To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.
Minutes:
Deputation 1 – MTFS proposal of reduction in Library opening hours
Joanna Bornat introduced the deputation on behalf of all library friends’ groups in Haringey and expressed concerns about the 31% cut in library budgets. She emphasised that this cut, disproportionate to the 3% deficit, would cause irreparable harm to libraries in Haringey. Despite acknowledgement of the Council's difficult position, she stressed that libraries were a statutory service and vital free spaces for all residents. Key concerns were raised about the lack of comprehensive evidence for footfall measurement and potential declines in library usage due to varied opening hours. The loss of skilled staff and absence of an adequate equalities impact assessment were emphasised. Questions were raised about the proposed timeline and transparency regarding assessed cuts. Advocacy was made for a more transparent consultation process like those conducted by the London Borough of Enfield Council, and the need for improved co-production models based on experiences was stressed.
In response to questions from the Cabinet, the deputation party responded as follows:
- There were concerns about the proposed transformation, and there was felt to be some ambiguity about them and potential negative impacts.
- There was further consideration needed on the vital role of libraries in the community and they should not be used as experiments in co-production.
- There was scepticism about the effectiveness of co -production initiatives suggested, based on past negative experiences.
- The Stroud Green Haringey Friends Group, representative mentioned that he was from one of the friends’ groups that had been alienated by the current process.
- A representative of Highgate Library Action Group commended Haringey for its successful maintenance of library services, and highlighted absence of library closures in the borough. On co- production, he expressed uncertainty and emphasised the need for further clarification. He further cited examples where other organisations assumed aspects of library management, which had resulted in undesirable outcomes. He continued to voice concern about the proposed 31% reduction in library funding whilst acknowledging the broader challenges faced by Haringey Council.
The Cabinet Member for Culture, Communities & Leisure, responded to the deputation. Libraries were acknowledged for their crucial role in the community, and provided essential services for literacy, social interaction, and mental well-being. Despite financial constraints, efforts had been made to protect and enhance Haringey's libraries. It was noted that since 2010, core government funding had decreased by £143 million in real terms. Haringey's libraries were protected from closures, with £4.9 million invested in upgrades for several branches. However, unsustainable hours of operation had necessitated a review.
Data and staff knowledge would be utilised to optimise library hours and peak times. The Cabinet Member confirmed that an individual equality impact assessment would be undertaken for each library. Appropriate action would follow this to mitigate impacts on vulnerable groups. The budget decision timeline was constrained by legal requirements, which limited the duration of consultations. The comparison with the London Borough of Enfield Council's consultation was noted as misleading, as their consultation focused on a wider library strategy rather than budgetary concerns.
The Cabinet Member stressed the importance of the partnerships with external entities aimed to generate income and extend library-opening hours. Input from the Friends of Libraries and the community was valued in the future of Haringey libraries.
Deputation 2
The Leader of the Council invited Mr Burnham to address the meeting and make his representations in relation to item 9 on the agenda, 2024/2025 Budget and 2024- 2029 Medium Term Financial Strategy, concerning tenant rent level increases and tenant service charges increases.
Mr Burnham recognised that the Council were not getting the required levels of funding needed from the government and this was causing budget difficulties, but he called on the Council to unite with residents and challenge for a better funding deal.
Mr Burnham continued to highlight the large additional costs being placed on Council tenants and leaseholders through increased service charges. The charges included cleaning inside housing blocks being increased by 47%, waste management by 43% and concierge by 31%. He illustrated that this was increasing the service charge burden for a flat with a concierge service from £42 pounds a week to £53 pounds a week and this was coupled with an £18 pounds rent increase as well. Mr Burnham expressed that, without the concierge charging smaller blocks, the aggregate increase would still be around 13% or 9% higher than the current charges.
Mr Burnham added that for converted properties, the cleaning charge for cleaning the communal entrances to shared converted street properties was set for a 92% increase. This was the one area where the charges were set by double charging both tenants and leaseholders, and the deputation intended to put forward a further deputation to full Council next month on this issue.
Mr Burnham continued to highlight the impact of the proposed increases, the probity around them and lack of consultation.
He contended that the Council’s reliance on Universal Credit to mitigate the impact of excessive rents increases was not workable given that 95% of food bank users in Haringey were already claiming Universal Credits and nationally, 47% of food bank users were social housing tenants.
The deputation questioned the value for money motives of the Council in respect of these charges and considered that there was no indication of where these required additional costs had emanated. The deputation contended that there had been a change in the communication on this issue with repeated assurance provided in previous years that service charges were being set at full cost. However, the deputation believed that the Council were not seeking value for money for residents, and that there was not a fair split between tenant, and leaseholders charge increases. They illustrated that tenant service charges were set to rise by £5 million or fully 45% and leaseholder charges rise by half a million pounds or 6%.
The deputation contended that the Council was breaching government guidelines for tenant service charges, which specified that providers must endeavour to limit increase in service charges by the same formula increase that applies to social rents, i.e. 7.7% this year, in order to keep charges affordable and this has not happened.
The deputation felt that the Council had a moral responsibility to tenants to consult on tenant service charges and this should be taken forward.
The deputation concluded by calling on the Cabinet to reconsider the tenant rent increases and further reconsider the service charge increases.
In response to questions to the deputation party from Cllr Hakata, the deputation responded as follows:
- Regarding the difference in rent payments made by residents in the private sector compared to rent payments in social housing with the benefit of secure tenancy, the deputation replied that security of tenure and affordable rent were both important and not comparable. The deputation also contended that it was not appropriate to consider the private housing regime in this discussion as this was a failed regime implemented by previous conservative governments.
- Reference was made to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation findings that Universal Credit payments were not enough to live on to meet basic needs and this further increase would make rent and service charge payments more difficult for Council tenants.
The Cabinet Member for Housing, Private Renters and Planning responded to the deputation and shared concerns about the issue of Universal Credit payments and use of food banks. However, there was a need to ensure that the HRA account was balanced and could ensure that tenants were safe in their homes. Also, that there were funds for future investment in Council homes. The Cabinet Member referred to the Housing Improvement Plan that contained key programme for investment in estates to ensure homes were to a decent standard, which the HRA fund would need to support.
The Cabinet Member could not comment on previous communications on cost recovery for service charges but underlined the full cost of service charges would need to be recovered and there could not be subsidised services that tenants and leaseholders received.
Increases in services charges had occurred in recent years due to increasing energy prices and as one example, this would have had an impact on costs for lighting in estates.
The Cabinet Member outlined that the division between the cost of the Council providing services to tenants and the amount it charged tenants for those services had been growing, so the disparity had been coming to light and if service charges were not reset to cover the costs of providing services, the gap would continue to increase, impacting the HRA.
In response to the issue raised on consultation with residents on the changes to the rent increases and service charges; residents were consulted on rent increases as part of the budget consultation as the case in previous years. In addition, increases to existing rents and service charges were set in line with government guidance and the recovery of costs. There was no requirement to consult on service charges except where new services were introduced.
In relation to concern raised on the different increases between leaseholders and tenants’ charges, the Cabinet Member advised that the leaseholders were already charged for services on a full cost recovery basis and this resetting of tenant’s service charges on a full cost recovery basis meant that the Council was treating tenants and leaseholders in the same manner.