Agenda item

Deputation - Mr Paul Burnham - Haringey Defend Council Housing

Mr Burnham was invited by the Chair to put forward his deputation to the Cabinet.

The Deputation argued that the HDV had been given exemption from prioritising Right of Return due to the previous decisions made by Cabinet when agreeing the HDV [Haringey Development Vehicle] at the July meeting. They contended that these decisions discounted the Revised Estate Renewal and Rehousing Payments Policy. They asked for the policy to be revised in light of residents’ concerns about: right to remain, providing replacement secure Council tenancies, no increase in rents and service charges, providing better homes for overcrowded tenants and ensuring that there were provisions made for existing tenants on regeneration schemes to be protected.

Mr Burnham further contended that the agreements made by Cabinet at the 3^rd of July meeting on the HDV only allowed a single move and did not allow for the rehousing of Housing Association residents, making the commitments provided in the report worthless.

The Deputation did not trust the Council’s commitment on Right of Return. They referred to the recent decision on Love Lane Estate where they felt the public consultation documentation indicated encouragement and support for existing tenants to move away to homes elsewhere. The Deputation argued that 70 % of secure tenants had left the Love Lane Estate and questioned the Council’s commitment for existing residents to gain the benefit of regeneration.

The Deputation did not agree with the Council’s stance of no estate ballots. They contended that the Equalities Impact Assessments, completed on regeneration associated decisions, had not addressed the issues that Council tenants and residents faced in a regeneration scheme. There were barriers to accessing homes, with lower to medium income families being priced out and unable to afford to rented homes on a regenerated estate. The deputation argued that no estate regeneration should be commenced until an Equalities Impact Assessment was completed which included mitigation on how local residents are able to stay on their estates and do not need to move away.

The Deputation asked the Cabinet to not agree the recommendations in the report but consider the deputation’s representations and consider revised proposals.

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning thanked the Deputation for putting forward their views and responded as follows:

• There were no exemptions from the Revised Estate Rehousing and Payments Policy for HDV schemes. There had been a timing issue with the decision on the HDV and when the policy had had been published for consultation. However, paragraph 4.1 clearly stated that the policy applied to all regeneration schemes, including HDV and Housing Association schemes where the Council decides it has a strategic interest and applies the policy. Right of Return was clearly set out as an absolute right for every tenant and resident leaseholder/freeholder in a regeneration scheme. Only tenants themselves could waive the right of return. The next iteration of HDV documentation would also communicate the wording in this policy.

• It was not only Haringey Council that had not agreed with a tenant ballot being taken forward on regeneration schemes, but a number of local government figures and Councils had expressed this view. The Mayor of London’s draft Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration states that Councils should use a variety of methods to communicate and consult with residents on estate regeneration proposals. This is because estate regeneration affects different people in different ways over many years, so the methods of consultation need to reflect this complexity in a multiple-stage approach.

• The Cabinet Member referred to the EQIA at page 33 of the pack which advised that residents in protected groups were positively impacted by the policy, particularly women and BAME [Black and Ethnic Minority Groups]

• The Cabinet Member strongly rejected the claim that the policy was a sign of regeneration not working. The Revised Estate Rehousing and Payments Policy’s essential aim was about supporting people and communities.

• The Cabinet Member highlighted that many other Councils only adhere to statutory requirements when taking forward regeneration schemes but the Council had gone beyond the minimum with its commitments on right to return, new homes at equivalent rents, keeping secure tenancy terms for secure tenants who move into assured tenancies, and providing a range of products such as equity loans to allow leaseholders to stay on or return to their housing estate. These commitments are not statutory requirements and it was clear that the Council is doing all it could to support tenants and leaseholders and working as best as it could to make sure that no existing residents are left worse off as a result of regeneration.