We'll keep the Red Flag Flying Here and a Magic Money Tree - #HTHbaddeal

[Adrian Essex]

It's sometimes slightly surprising what you can find on the internet. Haringey Labour's very public rows about how Haringey should be run (any one who is not a Labour supporter hardly matters) are making headlines all over the place, and some sidelines too. This Facebook post sets out at some length (soon to be ex) Cllr  Strickland's demise, and speculates on the implications for Crouch End. It provides a link to a Google Drive repository of the 10 candidate profiles for the internal Crouch End Labour party selection,

There is also a Crouch End Labour Party Facebook Page which, slightly surprisingly, is in full view of everyone with a Facebook Account.

It contains this, fully publicly visible exchange between Cllr (soon to be ex?) Jason Arthur and some members who question his arithmetic. I've reproduced it below, in case the group becomes shy.

Jason Arthur shared a link.

17 November at 15:14

HTH Update: the development will generate at least 25 affordable housing units. 11 of these will be social housing on site, and at least a further 15 units at other sites in the west of Haringey. All paid for by the developer.

A review mechanism will also be put in place so that if the private properties sell for more than anticipated, FEC will have to pay an additional land receipt to the Council. This will mean that additional profit will come to Haringey that can be used to pay for even more affordable housing.

More information here:

25+ Affordable Homes in Hornsey Town Hall Development

The latest news on Hornsey Town Hall is that the development will generate at least 25 affordable housing units. 11 of these will be on site and at least a further 15 at…

CROUCHENDLABOUR.WORDPRESS.COM

Joel Northcott Great stuff - let's just get on and build it now!

LikeShow More Reactions

 · 

1

 · 17 November at 17:49

Remove

Ruth Selig 1 family unit only in the Town Hall site - the rest are studio or 1 bed. Not what Haringey needs - they need family accommodation. AND...Still going to be 7 storeys high in a Conservation Area of 2-3 storey high houses. Block B has only been reduced by 900mm - that’s the height of a table. (and only achieved by removing the energy reducing plant (PV’s)...where are they now? Or don’t FEC need to satisfy energy regulations?). What’s Haringey’s legacy going to be .... decimating a Victorian Conservation area and kowtowing to FEC? Come on Jason - you can do better than that! Listen to the residents and Haringey’s own Area Conservation reports. FEC can afford to build lower- they’ll still gain mega profits!

LikeShow More Reactions

 · 

1

 · 17 November at 18:02

Remove

Jason Arthur Hi Ruth, hadn’t realised you had joined the Labour Party. Welcome to the fold! The post was an update on affordable and social housing. When we were elected, 4 were planned. In the summer, the application suggested there would be none. Now, if the application is agreed, there will 25-30, with at least 11 as social housing. Clearly there are concerns on the sensitivity of the development that need to be worked through, but that shouldn’t stop us acknowledging progress on affordable (and social) housing. Also, the development will see a mix of 1 and 2 beds. Let’s discuss more in person when Natan, Sarah and I meet with you and other residents on Weston Park/Haringey Park.

LikeShow More Reactions

 · 18 November at 08:21

Remove

Ruth Selig But still no family units in Crouchend and still 7 storeys! That’s more than “sensitivity”. That’s counter to Haringey’s needs & counter to their own Conservation Policies. And both have been glossed over in FEC’s letter. 
Yes, looking forward to our meeting.

LikeShow More Reactions

 · 18 November at 08:43

Remove

Caroline Clayton Jason, yes this overdevelopment secures 26 affordable units but Labour is ‘for the many’. The bigger picture is that the proposed 7 storey tower blocks trash a designated Conservation Area and the luxury flats they contain will be marketed to foreign investors. The Caymen-Island based developer, FEC, market their properties to foreign investors (it's currently advertising its Manchester development off-plan direct to buyers in Hong Kong) which pushes up rents and property prices - so the next generation of Crouch End house hunters who don’t qualify for social housing will be priced out. People living here who want to downsize will also be pushed out. It's not a win win at all. The development must be rejected on terms of its scale, height and density.

