To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.
Minutes:
Mr Noah Tucker was invited to make his representations to the Cabinet on the submitted deputation which was calling for Council Homes at Council Rents. He highlighted the following in his presentation.
- Abrogation by the majority party of a key part in its manifesto, which was to build 3000 high quality Council homes at Council rents. He emphasised that the manifesto did not mention London Affordable Rent but specifically said Council rents.
- There had not been wider discussion or consultation with the community or information provided on how the position on London Affordable Rents had been reached and only confirmation provided at a Housing Scrutiny meeting that there would be 870 homes provided on London Affordable Rents and not on Council rents.
- Significant difference in the rate between London Affordable Rents and Council rent of between £30 and £35 pounds a week which was highlighted for one particular development.
In the deputation’s view, the increased funding provided from London Affordable Rent formula would provide £600k income to the Housing Revenue Account and this needed to be considered in the context of its impact on poorer families who were already finding the cost-of-living crisis hard to bear. In the deputation’s view, the Council could afford to not pass on this increased rent cost given the GLA overall grant provision of £247 million.
The deputation concluded by asking the Cabinet to reconsider this change and to set out the alternatives that had been considered before proposing this change.
There were no questions from the Cabinet to the deputation party and Cllr Gordon, Cabinet Member for Housebuilding, Placemaking, and Development responded to the deputation, expressing that the administration was committed to delivering 3000 Council homes by 2031 and was working everyday to make this commitment real. She continued to outline the following:
- Recent Planning Sub Committee agreement of the Planning application for the Broadwater Farm scheme and to the Woodridings scheme, on the 5th of December, which would mean 327 new Council homes would be built. This further demonstrated the Council’s commitment to reach 3000 homes target.
- Considering the national financial situation and impact on the Housing Revenue Account, in particular the huge increase in construction costs and negative impact the September Mini Budget had had on interest charges, contributing in a viability issue for the housing delivery programme.
- Apart from putting the housing delivery programme on hold which would not be in keeping with the commitment on increasing housing, there was a need to have some schemes with London Affordable Rent to enable viability and delivery of 3000 Council homes by 2031.
- Homes at London Affordable Rents were Council homes and would be provided to people on the Council’s housing register. The homes were funded by the Mayor of London's Building Council homes for Londoners.
- There were only 870 homes in London Affordable rents and this could be the difference between delivery or non -delivery of homes.
The Cabinet Member continued to explain that as part of the 2021-26 GLA Affordable Homes Programme, the Council had obtained £120.1 million in funding for homes and in the GLA's BCHFL funding pot for 2016 to 2023, and has been awarded up to £127.5 million in grant funding for new homes in the GLA 2021 to 2026 programme. This consistent success in funding was an indication that the GLA had confidence in the Council’s ability to deliver housing. The Cabinet noted that it was imperative to maintain this and not put the housing delivery programme on hold.
The Cabinet Member concluded that the Council could not move from one funding pot to another to obtain a slightly lower rent funding formula. It was explained that if the Council did not spend that funding, then it had to be returned to GLA and in turn the government. The Council had already taken significant steps in its housing delivery programme and could not delay this and would need to continue to make tangible steps to deliver the much-needed housing.
The deputation party were thanked for making their representations.
The Cabinet continued to consider public questions, received in accordance with Committee Standing Order 29, from Victoria Ward and Karen Cartwright on the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. The following questions and responses from the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Climate Action, Environment, and Transport were provided.
Question 1
The questioner contended that Councillor Mike Hakata had publicly said that objections raised in the first 3 months of the LTNs would be ignored and asked the Council to confirm that they will be extending the objection period for 3 months, thereby giving the residents and businesses the full 6 months they were entitled to.
Response
The Cabinet Member emphasised that debate and challenge were welcomed and was noted that no objections would be ignored at any time. Formal objections could be made in the first six months of an experimental traffic order (which is the legal form that LTNs have to take) - and it was a legal requirement that formal objections can only be made in the first six months. The Council would look at all objections, supporting statements and feedback. There would be both qualitative and quantative data gathered and compiled by an independent consultant on the LTN trials and a report published on the findings.
Question 2
The questioner highlighted an article in Haringey Community Press sharing that the LTN fines were in the budget for the next 5 years and asked the Cabinet how it would convince people that the LTNs were just trials and that the Council did not just have their hand in people's pockets to fix the budget deficit?
Response
It was noted that any money that comes into the Council from LTN fines was ringfenced and had to be reinvested in transport and making borough roads safer. The Council had to put a formal projection into the Council’s budget saying what it estimated the revenue from fines to be. This was the same for any fines that the Council might have to give out. But the Council were not relying on those fines and did not want people to incur them. The Council wanted to get to the point very quickly where no one was getting a fine.
