Transcript

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the London Bar of New York overview and scrutiny committee. Can everyone online hear me? This evening's meeting has been held at New York town hall in East Ham. Members unable to join us physically at this location are able to join remotely. However, they will not be able to vote and their attendance will not be officially recorded. Although their virtual attendance will be noted in the minutes. With regards to meeting etiquette, please may I ask members who are present in the chamber to raise their hands when they intend to speak. And members online, please can you raise your hands. This meeting of the London Bar of New York overview and scrutiny committee is now called to order. Welcome, everyone, and I will start by introducing myself. I am Councillor Anthony McConnell, chair of overview and scrutiny committee and members for Royal Albert. And I start with Paul. Good evening, everyone. I'm Paul Leslie, I'm the chief executive of rights and inequalities in Newham, but I'm here in my capacity as a co-op team. I'm Councillor Susan Masters and I'm a Councillor for East Ham South and also chair of health and adult social care scrutiny. Councillor Richard Hamilton North. Councillor Carlon Lee, Parkway, Barstow South. Councillor Paul Stratford, Wharton, Cherokee, Cryham, Brampton, Parkport. Councillor Lerskow, Bayne Street, West. We have two scrutiny officers. I'm Kurt Bearden, strategy and scrutiny officer. Artemis Kelso. And over to the executive. Corporate director, Paul Kitzen, corporate director inclusive economy, housing and culture. Roxana Fielsner of Newham and Port Burdo, leader in inclusive economy and strategic housing delivery. Montas Bacon, head of law. Here you go, Brian, head of finance. Dan Mac and director of community development. Tom Badger, regeneration manager. Thank you, everyone. And we have Councillor Mersa. Sorry, and the Councillors online. Councillor Borenwald. And is there anyone else online? We did Councillor Sharp. Okay, we move on. Apologies for absence. Is there any apologies for absence? So the clerk would note that there's no apologies for absence. Declaration of interest. Any members wishing to declare any interest? Yes, Chair. I'd like to just declare that I was part of the committee when this item came in May of 2023. Okay. And Councillor Masters. I need to make the same declaration that I was also I'm pretty sure a member of strategic development committee at the time. Although I wasn't in that meeting. Okay. And yes, sorry. Just for full transparency, I'm finding a courage member of strategic government, along with Councillor Masters, I believe Councillor Mersa. I'm sort of seeing and nodding on the screen. So maybe I've got that wrong. And I'm a current member of strategic development committee. Thank you. And Councillor Chadder as well. It seems to me that this could come back in the future. So it's probably worth saying. Okay, thank you. And okay, I've been a member for the ward in question for 16 years up until 2022. And I suppose that doesn't mean declaring an interest but just for information purposes. And it's my neighboring ward. So and I live in the ward I suppose also. So that's just me putting it out there for the record. There are a green paper item on this agenda. And so at some point, I am moving that the meeting this meeting was an open session for item one to five, six as appropriate, and then item seven to nine. If members wishing to discuss any item or any of the material in the green paper, we need to go into closed session excluding the present public. I can't just say the green paper item is just a statement of fact. And I'm unclear which item it is actually because the limits in the paper are a matter of public record. I'm not clear which information is exempt. I refer to officers to help. So there's a couple of liability items potentially for the council, which are reflected in the exempt legal implications set to cabinet. There's a there's a couple of liability potential liability items that are a risk for the council that were set out in the exempt legal imps. You mentioned the word liability items. The word liability doesn't appear in this paper at all. Therefore, again, I asked a question. It took it talks about the risk being closed off and how we do how we do that. That without going into a closed session, I can't really elaborate more as to the content of that as through chat as and when we want to go into a session. But again, I state for the record, reading this and listening to your statement, again, I can't see specifically where in the notes what is the exempt item. There are some facts information here, which you've been. Council of Masters. Would it be worth quickly going into closed session just to see clarity, so that we don't accidentally reveal? Bear with me so I can put the recording. That seems a reasonable request. You need to state for the people that the committee could be able to answer your question. For those viewing online, we will be going into closed session. So you may not hear every discussion here after until we resume. So be on standby, please. Okay. Now we move on to item five minutes. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes, the meeting on the 4th of June. I invite members to raise any specific correction for accuracy. I wish to add to the pain this evening, but we haven't got the minutes of the 23rd of April. We haven't received those. So can we ask for those to be carried over to the next meeting? Yeah. No, Tim. Is there any members going to be raised in specific matters of accuracy? I therefore move that the minutes of the meeting aired on the 4th of June be agreed as a correct recording. Do I have a seconder? Yes. I'll second it. Thank you. Now we move on to the expansive item for this evening, which is dealing with the calling. For members of the public, there was a pause in this meeting, and that was to discuss some legal issues. Now that has been resolved, we are now back with the meeting in honest. This evening for this meeting, we have the mayor, Roxanne Fiers. We have Paul Kitson, corporate director for inclusive economy and housing. We have Darren Muckin, Forme Badger, and Ailey O'Brien. Please, members of the public, on 4th of June 2024, the cabinet agreed the recommendation as set out in the report attached at Appendix A and as amended at the meeting. For reasons set out in the report and