To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.
Minutes:
Mr Jacob Secker, Secretary of the Broadwater Farm Residents’ Association, and Mr Chris Hutton, Chair of the Broadwater Farm Residents’ Association, addressed the Committee in relation to item 13 – Tangmere and Northolt Compulsory Purchase Order.
Mr Jacob Secker strongly objected to the proposal to use a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) against the remaining leaseholders. He felt that, instead, the Council should make a fair offer, not involving eviction, which covered the cost of a comparable property in Tottenham because the prices were artificially depressed. Therefore, when considering the shared equity this was not enough and the leaseholder would lose their home loss payment as this was added to the financial pot to enable purchase of a property. He stated that it was unacceptable to use CPOs when such low offers had been made, explaining that £160,000 was offered for a 1-bed unit in Northolt and this would force people out of the area which was unacceptable. Mr Secker felt that this was similar to the issue on the Aylesbury estate, and the same situation should not be faced on Broadwater Farm
Although offers were made in July, these were not consulted upon. These offers met some people’s needs but the deputation contended that not all the leaseholders needs were met and time had not been taken to complete a proper consultation on this situation to avoid the CPO process.
Mr Jacob Secker wanted the Council to offer leaseholders an amount comparable to other values in Tottenham rather than the depressed values in Broadwater Farm.
Mr Chris Hutton reiterated that Broadwater Farm had depressed values and that not enough consideration had been given to the fact that these leaseholders were not willing sellers. He stated that the basis of evaluation for leaseholders to receive a fair offer should be an offer comparable to the cost of replacing their home in the local area, assuming that there was a willing seller and buyer.
The Leader responded that the Council’s offer was very different from the offer on the Aylesbury Estate in Southwark. The Leader advised that the Council were offering the opportunity for residents to purchase a property and for the Council to take an equity stake in that. The Leader challenged the view that the Council were forcing people out and making people homeless as this was not sustained or justified by the proposal that the Council was actually putting forward. He added that it was unfortunate that property prices were depressed in the area but that this would have also been the case when properties were purchased. It was highlighted that leaseholders had the opportunity to move in Tottenham and were not being restricted. Mr Jacob Secker contended that shared equity could be used to move elsewhere in Tottenham but this was too low and that leaseholders would end up having a limited choice and would lose their home loss payment. He felt that leaseholders were getting the lowest possible offer in the circumstances which was why people were not moving and the Council were having to resort to a CPO process Mr Secker reiterated that the Council needed to consult on another offer.
The Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Renewal thanked the deputation for their representations and noted that these issues had also been set out in a recent email which was helpful and the Cabinet Member would respond to each of the points made.
The Cabinet Member explained that both blocks had failed structural tests and required demolition on health and safety grounds. The Council had been in negotiations with leaseholders for quite some time and there were those who may argue that the Council should have started the CPO process earlier. However, the approach taken was a balanced one which recognised the need to secure vacant procession of the building so the Council could start rebuilding the blocks. This was, at the same time, recognising that the leaseholders were in a situation that was unforeseen and was no fault of their own. The approach taken forward was the least antagonistic. Also, whilst taking forward the CPO process, the negotiations with the leaseholders would continue.
The Cabinet Member emphasised that the Council had been negotiating with leaseholders for a considerable length of time and the CPO was designed to set a deadline on the process.
A deadline was needed for a number of necessary reasons:
The Cabinet Member reiterated not ceasing negotiations with leaseholders and the Cabinet report in July underlined the Council’s commitment to seek a negotiated settlement with those leaseholders and allowed for considerable amount of more flexibility to ensure this.
The Cabinet Member continued to respond to the other points made by the deputation.
In relation to the payment of £160k for a flat in Northolt example, the Cabinet Member was clear that the amounts that the Council were offering were based on market values and these valuations were carried out by an organisation that was certified by the Institute of Chartered Surveyors. These valuations were not based on the Council’s perception of value. The Council also had offered to pay for the leaseholders to have their own valuations completed and these figures could also be used as a basis for negotiations, underlining the Council’s commitment for a fair outcome for leaseholders.
It was accepted that values on Broadwater Farm were lower than elsewhere but the Council had balance out that with the price that the leaseholder originally purchased their property for.
In relation to offering the amount of compensation with the cost of a comparable property in Tottenham as a whole, as opposed to the Council’s perceived property values, the Cabinet Member reiterated that this was a perception in values. In addition to the full market offer, the Council were offering to all the BWF leaseholders an equity loan, as acknowledged by the deputation. This would make onward purchases much easier to ensure that they can remain in the area. The Council were not aware, at the moment, of any cases where this did not at least provide for a comparable property in Tottenham. It was noted that the equity loan was limited to that in the policy. The Council allowed the leaseholders to submit a request, through the discretion panel to increase that amount so this was another avenue available to leaseholders.
In relation to the low values and Aylesbury Estate situation raised by the deputation, the Council had a rehousing and repayments policy which was reflective of best practice in London to provide a range of options so that leaseholders could remain in the area .The Cabinet Member was more than happy to be provided with examples of cases, from the Residents Association ,where the leaseholder was struggling to secure any accommodation elsewhere based on the negotiations that the Council were undertaking and would consider them and try to resolve them.
With regard to the historic decision making on the building of the blocks and the unfair situation the leaseholders were facing as a result of this, the Cabinet Member recognised the difficult circumstances, but believed that the leaseholder offer was a reasonable one , considering the unforeseen circumstances in 2018, and apologised for the upheaval this had caused residents and she would continue to work with leaseholders to find a settlement . The valuations did not take into account the problems identified in the blocks, post 2018 and were completed on the basis of being in a good condition.
With regards to the new offers for leaseholders approved in July, and contention that no consultation was taken forward with leaseholders to understand if these offers would meet their needs, the Cabinet Member highlighted that there was a team of officers as well as Independent Liaison Officers working closely with remaining residents on the Broadwater Farm. It was noted that the team’s understanding of the needs of all these residents was used to inform the proposals that Cabinet approved in July. Where leaseholders felt that the range of options were not reasonable, then the Cabinet Member advised the leaseholders to contact the Council.
Given the need to move forward to the next agenda item , the Cabinet Member agreed to provide an email response to the deputation on the remaining issues and these would be added to the minutes.
In concluding her response to the deputation, the Cabinet Member appreciated the difficult circumstances that the leaseholders found themselves in, through no fault of their own, but emphasised that this was not the end of the negotiations and the process allowed a clear roadmap and timeline to reach a final resolution and the negotiations would be ongoing.
The Leader added that he hoped the leaseholders would find in comfort in the response received.
Emailed response for the minutes
Very importantly, in the cases of leaseholders that cannot purchase new homes, the Council should offer an amount approaching the market value of the home on Broadwater Farm plus a secure tenancy. This is opposed to the current offer which is 25% of the home or its 'use value' which can be as little as £56,000 or even less.
The Council have yet to be approached by any leaseholder who has set out how the council’s existing policies for rehousing means it is impossible for them to purchase a new home. The secure tenancy offer is therefore only one option offered to leaseholders and they are under no obligation to accept this where this offer has been made. The Council strongly encouraged anyone who finds themselves in this position to get in contact with us immediately.
While the Council is working hard to build and acquire new homes, they remained a scarce resource and the council has a very significant waiting list of high priority applicants for them. We believe the offer of a secure tenancy has significant value. Leaseholders who take this option are guaranteed to receive, in addition to a secure tenancy, at least what they paid for their homes. We believe this is a reasonable offer