Many people have asked for more detail on Haringey Council's plans to dispose of or demolish much of its council housing stock of 15,922 tenanted dwellings. So here are some references on the Council policies which would raise market rents and raise house prices, driving local people out of our own localities and neighborhoods. The references which follow are to six Haringey Council documents, and three other sources.
Phrases such as "more balanced tenure mix" are used throughout Haringey's housing strategy documents to mean the disposal or demolition of council housing; and 'estate renewal' is a further euphemism for the demolition and clearance of council housing.
The Council's 'Housing Investment and Estate Renewal Strategy' (Cabinet Report, 28/11/13) states that decent homes work does not provide for investment in council housing with complex issues, or which can never be made decent (paragraph 6.7 on page 9). From Appendix 2, we can deduce that around 947 tenanted council homes are to be excluded from the Council's decent homes programme ending in April 2016, and will remain non-decent.
This is despite promises more than nine years ago, in the Almo ballot of 2005, that decent homes would be delivered for all Haringey council tenants in the event of a 'yes' vote. These 947 homes are now amongst those set for demolition or disposal.
Paragraph 6.11 of the same report casually refers to council housing as a cause of social deprivation. We disagree. The authors forget that many council tenants have been private tenants in the past, and that we learned something from the experience: that council housing is a good thing for renters, and it enables us to better ourselves and enjoy better lives.
Paragraph 8.2 states that estate renewal will be strategic, focusing on estates where there is "opportunity to influence the tenure balance of neighbourhoods by increasing the number of affordable, private rented sector, housing ladder type products or market sale homes". As these are all council estates to begin with, the intention is very clear: to privatise, and to replace council rent with insecure, higher-cost private housing.
Paragraph 8.9 on page 13 is another very clear statement that the council considers council housing to be a cause of crime, benefit dependency and low life expectancy. We reply that council tenants are being blamed for social problems not of our own making.
Similarly, para 8.12 on page 14 links housing investment issues in Noel Park, Wood Green N22, with the seemingly irrelevant statement that some tenants are unemployed, and with alleged high crime rates on Wood Green High Road. I have lived in this area for twelve years, and have always felt safe and secure on the High Road. Haringey Councillors should accept that unemployed or socially excluded people need decent and secure homes as much as anybody else.
The report claims that the expected regeneration investment needed for council estates will be beyond the scope of the Housing Revenue Account, leading to pressure on tenants for privatisation. We must therefore be concerned that Haringey's Medium Term Financial Plan to March 2017, appendix 1, page 7, shows that £1.5 million has been allocated from the Housing Revenue Account (that is, our rent and service charges) over the next three years 2014-17, to communicate with residents about the need for estate renewal.
We can expect there to be biased, partial communications to promote plans that have already in effect been decided upon, which would end by pricing local people out of our own areas. This is a misuse of our rent and leasehold charge funds.
The Tottenham strategic regeneration framework (LBH, draft for consultation November 2013) states of Northumberland Park in North Tottenham that >>Housing options in the area are… quite limited with over half of the housing consisting of affordable housing>Explore with the local community their ambitions for housing estate renewal in Northumberland Park with the aim of improving the quality and tenure mix and creating mixed and balanced communities