The six companies sponsoring Haringey Council to go to MIPIM 2015

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on February 26, 2015 at 19:26

Did these same lot not 'sponsor' the council's participation last year (at least one name looks familiar) , and was there not a massive shortfall from the overly optimistic projections by a official looking to effectively justify participation in the event- a shortfall that the tax payer had to eventually pick up???

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Peter Cosmetatos on February 26, 2015 at 23:49

I can understand a question around whether and how Haringey should or should not be involved in MIPIM, and I see that the Council should be able to justify the cost to taxpayers. But what's wrong with firms sponsoring it, given transparency around that?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JJ B on February 27, 2015 at 5:44

The words 'vested interests' come to mind. Especially when eventually it is the Council, which should be looking after the all round interests of the residents, that will be judge and jury on future planning decisions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on February 27, 2015 at 7:41

But what's wrong with firms sponsoring it, given transparency around that?

Peter, there is obviously the appearance of a conflict of interest: the risk is that there is a real conflict of interest. Or, put another way, should the Council feel grateful to the sponsors and might it feel under any obligation to express their gratitude? Or another way, who is the Council working for?

It's sometimes said there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Clive Carter
Councillor

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on February 27, 2015 at 13:05

Joe I can't predict the future, but I can see patterns in the past. Councils (including Haringey) routinely describe such processes as "robust". The process I'm most familiar with was the attempted sale of Alexandra Palace, that was so described.

After a "robust" process, our charity's building was sold to a controversial, former slum landlord (the Evening Standard's description) whom I dubbed "the developer of last resort". It ended up in the High Court with the sale quashed and later, the developer evicted. A former Council Leader was suspended.

So I hope you'll forgive me if I don't necessarily always have confidence in bidding processes that are described as "robust' .. or even "transparent" and conforming to "fiscal rules".

IMO, it might be better for Council's to avoid "robust".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on February 28, 2015 at 8:17

JOE, by all means start a new thread about national housing policies, but this thread is about the sponsorship by six companies of four people from our Council to go to Cannes to meet international property investors.

("dirty their hands" are your words. I did not use the phrase dirty their hands).

In the big scheme of things, these monies are tiny and are trifles for the big companies involved. But I think you need to ask: why do they choose to make such payments at all?

And the prior question is, if our Council wants to meet property developers (which may be a legitimate thing to do) does our Council really need to go to the French Riviera in order to do so?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on February 28, 2015 at 18:45

trying to engage with property developers

Are you suggesting that this is an uphill struggle? In London?

With infrastructure in place? With land in Tottenham probably amongst the least expensive in the city, yet having terrific transport connections?

Is it really so difficult to engage? Does engagement have to mean accepting hospitality?

It tends to be overlooked that LBH is also the Planning Authority. Can you see that, there is actually a conflict of interest between that function and senior people receiving hospitality from developers?

If a visit to the South of France is genuinely so important for the Council's ambitions, should the costs not be met from public funds?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on March 1, 2015 at 12:54

Most parts of London have good transport links

Yes, and this helps makes the point that London is generally attractive to investors (vis a vis other development areas) from the get go. However, some parts are even better served with transport links than others.

I'm thinking particularly of (a) Tottenham Hale railway station, recently refurbished, with a direct connection to Stanstead airport and two stations on a tube line that traverses central London; plus (b) the fast A1055 to the North Circular. For a developer, it surely looks like a solid long-term infrastructure and a safe bet.

Even developers have a limit to their funds

Developers probably won't be using their own savings.

Lenders to developers look to the security of their loans: does it looks bankable? If there's security for the loan and a scheme looks viable, then there're few limits to the funds available, particularly if a bank distributes the risk amongst others (see: syndication).

The "offer" is so attractive to developers that there's no obvious need to court them – and still less on the French Riviera. Still, the weather's probably nicer there than here in March.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JJ B on February 27, 2015 at 13:15

How naive can one be?

I am astounded by this question!

Obliged is not the word.

Open your eyes and look at what is happening around Tottenham. Double speak. A brave new world is upon us.

All that has gone on at Wards Corner and White Hart Lane and is continuing at Apex house shows exactly how these people operate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on February 28, 2015 at 15:54

Is it £45,000 per unit that the developers have to give the council as a contribution towards local services when they build new houses? I think they get a discount for building on brownfield. Imagine how much the council could get for letting them build on a park! I've always fancied Middlesex Cricket Club as a nice spot for a couple of tower blocks.

• ▶ Reply