To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.
Minutes:
The Leader advised the meeting that one public question and three deputations had been put forward for consideration. The public question was put forward by Mr Guy Levy.
The Leader further advised that Mr Levy was, unfortunately, unable to attend the meeting and she would read out his public question and the Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning would provide the response.
Public Question - Mr Guy Levy
Mr Levy claimed that that costs awards for unreasonable behaviour in planning appeals have been made against the Council. Mr Levy felt that such behaviour was a drain on the Council’s finances and the local economy. He asked, how the Council intended to reduce damages caused by the unreasonable behaviour of its planning and planning enforcement officers?
The Cabinet Member responded as follows:
For the period 2015 to 2018, out of the 286 decided planning appeals, less than 10 have resulted in successful costs claims against the Council. For the same period, from the 104 decided (or withdrawn) planning enforcement appeals, only two had resulted in costs awards against the Council. During the same period, the Council made four successful costs claims against appellants.
There was no discernible trend that the planning and planning enforcement officers are exhibiting unreasonable behaviours in the execution of their duties. The Council did not consider that it was a waste of officer’s time taken up defending appeals and cost applications.
The appeal process in both planning and planning enforcement was part of the development management function as enshrined in the planning legislation and formed part of the Planning Officers’ job description. Whilst the payment of costs was always regrettable, it was important that the Council defended the amenities of its residents.
Jacob Secker representing the Broadwater Farm Residents Association, standing in for Mr Blasebalk who was unable to attend - Deputation 1
Mr Secker spoke as a representative of the Broadwater Farm Residents Association. He, as well as the Haringey Leaseholders Association which Mr Blasebalk had been due to represent, had been involved in the consultation on the Housing Management Agreement with Homes for Haringey.
Mr Secker outlined that the consultation on the Management Agreement with Homes for Haringey had had to be re -run, as the first consultation was deemed unsatisfactory, following a judicial review.
In Mr Secker’s view, the second consultation had not been adequately run as well with mainly online access to consultation documents, some door knocking and telephone calls to tenants, meaning a full reflection of tenants views had not been gathered.
In Mr Secker’s view, the consultation had only highlighted the benefits of the ALMO and had, crucially, not highlighted that the management agreement with the ALMO would cost £500k more than keeping the service in-house. Mr Secker contended that the consultation was biased towards the ALMO and therefore invalid.
Mr Secker claimed that the ALMO option was only favoured by residents, participating in the consultation, because of the commitment to tenant participation panels. However, these had now reduced, in number, from 7 panels to 3, meaning there was a miss-conception about the future level of resident participation. Community representatives were not being invited to these Panels and they also did not involve the leaseholders. They needed representation and did not want their umbrella organisation [ HLA] to be de – recognised.
Mr Secker concluded, by advising the Cabinet, that the management agreement with Homes for Haringey should not be agreed as the consultation was not carried out in a fair unbiased way.
Councillor Strickland, Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning responded to the issues raised by Mr Secker.
· The consultation was not only available online, but thousands of letters were sent out to tenants, with questionnaires also posted and drop in events organised. This was set out in the report at item 9 on the agenda.
· In relation to the £500k, the Future Housing Review which included a tenant representative, came to a unanimous decision to award the contract to Homes for Haringey with the quality of services to tenants, the main consideration. The financial difference between the two models was a small element. The figure of £500k was now also out of date, due to the housing reforms and the package of housing service changes that had taken place since 2015 to limit duplication and improve operational services.
· It was important to note that out of the 1200 responses, 80% of tenants supported the proposals and the questions in the consultation had been straightforward. It was also important to recognise that the Council manages 17000 properties so there will be a complexity of views among tenants to be considered but the claim that the ALMO was only supported due to tenant consultation panels was unfounded and not backed by the consultation results.
Given the consultation, for a second time, supported the arrangement with the ALMO, the Cabinet Member recommended to Cabinet that the Council enter a new management agreement with Homes for Haringey. This would be with amended terms, as set out in the report, reflecting the expectation of a strong and sustained performance for tenants.
Deputation 2 – Paul Burnham - Defend Council Housing [ considered on the arrival of Cllr Goldberg at 6.50pm]
Mr Burnham introduced the deputation and spoke against approval of the recommendations, concerning the Wood Green Area Action Plan. He raised the following issues:
· There were affordable homes in the AAP, planned for demolition. These were Housing Association homes providing social rent and secure tenancies in Sky City and Page’s High. Mr Burnham contended that if there was to be demolition of these homes, there needed to be a Yes/No ballot available to residents.
· The Council needed to work with the landlords to ensure investment happens in this housing association estates and ensure joined up services in these areas such as youth programmes. It was important for the Council to find services to put into these estates.
· The Right of Return was not believed by residents in these estates and there was instead a need for the Council to invest and keep the estates that it had.
· Although 6400 new homes were planned, in Mr Burnham’s view, none were really affordable for people on average or low incomes given the current average affordable rent prices for London and Haringey outlined.
· Developers working with the Council were ultimately businesses interested in financial gain. Reference was made to the Hornsey Gasworks site where there was only 10% affordable housing.
