Response to the Royal Court of Justice's judgement following a judicial review of the Haringey Development Vehicle - Harringay online2024-03-28T12:31:49Zhttps://harringayonline.com/forum/topics/response-to-the-royal-court-of-justice-s-judgement-following-a-ju?commentId=844301%3AComment%3A1059010&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noHi OleMiss
Could you give me…tag:harringayonline.com,2018-02-15:844301:Comment:10590102018-02-15T00:35:32.549ZZena Brabazonhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/zenab
<p>Hi OleMiss </p>
<p>Could you give me a call so I can explain it to you.</p>
<p>My council mobile number is 07812677 710</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p><br/>Zena </p>
<p></p>
<p>Zena Brabazon</p>
<p>Cllr, Harringay Ward</p>
<p></p>
<p>Hi OleMiss </p>
<p>Could you give me a call so I can explain it to you.</p>
<p>My council mobile number is 07812677 710</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p><br/>Zena </p>
<p></p>
<p>Zena Brabazon</p>
<p>Cllr, Harringay Ward</p>
<p></p> John, it's pointless. You're…tag:harringayonline.com,2018-02-13:844301:Comment:10584982018-02-13T08:53:22.310ZAlan Stantonhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/AlanStanton
<p>John, it's pointless. You're shadow boxing with someone who makes up a name. Someone who may not be the same person each time. <br></br>Someone who appears to be playing a game like "Mornington Crescent" with pretend rules where the fun is riffing on the pretence and keeping going as long as possible. <br></br>A game which can ignore any evidence. And dispense with the solid reality of the lives of the people affected.<br></br><br></br>Solid reality like the fact that the most talented, big-brained lawyers…</p>
<p>John, it's pointless. You're shadow boxing with someone who makes up a name. Someone who may not be the same person each time. <br/>Someone who appears to be playing a game like "Mornington Crescent" with pretend rules where the fun is riffing on the pretence and keeping going as long as possible. <br/>A game which can ignore any evidence. And dispense with the solid reality of the lives of the people affected.<br/><br/>Solid reality like the fact that the most talented, big-brained lawyers in England - assuming tenants on Northumberland Park estate could ever afford them - won't any time soon, be offering a legal opinion to a resident on the basis of a contract with some 1000+ pages hidden/exempt/redacted. <br/>Which is the still how the draft HDV is right now. <br/><br/>And then look at the guarantees - cast iron guarantees - or maybe solid gold / platinum / Director's Special Reserve / <span class="_Tgc _s8w _y9e">Premier crus</span> guarantees offered by the likes of Strickland, Kober and the rest of them. People who won't anyway be around should the excrement meet the revolving ventilation device in the future. And if they are around will certainly not be available for suing.<br/><br/>Oh, but we don't need to worry these residents, do we? They can be trusted to flip through the thousands of pages of legal documents. Why should any outsiders' opinions trump that? Especially as we can all read Haringey People magazine and trust every word, can't we? And absolutely trust the property speculators and their councillor dining-club pals. They have only the very best interests of residents at heart.<br/><br/>To assume otherwise is an "absolute textbook reinforcement of marginalisation". Personally I've always relied on my ability to remove my own appendix should the need arise.</p> Well there has been a LOT of…tag:harringayonline.com,2018-02-12:844301:Comment:10583292018-02-12T16:57:13.805ZJohn McMullanhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/bogan72
<p>Well there has been a LOT of dishonesty, even fraud, from the HDV lot. More than enough grounds to distrust them even without the SILENCE that comes when you ask them which page of the HDV document that promise they just made is on.</p>
<p>Well there has been a LOT of dishonesty, even fraud, from the HDV lot. More than enough grounds to distrust them even without the SILENCE that comes when you ask them which page of the HDV document that promise they just made is on.</p> This is wrong. The people on…tag:harringayonline.com,2018-02-12:844301:Comment:10583242018-02-12T16:22:18.566ZJohn McMullanhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/bogan72
<p>This is wrong. The people on the estate have been hoodwinked by a very coy consultation. They have no voice unless it's given to them. Nora Mulready found one lady who followed her promises but anyone else who finds out that those promises are NOT IN THE HDV DOCUMENT smells a rat and rightly so. Stop HDV have given them a voice and just look around 99% of the media on a LOCAL issue which was far more juicy last time as they involved the police and see the coverage the pro HDV group are…</p>
<p>This is wrong. The people on the estate have been hoodwinked by a very coy consultation. They have no voice unless it's given to them. Nora Mulready found one lady who followed her promises but anyone else who finds out that those promises are NOT IN THE HDV DOCUMENT smells a rat and rightly so. Stop HDV have given them a voice and just look around 99% of the media on a LOCAL issue which was far more juicy last time as they involved the police and see the coverage the pro HDV group are getting.</p>
