Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Response to the Royal Court of Justice's judgement following a judicial review of the Haringey Development Vehicle
We’ve been clear that we are committed to delivering the new homes, jobs and community facilities that local people have told us they want to see. The partnership will enable us to build 6,400 new homes and create thousands of new jobs, as well as delivering a wide-ranging programme of community projects - such as re-built state-of-the-art schools; new parks and open spaces; training and apprenticeships, and health and wellbeing projects - that will enable everyone in Haringey to take advantage of all the opportunities this could bring.
Following the decision taken by Cabinet in July 2017, establishing the HDV remains the Council’s agreed approach to providing much needed homes and jobs on its own land and Lendlease remains the Council’s preferred partner.
Last week, the Leader of the Council, Cllr Claire Kober, explained that she does not intend to take the final decisions required for the setup of the HDV prior to the start of the pre-election period which begins on 26 March. Whilst we are very pleased that the court has supported the Council’s position, we are still working on the basis that the final decision to establish the HDV will be taken by a future administration."
Full judgement published here [pdf]
From Haringey Council Website
Thursday 8 February 2018
Tags for Forum Posts: HDV, haringey development vehicle, hdv
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
They are spinning complete lies on this. There is absolutely NO provision to rebuild the social housing that they are demolishing. They say there is but nobody can find it in the 1500 pages of the HDV proposal and when you say this to them, for instance on twitter, there is silence.
The StopHDV group are preparing an appeal.
-
Permalink Reply by kotkas on
-
Who is spinning lies John? The Royal Court of Justice has seen the evidence and formed a conclusion.
The project is rebuilding all housing stock. Going on the published figures, it actually delivers 5 times the original amount. The social housing allocation is a function of the extent to which the planned 1,900 affordable homes built are truly affordable. That's it isn't it?
-
-
The Judicial Review was just about the consultation.
The "affordable homes" are not affordable to the people who currently live in them. There are currently 1,800 homes rented from the council and nothing in the HDV documentation about them being replaced with anything other than "affordable housing".
-
-
It's not just about the consultation. It's clear, from what the StopHDV campaign has brought forward as challenges, that there are 4 areas of contention with the HDV:
1. The formation of a LLP with a private company
2. Failure to consult local residents
3. Failure of public sector equality duties
4. The decision should have been taken by the full council
The Royal Court of Justice has ruled that none of these objections to the HDV stand. Plain and simple. Perhaps the residents of Haringey should be made aware of this quite material development?
-
-
No, they ruled that it should have been brought to court in 2015. That's why they've been given leave to appeal to a higher court.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Kotkas, the whole problem is the definition of affordable. Affordable rented properties are those charging no more then 80% of the local market rent. That can vary wildly even within a single borough. In Westminster the definition means that a three bedroom flat would have a weekly rent of over £655 needing an annual household income of £109,000 (the source of the figures is the Conservative Leader of the Council). Even in Elephant and Castle, in the affordable homes that replaced the Heygate estate, a three bed flat requires a household income of £44,000 per year.
With the levels of housing benefit cap*, it carries a real risk that those most in need of housing simply will not have the resources to pay the rent
*In London housing benefit will not be paid on rents above these levels
£442.31 per week (£23,000 a year) if you’re in a couple, whether your children live with you or not
£442.31 per week (£23,000 a year) if you’re single and your children live with you
£296.35 per week (£15,410 a year) if you’re single and you don’t have children, or your children don’t live with you
-
-
Thank you Michael - I am aware of this, and don't disagree with any of it. My main point is that it's a far cry from 'no social housing' especially given that the council would retain 50% control over 5 times more housing stock than there is currently in the areas that were planned for redevelopment.
-
-
No they won't. Apart from the affordable stuff the rest will be sold privately, supposedly to subsidise the affordable stuff. Landlords and investors in foreign countries that have gotten rich from our diet of oil and plastic will buy these (they still seem to get first refusal over Londoners).
The sad thing is that the building costs are negligible compared to the cost of the land and the council are over a barrel here because they can't borrow even 10% of the equity they hold in that land to regenerate the housing themselves and not have loads-a-money fall into the hands of non-residents from our council tax.
-
Permalink Reply by Zena Brabazon on
-
The High Court judgement is based on procedure not the merits or otherwise of the HDV. John McMullan and Hugh are right.
