Agenda item

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 – Appendix 1) which is held by the Council for another purpose subject to obtaining any necessary statutory consents required and/or compliance with any statutory procedures for such appropriation.

Votes were recorded as follows:

The Chairman used his casting vote in favour.

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

·         Councillor Geof Cooke

·         Councillor Nagus Narenthira

Context for referral following officer presentation and debate:

·         Concerns expressed regarding the process of valuations and offers

made to residents;

·         Although officers had maintained that lessons had been learnt through

the CPO1 process some Members still had concerns (e.g. the level of

affordable housing provision);

·         Discussions regarding the interests of local residents

The reasons given for the request to refer the item were:

·         Members expressed a view that the project could have an effect of

social cleansing

·         Members want to ensure that the interests of residents will be protected

RESOLVED - That having received the requisite number of support for referral, the item

will be placed on the agenda for consideration by Full Council.