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.

A valid deputation request had been received from local campaigner, Stuart McNamara, on the issue of Wards Corner/Latin Village.

Addressing the panel, Stuart McNamara said that the issues around Wards Corner were not an isolated problem and that there was a wider issue with the Council’s approach to regeneration. He added that while there had been good intentions to do things differently following the change of administration in May 2018, they were still dealing with an unreconstructed system with insufficient engagement with checks and balances.

He went on to say that the steering group had been a failure with the traders divided and questioned why complaints about what he described as bullying and racist behaviour had not been taken seriously by Transport for London and Haringey Council. Also, the public should have the right to see the development agreement.

Market traders, Victoria Alvarez and Carlos Bergos, and architect, David McEwen, joined Stuart McNamara to respond the questions from the Panel and they commented as follows:

·         There needs to be an exploration of how the steering group was set up by Grainger because there is a conflict of interest with this being chaired by an organisation that is both the market facilitator and operator and stands to make financial gain from the market being knocked down.

·         The Section 106 agreement specifies that the Market Facilitator should promote the interests of the market traders but the market traders have complained that they receive harassment and abuse. She said that despite complaints to the Council no action is taken and that the Council should ensure that the Section 106 agreement is adhered to.

·         There is a divide between the market traders with a majority in favour of the alternative community plan being given parity of status. The community plan has support from design professionals and funding bodies and a capital funding strategy had been developed. Further documentation on the community plan would be forwarded to the Panel.

·         The CPO process should be stopped until the Scrutiny Review has been completed.

·         On the relocation of market units, the traders had been told they could submit up to three choices of where they want their unit to be. However, trade is very reliant on footfall and those who currently have street facing units should have grandfather rights on their location.

Cllr Gordon thanked the speakers for their presentation, noting that the Scrutiny Review on this issue was ongoing and that the market traders and others would be invited back to attend evidence sessions in the coming weeks. Written documentation would also be accepted. Cllr Gordon reminded those present that the Scrutiny Panel is not a decision-making body but would be submitting recommendations to the Cabinet at the end of the Review.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting. 

The accuracy of the minutes from the previous meeting was confirmed.

On the action points from the previous meeting, a reply had not yet been received from the letter to Cllr Ejiofor but this would be chased up.

On item 43 (CIL Overview) Cllr Williams suggested that a more detailed explanation should be provided to the Panel on the 16-month period required to raise the CIL rate.

Cllr Diakidis noted that there were a couple of documents referred to in the minutes that the Panel should be provided with when they are available (a review of the management process of CIL was due to be carried out by a specialist consultancy in Feb 2019 and a draft of the single integrated plan for the future of the Broadwater Farm estate was expected in Q1 of 2019/20).

AGREED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 15^th January 2019 be approved as an accurate record.

AGREED: That the items referred to above be followed up with the Panel updated at the following meeting.

An opportunity to question the Cabinet Member for Strategic Regeneration, Cllr Charles Adje, on developments within his portfolio.

Cllr Charles Adje, Cabinet Member for Strategic Regeneration responded to questions on the following issues:

• On the Wood Green Area Action Plan (AAP) Cllr Adje said that the policy team is currently working on the final version. The plans for a possible Crossrail station in the area were being taken into account but complicate matters as this aspect remains uncommitted and unfunded while proposed improvements to the Piccadilly line had been put on hold by TfL. The AAP will be proposing high density housing and had been designated in London Plan as an Opportunity Area. It was expected that Bury Road would be more accessible with more housing and used for loading and unloading for retail units. A public consultation on the AAP had been completed last year and there would be further consultation on the new proposals.
• The Accommodation Strategy was also being worked on and Cllr Adje would be reporting to an all Member briefing on this on 7^th March.
• On Seven Sisters market, Cllr Adje said that he shared the market facilitator being the same as the market operator. After recent discussions a new market facilitator had been appointed. That information had been communicated to market traders at a meeting on 12^th February though he himself had been unable to attend. Asked whether minutes were available from this meeting, Cllr Adje said that he would make enquiries (ACTION – Cllr Adje). Cllr Adje acknowledged the frustrations raised from the deputation earlier in the meeting and said that he welcomes the Scrutiny Review into this matter. Asked whether the Council would halt the CPO process until after the Scrutiny Review had been completed, Cllr Adje said that the Council had to operate within the constraints of the law.
• On sub-regional partnerships used to help the local economy, Cllr Adje said that there were a number of bodies that the Council had been engaged with including the North London Strategic Alliance and the London-Stansted-Cambridge consortium. The Council is also working with Enfield, Hackney and Waltham Forest boroughs on a joint approach to the Upper Lee Valley. Business space is a key concerned as there is not currently the capacity for businesses to expand in the way that we need them to so the Council is looking to assist local businesses in finding space.
• Peter O’Brien, Assistant Director for Regeneration, confirmed that the Strategic Investment Pot, which is part of the London-wide retained business rates scheme, could be used be allocate funds to support various strategic investment projects. This had required Haringey Council to put in a joint bid with other boroughs (Waltham Forest and Enfield) to demonstrate partnership working, and Haringey had agreed with the other boroughs to administer the fund although this was not yet operational.
• Asked about the Community Bank, Cllr Adje said that this issue falls under Cllr Berryman’s remit.
• Cllr Adje informed the Panel that a new economic development strategy is likely to be completed in summer. This is currently in draft form  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

