Agenda and minutes

As the Chair of the committee was not present, Members were required to elect a Chair for this meeting.  Councillor Denselow was nominated.  There were no other nominations.  .

RESOLVED:-

that Councillor Denselow chair this meeting of the committee.

Members are invited to declare, at this stage of the meeting, any relevant financial or other interest in the items on the agenda.

None declared.

Decisions made by the Executive on 15 November 2010 in respect of the following reports were called-in for consideration by the Call-In Overview and Scrutiny Committee in accordance with Standing Orders 6(b) and 18.

Decisions made by the Executive on 15 November 2010 in respect of the reports below were called-in for consideration by the Forward Plan Select Committee in accordance with Standing Orders 6(b) and 18.

The reasons for the call-in are:-

·         To consider concerns over an inconsistent policy regarding green space across the borough, review the differences between Coniston Gardens and Elms Gardens in terms of the nature of requests from local residents. 

·         To consider concerns regarding why no review undertaken to determine whether the site was still required for decanting of Barham Park Estate and to what extent.

·         To consider further why the alternative allotment site at Vale Farm was not considered suitable but a site in Gladstone Park was considered acceptable.

·         Review implications of selling off green space in an area of public open space deficiencies as stated in report, even if not used for affordable housing.

·         Consider over development of site and possibility of sensible split between part development and part retention as green space.

·         Consider why Notting Hill Housing Trust did not pursue the Harrow Road petrol station site available a long time ago.

The Executive report is attached.  The Lead Member and Lead Officer are invited to the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.

The reasons for call-in were:-

·         To consider concerns over an inconsistent policy regarding green space across the borough, review the differences between Coniston Gardens and Elms Gardens in terms of the nature of requests from local residents. 

·         To consider concerns regarding why no review undertaken to determine whether the site was still required for decanting of Barham Park Estate and to what extent.

·         To consider further why the alternative allotment site at Vale Farm was not considered suitable but a site in Gladstone Park was considered acceptable.

·         Review implications of selling off green space in an area of public open space deficiencies as stated in report, even if not used for affordable housing.

·         Consider over development of site and possibility of sensible split between part development and part retention as green space.

·         Consider why Notting Hill Housing Trust did not pursue the Harrow Road petrol station site available a long time ago.

Councillor Crane (Lead Member for Regeneration and Economic Development) introduced the report and stated that the site had formerly been used for allotments, however it had since fallen out of use and the Executive had approved de-designation of the site for re-use to provide decant accommodation for the Barham Park Estate redevelopment in April 2009.  He advised that an alternative allotment site had been identified at Gladstone Park. 

Councillor Daly was then invited to address the committee to represent the views of local residents as their ward councillor.  Councillor Daly stated that the site had been designated as a wildlife site, the only one in Sudbury ward.  Residents were displeased that the site was to be developed and it was felt that incorrect information had been given to the Secretary of State who had approved the council’s request to de-designate the land as it had failed to disclose that the land was a wildlife site.  Councillor Daly commented that there was little evidence of consultation with residents over the proposals, apart from the Allotments Forum.  She suggested that residents had been misled over future plans for the site and was awaiting a response from the Borough Solicitor in respect of queries over the proposals.   Concern was expressed that if the intended purchases of the site, Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) were unable to do so, the site would be put for sale on the open market and she claimed that this also had not been specified to the Secretary of State.  Councillor Daly stressed that the de-designation had only approved housing use and the site would only be able to accommodate a relatively small number of units in any case.  She suggested that the empty cottages on the edge of Barham Park could be used to accommodate housing.  Councillor Daly also suggested that the proposals would harm the local economy. 

With the approval of the Chair, Kenneth Koranteng, a local resident,addressed the committee.  Kenneth Koranteng expressed concern about the proposals to use the site to decant residents from Barham Park Estate, stating that London Wildlife had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3a

The reasons for the call-in are:-

·         To discuss and explore the further implications of closing 6 libraries and the impact on related services such as Children’s Centres.

·         To consider the implications for schools and education.

·         In the case of Barham Park Library consider implications for the Park and its Green Flag status.

·         Consider implications on young people of loss of local study place and request members of the Youth Parliament to comment on this.

·         In the case of Neasden library consider the implications of the loss of learning space.

·         In the case of Cricklewood and Kensal Rise libraries consider the implications of the covenants and alternative uses of the libraries.

·         In the case of Tokyngton library to consider the pedestrian access to the new Civic Centre library from the Monks Park area.

·         To consider and receive full information on the size, cost of space, fitting out, opening hours and staffing costs of the proposed Civic Centre library.

