Decisions

Item 8 was subject to a motion to exclude the press and public be from the meeting as it/they contains exempt information as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended by Section 12A of the Local Government Act 1985); paras 3 and 5, namely information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) and information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST FOR THIS ITEM:

None

That the Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure RESOLVED:

3.1 For the Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure, pursuant to Contract Standing Orders 0.08 and 2.01(b) to:

3.2 Approved the commencement of a procurement exercise for a construction works contractor to deliver remediation works to the roof at Hornsey Library.

Reasons for decision

Structural surveys have confirmed the presence of Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) within the ceiling/roof areas of double-height atrium located in the western side of Hornsey Library.

This area comprises the main library space for the building. After completing these further surveys, it was recommended that the area below the RAAC panels should be taken out of use immediately, due to significant safety concerns. To enable continued use a scaffold crash deck has been installed to protect members of the public and staff.

It is proposed to procure a contractor to undertake remediation works as outlined in 6.9 of this report on a single-stage, JCT traditional form of contract using the London Construction Programme Education Framework or DPS. Soft market engagement has been undertaken to ascertain interest and availability within the market, with positive feedback of the proposed approach.

Alternative options considered

Do nothing - The Council could decide to not tender the scheme. This option has been discounted as it is not in the Council’s interest to be responsible for a structurally unsound roof. Neither is it financially responsible for the Council to carry the ongoing weekly hire cost of the scaffold which forms the crash deck.

In-house – There is currently no resource within the Council that has the capacity, specialist expertise or qualifications to deliver this service.

Invite open tenders via Contracts Finder. This would result in a protracted tender period and would delay delivery of the project.

Use an alternative public sector DPS. This would not be compliant with CSO 8.02, given the LCP Framework or DPS has been deemed suitable for the requirements being sought.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Approved the Draft Older People’s Housing Strategy attached at Appendix?1 as the basis for consultation.

2.    Approved the consultation arrangements set out in paragraphs?6.11–6.13 of the report.

3.    Noted that, following consultation, officers would bring back to Cabinet a revised draft of the Older People’s Housing Strategy for adoption.

Reasons for decision

Although it was not a statutory requirement for local authorities to have an Older People’s Housing Strategy, it was considered good practice. On that basis, the council had committed to developing a new Older People’s Housing Strategy in both the 2024–29 Housing Strategy and the 2024–26 Corporate Delivery Plan.

Adopting an Older People’s Housing Strategy would assist the council in delivering best value and driving improvements in outcomes for older people across the borough. It was expected to achieve this by allowing the council to set a coordinated approach to all aspects of housing for older people over the next fifteen?years. It provided clear and coherent direction across the council’s roles as a landlord, housing developer, planning authority, and provider and commissioner of housing?related social care, advice, and support services. It helped the council to align its positions on housing and planning with priorities around social care, the NHS, and public health, and to support positions set out in the draft Local Plan. As such, it could be expected to support more effective and efficient services.

Alternative options considered

The council could have decided not to adopt an Older People’s Housing Strategy. This was not recommended—not only because the council had made a considered commitment to doing so in its current Housing Strategy and Corporate Delivery Plan, but also because failing to take a strategic approach in this area would have undermined the council’s ability to provide best value through coordinated, transparent, effective, and efficient decision?making and services. Ultimately, failing to articulate a strategic approach would likely have undermined outcomes for older people in the borough.

The council could have decided that the draft strategy at Appendix?1 was not an adequate basis for consultation toward adopting an Older People’s Housing Strategy. This was not recommended because the proposals were based on evidence, a review of best practice, and substantial engagement with a broad range of older people in Haringey.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Approved the Digital Inclusion Policy for Haringey and the proposed Enhanced Offer detailed in the Digital Inclusion Roadmap (Appendix?1), which would support all residents in accessing council services digitally by choice and ensure that no individual was excluded as services moved to digital channels.

Reasons for decision:

A commitment to long?term, sustainable digital inclusion initiatives was fundamental to achieving the Borough Vision for Haringey, reducing inequalities, and supporting thriving communities to improve financial, health, and social outcomes. The Council could not provide essential services or build an inclusive and fair borough unless it ensured that all residents had access to suitable digital devices, connectivity, and the digital support they needed.

When residents were digitally included, there were significant associated benefits, including improved economic circumstances, better prospects for education and employment opportunities, and increased access to housing support and welfare services. The Digital Inclusion Roadmap would achieve lasting, positive impact within communities and provide more equitable access to services for all residents.

Digital transformation of the Council’s service offer was a key driver of efficiency savings, and digital inclusion was a core component of the wider digital strategy for Haringey. The Council could not successfully achieve the shift to a self?service?by?preference delivery model unless residents were able to access services through digital channels.

Demand for digital inclusion services, skills training, donated devices, and other support for residents who were digitally excluded would increase exponentially as the range of services that could be completed entirely online grew.

While positive digital inclusion work had already been undertaken in Haringey, it had been limited by a lack of coordination, leading to missed opportunities or duplication of effort. Implementing the Digital Inclusion Policy and Roadmap would enable the Council to support a coherent offer for residents, build and expand partnerships with community groups and businesses, and ensure existing projects were not replicated.

