Issue - meetings

The  Acting Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager to report that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the 29 July 2019 on consideration of the call  in of the Cabinet’s decision of the 9 July 2019, minute number 192 &201,resolved that the decision relating to the agreement of Red House Yard, 432 West Green Road N15 3PJ be referred back to Cabinet to reconsider the decision before taking a final decision within 5 working days in light of the views expressed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Part Four Section H(Call in Procedure Rules) paragraph 10(b) of the Constitution requires that when the Overview and Scrutiny Committee decides to refer a decision back to a decision maker  then the decision taker has 5 working days to reconsider the decision before taking a final decision.

The following documents are attached:

a)    Report of the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny setting out the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to Cabinet following consideration of the Call In form, verbal representations considered at the Overview &Scrutiny meeting, the Cabinet reports, minutes and exempt information, relating to the Cabinet decision Red House Yard, 432 West Green Road N15 3PJ – Report to follow

Additional Information

b)    Copy of the Call In form

c)    Excerpt from the draft minutes of the Cabinet held on 9 July 2019

d)    The public Cabinet Report  and public appendices on Red House Yard, 432 West Green Road N15 3PJ

e)    Report of the Monitoring Officer considered by the Overview and Scrutiny meeting.

f)     Report of the Director for Housing, Planning and Regeneration  considered by the Overview and Scrutiny meeting.

The Leader noted this was a special meeting of Cabinet held to re-consider the decision on Red House Yard, 432 West Green Road N15 3PJ taken at its 9 July 2019 Cabinet Meeting. This was following a call-in considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) at its meeting on the 29 July 2019, where they decided to refer this decision back to Cabinet for re-consideration.

Regarding the process of the meeting for Councillors present (who were not on Cabinet) to ask questions, the Leader referred to the Council’s Constitution at Part 4, Section F, 2.7, and allowed Members of the OSC and the Leader of the Opposition to ask questions in the meeting. Councillor Palmer was present on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition. 

The Leader next invited the Chair of the OSC, Councillor das Neves, to present the Committee’s report and recommendations from the call-in.

Councillor das Neves thanked the Leader and outlined the background and findings of the call-in meeting, as set out in the report at pages 1 – 3 of the supplementary report pack. Councillor das Neves highlighted the recommendations, as set out below. 

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Strategic Regeneration thanked Councillor das Neves and the OSC for their thorough review. The Cabinet Member was pleased that the OSC found the decision was within the budget and policy framework and provided the following responses in regards to its recommendations:

Recommendation 1 - That Cabinet defer final decision on the matter until an alternative and fully costed option for direct delivery of the scheme by the Council is developed, shared and considered fully.  The Borough Plan emphasises the building of Council homes on Council land and this commitment should be honoured by the Council through it retaining ownership of the freehold of sites and building homes itself wherever possible

This recommendation was not accepted.  As the Cabinet Members and officers stated at the OSC hearing, the preference of the Cabinet was to proceed with the Paul Simon Magic Homes (PSMH) land disposal and purchase agreement because it offered the fastest means of securing much needed Council homes against the Borough Plan objective of 1,000 Council homes.  A delay in making a decision on the proposed agreement with Paul Simon Magic Homes pending the production of a fully worked up direct delivery alternative would not only delay delivery of homes in any scenario but may also put the Paul Simon option at risk of being undeliverable. 

Recommendation 2 - Cabinet should consider how trust, accountability and transparency may be enhanced when making key decisions.  In particular, specific consideration should be given to how professional legal advice can best be recorded and shared so that a clear understanding can be gained of the substance of advice given and to what extent key decision makers have been party to that advice and their understanding of it. Cabinet should consider how this advice can be made available even if only as an exempt item

The principle  ...  view the full minutes text for item 210

a)    Cabinet Report on Red House Yard, 432 West Green Road N15 3PJ

b)    Cabinet Minutes on Red House Yard, 432 West Green Road N15 3PJ

c)    Copy of the Call in

d)    Report of the Director for Housing, Regeneration and Planning responding to the  Call in – To  follow

e)    Report of the Monitoring Officer and Director of Finance on the Call in  - To Follow

Councillors Davies, Hakata and Gordon introduced the call-in, and set out the main points:

-                 The building project was out of line with the Labour Group manifesto commitment to build Council housing on its’ own land. 

-                 The deal did not meet best value performance considerations, and there was no alternative value for money options set out for the Council to build the development.

-                 The development was contrary to Development Management Policies 11, 13 and 50.

-                 The deal would lead to the Council losing 46% of land it currently owned on the site.

-                 The Council wanted to provide more homes, and this could be achieved if the Council built the homes.

-                 The information provided in the exempt papers should be subject to full public scrutiny.

-                 The maps showing the development were confusing – sometimes the pub was included, and sometimes the Mitalee centre. 

-                 The timescale comparisons needed to be challenged as there was no proof that it would take longer for the Council to build.

-                 Members understood that it would be possible for the Council to build 60 homes on the site.

Members responded to questions from the Committee:

-                 One of the key factors included in the exempt information was the viability assessment, which would be useful to have included in the public information.

-                 It also would have been useful to have seen the advice provided by the external QC.

-                 Members were in favour of development on the site, but considered that the Cabinet decision was flawed, as it was based on limited information in relation to exploring other options.

Councillor Adje and Councillor Ibrahim responded to Cllrs Davies, Hakata and Gordon.  The issue of procurement was a non-issue, as the arrangement was ‘sale and purchase’ and therefore did not need to follow the OJEU process.  Ward Councillors were provided with the exempt information under the ‘need to know’ requirement, so it was not fair to say that this had not been seen by Members outside of the Cabinet.

Dan Hawthorn, Director of Housing, Regeneration and Planning, introduced the officer response to the call-in, and invited questions from the Committee.  Officers, Councillor Adje and Councillor Ibrahim responded to questions:

-                 As part of the programme, officers had worked up timescales for the Council to take the scheme forward, and indicative timings showed that to get to the same stage as Paul Simon Magic Homes would take 18-24 months.  This would include the formal consultation and planning processes.

-                 The programme to achieve the 1000 homes target would be a mixture of direct delivery and working in partnership with developments to either buy through s106 money or on council owned land.  The earliest delivery would be properties built by developers.

-                 This programme was not comparable with the HDV.  The outcome would be 46 council homes, with no ongoing partnership arrangement with the developers.

-                 A Site Allocation document was part of the Local Plan, which detailed where development could be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56