Agenda item

Cllr White left the meeting room, following his declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest.

The Chair had received a deputation in relation to item 12.2 - High Road West Scrutiny Review and invited Paul Burnham to put forward his representations.

 Michael Hodges and Florence Allayway accompanied Mr Burnham

The deputation spoke against the High Road West Scheme as a whole and highlighted the recent Lendlease planning application which, in their view, showed that the whole scheme was unviable and produced only half the rate of profit that Lendlease needed to take forward the rest of the scheme as set out in previous Cabinet reports.

In the deputation’s view the recent Planning application indicated that the Council would not be able to offer the single move to most residents as promised in the earlier Cabinet reports and voted on. There had been 500 Council homes promised but 300 would not be ready until 2032 and in the view of the deputation would mean that residents would spend longer in temporary accommodation.

Mr Burnham contended that 70% of the new homes would be offered on the open market with only 30% available on shared ownership, which was less affordable for local residents and meant less access to housing by BAME residents. Therefore, development using the £90m of GLA money, which would, end up supporting non-council homes and would also drive up the value of homes and rents in the area and increase retail costs.

The deputation continued to outline their concerns on the conduct of the Love Lane Ballot, including:

• That Council officers had targeted contact with residents that were vulnerable in respect of their uncertainty on a yes or no vote for demolition.
• There was a significant number of officer contacts with Love Lane residents to ensure completion of the ballot responses.
• Concerns raised that there had been collection of ballots by officers, which the ballot registration company had advised against but had still been taken forward on 4 occasions.
• A statement read out from a resident advising repeated phone calls from an officer and door being knocked on several times. The Committee heard from the deputation that this resident had indicated that they were uncertain and did not understand the choice being given. The resident had then received follow up calls, and a visit to their home. The resident then decided their vote and was helped to complete this online. In the deputation’s view, this statement was enough information to warrant a review of the conduct of the ballot process, before any further steps on the demolition were taken.

In response to questions from the Committee, the following responses were provided by the deputation party:

The deputation contended that viability was a complex calculation and expectation of 20% and 14% return on the scheme and whole scheme profit of 6.6% profit. The expectation was that the construction of the homes will in turn increase the prices of the homes and allow the profit to be made by scheme to make it viable for Lendlease. However, in the view of the deputation there should be a sensitivity analysis considering unexpected economic factors, which could cause the risk of the scheme being repackaged in the future to the detriment of scheme and resident expectation.

• It was important to establish what had happened in the conduct of the vote and then determine the validity of the ballot outcome.

• A need for an independent review by an independent body, without an interest, who was not committed to the Council, to the GLA, to the deputation party, and prepared to independently take evidence. This body would need to consider:

Ø  the dynamics of the property owner /tenant relationship and the power position, taking account that 75% of the tenants in the ballot were non-secure tenants,

Ø  facilitating open evidence sessions,

Ø  providing the mechanism to get facts and information on the scheme before demolition of the estate,

Ø  consider what good practice is and what was not good practice to inform future ballots,

Ø  could also involve scrutiny contributions to the review.

• The deputation felt that the Council were being guided by the GLA deadlines and access to the GLA funding, and there was a need to pause and consider the ballot issue and examine concerns.

• There were further doubts from the deputation about Civica undertaking the independent review as it was no longer part of the electoral reform society.

• The deputation contended that the recent Lendlease Planning application was not consistent with the basis of the ballot. Therefore, concerns about the ballot would need to be responded to by the Council, at this stage before the scheme developed as this issue could not be rectified in the future.

·         Considering the impact of what a no vote outcome would have meant which was temporary tenants on Love Lane being added to the Council Housing waiting list, and likely waiting far longer for permanent accommodation, the deputation’s position was:

Ø  That the need for providing secure tenancies to the Love Lane residents remained an issue.

Ø  There would be residents living on the Love Lane Estate that pay rent and Council tax but will not have security if a secure tenancy.

Ø  Offering secure tenancies to the Love Lane residents was a positive thing that the Council should do - there could be a local allocations policy as a way forward?

Ø  This was ultimately an issue for the resident to decide in the ballot.

Ø  There was still a need to consider the legacy of the ballot outcome on Love Lane.

·         Responding to a Committee question on whether the deputation held any compelling evidence that the ballot process was not properly run, given 70% of residents were in favour of demolition, the deputation had evidence and they wanted this considered as part of the independent review process. The deputation acknowledged that they were not a neutral body and there was a need for another body to come in and consider this information and take statements.

• The deputation considered that they had enough evidence to suggest that this was needed and referred to the information considered by the Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel which noted that four postal ballots had been handled. The deputation believed that there was more than this number handled with both visits to homes and help provided to residents to use their phones to vote.

• There was acknowledgement that the Council had not run a ballot process before and the current situation indicated that the ballot process needed a review. The deputation felt that the Council should be setting the highest standards, given this was a policy taken forward by the Mayor of London in response to the local Labour party motion which was agreed by the Labour party conference.

• The deputation party had spoken with four tenants who had advised that they had their ballot paper taken away by officers. Another tenant who was voting no, had had their door knocked on 6 times and was called 7 times, and answered once. Officers said that they could come round and collect his ballot paper as they could see he had not voted.

• The deputation party respondent advised that she had seen officers knocking on doors in multiple properties and another no voter, who was blind, was also offered to take his ballot paper but the offer was not accepted. She had spoken with another temporary tenant who was happy with her flat and would prefer a permanent tenancy and did not want her block to be knocked down. She had voted yes, as this would lead to a permanent tenancy.

• A deputation party spokesperson, spoke of her contact with vulnerable people on the estate through their disability and through their circumstances who did not know the ballot was taking place. There were language barriers and she spoke to residents where English was not the first language. They spoke Portuguese, Turkish, Kurdish and Bengali and were not fully aware of the process.

• The deputation party spoke about the poor conditions of the estate, where there were areas of drug use, maintenance issues and it was felt that there was a narrative being provided that if residents voted for the demolition, this would change their situation.

The deputation was thanked for their views, independent review request was noted, and this Committee could not take this decision and would be made by the Executive[ Cabinet] and the Committee would communicate this on their behalf.