appendices, the cabinet resolved to, amongst others, approve the capital budget allocation of $13.2 million to the existing capital program to be funded from borrowing. The purpose of this item, the calling item, of the cabinet decision made on the 4th of June 2024 on the allocation of capital is to review the decision of the cabinet made on the 4th of June on the Royal Docksbridge allocation of capital. This item was called in for consideration by overview and scrutiny committee in accordance with the provision of rule 15 of the overview committee procedure rule in part four of the council's constitution. The overview committee may review the cabinet decision and thereafter may either take no further action or refer it back to the decision makers that is the cabinet for reconsideration set out in writing the nature of its concern. For the benefit of the viewing public and members present, members on the overview and scrutiny benches called in the cabinet decisions and they are likely to argue that approving the capital budget allocation of $13.2 million is a cost that the council cannot afford in light of this predicted budget gap of $60 million between 2025 and 2027. They are likely to further argue that the proposal will add nearly 1 million pounds per annum and over the life of the project, 49.5 million to the capital financing costs which will have to be funded from the council revenue budget which is already overspending this year by about 47 million and likely to overspend in future years. On the other hand, the executive might argue that its vision for the Royal Docks reflect the way we now need to live and work to secure a sustainable and inclusive interim. The Royal Docks bridge is a vital piece of infrastructure that will make a significant contribution to that of the docks. I now move to the order of the meeting. The meeting should be held in five parts as set out below. Under the main item, agenda five, the following approach and timetable is suggested and I want to go through that order for the interest of time. At the end of the meeting, the committee must resolve whether or not to refer the matter back to the cabinet for reconsideration and if so, it must also resolve upon its key concern immediately to the cabinet for consideration along with the decision. The committee must agree in committee the precise word for its resolution including if it will refer executive decision back to cabinet. The resolution notice setting out the resolution of the overview and committee needs to be drafted by scrutiny officers and signed off by the chair the next day, which is tomorrow, but referred back to cabinet by Friday, the 26th of July. If the committee refers the matter back to cabinet for reconsideration, a representative of overview, i.e. the chair should attend cabinet to present the findings of the committee. I now move to the reasons for the call in. At this stage, I would ask Councillor Ottson to give the reasons. They are three signatories to the call in. Councillor Ottson, Councillor Reitter-Charter and Councillor Liz Booker, who is not here. Thank you very much, chair. Councillor Liz Booker has resigned, so I believe that Councillor Hardin is also signed for the call in. The reasons for the call in, thank you very much. Financial. The budget gap 2025-26 and 2026-27 is £63.3 million. The period 2 management accounts also show a budget gap stroke variance of £6.4 million. The estimated budget gap over the fiscal years 2024-25, 2025-26 and 2026-27 is £110 million. It should be noted that some of the General Reserve, the Authority Transitional Reserve and the Capital Finance Reserve, per the going concern report, is £78 million. That's from the going concern assessment 23/24, audit committee papers, 19 June 2024. I also believe there are additional £22 million of reserves. I think it's the Council Tax Reserve which can be used. So in essence, the budget gap is £110 million and the medium-term budget is showing and the medium-term reserves are £110 million. Not a healthy financial position. The Royal Docks Bridge project spends nearly £1 million per year for 50 years on borrowing costs that will require an additional £1 million in revenue savings annually, which is unaffordable given our current £110 million budget gap over the next three years. Additionally, this expenditure does not yield any asset return. Second reason, need. There is no analysis provided on the necessity of working the bridge. Futures are already required by statute to build the footbridge, ensuring that the bridge will be constructed. The report lacks information on different capacities or requirements. The area is already well connected with two DLR stations within a 10-minute walk of £1 million and direct access to Custom House Station, making the footbridge redundant as it only takes 24 minutes on foot to prepare it. Third reason, legal concerns. The legal concerns will be read in two parts. The part which will be in camera and the part which will be exempt. The part which is going to be in camera, legal concerns. Reasons for the calling is for the Royal Docks Bridge include concerns arising from exempt legal advice and this contributes 6.2 of the report. That's in open camera. If you wish to switch the cameras off, I will read the legal concerns. Those are the reasons. Thank you, Councillor Lippincott. Is there any? I now open to questioning the three members who are here and their reasons. Anyone on the scrutiny benches. If you need any clarification from the Executive, you can also ask. The bridge project is referred to as kind of sexual. It's also referred to as key, as in key to the general function rather than a key decision in the team's threshold for an infrastructure being decided as essential. Who are you asking that question? I think it's kind of an officer's question so I'll go with it if that's okay. You now need to be asking the three members who called in. Sorry, Chair, it's my first time on this committee so I do have to pull it up. Okay, so while you're rethinking, if you do need to ask a question, is there any member wanting to ask Councillor Otz in the question and then comes the poll. Thank you. In section 4.6, sorry, 4.8 of the report, it says that ownership of the asset will remain with TSB, operating mechanism in collaboration with the Royal Docks Management Authority. The cost of operation and maintenance would be the service charge for the Silver family development