Minutes:
The Mayor invited Councillor Engert to introduce the debate.
Councillor Engert introduced the debate, including the scale of the challenge in relation to housing and the cost pressures that inadequate provision imposes on the Council. She set out the Council’s performance on the provision of affordable housing, and the level of right-to-buy receipts that had been surrendered to the Exchequer. She outlined activity elsewhere, including Sutton, where the Council’s wholly-owned development company had delivered housing with a high degree of engagement with tenants and leaseholders.
Councillor Mitchell discussed how housing issues was a challenge for all Members in their casework, and the associated cost to the Council. He noted that the Government’s policies did not support social housing, meaning Haringey had to take new approaches to tackling the crisis, including the High Road West scheme and the HDV.
Councillor Jennifer Mann noted the number of people on the housing waiting list and homeless in the borough, and the number of local organisations working to support people that are faced with housing difficulties. She suggested the Finnish Housing First principle had been successful in avoiding a housing crisis.
Councillor Carter recalled the Council’s Housing Strategy, which he felt suggested a direction of travel on social housing. He felt the HDV was too big, too risky and too complicated to deliver the housing promised. He compared Haringey’s efforts to deliver affordable or social housing, such as at Hornsey Town Hall, with other boroughs’.
Councillor Wright discussed the national decline of completions on social housing, in particular since the coalition Government had reduced the grant available for social housing. He set out how declining wages and increasing house prices were creating a market failure, requiring intervention by the Council.
Councillor Kober sought to put the debate in a wider context by noting the London-wide nature of the housing crisis, and the difference between house prices and incomes. This meant new options had to be explored. She noted the higher number of people in the private rented sector, who needed specific support and protections.
Councillor Hare discussed the uniqueness of the HDV, which was distinct from other boroughs’ efforts and seemed to be more in pursuit of a greater council tax base rather than to deliver social housing. He further discussed the Sutton example, which meant profits were retained locally and more green infrastructure could be pursued.
Councillor Doron sought to correct the depiction of Haringey’s record on the level of housing provided as affordable or at social rent levels. He noted that joint ventures, like the HDV, were used elsewhere and he hoped that pragmatic solutions could be supported rather than rejected for ideological reasons.
Responding to the debate, Councillor Strickland, Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning reflected that Haringey had provided more affordable housing than all but three London boroughs. He was proud of the Borough’s record in successfully attracting funding for affordable housing from the Greater London Authority. The Government’s policies and funding restrictions had been a restriction on the Council’s ability to delivery Council housing. In addition there were a number of other examples of joint ventures, and so the HDV was not as unusual as described.
Concluding the debate, Councillor Engert stated that the concerns at the HDV had increased as more detail had been made available. She felt the Council had had a poor record on social housing over a number of years, and that the Sutton approach, including a wholly owned housing development company was worth consideration to deliver more social housing using the returned Right to Buy receipts, the Housing Revenue Account and abandoning the proposal to build a new Council Headquarters.