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’.

None.

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).

None.

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.

The Chair informed the Panel that Paul Burnham, from Haringey Defend Council Housing, had made a request to speak in relation to agenda item 8, Haringey Development Vehicle – Verbal Update. It was noted that this request would be taken as part of agenda item 8.

To approve the minutes of the Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel meeting held on 7 March 2017.

AGREED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2017 be approved as a correct record.  

To approve the minutes of the Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel meeting held on 22 June 2017.

AGREED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2017 be approved as a correct record.

Verbal update.

The Chair welcomed Cllr Elin Weston, Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lyn Garner, Strategic Director of Regeneration, Planning and Development, and Richard Grice, Interim Director of Transformation and Resources, to the meeting. It was explained that the Leader of the Council, on 31 August 2017, had made a decision to nominate these individuals to represent the Council on the Haringey Development Vehicle Board.

It was also noted that Cllr Weston, Ms Garner and Mr Grice had participated in shadow HDV board meetings during the summer of 2017. The Chair stated that, despite ongoing scrutiny of the HDV, the Panel had not been made aware of the shadow board.   

In response to questions, Ms Garner explained arrangements for the shadow board had been outlined in a report to Cabinet, in February 2017, to approve the selection of Lendlease as preferred bidder. Ms Garner went on to highlight section 6.44 of the Cabinet report, outlined below:     

“It is intended that shadow board arrangements will be put in place with the

preferred bidder ahead of financial close to enable the board to form, establish itself and begin to function in an informal way (though the board cannot take any formal decisions until the HDV is formally incorporated).”

The Panel was informed that during the summer the shadow HDV board had met informally on three occasions: 22 June; 2 August; and 30 August. However, due to a legal challenge, it was explained that the Council and Lendlease had agreed to suspend these meetings. The Panel was also informed of a HDV Shadow Board Dinner, held on 24 April.     

It was noted that the shadow board meetings had been informal and did not have the power to make any decisions or give directions to staff, nor to otherwise exercise any of the functions defined for the HDV Board in the legal agreements. Following a discussion about the role of the HDV Board and the importance of its effective functioning, Cllr Weston and Ms Garner both explained that it had been worth investing time in the preparatory stages in order to build the relationships on which the formal functioning would depend.

The Panel was informed that council officers and members nominated to the HDV Board would owe general fiduciary duties to the Board, when sitting on the Board. The Panel was informed that it was normal for such obligations to be imposed on the members, via the Members’ Agreement, to act in the best interest of the LLP and not to act in conflict with its interests. However, the Panel was asked to note that these principles did not apply to the shadow HDV board as these would only apply upon the establishment of the LLP and creation of the HDV Board.

In response to questions about the 3 July 2017 Cabinet meeting, concerning the approval of the legal documentation to establish the joint venture, the HDV Board and its first set of business plans, Cllr Weston advised she had been acting in her capacity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Report attached.

Helen Fisher, Director of Regeneration, introduced the report as set out, concerning emerging ideas and ideas about good and inclusive growth. 

The Panel was informed that these ideas and concepts had gained increased prevalence over recent years, with growing evidence that the proceeds of national and regional growth had predominately benefited a small section of the population. It was noted that researchers and practitioners had recently begun to coalesce around the umbrella term “Inclusive Growth” to describe policies and programmes with the central objective of generating shared prosperity where no one was left behind.

In response to questions about defining inclusive growth, Ms Fisher explained that the most prominent definition of inclusive growth had been established by the Royal Society of Arts. It was noted that their Inclusive Growth Commission (2017) had cited some key principles for delivering inclusive growth:

-       Develop a shared vision for the place, owned by leaders in government, business, the VCS and local communities

-       Establish a whole system endeavour, integrating social and economic policy and infrastructure investment around measurable outcomes for individuals.

-       Develop a whole life-cycle approach, recognising that individuals require different types of support at different stages of life.

Ms Fisher went on to explain that prominent research and evidence from early practitioners had outlined a number of changes that were needed to ensure growth was inclusive. These included:

-       The fact that outright economic growth was no longer enough. With income inequality and rising costs of living it was recognised that there must be a focus on the quality of growth.

-       Economic and technological changes required more holistic, place-based leadership involving public and private sector leaders and the communities they served.

-       A recognition that investing in education, training and health and wellbeing for the whole population generates greater and more sustainable economic growth while ensuring now one was left behind.

In response to questions, the Panel was informed that the ideas underpinning inclusive growth had influenced the Mayor of London and GLA’s adoption of three “Good Growth” principles: Empowering People; Making Better Places; and Growing Prosperity. Ms Fisher explained that these themes would underpin the next London Plan and the GLA’s overall approach to regeneration, as set out in sections 6.21 – 6.27 of the report. It was noted that Haringey had committed to playing its part in meeting London’s challenges through the significant regeneration programmes underway across the borough. 

