Agenda and minutes

To note any changes to the membership.

1.1       It was noted that Councillors Tim Barnes and Guthrie McKie were replacing Councillors Antonia Cox and Matt Noble respectively.

To receive declarations by Members and Officers of any personal or prejudicial interests in matters on this agenda.

2.1       There were no declarations of interest.

Report of the Executive Director of Growth, Planning and Housing.

3.1       The Chairman introduced the item and invited Councillor Adam Hug, a of the Member of the Committee who had requested the call-in of the Cabinet decisions made on 9 July in respect of the Ebury Bridge Estate Renewal report, to set out the reasons for the call-in.

3.2       Councillor Hug began by stating that a residents’ ballot to determine their preferences should be held as this was desirable and would be beneficial for all. An earlier residents’ ballot of Ebury Bridge Estate had been conducted a few years earlier and so there was no reason to not hold another one. Councillor Hug felt that the number of residents who had indicated support for the proposals in the consultation did not sufficiently demonstrate a clear mandate to proceed. He suggested that efforts should be made to obtain additional funding from the Greater London Authority (GLA) and to make full use of opportunities on Council-owned land to maximise the social and affordable housing element and help finance the best scheme possible. Councillor Hug felt that further clarity was needed concerning affordable housing and the priority of tackling overcrowding needed to be addressed by delivering the appropriate homes.

3.3       Another area Councillor Hug suggested needed more clarity was in respect of the Decant Strategy which he felt was currently too vague and it was important that residents were fully informed about the proposals. The Local Lettings Strategy also needed more detail, including how current residents would be given preferential treatment.

            Councillor Hug also stated that the delivery model had not sufficiently set out the role of the developer and every effort needed to be made to ensure that the Wholly Owned Housing Company was contributing as much as possible to the delivery of the scheme.

3.4       Councillor Pancho Lewis, who had also called-in the decisions, similarly supported the idea of a residents’ ballot, especially as a previous one had been held at the site.  Councillor Lewis acknowledged that although the proposals as they currently stood would lead to more affordable housing, he asserted that the proportion of affordable housing compared to market housing would actually reduce. He also commented that more details were required about the residents’ engagement process.

3.5       Councillor Andrea Mann, a Ward Member, was then invited to address the Committee. She began by emphasising that both Councillor Shamim Talukder, another Ward Member, and herself, did not want to impede regeneration in area and would have supported the proposals if they had the majority support of residents. However, she felt that the report had not shown that there was clear majority support for the proposals and it was important that this be achieved, particularly as it involved demolishing properties and vulnerable people and children would be affected. Councillor Mann therefore felt that a residents’ ballot was necessary to clarify whether there was majority support and she referred to a previous ballot at the site which had a turnout of 60% and showed support for regeneration in principle. Councillor Mann  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.