Alternative options considered:

Three scalable offers had been developed to determine the ambition for Haringey’s Digital Inclusion Roadmap: the Core Offer, the Enhanced Offer, and the Complete Offer (see Appendix?1). The recommendation was to implement the Enhanced Offer.

Core Offer (Not Recommended)
The Core Offer represented the service that could be provided within existing financial resources. It covered the work already underway to assess digital support needs in the borough, including:

• expanding the National Device Bank and National Databank offer;
• establishing a digital inclusion network with councillors, services, the NHS, VCS, and other interested parties;
• seeking external funding through social value commitments in relevant council contracts, government grants, charitable foundations, and corporate sponsors to fund long?term sustainable initiatives.

The Council’s existing digital inclusion function would have continued to deliver the Core Offer.

Enhanced Offer (Recommended)
The Enhanced Offer included everything in the Core Offer, along with a strengthened programme of digital inclusion services that would deliver sustainable long?term benefits for residents. It included:

• providing digital inclusion support directly in the community through recruitment, training, and management of volunteer digital ambassadors;
• hosting a Digital Inclusion Fair with partner organisations to showcase the full range of support available;
• developing a hyper?local circular economy device donation and recycling scheme for the borough.
  
  

Delivering the Enhanced Offer required support from a Level?3 Apprentice, funded by Public Health, and a modest additional budget for subscriptions, marketing, and venue hire. Recruiting an apprentice was a cost?effective option and aligned with the Council’s commitment to supporting Haringey care leavers into meaningful employment.

Complete Offer (Not Recommended)
The Complete Offer incorporated all elements of the Core and Enhanced Offers, along with additional services that would enable Haringey to deliver a highly ambitious programme of digital inclusion initiatives and realise the full range of associated benefits.

The Council acknowledged that it was operating in a challenging financial context and funding for the Complete Offer was not available at the time. However, it would continue to explore opportunities for external grants, sponsorship, or social value funding and, if successful, move towards implementing elements of the Complete Offer.

The Complete Offer would have included:

• establishing a digital device loan scheme with Haringey Learns to enable adult learners to complete course assignments at home;
• expanding the Digital Cost of Living skills programme delivered by Tender Loving Care (TLC) volunteers and Haringey Learns;
• hosting two Digital Inclusion Fairs per year;
• purchasing subscriptions to the Digital Unite Inspire programme for councillors and senior leadership, with potential expansion to other staff;
• launching a Digital Bus scheme to provide mobile access to digital inclusion support in community locations.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Noted the high?level progress made against the delivery of the commitments set out in the Corporate Delivery Plan 2024–2026 as at the end of December?2025 (Quarter Three reporting period 2025/26).

2.    Noted the final publication and launch of the Local Outcomes Framework (LOF)—MHCLG’s new approach to outcome?based accountability and a key counterpart to reforms aiming to simplify and consolidate local government funding streams. The published metrics would be used to inform the new Corporate Delivery Plan and performance framework in line with the Borough vision. The new framework was due to come into effect from April?2026, although the public data tool would not be released until after the elections.

Reasons for decision

This report formed part of regular reporting to Cabinet on the progress made against delivery commitments set out in the current Corporate Delivery Plan.

Alternative options considered

Not reporting: This option was rejected, as it was important that Cabinet was informed of progress against the outcomes the council had committed to in the Corporate Delivery Plan, as outlined in section?7 and the appendices to the report.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Noted the forecast total revenue outturn variance for the General Fund of £19m, comprising £10.72m base budget pressures and £8.312m non?delivery of savings.

2.    Noted the net DSG forecast of a £3.2m overspend.

3.    Noted the net Housing Revenue Account (HRA) forecast surplus of £1.791m.

4.    Noted the forecast General Fund and HRA capital expenditure of £393.8m, which equated to 72.9% of the total 2025/26 Quarter Three revised budget position.

5.    Approved the revenue budget virements and receipt of grants as set out in Appendix?8.

6.    Approved the proposed budget adjustments and virements to the capital programme as set out in Table?5 and Appendix?8.

7.    Noted the debt write?offs in Quarter Three 2025/26, which had been approved by the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources under delegated authority, or, for those above £50,000, by the Cabinet Member for Finance, as set out in Appendix?9 and in accordance with the Constitution.

8.    Noted the Finance Response and Recovery Plans and progress against actions as at Quarter Three, as set out in Appendix?10.

Reason for Decision

A strong financial management framework, including oversight by Members and senior management, was an essential part of delivering the council’s priorities as set out in the Corporate Delivery Plan and in meeting its statutory duties. This was made more critically important than ever because of the uncertainties surrounding the Council’s challenging financial position, which was being impacted by Government funding, high demand for services—particularly for the most vulnerable—and the wider economic outlook. This created an ongoing reliance on Exceptional Financial Support in the current year and across the MTFS period.

