To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.
Minutes:
A deputation had been received from Mr Jacob Secker, representing the Broadwater Farm Residents Association, in relation to item eight “Blocks on Broadwater Farm”.
Mr Secker spoke as the secretary of the Broadwater Farm Resident’s Association and long-standing resident of Broadwater Farm. He began by referencing a legal letter sent to the Cabinet, which also set out the concerns to be expressed in the deputation. Mr Secker strongly contested the proposed action of urgently rehousing tenants and leaseholders in Tangmere block, prior to a consultation. He expressed the view that residents had lived with the safety issue for a considerable number of years.
Mr Secker continued to express the following views:
· That the key driver of the decision to decant Tangmere residents was the October deadline, was the fact that Cadent was due to switch off the gas supply. Jacob Secker contended that the October deadline was unrealistic and that a temporary boiler needed to be provided so that those Tangmere residents who could not be re -housed by then could get heating and hot water after gas was removed from inside the block. The similar circumstances of the Ledbury estate were referred to and Southwark’s decision to provide temporary boilers.
· There was concern that not all residents in Tangmere could be re-housed by October.
· It was not acceptable to move tenants/leaseholders to bed and breakfast accommodation, and rehousing would need to be the form of flat-to-flat or flat to a house.
· He proposed a 14 day consultation for Tangmere residents on the policy concerning immediate rehousing which should include an option of the installation of a temporary boiler
· The Southwark Council decant approach was advocated with residents of Tangmere block and Northolt Block having access to the proper choice based lettings scheme which would provide a choice of properties for residents being rehoused.
· The report was not clear on the right of return for both Northholt and Tangmere and Mr Secker reiterated that residents would want to have the choice of returning to newly built homes on the estate.
· Overcrowded households should still be rehoused in accommodation that is more appropriate and then be allowed to return to the estate or stay in their new housing if this is their choice. They should also be included in the consultation.
· Disputed the Council putting forward a preference in the consultation for demolition and felt that it was more appropriate to offer residents a ballot.
· Mr Secker also wanted written guarantees reflecting that there would be funding available to replace the homes one for one as Council tenancies at exactly the same rent as today, should a decision on demolition be taken forward.
The Leader invited Cabinet Members to put forward questions to the deputation party. In response, the following was noted.
· The deputation felt that there was more time needed to decant and it was for the Council to determine this timeline, by consulting and meeting needs assessment requirements. Although, the deputation did not want the decant to go on for a long period, they felt that the October deadline was too short. The Association had been made aware of potential issues with the blocks but it had only realised that a choice of move on accommodation would be denied to tenants when reading the Cabinet report and residents being advised by Homes for Haringey housing officers last week.
· The deputation party could only offer their own experience of the proposed decant notification and dealings with Homes for Haringey as a Resident Association, and generally felt that it did not reduce anxiety about issues. In addition, the proposed move in accommodation seemed to indicate a potential chaotic situation with the process not set out in a clear manner. The deputation reiterated that residents did not want to move to bed and breakfast accommodation as a result of the urgency of the situation.
· In relation to the engagement, undertaken with residents following the publication of the report at agenda item 8, this had been through a letter and visit from Homes for Haringey representatives.
· The Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Insourcing further emphasised that the Council housing was proposed to be replaced with like for like Council housing and questioned the Southwark example provided by the deputation.
· The deputation questioned the funding source if a decision is taken to rebuild the homes.
· The deputation wanted written guarantees that funding would go to Council housing with the same tenure and rent levels. They contended that the Council should not be consulting on demolition, if there was no funding guarantee.
The Leader reiterated that the report was intended to provide a positive stance on what the Council can do for residents and provide options. Therefore, was important to consider the report from this viewpoint.
The Monitoring Officer confirmed that Cabinet had received a letter from Leigh Day Solicitors, which Cabinet was invited to read together with the response.
The Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Renewal responded to the issues raised in the deputation and underlined that the safety of residents and all tenants was of paramount importance. A number of steps to reduce the risks had already been taken in Tangmere and this included replacing all gas cookers with electric cookers and installing gas interrupter valves, which will switch off the gas if a leak is detected.
These measures were taken quickly and had substantially reduced the risk. However, as Tangmere and Northolt had also failed the lower structural test, these mitigations alone were not enough to ensure residents were safe in the longer term. The Cabinet Member explained that the Council were consulting residents on next steps.
In relation to the question on whether the blocks are refurbished or strengthened and providing a ballot on this, the Council were currently exploring the legal issues involved with this offering.
In reference, to the Council putting forward a preferred option, the fact remained that the blocks had failed safety tests. The preferred option should be considered as an expression of a view. A decision would not be made until later in the year on the future of the two blocks in Broadwater Farm. The Cabinet Member’s view was that it was important to be open and transparent with residents.
The Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Renewal gave a political commitment to provide residents in the blocks with like for like replacement homes, should a decision on demolition be taken forward .The Cabinet Member further welcomed the challenge on this issue.
In relation to the financial cost of the options of strengthening or demolition, the Cabinet Member provided assurance that this was not a financial decision but a decision about aspirations for tenants.
The temporary boiler solution proposed by the deputation did not solve issues. Residents in Tangmere would remain unsafe as the block still needs strengthening and the Council would be ultimately funding a solution, which did not make the building safe. The safety of residents was the main issue. Notwithstanding, the deadline set by Cadent, it would be a dereliction of the Council’s duties to not decant Tangmere.
The Council would respond quickly to residents about their rehousing concerns and the Cabinet Member would be setting out, in item 8, the updated rehousing offer for Tangmere residents.