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. Cllr Williams also gave apologies.

Cllr Diakides have apologies for lateness.

Officers advised that Cllr Gordon was unwell.

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 was 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.

There were no declarations of interest.

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. 

The Panel requested an update on the outstanding action regarding Brewery Lane. Philip to chase (Action).

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting on 30^th July were accepted as a correct record of the meeting.

The Panel received a report which set out the upcoming housing strategy and policy programme as an overview of the key policy and strategy documents being developed across Housing. The report was introduced by Hannah Adler, Head of Housing Strategy and Policy as set out in pages 17 to 24 of the agenda pack. The Assistant Director for Housing, Robbie Erbmann was also present for this item, along with Darren Fairclough, Head of Rehousing . The following arose during the discussion of this report:

a.    The Panel queried the extent to which the TA Discharge of Duty policy would take into account the suitability of that offer, particularly in the private rented sector, given the implications of someone making themselves intentionally homeless if they refused that offer. In response, officers acknowledged that the policy would set out what a suitable offer would look like when discharging someone into private rented accommodation. Officers also set out that there was statutory guidance around suitability of the property and also an appeals process.

b.    A member of the Panel raised concerns about rough sleepers around Tottenham Hale and the impression this have of the borough given that it was the main gateway into Tottenham. In response, officers advised that there was an updated rough sleeping strategy agreed last year. Officers agreed to get an update from the Rough Sleeping team on what action was being taken around the prevalence of rough sleepers and tents in Tottenham Hale and whether there was an officer in regular engagement with those individuals. (Action: Philip).

c.    The Panel sought assurances about the types of incentives being offered to people who held secure tenancies, to downsize their properties. It was suggested that the Council needed to offer people a personal mentor to navigate the process and provide tailored support. In response, officers advised that they were looking at the Rightsizing policy and that this would contain a range of incentives, that were broader than just offering them money. Officers advised that they were currently undertaking engagement work with some residents around this. As a follow-up the Panel suggested that the current incentives had been in place for some time and were clearly not incentive enough people to move homes. Officers acknowledged that the incentives were out of date and that there was a need to get a policy in place that set out what the revised offer was. This was being progressed by the team.

d.    The Panel questioned when the last time that the housing register was reviewed. It was suggested that the Council should write to everyone on the register to find about their circumstances and ascertain if they still needed to be on the register. In response, officers advised that it had been a while since the last time that this task had been undertaken, largely due to capacity. It was suggested that the best time to do this would be in conjunction with the development of a new allocations policy.  The Panel commented that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 188.

The Panel received a presentation which provided an update around the governance and monitoring of the HRA capital budget and projects. The presentation was introduced by Christian Carlisle, Interim Assistant Director of Asset Management, as set out in the agenda pack at pages 25-32. The AD for Housing was also present for this agenda item. The following arose as part of the discussion of this item:

a.    The Panel sought more detail about how decisions were made about which capital projects to continue. In response, officers advised that in relation to refurbishment of existing properties, this was set through the Asset Management strategy, which set out how the Council plans and prioritises its investment based on the information it had available. It was commented that stock data was looked at to help identify and plan where investments would be made, based on agreed set of priorities. Officers advised that the highest priority was given to Health and Safety works and those needed to meet regulatory requirements. In relation to new builds, the AD for Housing advised that the main financial metric was positive net present value. This looked at the cash flow value received from the housing, discounted by the borrowing costs used to build it. Other considerations were whether the scheme was net cash flow positive in the first year and value for money considerations based on a threshold for price per metres squared.

b.    The Panel sought further assurance about how the Council was able to balance financial limitations with the political decisions taken to build new Council homes and invest in its existing stock. In response, officers advised that there was framework in place, within which decisions were taken. Officers set out that schemes within the HDP were based on the metrics discussed above, notably net present value (NPV). Officers advised that the Housing Delivery Plan was important to the overall viability of the HRA, as it allowed the Council to grow its income. Similarly, money spent on investing in current stock reduced repair costs. Officers advised that they knew they had to build at pace and scale, and that a lot of time was spent looking at what pace the authority could afford to viably build at. Officers commented that the service had recently completed a stock condition survey, which showed a need for £1.2 billion investment, against an allocation of around £600m in funding. It was crucial, therefore, that the Council was able to prioritise how it spent this money. Officers gave firm assurances that they would always prioritise making sure that buildings were safe.

c.    The Panel sought assurances around progress with implementing a procurement framework. In response, officers advised that there had been some delays due to the fact that Council had decide to use the new London LCP framework instead. Contractors had been notified and the Council was due to go out to procurement in October on that basis.

d.    The Panel expressed a degree of scepticism with the £1.2B stock condition  ...  view the full minutes text for item 189.

