Agenda and minutes

It was noted that whilst also present, Councillor Mashari would not be able to formally participate in any decisions taken during the meeting given she was in remote attendance.

As a result, members were advised that Councillor Kansagra (as Vice-Chair) would be chair the meeting.

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, the nature and existence of any relevant disclosable pecuniary, personal or prejudicial interests in the items on this agenda and to specify the item(s) to which they relate.

None.

To hear any deputations received from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 67.

None.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 July 2021 as a correct record.

It was RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 July 2021 be approved as a correct record.

To consider any matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting.

Regarding the topical item discussion on the safety concerns at Wembley Stadium in light of the scenes at the EURO 2020 Final, it was noted that the Chief Executive had invited the Scrutiny Chairs to discuss the scope of the Casey Review and the findings of any internal reviews prior to the submission of evidence. It was also noted that the contents of the Casey Review would be presented to Committee once published.

It was noted that the Budget Scrutiny Task Group had been paused due to issues around its scoping activity. The Task Group would meet in the near future to resolve the issues and restart its work.

To receive a report on regeneration and housing zones across the borough.

Councillor Tatler, as Lead Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning, and Alan Lunt, Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment, introduced a report on regeneration across the borough and progress with achieving the objectives for the Wembley Housing Zone (WHZ) and Alperton Housing Zone (AHZ).

The Committee was then invited to raise questions on the update provided, which focussed on a number of key areas, as highlighted below:

·                Regarding the funding of Housing Zones, it was noted that funding agreements were in place with the Greater London Authority (GLA) for both the AHZ and WHZ. However, it was at a developers’ discretion as to whether they utilised the funding. The predominant reason for a developer not accepting GLA funding was that the funding would come with various conditions and some developers considered funding homes privately more viable.

·                In response to a question regarding the impact of developers’ not utilising GLA funding, it was noted that developers were still building homes regardless of the funding. The Council needed to ensure that the affordable housing offer of such developments remained at the level needed to support the borough’s housing needs. 

·                It was noted that the Government definition of affordable housing was considered anything up to 80% of the current market rent. Where possible, the Council aimed to develop housing at around 50-65% of the current market rate. There were a wide range of different rent levels associated with affordable housing, such as social rent, London Affordable Rent and London Living Rent.

·                Regarding the vacancy rate of affordable homes, it was noted that there was huge demand and thus low vacancy levels. Vacancy rates were especially low in homes that were rented within the ‘Local Housing Allowance’ level and thus eligible for full Housing Benefit cover.

·                It was noted that a significant amount of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding had been made available in recognition of the infrastructure needs in both the AHZ and WHZ. For example, funding had been secured to contribute towards three new medical centres across both Housing Zones.

·                It was noted that of the affordable housing consented in the two Housing Zones, around 20% of homes were of three or more bedrooms with an even higher share in homes rented at social rent or London Affordable Rent. It was noted, however, that the Council’s policy recommended that this should be at least 25%.

·                Regarding local employment in both Housing Zones, it was advised that local employment, such as apprenticeships, was usually secured through S106 agreements. It was noted also that the Council’s Procurement Strategy stipulated that, when working with anchor employers, the minimum expectation was that wages would be offered at London Living Wage.

·                Regarding amenity space, it was noted that both Housing Zones would include community spaces and affordable work spaces. For example, the AHZ would include a community centre which would be managed by a group of local residents. Whilst engagement with local residents varied from developer to developer, the Council encouraged all developers to ensure communities be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To receive a report which provides an introduction to the Council’s legal service, giving an overview of its work and operation.

Councillor McLennan, Deputy Leader and Lead Member for Resources and Debra Norman, Director of Legal, HR, Audit and Investigations introduced a report providing an introduction to the Council’s legal service, giving an overview of its work and operation and its role in the Council’s governance.

The Committee was then invited to raise questions on the update provided, which focussed on a number of key areas as highlighted below:

·                In response to a question regarding the overall time spent on legal work, it was noted that much of the work related to the Regeneration and Environment department was linked to prosecutions, property leases, leasehold acquisition and contracts. For work related to the Children and Young People department, most of the work related to care proceedings which had seen an increase in demand during the pandemic.

·                Regarding outsourcing, it was noted that the Council was focused on building its in-house advocacy skills. However some work, such as specialist cases, were best suited to external services. It was noted that the Council provided legal services to i4B Holdings Ltd and was paid for these services.

·                It was noted that any insourcing that occurred had a positive impact on the budgets of other departments, as those departments would make savings by not having to use external services. This had an overall positive impact on the corporate position. Client satisfaction was regularly monitored and such feedback had been largely positive.

·                It was noted that the Constitutional Working Group (CWG) was an informal, cross-party member/officer group which met to discuss any changes to the Constitution, whether that be in response to legislation or organisational need, before being presented to Council. Whilst the CWG comprised of a select few members/officers as agreed by the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive, other members were afforded the opportunity to comment on any potential changes at Full Council.

·                In response to a question regarding the emergency powers brought in during the pandemic, it was noted that the Constitution gave the Chief Executive the power to make decisions in the case of an emergency, which was utilised, logged and reported to the Audit & Standards Advisory Committee, Scrutiny Committees and Full Council. Additional temporary delegated powers were also given to the Chief Executive during the pandemic to ensure online committee meetings could be held, as agreed by Full Council.

·                It was noted that debt defended related to the legal work undertaken to recover monies owed to the Council. Staffing levels for this area were matched to demand and, as such, some vacancies were maintained during the pandemic. These vacancies would not be filled unless there was sufficient demand and, if there was additional need on a temporary basis only, staff would be recruited on an agency basis.

It was RESOLVED:

(1)     That the following areas for improvement be noted:

             (i).          To make a central database to record all constitutional changes made in recent years available to the public.

            (ii).          To increase democratic overview and transparency within the Constitutional Working  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To receive a report on on issues previously considered at the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, including responses to information requests made by the Committee, updates on resolutions made by the Committee, including reports and recommendations to the Executive and the Executive Reponse and executive decision made in respect of scrutiny reports and recommendations.

The Scrutiny Progress report, which outlines the issues previously considered at the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, was tabled at the meeting and noted.

To review the Forward Plan of Key Decisions and to consider any issues that may be considered by the Committee.

The Forward Plan of Key Decisions was noted.

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Head of Executive and Member Services or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 60.

None.