Mr Burnham concluded that the Wood Green Area Action Plan would, in his view, lead to social cleansing and a new Council office building which was not needed.
The Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Sustainability responded as follows:
· Affordable housing policy was set out in the London Plan, Local Plan and Housing Strategy, the Wood Green AAP cannot set new policy for affordable housing.
· London faced a housing crisis which affected all boroughs including Haringey. The Council’s aim was to deliver the maximum number of good quality affordable homes across the borough – in the Housing Strategy and planning policy, the Council had a target that 40% of new homes built should be affordable housing, as well as more detailed descriptions of the different kinds of affordable housing that the Council will particularly prioritise in different parts of the borough.
· Households in Sky City, Page High, Caxton and Mayes Road were specifically contacted during the consultation with visits to each house in person (with approximately 50% of people answered the doors), calling cards, workshops and face to face meetings. The Cabinet Member spoke to residents, himself, about their concerns and their need for improved properties.
· The Cabinet Member acknowledged that response to the proposed redevelopment of The Mall (and Sky City) and Bury Road Car Park (and Page High) was mixed, with some tenants saying they did not want to move and others saying that they would consider moving if they were able to move into a new home which was acceptable to them.
· Haringey had recently adopted a revised Estate Renewal Rehousing and Payments Policy (ERRPP) which provided a set of commitments to residents whose properties would be demolished as part of a renewal scheme, including a guaranteed right to return to a replacement home in the new development. Should a scheme come forward, the Council had already made a commitment that the Estate Renewal Rehousing and Payments Policy (ERRPP) would be extended to housing association tenants in Sky City and Page High at the point which a scheme to develop the Mall and Bury Road Car Park site is brought forward.
· There had been significant opposition to the proposed inclusion of Victorian terraces on Coburg, Caxton and Mayes Road in the AAP. In response to this, the Council had reviewed whether alternative approaches suggested during the consultation may be possible, and had concluded that the vision and objectives of the plan could still be achieved if these Victorian terraces remain. Therefore, the next draft of the Wood Green Area Action plan had removed Caxton, Mayes and Coburg homes from the site allocations.
· Cllr Goldberg refuted that this was a social cleansing scheme. In his view, it would be unfair to residents, that need housing, to maintain ownership of the Civic Centre which was one of the highest value properties in Wood Green Town Centre. There was a proven model, followed already by other neighbouring Councils, where moving Council buildings helps drive regeneration in less central areas. It made more sense to realise the value of the Civic Centre site and other Council owned sites in Wood Green and to use the sites for much needed affordable housing and employment space.
·
Deputation 3 – Mr James Davies Haringey Aquatics
Mr Davies made representations for a third swimming pool to be included in the Wood Green AAP. He spoke on behalf of Haringey Aquatics club for children and young people which worked across the borough with bases at Tottenham Green and Park Road, including programmes at Northumberland Park.
The swimming activities and water sports activities run by the club were described by Mr Davies, involving all levels of abilities. This was also a London club that had recently put forward representatives to the UK Swimming nationals. This was also a club providing opportunities for all children to fulfil their swimming and water sport ambitions.
The membership and range of swimming activities provided in the borough was outlined. Mr Davies advised that there was not enough pool time to accommodate the full demand for swimming, diving and water polo team activities in the borough.
Mr Davies welcomed the Wood Green AAP which recognised the swimming community’s aspiration for a third pool. Although this was constrained by cost, Mr Davies argued that if the pool was not part of the AAP Plan, then there was unlikely to be another opportunity to build a much required third pool.
Mr Davies spoke about the economic benefits and job opportunities provided by the potential of additional provision of swimming and swimming sports in the borough.
Mr Davies, concluded by asking Cabinet to support swimming facilities and for a new pool to be confirmed in the AAP.
The Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Sustainability, responded to the deputation and highlighted the importance of creating an Area Action Plan with optionality for the Council going forward.
The difficulties with confirming a third pool in the AAP were outlined as follows:
· Site of the pool was unknown
· It was not known, for certain, if the Council could be the developer of a pool or whether it would be able to develop a swimming pool in partnership with a third party
· The cost of running a pool is high and usually requires a high level of subsidy environmental cost. Choices need to be made around allocation of funding to a pool when funding is also required for other infrastructure and affordable housing The Cabinet Member expressed that there was recognition in the Plan on the need for a pool and it may be that Fusion could take this forward, within or outside the realms of the AAP.
The Cabinet Member had also had a recent conversation with Alexandra Palace about an open water offer through the development of the filter beds, potentially to be called the Palace Ponds. Although this idea was not in a site allocation document, the concept of using the Park and improving the connection to Wood Green with imaginative use of the outdoor space was felt to be a positive way forward. It was acknowledged that this idea may not solve the issue of a third pool.
The Cabinet Member concluded by advising the deputation that, although the Wood Green AAP did not exclude the option of a pool, the Council would need to look at the cost implications carefully.
It would also need to be recognised that the Council could not currently commit to a pool on its own sites as this could affect the viability of providing affordable housing on those sites.