Agenda item

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

The Panel received a public question from Alex Davies on behalf of the senior leadership and governing body of Chestnuts Primary School, in relation to the St Ann’s development:

How will our pupils and their families be protected from the increase in pollution and vehicle traffic caused by the proposed permanent vehicle entrance opposite the school?

The Chair read out the following pre-prepared response to the question:

The planning application reference number HGY/2022/1833 submitted by Hill Residential, Catalyst Housing Limited and Catalyst by Design Limited for the St Ann’s Hospital site was considered by the Council’s Planning Sub Committee on Tuesday 29 November 2022.

After considering a detailed report and hearing from objectors of the scheme including from the School, as well as supporters, the Committee resolved to grant planning permission subject to various conditions and legal obligations being agreed.

The report and discussions addressed concerns from school children about the access opposite Chestnuts Primacy School being used for construction traffic.  There are two proposed site access points and the majority of the works will use an access point to the east of the school and the developers have committed to minimising traffic opposite the school.  The level of traffic using this entrance once the development is complete will be low due to the low level of parking on the site and the inclusion of measures to promote the use of sustainable transport. 

The Committee’s resolution referred to ‘heads of terms’ of legal agreements including the following to help improve air quality and safety:

·         Highway Works - Creation of 2 new pedestrian crossings on St Ann’s Road (1 signalised crossing and 1 zebra crossing)

·         Traffic Management Measures - Provide a contribution of £80,000 towards the feasibility, design and consultation relating to the implementation of traffic management measures in the area surrounding the site

·         St Ann’s Cycle Lane - Provide a contribution of £150,000 towards a study of the feasibility and design of a protected cycle track on St Ann’s Road.

·         Construction Logistics and Management - Provide a contribution of £10,000 towards the assessment and monitoring of a detailed construction logistics and management plan (secured by condition).

·         Accident Vision Zero - Provision of a contribution of £24,000 towards reducing traffic accidents in the vicinity of the application site and supporting ‘healthy streets’

·         Residents Liaison Group - The applicant shall use reasonable endeavours to run, facilitate and organise quarterly meetings with local residents’ groups, schools and businesses during the demolition and construction works relating to the whole development.

The Committee’s resolution referred to conditions which also include a Demolition Logistics Plan, Demolition Environmental Management Plan, Construction Logistics Plan and Construction Environmental Management Plan where approval from the Council will need to be sought in due course. Discharging these conditions will require evidence of engagement with the Liaison Group mentioned above

In relation to a follow-up question, Mr Davies thanked the Chair for the response and requested that the Council ensured that the health and safety of the children at Chestnuts school should be at the forefront of minds in relation to the new development.

The Panel also received a deputation on behalf of Haringey Defend Council Housing. The deputation was introduced by Paul Burnham and Jacob Secker. The key points raised as part of the deputation were noted as:

• The current cost of living crisis was not the time for raising rents on 870 new build homes. This would widen the gap between the rent paid on existing properties and new stock, to an average of £60 per week. This is something that the Council should avoid.
• The Cabinet report did not even offer a detailed financial business case for this increase.
• London Affordable Rent was a discredited rent model that was being withdrawn by the Mayor of London. Shelter had produced a report, which showed that London Affordable Rent was not affordable to lower income working families as it cost more than 30% of their income. This was made worse when considering the additional cost of service charges.
• Concerns were noted that LBH was making a strategic decision towards higher rents. The information contained in the budget report to Cabinet showed that there was a 13.8% increase in rental income next year, rising to a 52% increase over current levels by 2027. It was suggested that this was way above what was permitted by the government.
• The MTFS Cabinet report suggested that, as rent and service charges were fixed, there was no need to consult residents on the rent increase. It was commented that this was untrue and that residents should be consulted upon £98m of rent income and £12m in service charges.
• The detailed management reports which previously went to the HfH Management Board and were publicly available were no longer available on the internet. Haringey Defend Council Housing would like to see a housing management committee of the Council formed and all of the equivalent papers published as part of this committee.
• It was suggested that the Council should stand up to the government and lobby them for the investment that local people need.
• The deputation party highlighted the open letter from the Deputy Leader of Islington Council to the government calling for a rent freeze.

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

1. The Panel sought clarification over the assertion that the London Affordable Rent (LAR) model had been discredited. In response, the deputation party advised that the Mayor’s office has initially suggested that this would be no different to social rents under the model, bit that this had quickly proved to be untrue and that the average gap was around £60 per week. It was suggested that the Mayor’s office were moving towards all social housing being at social rents and that the average amount of development grant would be 50% higher going forwards.
2. The Panel sought clarification around the extent to which tenants had been consulted upon the budget proposals previously. In response, the deputation party advised that tenants used to receive an annual consultation and that every tenant in the borough was written to. Any increases in rent and services charges were published as part of the December budget papers to Cabinet. The failure to do this seemed to be at odds with the Council’s stated goal to be open and transparent.
3. The Panel also sought clarification about the information that was no longer available on the website. In response, it was commented that HfH used to publish a huge amount of information which was no longer available. Particular attention was drawn to the backlog of fire safety actions that were no longer visible. It was suggested that no effective method had been put in place to replace this level of transparency. The deputation party would like to see a housing committee of the Council to oversee the management of what was HfH.
4. The Panel asked the deputation party if they had any further comments on the housing committee and its suggested role. In response, Defend Council Housing suggested that there was a degree of oversight when the ALMO was in place. The Council should have a formal committee in place with published agendas and minutes, so that tenants could play a part in how the housing function was managed and they could put forward issues to that committee. It was suggested that at present, there was a basic lack of democratic accountability for council tenants and leaseholders.
5. In relation to a query about whether there were any other specific authorities that had a good model for this, the Panel was advised that Swindon and Cambridge both had effective housing committee in the past. It was essential that this housing committee was able to be critical of the Council.
6. Members acknowledged the need for the voice of tenants to be part of any housing committee and it was suggested that a representation of a tenant’s body could perhaps be co-opted on to this panel.
7. The Panel sought clarification as to whether the deputation party had spoken to the Cabinet Member about London Affordable Rent being withdrawn by the Mayor. In response, Mr Burnham advised that he had not spoken to the Cabinet Member but that they would be aware of this. Mr Burnham advised that he would be happy to speak to the Cabinet Member.

In response to the deputation, Cllr Carlin, Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters and Planning set out:

a.    That the governance arrangements around the housing service were in transition, following having been brought back in-house. The future governance models were being put in place and that these would require future Cabinet decisions.

b.    There was a customer call group of residents that fed into the housing service, along with a housing resident advisory panel. The Cabinet Member also set out that she was also setting up an improvement board, that would have residents on it. The Cabinet Member suggested that this board could feed into the Panel going forwards.

c.    The Cabinet Member gave assurances that, as a housing service, it was important to everyone involved that all information was freely available to residents for scrutiny and that further governance models were being put in place to support this.

The Chair thanked the deputation party and advised them that he would provide a written response, setting out what action the Panel would take in response to the deputation. (Action: Chair).