Agenda item

Deputations/Petitions/Questions

To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.

Minutes:

The Cabinet considered a deputation put forward by Paul Burnham and Keith Dobie, supporting the recommendation outlined in the Overview and Scrutiny review at item 8 that there should be an independent review of the Love Lane demolition ballot. They contended that the ballot had not been run in a free and fair way and to  the standard expected when these were agreed in 2018 by the GLA.

The deputation highlighted the following:

  • Instances of door- to- door vote collection by officers which was not in keeping with the requirements of the ballot.  Recorded evidence of this had been provided to Councillors.
  • Residents on the estate being able to decide how to vote without landlord[Council] intervention which they believed had occurred.
  • Cabinet responsible as policy makers for the ballot process and not officers.

 

The deputation continued to refer to a letter from Damian Tissier Independent Tenant and Leaseholder Adviser (ITLA) for the Love Lane Estate between 16 April 2013 and 8 October 2021 which had been sent to all Councillors. Mr Tissier had worked with residents at Love Lane Estate and supported the deputation’s view that the ballot had not been run in a fair way. He outlined in his letter that residents on Love Lane state had not been provided with accurate and unbiased information when they cast their vote. The deputation asked the Cabinet to consider why the guarantees in the landlord offer and the Chief Executive’s letter to residents were shredded when Lendlease submitted its planning application in the time period after the ballot closed.

 

The deputation referred to the commitments made to and secure and temporary accommodation tenants of new homes on the regenerated estate. However, in their view,  the recent planning application showed that new private homes would be built first, in the 10-to-15-year, programme and questioned the timing of the homes for Council tenants being built.

 

The deputation argued that Lendlease, the Council’s development partner for the High Road West Regeneration, were already setting out that the scheme was not as profitable as indicated in original plans . The deputation warned that this reduced profitability margin would lead to viability issues with significant implications for the Council’s housing plans. The deputation believed that ultimately Lendlease did not want to build Council homes and predicted that there will not be enough homes built and that the key commitments made to residents such as  a single move would be broken and residents will be double moved to accommodate the phases of the scheme.

 

The deputation questioned whether the guarantees made to residents were taken forward in good faith and subsequently broken or whether the Council made these guarantees through negligence. In the deputation’s view the Council knew that Lendlease could not be relied upon to deliver the scheme in accordance with the commitments made.

 

The deputation called for the Cabinet to consider the close percentage range between those residents in favour and those against the demolition of the Love Lane Estate and the factors highlighted affecting the outcome, and to agree taking forward an independent review.

 

The Cabinet Member forHouse Building, Place - Making and Development, responded to the deputation, underlining her support for the role of scrutiny. She also took her Councillor community role very seriously. She welcomed challenge as a way of ensuring the Council delivered its services to the highest possible standard and applied this expectation and challenge to engagement activities. Therefore, had taken the views and information provided seriously.

 

The Cabinet Member had considered the information provided on social media, correspondence and information provided by Paul Burnham, concerning vote collection and interference.

 

The Cabinet Member reiterated that the Council had to ensure that complaints about the ballot process were taken forward in a fair and consistent way and this was through the Council’s complaints procedure and not with individual responses to social media comments.

 

The Cabinet Member emphasised that the ballot was taken forward under the auspices of Civica, an independent well-respected organisation who were used to conducting ballots. There had been assurance by Civica that there was nothing about the ballot that they would deem of concern. The Cabinet Member had seen the photographic information provided which did not provide any cause for concern.

 

The Cabinet Member hoped that where the ITLA or Defend Council were working and engaging on the estate and had seen issues , they would have written to the Council, at the time of the ballot, and advised on these issues . They could also have  helped residents, that were not able to make a complaint do so. However, there was no evidence that these steps had been taken forward during the ballot process.

 

It was noted that a few sealed ballots were taken away by officers and this was not agreed as good practice. However, the Council did consult with Civica and this did not invalidate the ballot.

 

Consideration had been given to the 2 complaints received via the Council’s complaints process. The first complaint indicating insufficient engagement with that particular person and another complaint indicating too much engagement , therefore no evidence could be pointed to, through the official procedure, to indicate that an independent review was required.

 

The Cabinet Member commented that Civica was viewed as an independent organisation. She felt even if a further organisation was commissioned, this would likely be challenged by the deputation as it would be a Council appointment.

 

The Cabinet Member felt that officers had provided a good explanation of the landlord offer to residents and there were lessons to learn on engagement in future ballots including:

 

-       Ensuring the different ways to declare a vote is made available and taken forward.

-       Officers wearing identity badges so residents know who they are talking to

-       Increased Community engagement material in community languages

 

Responding to the issues raised on the resident moves and viability, the following was noted:

 

-       The double moves would take place in the first phase and the decanting would be to nearby places so families with school age children faced as little interruption as possible. The assessment for this was currently taking place.

-       There were regular reviews of the viability of the scheme by the Council and if found that the core requirements were not met then an issue for the Council as the GLA funding was contingent on this.