1. Using FOI to protect social housing and council property

    Freedom of Information was one tool used in a coordinated campaign to prevent a council from selling off a large part of its property portfolio — including many social housing homes.

    Councils, strapped for cash during austerity, have been looking for other ways to raise revenue. As we saw from The Bureau Local’s sold from under you investigation, that has often meant selling off public land and property.

    But that can only be done once — the asset, and the benefits from it, are then gone. And when the properties in question are homes, there’s a significant human cost too.

    The Stop Haringey Development Vehicle campaign (SHDV) successfully prevented a property deal that would have brought about the demolition of some of the borough’s biggest housing estates so that the land could be redeveloped for enormous profits.

    The role WhatDoTheyKnow played was invaluable in terms of us seeking and often finding a wide variety of data to inform our campaigning, publicity and political pressure.

    It was a campaign that gained press attention and community support. It went as far as court, with substantial legal costs covered through crowdfunding.

    Hilary Adams told us how SHDV used our Freedom of Information site WhatDoTheyKnow, not just to send FOI requests but also to comb through the requests that were already published on the site to see what previously-released information might be useful.

    Haringey’s plan

    Back in 2017 Haringey council planned to set up what is known as a Joint Venture Vehicle — basically, a business arrangement between a number of parties — with Lendlease, an Australian multinational property developer.

    Hilary tells us, “The deal was widely advertised as having the potential future value of £2 billion. Half the property would have been given to Lendlease, everything to be owned 50/50. The company was not expected to pay, but rather would have borrowed money to use to develop the land, then sell many of the new properties.

    “The first part of this plan would have included the transfer of Northumberland Park Housing Estate, one of the largest in Haringey, along with many other smaller estates and individual social housing properties.

    “Those properties would have been demolished and replaced with largely private housing with reduced tenancy protections for any remaining social housing tenants.”

    But the council had not foreseen the degree to which the community would fight for their homes, and for the right to be included in major decisions that affected their borough.

    Community reactions

    Before the HDV I had never submitted an FOI request before — WhatDoTheyKnow made it really easy.

    Hilary says, “This was a broad-based opposition, both from members of political parties and many other local individuals in the community.

    “We feared, with good reason, that much of the social housing would be lost in this process. The sale would have, on day one, included the whole of the Commercial Portfolio of the council which amounted to a value of many millions. It also included the majority of council offices and other properties.

    “The second part of the plan would have included Broadwater Farm estate, another very large social housing estate, with a view to demolition and redevelopment with mostly private housing.”

    As well as the potential loss of countless homes, with no promise of rehousing within the borough, the plan was being implemented with very little scrutiny.

    The councils’ assessment reports were not publicly shared — and the only consultation held was an informal survey at a fun day, asking whether people supported ‘better quality housing’. Of course, most said yes!

    FOI as a campaign tool

    One of Hilary’s contributions to the campaign was in the assessment of information released through existing FOI requests, and in the putting in of new requests to fill the data gaps.

    “I attended a meeting where a local councillor spoke about the plans for the HDV.  She had recently been elected and was horrified by what she had discovered.

    “Once the campaign had started up, it was this same councillor that suggested I should use your site to coordinate the questions we might need to ask. I became the lead on this part of the campaign, although it was not my only area of work.”

    How FOI helped  

    “The role WhatDoTheyKnow played was invaluable in terms of us seeking and often finding a wide variety of data to inform our campaigning, publicity and political pressure.

    An FOI response can help focus on a key set of facts from a sea of too much detail.

    “I took responsibility for collating information that was already on your site and pertinent to us, and also for working out what further questions remained that we might need to ask.

    “We had a team issuing the requests, and I kept track of all the responses. That information was all collated and summarised by me and several reports compiled for use with both our media contacts and for our legal challenge.

    “Without your excellent site this task would have been virtually impossible.  As I am sure you can imagine, even with the site it was a gigantic task and I spent more hours of my life than I would have liked reading some of the most boring and irrelevant responses!”

    At this point, we must nod towards our WhatDoTheyKnow Pro service, which was in development at the time — but which would definitely help any future campaign with the donkey work of a mass FOI project.

    What was uncovered

    Hilary continues: “With diligence some gems of information came to light, some of which was already in the public domain — that often feels like it is hidden in plain sight and so our questions led to documents we otherwise might not have thought to consider.

    “One element which came up repeatedly, and which helped to sway public opinion was the regularity with which meetings were held, yet no records were kept.

    “I eventually collated all of these together, showing a pattern that led us to believe there was a degree of secrecy at play. Public money and resources were being disposed of yet much of the supposedly transparent decision making was anything but.

    “Another influential element revealed via FOI was that the property developers were meeting regularly with not only key council officials, but other significant public bodies. These meetings were officially consultative, yet clearly the minutes showed them making important decisions as to how Tottenham should be redeveloped. No representatives of local residents or small and medium local business had any equivalent access to the public authorities in this way with all the direct and indirect influence implied.

    “And while councillors were verbally assuring the community that social housing was protected, in reality the paperwork showed commitment only to 31% affordable homes — a very different concept to actual social housing at council rents, which were not secured in the plan. In Haringey there were something like 10,000 on the waiting list, and we could find no evidence, despite verbal assurances, as to how anybody would eventually be housed.

