Plea for re-run of estate demolition vote

Haringey Council has been asked to consider re-running a vote on a Tottenham regeneration scheme following revelations that officers collected four sealed ballot papers.

A panel of councillors agreed to make the recommendation after raising concerns over the way the ballot on the regeneration of the Love Lane Estate was carried out.

Under City Hall funding rules, estate regeneration schemes involving the demolition of social housing must be backed by a majority of existing residents before they can go ahead. The Love Lane vote saw residents narrowly support the scheme – 55.7% of those taking part voted in favour – paving the way for the demolition of 297 homes to make way for the 2,600-home High Road West development. 

A report presented to the housing and regeneration scrutiny panel on Thursday said council officers “did not at any stage seek to influence or interfere with the independent ballot process”. But councillors raised concerns after learning officers had collected four sealed ballots – a practice that would not be permitted in a UK general election.

Under questioning from the panel, the council’s assistant director of regeneration and economic development Peter O’Brien said the authority had followed the advice of Civica – the independent body appointed to oversee the ballot – “to the letter” at “every stage of the process”.

He said: “There was no process of systematic vote collecting, absolutely no situations where council officers touched ballots, sat and watched people filling in their ballot forms, stuffed envelopes or any other of the various suggestions that have been made at various different points.”

But he said Civica’s advice stated that the council should “only as a last resort” accept sealed ballots from residents and “use their judgement in relation to that”. Peter revealed this happened on four occasions, which he claimed was “instigated by individuals with severe mobility issues”.

Panel member Emine Ibrahim said council officers should not have been collecting papers in a ballot that the council was involved in, and that other ways of voting should have been made available instead.

Residents were also able to vote by telephone or using the internet, and Peter claimed they had been encouraged to use those alternative channels. Under further questioning, he said Civica had advised that the ballot was valid and in line with GLA [Greater London Authority] funding guidelines.

Ruth Gordon, Haringey’s cabinet member for housebuilding, placemaking and economic development, told the meeting she did not see any reason for running the ballot a second time.

But scrutiny panel chair Matt White said: “I feel like this should not really happen. It would be illegal in a normal election, in a national election. Why it is permitted in this election, I’m not sure, so I would like to recommend that it does not happen again.

“Even if it is considered that it is within the rules, I think rather than as a last resort, council officers in ballots of this type [….] that they don’t do it [collect ballots] and that they find other methods for people who might struggle to cast their ballots.”

Cllr Ibrahim recommended that the council “considers” re-running the ballot. Both of these recommendations were agreed by the panel.