Agenda item

To approve the following Scrutiny Reviews:

1.    Haringey Family of Schools

2.    High Road West – To follow

3.    Adult  Social  Care Commissioning – To follow

High Road West Scrutiny Review

Cllr White remained absent for this item.

The committee agreed to vary the agenda and consider the Scrutiny Review on High Road West after the deputation.

The Chair set out the 13 recommendations of the review, outlining that the Committee had not heard direct evidence on issues concerning the conduct of the Love Lane Ballot but were putting forward the recommendation for a lesson-learned review with particular focus on the experience of residents to inform any future ballot.

The Chair emphasised that this was the very first estate ballot conducted in Haringey and it was particularly important that due importance was given to the allegations and representations received on this matter.

Councillor Connor asked if recommendation 2 concerning the ballot could be strengthened to put forward an independent review. In response, the deputy Monitoring officer advised that when compiling reviews there was a need to consider evidence from all parties. Although, the Committee had heard the representations of the deputation, the committee had not had the benefit of hearing from the officers involved with the process and this would be needed when putting forward recommendations to any review and advised against this.

The Chair proposed, as a way forward, that the recommendation could still go forward as a separate matter referred from the Committee to the Executive, having heard from the deputation. The Committee agreed this.

Councillor Hare raised the following points, which did not affect the recommendations.

Ø  Suggested that the Chair's forward could note the length of the review, membership changes and need to complete evidence sessions by August 2021.

Ø  On Recommendation point 2,  he explained that evidence provided was not a council officer but one of Capita's staff carrying a ballot bag.

Ø  On Recommendation 11, suggested that the first bullet point should not just be  the price of purchasing similar premises but suggested should say price of purchasing similar premises on similar freehold or leasehold basis  as this was a  key point made by the Peacock business estate who also highlighted that some business premises included residential accommodation,

Ø  Suggested adding some wording to recognise the high level of difficulties in business planning, investing and financing created by uncertainties, and in future, to engage with businesses that may be affected fully and at the earliest stage of considering regeneration schemes to limit the additional disruption caused by uncertainties.

Ø  On Recommendation 13 and taking this forward, to fully cost the value (economic, social, including indirect ) of the businesses as part of the public engagement and analysis.

Ø  In the report, at 6.4, the impact on businesses of the change from the original Arup master plan suggested should be described. Option 1 was supported by the businesses because the Peacock Estate was retained and the change was significant for the Peacock business estate.

The Committee noted these points and the Chair highlighted the above points raised were already captured in the main body of the report.

With regards to the viability of the scheme and council houses being built in the  last stage of the scheme and  taking account the current 6.6% profit margin -  there  was a question to the Deputy Monitoring officer if there was a penalty clause if the homes were not built. The Deputy Monitoring officer agreed to speak  to legal colleagues and respond to this point.

Following a vote of members of the committee present in the room, the report and recommendations was agreed and  would  go forward to the January meeting of Cabinet for a response.