Agenda item

The Programme Manager introduced the report. The Chair asked if the report had been exempted from post decision scrutiny. The Director for Regeneration apologised to Business Panel saying that the intention was to seek exemption from Scrutiny. The report had been written with that in mind, although it had not gone through the process. The Director for Regeneration said the GLA decision on Housing Zone would take place on 31 March, and the report was going to Mayor & Cabinet on 25 March. The Chair said he was not convinced there was good reason for exemption to be given, and asked how post decision scrutiny would affect the LGA decision.

The Director for Regeneration said the announcement would have been made prior to the report being scrutinised. The Chair said due diligence needed to be exercised on behalf of the London Borough of Lewisham. The Chair said £20m is a lot of money, and the proper process must be followed. The Director for Regeneration said an application had been made from the Developers to the GLA, and this was not a debt funding.

Councillor Muldoon said this was a procedural issue, as the report stated that the Chair of Council had agreed for the report to be exempt from post decision scrutiny. The Chair said the Chair of Council had not agreed to this, and he would urge him not to agree to the exemption as due diligence must be exercised. Councillor Curran asked what decision Business Panel members could make on the report as presented. The Chair said subject to legal advice, Business Panel could make recommendations to the Mayor to consider.

Councillor Curran said the report seemed to have been renamed, as it was previously the Surrey Triangle. He said he was very suspicious over its contents, as he believed TFL had reneged on their original promise to put in a rail station in the locality. Councillor Curran said the current report stated the Developer would be getting a loan which would be passed on the TFL to build the station. Councillor Curran also raised concerns over Members being promised a Sports Village, and were now getting a Sports Centre.

The Chair asked why S106 had been introduced in the report, and was told Section 106 was for Renewal to pick up the bill to build the new station. This was Renewal’s preferred solution; that they should have absolute control of the funding before any work commence. The Chair said at various stages Renewal had acted as a private company. He asked for re-assurance that the position had not now changed and they have become our partners. The Director for Regeneration said the position had not changed. The Chair then asked if this report would enter Lewisham into a public partnership with Renewal, and the Director for Regeneration said it would not, as the contract was between Renewal and the GLA, and all the GLA was asking from Lewisham was nominal support as a borough.

Councillor Dacres asked for information on the Council’s responsibilities under the Memorandum of Understanding. The Director for Regeneration said the Memorandum of Understanding was not legally binding , just a letter of support to say Lewisham would continue to support the development. The Chair asked the Principal Lawyer if the Memorandum of Understanding was legally binding. The Principal Lawyer said it was not legally binding, just a statement of goodwill. She said as she had not seen a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding she could not make further comments on the Council’s position.

Councillor Dacres said it was unclear what the Council’s level of support would be. She said Business Panel would need to see a copy of the document. The Chair asked who would review the Memorandum of Understanding, and was told it would go back for Members consideration and Scrutiny before being finalised. The Chair said the Mayor should see it.

The Chair asked whether the new name would be the final name, and asked who decides. The Director of Regeneration said the Developer wanted to rename it as it was not in Surrey. The Chair pointed out it was not in Bermondsey either. Business Panel members said they were concerned about the new name.as it had no connection to its locality.

Councillor Curran said the site was in Lewisham, the Council had pledged £500k for a sports facility, and it was possible that the local community would be out priced out of using the facility. Councillor Siddorn said he was concerned that Business Panel had received a report which stated that the Chair of Council had agreed to exempt it from scrutiny, when this was not the case. He added that he hoped this would not happen again.

Councillor Curran said he was concerned that it seemed as if all the reports on housing developments were aiming for the minimum target for affordable housing, he said this should not be the case, officers should aim to reach a higher target. The Director of Regeneration said officers would review this. The Chair emphasised that there should be no diminution in the public benefit.

RESOLVED that:

i.              the Mayor be requested to inform officers that reports should not contain misleading information about decisions made by members.  Business Panel believed this was unacceptable, and needed to be assured this would not happen again.

ii.            Business Panel urged that this report not be exempted from scrutiny, and should come back to the Panel for proper post decision scrutiny.

iii.           the Mayor be requested to instruct officers to aim to achieve a higher target of affordable housing instead of settling for the minimum target.

iv.           Business Panel noted that despite the Council’s pledge of £500k to the Surrey Canal Sports Foundation, there did not seem to be any assurance given on the affordability of the sports facilities, and local people might be out-priced from using these facilities.

v.            Business Panel noted that although this project was proposed some time ago, with planning permission granted the project has not started. Members would like to see progress being made.

vi.           Business Panel asked that any Memorandum of Understanding to be issued would be the subject of member approval and be subjected to 7 below.

vii.          Business Panel asked that due diligence including full disclosure of the directors, track record checks, capital and financial assurances be completed for the Housing Zone project.

viii.        Business Panel queried the use of the ‘New Bermondsey’ designation and asked that the developer be urged to reconsider this name.