Agenda item

The report sets out the proposed Cabinet response to the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the Haringey Development Vehicle as proposed by Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel.

Councillor Ibrahim, Chair of the Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel introduced the scrutiny review on the HDV, which followed on from the previous scrutiny review completed on the governance of the HDV and was presented to Cabinet at the February meeting. At this February meeting, there was an overarching concern about the Council taking forward the establishment of the HDV. Since then work had been undertaken to further refine and negotiate the HDV and the Panel had been undertaking further scrutiny of the proposed HDV. The Panel had gathered a wide range of evidence from: Universities, regeneration experts, Councillors from other boroughs, local residents, and local stakeholders; culminating in 30 recommendations for Cabinet to consider.

Councillor Ibrahim drew attention to recommendation 12 [page 54] which was not fully agreed, concerning the exclusivity clause. Since completion of the scrutiny review, the exclusivity percentage had now been published with the HDV papers and was calculated at 60%. Given the life span of the HDV was 20 years, Cllr Ibrahim was still concerned that this percentage may not represent best value for the Council in 10 to 15 years’ time. Although there would be best value assessments completed on a site by site basis, there was still concern that the Council’s financial position was not protected and it was not clear if there would be cost implications to withdrawing from this percentage agreement at a later date.

Councillor Ibrahim referred to the premise for taking forward the HDV, which was the business plan agreed by Cabinet in 2015, and whether this was now applicable given the political and financial changes over the last two years.

Councillor Ibrahim further sought clarification on the position for right of return and target rent application.

Councillor Ibrahim raised concerns about the magnitude of information contained in the appendices packs for consideration at item 10, establishment of the HDV, which had not been shared with the scrutiny panel in their review process.

There were further questions put forward from Councillors Engert, Brabazon, Tucker, and Carter and the following information was noted:

• In relation to the commitment on right of return, the Leader responded to this, and highlighted the 20th of June Cabinet decision on the Estate Renewal Re- housing and Payments Policy which makes clear commitments to, tenants, leaseholders and freeholders on re - housing and also makes clear that this Council policy will apply to HDV schemes and Housing Association schemes which are promoted by the Council. Appendix 1a page 109 [paragraph 5.8.1] – supplementary pack, which is the summary of the legal documents, also explicitly set out the commitment to right of return in the Land Assembly Agreement where there is demolition of estates.

• The Cabinet Member explained that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee continue to have a role in scrutinising the HDV. Staff from the HDV can be invited to attend the Committee meetings as other associated bodies working with Council do.

• The Cabinet Member was happy to continue to attend Overview and Scrutiny meetings to respond to questions about the HDV.

• The Council strongly discouraged ‘poor door’ arrangements from housing development applicants and were clear on having a shared entrance. However, the entrance to the properties would still depend on building design and sometimes housing associations/providers find having separate entrance is most effective way to ensure affordability is maintained and to keep service changes low. This type of request usually comes from the affordable housing provider to the Council.

• There were no plans to develop on Metropolitan open land, and if such a proposal came forward this would be subject to stringent testing and significant assessment.

• There was expected to be full publication of viability assessments, prior to planning permission being sought with the burden of proof on developers to justify any exempt information. So there was a strong presumption that viability assessments from the HDV would be fully published.

• In relation to the publication of Cabinet papers, this was the third time that Cabinet were considering decisions on the HDV. The Cabinet Member advised that other Councils taking similar decisions had not published as much information. The Council had chosen to be open and publish all available public information. The Cabinet Member and officers had also been consistently clear with the Scrutiny Panel that legal documentation was being prepared for the Cabinet meeting in July and would not be ready for prior scrutiny.

• In relation to fire protection, the Cabinet Member made clear, that there were no housing blocks to be built by the HDV imminently. In relation to blocks that may be built in future, these would likely be built after the Grenfell public inquiry findings and recommendations were published. Therefore, the recommendations from the inquiry would be fully incorporated into national building regulations which the HDV would of course observe.

• The Cabinet Member stressed that reports at this evening’s meeting did not address or explore design features of housing blocks. These type of regulatory issues would be explored once the planning applications come forward for the developments and are consulted upon with the public and then scrutinised by the Planning Committee.

• The Cabinet Member outlined that the Council will continue to access external advice on the HDV for as long as it needs to. The Council also have experienced senior staff working on the HDV. There was also a significant allocation of internal audit resources. There was further, an Independent Verification Team made up of professionals that can provide impartial advice to the HDV board on the exclusivity contracts.

• On the question of when existing affordable housing provision would be assessed in order to determine the amount of re-provision, the Cabinet Member had always been clear that redevelopment was a slow incremental process which could only be confirmed after public consultation, planning permission and Cabinet decision on the estate regenerations. There was no fixed answer on precise timing, but in any scenario the Council were committed to the right of return for existing residents and to delivering the greatest possible amount of affordable housing.

• In relation to the application of the HDV Business case agreed by the Cabinet in 2015, there had been a significant amount of additional financial work completed which superseded the financial elements of the original business case and was provided for Cabinet in their decision making.

• With regards to rent policy, the replacement housing for existing estate renewal residents will be charged at target rents. The remaining affordable housing will be at a mix of rents defined as affordable in the Housing Strategy. The schemes have to comply with the Housing Strategy which sets out the mix of tenures to be offered and the rents to be charged according to this.

Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning provided an overall response to the review, thanking the scrutiny panel for their hard work and gathering information from expert witnesses, as this was a significant decision for the Council and he appreciated the work of scrutiny on this. He further responded as follows:

• The Cabinet has been considering reports and decisions on the HDV for over two years and were fully aware of the significance of their decision making.

• The Commercial Portfolio would now transfer to the HDV on phased basis over time, instead of transferring over in one stage.

• With regards to resident’s rights - the Council had strengthened further the Estate Renewal Re-housing and Payments Policy to provide strong commitments to tenants, leaseholders and freeholders on re- housing and right of return.

• The HDV would be bound by agreed Council policies, in particular the Housing Strategy and the Growth strategy which have been publically consulted upon and agreed by Cabinet.

RESOLVED

1. To note the Overview and Scrutiny Report on the Haringey Development Vehicle (‘HDV’) (attached as Appendix 1).

2. To agree the responses to the Overview and Scrutiny report recommendations (attached as Appendix 2).

Reasons for decision

Not applicable as a non key decision

Alternative options considered

Not applicable as a non key decision