Alternative Options Considered

The management of the Council’s financial resources was a key part of the role of the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources (Section?151 Officer) in helping Members exercise their role, and no other options were therefore considered. The remainder of the report and its accompanying appendices set out the forecast budget position in more detail.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Approved the acquisition, for housing purposes, of 565 homes at 867–879 High Road and 36 & 44–52 White Hart Lane N17 for the purchase price set out in paragraph?3.1 of the Part?B (Exempt) report and based on the draft Heads of Terms in Appendix?2 of the Part?B (Exempt) report.

2.    Approved the total scheme cost for the acquisition as set out in paragraph?3.2 of the Part?B (Exempt) report.

3.    Approved the decision set out in paragraph?3.3 of the Part?B (Exempt) report.

4.    Noted that grant funding from the Greater London Authority (GLA) would be used to part?fund the acquisition, with the grant amount contained in paragraph?3.4 of the Part?B (Exempt) report.

5.    Granted delegated authority to the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources, following consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance (Monitoring Officer), to finalise all legal documentation and complete the transaction.

Reasons for decision:

The acquisition would deliver 565 additional Council homes, supporting the Council’s commitment to deliver 3,000 Council homes by 2031. The Council’s New Housing Strategy for Haringey 2024–29 states at paragraph?1.1 under Strategic Objective?1:

“Haringey’s ten?year housing target is 15,920 new homes as set out in the London Plan. We will deliver at least 3,000 of those homes ourselves as Council homes.”

Around 13,000 households were on the Council’s housing register, and these homes would provide secure, well?constructed affordable housing to Haringey households in housing need.

The acquisition aligned with the Council’s established acquisitions programme, increased the supply of modern sustainable homes, reduced reliance on temporary accommodation, delivered General Fund cost savings, and supported the provision of GLA?funded Key Worker housing.

The homes were expected to be of good standard and to meet the Council’s specification requirements for new council housing.

The homes were well located with access to local amenities and transport infrastructure.

Alternative options considered:

Not acquiring the homes – This option was rejected because it would have been a missed opportunity for the Council to:

• support its commitment to deliver 3,000 Council homes by 2031;
• avoid a significant shortfall in meeting the borough’s growing housing needs;
• deliver a key element of its Medium?Term Financial Strategy (MTFS).

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Approved the Under?Occupation Policy: Moving to a Smaller Home (Appendix?A).

2.    Approved the amendments to the Tenancy Strategy (Appendix?B).

3.    Delegated authority to the Corporate Director of Adults, Housing and Health, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning, to make updates to the payment structure and offers to residents within existing budgets.

4.    Delegated authority to make minor changes and updates to the policy wording, including those required by changes in legislation or by updates to the Standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing.

5.    Noted that the commitments set out in the policy would be met within existing budgets.

6.    Noted that the budgets for supporting people moving to a smaller home would be updated through existing budgetary processes, and that officers would seek delegation to the Corporate Director of Adults, Housing and Health, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning, to set the payment structure within those budgets.

Reasons for decision

Approval of the Under?Occupation Policy: Moving to a Smaller Home was required to set out clearly the Council’s commitments and to strengthen the offer made to residents, helping increase the supply of family?sized homes.

Delegations relating to changes to the financial payment structure and future updates were required so that payments—unchanged for many years—could be reviewed and updated annually.

Alternative options considered:

Not approving the Under?Occupation Policy: Moving to a Smaller Home
This option was dismissed because:

• it was important to clearly set out the Council’s offer for residents wishing to downsize and to keep that offer up to date; and
• the expected increase in larger family homes resulting from implementation of the policy was essential to support the Council in housing larger families.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Noted the Homelessness Review attached at Appendix?2.

2.    Noted the outcome of the formal consultation on the Draft Homelessness Strategy, as set out in paragraphs?6.20–6.30 of the report.

3.    Approved the Homelessness Strategy 2026–2027 attached at Appendix?1.

4.    Delegated authority to the Corporate Director of Adults and Housing, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and the Director of Finance, to approve an action plan for publication setting out how the Council and its partners would deliver the Homelessness Strategy.

Reasons for decision

Under the Homelessness Act?2002, local authorities were required to carry out a homelessness review and to formulate and publish a homelessness strategy informed by that review at least once every five years. The Strategy proposed for adoption had been developed over more than a year, in response to a homelessness review and with extensive engagement from a wide range of stakeholders, including people with lived experience of homelessness, organisations working to support them, and respondents to the formal consultation process.

Alternative options considered

Cabinet could have chosen not to adopt the proposed Homelessness Strategy. This option was not recommended because the Strategy had been developed following a thorough review of evidence and extensive engagement with stakeholders. Furthermore, the Council was required to take its Homelessness Strategy into account when exercising its functions as a local housing authority, and the Strategy required updating for this purpose.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Approved, subject to the 30?day Section?20 consultation with leaseholders and the 10?day standstill period (which could run concurrently), the award of the contract to Bidder?B (the Preferred Bidder) named in the exempt portion of the report, in accordance with CSO?2.01(c). The contract value was £230,358,134, commencing on 17?April?2027 for an initial period of eight years, with the option to extend for a further eight years in aggregate.

2.    Approved that the results of the leaseholder consultation would be considered through a further report to the Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning.