LikeShow More Reactions

 · 

2

 · 17 November at 18:49 · Edited

Remove

Jason Arthur Caroline - we have asked them to commit to marketing the properties in the UK rather than off-plan to buyers abroad. They have agreed and intend to make a public commitment to that affect. On the bigger picture, sensitivity of the development is definitely a key issue, but let’s not forget restoring and refurbishing a crumbling grade II* listed building. Let’s discuss in person next week Sat rather than on Fb. J

LikeShow More Reactions

 · 18 November at 08:25

Remove

Caroline Clayton Jason Arthur I look forward to discussing in person. However there are points I’d like clarification on and I think members of this group would be interested in too. For clarification, are FEC going to market the flats with a local chain of estate agents which would ensure local buyers and bring money into the local economy? Or will the gig go to Savills who say on their website: “Our specialist New Homes team markets a variety of new-build properties for sale in London… If you're looking for London property from further afield we also have international teams who provide the same quality of service around the world.” ?

LikeShow More Reactions

 · 18 November at 11:29 · Edited

Remove

Ruth Selig Jason Arthur we were told the land receipt of £3.5m had already been spent on procurement- has Haringey found some more?

LikeShow More Reactions

 · 17 November at 18:49

Remove

Jason Arthur Not sure what you are referring to Ruth. The Council will be spending the land receipt on affordable housing, subject to a cabinet member signing. No additional funding has had to be found.

LikeShow More Reactions

 · 18 November at 08:07

Remove

Ruth Selig Jason Arthur I’m referring to the Cabinet report of June 2015 extract above which shows a procurement spend of nearly £1.5m. (Not including that spent with the previous project with Mountview). So where’s the extra £3.5m coming from for affordable housing - clearly not from the sale (give away) of the HTH site.

LikeShow More Reactions

 · 18 November at 11:16

Remove

Jason Arthur Ruth Selig Firstly 6.3 of the extract you reference indicates borrowing will be used to cover £1.1m of procurement costs, with additional £300k set aside in capital funding already. More importantly, a new capital strategy was agreed as part of the MTFS in February of this year so the report you reference is old and has been superseded. Key thing is that no extra funding from the council is being used to for the additional affordable housing off-site. A cabinet member signing will ring-fence the land receipt for this purpose.

LikeShow More Reactions

 · 18 November at 11:30

Remove

Ruth Selig That doesn’t make sense.....you’re borrowing money to pay for procurement when you should have used the sale of HTH....the supposedly big cash cow of Haringey. Of course you’re using extra money/ funding - you’re using borrowed money Haringey doesn’t have! And in the process you’re pretending to your voters that this is a great deal as we have lots off affordable housing out of the process. Well not if you have to borrow to make figures stack up! (Oh and did I mention that FEC are pretending they’ve reduced the size of the blocks when in actual fact it’s still 7 storeys looming over the conservation area and listed buildings?)

LikeShow More Reactions

 · 18 November at 11:47

Remove

Jason Arthur Sorry Ruth Selig, but that’s not correct. Firstly, many of those costs have been incurred over the last two years. Given that a) the deal has not yet been completed (ie we have not received the capital receipt) and b) the current low cost of borrowing, it makes perfect sense to finance procurement costs in that way. It’s a pretty standard approach to look at the capital budget in the round rather than hypothecate income from a specific development to finance specific procurement costs of that development. If you need more clarity on this, I’m very happy to share a response from the Chief Finance Officer explaining this. I’m going to leave it there, as this feels a bit like an attempt to undermine progress on a specific issue because you are against the application overall. See you next week.

LikeShow More Reactions

 · 18 November at 12:04 · Edited

Remove

Ruth Selig Jason Arthur just to be clear I’m absolutely in favour of restoring the town hall but not in this way. I’m not in favour of Haringey being bullied and your constituents hoodwinked by FEC - a huge off-shore registered development company raking in mega profits, draining Haringey of potential funds and ruining Crouchend for ever. It can be done at a lower build height with affordable housing paid for by the developer and that’s what I hope the elected members will continue to push for.