project. Because of the actual cost to the residents of the impact of the service charge, I was thinking we have a bit of an issue sometimes with developers, if it's an easy service charge and at some point down the road they increase the cost. So I'm just wondering, did you factor it into your considerations looking at the bridge project? Did we look at resident benefits? Who's going to answer that? I'll answer that question. In terms obviously there was no information in this paper to say from the point of view of the residents how much their service charges would increase or was there anything in the paper about consultation with residents about how much their service charges would increase? I do understand that RODMA does have a mechanism collecting service charges from people who own sites adjacent to all the docks and they would have a sinking fund and it might be a reasonable question to say RODMA has a sinking fund for maintenance and refurbishment of the bridge and why isn't RODMA paying any additional monies to that? But it is a weakness in the paper. I do hope that the mayor will reconsider this project. But should this project continue, there will have to be substantial consultation with local residents about increases in their service charges during this cost of living crisis. I'll answer that part. In terms of section 7, I'm looking at the concept of opportunity costs. You say in your preamble just under a million on revenue to pay for the loan and then 13 million on capital being facilitated. Have you got any consideration for the opportunity cost of the fund, i.e. what will be the impact on taking £30 million out of the fund? Yes, I have given consideration about this. In the sense that if you look at the budget gap that's going to take place in 20.25 and 25.26, a lot of that budget gap is going to have to be reduced through reductions or cuts in children's and adult services. So I suppose my question will be, if you're spending £1 million per year revenue on this bridge, what additional cuts are you going to be making in children's and adult services, given that in those fiscal years, Newham Council will have to deliver a balanced budget? It's much for the executive to answer now. I can't answer what cuts the council is going to make in fiscal years 20.25 and 20.6. It's a gap in the report. Is there no other questions for the three members? Can I make an additional comment? The additional comment I would like to make is, it's only just struck me, forgive me, I'm a bit slow. The reason why we're in this situation is that of planning, I'm not going to go over the people who sat on the planning committee, but they made extra stipulations. And my understanding, essentially, the developer should have paid for that. I mean, that's the logical thing on planning, there are dis-benefits to the local residents and you get a contribution from the developer. We seem to be in this bizarre situation where planning has made extra stipulations and Newham Council has said, wait a sec, the council taxpayer will pay for this. And I suppose that's the question that I have, really. Why isn't the developer paying and why are we asking the council taxpayer to pay additional money or reductions in services in children's and adult services? We are going to help ourselves. You can keep that question when the executive present and when you want to ask them. So if there's no other questions for the three members, I would need to move on. So is there any closing remarks you need to make in terms of your presentation? I'm not at this present moment in time, chair. I assume I'll get an opportunity to wind up. This is your opportunity because after we go to the executive and then after that we go into deliberation. I think the only thing that I would say, given the financial crisis that Newham is in and there is a real financial crisis that is coming, I can't see how this is affordable, not desirable, given the level of cuts that are going to be made in the future two financial years. And the members are ready to summarize. Council President, there may be a technical answer to this question. At what point in the proceedings do we get that? Because it does seem slightly odd. We as the panelists don't ask something. We come out paying for it. I just want to ask, is that normal in planning and how is that advice offered in profit? Is there a report where we said to the developer we want this and we'll pay for it? I want to know how we got in this position. I guess you're asking that to the chair. I would park that for when the executive have the time to ask. Can someone in the executive note please respond to it, Paul? Thank you. Thank you, members of the committee, the three members especially, who call this in and present their case. I now turn my attention to the executive. Paul, are you going to be putting the executive side or the mayor? If I may be in the portfolio, Dean, I very much welcome the opportunity to say some words. The chamber is yours. Thank you very much. Firstly, thank you very much, colleagues, chair of everything scrutiny for the win of this cabinet decision. Just on a general point, I am not of the view that unions are a disaster. I think they are a very healthy example of the scrutiny plays because we know both here in the past and elsewhere presently what happens when you don't have a robust scrutiny function and process. I'm going to be setting out just really in broad terms the place, vision and leadership that we want to be demonstrating here at the council in the context of a long neglected area of our borough, neglected for decades that hasn't had the significant levels of investment that we are now bringing in and will be coming to bear in the coming years. The importance also has to be amplified of Newham as a local authority, the ninth local authority in the country. Its place leadership role and its role in nurturing really important partnerships and relationships in the context of our place both sub regionally, regionally in the greatest capital city in the world and internationally. Please do not underestimate the significance of the Royal Docks Enterprise Zone. It will be bringing a significant amount of money over a 25-year period. Before the election, we announced in collaboration with the mayor of London, now returned a five-year economic strategy. We will be benefiting in monetary financial terms as a council around the increase in business rate collection