During discussion, it was noted that inclusive growth had emerged as a key theme over recent years and had been adopted and championed by international organisations. Case studies from across the world were also  considered, including lessons learnt from:

-       Louisville, USA:  America’s “Compassionate City”

-       New York City, USA: Career Pathways Framework

-       Rotterdam, Netherlands: National Programme Rotterdam South

-       Bristol, UK: Bristol City Office 

The Panel agreed that proactively empowering and investing in communities and people was key in helping to ensure the benefits of growth were translated into meaningful outcomes for all.   

In conclusion, it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Report attached.

The Chair welcomed Cllr Peray Ahmet, Cabinet Member for the Environment, and Alison Crowe, Programme Manager, to the meeting and Cllr Ahmet introduced the report.

The Panel was informed the report provided information on the progress that had been made to date in respect of extending the Additional Licensing scheme and introducing a Selective Licensing scheme for single dwelling houses.      

In response to questions, the Panel was advised that in order to bring forward either an additional or selective licensing scheme the Council needed to satisfy legislative criteria. It was noted that this was particularly important when presenting a case for selective licensing, as set out in section 6.2 of the report.   

The Panel was asked to note that both schemes needed to be supported by a robust evidence base and that a full public consultation exercise was required before a scheme could be introduced.

In response to questions, Ms Crowe explained various data sets (from within the Council and the Metropolitan Police) had been brought together and analysed, as set out in section 6.3 of the report.

In terms of consultation, the following points were noted:

-       Public consultation would take place between November 2017 – February 2018.

-       The consultation would go beyond borough boundaries.

-       Information would be provided to explain why the Council was proposing a licensing scheme and why alternative remedies were insufficient.

-       Information would be provided to demonstrate how the schemes would tackle specific problems and how they would relate to other measures.

In response to questions, Ms Crowe explained the consultation was likely to attract a negative response from landlords and the Council needed to look at what support could be provided to support landlords.

The Panel was informed that work was ongoing to analyse data and to meet requirements set out by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). It was noted that officers had met with colleagues from DCLG to discuss initial proposals for licensing across Haringey and to seek further guidance on how best to present the evidence base. It was noted that feedback from the DCLG had included:

-       The need for selective licensing to address problems in individual streets/areas.

-       Ward based schemed offered a blanket approach and it was unlikely problems relating to the private sector dwellings existed across the ward.

-       Clarity was needed in terms of the problems that were trying to be addressed and the desired outcomes.   

From the analysis to date, the following points were noted:  

-       There were  pockets of problematic single family private sector dwellings in the borough.

-       HMOs were problematic and required blanket regulation.

-       Using various data sets, officers had estimated an increase in the private sector stock (overall) to 35,000. It was noted HMOs could be as high as 50% of this total.  

-       Previous national studies, and findings from Haringey, highlighted many HMOs: Operated under the radar, unregulated; Increased the risk of fire; Were owned by absent or rogue landlords; Were unsafe and often  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Report attached.

Emma Williamson, Assistant Director for Planning, introduced the report as set out.

Ms Williamson commented that during 2015/16 the Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel had conducted a review of the viability assessment process in Haringey. It was noted that the Panel had made a number of recommendations and that the Council’s response to the report had been considered by Regulatory Committee on 17 January 2017 and agreed by Cabinet on 25 January 2017.

In response to questions, Ms Williamson stated the majority of the Panel’s recommendations had been agreed and went on to provide an update in terms of the progress that had been made in implementing them. As part of this, the Panel was asked to note the recommendations and subsequent action taken, set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

During the discussion it was noted that the Panel’s recommendations had been put forward to improve the consistency and transparency of the viability assessment process. Ms Williamson explained that the development of a London Wide Viability Protocol would also improve the consistency of the process across London.  

The Panel thanked officers for their work in helping to ensure the Planning Service was doing all it could to ensure processes used in Haringey were as rigorous as possible.

AGREED: That the actions being taken, as a result of the Panel’s recommendations relating to the viability assessment process in Haringey, be noted.

Report attached.

Christian Scade, Principal Scrutiny Officer, provided an update on the proposed work programme for the remainder of the 2017/18 municipal year.

During the discussion, it was agreed an update on temporary accommodation should be considered by the Panel in November 2017. In addition, the Panel queried why the Community Infrastructure Levy rate was lower in north Tottenham compared to the south of Tottenham and suggested further scrutiny was required during 2017/18.

AGREED:

(a)  That subject to the additions and comments above, the areas of inquiry outlined in Appendix A of the Work Programme Update be approved and recommended for endorsement by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

(b)  That the scoping document for the Social Housing Scrutiny Project, outlined in Appendix B of the Work Programme Update be approved and recommended for endorsement by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

None.

To note the dates of future Panel meetings:

-       7 November 2017

-       19 December 2017

-       13 March 2018

The Chair referred Members present to item 14 as shown on the agenda in respect of future meeting dates, and Members noted the information contained therein’.