Reasons for decision:

As a Waste Collection Authority, the Council had a statutory duty to collect waste and recycling from all households within the borough, and to keep public spaces clean and free of litter. Awarding the contract enabled the Council to continue fulfilling this duty for the subsequent eight?year period.

The Preferred Bidder had submitted the most economically advantageous tender following evaluation of both price and quality, achieving the highest overall score.

The Preferred Bidder committed to delivering service standards that exceeded the Council’s minimum requirements in several areas, improving service outcomes for residents and supporting the Council in meeting its wider objectives.

All bidders engaged with the Council through a Competitive Dialogue process, enabling them to refine and improve their solutions. The Preferred Bidder’s final solution was assessed as capable of meeting the Council’s needs most effectively.

The contract would deliver significant additional benefits, including reduced vehicle emissions, enhanced contract?management arrangements, increased recycling initiatives, and innovative IT solutions such as on?board weighing. The new service model was aligned with the statutory requirements of the Environment Act and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations, including the introduction of 180?litre wheeled containers for non?recyclable waste and the expansion of food?waste collections to all residents.

Alternative options considered:

The option of doing nothing and allowing the current contract to expire on 16?April?2027 with no alternative arrangements in place was rejected, as the Council would have been unable to fulfil its statutory duties.

All other options—including extending the current arrangements for a further five years or in?sourcing services—had been discounted in the October?2024 Cabinet report. The Waste Services Review concluded that procuring a new contract offered the best value for the Council. Having reviewed the outcomes of the Waste Services Review alongside the solution offered by the Preferred Bidder, awarding the contract remained the best?value option while ensuring compliance with new statutory requirements arising from the Environment Act.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Approved the commencement of a procurement for long?term subcontract arrangements across eight contracts delivering specialist trade lots, for an overall contract value of £2,407,500 per year, with an average of £300,937.50 per lot and a maximum aggregated potential value of £16,852,500 over a maximum contract term of seven years. This was subject to satisfactory supplier performance and the availability of budget in each of the two one?year extensions, in accordance with CSO?2.01(b).

2.    Delegated authority to the Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning and Deputy Leader, in consultation with the Director of Housing, to approve the award of contracts following a competitive and compliant procurement process and Section?20 consultation process.

Reasons for decision:

The Council needed to ensure that Haringey Repairs Service (HRS) was equipped with the specialist trade capacity, commercial stability and contractual flexibility required to maintain safe, compliant, and well?managed homes across the borough. The existing subcontracting arrangements were fragmented, time?limited, and no longer capable of meeting operational demand or supporting statutory duties.

The proposed 5+1+1 call?off contracts, including suitable break clauses and a performance?management process, provided a structured long?term solution enabling HRS to meet statutory obligations—including drainage systems and Energy Performance Certification—as well as wider repairs such as roofing, scaffolding, and damp and mould treatments.

Consolidating these arrangements into a coordinated procurement significantly reduced transactional overheads, improved value for money through economies of scale, and supported more effective contract and performance management. The option to include up to two one?year extensions also allowed future re?procurement to be planned more smoothly, avoiding pressure on staff and resources caused by multiple co?terminous contract expirations.

The procurement further enabled the Council to manage risk more effectively. Multiple?contractor lots for roofing and scaffolding improved operational resilience and business continuity during peak demand or contractor under?performance. This strengthened supply?chain reliability, ensured adherence to statutory and regulatory requirements, and provided the flexibility needed to respond to fluctuating volumes of work.

Overall, the recommended actions represented the most effective means of ensuring that HRS could deliver safe, timely, and compliant services while improving commercial oversight, risk management, and outcomes for residents.

Alternative options considered:

Do nothing

Rejected. Maintaining the fragmented and time?limited subcontracting arrangements would have exposed the Council to significant risks, including service failure, increased ad?hoc purchasing, and non?compliance with statutory obligations. The existing arrangements were not capable of meeting current or future demand and did not provide a sustainable or legally robust basis for service delivery.

In?house delivery only

Rejected. Full in?house delivery was assessed but discounted due to insufficient internal capacity, specialist skills, and the required accreditations. Delivering all specialist trades internally would have required long lead times, substantial recruitment, specialist training, and investment in equipment and plant.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Approved the commencement of a procurement for Home Care and Reablement services as separate lots.

2.    Agreed a contract term of up to eight years, with appropriate break clauses at year four and year six.

3.    Approved a commissioning mix that increased guaranteed hours from around 50% in Year?1 to around 70% by Year?3, with the remainder procured via the Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS). Appendix?A listed the indicative maximum number of hours per service agreement.

4.    Approved a Council?defined sustainable pricing approach, including a rate range and annual uplift mechanism, with flexibility to respond to exceptional circumstances.

5.    Agreed to an increased number of contracts and a cap on awards per provider to improve resilience and avoid over?concentration.

6.    Noted and approved the mobilisation approach, including TUPE where applicable, Electronic Call Monitoring (ECM), and phased transition arrangements.

7.    Delegated authority to the Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care and Wellbeing, in consultation with the Corporate Director of Adults, Housing and Health, to award contracts for Home Care and Reablement following completion of the procurement process.

