Agenda item

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

The Panel received two deputations.

The first deputation related to a community allotment space that was on the roof of a car garage. The land was managed by Homes for Haringey and refurbishment works had recently taken place which prevented the group from being able to access their allotment site. The deputation was submitted on behalf of the Helston Growers and the deputation party was made up of Matthew Walsham, Andrew Graves Shirley Russell and Lorna Topping. Matthew Walsham introduced the deputation, which is summarised below:

• The deputation party advised they were speaking to the panel to raise concerns around the recent decision of Homes for Haringey to carry out repairs to a garage, off Russell Road, without any adequate consultation. As a result of this the group were being excluded from their long-standing (20 years+) community allotment.
• The allotment was in the middle of the estate in a previously neglected space, above what was derelict car park, and was transformed through many years of collective hard work. Members of the group include people who use the allotment for their stroke rehabilitation, those who had no other access to outdoor space, and many with young children.
• Homes for Haringey recently began renting the space below the garden out to a Volvo car showroom and subsequently decided that repairs were needed as the roof was leaking.
• The deputation party raised concerns that, having being told they would be consulted on the plans, they received very little information about the plans at any stage. The group also raised concerns that they had been advised that works would begin on 6th December but that works began on 1st December, and much of the allotment had already been bulldozed. I and other members Communications were only received only received about this on 4^th December and were advised that all their equipment must be removed by 7am on Monday 6^th December.
• The group were especially concerned that there was no guarantee that they would be allowed back in once the work was finished, nor any commitments as to how they would repair the damage caused.
• The space was a highly valued community asset that had been supported by the Council in the past. It occupied a space where there have been significant issues with anti-social behaviour.
• It was also contended that demolishing a community allotment where members grew local food to allow for garage space to park cars was entirely the wrong kind of action needed in the middle of a climate crisis.
• The Panel were asked to seek a firm commitment from HfH, on behalf of the group, of when they would be allowed back onto the site and how they would support them to fix the damage caused by the works.

The following arose as part of the discussion following the deputation:

a.    The Panel enquired about the management of the site and whether it was managed as a council allotment through the Parks service or whether there were any formal arrangements in place with HfH about the management of this site. In response, the deputation party advised that the allotment was a smaller space within a larger HfH managed site. However, the group was not formally constituted but the site had been in use as a community allotment site since the 1980s.

b.    The panel sought clarification about whether the group had received any communication at all from HfH. In response, the group advised that they had received a response from HfH the day before which advised that they would be allowed back to the site, subject to safety concerns. The group advised the panel that their trust in HfH had been damaged and that they did not have faith in HfH doing what they said they would.

c.    In response to a question, the group confirmed that the repairs were being carried out by HfH at the request of the car show room. A panel member queried why the interests of the commercial car show room came before a local community group.

d.    The panel members commented that they would like to see Homes for Haringey provide firm guidance to the group on when they could return to the site and how long works would take.

e.    The Chair advised the deputation party that he would provide a response to the deputation in writing as set out in the Council’s constitution at Paragraph 30.7 of Part Four, Section B of the constitution.

The second deputation related to concerns raised about the proposed St Ann’s development. The deputation party was made up of Cathy Graham and Jo Burrows. The deputation party represented a group of residents of Warwick Gardens, and they addressed the panel to outline their concerns over the development of the St Ann’s site and an unsatisfactory level of engagement with Catalyst. The key concerns were summarised as:

• The scale and development of buildings. It was suggested the proposed development was out of keeping with the character of the local neighbourhood and that it would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties including overlooking, shadows and loss of privacy. 
• Proximity to neighbouring unite on the site. It was suggested that there would be a loss of existing views from neighbouring properties.
• Environmental studies were requested from Catalyst but had not been provided.
• Planning process. There were concerns about multiple applications throughout the development and that this would lead to scale creep about the height and number of developments
• The Group also raised concerns about the S106 Community Infrastructure Levy, around how and where this would be spent. It was suggested that some of this should be channelled into creating additional primary care capacity in the area to respond to the additional number of residents from this development.
• The group commented that overall, the engagement experience with Catalyst had been very poor, with Information requested by local community not being provided.
• Key questions and concerns were not addressed answered. Of particular concern was that the heights of buildings increasing without any engagement of information on this provided to residents.

The following arose in discussion of this deputation:

a.    The Panel sought clarification as to what the deputation party would like the Council to do in response to their concerns, given that the site was managed by the GLA and their partner Catalyst. The deputation party responded that they wanted the Council to hold Catalyst to account and that the group did not feel listened to. The deputation party commented that they did not feel that they had received any engagement around the proposals to develop nine story buildings on the site. The group would also like some clarification on the S106 CIL monies and how this would be spent in the area.

b.    In relation to the impact on Warwick Gardens and the extent of that impact in terms of loss of amenity, the group advised that it would affect both ends of Warwick Gardens and the surrounding wider area, as nine story buildings would fill the skyline and there would be a loss of light, shadowing and loss of privacy for surrounding properties. It was noted that at this time of year the loss of light would be particularly evident.

c.    The Chair advised the deputation party that he would provide a response to the deputation in writing as set out in the Council’s constitution at Paragraph 30.7 of Part Four, Section B of the constitution.