Agenda item

Deputation in relation to item 9

Jacob Secker, Secretary of the Broadwater Farm Resident’s Association and Chris Hutton as Chair of the Broadwater Farm Resident’s Association addressed the Committee in relation to item 9 – Broadwater Farm rehousing.

Mr Secker raised a number of issues in relation to the purchasing of leaseholder properties and the limited options available for those residents in Tangmere and Northolt blocks. Mr Secker highlighted that the leaseholders were not willing sellers but being forced to sell their homes due to defects in the blocks and the deputation’s core objection was to the terms of the leaseholder offer that had been made.

The deputation contended that a more equitable solution for the leaseholders was to at least have been offered a sum of money that would have enabled them to buy a comparable alternative accommodation, locally at a market price in Tottenham, rather than just at market price in Broadwater Farm. These property values had been depressed by the lack of maintenance or lack of investment over the years and in the deputation’s view, it seemed unfair to punish leaseholders by awarding such low values.

The proposal to extend the equity loan was welcomed by the deputation and this would include enabling leaseholders to buy properties outside of the borough. This would certainly ease the burden on some but it did not help those leaseholders that wanted to stay in the locality of Tottenham.

The deputation contended that the finance offers to leaseholders in Northolt, Tangmere blocks of between £150,000 to £160,000 was too low, and there was not the choice of housing to enable them to move. The lengthy time period that the moves were taking demonstrated this.

With regards to offering social tenancies to leaseholders in Tangmere and Northolt, the deputation noted that leaseholders in financial need can be offered: a new social tenancy or housing association tenancy and 25% value of their flat or awarded the money they paid under right to buy. The deputation welcomed the offer to those in need and recognised that this must happen as the leaseholders needed to move out from the blocks .The issue was that 25% offer was too low and  offering leaseholders the amount they paid originally was also not adequate. The leaseholders  had not been  consulted on this proposal and this was not enough funding to move. The leaseholders felt that their finances were not being considered or the capital amount and interest rate payments made by them over the years. The leaseholders had also over, the past few years, paid for major works such as carpark resurfacing and door entry systems in defective blocks and this also needed to be taken account of.

The deputation wanted the Council to follow the Southwark model of offering 100% the value of their flats to leaseholders, or home loss payment and social tenancy. Leaseholders were aware of this offer and wanted the same. The Council were offering 25% of a property value of £160,000, which would be around £40k payment. In Camden the 25% payment would equate to a higher payment of around £100k.The deputation felt that the leaseholders in Broadwater Farm were getting a worse offer in comparison to leaseholders in Aylesbury estate in Southwark and leaseholders in  Camden.

The deputation concluded by asking the Council to reconsider the offer to leaseholders and revise this to be in line with the Southwark offer. Mr Hutton emphasised considering the depressed values of the homes and the extraordinary situation the leaseholders at Broadwater Farm were facing.

In response to questions from Cabinet members, the deputation advised the following:

• The number of leaseholders in Northolt and Tangmere affected by the policy were 14 and this was set out in the attached report.

• The disrepair of the buildings was historical and dated over 20 or 30 years, before the large panel system was an issue, the payment for the homes under Right to Buy obtained by leaseholders generally was dependent on the period i.e. 1980’s and values at the time and were not felt to be applicable to this situation. The situation did not take into account the unsafe conditions and lack of repair and state of the buildings that leaseholders had been living in.

• In relation to the potential for leaseholders being able to exercise their RTB opportunity a second time by being offered a social tenancy, in the deputation’s view this was an unlikely to occur. This policy only applied to those in social need and the deputation were not asking for blanket policy but consideration to those in financial need. It was very unlikely that the leaseholders would be able to be able to exercise a second RTB and were on low incomes and financial need.

• The deputation sought consideration of the financial situation of leaseholders on a case-by-case basis and supporting leaseholders to obtain the best offer possible.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Renewal gave assurance that social tenancies would be offered on a case-by-case basis, and this would be decided by a Discretion Panel, and there would be a package according to the circumstances of the individual.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Strategic Regeneration responded to the deputation. He informed the deputes that the current offer to leaseholders in Northolt was generous and aligned with the policies of other London boroughs. The offer included payment of full market value, an independent valuation, 10% home loss payment, disturbance payments, and the covering of additional costs such as legal fees. Further to this, the Acquisition Strategy under consideration also expanded equity loans to be available for out of borough purchases and adds an option for resident leaseholders to request a ‘social tenancy’, with a (discounted) payment for the loss of property in addition to full home loss and disturbance payments. This demonstrated the Council’s willingness to work with leaseholders in finding a solution that is right for their needs.

