Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting held on 31 November 2015 be agreed as a correct record.

The Chairman welcomed sixth form students of Politics from Barnet Youth Engagement Programme who have been observing a number of committees to gain first-hand knowledge of how local politics work in a council committee structure.

Apologies were received from Councillor Richard Cornelius.

None.

None.

None.

The Chairman invited Councillor Pauline Coakley-Web to introduce her Member’s Item, which related to ARG Committee receiving regular updates on Brent Cross Cricklewood Consultation.

Following discussion on the item, the Chairman invited the Commissioning Director for Growth and Development to provide a verbal update on consultations undertaken to date including the following:-

·         As part of the planning application for the Brent Cross development in 2012/2013, a Statement of Community Involvement was produced and published on the Council’s website.

·         Community Consultation statements are also on the website setting out the approach to be taken by the development partners.

·         Slides containing summaries of the consultation programme are also being produced for circulation and will be circulated to members. A variety of methods are being used - for example:

o    Hammerson have a database of 35,000 addresses to tap into

o    Argent are consulting in a number of non-formal ways such as being out in the community at a range of events.

o   Soundings - Consultation specialists  have been appointed

o   The Chairman and Local Councillors have been consulted recently and updated 

Councillor Coakley-Webb asked for information on number of responses received, and on who is being engaged.

Following discussion of the item, the Committee requested for information on consultations and engagement to be a standing item on the agenda and form part of the Committee’s work programme.

The Committee RESOLVED:

1.    To have a Community Consultation and Engagement as a standing item on the agenda

2.    That Consultation and engagement form part of ARG Committee’s Work Programme

The Chairman introduced the Business Hub report which falls under the Enterprise Barnet initiative and which is seeking approval of the Outline Business Case involving a bid to the  European Regional Development Fund for £500,000 to be  match funded by £500,000 from the Council’s Infrastructure Reserve - a total of £1m to support development of the Businesses Hub.

Councillor Coakley-Webb queried what would happen if the bid was not successful and the Chairman responded that the funding bid was subject to a 2 stage process whereby feedback on the bid will be received in April and if successful, further feedback will be received in the summer.  If unsuccessful, then the scheme will be scaled down.

Councillor Philip Cohen welcomed the assistance that would be available for small businesses but raised a concern that research results on why high numbers of small business were struggling had not yet been done and questioned the wisdom in providing business services before obtaining the information to base the proposal on.  Councillor Thomas said that the Hub  will be asked to go and find this information out and referred to page 16 , paragraph 1.6 of the report.

Councillor Coakley referred to a previous discussion and concern regarding targeting high growth potential businesses and the risk of cherry picking big businesses.  How will the Business hub pick it’s clients? Councillor Cooke warned of the need to avoid a situation whereby Re, who have a business development target in their base contract which is funded, do not get paid through ERDF funding for something they are already funded to do?  The Chairman invited the Commissioning Director for Growth and Development said that the ERDF bid sets out outcomes that go beyond Re’s contractual requirements.

With regard to pre-Gazelle businesses that are not yet growing, Councillor Rosenberg queried how will it be established how much debt businesses  have and how many times they access funding form the hub. There is a need to guard against only providing services to businesses who approach the hub and not the other way around. Councillor Narenthira feared that the system would not be fair if recipients of business support were selected only. He requested information on best practice elsewhere, and to hear from other boroughs.

The Chairman said it would be useful to set out the remit of the Hub. Councillor Ryde said there is a strong case for successful micro economies as the success of businesses impacts on the council.  Councillor Grover commented that once analysis is done, it will be clear which sectors are high performers and other are low.

Following discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to a vote on the report recommendations. The Committee therefore

RESOLVED To

1.    Note the Outline Case for an independent and financially sustainable business hub set out in Appendix One.

2.    Confirm the funding arrangements for the development of Business Hub activity, particularly the role of external funding to resource it.

