Issue - meetings

To receive a report from the Executive Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services outlining a Call-In received for consideration by Overview & Scrutiny on the following reason: (Report No:6)

Portfolio Decision included on Publication of Decision List No:5/17-18 Key Decision 4442 (List Ref: 4/5/17-18) issued on 26 May 2017.

It is proposed that consideration of the Call-In be structured as follows:

·         Brief outline of reasons for the Call-In by representative (s) of the Members who have called in the decision.

·         Response to the reasons provided for the Call-In by the Cabinet member responsible for taking the decision.

·         Debate by Overview & Scrutiny Committee and agreement on action to be taken.

The Chair moved this item for discussion under Part 2.

Councillor Levy referred to the previous call-in of the Cabinet Decision regarding: Meridian Water: Land Acquisition which was discussed at Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 25 May 2017, when the Committee unanimously agreed to confirm the Cabinet decision.

Councillor Levy explained that the Administration had now called-in the portfolio decision taken by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and the Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency, to approve the overall viability of the Meridian Water scheme.  The report had been called-in for the purposes of transparency and to enable the time-line of the scheme to be realised. It allowed for discussion of the key issues relating to viability of the scheme.

A response was provided by Councillor Sitkin, as relevant Cabinet member. 

Discussions took place which focused on the financial viability of the proposed development including  -

• The necessity for purchase of the Stonehill and Hastingwood sites in order to achieve the strategic vision for Meridian Water.
• The reputation and advice of parties advising the Council on viability of the scheme
• The on-going review of SIL (Strategic Industrial Land) by the GLA and the possible outcomes (scenarios) regarding the re-designation or not of land. The findings indicated that the scheme, including if necessary a reduced scheme, would still be viable.

Overview & Scrutiny Committee considered the reasons provided for the call-in and response provided by Councillor Sitkin.  Having considered the information provided, the Committee voted to confirm the Portfolio decision:

Councillors Keazor, Doyle, Levy, Dogan and Robert Hayward all voted in favour of the decision, Councillor Smith abstained. 

To receive a report from the Executive Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services outlining a Call-In received for consideration by Overview & Scrutiny on the following reason: (Report No:6)

Cabinet Decision included on Publication of Decision List No:1/17-18 Key Decision 4442 (List Ref: 1/1/17-18) issued on 11 May 2017.

It is proposed that consideration of the Call-In be structured as follows:

·         Brief outline of reasons for the Call-In by representative (s) of the Members who have called in the decision.

·         Response to the reasons provided for the Call-In by the Cabinet member responsible for taking the decision.

·         Debate by Overview & Scrutiny Committee and agreement on action to be taken.

The Chair moved this item for discussion under Part 2.

Councillor Levy referred to the ‘rather late’ receipt of papers from the Regeneration Team.  Councillor Rye said it was reasonable that members be sent papers at least 48 hours before a meeting to enable them to digest the content and if necessary speak to colleagues about any issues that may be apparent.  He stated that he would not be prepared to consider a call-in, in future, if papers were not provided a minimum of 48 hours prior to a meeting.

Councillor Levy agreed that it was important that papers were received by members in good time. He referred to the procedural aspects of the call-in which meant members would be looking at the decision taken by Cabinet on the 9 May 2017. The additional briefing paper provided by the Regeneration team gave details on further aspects of the land acquisition.  However, he said this additional briefing paper is for information only.

Councillor Smith outlined the reasons for call-in, which were included in the Part 1 agenda.  He welcomed the additional information that had been provided in relation to the proposed purchase of the two industrial sites in Meridian Water:  A 10 hectare site known as Stonehill Estate (Stonehill) and a 3 hectare site known as Hastingwood Estate (Hastingwood).  He confirmed that the information provided was useful, however he mentioned that a technical question regarding the issue of VAT was still to be answered. This point was later discussed with Councillor Hurer and Ann Freeman (Finance Manager, Capital & Projects) who mentioned that any VAT costs arising from any potential ‘change of use’ would be covered by the Master Developer.

Responses were provided by Councillor Sitkin and Councillor Oykener (as relevant Cabinet members and also by officers.  They outlined details of the decision to approve the purchase of the two sites (Stonehill and Hastingwood) in the east of the Meridian Water Regeneration Area.  This decision is subject to the demonstration of overall viability of the Meridian Water scheme, a decision that has been delegated to the Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and Business Development and the Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency. 

Discussions focused on:

·         The annual income arising from the existing and proposed temporary (meanwhile) uses arising from the purchase of the two sites and whether this would cover the annual financing costs of borrowing needed to purchase the two sites.  

·         The financial viability of the proposed development of the two sites including the on-going review of SIL (Strategic Industrial Land) by the GLA and the implications of this on the Meridian Water Development.

·          Different scenarios were put forward giving the possible outcomes following the re-designation, or not, of SIL land at this location. It also presented the implications for not acquiring the sites. It was confirmed that even using the worst case scenario i.e. that SIL land is not released then a reduced scheme could be delivered which would still make it viable.

·         The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14