Agenda item

Councillor Hakata briefly introduced this item, setting out that the process for looking at the issues, in relation to the leaseholders affected by the major works in Noel Park, continued. It was noted that the Leader was meeting with leaseholders this week and the Cabinet would set out further proposals to address their concerns. There would also be a further opportunity for the Cabinet to look at these matters when a decision -making report on phase two of the Noel Park works was considered by Cabinet at a meeting in July.

Cllr Moyeed was asked to introduce the Scrutiny review report as Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He was also a ward councillor in Noel Park and confirmed that, following advice from legal, there was no conflict with his presentation of the report.

He had spoken with Noel Park leaseholders and his presentation would be reflecting their views. The following points were made:

-       Grateful that a majority of the recommendations were agreed.

-       Disappointed that recommendation 1, and recommendation 20 were not agreed and that recommendation 12 was partially agreed.

-       That all recommendations should be agreed without exception to reflect the commitments made at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Meeting held on the 15^th of March.

-       That some of the responses to the recommendations had the effect of altering the scope of the original recommendation, leading to them being read as a rejection.

-       The response to recommendation 1 was referred to which set out that the leaseholders were not legally entitled to seek further particulars of the works and cost. It was felt that the Council should not  just be keeping to the statutory bare minimum. Also, in keeping with the commitment to co-design and co- production, there needed to be as much information provided as possible.

-       The response to recommendation 1 did not appropriately acknowledge the high volume of questions and queries, put forward by the leaseholders, had reflected the lack of consultation prior to the section 20 notice being issued. The collective and organised questioning from the leaseholders was in response to their shared predicament and concerns. This should not have been a reason to treat their queries collectively and under Freedom of Information rules.

-       In response to the proposed partial agreement of recommendation 12 on the removal of asbestos from the Pods in Noel Park being borne by the Council as freeholder, this was further contended. This had been a long -standing issue and these works should have been completed by Homes for Haringey, years earlier when the costs were lower. There was a need to agree this recommendation in full and provide certainty for leaseholders.

-       Recommendation 20 was not accepted and Cabinet was asked to reconsider the scrutiny review report which set out the reasoning for the compilation of a Contracts Oversight Committee.

The Chair interjected acknowledging the important comments made by the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny and asked him to continue with introducing the Scrutiny review instead of commenting on the response to the recommendations. There was discussion on this, and the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny continued to briefly highlight the following:

-       Recommendation 7 set out that full assurances are provided in writing in relation to the contractors use and application of cladding materials on the pod extensions. The response indicated that it will guarantee the cladding for 12 years in the unlikely event that any additional costs arise following completion. The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny contended that the original report said that it should for as long as the pods were there but the response limited this to 12 years which was not acceptable to the leaseholders.

-       Recommendation 9 related to the basis of the revised estimates and how these had escalated over the time period . The response was that this reflected the industry wide cost inflation but this was not acceptable as it was still felt by the leaseholders that the costs had gone up as the works had been left for a long time.

The Deputy Leader responded to the review recommendations and emphasised that the process was ongoing and conversations continuing. The Leader was meeting with leaseholders in the coming week.

The Deputy Leader asked colleagues to agree all the recommendations, except for 1, 12 and 20.

RESOLVED

1.         To consider the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) and the Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel (HRSP) attached as Appendix 1.

2.         To agree all the HRSP recommendations, except numbers 1, 12 and 20, for the detailed reasons set out in section 6.3 of the report.

Reasons for decision

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has the Constitutional power to make reports and recommendations to the Cabinet in connection with the discharge of any functions for its consideration.

Alternative options considered

The Cabinet is committed to considering and responding to Scrutiny reviews.

 No alternative options were considered.