3.    Agree to commence the development of a Full  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Chairman introduced the report, which related to the Annual update report on the Growth and Regeneration Programme. He thanked officers for producing a comprehensive report and for the work done in the last 12 months.

Councillor Coakley-Webb was concerned that the report had an overly positive outlook, for example it noted that 50% of business were doing well, but did not comment on the 50% not doing well. She raised concerns about the provision of housing that was social provision as opposed to just affordable and Councillor Cook said that it needs to be clear how many houses were being lost, whilst Councillor Narenthira raised the concern that in many schemes identified in the report, no affordable housing was being provided – only houses for sale.

The Chairman clarified the position which was that houses lost were being replaced with affordable ownership homes and that the report is merely a snapshot of what is happening across the borough and where we are to date.

The Commissioning Director of Growth and Development agreed to liaise with Re to identify how best to provide a suitable way to monitor and report on number of homes provided by housing tenure and mix.

The Committee RESOLVED to:

1.    Note and approve the general progress being made towards delivering the Borough’s regeneration and development pipeline schemes; and skills and enterprise activities

2.    Note and approve key achievements and successes from April 2015 to March 2016, as well as expected activities in 2016/17.

3.     

The Chairman introduced the item and explained that whilst most of the property possessions would be undertaken through private treaties, the CPOs are necessary to provide a mechanism for the developments to take place and within reasonable timescales.

Councillor Coakley-Webb wanted to know what lessons have been learned since the last West Hendon CPO, and what will engagement around this CPO look like?

The Commissioning Director for Growth and Development said that by the end of the last CPO process, the development partners had learnt an enormous amount about how to proceed.  Simon Bailey – Regeneration Manager identified new ways of working which included:-

·         Regeneration Partnership Board meetings

·         Drop-in sessions

·         News letter

·         Mailouts

·         Monthly construction working groups

·         Bringing forword provision of a community centre

·         Having officers based locally on the estate

·         Meeting ward councillors

Councillor Narenthira stated that from past experience the valuations were low.  Councillor Coakley-webb said that the last CPO was a tragedy as a result of the steress and misery casued to people.  There were far too many errors and valuations were dragged out.  There is no confidence that the same would not happen again.

The Chairman said that developers need to be reassured before they invest and that the on the last occasion it was shown that not all were used and then only as a last resort. Councillor Narenthira said residents need to be safeguarded against receiving low offers for their properties.

Councillor Rosenberg thought that having officers base on site (ie from the ALMO and the Council, is something that should be done in future.

Following the discussion, the Chairman moved to a vote on the recommendations.

1.1       to authorise the making of CPO2 and CPO2a;

1.2       that the appropriate Chief Officer be authorised to issue and sign the order, notices and certificates in connection with the making, confirmation and implementation of CPO2 and CPO2a;

1.3       that the appropriate Chief Officer be authorised to make General Vesting Declarations (GVDs) under the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 and/or to serve notices to treat and notices of entry (if required) following confirmation of CPO2 and CPO2a;

1.4       that the appropriate Chief Officer  be authorised to issue and serve any warrants to obtain possession of property acquired by the Council following the execution of a GVD or service of a notice of entry relating to CPO2 and/or CPO2a if it was considered appropriate to do so;

1.5       that the appropriate Chief Officer be authorised to transfer all properties and proprietary interests acquired pursuant to CPO2 and CPO2a to the relevant development partners in accordance with the terms of the restated Principal Development Agreement dated 5 February 2014;

1.6         that the appropriate Chief Officer  be authorised to take any further necessary actions to secure the making, confirmation and implementation of CPO2 and CPO2a;

1.7         that the appropriate Chief Officer be authorised to appropriate to planning purposes any parcel of land within the red line planning application boundary for the scheme and/or the CPO Plan (attached  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Chairman introduced the item and briefed committee on the outcome of the Colindale Office planning application that went to committee (date). At planning the attempt to defer the item up to full council was considered unconstitutional and was ultimately deferred to the next planning meeting on (date?).  The Chairman informed the committee of a revision to recommendation 4 to include ‘subject to planning approval’ in the last sentence.

