Protheroe House, Chesnut Rd N17 - Costs of Security Precautions etc

Alan Stanton made this Freedom of Information request to Haringey Borough Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear Haringey Borough Council,

Please would you give me the following information regarding the site of Protheroe House, formerly supported housing at the corner of Chesnut Road and Rycroft Way Tottenham N17.

1. When was this building finally vacated? - i.e. when did the last resident leave. (As I recall, residents in Protheroe House were being relocated during 2012 and the original target date for the building becoming empty was Christmas 2012. However, due to the need to meet the individual needs of each former resident, that date may have changed.)

2. What security arrangements were put in place to safeguard the building between the beginning of the relocation process and the building finally becoming empty? In this first phase of change, many rooms were left empty as some residents moved; while others remained.

3. What security arrangements were put in place to safeguard the building between its becoming completely empty and squatted in 2013. (The second phase.)

4. What security arrangements were put in place to safeguard the building between the eviction of the squatters and the present? (The third phase.) This appears to have entailed additional physical barriers and the employment of a security company with personnel on site with dogs, on a 24 hour/ seven day shift basis.

5. What were the additional costs to Haringey of the security arrangements in each of the three phases until now? Please give these costs as three separate totals for each phase and as average (mean) weekly costs for each phase.

6. What were the reasons for the delays between Protheroe House becoming empty and final agreement between Haringey and "One Housing" on a planning application to be lodged?

7. How long a delay was caused by negotiations on a section 106 contribution by One Housing?

8. Can you please tell me the proposed sum of the Section 106 contribution.

9. Has the Section 106 contribution been earmarked for a particular purpose?

10. If so, what purpose?

Yours faithfully,

Alan Stanton

Shah Varsha, Haringey Borough Council

Dear Mr Stanton

 

Freedom of Information / Environmental Information Regulations Request:
Reference LBH/2788414

 

I acknowledge your request for information received on 07 March 2014.

This information request will be dealt with in accordance with the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 / Environmental Information Regulations and we
will send the response by 04 April 2014.

 

If you have any questions, please contact us on 020 8489 2550 or
[email address].

Yours sincerely

Regards

 

 

Varsha Shah

Feedback Response Officer

Haringey Council 

River Park House, 225 High Road, London N22 8HQ

020 8489 3187

Email:[email address]

www.haringey.gov.uk

twitter@haringeycouncil

facebook.com/haringeycouncil

 

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

show quoted sections

Shah Varsha, Haringey Borough Council

 

Dear Mr Stanton,

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request ref: LBH/2788414

 

Thank you for your request for information received on 10 March 2014. 
Please find below our response to each of the questions in your request.:

 

1. When was this building finally vacated? - i.e. when did the last
resident leave. (As I recall, residents in Protheroe House were being
relocated during 2012 and the original target date for the building
becoming empty was Christmas 2012. However, due to the need to meet the
individual needs of each former resident, that date may have changed.)

The last tenant was relocated from Protheroe House on 30 December 2012

 

2. What security arrangements were put in place to safeguard the building
between the beginning of the relocation process and the building finally
becoming empty? In this first phase of change, many rooms were left empty
as some residents moved; while others remained.

During  the relocation of the residents there was the normal staff
presence.

 

3. What security arrangements were put in place to safeguard the building
between its becoming completely empty and squatted in 2013. (The second
phase.)

The  final  tenants were relocated  in  December 2012. After the final 
tenant was moved  Homes for Haringey  arranged  for Sitix metal security
screens to be fitted to the ground floor  and first floor  windows and to
all entrance  doors. The building was also alarmed.

 

4. What security arrangements were put in place to safeguard the building
between the eviction of the squatters and the present? (The third phase.)
This appears to have entailed additional physical barriers and the
employment of a security company with personnel on site with dogs, on a 24
hour/ seven day shift basis.

After the squatters were evicted, any missing  security screens were
replaced to the  doors and windows.  The alarm was reinstated and a
security guard with a dog is on site 24 hours per day.

 

5. What were the additional costs to Haringey of the security arrangements
in each of the three phases until now? Please give these costs as three
separate totals for each phase and as average (mean) weekly costs for each
phase.

During the first stage there were no additional  security costs. There
were security  costs of £12,885, ( average  weekly costs £500), in  phase
two, in  the final (third),  phase the security costs are a total of
 £94,218 to date, (average weekly  costs  £2500).

 

6. What were the reasons for the delays between Protheroe House becoming
empty and final agreement between Haringey and "One Housing" on a planning
application to be lodged?