Reasons for decision

Haringey supported around 1,500 people per year with Home Care and Reablement. Home Care provided support such as personal care and dressing, helping residents remain in their homes for longer. Reablement supported residents who had experienced, or were at risk of, hospital admission to regain skills lost during illness.

The proposed approach to retendering these services sustained and strengthened what was already working well in Haringey’s model while addressing current pressures. The locality?based, guaranteed?hours arrangements had improved responsiveness, workforce stability and hospital discharge, and enabled greater oversight of providers, supporting quality assurance and relationship?based practice.

A re?procurement was required to preserve these gains and update the model for current market conditions.

Separating Home Care and Reablement into distinct lots emerged as a key learning from the current contract. Establishing Reablement as a separate service ensured clarity about its short?term, outcomes?focused role and allowed ongoing support to be commissioned and measured differently.

Introducing Council?defined sustainable rates with transparent uplift rules aligned with the Council’s fair?pay commitments and the requirement to consider the actual cost of care, reducing the risk of provider exit or failure. Increasing the share of guaranteed hours to approximately 70%, distributing awards across more providers with caps per provider, and using ECM for billing and assurance collectively improved resilience, continuity and contract oversight.

Delegating contract award decisions to the relevant Cabinet Member enabled timely implementation following the conclusion of the tender process, ensured proportionate political oversight, and supported safe continuity of care for residents while complying with Contract Standing Orders.

Alternative options considered

Do nothing / rely solely on the DPS
Rejected. Without call?off contracts, Brokerage would have needed to place all packages on the DPS, which was slower, offered less certainty for residents and providers, and would have weakened market stability and oversight.

Extend current arrangements only
Rejected. While short extensions supported continuity, a full re?procurement was required to secure updated terms, pricing, and capacity, and to comply with procurement regulations.

Deliver all home care in?house
Rejected. This would have required significant set?up costs, Care Quality Commission (CQC) registration, management structures, and the fast transfer of a large workforce. It would also have been significantly more expensive than external provision, and the Council did not have the capacity or financial means to mobilise a borough?wide in?house service within required timescales.

Direct negotiation with incumbents only
Rejected. This would have limited competition and risked non?compliance with procurement law given the anticipated contract values.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Noted all the responses received regarding the consultation on spending the Round?2 Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy, as set out in Appendix?A to the report.

2.    Approved the spending of Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy on the Round?2 projects listed in Table?3 of the report.

Reasons for decision

The collection and spending of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), including Neighbourhood CIL (NCIL), was governed by the Planning Act?2008 and associated Regulations. Government guidance on CIL and NCIL was also provided through Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

The Regulations enabled the Council to set aside 15% of CIL receipts (25% in areas with an adopted Neighbourhood Plan) to support the development of the relevant area by funding either:

(a) the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure; or
(b) anything else concerned with addressing the demands that development placed on an area.

This portion of CIL was known as NCIL.

The Council’s adopted approach to spending NCIL, set out in its CIL Governance document (2020), provided that NCIL should be spent on neighbourhood projects, and that the neighbourhood proportion of CIL receipts collected across the borough would be pooled (except in Neighbourhood Forum Areas). The Governance document further established that the borough would be divided into nine NCIL areas, each requiring consultation, and that the Council would then determine spending based on the project lists for each area, taking consultation feedback into account.

The Council conducted consultation in December?2025 and January?2026 to identify the NCIL spending priorities for the nine NCIL areas. Consultation feedback and suggested projects were reviewed, and a proposed package of locally supported projects was developed, consistent with the Haringey Deal and subject to spending approval. These proposals were compatible with the Regulations and the CIL Governance criteria, aligned with the Haringey Vision?2035, and were agreed with relevant service delivery areas within the Council.

The governance process for identifying projects in Neighbourhood Forum Areas differed slightly. Projects within the borough’s two Forum Areas were informed by consultation with the Highgate Neighbourhood Forum and the Crouch End Neighbourhood Forum, with due regard given to the same considerations applied elsewhere.

Alternative options considered:

Not spending NCIL consistent with community priorities
This option was dismissed. The Council’s CIL Governance document committed the authority to identifying NCIL spending priorities through consultation with local communities and to implementing them. The Round?2 consultation generated over 2,700 responses and produced a broad range of appropriate project types and priorities for potential NCIL expenditure.

Delaying allocation of NCIL
This option was also dismissed. Most projects funded under NCIL Round?1 had been delivered, and further funding was available for investment in new and improved infrastructure across Haringey.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Approved, in accordance with Contract Standing Orders (CSOs)?21.01 and CSO?2.01(c), the acceptance of the grant from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) for the Rough Sleeping Prevention and Recovery Grant (RSPARG) for the funding period 2025–26.

2.    Noted that the total grant funding amount was £2,137,751, with the detailed breakdown of the allocated funding set out in Appendix?A of the report.

Reasons for decision

Haringey Council had been awarded grants totalling £2,137,751 by MHCLG for the 2025/26 financial year. The funding was ring?fenced for the purpose of preventing, reducing and ending homelessness and rough sleeping.

The grants enabled the Council to carry out its statutory responsibilities under legislation including the Homelessness Reduction Act?2019, the Care Act?2014, and the Equality Act?2010, by providing housing?related support to vulnerable people to help them live independent and fulfilling lives within the community for as long as possible.

