Agenda item

The Committee received a deputation from Paul Burnham from Haringey Defend Council Housing in relation to the called-in decision by Cabinet to establish the HDV, who made the following points: 

1. The land assembly agreement did not contain a right of return for housing association tenants, instead the Council would have to make an extra payment for each tenant and their right of return. It was suggested that this was symptomatic of the power imbalance of the relationship between the Council and Lendlease.
2. Lendlease did not believe in affordable homes.
3. The documents presented to Cabinet did not show any tenure breakdown for Northumberland Park.
4. The decision to enter into contract with Lendlease contradicted the Housing Strategy and other key Council policies, as a well as contradicting the key aims and principles of the Local Plan.
5. The proposals outlined in the Cabinet report did not deliver what the Council said it would and the Committee was asked to send it back to Cabinet.  

In response to a request for clarification from the Committee, Mr Burnham acknowledged that, in relation to his point around tenures, he would have expected to see a breakdown of the number of social homes being built as part of the affordable housing strategy. In response to a request for further information around the alleged contradiction of Council polices and the proposals contained in the HDV, Mr Burnham advised that the Council was in the process of revising its estate renewal and rehousing policy to include a right of return for housing association tenants, which the HDV Land Assembly Agreement stated would not be offered for housing association tenants.

The Committee then received a deputation from Phil Wilkinson, Phil Rose and Sam Leggatt on behalf of Stop the HDV, who made the following points:

1. The voices of Northumberland Park Residents had been completely ignored. Ms Leggatt advised that she was a resident in Northumberland Park and had not been consulted on these proposals.
2. It was unfair to expect members of the public to read and comprehend over 1400 pages of documents in a week.
3. Questions were raised as to why the demolition of the mosque   and the Asian centre on Caxton Road were not mentioned in the documents.
4. Mr Wilkinson questioned the transparency of the process with the public, giving the example that he had submitted a Freedom of Information request and been told that there were no minutes of meetings held with Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.
5. No comprehensive risk assessment had been publically disclosed and there were serious questions around a lack of due diligence.
6. Alternative options should be examined.

In response to a query from the Committee on whether undertaking consultation at this stage would be welcomed by residents, Ms Leggatt advised that she did not think there was much use doing so at this late stage. Ms Leggatt advised that the Council had set up a consultation area on Park Lane recently but that the whole process felt very late and out of touch. The Committee sought clarification on the link between the Spurs development and the HDV. Mr Wilkinson suggested that the timing was crucial and questioned whether the timing of the HDV was to accommodate a Spurs building schedule and whether that explained the seeming desire to push this through. Northumberland Park was adjacent to Spurs and Spurs owned a significant amount of land in the area, the value of which would be affected by redevelopment.

The Committee received a deputation from Gail Wardman and Prof. Michael Edwards on behalf of Highgate residents, who made the following points:

1. It was questioned whether the legal documents which established the HDV could be signed prior to the outcome of a Judicial Review.
2. Concerns were raised about the amount of affordable housing units that would be built.
3. Concerns were also raised about the likelihood of Crossrail 2 being built, given apparent divisions in the Westminster Cabinet. Furthermore, the efficacy of hinging schemes such as the HDV and the Wood Green Area Action Plan on Crossrail 2 as, even if it is introduced, it will not be in place until at least 2030.
4. Proposals to increase the existing capacity on the Piccadilly line may undermine the need for Crossrail 2, further weakening some of the assumptions made around the HDV and the Wood Green AAP.
5. It was questioned why the Wood Green site was favoured for Crossrail 2, if additional capacity can be found through upgrades to the Piccadilly line.