that can only be reinvested in the Royal Docks Enterprise Zone. I appreciate the questions of concern in the context of the current economic climate and issues of interest rates and the corresponding concerns around long-term borrowing costs and the current on-year pressures with regards to £1 million in revenue. I appreciate the concerns given the interrogation by the member on this scrutiny of the council's financial position and what you're drawing out from your interrogation of our financial papers with regards to the coming fiscal years. I would ask that come the cabinet papers that will be published next week as it relates to the summer financial reports and our transformation here at the council, the aspects of that will provide comfort. And as you know, the burning pressure facing the council's temporary accommodation. It is an issue not of our making. It is a result of market failure. Officers here will talk through the technical detail and answer the detail, answer in detail on some of the specific questions you've raised. This is a significant inward investment to the borrower and for us to be credible as a local authority that has an ambitious vision of place for our people. It's right that we make at all times balanced and rational and logical judgements as to what to invest, when and why. There's considerable reputational benefits for Newham to be investing in this bridge and to future proof in anticipation of future growth, because as the report as presented to cabinet that led to the decision that we made sets out that there is significant growth anticipating the cost implications of widening the bridge in an area where we're shifting modal transport cycling and walking shouldn't be underestimated either. And it's important that in this moment and in the context of a really important housing delivery scheme in this part of the Royal Docks that the delivery momentum is maintained and we don't do anything in terms of undermining the project itself. I'll pause there and invite through the chair Paul Kitzen and between us invite other officers on some of the specific questions which I've noted assist off. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the questions and the debates. I'll go through some of the points that were raised. On the service charges question, the proposal here is that the maintenance operational cost of the bridge would be met by service charges of people that will move into Silvertown Keys. So the reason there hasn't been consultation with people about the level of service charges is because there aren't any residents in Silvertown Keys yet there are affordable units being built at the moment, but there aren't any residents yet. So those service charge levels haven't been fully set yet by the promoters of the site. Notwithstanding your concerns, which I share around the rate of service charges of residents and the pressure they put onto people, I understand the point that was being made. On the planning point, I think it's interesting to think about the sequencing of the way that that part of the borough has been developed out. We know that West Silvertown, Royal Wharf and all of that particular part has been built out over recent years, parts of six years at some pace actually compared to developments elsewhere, and largely because of the DLR link. The planning conversation here about the capacity of the bridge in relation to West Silvertown, Silvertown Keys and everything there obviously relates to partly what is the demand for a bridge and the usage of a bridge that is produced by Silvertown Keys. I know you understand this point, but produced by Silvertown Keys. And then what is the usage and the demand that's driven by the remainder of Silvertown, West Silvertown and those other developments along there. One of our objectives obviously as a council is to make sure that people can access employment, education and leisure. One of our objectives is they can do that by public transport, by walking and cycling. That north-south route is going to become really important. The question was asked earlier about what constitutes an essential piece of infrastructure. Well, there is no hard and fast rule, but I think we would look at it on balance in something that met a number of key policy areas that has significance in scale of both capacity and opportunity. I think we would then classify it as essential. Essentially, a small new town is being created in Silvertown Keys in terms of the number of people and number of jobs being created. That kind of development linked in with what's already being built in West Silvertown requires commensurate infrastructure. What we're asking here and what we've sought approval through Cabinet for is to work in partnership with the Royal Docks team, with the developer, with Homes England and with GLA is to make sure that we're leading the way, I suppose, and future-proofing is the word that we should use, and future-proofing the future requirements for people to move in a smooth way north to south, walking and cycling between all of those jobs, schools and so on onto the transport nodes. Through the planning system, we're essentially saying longer term, this is the infrastructure that we think the borough needs in that part of the borough to move people around properly. But in planning law in terms of Section 106, of course, we're only able to ask the developer for contributions towards the bids that is directly relatable to their development, which is why the proposal is for two-thirds of the costs to be met by the development and a third to be met elsewhere. It's not uncommon for, and this is not withstanding the opportunity cost question which we might come onto in a moment, it's not uncommon for councils to invest in that kind of strategic infrastructure, and I would call a bridge of that significance moving that many people north-south forever and a day, I would call that a strategic piece of infrastructure. It's not uncommon for councils to fund that kind of infrastructure in order to provide an attractive place for people to come to live and work, and there is no doubt that if it has capacity, it's easy to cycle across, will make a difference to people moving in there. So there are a whole bunch of positive drivers there for real reasons why the bridge is larger than strictly speaking Silvertown Keys can meet is because we're trying to take into account the much broader part of West Silvertown, to