Thanks for your string, Joe, it confirms most of what I said in my blog. redbrickblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/wil… I'm not interested in political insults from either side but to find out what the real housing implications are. Apols - string!
Sometimes you give clear numbers - 6,400 new homes - sometimes they are absent - eg the number of social rent homes. In most big regen schemes the number of soc rent is reduced as the scheme progresses, not increased, as 'viability' (and greed) kicks in. It has to be tied down.
40% affordable is the borough target, it should be much higher on council-owned land. Affordable at 40% = 2560 but most of these are just sub-market and NOT genuinely affordable.
In the docs there is no estimate of tenants who will use right of return. Assume new soc rent = returners, whatever that is. That means this huge regen scheme will contribute nothing to homeless and waiting list, despite council leading on statement it will.
In the shorter term, many will have to be 'decanted' for the works. They will have priority for new lettings over homeless and waiting list, who will miss out in large numbers. There is no modelling in any of the documents about the impact of this.
Haringey's annual lettings plan shows how vulnerable the council is to reducing social lettings, it will fuel the already crippling temp accom bill. Again, no assessment is made of this.
In total there will be more market homes, more sub-market homes, but fewer social rent homes - the only tenure that meets needs of low income earners in Haringey. This is the pattern in London for 10 years and the political choice that is being made. end.