To provide an update on the Tottenham and Wood Green landowner groups and to set out the next steps to be taken in line with the new Borough Plan.

Peter O’Brien, Assistant Director for Regeneration, and Steve Carr, Assistant Director for Economic Development & Growth, provided the Panel with an update on the Tottenham and Wood Green Landowners Group. The Tottenham group had been ceased and the Wood Green group was still operational but had not met recently. However, there are future proposals on business engagement as part of the new Borough Plan including through the Business Pledge and close engagement with various local business networks.

Cllr Gordon said that the Panel’s main concerns on this issue were more about the feeling in parts of the local community that developers were getting a large amount of access to lead officers and that lessons needed to be learnt about maintaining transparency about these relationships. Peter O’Brien said that efforts had been made at an early stage to ensure transparency of the Tottenham group including by publishing the minutes of the meetings online and including Member representation on the group. In the context of Area Action Plans (AAPs), including the Wood Green AAP which is currently in development, planning policy requires the local authority to engage with landowners and developers and the AAP can’t be delivered without doing this.

Asked about the Wood Green landowners’ forum, Peter O’Brien said that it is not currently meeting and there had not been a meeting since the Scrutiny Panel has been looking into this issue. This is because a lot of work was currently being done in-house on the Wood Green AAP so there is not anything to consult about at the moment. However, when proposals had been developed it would be necessary to engage with landowners again.

Councillor Zena Brabazon joined the meeting at this point commenting that the Tottenham landowner group was not an exercise in democracy as it had been discovered by chance and the minutes were posted online two to three months after the meetings after community pressure. The community concern was that, with the Council also as a major landowner, the group looked like a cartel. Peter O’Brien responded by saying that the while the Council has influence and power as a landowner it does not own everything and has to look strategically at how AAPs can be developed and delivered. As part of the Wood Green AAP the Council was looking at working in different ways, how to use assets to achieve outcomes and working with local community groups.

Asked whether there were criteria/guidelines on who qualifies for membership of the Wood Green group, Peter O’Brien said that AAP site allocations are made to portions of land and it is the owners of that land who are included in the group. Asked why Argent were included in the Tottenham group despite not owning any of the local land, he said that this was due to the initial appointment of Robert Evans as the Chair after the Tottenham riots as part of the efforts to secure investment at that time, including because of his background of previous redevelopments such as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

To consider potential issues for inclusion within the work plan for 2019-20.

Principal Scrutiny Officer, Dominic O’Brien, introduced this item noting that agendas items need to be identified for the 2019/20 panel meeting schedule which comprises of four regular scrutiny meetings and one budget scrutiny meeting.

On the scrutiny reviews on the Work Programme the Panel agreed to replace ‘Tottenham AAP’ with ‘Wood Green AAP’. The Panel discussed the possibility of holding a single-day scrutiny session on the Community Infrastructure Levy although Cllr Gordon noted that this would need to wait until after the Wards Corner scrutiny review had been concluded. 

Cllr Gordon noted that the Panel would need to follow up on the issues raised by the deputation from the Love Lane Temporary Accommodation Group (TAG) that attended a previous meeting of the Panel in November 2018. A response had been obtained from Homes for Haringey (HfH) about issues with maintenance and anti-social behaviour and this had been forwarded to representatives of the TAG. However, their main concern remained the security of tenure for residents.

Cllr Stone referred to concerns recently raised by Islington Council’s Housing Scrutiny Committee about a company that provides medical reports used to assess housing need. The same company is also being used by Haringey Council so the scrutiny panel should look into this.

AGREED: That the amendments as described above be added to the Work Programme for 2019/20.

·         14^th March 2019