a certain degree, the western bit of North Woolwich. So that's the point. The question on opportunity cost is well made, and we do review obviously capital projects and we do that at Corporate Leadership Board. We now do that through the newly formed Capital and Assets Oversight Board. So there is an understanding of what's in front of the council in capital terms each year with a rolling programme going forward. So there is an understanding of that opportunity cost when we make decisions. I think I might leave it to the Mayor to comment on the question about cuts. I would just say that the financial challenge obviously of the council is sharp, and no decisions whatsoever have been made about the apportionment or the way that those service changes or other ways of meeting that budget deficit will be met. It's too early to say. I'll pause there for maybe subsequent questions. If you're finished, are you finished with your presentation? Yes. Okay, now I invite members of the audience with me benches to ask and I've seen a barrage of hands. So I've seen them Susan, Michael, Minnie, Rita, Courtney, Lee, Parkway and Councillor Paul. So I'd like to start with the concerns I have around Mayor's definition of place leadership. And we've been here before when we were discussing Newham Sparks, it was a similar approach of needing to show place leadership. Now to me, what I don't understand is why place leadership always seems to involve us spending large amounts of money, when actually place leadership can be things like making introductions like lobbying politically, like finding sources of funding. I don't understand given our circumstances, why we aren't shifting to that model of place leadership. Is that your question? The definition that I perform entails all of that. It's not a case that in our role as placements of this place called the London Borough of Newham, we do not look to secure monies through collaborations, inward investment, grants, and the like. It's not as narrow definition as your Sebastian that I adhere to. But in this instance, it seems that it is, with Newham Sparks, it seemed like it was, we're no longer in a position where we have the funds to commit to projects on this scale. So I'm worried that we're still pursuing that version of place leadership. I would suggest just through the chair that again, the definition of place leadership that you've iterated is not the definition of place leadership that we pursue. And in the context of Newham Sparks, I don't recall at any point during those debates, and I don't want to digress from the substantive focus of tonight that the council at all was intending to finance the entirety of the proposition. We had undertaken works in order to justify a business case, and we'd undertaken works to justify some spend, but in terms of the full realisation of optimising the site that hadn't been offered as a purely council-led. But coming back to the bridge, the bridge for the reasons in part articulated by Paul and in the cabinet reform demonstrates contribution on part of the council in the context of the site and the scheme that is millions-fold, and it is an important contribution by us as a council of a major infrastructure in order to surface the future need. Thank you, I need to move on now, quite a minute. Thank you, chair. I'm sitting next to a very qualified, highly experienced colleague in the financial sector, and I'm not, so my questions are going to be very based on the layman's knowledge that I have. My colleague mentioned about the 120 million that are going to be having a budget gap in 2526, and that is a very worrying figure. And in the paper, it's a very glamorous project. It says about the Royal Docks and Becton Riverside opportunity area, meeting 40 to 50,000 jobs, housing 30,000 to 40,000 new homes, very glamorous cameras, however, cannot justify the amount we are spending, going to be spending, because if you're going to be 120 million overspent, that's the first part. And the second one is, the officer mentioned that two-thirds of the cost is going to be paid by the developer, and one-third is what we are paying. If this project is in such a large scale, why couldn't officers get the developers to pay the full amount, considering the financial situation we are in? Over to the officers. May I firstly address the commentary around financial situation based on estimates of budget gap over coming fiscal years, and just urge colleagues at this meeting, notwithstanding the sobering figures that are presented as estimates and forecasts, please wait for the detail in terms of our response, and then going back to an earlier comment relating to savings cuts and the like, there will be a diligence and expansive set of discussions within the executive senior officers in the coming period, and at the appropriate points will be presented to members, including members of both being scrutiny. And then I will pass on to Paul in the first instance, to address your substantive point. Thank you for the second question about why couldn't officers negotiate superior? A couple of bits of context, obviously, is that the Silvertown project has been stalled for a number of years, hasn't it, Silvertown Keys, and it's largely because obviously the developer viability is so poor and has been so poor for the master developer there and the funders. Those sites without stating the obvious are very expensive to bring forward because of the remediation work that's required, the demolition work that's required, and obviously kind of flood risk and flood storing up, there's quite a lot of moving material around, and it's a relatively new market, although Royal Wharf obviously has established it as a market. Right across the country, we see those sorts of sites at that scale, quite often waterfront actually that are expensive to bring forward and being very precarious in viability terms and therefore having quite a complex public-private partnership essentially between what the developer contributes to the scheme and can afford and then what the public sector brings forward. And in this case, we've got both the GLA, obviously with the land deal that they're obviously agreeing terms with the developer and have no doubt been revising them. We've also got Homes England who are lending the developer considerable amounts of money to ease their cash flow in order to get it going. So whilst it's true that development sites of this size do