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 Members present to agenda Item 1 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at this meeting, and Members noted the information contained therein’.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Moyeed and Cllr Harrison Mullane.

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. New items will be dealt with as noted below).

There were no items of Urgent Business.

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.

None.

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

None.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting. 

Cllr Bevan advised that he had not been able to arrange a meeting with Clarion for an estate walkabout and requested help from officers to arrange this. (Action: Hannah).

In relation to the partnering contract, officers advised that a number of bids had been submitted as part of the tendering process and it was hoped that  a contract would be awarded towards the end of 2025.

Officers were requested to provide a written update on the frequency that the £20 food voucher was paid. (Action: Jahed).

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting on 16^th December 2024 were agreed as a correct record.

The Panel received a verbal update along with a tabled presentation that provided an update on the timelines and development of the updated Local Plan. The presentation was given by Bryce Tudball, Head of Spatial Planning as set out in the tabled papers agenda pack. Cllr Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing & Planning was present for this agenda item. The following arose as part of the discussion:

a.    The Chair acknowledged the amount of work that had gone into the Local Plan to get it to this stage and welcomed a number of the positive changes that had been made. The Chair requested that officers provide some further comments about the reasons for the delays to date. In response, officers advised that the delays had been part of the feedback arising from the planning service peer challenge review and that the principal reason for this was around resources within the team. The Panel was advised that this had been acknowledged by senior management and the service now had a full complement of staff. Officers advised that the delays had allowed the service to respond to raft of changes put forward by the new government, and that the timescales for the Local Plan were now running in tandem with the London Plan.

b.    The Chair sought assurances around the extent to which the emerging Local Plan could be used as a consideration when determining planning applications. Officers advised that once it had been published as a draft Local Plan in the summer, a limited amount of weight could be given to the new Local Plan when considering planning applications.

c.    The Panel commented that the updated Local Plan had a lead-in time of seven years, and assurances were sought that it wouldn’t be out of date by the time it was in place. In response, officers acknowledged the lead-in time but gave assurances that by the time it was finalised in 2027 it would be very up to date, a lot of work had gone into future proofing the Local Plan. A lot of emphasis was being given to placemaking within the plan, rather than it being reactive.

d.    The Panel sought assurances about whether there would be a greater emphasis on increasing the number of social housing units within the plan. Officers advised that they anticipated that the new plan would have stronger policies around having more properties for social rent, including more social rent properties in Tottenham and the east of the borough.

e.    The Panel raised concerns with the number of very tall buildings that had been permitted in Tottenham Hale under the current Local Plan, and sought assurances that something similar wouldn’t happen in Wood Green under the new Local Plan. In response officers advised that the aim of consulting on a new Local Plan was to build up an evidence base from the consultation with which to base the borough’s planning priorities on. It was identified that the new Local Plan would, unlike the previous iteration, have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 228.

The Panel received a report which provided an update on the mock housing inspection of housing services conducted against the Regulator of Social Housing’s consumer standards, carried out by specialist housing consultants, Housing Quality Network (HQN) between September and October 2024. The report was introduced by Jahedur Rahman, Operational Director of Housing Services & Building Safety as set out in the agenda pack at pages 13 – 20. Cllr Sarah Williams, the Cabinet Member for Housing & Planning was also present for this item. The following arose as part of the discussion of this item:

a.    The Director of Housing advised that overall the outcome of the mock inspection was a C2 grade, which was the second highest of four possible grades (C1, C2, C3 & C4). Prior to the referral to the regulator, Haringey would have likely been a C4 authority. The Chair welcomed the overall positive outcome of the mock inspection and commented that a number of areas of improvement had been made. It was questioned how many inspections of the new consumer standards had been carried out to date and what sort of scores were being achieved. In response, officers advised that there had been 50 inspections and that most authorities were coming out at C3. Some achieved a C2 grade, and only one in authority in London had achieved a C1 grade – Westminster. Officers advised that HQN issued 48 recommendations that should bring the Council up to a C1 grade. Of those 48, there were a number of recommendations that had been identified internally as areas for improvement. Six of the 48 had been implemented. One of these was around reporting beyond the big six compliance areas, which was already happening internally. HQN commented on Haringey’s extensive resident engagement structures. Resident engagement impact assessments would be a carried out every year by the Council to drive forward the improvement agenda.

b.    The Panel expressed a degree of surprise around the overall score, given the gaps in stock condition surveys and the performance levels on voids. The Panel sort assurances that the C2 score was realistic. In response, officers advised that rating was given by an external company, rather than the regulator, so it was not a certainty. However, HQN used the criteria set out by the regulator and also reviewed all of the previous judgments made by the regulator when assigning a rating. The report set out that Haringey was able to meet the criteria for a C2 rating, but did not say that it definitely would achieve this score. In relation to stock condition surveys, officers advised that the authority had achieved a 75-80% compliance rate on stock condition surveys. The Director of Housing advised that he did not want to be complacent, but advised that the mock inspection gave the authority a critical view of whether it was on the right track and also set out what steps needed to be taken to achieve a C1 grade.

c.    In response to a question, officers clarified that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 229.

To follow.

The Panel received a report which set out the background to the development of a new housing allocations policy, set out the requirements for, and process for, consultation and covered the main principles of Haringey’s new draft housing allocations policy. It also included the draft housing allocations policy and the EQIA as appendices. The report was introduced by Hannah Adler, Head or Housing Policy and Strategy and Darren Fairclough, Head of Lettings & Rehousing - Housing Demand, as set out in the second agenda pack at pages 1-82. Cllr Sarah Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing & Planning was also present for this agenda item. The following arose as part of the discussion of this report:

1. The Panel sought assurances around how the focus group was representative of the makeup of Haringey’s housing register. In response, officers advised that the focus group proportionally represented the reasons that people were on the housing register, such as severe overcrowding, medical need, living in TA etcetera. It was also commented that the group was in itself also a diverse group that represented Haringey’s residents.
2. The Panel queried the process for how people were selected to sit on the focus group. In response, officers advised that the Council took a data driven approach and developed a shortlist that was representative of the categories of reasons why people required housing as listed on the housing register. From that shortlist, the Council then wrote to those people in order to make sure they would be willing to take part.
3. The Chair questioned the new approach that was being taken to prioritise families with dependent children over those with a mixture of dependant and non-dependent children (i.e. those over the age of 22).  In response, officers advised that a number of different options were considered and that the reason that those with solely dependent children were proposed as having priority was that, whilst the wider housing challenges across London were recognised, it was considered that a child of 23 and above did not need to live at home and could live independently. The Council was seeking to prioritise those with the most need, and so it was felt that dependent children should be prioritised. Officers acknowledged that every model would result in some groups being prioritised at the expense of others. The Cabinet Member added that the aim was to give children the best chances to not have their life blighted by their housing situation. Officers advised that the age at which a child was considered non-dependant i.e. 22 was part of the consultation process.
4. The Chair asked for figures on what the impact would be on the housing register if we gave equal priority to those families with dependent and non-dependent children. Officers agreed to provide a response in writing. (Action: Hannah Adler).
5. The Panel sought further clarification about how the cut-off point for dependent children being 22 and under was reached. It was commented that in some cultures there was an expectation that adult children would live with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 230.

RESOLVED

     I.        That the Panel considered its work programme, attached at Appendix A of the report.

    II.        That the Panel agreed the scoping document for a proposed Review on TA Placements Policy and the PRS Discharge Policy, set out in Appendix B of the report.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

N/A

TBA

It was noted that there were no further meetings of the Housing, Planning & Development Scrutiny Panel in 2024/25 municipal year.