Issue - meetings

Cllr White left the meeting room, following his declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest.

The Chair had received a deputation in relation to item 12.2 - High Road West Scrutiny Review and invited Paul Burnham to put forward his representations.

 Michael Hodges and Florence Allayway accompanied Mr Burnham

The deputation spoke against the High Road West Scheme as a whole and highlighted the recent Lendlease planning application which, in their view, showed that the whole scheme was unviable and produced only half the rate of profit that Lendlease needed to take forward the rest of the scheme as set out in previous Cabinet reports.

In the deputation’s view the recent Planning application indicated that the Council would not be able to offer the single move to most residents as promised in the earlier Cabinet reports and voted on. There had been 500 Council homes promised but 300 would not be ready until 2032 and in the view of the deputation would mean that residents would spend longer in temporary accommodation.

Mr Burnham contended that 70% of the new homes would be offered on the open market with only 30% available on shared ownership, which was less affordable for local residents and meant less access to housing by BAME residents. Therefore, development using the £90m of GLA money, which would, end up supporting non-council homes and would also drive up the value of homes and rents in the area and increase retail costs.

The deputation continued to outline their concerns on the conduct of the Love Lane Ballot, including:

• That Council officers had targeted contact with residents that were vulnerable in respect of their uncertainty on a yes or no vote for demolition.
• There was a significant number of officer contacts with Love Lane residents to ensure completion of the ballot responses.
• Concerns raised that there had been collection of ballots by officers, which the ballot registration company had advised against but had still been taken forward on 4 occasions.
• A statement read out from a resident advising repeated phone calls from an officer and door being knocked on several times. The Committee heard from the deputation that this resident had indicated that they were uncertain and did not understand the choice being given. The resident had then received follow up calls, and a visit to their home. The resident then decided their vote and was helped to complete this online. In the deputation’s view, this statement was enough information to warrant a review of the conduct of the ballot process, before any further steps on the demolition were taken.

In response to questions from the Committee, the following responses were provided by the deputation party:

The deputation contended that viability was a complex calculation and expectation of 20% and 14% return on the scheme and whole scheme profit of 6.6% profit. The expectation was that the construction of the homes will in turn increase the prices of the homes and allow the profit to be made by scheme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24