obviously make money, otherwise it wouldn't be the interest, there are relatively small number of people in the world that take on development sites at this level of risk. So those public-private partnerships become quite important. And it's like I said earlier, it's quite common for each partner to have to contribute something in order to make it work when you get down to the detail of it. And it's quite common for councils and notwithstanding the concerns and the decision that the council have to make about this, or formally, it's not uncommon for councils to have to invest, and I see it like that through my professional lens, invest in the infrastructure required to bring that place forward alongside everybody else that's investing their money both on the public and the private sector. Thank you. Can I just comment on the mayor's remarks about the budget? Also the mayor mentioned 10 million budget gap. I think what the mayor is alluding to is papers to come, but if we get the papers to come from now, what we have had in papers that we've already seen, especially during this year budget that we passed in February, the budget gap that existed then for the budget in this financial year, 47 million. And it was said then that we have a budget gap of 60 million for the next two years. So 47 plus 60 is 107 million. So Council Shaw only mentioned three million more. So within the context, we should be able to mention these figures because they're already in the public domain. Sorry, just to be clear, my point isn't contesting your entitlement to make reference to estimates in papers already finished. It's just emphasizing they are estimates. Because there's potentially a risk of it being established as fact. I mean, these are all estimates. That's the only point I'm making. Okay, and that point is well made, and I'm sure the viewing public is going to take note of that. Thank you. Councilor Chardha. Just a couple of things. Just picking up on that last point, if our estimates are the only thing in the public domain, other than what's in our other places. So I think it's legitimate to actually look at those estimates as well. So that's two questions. And I think the second one I might want to ask in the next session. It's only just occurred to me this evening, Paul, there must be a business plan somewhere for this project, wasn't there? I barely denied your new info, so you may not. But someone will remind them. I'm not trying not to use that excuse anymore. It's three months. Can I defer to Darren, please, Darren Mackin. Okay. Yeah, well, so the developer and the GLE, the headline partnership is between the GLE and the developer, who've got a land agreement with the GLE. So that's all been agreed contractually through that mechanism. That's what I'm asking. Is there a business plan? Because you talked about the economic benefits, and there's a lot said about regeneration and the capital and the income it brings into localities. It varies considerably. If you look at the reports from City Challenge, if you look at the reports from single regeneration budgets, the success of those projects varies, often outside of the control of councils or the quandars around them. Have we stress tested the budget? Have we got access to the business plan? Have the developers modified the business plan? And have we stress tested the business? So I can speak on knowledge that I'm aware of. The developer does have a business plan for taking this development forward. We liaise with them kind of on a monthly basis, and we know that they're constantly stress testing/looking at the viability of the project as you'd expect. So that's in their hands rather than the council's hands. Have you asked for sight of it? Well, I personally haven't seen that business, that analysis. Has anyone at the council seen the business analysis? We would pick up elements of approved planning viability. So we've seen the planning viability that they've submitted to us, and as they go through the projects quite long term, they will submit updated viability approaches, which include the costs of the bridge. And I think the point you're asking is about the business plan, which is the economic benefits and how they've been calculated. Absolutely. As the viability changes, the benefits change. Yeah, don't they? So how has the council factored that into its thinking? Sorry, if I may just to add. So the Royal Docks Enterprise Zone is the partnership between the Mayor of London, Mayor of Newham, GLE, and Newham Council. There is the entity known as the Royal Docks Enterprise Zone Board. That board is made up of membership as assigned and approved by the Mayor of London. There is a GLA-sponsored resourced team that's got links to the GLA Finance Department, Legal and the like. And matters that you're raising come to the board and are shared. I sit on the board. Officers from Newham Council will see those papers that the Royal Docks Enterprise Zone team, officer side, provides board members diligence around those types of issues. But primarily, because the land is owned by the GLA, it is an assurance requirement of the GLA by the private developer in the context of employment gain and issues of viability, as it may change subject to conditions over any defined period of time. Okay, accept that. But nonetheless, where's the thinking? So you come to a decision about investing in this because meeting somebody else is short for. Now, in 3.11 on page five, the planning permission was agreed on the basis of asserting deliverables. That's now not the case. And the business case hasn't followed the reality of what was originally in 2023. Where is this? I'm struggling to understand why we're picking up for somebody and a developer that is not delivering on their original remit to the borough. Surely that's a failure for the developer, not why is a council picked up in person? It's a good question. It's a valid question. And I can only answer by talking about the change in circumstances, perhaps in the commercial environment over the past two or three years. And we've seen this in a number of places. So costs have increased on major sites for two obvious reasons. One is obviously cost inflation, and that shouldn't be put aside too lightly when you're talking about the infrastructure decides that gets put into development like this. The other is that the build costs for high rise buildings and flats obviously has increased significantly over the past