<p>If the residents are balloted and agree with the proposal IN WRITING, then I'm good. I agree with demolishing and densifying a lot of the spaces in Haringey. <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Crouch+End+Cricket+Club/@51.5829538,-0.1320942,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x48761bceb9aa274b:0xe3865137c943a3b1!8m2!3d51.5834038!4d-0.133505?hl=en" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Shepherd's Cot</a> would make a good place to build first...</p> Wasn't there a property show…tag:harringayonline.com,2018-02-12:844301:Comment:10583152018-02-12T15:34:48.697ZJohn McMullanhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/bogan72
<p>Wasn't there a property show called "Location, location, location"? I don't remember one being called, "Nice bathroom, miles from work".</p>
<p>Wasn't there a property show called "Location, location, location"? I don't remember one being called, "Nice bathroom, miles from work".</p> Hi OleMiss
Thanks for your po…tag:harringayonline.com,2018-02-09:844301:Comment:10574212018-02-09T12:31:12.488ZZena Brabazonhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/zenab
<p>Hi OleMiss</p>
<p>Thanks for your post. I will be replying in full later. Just acknowledging I've read it. I have an appointment this afternoon in South London so will post later that.</p>
<p>Sorry for the delay</p>
<p></p>
<p>Zena</p>
<p></p>
<p>Hi OleMiss</p>
<p>Thanks for your post. I will be replying in full later. Just acknowledging I've read it. I have an appointment this afternoon in South London so will post later that.</p>
<p>Sorry for the delay</p>
<p></p>
<p>Zena</p>
<p></p> The High Court judgement is b…tag:harringayonline.com,2018-02-09:844301:Comment:10574182018-02-09T12:28:48.217ZZena Brabazonhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/zenab
<p>The High Court judgement is based on procedure not the merits or otherwise of the HDV. John McMullan and Hugh are right.</p>
<p>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…</p>
<p>The High Court judgement is based on procedure not the merits or otherwise of the HDV. John McMullan and Hugh are right.</p>
<p>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:</p>
<p> <strong>Para 5.3</strong></p>
<p><em>5.3 As a general principle, HDV must comply with and implement the Council's policies in<br/> relation to rehousing and redevelopment. However, it was agreed that some elements<br/> of the Business Plans being approved as part of the current Cabinet decision do not<br/> fully meet the Council's proposed Estate Renewal and Re-Housing Payments Policy<br/> ("<strong>ERRPP</strong>") (which has been approved by Cabinet for consultation with residents). As<br/> such it was agreed that HDV will comply with the ERRPP subject to certain exclusions<br/> (as set out in paragraph 5.4 below) in respect of those Category 1 Properties as at the<br/> date of the LAA</em>. <em>(</em>Category 1 properties include Northumberland Park Estate – my note)</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><em>5.4 It is agreed that the HDV Business Plans:<br/> 5.4.1 prioritise a single move for residents rather than Right of Return;<br/> <br/></em></p>
<p><em>As for housing association tenants: the next paragraph states the HDV Business Plans</em></p>
<p><em>5.4.2 do not allow for rehousing of housing association tenants. Any private<br/> treaty/CPO compensation negotiation will be agreed with the housing<br/> association. Additional commitments to rehousing housing<br/> association/registered social landlord tenants will be a matter for the Council</em> <em><br/></em></p>
<p><strong>As for tenants and leaseholders of other estates which are on the HDV list, well they don’t even figure.</strong></p>
<p><strong>The HDV business plans only:</strong></p>
<p><br/> <em>5.4.4 provide for rehousing within the Category 1 Properties</em> <strong>(i.e Northumberland Park)</strong> <em>and do not provide for rehousing across the borough outside of the Category 1 Properties which is<br/> a matter for the Council. This applies to tenants, resident leaseholders and<br/> resident freeholders;</em></p>
<p> <strong>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)</strong></p>
<p> <strong>Para 5.4.3 states</strong></p>
<p><strong>Para 5.4.3 states the HDV</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>5.4.3 commit to re-provision of residential property calculated by reference to<br/> number of habitable rooms (rather than occupants). The Council is </em><em>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</em>;</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>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)</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>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</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>5.5 It is agreed that once the final version of the ERRPP has been adopted by the<br/> Council, the parties will review the adopted policy. If there are no material changes,<br/> HDV will comply with the ERRPP as so adopted subject to the exclusions set out....</em></p>
<p><strong>And what about the right to return? It isn’t quite on the same terms and conditions and certainly not as secure</strong></p>
