Agenda item

To review the Cabinet decision taken on 8 December 2021 as a result of the matter having been called-in.

Cllr Erbil excused herself from this item due to an interest. Cllr Yusuf nominated Cllr Aksanglu to be chair which was seconded and agreed. The chair then welcome the call in lead, Cllr Smith.

NOTED:

Cllr Smith explained the report was called in due to only providing a superficial level of information on the residential delivery programme. The Leader has said she has been provided with enough information to enable her to make the decision, but the report has a worrying absence of any strategic financial context in which to evaluate the scheme.

The report should have set out what the overall objectives of Meridian Water should be in terms of target size of the programme, details of the affordable homes mix, the maximum height of buildings, public open space and social infrastructure. We have not seen the progress that has been made in meeting targets.

The overall progress of the scheme has been so slow, and the overall costs have risen to such an extent. There has been reluctance to engage with the issues raised with the OSC workstream and no successful reports which highlight the key parameters and risk involved. The response to the call in has been inadequate. 

Cllr Aksanglu thanked Cllr Smith and invited the decision maker, Cllr Caliskan to respond;

Cllr Caliskan explained what was described my Cllr Smith is out of date, all relevant reports are referenced within this report, it is not practical to include all reports. They are worried about the lack of homes but at any opportunity they vote against investing to build homes therefore the argument is incoherent.

We are now the lead developer which gives us more control which enables up to speed up phase 4 to deliver more affordable homes. This also incorporates two skills academies, workspaces, and film studios. Every time there is a significant development or proposal it is detailed in cabinet reports, referenced in full council, and goes to planning committee. The report is not inadequate, I would welcome the contribution of members to look at if there is anything more, we can do.

Cllr Caliskan was thanked for her response and members were invited to ask any questions:

Q1. Why does point 9 say officers have not been directed to respond to matters arising out of scrutiny workstream? It is recognised that it is impractical to include all reports, but it is dismissive to offer an answer to the call in to be told substantial information was provided.

A1. Sufficient information is provided verbally and is in publicly available documents. The report does address the points, but the role of scrutiny is recognised so we can address relevant questions. The workstreams of scrutiny are responded to by officers. It would be impractical to ask officers to respond to work outside of the structure of our constitution. MEQ’s are in place, there is a scrutiny process where officers respond.

Q2. Is the administration still committed to deliver 10,000 homes?

Q2. The 10,000-home target is still what we set out to achieve. The report provides a summary of the progress on the residential aspects of Meridian 4. The report recommends we increase the size of Meridian 4 to accelerate the delivery of homes.

Q3. As the Lead Developer, is there any successful examples of this model of delivery on this scale?

A3. The local authority is acting as the lead developer so we can have control and do it on a phase by phases process. The decision was done due to the quality of bids which didn’t meet the administrations objectives. The Barking Riverside development also has a 10k home scheme with heavy public sector lead partnership. The Old Oak Common project in West London which has a mayoral development corporation taking the lead.

Q4. What are the drivers behind the slippages on point 3.3 of report? If contractors come on board what will the extra costs be?

A4. Meridian 3 is a scheme that involves cabinet authority and planning to proceed with a mixed scheme of student housing, co living and residential housing. Was due to be marketed last year but did not due to the shadow of covid. We are hoping to launch this spring once the market has returned and there will be strong levels of interest. Meridian 3 and 4 sit on land which will be serviced and remediated as part of the Housing Infrastructure Fund. There has been strong inflation pressures in the construction industry, the confidential appendix attached to the December cabinet report provides financial analysis which takes this into account.

Q5. There have been reports that average earner in Enfield would struggle on affordability of homes in Meridian water, do you feel this is fair and has the approach changed?

A5. We are aware of the affordability challenges in the borough. We don’t have the ability to set the market value of a home and private rent is not set by the local authority. We focus on the level of affordable housing, the level on Meridian has gone up from 25% to 50%. Meridian 2 has 100% affordable housing, overall we aim to have 40%.

Q6. The scheme delivers more housing, in planning committee for Meridian 3 it was suggested to have more family update. Is this being incorporated to the plan?

A6. The meridian water project has 3000 homes with the benefit of planning consent approved. On meridian one the number of family homes has gone up. Masterplan version 2 is considering how we can implement more family housing. We consistently seek to get family homes in affordable tenures.

Cllr Smith summarised; We support Meridian Water, the issue is about reporting mechanisms for members. It is not adequate, not relating to the amount of information but about no new additional information. Most of the report is about Meridian 4 which included information which we already knew.

Issues on social infrastructure, public open spaces and the height or density should be overall targets so it becomes difficult to understand what is actually going on with Meridian Water.

The Overview & Scrutiny Committee considered the reasons provided for the

call-in and responses provided. Having considered the information, the

Committee agreed to confirm the original decision made by the Leader of the Council.