Agenda item

Deputation – Stop HDV Campaign and Haringey Defend Council Housing – Sue Hughes and Paul Burnham.

Sue Hughes presented the deputation and made reference to the 1500 page documents provided to the public, one week before the meeting, which she considered did not provide adequate time for people to read the information provided.  Ms Hughes contended that the information provided, made clear that Lendlease had their own housing policy, which sought to move away from affordable tenures, resulting in social cleansing for those who could not afford to pay.  Tenants had been promised the right to return, however the deputation felt the documents implied that tenants would be discouraged from doing so.

Ms Hughes referred to the large viability gaps, and requested that the Council should pause and reconsider partnering with a company. Ms Hughes also asked whether the Council had spoken with any companies in Australia to find out if Lendlease had carried out works using combustible cladding materials, which were not in accordance with Australian laws.

In response to questions from the Cabinet, the deputation party outlined the following:

-          The proposal was highly political, and they questioned the intentions of Lendlease for supporting social housing.

-           The current political climate should be seen as a time of hope, and the Council should rethink the proposals, and not go ahead with this partnership.

-          One of the major issues with the proposal was that no arrangements would be made for those tenants on waiting lists.  The Council stated that they would be in a 50/50 partnership, however in Ms Hughes’ opinion, Lendlease would take over and control development, resulting in no Council homes.

-          The Council had made offers and concessions that people could return to their homes, however, the deputation contended that Lendlease would not facilitate a return to homes and that the Council could only do this if they pay a subsidy.  The Council should reconsider a partnership with a company who the deputation felt would not carry out Council policies.

Councillor Strickland responded to points raised during the deputation and subsequent questions from the Cabinet.  In relation to the documents provided, he informed the meeting that whilst other Councils had set up joint ventures or similar agreements, they had not released the same amount of information. The Cabinet Member had given a clear public pledge to release as much information as possible. and he was keeping to this commitment to be transparent.

Councillor Strickland explained that the development vehicle partnership would be bound by Council policies, such as the Housing Strategy agreed by the Council, and the Estate Renewal Rehousing and Payment strategy agreed by Cabinet. He stressed that that no major decision would be made by the company without the consent of the Board, which the Council had equal membership of. The Council was currently consulting on a revised version of the Estate Renewal, Re - housing and Payments Policy, and this made clear that there would be a guaranteed right to return. Only tenants could waive that right. Therefore, whether the tenant wants to stay on, or near the estate, or move to a different area, then this choice will be facilitated by the Council as the housing authority. It was the responsibility of the Council to lead on re- housing, and not Lendlease.

With regard to the references to ‘poor doors’ on estates, the response to the Scrutiny Review document did not say that there will be different entrances everywhere. Reasons were given and this was due to service charges and estate management conditions as sometimes blocks were built for different tenures i.e.  to accommodate private rented units and affordable housing units. The Council was not in favour of separated entrances but the report had to be honest and advise that the Council and Housing Associations would take into consideration that in some blocks a shared entrance will lead to higher service charges.

With regard to decision making on Viability Assessments which will set out the number and the types of housing to be included in the development, nothing can be decided on the viability assessment without Council Board members agreeing this.

Councillor Strickland explained that any pause in the HDV process would lead to a delay in providing new homes, new jobs and new community facilities. The delivery model allowed for significant flexibility, and the substance of what was to be delivered with residents would be subject to further separate consultation. If there was a change in government, in the future, and increased funding for social housing then this agreement does give more flexibility to deliver these home.

The Director for Housing and Growth responded to the question on Lendlease’s record in Australia. Officers had discussed this at length with Lendlease and they were not aware or had this issue raised with them of any property in Australia that was unsafe to occupy

Deputation 2 – Reverend Nicholson

Mr Nicholson spoke of the impact of inequality and poverty which ultimately led to mental health and wellbeing issues and other associated issues such as involvement in crime, low attainment at school and ongoing health issues. He outlined the stress of poverty and he felt that Council tenants, in the borough, were being disrespected with these proposals and the Council was reinforcing inequality. Mr Nicholson was therefore demanding more Council homes were built instead of handing over land to Lendlease to develop homes for richer residents.

He felt that the Council were accepting decline and perpetuating the decline by taking this decision forward which would increase land prices and provide profit for speculators. He felt that Lendlease have the means possible to cheat the Council and other public services and they would not keep to their obligations in this agreement.

