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 deputation request had been received from Faruk Tepeyurt on behalf of the Peacock Industrial Estate regarding the High Road West regeneration scheme. This request was not valid as it had been received on the day of the meeting and not at least five working days previously as required. Under the discretion of the Chair it was determined that the request be allowed to proceed nevertheless.

Mr Tepeyurt said that he is the elected spokesperson for the Peacock Industrial Estate where he runs a business, and was also speaking on behalf of the Tottenham business group. He said that the majority of the business community on the Estate are on record from a 2013 consultation that they do not object to regeneration but they do want to be a part of it and remain where they are. In November 2013 a petition with 4,000 signatures was submitted to Haringey Council against the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) and what they regarded as a flawed consultation process but Mr Tepeyurt said that this was ignored.

Under the proposals Lendlease would be given a 250-year long term lease impacting on the 50 business entities on the Estate which currently employ around 250 people. Mr Tepeyurt said that the Council doesn’t want to protect the existing employment opportunities. The Peacock Industrial Estate businesses want to have their own planning initiative and regenerate the area jointly. A pre-planning application has been submitted to the Council. However, Mr Tepeyurt said that Lendlease just wants the taxpayer to buy up the Estate’s units at cheap rates and then transfer the assets to them. Existing businesses owners would become leaseholders instead of freeholders. Mr Tepeyurt said that a special scrutiny meeting should be held to discuss the problems of the Peacock Industrial Estate businesses regarding this regeneration scheme.

In response to questions from the Panel, Mr Tepeyurt said:

• That business owners were being asked to downgrade their ownership status from freeholder to leaseholder. As leaseholders they would have to pay ground rent and service charges which they don’t have to do currently. This would be justified on the basis of the quality of the new units but the current units are good quality.
• The Peacock Industrial Estate’s preferred option would be to remain in place but with better landscaping of the Estate to make it more welcoming. A second-choice option would be a mixed use development with industrial units, residential homes and green spaces from their own land. But Lendlease and the Council would also need to allocate space from their own land.
• Asked about problems with noisy industrial units operating near residential buildings, Mr Tepeyurt said that the proposals include plans for coffee shops, retail units and workshops but some businesses wouldn’t be able to operate from the new workshops. If these businesses are going to be removed they should be relocated within a one-mile radius but there are no suitable locations. There is no plan for where these businesses and jobs will be going.

Cllr Gordon  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting. 

The scrutiny officer to the Panel advised that some minor amends had been made to item 49 in the minutes of the previous meeting held on 21^st Feb 2019 which related to a deputation on the issue of Wards Corner. The amendments were to add details of the occupations/roles of the people who spoke to the Panel and to add emphasis to make it clearer that comments made were from the deputation and not from the Panel Members. With these minor amends added the minutes were agreed as an accurate record.

The action points from the previous meeting were then discussed. Following a deputation on child yield figures used for new housing developments at the Panel’s meeting on 15^th January 2019, the Chair of the Panel had written to the Leader of the Council recommending that the new figures be adopted by Haringey Council. In his response letter to the Chair of the Panel, the Leader of the Council had stated that the Council will be commencing a Local Plan review in October and that as part of this Haringey will be carrying out research along similar lines to Merton Council to establish a ‘Haringey Child Yield’. A timetable for this work would be confirmed in due course.

In response to a question from the Panel, Dan Hawthorn, Director of Housing, Regeneration & Planning said that Merton Council has carried out their own local research in order to set an evidence-based local policy, otherwise the default position would be to use the GLA calculator. Haringey is proposing to replicate this method of research to establish the local conditions on which future calculations should be based.

Asked how long it would take to establish this policy using new calculations and hearing concerns from Panel Members that the process could take as long as three or four years, Dan Hawthorn acknowledged that changes to planning policy can take a long time due to the need to establish that there is a sound evidence base but that four years is over pessimistic and that two years may be more realistic. It isn’t always necessary to wait until the end of that process before the new calculations can be used because the policy gains more weight the further it gets through the process. A more detailed response could be obtained from Emma Williamson, Assistant Director for Planning, who was not present at the meeting. (ACTION) Cllr Williams suggested that a political steer would also be needed from the Cabinet Member for Planning.

There had also been a number of other action points from the previous meeting on 21^st February 2019:

·         The Panel asked to receive the minutes that the meeting between Grainger and the Wards Corner market traders on 12^th February 2019. The minutes had now been obtained and circulated along with a letter from Grainger to the market traders dated 29^th January 2019. These documents would be considered as part of the Panel’s scrutiny review on Wards Corner.

·         The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

To provide the Panel with an update on the High Road West scheme.

Peter O’Brien, Assistant Director for Regeneration, introduced the report on this item. In September 2017 the Cabinet approved Lendlease as the preferred bidder for the High Road West regeneration scheme. As part of the agreement the Council agreed to acquire 145 social rented homes and 46 shared equity homes. Benefits of the scheme are set out in paragraph 1.3 of the report including a library and learning centre, improved public realm and a significant amount of business space.

