Inquiry into estate regeneration ballot ruled out

Senior Haringey councillors have rejected calls for an independent inquiry into an estate regeneration ballot that was subject to allegations of “interference and impropriety”.

Cabinet members said in a report that the council had “not received evidence relating to misconduct by officers” that would warrant an independent review of the ballot of residents on Love Lane Estate in Tottenham.

However, they have agreed to carry out a “lessons learnt” review designed to improve the council’s engagement with residents.

The ballot of Love Lane Estate residents last summer – the first of its kind in Haringey – saw voters narrowly back the council’s plan to demolish the estate to make way for the 2,600-home High Road West development.

But in November, the council’s overview and scrutiny committee called for an independent review of the ballot after hearing allegations officers had collected votes and put “pressure” on residents. According to a report, the committee “received emails from local campaign groups and residents with allegations of interference and impropriety”.

During a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, campaigners urged councillors to back an independent review after claiming the outcome of the vote could have been affected by “problems” with the ballot process.

Speaking during a deputation to the meeting, Keith Dobie claimed residents had told campaigners about “door-to-door vote collection by council officers” and raised concerns tenants had not been provided with “sufficiently honest, accurate and unbiased information”.

Keith also warned the council may not be able to deliver on its promise that existing Love Lane tenants will be offered new council homes on the High Road West scheme.

Khaled Moyeed, chair of the overview and scrutiny committee, also called for an independent review of the ballot. He told the meeting: “We are talking about a historic ballot that has taken place […] In years to come, if this has gone ahead, we do not want to hear allegations that the ballot was questionable. Surely an independent review is the right thing to do?”

According to the cabinet response to the scrutiny report, Civica, the independent body appointed to oversee the ballot, carried out a door-knocking exercise with a mobile ballot box “to provide an opportunity for residents to vote in person if they wished to” – but they were not accompanied by council officers.

The response adds that phone calls and door knocking were used “sensitively” to engage with estate residents. Although officers would provide information to residents on how to vote, they “did not vote on behalf of residents or tell them to vote a certain way”.

Speaking during the cabinet meeting, Ruth Gordon, cabinet member for housebuilding, placemaking and economic development, said there was “no evidence” to suggest an independent organisation should be appointed to investigate the ballot process.

Cllr Gordon acknowledged four sealed ballot papers were collected at the request of residents but said Civica had advised this did not invalidate the process. Peter O’Brien, the council’s the council’s assistant director of regeneration and economic development, said in November the collection of sealed ballots was “instigated by individuals with severe mobility issues”.

Cllr Gordon added that any complaints should be dealt with in a “fair and consistent way” using the council’s formal complaints procedure.