the Monitoring Officer and  Section 151 Officer – To follow

b.    Cabinet Report on Broadwater Farm 13th November 2018 and attached appendices


c.    Cabinet Minutes  on Broadwater Farm decision 13th November 2018

d.    Copy of the Call In

e.    Report of the Interim Director for  Regeneration, Housing and Planning – To follow



Additional documents:


Cllr Barnes outlined the Call In and concurred with the view of the Deputation that there should be a GLA compliant ballot before demolition of Tangmere and Northfolt took place. The Cllr said it had been a mistake for the Council to lead with demolition and not strengthening the existing blocks as it was for the residents to determine which of the two options they preferred.  

The Cllr criticised the position of the Council and claimed having a ballot of residents on Broadwater Farm following demolition would not be of assistance to those residents who wanted to keep their existing homes.  She accepted that, whilst it was true residents had already been consulted in the 28 day consultation, this was insufficient as it did not give the residents the choice to make the decision for themselves. The Cllr disputed the Council’s claim that ballots were only meant for estate regeneration. She noted the proposals had included demolishing the unsuitable homes and then rebuilding newer, larger and better homes, which also addressed regeneration of the estate. The GLA rules stated that if a project involved demolition and rebuilding more than 150 homes (which it did in this case) then this would require a ballot. 

The Cllr noted the Council’s position that an exemption from a GLA complaint ballot was granted in cases of health and safety concerns. However, the Cllr noted this was on the premise that those health and safety concerns could not be reasonably addressed through alternative options. The Cllr claimed strengthening was an alternative measure that had not been explored as the Council led with its preferred option, demolishment.

The Cllr suggested there could be a financial risk if the GLA concluded there was an available viable option in strengthening and reclaimed funding as a result. The Cllr noted paragraph 4.4.5 did not suggest an alternative plan was in place should this circumstance occur and asked the OSC to consider the impact of deciding policy that could adversely impact the financial position of the Council.

The Cllr closed by arguing that two ballots should take place. In addition to the ballot the Council had proposed, an earlier ballot before any decision had taken place, to give the residents the option of demolishment or strengthening. Whilst consultations provided a transfer of views, the Cllr claimed a ballot gave power to residents to have the final decision.  

Cllr Palmer next addressed the OSC concerning preserving the right of return for those leaseholders affected by the demolishment of Tangmere and Northfolt. The Cllr noted that displaced leaseholders who moved out of the borough could lose their right of return. The Cllr claimed this was disproportionate and unnecessary, especially given Broadwater Farm was within 1 mile from the London Borough of Enfield and residents may financially have no choice but to look beyond Haringey. The Cllr noted the report accepted residents who moved out of the borough for financial purposes would be able to claim a right of return, but only  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.