I put in this to the committee tonight:
I'm a local resident who was involved in the previous consultation on Somerleyton road.
These consultations meetings finally led to the following being decided by Cabinet in January 14th 2019:
The land would stay in effective public ownership through HfL
The whole community would be involved in the development. A community steering group would be set up that would create a Community Stewardship body to supervise the development long term.
That 50 percent of the development would be genuinely affordable.
I support the call in by some Labour Cllrs.
I think the new plan agreed recently by Cabinet waters down what was promised previously by the Council.
Its now 30 percent affordable housing, loss of public ownership to a developer on 999 year lease and the five million capital receipt will only cover the money spent by Council on the site so far.
This does not seem to me a good deal for the local community. Or value for money on a Council owned site.
I therefore request the Scrutiny Committee to send this back to Cabinet with request before any decision is made on this site that the community is consulted about how the site is developed and outcomes the community wants for the site now that HfL can no longer deliver the development.
This consultation must take place before any outside body is chosen to develop the site. If any. As a previous agreement with the local community was to keep this site in some form of public/ community ownership.
As the Cllrs say in the call in this land is owned by the people of Lambeth.
They also refer to the Kerslake report. The Kerslake report says that a problem with Lambeth is how it consults communities.
The Cllrs in the call in say , rightly imo , that the development of this land will set a precedent for future schemes post Kerslake.
I therefore think the consultation needs to be done right to set an example for other schemes.
As I took part in the previous Council led consultations on Somerleyton I was happy in that In that case how they were conducted. Extensive talks took place before any decisions by Cabinet were made.
A problem with Council is that officers leave and knowledge is lost. Good practice gets forgotten.
Another issue specific to this site is the private ownership of a part of it. The site was all owned by Council but years ago a section was sold.
My second request is that the Scrutiny committee ask why the CPO on this land has not progressed and why. As its been a long term stumbling block on assembling the site for development. It's been years now and this has not been resolved.