Cllr Barnes outlined the Call In and concurred with
the view of the Deputation that there should be a GLA compliant
ballot before demolition of Tangmere
and Northfolt took place. The Cllr said
it had been a mistake for the Council to lead with demolition and
not strengthening the existing blocks as it was for the residents
to determine which of the two options they preferred.
The Cllr criticised the position of the Council and
claimed having a ballot of residents on Broadwater Farm following demolition would not be
of assistance to those residents who wanted to keep their existing
homes. She accepted that, whilst it was
true residents had already been consulted in the 28 day
consultation, this was insufficient as it did not give the
residents the choice to make the decision for themselves. The Cllr
disputed the Council’s claim that ballots were only meant for
estate regeneration. She noted the proposals had included
demolishing the unsuitable homes and then rebuilding newer, larger
and better homes, which also addressed regeneration of the estate.
The GLA rules stated that if a project involved demolition and
rebuilding more than 150 homes (which it did in this case) then
this would require a ballot.
The Cllr noted the Council’s position that an
exemption from a GLA complaint ballot was granted in cases of
health and safety concerns. However, the Cllr noted this was on the
premise that those health and safety concerns could not be
reasonably addressed through alternative options. The Cllr claimed
strengthening was an alternative measure that had not been explored
as the Council led with its preferred option,
demolishment.
The Cllr suggested there could be a financial risk if
the GLA concluded there was an available viable option in
strengthening and reclaimed funding as a result. The Cllr noted
paragraph 4.4.5 did not suggest an alternative plan was in place
should this circumstance occur and asked the OSC to consider the
impact of deciding policy that could adversely impact the financial
position of the Council.
The Cllr closed by arguing that two ballots should
take place. In addition to the ballot the Council had proposed, an
earlier ballot before any decision had taken place, to give the
residents the option of demolishment or strengthening. Whilst
consultations provided a transfer of views, the Cllr claimed a
ballot gave power to residents to have the final
decision.
Cllr Palmer next addressed the OSC concerning
preserving the right of return for those leaseholders affected by
the demolishment of Tangmere and
Northfolt. The Cllr noted that
displaced leaseholders who moved out of the borough could lose
their right of return. The Cllr claimed this was disproportionate
and unnecessary, especially given Broadwater Farm was within 1 mile from the London
Borough of Enfield and residents may financially have no choice but
to look beyond Haringey. The Cllr noted the report accepted
residents who moved out of the borough for financial purposes would
be able to claim a right of return, but only once it had been
approved by a Discretion Panel, which the Cllr felt was unfair. The
Cllr stated the Discretion Panel would cause displaced residents
additional stress and anxiety and urged the OSC to recommend
removing such right of return restrictions.
The Chair thanked the Cllrs for their Call In and
after questions from the OSC members, the following was
noted:
- Cllr Barnes
accepted the health and safety concerns of Tangmere and Northfolt
were serious and therefore decanting should continue. However, the
Cllr claimed it was possible to then ballot residents on
demolishment or strengthening, once they had been safely decanted
and rehoused.
- It was
insufficient that the residents only had the option of whether they
agreed with demolishment during the consultation and Cllr Barnes
claimed residents should firstly be provided with a ballot option
to choose between demolishment and strengthening. This should
include all the information regarding the merits and demerits of
both options.
- Cllr Barnes
accepted there were real concerns about the blocks but they should
have been addressed with the residents so they could make an
informed decision, and that it was not fair to make a decision
about demolishment without fully consulting the residents with all
the facts.
- Were the
residents to choose demolition, Cllr Barnes stated a master plan
must be in place that ensured they would be able to return to the
estate as soon as possible.
- Cllr Palmer
noted the historical significance of Broadwater Farm as an important landmark for
Tottenham, and that the estate showed the merits of social and
mixed housing.
- Regarding
engagement with the local residents, Cllr Palmer had spent
considerable time talking to residents and engaging with casework
in the area. The Cllr highlighted two concerned leaseholders not
understanding what was being offered to them and that she felt
there was a culture of fear in which residents were being led to
believe a particular point of view.
- Cllr Palmer
highlighted the Call In was seeking an absolute guarantee that
residents who were displaced by the demolishment of Tangmere and Northfolt
had a right of return, and argued the Discretion Panel did not
guarantee this.
