Haringey Council Slows Down Major Development and Regeneration Plans to Allow for More Scrutiny and Consultation

At the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) on 17 January 2017, councillors debated a report on the governance arrangements for the proposed ‘Haringey Development Vehicle’. The recommendation from the Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel (HRSP) stated: ‘On the basis that at present there are no governance arrangements that adequately mitigate the risks of this scheme, the panel has no other option than to recommend that the HDV plans are halted and that further scrutiny work should be undertaken’[1].

‘We are relieved to note that the OSC have taken these recommendations on board and have slowed down the process for now’ says Lucy Craig, former Haringey Councillor and Haringey Green Party Secretary. ‘But the hard work needs to carry on. There are all the risks identified in the HRSP report but we have other concerns about this proposed scheme which we will want to raise in the consultations to come’, she continues.

Haringey Green Party wants to put on record that there are many issues that have to be addressed in any future discussion and consultation and the most significant for us are:

1. This proposal effectively binds the council to one development partner for up to 20 years. The Council is putting itself into a vulnerable position. It could not afford to get out of the deal if the developer walks away and it has burned bridges with other development partners.
2. This proposal involves giving carte blanche to one private sector partner; they will have a monopoly position in Haringey for a long period of time, giving it the ability to dictate terms to small and medium sized local enterprises. This has to be bad news for local firms and for employment in the sector locally.
3. This proposal includes an implicit assumption in favour of large projects rather than smaller ones. Small and medium size local enterprises will be frozen out of development opportunities in their own right; it is also bad news for local residents because participation in decision-making is much more difficult to achieve in large scale projects.
4. There has been scant consultation and there is an assumption of large scale decanting of residents and businesses. The level of disruption that is likely to be caused to local people and local business is not being given significant enough weight in the decision making.
5. The current model seems to suggest that the Board Members of the HDV that represent the Council would be 3 people (of whom 2 would be officers and one would be an elected member). That seems to be wholly undemocratic.