In addition, the grants supported the Council in achieving the strategic aims set out in the Corporate Delivery Plan?2024–26, and contributed to the strategic objectives of Adult Social Care and the Rough Sleeping Strategy?2023–27.

Alternative options considered

The Council had a legal and statutory obligation, as defined by the Homelessness Reduction Act, to prevent and relieve homelessness. Acceptance of the grant enabled the Council to meet these statutory duties in relation to homelessness prevention and relief.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Approved the award of a contract for Domestic East (Lot?1) to Bidder?A in accordance with Contract Standing Order (CSO)?8.01 and CSO?2.01(c), based on the scores shown in Table?1 of the report and with further detailed commercial information set out in the exempt section of the report.

2.    Approved the award of a contract for Domestic West (Lot?2) to Bidder?B in accordance with Contract Standing Order (CSO)?8.01 and CSO?2.01(c), based on the scores shown in Table?1 of the report and with further detailed commercial information set out in the exempt section of the report.

Reasons for decision

The decision ensured compliance with Statutory Regulation?36 (Duties of Landlords) under the Gas Safety (Installation & Use) Regulations and other applicable regulations, and supported minimal disruption, maximum safety, and the provision of sustainable homes for Council residents.

Heating servicing, repairs, maintenance, and installations were critical to maintaining safety across the Council’s housing stock. The service area covered approximately 14,000 homes with various appliances supplying heat and hot water to tenants across the borough. Most systems and appliances were gas?fired, although the service also included solid?fuel and other non?electric heating types. Electric heating was maintained separately by Haringey’s Repairs Service.

The existing heating contracts for servicing and maintenance were approaching the end of their five?year duration (two initial years plus up to three one?year extensions). One contract also included communal boiler servicing and maintenance. As all available extensions had been exhausted, the contracts required re?tendering and the award of two new contracts.

Budget provision for the contracts was contained within the current Housing Revenue Account Medium?Term Financial Strategy (HRA MTFS).

Alternative options considered

Do nothing
This option was not viable due to residents’ needs and the Council’s statutory health and safety obligations.

Continue with the current contract
This option was rejected because the contract period and value had been fully exhausted, including all possible extensions. The Council was also required to demonstrate value for money, regularly review service provision, and comply with procurement rules.

Deliver the works in?house
This option was discounted because the Council did not currently have the required internal capacity or specialist expertise to deliver the works in?house. Although in?sourcing would continue to be considered as part of the Council’s wider agenda, substantial investment, time, and resources would be required to determine whether an in?house model would be viable in terms of cost and risk.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Approved the commencement of a procurement in accordance with CSO?2.01(b) to appoint a panel of external property professionals to deliver valuations, valuation advice, and technical and structural surveys for up to a three?year term from Quarter?3 of 2026/27 to Quarter?3 of 2029/30, with the option to extend by up to 24?months.

2.    Delegated authority to the Cabinet Member for Housing, in consultation with the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources, to award the contract(s) to the most economically advantageous bidder(s) following a compliant process, provided the award(s) were within the approved budget envelope set out in the exempt report.

3.    Authorised the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources to issue and execute any ancillary documents and implement the contract(s), including exercising options within the contract term.

Reasons for decision:

The current valuers’ contract was expiring and did not cover the full range of services and geographies required. The Acquisitions Programme was scaling to approximately 250 acquisitions per annum for the foreseeable future, requiring a comprehensive and flexible professional support model capable of handling both routine street?property acquisitions and complex block transactions, including mixed?use and S106 units.

Alternative options considered:

Do nothing: This option was discounted as it would have created a critical gap in due?diligence capacity and risked programme slippage and sub?optimal value.

Extend the current arrangement: This option was discounted because the current valuers’ scope was too narrow for the expanding needs of the programme, lacking flexibility for block acquisitions and out?of?borough coverage, and not providing sufficient capacity.

Deliver the work in?house only: This option was discounted as there was insufficient internal capacity and specialist expertise to meet the volume and complexity of the acquisitions programme.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Noted the responses received as part of community engagement on the future dockless e?bike services in Haringey, as set out in Appendix?A and the exempt information in Appendix?B.

2.    Approved the appointment of the two selected dockless e?bike providers for the provision of dockless e?bike services in Haringey for a period of two years, with the possibility of extending the contract for a further two years at annual intervals, subject to performance. This followed a completed competitive tender process, as required by CSO?12.03, recommending the suppliers who provided the most advantageous bids.

3.    Approved the Council entering into formal agreements with the selected suppliers noted in the exempt appendix to deliver dockless e?bike services in Haringey, in accordance with CSO?2.01.c, and awarded a contract for the provision of a dockless e?bike hire scheme for a period of four years from 1?April?2026 to 31?March?2030.

Reasons for decision

Since dockless e?bike hire services had begun formally operating in Haringey as part of the initial pilot scheme, dockless e?bikes had become an established mode of transport in the borough, with substantial user and journey figures that continued to increase over time.

