The legal challenge from Gordon Peters on behalf of StopHDV campaign gets into the High Court next week:
"On Wednesday 25 and Thursday 26 October there will be Judicial Review of the decision by Haringey Council to set up a joint partnership with Lendlease, the Australian multi-national corporation which will take over development and regeneration work in Haringey, worth at least £2 billion of property and land which will be transferred out of public control. This includes not only large estates like Northumberland Park in Tottenham but smaller estates such as Tunnel Gardens (behind Durnsford Road) and some homes off Durnsford Road in Alexandra ward, and all the commercial premises owned by the borough.
There will be a demo on both days outside the court at Strand, London, WC2A 2LL from 9 to 10 am
Also the crowdfunding has re-opened at STOP HDV - Haringey Development Vehicle as this is costing a lot of money to stop such demolition of communities and disruption to vulnerable people especially. David Wolfe QC who successfully defended Alexandra Palace against its being sold off by the Council ten years ago is leading for us in this action.
Please also consider turning up outside the Royal Courts of Justice between 9 and 10 am on either 25th or 26th October to lobby, or inside the court during the day to swell the public gallery.
Gordon"
Gordon Peters is a retired Social Services Director and currently chair of Haringey Older Peoples Reference Group
Replies
Here's Gordon Peters' account of what happened in the High Court, and what outcome we can expect from it:
"Judicial Review concluded on Thursday. David Wolfe, our QC, summed up after hearing the arguments put by three QCs representing Haringey and Lendlease, who identified themselves as together in this action. They maintained I was ‘out of time’ and said ‘relief’ [costs ceiling] should be denied, and then opposed our four grounds:
They then used the Overview and Scrutiny recommendations - which were asking for a halt on grounds of risk and democratic deficit, and had included a week long panel of experts giving reasons why this [HDV] was a bad move - as an example of how much consultation the Cabinet had done, even though they went ahead and ignored it. And more then traducing our motives. And using real alternative approaches such as Our Tottenham [totally against this] - which had been mentioned and then immediately dismissed in report to Cabinet - as example of how open and fair the whole process was.
Our QC was then able to show the many contradictory positions in the Cabinet and HDV process and use their own documents [over 700 pages of which had been redacted and where all the key information was never shared with anyone outside the Cabinet, Lendlease or three officers] to underline the real intentions of the HDV deal, namely demolition and higher cost replacement and no protection for social housing and the people dependent on that, and replacement of leaseholds, etc., maintaining that the Freedom of Information Act, Human Rights Act and Public Sector Equality Duty were all defaulted by the HDV.
He then asked the judge to rule that: The HDV be declared an unlawful action.
The judge will review this and we shall learn when a decision is immanent. Lawyers do not expect this for some weeks yet. The result so far is that we have already effectively delayed the HDV by several months, and nothing can now go ahead until a decision is made on ‘vires’. The timescale for the Cabinet is critical. The re-selection of councillors for the May ’18 elections is now upon them, and position taken on the HDV [previously split in Labour with a narrow majority backing the Cabinet] is the litmus test now.
The StopHDV campaign will continue [and that could of course mean an appeal if the judgement went against us]. There is both a London-wide and national significance as every authority and development company interest is looking to this. I have no doubt that we can crowd-fund again if needs be and thus delaying it further. I think it is almost dead in the water, and that will have huge ramifications for development corporations and local authorities if they choose to ignore actual local needs, community fabric, social housing and the manner of dealing with consultation [public ballots for instance]. Atb, Gordon"
And an article in today's paper:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/25/labour-counci...
Here's the Ham&High's account of what happened in the High Court over the last two days:
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime-court/judge-told-haringey-counc...
The hearing has now finished, and the Judge will take several weeks to make his decision.