The Cabinet Member referred to the offer for leaseholders on the Aylesbury estate, and advised that this did not reflect the whole picture. Southwark’s offer of full market value and home loss payment, as well as a Council tenancy was only available for those who could demonstrate that they were unable to afford a Council property through shared ownership or shared equity and who purchased their home before 2005. This was likely a small group of people, and it was not clear exactly how many people were eligible for this in practice.

The Cabinet Member outlined that Southwark only makes shared equity available for the purchase of a Notting Hill Genesis (its development partner) property or Council property.

The Cabinet Member continued to outline that it was also crucial to understand the context in which Southwark were able to make their offer. They had c. 38,000 tenanted properties – over double the amount Haringey had – and were the largest local authority landlord in London with the highest proportion of social housing of any local authority area in England. The different context allowed Southwark to make an offer that is appropriate for the circumstances in their borough but did not reflect what is appropriate or feasible in Haringey. Southwark’s general offer to leaseholders who seek grant of a new social tenancy was very much less generous than its offer to those on the Aylesbury Estate.

The Cabinet Member advised that Haringey Council’s equity loan offer, by contrast, allowed leaseholders to purchase on the private market, giving them a far greater choice of properties than Southwark’s offer. If they were nevertheless unable to find an affordable property with the assistance of that offer, or if there are other exceptional circumstances, the Council was prepared to consider an offer of a social tenancy to a resident leaseholder as an alternative under the policy now proposed. The provision of a social tenancy however carried significant cost for the Council and added to pressure on the waiting list; hence, the discounted value offered in such circumstances.

With regards to the deputation’s request that leaseholders receive a fair valuation of their property. The Council agreed that they should and considered that, through paying for an independent RICS registered surveyor of the leaseholder’s choice, market valuations and subsequent offers are already determined in a way that is as fair and transparent as possible. Where there was a large discrepancy between the independent valuation received by the Council and the valuation of the leaseholder’s surveyor, the Council endeavoured to work with the leaseholder to come to an equitable agreement.

The Cabinet Member advised that equity loans were on the table so leaseholders can, if they wish, purchase a similar property to the one they are moving from. The Council recognised that property values in Northolt block were low compared to the borough, meaning that even with a generous offer in place it could still be difficult to find a property in the nearby area. However, having conducted some searches, the Council understood that there were many one-bedroom properties, even within the N17 postcode, which could be purchased for around or below £290,000. Indeed a number of two-bedroom properties were available within N17 for less than that price. Further to this, the Broadwater Farm discretion panel had been put in place to consider requests for additional support for leaseholders outside of the Council’s current policies, demonstrating the Council’s desire to work with leaseholders. The panel can consider out of borough equity loans and equity loans of more than 40% in some circumstances to enable leaseholders to remain in the local area. These gave leaseholders more options should this be something they wish to pursue. Therefore, the Council considered that the current policy allowed leaseholders options to purchase a similar property to the one they are moving from in the vast majority of cases, with added flexibility for exceptional cases.

In relation to the deputation’s request that the Council offer a significantly higher price, above market value, for the property purchased, and a higher equity loan. The Council considered that the current offer was flexible to meet the needs of leaseholders in Northolt. The Council was required to balance its responsibilities to Northolt leaseholders with the broader fiduciary duties it has a public body. Hopefully, throughout this response, the Council had demonstrated its commitment to offering leaseholders a fair and equitable offer that enabled them to purchase a similar property and remain in the local area if they wished to do so.

The Cabinet Member expressed that the proposal for changes to policies under consideration and the Council’s approach to leaseholder acquisition throughout this process had demonstrated that the Council would continue to be flexible in seeking agreement with Northolt leaseholders.

The Cabinet Member concluded by emphasising that the Council and Homes for Haringey continued to welcome leaseholders coming forward and working in collaboration with officers to reach agreements that all parties considered fair and reasonable. The Council will continue working with leaseholders and the Broadwater Farm Resident’s Association to reach agreement on the remaining leaseholder interests in Northolt.