Agenda item

The Committee welcomed the Leader of the Council, the Strategic Director for Growth & Environment (Pam Wharfe) and the Head of Regeneration (Tony Westbrook) who were in attendance for the item.

A Member expressed concern that not all of the regeneration schemes detailed in the report appeared to have comprehensive proposals regarding infrastructure investment. 

Members raised a particular concern relating to the provision of health facilities in regeneration areas.  The Committee noted that schemes often included the provision of space for health facilities to meet new demand.  However, as there was no requirement of GPs or other health services to fill these spaces, they often went unfilled.  The Head of Regeneration advised the Committee that an Estates Working Group had been established with representation from Barnet Clinical Commissioning Group, NHS England, NHS Property Services and the Council to improve joint working on NHS estates issues.

In relation to the regeneration of town centres, a Member commented that the Council had been reliant on the Mayor of London’s Outer London Fund (OLF).  The Leader advised the Committee that although the town centre improvements had not been directly funded by Barnet, the OLF was still taxpayers money which had been used to improve the local area. 

A Member commented that the proportion of affordable and shared ownership properties in the regeneration areas had declined since the schemes had first been proposed.  It was considered that this had a direct impact on the Council’s ability to meet the housing needs of residents.  The Leader of the Council informed the Committee that economic circumstances had changed since the regeneration schemes had first been approved.  As a consequence, developers and the Council had been required to revisit housing proportions on regeneration schemes.  He considered it preferable for the regeneration schemes to continue with revised mix of tenures than for the schemes to stall because they were no longer economically viable for developers.  Members were informed that 1,000 new homes had been delivered in Barnet last year.

In relation to the Granville Road regeneration scheme, a Member questioned what the outcome of the public consultation meeting held in August 2013 had been.  Officers reported that parking had been a major concern and that proposals were being developed to manage this better in the local area.  In addition, the proposed design of the scheme had been amended following feedback from residents; a detailed scheme would be forthcoming in 2014. 

Responding to a question, the Leader confirmed that the Council had not yet procured a development partner for the southern side of the Brent Cross Cricklewood Regeneration Scheme.  It was noted that on the northern side, meetings with Standard Life and Hammerson continue, to hopefully bring this part of the scheme forward soon.

A Member highlighted that of the 469 housing units delivered on regeneration schemes in 2012/13, none were affordable.  The Leader commented that challenging targets relating to affordable housing in future years were expected to be achieved.

The Committee expressed concern regarding the design of some of the regeneration schemes and the potential for there to be a lack of community.  It was also noted that the lifetime of the housing on the regeneration schemes was only expected to be around 60 years; the Committee considered that the new homes should have a much longer lifespan.  It was pointed out that this is the normal design life for new homes.

RESOLVED that:

1.     Officers be requested to provide a breakdown of the payments made to development partners for the Council’s regeneration schemes and details of any costs recovered from development partners.

2.     The Committee are concerned that there will be inadequate health provision on regeneration estates and welcome the work of the Estates Working Group referred to in the preamble above.

3.     The Committee are concerned that affordable housing targets for regeneration schemes have not been achieved and the consequential impact on residents in housing need.