Agenda and minutes

Please note: This meeting may be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council's internet site - at the start of the meeting the Chair will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed. The images and sound recording may be used for training purposes within the Council.

Generally the public seating areas are not filmed. However, 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 for webcasting and/or training purposes.

If you have any queries regarding this, please contact the Committee Clerk

at the meeting.

The meeting was web-cast on the Council’s website.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Aitken (substituted by Councillor Beacham) and Joseph Ejiofor (Parent Governor).

An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Adje.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear).

No other business was permitted to be considered under Standing Order 32.6.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgment of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

Councillor Bull (Chair) declared a personal interest as one of the Supported Housing Schemes detailed in the CAB92 Supported Housing Review was in the White Hart Lane Ward, which he represented.

Councillor Adje declared a personal interest as one of the Supported Housing Schemes detailed in the CAB92 - Supported Housing Review was in the White Hart Lane Ward, which he represented and he was a member of the Age Concern Board for London.

Councillor Gorrie declared a personal interest as one of the Supported Housing Schemes detailed in the CAB92 - Supported Housing Review was in the Hornsey Ward, which he represented.

Yvonne Denny (Parent Governor) declared a personal interest as she was Vice Chair of theHaringey NDC (New Deals for the Community) Board.

Councillor Bevan declared a prejudicial interest as he was on the Cabinet which made the decision on CAB92 - Supported Housing Review.

Note: under Standing Order 32.6 no other business shall be considered at the meeting.

i)                    Report of the Monitoring Officer

TO FOLLOW

ii)                  Report of the Director of Urban Environment

TO FOLLOW

iii)                Appendix (For information only):

a)     Copy of the ‘call in’

b)     Draft minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet of 17^th November 2009 (subject to confirmation by the Cabinet)

c)      Supported Housing Review report from the Cabinet meeting on 17^th November 2009.

A decision on the above item was taken by the Cabinet on 17^th November 2009. The decision has been called in, in accordance with the provisions set out in the Constitution, by Councillors Gorrie, Allison, Engert, Scott and Weber.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee is requested to decide what further action it wishes to take regarding the Call In.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee may deal with the Call-In in one of three ways:

i)                    The Overview and Scrutiny Committee may decide not to take any further action, in which case the decision is implemented immediately.

ii)                  The Overview and Scrutiny Committee may decide to refer the decision back to the decision taker, in which case the decision taker has 5 working days to reconsider the decision before taking a final decision.

iii)                The Overview and Scrutiny Committee may decide to refer the decision to Full Council.

It is proposed that consideration of this item be structured as follows:

(i)                 A brief outline by the above Members on the reasons for the Call-In.

(ii)               Response by the Cabinet Member for Housing Services.

(iii)             Debate by Members on action to be taken.

(iv)              Decision.

Councillor Gorrie outlined the reasons for the call-in of the Cabinet Decision on 17^th November 2009, CAB92 – Supported Housing Review, including that residents’ views had not been included in the Cabinet Report; the notes from residents’ meetings showed that the majority of residents did not support the proposals, which Councillor Gorrie believed lacked clarity and strategic context and the decision should not have been taken before the Older Persons Housing Strategy had been approved.  He asked the Committee to refer the decision back to Cabinet and ensure that the decent homes budgets for the 4 supported (also called ”sheltered”) housing schemes were ring-fenced until decisions were made with residents.

The Committee received a deputation from Paul Burnham on behalf of the Haringey Defend Council Housing group.  His comments included: that the decision did not meet Council policy and was lacking in adequate consultation with residents.  Mr Burnham stated that demand for supported housing in Haringey was higher than two years ago and concluded that the decision should be referred to Full Council for further consideration.

The Committee received the report of the Monitoring Officer introduced by Terence Mitchison, Senior Project Lawyer, which confirmed that the decision on the Supported Housing Review taken by Cabinet did not contradict the Council’s current policy framework. 

The Committee was invited to ask questions on the Monitoring Officer’s report and in response the Senior Project Lawyer explained that it was not possible to challenge the decision on the basis of future policy.  The Committee contended that the decision could impact future strategy.

Councillor John Bevan, Cabinet Member for Housing and Nick Powell, Head of Housing Strategy, Development and Partnerships were invited to respond to any of the issues raised.  In response to the call-in, Councillor Bevan stated that the same weighting had been applied to each scheme and alternative accommodation arrangements could not be offered before a decision to close any schemes had been taken.

The Committee noted that there had been 4 rounds of meetings with residents and their families at each of the 4 schemes in question, and a presentation to the Older Peoples Forum, about the future of the sheltered housing schemes and relevant reports had been made available.  Translators were also offered at schemes where there were known speakers of English as a second language. The Cabinet had also discussed the matter at great length. Councillor Bevan stated that he believed that the majority of residents had accepted that the proposals would protect the future of sheltered housing and bring the schemes up to the modern day standard and refuted claims that the there had been a lack of input by tenants in the decision making process. 

The Committee noted that there were currently 323 applications for housing schemes and 75 of these were old applications awaiting review.  Most of the applications were for Good Neighbour Schemes; less than 160 were for Sheltered Housing Schemes.  The Head of Housing Strategy, Development and Partnerships emphasised that there was less demand  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.