<p> <em>5.8.1 Every secure tenant in any demolition phase, or who is otherwise required<br/> by the Council to move for the purposes of the development, shall have a<br/> 'right to return'. This shall be the right to an assured tenancy (not a secure<br/> tenancy), in a property within the development site as a whole, not the<br/> particular phase which they were moved from. The right ceases to apply if<br/> the tenant elects to remain in the alternative accommodation provided to<br/> them.</em></p>
<p><strong>So what about the plans for people living on Northumberland Park?</strong> </p>
<p>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)</p>
<p><em>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.</em></p>
<p><em>Of the 1417 homes proposed for demolition</em></p>
<p><em> 276 are leaseholders</em></p>
<p><em>889 are council tenants</em></p>
<p><em>252 private owner occupiers – that is people who have bought private properties in the area</em></p>
<p>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!</p>
<p> 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Zena Brabazon<br/>Cllr, Harringay ward</p>
<p></p>
<p></p> Roll the thinking back to wha…tag:harringayonline.com,2018-02-09:844301:Comment:10572232018-02-09T11:47:59.458ZMichael Andersonhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/17bathgate
<p>Roll the thinking back to what the issues are</p>
<ul>
<li>Thousands of people are on the housing waiting list in the borough</li>
<li>Many tenants live in properties that need improvement </li>
<li>There are high levels of poverty in parts of the borough</li>
<li>Areas of the borough need improvement to positively impact on people's opportunities and life choices</li>
<li>Communities need supporting and growing</li>
</ul>
<p>Any scheme needs to address these issues. It may well be that the…</p>
<p>Roll the thinking back to what the issues are</p>
<ul>
<li>Thousands of people are on the housing waiting list in the borough</li>
<li>Many tenants live in properties that need improvement </li>
<li>There are high levels of poverty in parts of the borough</li>
<li>Areas of the borough need improvement to positively impact on people's opportunities and life choices</li>
<li>Communities need supporting and growing</li>
</ul>
<p>Any scheme needs to address these issues. It may well be that the best options do include public/private partnerships. It may be that they do not. </p>
<p>The for me HDV as it is has two problems. </p>
<p>It puts all the risk into one, single project. Given the bad experiences of some, but by no means all, previous public/private partnerships that would seem a rash and poorly considered route to take.</p>
<p>The second problem I personally have with what the HDV proposes is that it focuses on property and land, not people. Buildings do not make communities, people do. At the heart of any scheme needs to be what the people affected want and need. They need to be at the heart of the decision making process.</p> Have you actually sat down, l…tag:harringayonline.com,2018-02-09:844301:Comment:10571372018-02-09T10:27:25.433ZAlan Stantonhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/AlanStanton
<p>Have you actually sat down, listened to and and talked with anti-HDV campaigners, Kotkas? Have you read the Scrutiny Reports?</p>
<p>The HDV is not aimed at building housing on empty or redundant sites. It would begin by demolishing people's existing homes, schools, nurseries, etc. The residents are not "bathwater". They are human beings. many with real children.</p>
<p>Opposition to a plan for housing which begins by destroying huge numbers of homes in order to create what are in effect…</p>
<p>Have you actually sat down, listened to and and talked with anti-HDV campaigners, Kotkas? Have you read the Scrutiny Reports?</p>
<p>The HDV is not aimed at building housing on empty or redundant sites. It would begin by demolishing people's existing homes, schools, nurseries, etc. The residents are not "bathwater". They are human beings. many with real children.</p>
<p>Opposition to a plan for housing which begins by destroying huge numbers of homes in order to create what are in effect brownfield sites, is not a <em>"mentality"</em>. It is dissent from a policy people disagree with and have set out the reasons for that dissent.</p> It's important to be clear th…tag:harringayonline.com,2018-02-09:844301:Comment:10572992018-02-09T10:00:46.310ZHughhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/hjuk
<p>It's important to be clear that the the judgement is purely a legal one. It is made clear that the merits of the case, beyond the confines of the legal situation, are not considered. </p>
<p>In his third point, Mr Justice Ouseley has the following to say:</p>
<p><em>I am not concerned with the wisdom or merits of the decision. I am concerned with the issues of law about the powers of the Council and the lawfulness of the procedures it adopted.</em></p>
<p>It's important to be clear that the the judgement is purely a legal one. It is made clear that the merits of the case, beyond the confines of the legal situation, are not considered. </p>
<p>In his third point, Mr Justice Ouseley has the following to say:</p>
<p><em>I am not concerned with the wisdom or merits of the decision. I am concerned with the issues of law about the powers of the Council and the lawfulness of the procedures it adopted.</em></p>