The Executive report is attached.  The Lead Member and Lead Officer are invited to attend the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.

The reasons for the call-in were:-

·         To discuss and explore the further implications of closing 6 libraries and the impact on related services such as Children’s Centres.

·         To consider the implications for schools and education.

·         In the case of Barham Park Library consider implications for the Park and its Green Flag status.

·         Consider implications on young people of loss of local study place and request members of the Youth Parliament to comment on this.

·         In the case of Neasden library consider the implications of the loss of learning space.

·         In the case of Cricklewood and Kensal Rise libraries consider the implications of the covenants and alternative uses of the libraries.

·         In the case of Tokyngton library to consider the pedestrian access to the new Civic Centre library from the Monks Park area.

·         To consider and receive full information on the size, cost of space, fitting out, opening hours and staffing costs of the proposed Civic Centre library.

Members had before them the Executive report on the Libraries Transformation Project.  With the approval of the Chair, Richard Cross, a Kensal Rise resident, addressed the committee.

Richard Cross began by expressing regret at the proposed closure of Kensal Rise Library, stating that most residents were not aware of these plans at this stage.  Of the residents who were aware of the proposal, most were against the library’s closure and its users were concerned about the implications of this.  Members heard that Kensal Rise Library was located in a densely populated area in which the land it occupied had been provided by Oxford University All Souls College to use the site for this purpose under a covenant agreement. A previous attempt to close the library 12 years previously had failed because of this agreement.  The library had been opened by Mark Twain in 1900 and provided vital facilities for users, especially those who otherwise had no access to computers and to parents and their children.  Library staff also helped users in a number of other ways, such as assisting with drafting job applications.  During the Libraries Transformation Project, Richard Cross felt that the library had been neglected and the first floor of the building had been closed.  However, demand for the library remained and he asked that the decision be re-considered.  

In reply, Councillor Powney (Lead Member for Environment, Planning and Culture) informed Members that at a recent public meeting about the future of Kensal Rise Library, public interest had been expressed in taking over the running of the library and the council was happy to discuss this possibility with any groups.  Members noted that consent would be required from Oxford University All Souls College for any change of use under the covenant.  Councillor Powney advised that the annual cost of £200,000 to operate the library was high and the building presented a number of practical difficulties, such as the first floor not providing disabled access.  The library also presently had the lowest number of visitors in the borough and if the building  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3b

The reasons for the call-in are:-

·         To initiate discussion to standardise the scheme across boroughs.

·         To consider further the impact of the scheme on users in the absence of an Equality Impact Assessment.

The Executive report is attached.  The Lead Member and Lead Officer are invited to the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.

The reasons for call-in were:-

·         To initiate discussion to standardise the scheme across boroughs.

·         To consider further the impact of the scheme on users in the absence of an Equality Impact Assessment.

Councillor R Moher (Lead Member for Adults, Health and Social Care) introduced the report and advised that the decisions had been taken as a matter of urgency following the announcement by London Councils that the Taxicard Scheme could not continue under present arrangements because of cost pressures.  The council did not have the financial resources to make up the shortfall and there was no option but to make the necessary budget control measures.  Members heard that the budget control measures would vary from borough to borough.

Councillor Lorber suggested that the financial situation may not be as bad as initially thought and he enquired whether there were ongoing meetings to discuss this issue.  He also asked whether the financial figures reported were the latest figures.

In reply, Alison Elliott (Assistant Director – Community Care, Housing and Community Care) confirmed that regular meetings with London Councils were continuing and the majority of London boroughs were responding in a similar fashion to Brent.  She understood that the Executive report did include the latest financial figures.

Members decided against a proposal from Councillor Lorber that the Executive be presented with report updating them on the financial situation with regard to the Taxicard Scheme.

RESOLVED:-

that upon considering the report from the Director of Housing and Community Care, the decisions made by the Executive be noted.

The list of decisions from the meeting that took place on Monday, 15 November 2010 is attached for information.

RESOLVED:-

that the Executive list of decisions for the meeting that took place on Monday, 15 November 2010 be noted.

The next meeting of the Call-In Overview and Scrutiny Committee is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, 5 January 2011 at 7.30 pm in the event of there being any call-ins of decisions made by the Executive on 13 December 2010.

It was noted that the next meeting of the Call In Overview and Scrutiny Committee was scheduled for Wednesday, 5 January 2011 at 7.30 pm and would only take place in if there were any call-ins of decisions from the Executive meeting held on 13 December 2010.

Notice of items raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Democratic Services Manager or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 64.

None.