The Council had engaged throughout the current trial of the dockless e?bike scheme through the online Commonplace engagement website. A dedicated Commonplace webpage ran from February?2024 (the beginning of the trial) to February?2025, seeking views from residents, businesses, and other stakeholders on the benefits and barriers of the scheme, and giving stakeholders the opportunity to suggest future parking locations. The results of this engagement were summarised in Appendix?A. The Council had also engaged with the Adult Social Care Joint Partnership Board and monitored feedback received through the dockless e?bikes inbox to ensure that the needs of all community members were considered.

In September?2025, Cabinet had approved the undertaking of a formal procurement exercise for the provision of dockless e?bike hire services.

The existing Memorandum of Understanding with the two operators—Lime Technology Ltd and Human Forest (Bikes) Ltd—had enabled the Council to understand cycling demand in the borough, track usage month?to?month, and partially regulate a previously unregulated market. Entering into a formal contract allowed the Council to set clear rules and fees to enable increased and controlled management of the e?bikes and to ensure fair pricing for residents, businesses, and visitors.

Alternative options considered

Do nothing – The Council could have chosen not to enter into agreements with dockless e?bike hire operators.

If the Council had not entered into agreements, it was likely that services would still have operated within an unregulated market, without management or governance from the Council. This lack of contractual oversight could have resulted in poor service quality, with no Council leverage to maximise benefits (including revenue generation) or mitigate issues through contractual arrangements, such as issuing financial penalties or reducing fleet size if performance was inadequate.

The current scheme running in Haringey was a fixed 24?month trial ending in March?2026. Because it was a trial, it could not be extended or replaced without undertaking a formal tender process.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATED TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning (Deputy Leader):

1.    Approved the award of a contract to Tenderer?A in the sum of £3,600,817.13. Details of Tenderer?A were set out in Appendix?A (Exempt Report). The contract was awarded for a period of 12?months, commencing in April?2026 and concluding in March?2027. Financial completion of the scheme was expected by August?2027.

2.    Approved the expenditure of the sums set out in Appendix?A (Exempt Report).

3.    In line with Contract Standing Order?16.04, approved the issuance of a Letter of Intent for the value of £360,000. The Letter of Intent enabled the contractor to begin the project by placing orders with their supply chain prior to the execution of a formal contract.

Reasons for decision

Tenderer?A submitted the most advantageous tender, offering the optimal balance of price and quality. The bidder achieved a score of 97.75% out of 100%, securing the highest overall ranking.

Alternative options considered

Asset Management considered postponing the works until the Partnering Contractors had been appointed. However, as most rooms within the hostels were vacant and awaiting refurbishment, and given the urgent need to upgrade the properties so the Council could maximise income generation, it was concluded that a standalone procurement route was required. This approach allowed the hostels to be brought back into use without further delay.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning (Deputy Leader):

1.    Approved the award of a Measured Term Contract to Tenderer?A in the sum of £2,000,000 for the delivery of essential structural works to properties across the borough. The contract would run for two years, commencing in May?2026 and concluding in May?2028. Financial completion of the scheme was expected by December?2029.

2.    Approved the issuing a Letter of Intent to Tenderer?A in the sum of £200,000. The value of the Letter of Intent was in line with CSO?16.04, which permitted a Letter of Intent up to £200,000 or 10% of the contract value, whichever was higher.

3.    The Cabinet Member further approved professional fees of £301,555, representing 15.08% of the contract sum, bringing the total project cost to £2,301,555.

Reasons for decision

The Council had been experiencing a high and increasing volume of structural referrals across its housing stock. These referrals were driven by structural defects identified through inspections and resident reports.

Procuring these works as standalone projects had proven inefficient and costly, particularly for low? and medium?value schemes, due to repeated tendering exercises, extended lead times, and fragmented delivery programmes.

A Measured Term Contract (MTC) offered a more efficient and flexible approach, enabling the Council to respond quickly, minimise structural risks, and reduce the potential for disrepair claims. The MTC also enabled improved programme control and better cost certainty through an agreed schedule of rates.

The MTC model supported grouping multiple projects under a single contractual framework, reducing procurement overheads and ensuring specialist capability was retained throughout the contract term.

The £2,000,000 contract value represented an estimated cost rather than a guaranteed spend, as the actual volume of work would depend on ongoing structural assessments and prioritisation.

In addition to the cost of works, professional fees for structural engineering, building surveying, contract administration, CDM?2015 principal designer responsibilities, cost consultancy, and party wall surveying totalled £301,555, bringing the overall project cost to £2,301,555.

The properties included in the programme generally comprised single dwellings, converted houses, and low? to medium?rise blocks. The project would deliver extensive structural remediation works to restore and maintain the long?term integrity of these buildings. Addressing underlying structural issues would significantly reduce the need for reactive repairs and associated maintenance, easing pressure on the repairs budget and improving long?term cost efficiency.

A key objective of the Housing Asset Management Strategy was to ensure that Haringey’s housing assets were safe and compliant with current Building Safety Regulations. Awarding the contract to Tenderer?A supported this aim and ensured the Council met its legal and statutory obligations.

