Agenda and draft minutes

Please note that this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method. Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting. Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on. 

By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Leader referred to the notice about filming and recording at meetings and  meeting participants noted this information.

There were no items of urgent business to consider.

There were no declarations of interest put forward.

Ceri Williams put a deputation forward in relation to this report.

Ms Williams spoke against the recommendations contained in the report and with continuing the partnership with OnSide to provide a Youth Zone. In summary, the following issues were put forward to the Leader to consider:

• There was an abuse of process and misuse of a General Exception Notice (GEN). OnSide had been courting Haringey for years and in Ms Williams view, the Council could wait a further three weeks.

• The previous OnSide proposal was delayed and now an entirely new 3-way arrangement had been introduced at breakneck speed, giving nearly half the available borough-wide money to just one school in a single location, which was inaccessible in every way for most young people in the borough.

• No updated draft contract with OnSide was attached to the report to take into account the new 3-way arrangement. Nor draft to vary the current Woodside lease to allow them to lease to OnSide.  

• Reference was made to recommendations 3.1f - 3.1G. In Ms William’s view, if before the 3rd May, any Council officer attempted to actually pass over the £3m capital cash, or draw up a binding contract to promise the revenue money to Woodside/OnSide, based on the inadequate supporting papers presented to date, they would be on very uncertain ground because so many key documents were missing.

• The deputation contended that Paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 made extravagant claims that the new local Chair, Alderman King and OnSide itself would be able to lever in “unique” funds once the LBH match was confirmed. However, this was for the first 3 years as after that they could walk away. Ms Williams had spoken personally with local OnSide Board members in other towns, and with those involved in the voluntary sector in boroughs where the OnSide had been allowed in. They advised that the OnSide model brings huge problems. The vast buildings end up having to hoover up all available local trust and private funding to cover their costs. After the initial 3 years, they were only competing for funding from the same pot. Most have to commercialise, and so you ended up with a publicly funded building operating as a semi-private sports hall.

·         Ms Williams contended that the Council had been approached by Onside and questioned whether due consideration had been given to their governance profile and whether their expertise and experience was best placed to provide services for young people.

·         Ms Williams concluded by stating that there were no credible strategic outcomes listed, no consultations with youth practioners and young people in the borough to support the recommendations and this was the wrong location. This was not an emergency decision and not part of a council strategy.

·         Ms Williams also claimed that both MP’s were calling on the Council to pause the proposed development.

·         She believed no Council working with Onside had yet agreed site on school land apart from Haringey.

In response to a question from the Leader,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The report sought approval to enter into an agreement for lease with Healthlink Investments Ltd for a unit at the prospective Welbourne development at Tottenham Hale in order to realise the Welbourne Health Centre.

The Leader noted that the agreement with Argent Related contained an obligation for them to deliver a health care facility to shell and core specification, of 1,500 square metres, with the Council taking a long lease back for this health care unit, subject to a further key decision on the financial and operational arrangements for the health centre. 

The report now sought this key decision in order to secure the health centre.  Because the financial and operational details of the Health Centre had now been resolved, it was proposed that the Council dispose of a long lease to HealthLink, the third party developer appointed by the GP practice.  HealthLink would fit out the health centre once Argent Related had completed the building and have leased the unit back to the Council.  The terms of the disposal to HealthLink would be as set out in the agreed Heads of Terms, as referred to in Annex C of this report.

The CCG required a commitment from the Council to support the preliminary approval in order to secure the funding of the proposed health centre. Full business approval would be needed after planning consent was granted for the development scheme to be put forward by Argent Related, which was estimated for later in 2018.  It was proposed that the Council agree now to dispose of the property based on a long lease to HealthLink Investments Ltd, appointed by the CCG to fit out the health centre, as per the Heads of Terms as referred to in Annex C of this report.

In response to questions from Cllr Brabazon and Cllr Connor, the following was noted.

·         Argent Related had the responsibility for providing a health centre, regardless of the type of regeneration scheme being taken forward.

·         Noted that the disposal of the lease would be for a term of 125 years for the premium set out in and based on the agreed Heads of Terms attached in Annex C of this report. Therefore, the council would be obtaining a premium receipt for the lease and HealthLink Investments Ltd would be funding the fit out of the new health centre.

·         It was not yet known what the range of health facilities expected to be provided form the new health centre would be. Agreed that Cllr Connor is provided with an update on when this decision is due to be made by the CCG and Health and Wellbeing board.

Further to considering private information at item 8,

RESOLVED

1.    To approve the disposal to HealthLink Investments Limited of the new health facility unit (outlined in red in the plan in Appendix A2) to be built by TH Ferry Island Limited Partnership under the Development Agreement dated 21 March 2017 on the Welbourne Centre site in Tottenham Hale subject to the Lease back  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

As per item 2

None

RESOLVED

That the press and public be excluded from the reminder of the meeting as the items contained exempt information, as defined under Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

RESOLVED

 That the press and public be excluded from the reminder of the meeting as the items contained exempt information, as defined under Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

To consider exempt information pertaining to item 5.

As per item 45.

As per item 2.

None