The HDV Member Agreement which is in the public documents pack from the July 3 Cabinet meeting has get outs and caveats which ensure Lendlease would not be bound by any council policy. It has not been changed to my knowledge despite my challenging it on several public webcast occasions, and getting an admission that it was ambiguous and did need clarification. Here are some extracts:
Para 5.3
5.3 As a general principle, HDV must comply with and implement the Council's policies in
relation to rehousing and redevelopment. However, it was agreed that some elements
of the Business Plans being approved as part of the current Cabinet decision do not
fully meet the Council's proposed Estate Renewal and Re-Housing Payments Policy
("ERRPP") (which has been approved by Cabinet for consultation with residents). As
such it was agreed that HDV will comply with the ERRPP subject to certain exclusions
(as set out in paragraph 5.4 below) in respect of those Category 1 Properties as at the
date of the LAA. (Category 1 properties include Northumberland Park Estate – my note)5.4 It is agreed that the HDV Business Plans:
5.4.1 prioritise a single move for residents rather than Right of Return;
As for housing association tenants: the next paragraph states the HDV Business Plans
5.4.2 do not allow for rehousing of housing association tenants. Any private
treaty/CPO compensation negotiation will be agreed with the housing
association. Additional commitments to rehousing housing
association/registered social landlord tenants will be a matter for the CouncilAs for tenants and leaseholders of other estates which are on the HDV list, well they don’t even figure.
The HDV business plans only:
5.4.4 provide for rehousing within the Category 1 Properties (i.e Northumberland Park) and do not provide for rehousing across the borough outside of the Category 1 Properties which is
a matter for the Council. This applies to tenants, resident leaseholders and
resident freeholders;In other words, tenants, leaseholders and freeholders on other estates would not be covered even by the minimal and ambiguous protections in this agreement. (my comment)
Para 5.4.3 states
Para 5.4.3 states the HDV
5.4.3 commit to re-provision of residential property calculated by reference to
number of habitable rooms (rather than occupants). The Council is committed to Right of Return and if needed will work with HDV in this regard recognising that this might involve a requirement for additional subsidy;But who will provide that subsidy is not made plain. But we can guess it would be the taxpayer since the Council would be working with the HDV!! (my comment)
The Council claims that it’s revised Estate Renewal and Re-Housing Payments Policy is binding and will protect tenants and leaseholders. But the Member Agreement says differently
5.5 It is agreed that once the final version of the ERRPP has been adopted by the
Council, the parties will review the adopted policy. If there are no material changes,
HDV will comply with the ERRPP as so adopted subject to the exclusions set out....And what about the right to return? It isn’t quite on the same terms and conditions and certainly not as secure
5.8.1 Every secure tenant in any demolition phase, or who is otherwise required
by the Council to move for the purposes of the development, shall have a
'right to return'. This shall be the right to an assured tenancy (not a secure
tenancy), in a property within the development site as a whole, not the
particular phase which they were moved from. The right ceases to apply if
the tenant elects to remain in the alternative accommodation provided to
them.So what about the plans for people living on Northumberland Park?
Lendlease say in one of their plans for Northumberland Park which were approved by the Haringey Cabinet on July 3 2017 (page 986 of the Cabinet papers)
This Business Plan assumes the demolition of 1,417 (71%) of the existing homes, and 18 business premises. Council tenants and leaseholders comprise 67% of the existing households, but 82% of the properties proposed for demolition.
Of the 1417 homes proposed for demolition
276 are leaseholders
889 are council tenants
252 private owner occupiers – that is people who have bought private properties in the area
And the HDV will also levy service charges – a whole section of the business plans in the public document discusses these and even has costs. So very much not quite like for like!
There is more which I could post. And by the way, the 6000+ homes which are used all the time as the justification for this demolition of Northumberland Park, Turner Avenue, Reynardson's Court and other estates works out around 300+ homes per annum on average. Now factor in demolition costs, decanting costs of tenants, payouts to leaseholders and freeholders, CPO costs and ask yourselves if this is really a good deal for anyone? The public will pay upfront all these costs. Lendlease will provide a series of 'loan notes' (in other word IOUs) to be paid if and when profits are made. The profits depend on maximising densities and private sale. Not social housing.
Then there is the human cost. Ask yourselves how you would feel if your home was blighted and you could not sell or move, and almost certainly would not have right of return because the prices would have rocketed.
We are working on alternative ideas many of which are tried and tested elsewhere such as a wholly owned housing company and development of many small sites.
Zena Brabazon
Cllr, Harringay ward
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
With the adopted candidates by Labour and the opposition from the LibDems and Greens there is hardly any real possibility of the HDV going ahead. To carry on repeating the same propaganda as if nothing has changed . . .
In my personal view the new councillors elected on 3 May should apologise to staff for instructing them to put out this lying claptrap.Councillors who think this is good practice should look up "Living In Truth".
-
-
The motion to council asks officers to draw up alternatives to be put to council by the summer. That means that there could be a number of packages to start discussion and consultation on before the end of the year.
-
Permalink Reply by OleMiss on
-
Having been caught up in 'the witch is dead' euphoria, I've missed the argument for anti-HDV Labour councillors voting against the Lib Dem motion to quash it (that is to say, voting to delay a decision).
I imagine there is some pragmatic reason for it and it's not simply party political.
Could one of our local councillors provide a rational and clear explanation*?
*Given these qualifiers, it might be best if Cllrs. Adamou and Ibrahim left this one for Zena.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