A significant recent change has been the new condition for a ballot of residents recently introduced by the Mayor which will shape how the High Road West scheme proceeds. The new administration has set a major priority on the delivery of Council rented homes and has set officers the ambition to achieve a step change in the amount of Council rented homes in this scheme. This is critically important as shifting the mix of housing in the scheme impacts fundamentally on its financial viability so the Council is working with Lendlease and the GLA to bring additional resources into the scheme so that these ambitions can be delivered.

The ballot of residents will be accompanied by a ‘Landlord Offer’ which is the package of documents that the Council will put forward as part of the ballot including a local lettings policy which will set out how the new Council homes will be allocated. The quantum of additional Council homes in the scheme will enable more people to be taken off the housing register in the Borough and also addresses other forms of need such as Temporary Housing residents. The Landlord Offer will also include a leaseholder offer and a document which sets out the broad vision of the High Road West scheme.

The Council made a number of commitments to local businesses in 2014 through the Business Charter and these are set out in paragraph 3.1 of the report. There are around 60 businesses in the High Road West area which are very varied and total around 200,000 sq/ft of floorspace. The proposals for the High Road West scheme include at least 200,000 sq/ft of non-residential space, including retail, business and leisure. Every effort will be made to re-accommodate as many of the existing businesses as possible but, given the fundamental change in the character of area, it is very challenging to envisage all businesses being re-accommodated. There are detailed discussions to be had with each business about their business requirements and aspirations which will take some time.

In terms of community engagement, a Resident Charter was created in 2014 which set out the residents’ priority for development in the area and further input from residents was gathered through a residents’ design panel set up in 2016. Further continuing resident engagement measures are set out in paragraph 4.2 of the report.

A dedicated rehousing team to facilitate the rehousing of Love Lane Estate residents has been established at The Grange which is the community centre opposite the Estate. The numbers of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

To update the Panel on progress made towards the recommendations made in the 2017/18 scrutiny review on Social Housing.

(REPORT TO FOLLOW)

The Panel asked questions about the updates provided in the report to the recommendations of the Scrutiny Review on Social Housing that was originally published in March 2018.

Recommendation 3c – Cllr Diakides asked why there was still no change to the position as reported in July 2018 of a 40% borough-wide affordability target rather than a 50% target as recommended. Cllr Emine Ibrahim, Cabinet Member for Housing & Estate Renewal, said that this was predominantly a planning issue and so a response would be required from the Leader of the Council who leads on planning.

Alan Benson, Head of Housing Strategy & Commissioning, said that there were two issues in recommendation 3c, firstly the proportion of affordable housing required and secondly the definition of affordability within this. On the definition, the Affordable Rent product referred to in the report is no longer being funded by the Mayor of London so there will be no more of that coming forward. In the revised appendix to the Housing Strategy which is going to Cabinet shortly that the Council’s preferred option is social rented housing although some housing associations may still bring forward London Affordable Rent. There is a plan to bring forward a new Local Plan and a 50% target but that does take some time. Cllr Gordon suggested that a fuller discussion about the Local Plan should be scheduled at a future meeting. (ACTION)

Recommendation 4 – Cllr Barnes asked about the St Anns development site. Dan Hawthorn and Cllr Ibrahim said that the GLA is the landowner now and will be responsible for the procurement process. Haringey Council is involved in discussions as the planning authority and as a potential buyer of Council homes on the site.

Recommendation 9 – Cllr Say asked what could be done to ensure resident involvement of new social housing when it is not known who the future residents will be. Cllr Ibrahim and Alan Benson said that Homes for Haringey has a Resident Scrutiny Panel which could potentially be widened. Also there is a commitment that a design guide will be produced and put out for public consultation which will set out in detail what sort of buildings and the quality of homes that will be built in the future.

Recommendation 13 – Cllr Say asked for a timeframe on the fitting of sprinklers to high-rise blocks. Alan Benson said that the Government’s recommendations on fire safety were still being awaited and this is important as it is not clear that sprinklers are the best solution in all situations so clarity is required from the Government as to what it expects the Council to deliver. However, funding has been set aside in the Housing Revenue Account budget to deliver fire safety works when required. Cllr Gordon reminded the Panel about the Overview & Scrutiny Committee’s current ongoing fire safety scrutiny review and Cllr Ibrahim said that a lot of other work has been done on fire safety including with fire doors on Broadwater Farm.

Recommendation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

An opportunity to question the Cabinet Member for Housing & Estate Renewal, Cllr Emine Ibrahim, on developments within her portfolio.

This item was curtailed due to time. Cllr Gordon said that this would have included questions on the review of housing management and housing demand services and on extending the Council’s existing contact for the provision of information, advice and guidance services. Cllr Ibrahim said that housing review will be on whether using an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) is the right way to continue delivering housing services as some boroughs have brought these back in-house. This would be brought to Cabinet in April. The question on information services was about community organisations that the Council funds with which the contracts have come up for renewal.

Cllr Barnes asked for an update on the decant of Broadwater Farm and Cllr Ibrahim agreed to circulate an update in writing. (ACTION)

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

None.