- Cllr Palmer felt
the key issue with the consultation was trust and, as the
Deputation highlighted, there had been a lack of belief that the
residents were being provided all the information.
- The Call In
sought the OSC to refer the decision back to Cabinet with a
recommendation that a meaningful ballot must take
place.
Cabinet Member response to the Call In
The Cabinet Member next responded to the Call In and
answered questions, along with Officers, put by the OSC.
Regarding the specific points raised by the Call In
and the Deputation, the following was noted:
Consultation
- All decisions
had been taken in line with the Housing Strategy and a detailed
consultation had taken place. The Cabinet Member was confident that
there was a high level of support for demolition and subsequent
rebuilding of the two blocks by the leaseholders. There was a high
response rate of 50% to the 28-day consultation and 90% of those
supported demolition.
- The Cabinet
Member rejected the Deputations claim that there had been a lack of
transparency regarding the structural surveys carried out on the
two blocks, and that they had, in fact, received the information
before the Council had. The publication of the structural surveys
were released soon after their completion by Homes for
Haringey.
- The Cabinet
Member refuted suggestions that the Council had acted in any way
other than appropriate during the consultation. It was accepted
that at a meeting with residents, the issue of a ballot had been
raised but it was apparent the large majority were more concerned
with other matters.
- Having visited
residents of the two blocks, the Cabinet Member informed the OSC
that a large number of those residents were living in overcrowded
properties and there was greater concern by them about their
accommodation being fit for purpose.
- The Cabinet
Member acknowledged a complaint had been received by Mr Jacob
Secker and this had been forwarded onto Officers so that the
appropriate complaints process could be initiated. Officers
confirmed the allegations regarding improper conduct during the
consultation process had been previously investigated and the
independent tenor and advisory team strongly disputed any
allegations of wrongdoing.
- The Cabinet
Member maintained the consultation question was entirely consistent
with how a GLA ballot question would be phrased, in the form of a
yes/no answer. The Section 105 consultation was on the preferred
option of demolition. The Council had received legal advice
regarding being open about its preferred option with residents. The
residents had the opportunity to decide whether they agreed with
the Council’s preferred option or not and it was noted a
minority of residents had not agreed with demolition but the large
majority did.
- Regarding
whether the consultation could have been done better, the Cabinet
Member noted that several changes had occurred such as moving the
date of the 28-day consultation from August 2018 as it was not
considered fair to hold over the summer holiday. Additionally,
language support had been available for residents who required
it.
- The Cabinet
Member assured the OSC the consultation had been comprehensive and
noted the high response rate for a local authority consultation
from residents (50%). Officers noted the benefit of the delay to
the official 28-day consultation being residents had a longer
period of information being provided to them. Officers also noted
changes had been made during the consultation, such as to the
rehousing policy, following dialogue with the residents.
Additionally, the OSC were informed that engagement with residents
on Broadwater Farm had been constant in
the past few months as several other works were taking place
concurrently on the estate which they were being consulted
on.
Ballot
- The
circumstances did not allow for a GLA compliant ballot to take
place as the Council had a deadline to decant residents and holding
such a ballot would have caused a delay and put residents at risk
of harm. The Council had requested an exemption from the GLA. If
the exemption was to be rejected, then a ballot would have to be
held.
- The Cabinet
Member noted confusion by the Call In and Deputation as to how a
GLA compliant ballot was conducted and noted it only allowed for a
yes or no answer. It would therefore not have been possible to ask
residents which of the two options, strengthening or demolishment,
they preferred. The Council would have to make a proposal, as it
had during the consultation, and residents would have to agree or
disagree.
- Once a master
plan was in place, the Council had committed to balloting the whole
estate.
- If the GLA
rejected the exemption request, Officers would seek to consult with
the GLA to find a way by which a GLA ballot could be held in the
circumstances, given the health and safety concerns.
- The GLA outlined
circumstances where exemptions may apply and the Council felt
strongly this was a case where one should be issued. Officers noted
the health and safety concerns were not removed once the residents
had been decanted from the two blocks as there was still the
immediate threat to the surrounding estate and its residents,
should there be an event which could cause the blocks to collapse.
It was therefore not considered an option to decant the residents
from the two blocks and ballot them once safely
removed.
- In order to hold
a GLA compliant ballot, a master plan would need to be created.