Councillor Coakley-Webb queried how sensible it was to build a new council building with no parking and on the assumption that 5 disabled parking bays for the authority is enough. She requested that the proposal goes back to the developer for a re-design to include some adequate parking provision.

Councillor Cohen asked for the scheme to go back to March Planning Committee with an amended planning application.

Councillor Cooke made the point that the terms of reference of ARG Committee should include having some say on the design of key developments such as the Colindale Office which may have an interface with planning.

Following the discussion on the item, the Chairman moved to a vote on the following recommendations:

1.    That the Committee note the progress on the Colindale Office project;

2.    That the Committee note that a Full Business Case (FBC) is being prepared for consideration in June 2016, which will include an EIA.

3.    That the Committee approve the use of up to £2 million of the existing budget allocation for conclusion of the pre-construction activities and technical design and help maintain the current delivery programme ahead of the submission of the Full Business Case. The £2 million allocation constitutes 7.5% of the estimated overall Capital Build Budget.

4.    That the Committee agrees to delegate the authority to the Chief Operating Officer to settle terms and enter into the required pre-construction stage agreements

Votes on the report was recorded as follows:

The Chairman used his casting vote in favour.

Immediately following the vote Councillor Cooke, moved to refer the item to the next practicable meeting of Full Council. The referral was supported by:

·         Councillor Coakley-Webb

·         Councillor Narenthira 

·         Councillor Philip Cohen

Context for referral following officer presentation and debate:

·         Not convinced that legally the item can be decided upon following

confirmation that the decision cannot be taken to Full Council and no

decision at Planning Committee;

·         Not convinced that the decision to refer to the next Planning Committee

31st March 2016 is relevant when the premise of the scheme without

parking is flawed;

·         Not convinced that the Assets, Regeneration and Growth Committee

Has no remit to comment on parking considerations relevant to the

scheme – should be in Assets, Regeneration and Growth Committee

remit ;

·         Not convinced that amending the recommendation of the Assets,

Regeneration and Growth Committee report to include “subject to

planning approval” is appropriate for the scheme;

Not convinced that there are sufficient disabled parking spaces allocated within the proposal whether on site or at RAF museum.

The reasons  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The Chairman introduced the next item – the ARG’s Commissioning Plan for the next five years 2015 - 2020.

Councillor Cook stated that the plan was not a suitable document to present to a politically split committee which does not have a consensus.  Clarification of the figures in Appendix 1 were requested – housing targets, budget savings and investment as they were considered difficult to substantiate without more detail.  Councillor Coakley-Web wanted to know where income and savings had been made and how measured. Councillor Cohen queried how some of the targets were achievable.

Councillor Rosenberg said that some of the positive figures are a result of a higher proportion of SMEs in the borough.  Business failure rates in the borough were not considered to be a big issue and Barnet has lower than average unemployment rates including for youth.

After discussion on the item, the Chairman moved to a vote on the recommendations below:

1.    That the Committee review and approve the addendum to Assets,

Regeneration and Growth Committee Commissioning Plan for 2016/17 (Appendix A).

The votes were as follows:-

The Chairman introduced the Affordable Housing Development pipeline report which includes the outline business case for new homes on housing revenue account land in the borough and the establishment of Opendoor Homes, a subsidiary of Barnet Homes.

Councillor Cooke said it was good news that this tranche is made up of homes for rent and asked officers to continue to consult with councillors.

The Chairman requested for consultation to take place before planning permissions are granted.

Councillor Narenthira asked for consideration to be given for parking provision on new sites as this can add to pressures in existing residential areas

Councillor Thomas said that the regulatory work of officers look after this work on specific sites. On some sites it is clear to see what the parking options are whilst on others it is not.

Following the discussion, the Chairman moved to vote on the recommendations below:-

It was RESOLVED:

1.    That the Assets, Regeneration & Growth Committee approves the outline business case (please see Appendix 3) for Opendoor Homes, a subsidiary of Barnet Homes, to make planning applications with a view to developing homes on Housing Revenue Account land for affordable rents.

