Agenda item

There is also an exempt appendix (Appendix C) which is not available to the Press or members of the public.

CABINET DECISION

At its meeting on 26 October 2011, Cabinet considered a report concerning the approval of a preferred development partner for the Briar Road Estate.

Cabinet RESOLVED

1.         To approve Notting Hill Housing Group, as the Preferred Development Partner for the Briar Estate, subject to the final agreement of terms and the satisfactory conclusion of legal agreements;

2.         To approve Notting Hill Housing Group’s Variant offer as set out in the Exempt Appendix to the report.

3.         To request the Preferred Development Partner to proceed with the development of their design proposals, including consultation with residents, in order to submit a planning application(s);

4.         To authorise the Property Strategy Manager, the Head of Housing & Public Protection and the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services to provisionally agree Heads of Terms, deal with all matters arising and prepare the appropriate legal agreements with the Preferred Development Partner for the disposal and development of land in accordance with the principles of the Briar Development Brief and Improvement Proposals and subject to final approval of the terms by the Lead Members of Housing and Public Protection and Value;

5.         To authorise the Head of Housing and Public Protection under section 167 (2E) of the Housing Act 1996 to consult on the development of a local lettings scheme for the Briar developments;

6.         To authorise the Head of Housing and Public Protection to consult stakeholders on amendments to the Lettings Policy to enable specific local lettings policies to be developed for specific developments.

7.         To subject to all the above, approve £2.0 million be used to fund the schedule of Briar environmental improvements set out in para 3.13 of the report.

8.         To note that the £2m Capital Budget, as referred to in 2.6., will be an  addition to the Council’ Capital Programme, and therefore to Resolve that this addition be referred to Council, at the next appropriate  opportunity – as reported in para 5.3. 

REASONS FOR REQUISITION

1)     The decision to proceed with the preferred partner should not be made without a general understanding of the design and location proposals relating to the development of 164 new homes within Briar Road Estate;

2)     To give greater consideration to the impact on the public services infrastructure of increasing the population of the Briar Road Estate by an estimated 500 people (12.5%) including the implications for education and health services.

3)     The Cabinet Report and initial consultation had not identified the location within the estate of:-

a)     the development proposals;

b)     the number of garage/parking spaces to be lost and the consequent implications of the displacement of vehicles on the estate roads; and

c)      the amount of green space to be lost as a result of the development proposals

Councillor Keith Darvill presented the requisition.

Councillor Darvill commented that there had been some residential consultation over the past year. Residents and Ward Councillors were in favour of a scheme that improved the estate with better lighting, closure of alleyways and other general improvements. However it was felt that the report that went to Cabinet was not specific enough in giving details of exact locations of additional housing and other improvements to the area.

Councillor Darvill asked that careful consideration be given to the scheme so that resident’s queries could be answered in full.

In reply officers advised that the report that went before Cabinet was very clearly defined and the purpose was not to withhold information.

Two million pounds of investment was planned for the area with the local community benefitting from new homes that were more suitable accommodation than what they presently had and would help with any overcrowding issues.

Officers confirmed that the proposal was an overall balance in response to residents’ needs. A parking survey had been carried out in conjunction with architects to minimise the loss of parking and better utilise remaining parking. Members noted that there was a high level of un-let garages in the area as residents preferred open parking spaces.

It was also confirmed that discussions had taken place between officers and representatives of the local childcare representatives at the Hilldene Children’s Centre and the parent and toddler group based at the Betty Strathern Centre regarding future availability of spaces. The three primary schools located in the area had confirmed that they were not reaching critical points regarding admission numbers. Regarding secondary schooling provision the Drapers Academy had confirmed that they had the ability to offer extra places for the next five to ten years.

In relation to healthcare provision it was noted that the nearest GP surgery was located in Straight Road and was still registering new patients however it had been identified that the practice needed to re-locate to new premises to handle larger patient numbers. Members noted that initial discussions had taken place with local GPs who were interested in the idea of moving to a new larger surgery.

Members commented that several of the local primary schools would already be affected by the proposed development of properties on the former Harold Wood Hospital site.

Councillor Kelly commented that the estate had lots of green areas that were not used for the right reasons and that the area could be quite intimidating to residents and visitors.

Councillor Kelly also confirmed that there would be genuine full consultation with the residents and that so far there had not been a lot of opposition to the proposals from residents.

Members agreed that although mini consultations were good residents needed to see the bigger picture and should be consulted on the scheme as a whole.

The proposal that the requisition be upheld (and therefore that the matter be referred to the Cabinet for further consideration) was LOST (by 5 votes to 3) and it was therefore RESOLVED:

That the requisition of the executive decision by Cabinet dated 26 October 2011 not be upheld.

The voting was as follows

Councillors Osborne, Misir, Pain, Thompson and Wells voted against the resolution.

Councillors Matthews, McGeary and Hawthorn voted for the resolution.