The programme also supported the Corporate Delivery Plan (2024–2026) objectives under the “Homes for the Future” and “Place and Economy” themes by safeguarding residents, reducing reactive repairs demand, and delivering social value, including local employment and supply chain commitments.

The project was tendered via the London Construction Programme Housing Framework under Lot?2.2 (retrofit, refurbishment, and adaptations), and the Council received two compliant bids.

Tenders were received on 31?October?2025, and the evaluation was overseen by the Council’s Strategic Procurement Team. Evaluation followed the Invitation to Tender and was based on 40% price, 50% quality, and 10% social value.

Pricing evaluation was conducted by external multi?disciplinary consultants and the Council’s quantity surveyor, in line with the Instructions for Tendering.

Quality submissions accounted for 50% of the overall evaluation. Tenderers were required to achieve at least 50% of available quality points to remain eligible.

A moderation meeting was convened on 18?December?2025, chaired by Strategic Procurement, with a panel comprising asset management officers, structural engineers, and representatives from the multi?disciplinary consultancy team. Final scores were agreed through consensus following structured discussion.

Both tenderers met the minimum thresholds, and their bids were accepted and evaluated.

Tenderer?A was ranked first, offering the most advantageous tender. Their pricing sat in the lower range and was considered acceptable given the variable volume and nature of the works.

Tenderers were also required to submit social value proposals, representing 10% of the total score. Using the National TOMs (Themes, Outcomes and Measures) System, bidders proposed targets relating to local employment, local supply chain spend, and equipment/resources donated to VCSEs. The financial value of these commitments was set out in Appendix?A (Exempt).

Based on the total evaluation outcome, the contract was awarded to Tenderer?A.

Alternative options considered

An alternative option was to procure individual projects on a case?by?case basis rather than adopting an MTC. This was discounted because repeated procurement activity would have increased cumulative costs (including officer time and consultant fees) and delayed delivery. A fragmented approach would also have undermined the Council’s strategic objective of achieving Decent Homes Standard compliance across all homes by 2028.

Another option considered was delivering these works under the Council’s existing partnering contracts. This was deemed unsuitable, as partnering arrangements were designed for planned maintenance and standard improvement programmes, not for specialist structural remediation

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST FOR THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Families:

1. In accordance with CSO 21.01, permission was granted to accept £4,692,300 in external funding from the Department for Education (DfE) and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) over three years, to continue the Family Hubs Programme.
   
   
2. Approved the award of a contract to Whittington Health NHS Trust for the provision of the Parent Infant Psychology Service, for a period of two years from 1 May 2026 to 30 April 2028, at a total maximum cost of £550,620 under the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023 (“PSR”) Direct Award Process C.
   
   
3. Approved for the waiver of Contract Standing Order (CSO) 12.02 (requirement to obtain three competitive quotations) as permitted under CSO 18.01.2(d)(iii) (where the value of the contract was below the applicable threshold pursuant to the Procurement Act 2023 and it was in the Council’s overall interest to waive the requirement); and contracts were awarded to:
   
   

·       Baby’s Sake, for the provision of therapeutic interventions supporting parents and babies, at a cost of £105,000 for a period of three years from 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2029; and

·       Wards Corner, for the delivery of Latin American Stay and Play sessions, at a cost of £27,595 for a period of three years from 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2029.

Reasons for decision:

The core aim of the Best Start Family Hubs Programme was to improve family services, including Healthy Babies services, particularly in areas with the highest levels of deprivation and disproportionately poor health and educational outcomes. Accepting this external funding enabled the Council to continue its commitment to successfully deliver the Best Start Family Hubs Programme over the three-year period. The Programme was needs?led, responded to resident demand and provided multi?agency services accessible locally.

To ensure compliance with the grant conditions and the uninterrupted provision of services to families and Family Hub staff, it was recommended that the Council award contracts to the three organisations referenced above. Given the time constraints and resource availability, this course of action was deemed to be in the Council’s best interest.

The need to establish and initiate service delivery was driven by the requirement to allocate and expend the DfE grant funding within the timescales outlined in the submitted Best Start Family Hubs Delivery Plan.

Alternative options considered:

Doing nothing (Grant funding): The Council could have decided not to accept the grant. In doing so, it would have lost the opportunity to continue delivering the Family Hubs Programme, which was a key objective within partnership strategies including the Haringey Early Help Strategy and the Haringey Early Years Strategy. Therefore, this option was not considered viable.

Option 1: Do nothing. The Council would not have met the requirements of the grant conditions for the Best Start Family Hubs Programme if it did not provide perinatal mental health support, support for domestic abuse, and parenting support offers. This would have resulted in the clawback of funding and the non?delivery of services to local families.

Option 2: Competitive quotation process. Tendering was not considered viable due to limited time available, the challenge of attracting a strong market given the limited period of funding, and the specialist clinical requirements for therapeutic interventions and Latin American Stay and Play sessions. Such delays would have resulted in significant gaps in service, preventing vulnerable families from accessing critical support.

Option 3: Most Suitable Provider Process (PIPS). Although this non?competitive process would have allowed the authority to determine the most suitable provider based on key criteria, the limited local market and potential risk of challenge meant that, despite being permitted under PSR regulations, this option was not recommended.