two years because of changes to building safety regulation and current second staircases. And we're seeing this nationwide. So over the past two years, because of those two factors, because of those two factors over the past two years, the viability of schemes has fundamentally changed. So we are seeing that nationwide, massive developers of large sites having to come back and renegotiate liabilities on sites that include high degrees of infrastructure and a lot of high rise buildings. So that said, the bridge is still going to get built with lots of these specifications. If we don't put the money in, the bridge is still getting built. The bridge needs to be redesigned and built to the planning status. A bridge would have to be built under the terms of the planning commission. But not necessarily to the size that we're seeking to do it, which future proofs the usage for the rest of West Silvertown and the west belt of North Hood. And then we come back to the beginning of the question, where's the business council? Thank you Rita. So Rita, in fact you rang it off quite nicely, so I don't need to come in because it's about the tangible benefit of this. And because you don't have a business case, you don't want to know because the mayor spoke about inward, because of the inward investment, they're going to be income, but then it's a business case. So they want to be future proof. I don't know whether the residents are going to benefit or not. So can I respond? Yes. If I can. So we understand, because there's been modeling around the movement of people across West Silvertown, so we understand in modeling terms the predictive movement of people, and therefore we can to some degree understand the benefits that would accrue from an expanded bridge. We can understand the costs of the bridge, because we've been privy to the cost data and we've looked at that. The point that Councillor Shadow is making is that the gap there is the understanding and the calculation of the economic benefits as a business case. So that's the missing piece for a business case from what I can see. So I wouldn't go on because the next thing is why doesn't it happen, because the members are saying hate it for that rather than us catering for it. Councillor Parkway, then Paul, then the rest of them, and Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I guess Paul, I would like to just tease out some of what you just said for the viewing public, the public that ultimately get that paper. So you just said just a minute ago we are seeking the changing will be in regards to what you're seeking to keep for the future life of the borough. I want to understand, I would like you to to tell us what the difference between the planning permission bridge and the bridge that you're proposing. What is that difference if I continue? The dimensions of the bridge, the physical difference. That will be outcome. I think if you were going down the road of the developer funds, the bridge and nothing else, the bridge would be 5.5 metres smaller than the current proposed bridge and what that would do, it would be limiting on the future demand or slash future growth. So you have a bridge that would serve that development only. In future, when the other developments come up around that, as are set out in the opportunity planning framework, you'd have to go back and look at that infrastructure again because it wouldn't meet future needs. So the proposal that was presented to the cabinet is about to try to future proof that bridge. So let me just answer your question. So what you're saying is that the bridge in which you're proposing is 5.5 metres bigger than what was proposed, which I believe is 5.8 metres. Are you saying to me that everybody that lives within that facility, all going to be on the bridge at the same time, so therefore that's why you needed to be so big? Although we're also saying that the public payments we have along our streets can't take the capacity of the amount of people that are walking across it. People walk at different points. So I appreciate what you're saying in regards to future proofing, but the paper, and if we go back to the strategic development paper in itself, there are some clear conditions around what this should look like and how the committee themselves are asking for it to be future proofed. So especially the public realm part of this, that was a big part of that committee. I do also want to just also ask a question around, in the cost that we've seen, in the documentation that we've seen, do you have an estimated cost or figure as to how much it's going to cost through maintenance? Of this bridge? Do you have those figures? Is that being worked off? Do you want me to come back on number one? So yes, the modelling, so like you say, the bridge, for the development as proposed, the bridge could have been a certain size, that would have been acceptable in planning terms. What happened under process of negotiation with the planning process was some transport modelling was carried out, and that did the prediction around future growth, and that says that potentially, if all that development happens, all the jobs come as per the planning framework, you might be looking at around 7,000 movements across that bridge, and therefore, the design could be optimised now to address that potential future need. In addition to that, the greater width makes it easier to cycle across more safely, and you can cycle great pedestrians. So that was the logic, and that is the logic behind the paper that we took to government for the investment decision, that helps. David, so just coming back on that point, when that planning commission came to committee, the questions were very specific around is there enough space for people and bicyclists? You know that, so I asked that question. And if that was the case, what would that look like? And they talked to there being enough space for pedestrians, for cyclists, and if needed, for vehicles, because you have to have access for emergency vehicles to move up and down that bridge if needed. So explain to me why it needs to be anything. Is it because, and I heard what the Mayor said earlier, and I don't disagree with the sentiments around we want this to be the best place. But actually, what benefits does it bring to the people of Newham by extending the size, just because you want to fit a few more people on it, or have a segregated, you said a segregated cycle lane, when