At
the outset, the Chair outlined the role of the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee (OSC), highlighting their powers and the options
available to them. The Chair then invited the representatives of
the Deputation to address the OSC.
Before introducing the Deputation in relation to the Call In, Mr
Jacob Secker clarified the Deputation was on behalf of Haringey
Defend Council Housing and he, along with Mr Paul Burnham, were
speaking as their representatives.
The Deputation sought the OSC to refer the decision to demolish
Tangmere and Northfolt without a GLA compliant ballot back to
Cabinet.
Mr Secker argued that, as the Council was seeking to
attain funding for new council housing through the GLA, it must,
therefore, abide by the GLA rules. The decision whether to demolish
Tangmere and Northfolt should only be decided through a GLA
compliant ballot. This would give the residents the final decision
and oblige the Council to enact any commitments made during the
balloting process or risk losing the GLA funding. He claimed that
under a section 105 consultation, as was carried out, there was no
obligation for the Council to commit to any promises it had
made.
Mr Secker also claimed there were no details of what
the Council was planning to do following the demolition of the two
blocks. He stated that under GLA rules, during the ballot stage, it
would be required that a master plan be created to inform residents
of the Council’s intentions for the estate.
Mr Secker felt the treatment of the residents during
the 28 day consultation had been disgraceful and that residents
were misled. He noted paragraph 4.1.3 of the report, and argued
that it was incorrect to say that it was impossible to fix the
water leaks. He argued this was not supported by any structural
reports and that information regarding this claim had been
requested from the Council but had yet to be received.
Regarding Northolt, Mr Secker claimed the residents
had not been informed that re-piping would take place on the estate
if demolition did not occur. He argued that residents were misled
into concluding that the only viable option was demolition and the
Council undemocratically withheld information. He claimed the
Council had acted like a rogue private landlord.
Mr Secker disputed claims in the report prepared by
Officers for the Call In and countered that it was still possible
for the Council to hold a GLA compliant ballot. Citing paragraph
4.41, he claimed that GLA guidelines state that a ballot could
occur following residents being moved out through a postal
ballot.
Mr Secker claimed the amount of money being offered
by the Council was not enough and would force residents to move out
of the borough, and therefore lose their right of
return.
Mr Burnham next spoke for the Deputation. He made the
following comments:
- The claim by the
Council that this was not a regeneration scheme and therefore there
was no need for a GLA compliant ballot was erroneous. He accepted
this was essentially a health and safety issue but it was also a
regeneration scheme as the Council would be looking to improve the
area following the rebuild.
- As the Cabinet
Member informed at the November 2018 Cabinet meeting, that there
would be an estate wide consultation for residents input into the
estates future development, it was not the case that the proposed
demolition was separate and distinct from other regeneration
projects in the area.
- He argued the
Council would pursue its own agenda, once the two blocks were
demolished.
- Stressed it was
important to note the length of time state regeneration schemes
took to complete and the potential impact of future policy changes
should be considered. The Deputation highlighted concern regarding
the impact of the draft London Plan.
- Noted it was no
longer acceptable for demolishment to occur without a ballot having
been completed.
- Remarked a GLA
compliant ballot needed to take place in Broadwater Farm before any blocks were demolished
as this was the only way there could be guarantees regarding future
commitments. He asked the OSC to refer the decision back to Cabinet
with such a recommendation.
The Chair thanked the Deputation and following
questions by the OSC members, it was noted:
- The Deputation
sought a ballot that gave the residents of Tangmere and Northfolt
a meaningful choice. They wanted an option between strengthening
and refurbishing the existing block with the alternative option
being demolishment. With demolition, there should be a master plan
so that the residents were aware of the Council’s future
intention for the estate, once the blocks were
demolished.
- Mr Secker
clarified his comment regarding the 28 consultation being
disgraceful. He claimed misleading information had been given
during the consultation, he stated residents were informed they
could either vote for demolition or continue to live in blocks that
had water leaks. He commented that in a free and fair consultation,
the case would be made for either option and for residents to
choose, but claimed that the case was only made for demolition, the
Council’s preferred choice.
- Regarding the
mention of there being an unused £800k fund available 6 years
prior to fix the roof at Tangmere, the
Deputation were not able to comment whether that was still
available. Mr Secker stated this was offered in 2012 as part of
Capital Homes and Decent Variation Scheme but the Council did not
take this up.
- The Deputation
was concerned that if the Council accepted GLA funding to rebuild,
they might have to impose the mayoral rent. They asked the OSC to
consider the impact of future policy changes and cited their
concern as being a future with social rent homes being demolished
in place of council homes at the mayoral rent.
- Mr Chris Hutton,
a resident in support of the Deputation, detailed his experience of
living on Broadwater Farm since 1992.
He informed the OSC of the change that had taken place since then.
He noted:
- there had been
investment in the past but that for the past 30 years, felt little
had been done to develop the common areas since.
- remarked there
had been a Decent Homes Scheme which was scaled back in
scope.
- there had been
no effort to maintain or improve the estate.
- claimed the lack
of maintenance and preventative action created the current
situation.
- there had been a
lack of information provided during the consultation, with no
alternative options presented other than demolition.
- Mr Secker
reiterated his opposition to demolishing both blocks and claimed no
evidence, such as structural reports, had been presented which
convinced him that the two blocks should be demolished.
- Mr Burnham was
against the principle of demolishing council homes and said there
should be an increase in higher quality council homes. He noted
there had been an increase in demolitions taking place since 2010,
and attributed this to Conservative Party politics. He stressed the
importance of the ballot and giving residents a voice in deciding
their own futures.
The Chair thanked the representatives for their
Deputation.