Officers referred members to the November 2018 Cabinet report in
which it was outlined the master plan was at an early stage of
looking at the redevelopment phase of the project, addressing the
basic issues such as capacity of development sites. That
information would then be used to inform the master plan to be
presented in early 2019. The residents of the estate and those
decanted from the two blocks would be invited to provide their
views on the master plan.
- Officers
accepted the use of the words redevelopment, regeneration and
renewal could have been clearer in the report. Officers noted the
circumstances as being unusual and clarified redevelopment was the
best descriptor of the situation, as it usually followed a process
of demolition.
- To strengthen
the buildings, as opposed to demolishing them, would cost the
Housing and revenue budget £30million. The Cabinet Member
emphasised it was important the Council took into account the needs
of all of its estates that it had a duty to and the
£30million would have been too costly and taken from other
estates needing investment.
Right of return
- Officers
informed none of the resident leaseholders had been rehoused
outside the borough. It was confirmed there was an error in the
report and the number of resident leaseholders at Tangmere was six, not nine. Officers noted the
difficulty in engaging with resident leaseholders but reassured the
OSC that the Council had put maximum effort into engaging with
them.
- The Cabinet
Member confirmed that residents returning to the estate, would
continue to pay social rent.
- Regarding
succession rights to any equity loan offered by the Council,
Officers confirmed this would be offered to spouses and partners
but not to their children. However, children would be offered the
opportunity to buy out the Council’s share of the property.
In deciding such policy, it was important a balance was struck
between wanting to do the best for those children, but also
recognising the money was provided by the HRA. The HRA was funded
by rent from tenants and officers had to determine the appropriate
use of that money. It was not deemed appropriate for children to
also be offered succession rights to their parents equity
loan.
- Officers
reiterated the commitment to replacing the same number of homes at
Tangmere and Northfolt but it was unlikely that the mix of
bedroom sizes would be the same. Northolt was comprised of just one
bedroom properties and the intention was to increase some of the
bedroom sizes to assist the problem of overcrowding within the
borough. Officers accepted some of the properties may be vacant if
residents did not exercise their right to return but those
properties would then house those next on the housing waiting list
and they would pay council rent, not mayoral rent.
- Regarding
replacement homes, the Cabinet Member reiterated the commitment
made at the November 2018 Cabinet meeting to replace the demolished
properties with 100% social housing at council rent.
- Officers
clarified that it was not the intention of the policy to prevent a
right of return for residents who moved a short distance and wished
to return to the estate once the properties were rebuilt. Officers
accepted the policy could be better worded to reflect
this.
Discretion Panel
- Officers
clarified the issue of Home Loss Payment’s and rent arrears.
It was accepted at times the general principles of the policy might
not be applicable,, such in as in home loss cases. In those
situations, it was general policy to deduct rent arrears from
compensation payments but there may be some cases where discretion
was shown. The Discretion Panel would exist to consider such cases
where it would have the option to offer, for example, higher equity
loans. The Panel would be comprised of officers from both Homes for
Haringey and Haringey Council, advice would be provided by the
Council’s legal team. The Panel would make a recommendation
on cases and the Head of Housing would then make the final decision
and informed the resident. The resident had the option to appeal
the decision to the Director for Housing and Growth. The sum of
Home Loss payments was set out in legislation and the current
amount was £6,300, which was paid to all those eligible.
Officers highlighted to the OSC page 48 of the report pack, which
detailed the ‘Payments made to tenants and
residents leaseholders’.
- The Cabinet
Member informed the OSC that no politicians played any part in the
Discretion Panel and contended it would not be good practice to
involve politicians into individuals’ financial affairs. The
Cabinet Member stated it would be appropriate for politicians to
support residents through the process and flag decisions they felt
needed review but play no active part in the decision making
process. Officers confirmed that no members were on the Discretion
Panel as it was essentially about interpreting Council
policy.
- Officers
clarified residents would put forward their own case to the
Discretion Panel, with assistance from Officers as necessary.
Officers also noted residents interests would be protected by the
appeal process but the Chair queried how satisfied members of the
public would be that the Discretion Panel and the subsequent appeal
process was to be handled entirely by Officers.
Health and Safety
- The Cabinet
Member accepted there had been a level of neglect historically
towards the estate but as soon as the Cabinet in office became
aware of the pressing concerns regarding the structural integrity
of the two blocks, Tangmere and
Northfolt, it took the difficult but
necessary decision to demolish them as its primary concern was the
safety of residents.