Protheroe House was fully decanted by 1 January 2013. From Members
approving the selection of One Housing Group, (OHG), as preferred
development partner to the submission of a planning application, detailed
discussions on the design and Lease Agreement between the Council and OHG
ensued.   Between June to October 2013, squatters were in occupation of
the property which prohibited access to OHG officers to undertake
necessary surveys to inform the legal negotiations.  Following eviction of
the squatters the surveys were completed and the Lease agreed by both
parties. This enabled OHG to submit a planning application in November
2013.

7. How long a delay was caused by negotiations on a section 106
contribution by One Housing?

From September 2013, (pre-application stage), until February 2014. The
planning application was formally submitted and received in November 2013.

 

8. Can you please tell me the proposed sum of the Section 106
contribution.

£30,000

 

9. Has the Section 106 contribution been earmarked for a particular
purpose?

The S106 contribution has been earmarked towards the Green Link

 

10. If so, what purpose?

For improvements to the local green link, (traffic free route), within the
vicinity of the site and to enhance links between High Road Tottenham and
Tottenham Hale Station.

 

 

If you have any further queries, or are unhappy with how we have dealt
with your request and wish to make a complaint, please contact the
Feedback and Information Team as below. (Please note you should do this
within two months of receiving this response.)   

 

Feedback and Information Team

River Park House

225 High Road

N22 8HQ

Telephone: 020 8489 2550

 

Yours sincerely

 

Varsha Shah

Feedback Response Officer

Haringey Council 

River Park House, 225 High Road, London N22 8HQ

020 8489 3187

Email:[email address]

[1]www.haringey.gov.uk

twitter@haringeycouncil

facebook.com/haringeycouncil

 

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

 

 

 

 

 

From: Shah Varsha
Sent: 10 March 2014 13:16
To: '[FOI #200960 email]'
Subject: Stanton Freedom of Information request Reference LBH/2788414

 

Dear Mr Stanton

 

Freedom of Information / Environmental Information Regulations Request:
Reference LBH/2788414

 

I acknowledge your request for information received on 07 March 2014.

This information request will be dealt with in accordance with the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 / Environmental Information Regulations and we
will send the response by 04 April 2014.

 

If you have any questions, please contact us on 020 8489 2550 or
[2][email address].

 

Yours sincerely

Regards

 

 

Varsha Shah

Feedback Response Officer

Haringey Council 

River Park House, 225 High Road, London N22 8HQ

020 8489 3187

Email:[email address]

[3]www.haringey.gov.uk

twitter@haringeycouncil

facebook.com/haringeycouncil

 

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

show quoted sections

Michelle vonAhn left an annotation ()

Did Haringey actually have to wait until the building was fully empty before embarking on arranging its redevelopment and re-use?

What a stunning lot of planning this is... A building empty from 1 January 2013, squatted shortly thereafter with consequent costs in legal proceedings and on-site security. The occupation prevented the leasing to be concluded, and the planning application was not made until nearly a year after it becoming empty.

Haringey secured the grand total of £30,000 in a Section 106 agreement for a building that has cost the borough over £100,000 while it has been empty and unused (other than by the squatters).

Good going, Haringey! A sterling use of local resources!

Alan Stanton left an annotation ()

Thanks for your annotation, Michelle. As far as I am aware you have drawn broadly accurate inferences from the information so far available to me. With two exceptions.

(1) It appears that the group of squatters did not move into the Protheroe House premises until June 2013. So for at least five months before, the building was fully available for inspection/survey etc.

(2) Even after the building was squatted I would not necessarily assume that the squatters would have refused access for One Housing Group. So blaming them for part of the delay may be neither fair nor accurate. One reason is because - again as far as I know - they were not actually asked if they would agree to access.
As a local ward councillor at the time, I had occasional contact - always amicable - with the squatters group. This was mainly in an attempt to get them provided with water for drinking, washing and sanitation, on both health and basic humanitarian grounds. (I was unsuccessful in this.) But also - at the request of the squatters group, to facilitate a planned agreed exit date with the Council so members of the squatters group could try to find other accommodation and to avoid their belongings being thrown out and lost. (Partly successful.) In this I was in touch with Nick Walkley Haringey Chief Executive. So had Mr Walkley or anyone asked me to raise access for "One Housing" with the squatters I would have done so.

(3) It is likely that at least part of the the delay was caused by Haringey Planning Service negotiating the Section 106 payment from One Housing Group for the "Green Link". As you accurately state, the amount of £30,000 agreed with "One Housing" was less than the additional cost of the Security company during the delay. In other words, at £2,500 per week for security, the delay meant a net loss to Haringey.
It is not unreasonable to infer that planners gaining funding for their "Green Link" slicing through our local park, was seen as higher priority than providing Extra Care Housing Services for elderly and disabled residents.