2.    That the Assets, Regeneration & Growth Committee approve the location of the sites included in Phase 1 of the development programme and set out in Appendix 1.

3.    That the Assets, Regeneration & Growth Committee note that a further report regarding sites for the second phase of this development programme will be brought to Committee in June 2016.  

4.    That the Assets, Regeneration & Growth Committee provide authority to agree substitution of sites in the initial programme is delegated to the Commissioning Director, Growth & Development, subject to necessary due diligence and permissions and consultation with Ward Members.

5.    That the Assets, Regeneration & Growth Committee note a further report to approve the final Full Business Case for Phase 1 of the development programme will be brought to Committee in September 2016.

The Chairman introduced the item regarding the making of a CPO in respect of the land and interests needed to deliver part of the station phase in the Brent Cross Cricklewood regeneration Scheme. 

The Chairman also welcomed a presentation by the Commissioning Director for Growth and Development to Committee on the legal structure of the Limited Partnership and its  interface with the Limited Partnership Agreement and the Shareholder Agreement.  Through a number of different agreements throughout different tiers of the structure, decisions are made, governance arrangements put in place, issues referred,  project agreements set up around contracts, development management agreements formed to guide infrastructure development agreements to with plot owners. 

The Chairman expressed an interest the timeline for the shopping centre and was informed it was a 3 year build completing in 2021.  Replacement of the Whitefield units will occur over time and the needs of some residents may have changed over time.  Councillor Ryde stated that as the scheme gets closer, there will be a dawning that there will be a huge impact on their lives.  Argent have a good track record of public engagement.  The regeneration of Kings Cross is evidence of this. Large numbers of residents were engaged and impressed by their work.  Councillor Rosenberg asked for early involvement in engagement with councillors and Committee.  Members were informed that Argent have engaged Soundings to work on some early consultation and engagement such as one to one meetings, a number of small events, exhibitions in order to take on board local concerns. Councillor Rozenberg welcomed the engagement but said that ward councillor have not been included yet. It is key to have a broader understanding of issues – ie traffic. 

The Chairman asked for Ward Councillors are made aware of consultation events, even if not invited.  Councillor Narenthira asked for wards along the A5 to be included in the wider consultation as they will be effected by the CPO and works.

Councillor Cooke asked whether Whitefield residents, due to be displaced, will get the opportunity to be re-housed in the same area. The Commissioning Director confirmed that that they will for example within shared equity schemes and fixed term secure tenancies are being offered in the block.

Councillor Cooke asked for information on other options available other than option 1 referred to in the recommendations. Members were offered and welcomed the opportunity to receive more information from Capita Rail on Grip3.

Following the discussion, the Chairman moved to a vote on the recommendations below.

Committee RESOLVED:

1.    That a compulsory purchase order (CPO) be made pursuant to the powers in section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the acquisition of the land shaded pink on the plan at Appendix 1 of 2 Plan and 2 of 2 Plan.

2.    That the appropriate Chief Officers be authorised to settle the final form and content of the CPO and associated documentation, including the Statement of Reasons, and take all action needed to pursue  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The Chairman informed the Committee and the public gallery that the meeting would now be held in private to hear exempt papers.  The room was subsequently cleared.

The Chairman introduced the item and members discussed a range of key matters relating to land values, early wins, phasing, emerging plans for the shopping centre and new station, financial modelling options and a date change for the next ARG Committee to be confirmed.

Councillor Cook will be sent more detail on financial assumptions.

Following the discussion, the Chairman moved to a vote on the report recommendations.

Committee RESOLVED to:

1.    Note the contents of the public report:

2.    Approve recommendation 2 of the exempt report

3.    Approve recommendation 3 of the exempt report.

The Chairman introduced the item, following which Members noted the report.

There were none.

The Chairman introduced the item, following which Members noted the report.