- The issue with
leaks at Tangmere was due to design
faults and the water draining through the building caused severe
water ingress. The Cabinet Member noted witnessing significant
adverse effects at residents properties due to the water leaks and
stressed these were not appropriate living conditions.
- The Cabinet
Member rejected the Deputations view that the Council was acting
like a rogue landlord and, on the contrary, countered it would have
been the act of a rogue landlord to keep residents in such
conditions as those created by the water leaks.
- The Cabinet
Member confirmed an Equality Impact Assessment had been carried out
in relation to the report.
- The Cabinet
Member was resolute that the Council had to act at the earliest
opportunity, as it should, in matters regarding health and safety
concerns.
Monitoring Officer’s report
The Deputy Monitoring Officer outlined the Monitoring
Officer’s report to the OSC. The report covered firstly the
process as required by the constitution, and secondly, the advice
of the Monitoring Officer whether or not the decision taken by
Cabinet was within the budget and policy framework.
If the OSC were of the view that the decision was
within the budget and policy framework, it could, firstly, do
nothing at all, secondly, refer the decision back to cabinet with
recommendations, or thirdly, refer the decision to full council. If
the OSC concluded the decision was outside the budget and policy
framework, then it could refer the decision back to Cabinet for
reconsideration. The OSC were referred to the relevant policy
framework - Housing Strategy document, paragraphs 4.2, 4.3, 7
(all), and 8.4.
The advice of the Monitoring Officer was the decision
taken by Cabinet did fall within the policy framework.
Additionally, the advice of the Chief Finance Officer, included
within the report, was the decision taken by Cabinet was within the
budgetary framework. It was also noted the Call In and Deputation
cited concerns there would be a financial risk to the Council in
potentially having to return GLA funding. The Chief Finance Officer
in the report stated no decision had been made in respect of GLA
funding, and therefore this was not relevant. The OSC were required
to consider the advice of the Monitoring Officer and Chief Finance
Officer before making its final decision.
OSC Debate
The Chair reminded the OSC of the matters raised in
the Call In that it was being asked to consider. These
were:
- The GLA’s
capital guidelines for securing funding i.e. ballot and the future
risk of having to repay GLA capital funding;
- The obligations
and aspirations of the housing strategy in terms of engagement and
working with residents;
- Mayors of
London’s ballot requirement for estate regeneration
schemes;
- The claim of
non-compliance of the Broadwater Farm
rehousing and Payments policy with the Housing strategy section 4.2
and supporting strong mixed communities;
- Amendment of
equity loans for residents leaseholders;
- The information
on Rent and service charge arrears being deducted from home loss
payments;
- The information
on holding a pre demolition ballot;
and
- The Call In
claim that there would be a precedent set for future ballot schemes by not
holding a pre -demolition ballot.
Following discussion, the OSC noted the clarity of
arguments put forward by residents in the Deputation as convincing
and compelling. The OSC felt strongly that residents should have
been confident all dealings with the Council were transparent and
open. Further, they should be satisfied that the Council had kept
them fully informed at every stage. If residents felt they had not
been consulted properly, then there should be an obligation to be
responsive and conscious to that concern.
The OSC noted the strength of arguments presented and
that there appeared to be a level of misinformation between the
Council and residents. However, the OSC were satisfied the
consultation had been rigorous and thorough.
The OSC considered referring the decision back to
Cabinet for greater clarification over issues raised, such as the
governance of the Discretion Panel and leaseholder rights. The OSC
felt strongly the master plan should entail a fully participative
process.
OSC Decision
Following a closed session, the Committee agreed
unanimously the Cabinet decision was within the policy and budget
framework.
However, the OSC decided it would refer the decision
back to Cabinet with recommendations, covering some of the matters
discussed above, such as:
- Further
clarifying the rights of leaseholders;
- Consider
increasing the voice of residents within the governance of the
Discretion Panels;
- Looking at
offering the equity loans beyond partners;
- Proposing a
process on the master plan that was participative and took into
account the view of residents; and
- Clarifying the
exact number of replacement homes and at what rent these would be;
and
- A comprehensive
communications strategy that detailed how the council was to engage
with the residents.
Cllr Connor agreed with the rest of the Committee but
put on record that she would like to see Cabinet also reconsider
holding a ballot before the demolition of Tangmere and Northolt took place.