Here is the email I sent to the Labour Cllrs who supported the call in on the Somerleyton road project.
Its my take on the Scrutiny committee meeting.
Dear Cllrs,
emailing to say thanks for calling in the Somerleyton road project. I had a cold so could not attend. So attended virtually and put my piece in. Which was circulated to committee.
Interesting discussion and thought Cllr Gadsby persisted with good questions.
It now appears that the date set for the scrutiny meeting meant that several Cllrs could not attend. I'm not happy with that.
Some points:
Here is an old Love Lambeth from 2019 outlining what had been agreed for the site
Love Lambeth
With no consultation it appears from what was said at the meeting that this has been ditched.
Another main issue in the Kerslake report is consultation. It mainly focuses on consultation on estates. But report says Lambeth has poor record of consultation.
The Somerleyton road project initially was to be a new way to consult and involve community. Despite being agreed by Cabinet nothing happened. Their was no updates to local people on what was happening. Its this kind of thing- promises made and then not fulfilled after local people have given up time to be consulted that make people disillusioned with taking part in consultations.
The three Cllrs who spoke against the call in line was that the new homes etc were urgently needed, that any delays for further discussion would be stopping those in need getting facilities, that this was not perfect scheme but time was of the essence.
A poor argument imo. Not a positive argument for development.
Nor did I like the implication that those supporting the call in were holding up those in need getting facilities.
The question not asked at the meeting was , if those Cllrs opposing the call in were so concerned about getting much needed facilities what were they doing when HfL was supposed to be getting on with the scheme? It was 2019 when HfL got it and nothing was done. Planning permission had been obtained at this stage. There was nothing stopping HfL getting on with it.
Cllr Gadsby at meeting asked about timescale for the development now. Seems to me that the timescale is long. So what is the rush to agree this now? When a few months could be taken to do a new Housing Strategy and re consult on the site.
On issues that came up in the meeting.
Cllr Gadsby was right to say why not wait until the Housing Strategy is done before jumping to start this scheme. The Kerslake report does say that Lambeth has not an up to date housing strategy.
Developing a new housing strategy is something that the Council could consult residents about.
What seems to be happening is that officers are piecemeal starting schemes. Which the call in is right to say sets a precedent. This is policy making without proper discussion.
This is happening with the Pop / International house site. Council have got London Square as a partner with a development agreement. Publicly the Council have said there will be 50percent housing. The site will be sold to London Square. I asked at recent consultation meeting if the 50 percent housing is cast iron commitment. After some questioning the Council officer and London Square officer said that it was an aspiration not a cast iron commitment. This is not what has been said publicly.
This makes me question the assertion made at the meeting that Development agreements will be "watertight". The "trade off" as it was said at meeting for having a reduced capital receipt is that a Development Agreement would mean that the developer takes the risk and the Council can exert leverage to make sure it gets the outcomes it wants.
I think that if the Council is going to use these development agreements its something perhaps Scrutiny committee should expect regular updates about.
And perhaps Scrutiny can find way around officers saying its commercially confidential when asking about the finer details of development agreements or any issue about housing schemes. Which seems to me from the meeting a get out clause officers can use.
As once schemes start they are delegated to officers. The devil is in the detail and things can get watered down over the years a scheme is developed.
Secondly my impression of the meeting was that officers kept on saying TINA to any questions. That they had "market tested" options at this was only one for example.
This does not seem to me to be acceptable. Its not giving Cllrs a range of information and choices.
Another thing from the Kerslake report was that HfL be wound down. The Kerslake report also says the Council should bring back HfL officers inhouse so the Council can develop its own capacity to do schemes. It was correct to ask how this was going at the meeting
The feeling I got from the meeting is that this is not happening. That the informal policy being developed is to get private development partners in who have the expertise. Rather than building up Council capacity.
Perhaps Scrutiny committee can look into this more?
The intro by Cllr Atkins and questions by Cllr Gadsby about Council housing were spot on.
On the piece of land on Somerleyton road site that's privately owned. ( Whole site did belong to Council at one point)
I wasn't happy with answer on the CPO. Officer said that the Council would not try to CPO the land. That the developer would "work around it". This did not make sense to me. Developers like to assemble land for a coherent development. I wonder if the answer committee got is the whole story. Or are officers hoping a developer partner will deal with the private owner?
Its the privately owned piece of land that contributed to the scheme being held up. I see no evidence that the Council officers / HfL made any attempt to deal with this since 2019.
On Net Zero - what exactly does this mean in practise? Kerslake report suggest Council do more Passiv Haus schemes. It has done a few houses some time ago.
I'm not clear what in practical terms a Net Zero development is.
On the Brixton Rec Quarter Council officers say it will be BREAM excellent.
Kerslake report says Council should go beyond existing planning requirements on developments its directly involved in. Seems to me when asked officers are assuming that Net Zero is dealt with in line with existing planning guidelines. Which is not what Kerslake report says.
From the Kerslake report
5.41.The Council should set a clear internal commissioning brief for all LBL and HfL schemes, which go further than planning requirements. This commissioning brief should set firm standards, rather than be based on principles. This work should be led inpartnership with the LBL Climate Change team. This commissioning brief should look holistically at environmental sustainability of new developments (for example, to avoid unnecessary cut down of trees and protection of existing biodiversity).
5.42.The Council should adopt a Fabric First approach for all developments. In doing so, the Council should explore trialling a Passivhaus demonstrator project, l
Perhaps Scrutiny committee can ask Council / officers about how they are following this advice from Kerslake report?
www.mylondon.news
