You are here

Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Michael Kay, Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager 

Webcast: View the webcast (video) will remain online for 12 months

Items
No. Item

53.

FILMING AT MEETINGS

Please note 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:

Minutes:

The Mayor drew attendees’ attention to the notice on the summons regarding filming at meetings.

54.

To receive apologies for absence

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Reith and Weston, and for lateness from Councillor Elliott.

55.

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:

Minutes:

No declarations of interest were made.

56.

To consider requests to receive Deputations and, if approved, to receive them pdf icon PDF 39 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Mayor had accepted two deputations to the meeting, though one had been withdrawn. He invited Sam Leggatt and Franklin Thomas to introduce their deputation.

 

Ms Leggatt was a resident of Northumberland Park, and regretted the lack of engagement on the proposed regeneration of Northumberland Park. She was concerned at the experience of the residents of Love Lane Estate as a possible precursor to residents of Northumberland Park, and hoped that there would be ballots of residents.

 

Councillor Carter asked how Ms Leggatt had been affected by the proposed HDV, and whether she thought she would return to the estate if it were redeveloped. Ms Leggatt responded that had been very worried at the uncertainty presented by the HDV, and did not expect that she would be able to afford or accept the stress associated with moving.

 

Councillor Engert asked whether Ms Leggatt would rather stop the HDV or pause a decision, to which she responded she would rather it be stopped.

 

Councillor Amin set out that she had heard different views, and asked how residents’ desire for change or redevelopment could accommodated. Ms Leggatt believed residents faced disappointment that the promises made to them could not be fulfilled, including the availability of affordable housing.

 

Councillor Brabazon asked whether specific proposals for redevelopment had been received, to which Mr Franklin said that he had been told there would be a twenty-year lead-in for any demolition. Ms Leggatt thought the consultation had not been meaningful and there had been no certainty.

 

Responding, Councillor Strickland, the Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning, thanked the deputation, and refuted that the estate had been run down by the Council when homes had been invested in under the Decent Homes programme. He set out that any estate regeneration proposals had been accompanied by clear commitments to ensure tenants and leaseholders were not left worse off, and that there would be a right to return. At this stage, there were no detailed proposals for Northumberland Park, and there would need to be full consultation on such proposals. He rejected any suggestion that officers exercised undue influence on vulnerable tenants. He stated that the current policy was not to have ballots, in line with the Mayor of London’s guidance, though this may change if the outcome of the Mayor of London’s current consultation led to a change of guidance.

57.

To consider a response from the Council in relation to the issues raised in the Motion pdf icon PDF 144 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Mayor accepted the report, which had been published after the summons to the meeting.

 

Councillor Strickland, the Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning introduced the report and asked that its contents be noted.

 

NOTED.

58.

To consider the following Motions in accordance with Council Rules of Procedure No. 13 pdf icon PDF 75 KB

Motion F: Haringey Development Vehicle

 

Proposer: Cllr Engert

Seconder: Cllr Morris

 

This Council notes the recent collapse of Carillion PLC and its impact on the current housing regeneration scheme in Sunderland and the risk this poses to Sunderland City Council and local taxpayers.

 

Further notes the similarities the situation in Sunderland has with the joint venture with a large private company in Haringey through the Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV).

 

This Council believes:

  • Investment is required to improve the borough’s council housing estate
  • The HDV scheme, as currently proposed, is too large and the risks, too great to continue
  • Any new regeneration scheme needs to protect tenants, leaseholders and local businesses and put them at its heart
  • All councillors should have a free public vote on their views on the future of the HDV
  • The recent comments from the Member of Parliament for Tottenham saying “Even more reason to pause HDV in Haringey before signing up to a joint venture with large private company.”

 

This Council resolves

  • To stop the current plans to dispose of any Council assets through the HDV
  • To carry out further assessments of funding available to regenerate Council homes in the borough
  • For officers to report back to Full Council in the summer with new options

 

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Mayor invited Councillor Engert to move the motion.

 

In moving the motion, Councillor Engert regretted that the Labour Amendment did not provide residents with certainty by being conclusive on the HDV, instead seeking to ensure political unity. She felt the HDV should have been ended earlier, following the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s reports. She did not agree with the assessment in the Council’s response that Lendlease posed a low risk compared with Carillion. She believed it was the time for the Council to take a decision to give residents certainty, and called on Members to agree the motion without amendment.

 

Seconding the motion, Cllr Morris set out that the Liberal Democrats had last called an extraordinary meeting in 2009, did not take a decision lightly. She regretted that the Cabinet had not heeded opposition to the HDV and that there had not been opportunity for the public to vote on it. She believed an alternative policy of a wholly owned company, which may build fewer houses and slower, would meet the needs of residents.

 

Moving the amendment to the motion, Councillor Kober was concerned that the enthusiasm of a minority opposed to the HDV overshadowed the view of the majority of residents who sought to see increased levels of improved housing. She set out the scale of the housing challenge and still believed the HDV was the best available solution. In light of the forthcoming purdah, a final agreement on the HDV would not be possible and she hoped the new administration would approach issues with an open mind.

 

Seconding the amendment, Councillor Strickland rejected the motion and mentioned that the status quo was affecting people’s health and wellbeing, and that the HDV was one of a number of approaches being taken to regeneration. He drew attention to the report before Members stating that decisions on the HDV had been taken lawfully and that Council could not take an executive decision, as suggested by the motion.

 

Councillor Connor said that she wanted the HDV to be debated by the Council, and that opposition had grown to the scheme as it had been scrutinised further. The HDV would not help with the housing waiting list, but would worsen it. The proposal of a wholly-owned housing company would better deliver against residents’ wishes. Rather than delay a decision, as the amendment suggested, she called for the motion to be agreed without amendment.

 

Councillor McNamara sought to correct two points made, first that the thought Scrutiny work was not spearheaded by the Liberal Democrats. Second, as made clear by the report, the Council should also be mindful of the power it had in relation to executive decisions, and the need to not bind the hands of an incoming administration.

 

Councillor Carter did not agree that the HDV was distinct from Carillion and Siglion. There was a general lesson to be learned that a large company can soon become bankrupt. He was concerned that the Council’s governance arrangements did not provide enough  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.