The Panel received a report which provided an update on existing and planned placemaking programmes and, and details on place making funding streams. The report was introduced by Anna Blandford AD for Regeneration and Economic Development and as set out in the agenda pack at pages 33-46. The Panel also received a presentation which was included in the tabled papers additional agenda pack. The following arose during the discussion of this report:

1. The Panel sought assurances about building good relations with the community in Tottenham, particularly around Seven Sisters Market. In response, officers emphasised the Shaping Tottenham strategy, which had been developed in conjunction with the local community. There had also been a number of stakeholder panels set up for Tottenham Hale. The Council had recently completed the refurbishment of the Welbourne Centre and Down Lane Park which, it was hoped, had built a degree of trust that the Council was acting in the interests of local residents. In relation to Seven Sisters Market, it was acknowledged that there had been a lot of delays and that this had been frustrating to the market stall holders. The Council had been working with Places for London and hardship payments had been made to the stall holders. A new contractor for the site had been appointed and it was hoped it would reopen next year. 
2. The Panel commented on their frustrations with delays to the reopening of Seven Sisters Market and the fact that it was located at a key gateway to London. In response, officers acknowledged the Panel’s frustrations with delays in opening a temporary market. It was commented that the Council had been active in lobbying TfL, but that the project had been impacted by TfL’s difficult financial position.
3. The Panel sought assurances around Bruce Grove railway arches and concerns that the company that bought the site had applied to the Council for funding to refurbish them. In response, officers advised that they looked into the possibility of getting heritage funding for the site but that there was not enough funding available to help with the project. Officers set out that the company that bought the site would have to undertake the project without financial support from the Council.
4. The Panel raised concerns about recent reports in the media that Lendlease had walked away from the High Road West programme and the ongoing delays and costs involved in the scheme to date, particularly from flats being boarded up and the Council receiving no rent. In response, officers advised that Lendlease had publicly announced their intention to move out of Europe. It was stated that Lendlease was still the Council’s development partner for High Road West and they were still under contract with the Council. Officers advised that they were unable to say much more about it at this stage. Officers advised that they were in discussion with other services within the council to see if some of the empty properties could be used to provide Temporary Accommodation.
5. The Panel enquired  ...  view the full minutes text for item 190.

The Panel received a report which fed back to the Panel on a response to an Ombudsman Complaint (Haringey Reference LBH/14192823) in relation to the determination of planning application HGY/2022/4537 in Crouch End Ward. One of the Ombudsman’s recommendations in relation to the case was to “report the findings of this review to its relevant oversight and scrutiny committee”. The report was introduced by Robbie McNaugher, Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement, as set out in the agenda pack at pages 47-60. Rob Krzyszowski, Assistant Director, Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability was also present for this agenda item. The following arose in discussion of this item:

1. The Panel sought assurances about the remedies that had been put in place following this case and the extent to which regular meetings were held in the team. The Panel also asked whether workload was an issue and did the team perhaps need to slow down in order to prevent errors. In response, officers advised that training sessions had been set up with staff following the case and that a team of barristers had been in to provide that training. In addition, regular meetings were held within the team and developments in case law were discussed at these meetings. In relation to speed, officers advised that the service handled around 3k applications in a year and that this was the only one where an objection was missed completely. It was suggested that this was a very rare occurrence.
2. In response to a question, officers advised that the original permission had expired, but that a resubmitted application had been approved and that there was a live permission in place for these works, but that they had not been undertaken as yet.
3. In response to a question, officers advised that if an error had been made the usual practice would be to report that to the relevant team manager and that there were a number of processes in place to monitor and check the work of the team.
4. Officers advised that there was a peer review undertaken in October 2023 and that the outcome of that was reported to Cabinet in March. The team were working through the action plan that arose from the review and this would be reported to Strategic Planning Committee. Officers also advised that there was also an internal audit of Planning underway.

RESOLVED

That the Scrutiny Panel noted the report.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

N/A

·         5^th October

·         16^th December

·         6^th March

·         5^th November

·         21^st November (Budget)

·         6^th March