    “We also found repeated examples of large amounts of public money being given to developers who would later make significant profits.

    “All of this resonated strongly in the community and was fuel to the fire of the campaign both from a media and public opinion perspective.”

    Publicity for the campaign

    Freedom of Information also came into its own by providing the basis for press coverage.

    “We received significant media interest, and the ongoing information we were getting was useful, as new information would act as a focus for a fresh round of media attention.

    “I put together a compilation of FOI responses in the hope that by saving journalists work, we would encourage attention on the issues that caused us most concern.

    “Each new revelation that we were able to publicise had the effect of building opposition to the scheme and strengthened the campaign against it. We developed a good relationship with a Guardian journalist, Aditya Chakrabortty, who took a personal and long term interest in the issue.

    “In this article, for example, he makes direct reference to something we discovered via FOI: the existence of a shadow board, consisting of council officers and an elected councillor, which was set up prior to the council agreeing formally to the HDV with Lendlease.

    “This is a good example of how facts can be hidden in plain sight. Nobody opposed to the HDV had been aware of this until it was revealed in an FOI response. It had been included in one line of a 650 page council report, but few people read every document.

    “As this article reveals, this was only one of many vast collections of documents relating to the HDV. In that context, well placed questions can shed light on otherwise hidden corners.

    “Naturally we needed to read all the documentation, and there were a few people involved in the campaign who would do so. An FOI response, however, can help focus on a key set of facts from a sea of too much detail.”

    FOI contributing to the court case

    “Just as with the journalists, I compiled a summary of the FOI responses we felt were most useful, and this was used by the legal team in their preparation.

    Without your excellent site this task would have been virtually impossible.

    “We lost the legal case, but the one element found in our favour was that the council had failed in their duty to consult.

    “That information had been confirmed by FOI requests, by virtue of the limited response. They had been unable to provide much detail in relation to consultation, thus proving that nothing meaningful had taken place.

    “However, we were deemed to be out of time and the court case fell. Having said this, we had never expected to win the whole campaign via the courts. Any win would have only meant that they would be required to amend the process — the law would never have stopped the entire plan. We did not doubt they had the legal right to do it: we simply felt that it was not in the best interests of the people of Haringey.

    “Our main aim was to delay the signing of the contact with Lendlease long enough that new councillors would be in place and they would vote against the scheme. Unless we had amassed enough information to convince the court to allow the case to be heard, we would not have gained that delay: while the result was awaited, the council were prevented from signing any contract.”

    Looking back and looking forward

    A new council was voted in with members more sympathetic to the cause; that council halted the HDV and the campaign was eventually won after two long hard years. But is that the end of it?

    Hilary reckons so, for now at least: “The nature and vast size of the proposed HDV scheme was unique, and unlikely to be attempted again in the next decade.

    “Yes, our campaign had a huge impact, but we think the whole scheme was in danger of collapsing anyway because it was such a bad idea. It had few guarantees of success, and there were many ways in which it could have failed without any intervention from ourselves.

    “However, that failure would only have become apparent long after the public land and properties had been privatised, after which we would simply never have got them back.”

    And while the campaign succeeded, we cannot be complacent.

    “The HDV was conceived in the context of current times. Regeneration in Haringey, and indeed the world, continues to be a hot issue — there’s an international movement to privatise public land, housing and resources.

    “But while the underlying issues remain, and regeneration remains a cover for what amounts to social cleansing, we do feel that our campaign contributed to some shift in the discourse around these issues.

    “We won, and that was a significant event that has inspired others to try to defend their areas and raised public awareness of all of the issues encapsulated within.”

    Hilary continues to campaign with FOI.

    “Currently I am involved with the Wards Corner Latin Village campaign and we are using WhatDoTheyKnow to seek information that might help in that struggle.

    “Before the HDV I had never submitted an FOI request before — WhatDoTheyKnow made it really easy.”

    We’re very glad to be of use in these campaigns, and we wish Hilary the best of luck in future endeavours to preserve this pocket of North London.

    Image: Haringey Liberal democrats (CC by-nd/2.0)

  2. Mapumental + net yield = an advantage in the property market

    Our Mapumental software shows journey times on a map, with exciting results.

    But there’s more: combined with other datasets, it can answer a wide variety of questions, be put to a wide variety of uses across many industries.

    Most recently, we worked on a version for the Dolphin Square Foundation. Their remit requires them to find properties within a specific travel time from the centre of London, and with the best net yield—a perfect challenge for Mapumental. You can read what we did here.

    You may see some similarities with our Mapumental Property, which combines house prices with transit time, so property hunters can see what’s available both within their budget and within a tolerable commute of their workplace.

    We’ve used Mapumental for many a time-based travel conundrum, like our project with the Fire Protection Agency that drew on fire engine response times to  calculate risk-based insurance premiums for any given postcode. Or the work we did for the Welsh Government, plotting accessibility of schools.

    Like we said, Mapumental is flexible enough to work in all sorts of fields, for all sorts of purposes. Take a look at our Dolphin Square case study to find out more about its latest incarnation.

     

    Image: Garry Knight (CC)