The Cabinet Member continued to refer to the Cabinet budget report published online which advised that the main components of the Environment and Neighbourhoods Directorate’s budget proposals related to parking and highways and were based on current policy of implementing LTNs. The report noted that the Council were committed to reviewing the operation of LTN schemes and if changes were made as part of the process, these projections would be adjusted to reflect that.
Question 3
The Questioner asked what was the legal basis for this local LTN scheme that in her view was basically is a violation of our human and civil rights to freedom of movement .She continued to ask how can you legally barricade and ban driving down though roads when it makes congestion and traffic worse in other residential areas affecting thousands of people.
Response
The Cabinet Member explained that the legal basis for an LTN was an experimental traffic order.
Question 4
The Questioner advised that Haringey Bounds Green LTN was being called a trial, extended to 18 months. She asked what kind of data were the Council collecting and what does the data need to reflect in order for this project to be declared a success or a catastrophic failure, which it appears to currently be.
Response
The Cabinet Member advised that the Council had implemented a comprehensive data collection, including quantitative and qualitative data . It was explained that qualitative data would be all the feedback received over the course of the trial and all of this information would be taken on board and looked at. It was noted that some of that information was already being fed in to understand where the Council may need to be tweaking the scheme on an ongoing basis. Therefore, some of this data collection had real practical implications.
There was a network of Vivacity smart cameras that were taking 24/7 data collection around the borough and there were air quality monitors located across the borough, in and around LTN areas. Some of them were in areas where there was no LTN. There would also be automatic traffic counters, counting each and every car at 6 months and 12 months. All this information would be fed into the first data collection report at six months report. Subsequently, all that data would be crunched and collated again by an independent consultant, also at 12 months. This would then form the basis of any kind of arguments towards what changes need to be made. It was explained that six months was an important point, because this generally is the time it takes to understand if the trial is working or not working at all. If the latter then there will be some serious questions about a review. However, if the Council were seeing positive impacts, which it fully expected to, would then produce another report in 12 months’ time. These reports would be publicly available and open to the public scrutiny.
Question 5
The Questioner asked that as Haringey is already in an ultra-low emission zone already, why were local LTNs necessary. She said, please explain as it seems to indicate that ULEZs are not working.
Response
The Cabinet Member advised that Ultra Low Emission Zone was one way to reduce air pollution. He explained that as most cars were ULEZ-compliant, only a few high-polluting cars were restricted by ULEZ. He expressed that cars still pollute and collectively contributed to London’s smog which was consistently above safe levels and was affecting the health and life expectancy of all London residents. An estimated 4,000 deaths were caused by air pollution in London each year.
Question 6
The Question asked that for the sake of transparency, tell us please what these LTNs are really about? They make no sense when related to improving climate safety or happiness or in the reduction of co2 emissions.
Response
The Cabinet Member responded that the LTNs were responding to the climate change agenda and the need to significantly reduce carbon emissions . They were also about making borough roads safer, making them less congested in the long run, and cutting air pollution and reducing accidents.
Question 7
The Questioner asked why has a local Council agreed to carry out a global agenda on a local level that is the directive of a non-elected Govt affiliated organisation - the World Economic Forum - called Agenda 30 - and why has there been no public consultation on this Agenda 30 that will detrimentally affect everybody’s lives and rights to live and work in the borough and their freedom of movement?
Response
The Cabinet Member advised that the administration had introduced LTNs as a way to reduce traffic and make roads safer, less congested and less polluted. He advised that the World Economic Forum think that they are a good idea too. He advised that lots of London boroughs and cities cross the world have LTNs. They all have the same shared problem that comes from busy cities, and expressed that London is the most congested city in the world. He expressed the need to encourage more people out of their cars and into buses, tubes, trains, trams, bikes as also recommended by the AA. There was a modal shift needed to deter unnecessary car journeys.
In response to supplementary questions for clarification purposes, the following was noted:
Commitment was given by the Leader that there would be a given minimum of a 6 month period to consider representations.
The Deputy Leader understood that there had been disruption in these early weeks of the LTNs and recognised that the changes were creating a lot of anxiety and worry. He acknowledged it was not easy to get around the LTN areas in busier times, in the mornings and mid-afternoon, and the administration wanted local people to be able to get around during these times. There was understanding of the disruption and it was hoped that it passed and the schemes became settled as quickly as possible.
The Cabinet Member referred to an earlier remark and explained that this was in the context made to referring to the World Economic Forum and he had wanted to convey that LTN’s were actually very widespread and globally considered a good way to reduce traffic, congestion and pollution. He added that even an organisation such as the AA were promoting similar ways to get around busy town centres.