Sarah Klymkiw presented
deputation to O&S on the 23rd of November and
outlined the following.
Leaseholders advised by Council to be patient and to
pursue payment plans which are flexible and can be
relinquished. The leaseholders were
offered 25 years to pay the debt or to resolve the remaining
payment when selling property. So far
there had been no conversations about alternatives to the
Pods.
As of the evening of the 23rd of
November, the leaseholders had yet to receive a response to their
section 20 observation legal letter.
After speaking at full Council, the Leader had
written to the deputation to advise that the December decision on
the Noel Park Pods had been delayed until 19th January
2021. There had not been a confirmation
of continuing meetings with the leaseholders. The leaseholders had
been promised a further programme of engagement which suggested a
series of meetings. The leaseholders wanted this to be a continuing
dialogue and to present their case and be listened to.
In response to questions, the deputation provided
the following information:
- Further to
acknowledging the shocking notices and letters received by the
leaseholders and highlighting the need to save on the cost of
temporary housing of leaseholders, the deputation was asked about
the red line in terms of the brick extensions. The deputation
believed that there were three alternative options to the Pod and
one of those was not to have a Pod at all. In the 1970’s residents were asked by the
Council to have a choice in having a Pod and at least five flats
had refused. Therefore, it was known that there could be a solution
without a Pod. The second option was a
brick-built extension, and the current cost was not known.
However, in 2015 a study was completed
which showed that a brick built
extension would cost the same as a replacement Pod of around
£25k. The option of the rebuilt brick extension was not taken
forward as it meant rehousing tenants. However, the deputation were
aware that when works were being done on Noel Park estate, tenants
were being moved and felt that this option should be offered to
Gladstone Avenue tenants to be rehoused
whilst the work is completed. It was not fully known how long these
works would take and timescales of 3 months and 6 months was
suggested and so this part of the proposal would be incomplete. The
third option would be to re-clad the existing Pods and remove the
asbestos. The deputation contended that this was being done to
other properties in Noel Park. This would cost less than a new Pod,
around £20k for a double pod and £10k for a single
pod. This was another viable option the
leaseholders felt could be put forward to tenants.
- The cost of
decanting residents was too high when the brick-built extensions
were £25k in 2015. The deputation questioned that given the
cost of the replacement Pods had now doubled, it was likely to be
more cost effective to decant residents and have a brick-built
extension. At the time this was discussed, it was envisaged that
the works would be between 6 weeks and 3 months and not the longer
period now suggested. However, there was not enough information
provided on these possibilities and there had not been any real
consultation with residents in the past on these
options.
- The
deputation spoke about their shock of receiving a section 20 notice
and payment demand. A number of leaseholders negatively impacted by
the pandemic through loss of work, furlough, redundancies.
Leaseholders were faced with uncertainty and unknown bills for
payment. Also, there was the added anxiety that the bills received
later on could be even higher. The deputation had received a bill
for £108, 450 which automatically caused significant anxiety
alongside trying to learn Council
processes and understand how to appeal against this situation,
talking to strangers to ask them to care about the situation
was overwhelming.
- The final
bill for the works may not be received until 2022 by leaseholders
and this was also impacting on life choices. The leaseholders also knowing that there could be
an alternative way and these suggestions/ proposals not being taken
forward was upsetting.
- The co-opted
member suggested the deputation seeking a report from Homes for
Haringey which was drafted in the 1970’s when the Pods were
added, and which provided the reasoning and logistics on this
decision.
- The
deputation spoke for herself and her Pod which was fine, as far as
she was aware, but referred to Leaders
comments on safety of the Pods at full
Council and questioned if Homes for
Haringey had an understanding of the
condition of the Pods on Noel
Park.
The Chair added that there was a mixed picture in
relation to the conditions of the Pods.
The deputation felt that leaseholders was not being
listened to by Homes for Haringey, the only option being offered
was payment plan options.
The deputation expressed their constant feeling of
frustration, despair, and anger, and felt the Cabinet should fully
consider the impact of the decision on leaseholders which will
cause financial ruin for some leaseholders and their families. The
deputation spoke about having a wider view about equal improvement
of life chances and making sure that by benefiting the life chances
of some people, it was not ruining the life chances of
others.
The deputation wanted the Cabinet decision in
January to be delayed, allowing more time for consultation and
dialogue.
The Chair moved to a recommendation that this issue
is sent back to the Housing and Regeneration Panel and compile some
recommendations to go forward to Cabinet. The Chair advised that it would be perhaps better
to move the decision from the January Cabinet to allow opportunity
for options to be explored.
The Leader outlined that a
report was planned for January Cabinet and expressed that he has
misspoken about the safety aspect of the Pods at full
Council.