In response to Cabinet questions, Mr Nicholson replied:

• Working as a Labour Party on a land policy for the UK and having a land value tax which is a progressive tax instead of taking this decision forward.
• Transferring land to the vehicle would be a severe mistake.
• That the proposals would break up communities and existing networks, even with right of return, as people would need to move before returning and re-establishing these networks.
• Although there was affordable housing promised, this would be provided according to income levels and people with low incomes would still be unable to afford the homes, creating a further financial crisis for them.
•  Viability assessments/control of land would likely be guided by profit and were not to be trusted.

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning responded and agreed with the long running issue of the reselling of land between developers which was leading to higher land prices. This was also one of the reasons why the Council was entering this partnership so they did not sell the land wholesale. The Council would use the land in partnership, with control of the land, through having members on the company board and stop the continual resale of land. He stressed that the partnership agreement with Lendlease, rejects how the housing market works and stops the speculative resale of land. The partnership would influence the housing market in a positive way and stop the speculation.

The Cabinet Member expressed that the HDV would help tackle the wider issue of inequality and it was not true to say that the homes were being demolished to make way for richer tenants. The Council have a policy on re-housing which other boroughs do not have and were committed to right of return.

The social side of inequality was important to address and the business plans take this issue forward. They advise, that this is not just about building new homes but including new facilities in local areas, and increasing local jobs. The Council were clear that tenants and leaseholder had a right of return, beyond what other Councils offer. The HDV provides for more community facilities, health centres, and better school buildings. Lendlease would also make a significant investment to support the ‘people’ side of the regeneration as well.

Communities were previously scattered around London in the 70’s and 80’s and this was not what the Council would be doing. The Council were keen to promote right of return because of its continued belief in strong communities.

Deputation 3 - Dhiren Halder – Haringey Community Hub – Council of Asian People

Mr Halder began his deputation by sharing information about the background of the Haringey Community Hub which was located on 8 Caxton road. The centre had been in operation for over 36 years and provided activities and support services that improve the health and wellbeing of local people. The Hub was not aware until recently, that their building was part of the Wood Green sites included in the HDV for disposal.  There had been a meeting between the regeneration team and the centre manager last week to discuss the future of the centre and Mr Halder wanted some assurance about the future of the Hub following decisions on the HDV tonight.

Councillor Goldberg responded to the deputation and described his experience of understanding the importance of maintaining community bases in a regeneration .He referred to Haringey’s history of recognising ethnic groups and understanding the profound importance of having a strong community base for black and ethnic minority groups to gather in the borough. This had driven the cohesion of the borough and makes Haringey unique to other London boroughs.

Councillor Goldberg addressed the concerns raised by the Hub and mosque on Caxton Road which related to Wood Green area plan covered by the HDV and outlined the following:

• The WG Library redevelopment site as currently proposed in the Wood Green Business Plan includes Council owned land at 6- 10 Caxton Road (The Community Hub, TICC and Efdal Community Centre). The reason for this was that the boundaries for all sites in the HDV were amended to reflect the Local Plan DPD site allocations to ensure that development which comes forward is comprehensive and coordinated within the wider area in line with current planning policy. The site allocation boundaries were different in the Draft Wood Green AAP to respond to consultation, but the Council owned land at 6-10 Caxton Road is still within a development site. Council officers and Cllrs have spoken to the Community Hub) about the Council’s aspirations to redevelop the land and regenerate the area.

• The value of The Community Hub, was recognised throughout the WGBP documents, and the equalities impact assessment makes specific reference to these community assets and how the HDV will be required to work with them through any redevelopment.

• The current draft of the Wood Green “Preferred Option” AAP states that adequate re- provision for space for the community use should be provided prior to redevelopment. A new location for the facilities outlined will need to be identified and deliverable relocation strategy agreed prior to the redevelopment of the site. The WGBP commits to working within the planning policy framework and the policies therein.

Cllr Goldberg advised that land can only be transferred into the HDV with vacant possession and so the Council will have to work with the Hub to agree a relocation plan before any redevelopment can take place. Councillor Goldberg made clear that the community Hub needs a location in Wood Green had already asked officers to look at new locations for the Hub.

The Leader further emphasised the value of the Community Hub and provided assurance that the Community Hub would not move from its current premises until a suitable acceptable alternative location had been found.