we don't have the certainty of funds going forward. So I just want to understand the thinking, because according to the planning application, it's very clear about what was being proposed. So I just wonder, because I remember there being a part in it that they talked about the Millennium Bridge, and that being something we should look at in regards to what this could be. That's what it sounds like you want it to be. That's not what was agreed at committee. So I just want to understand where you're going with it. If I may, the point that I hold on to, and it's not about, you know, flatitudes around Newham being the best place, you know, of course we want a great place for all of our residents to live. But the proposition put back to the developers from officers was predicated on, you know, analysis done around future need. And there was a requirement on part of officers that actually needed to be of this width and of this scale in order to accommodate future need. And there was Moblin Dung that confirmed that, which is what Darren has alluded to. And maybe there is some learning on part of how different parts of the council interface with the local planning authority very early on, around future needs scenarios on big development schemes like this, and what would be required around the complementary infrastructure. And that's something that we'll take away. But there is a robustness in regards to where we're at now, hence that drove the cabinet report. And in the context of where the developer is, it wouldn't have met their viability conditions that they had modelled ferociously. And as a consequence, given the significance that we're placing on the Silver Town development in the context of the wider ambition for the Royal Docks and taking into account investment plans for the wider area as part of our opportunity planning framework requirement for the Royal Docks and the, you know, north foliage and surrounding neighbourhoods that for years have been non-neglected, having a bridge of this type in anticipation of population growth in order to enable better connectivity to the opportunities that will be on the other side of the bridge. For instance, Excel is expanding in full planning permission to expand and maintain its prominence as one of Europe's critical, much needed, and important exhibition spaces so that we do not lose business as London from the exhibition sector and everything that that brings. And I'd just maybe make a point about it as well. The bridge design that you would have seen in planning committee is the one that this paper is addressing. So where you're saying you were given assurances that have been designed to deal with the demands, that's the one that's gone through planning, that's one you've seen, and this is our request to cabinet to put in the council's contribution towards that bridge that's been through planning. It's not a new bridge. Super happy for the bridge. This is the bridge that was approved. No, but we've had the bridge go through. Sorry, Jen. We've had the bridge go through to the belt from the bridge line. So the bridge that we're discussing through this calling is the bridge as approved at planning. That's right. That's right. The 5.8 meter bridge has approved it. The bridge that was approved at planning is the one that we're seeking to put the investment into. There was an alternative way back at the start of the planning process for the smaller bridge that just satisfied that development. The negotiations between council officers and the developer meant that that wasn't considered, that was not pursued, and we went instead with the developer to do this larger bridge now, which is the one that came before. And the dimension of the previous bridge, what's the dimension of that bridge in terms of width? So there was a, well, somebody maybe helped with the dimensions enough. There was a planned opportunity which wasn't designed up because these conversations took over about securing the future needs. I think somebody might be able to say what the good could have been. So that was the original one, the 5.8. Five point, that was the original bridge. Five meters. So from where I'm sitting to that is about five meters and so that's quite a broad bridge. So if it's the original one is five meters, new one is how many meters? 5.8. So basically less than a meter wide. Less than a meter additional. So it's less than a meter in terms of additional 0.8 of a meter. So just 0.8 of a meter is about this, isn't it? It's helpful, chair, because obviously officers guided by technical expertise I raised around this and us were planning colleagues. So it obviously complies with the expectations of our high report and so that's where that would have come from. It's very useful that you quantify the width of the original bridge five meters and now we're going 5.8 which is about this. So what's the benefit of this wide in terms of the additional span? Sorry, chair. Look, I appreciate some of the incredulity being expressed but can I just please emphasize there are hard working officers who are experts in modeling, forecast, management as it relates to the burgeoning population of this borough and we have got to put in place infrastructure. We have got a policy commitment with regards to enabling modal shift. We have got to conform to that because that's been set by the mayor of London. There has to be an 80% modal shift to public transport, cycling, walking by 2045. I know the 0.8 seems to be generating a lot of division and I appreciate when you set it out in that way it may feel a bit comical but this is about enabling people to be connected and have a efficient and appropriately modelled and sized walkway and cycle way from two points of the docks. Okay, I hear that mayor. It's not meant to be comical. It's meant to give members of the overview committee some visual idea because I know from where I'm sitting to that wall there is about five meters or thereabouts. So for members on the committee who do not have that visual perception of what it is, that is what it is. So that's quite right to me. We're going to get and what I wanted to show them which I'm entitled to is that we're going to get about this extension so they can now be more informed in terms of the size that we're looking at. That's what that is meant for. Yes, I appreciate the comments that have been made. However, I have the strategic development committee papers and it states clear deck 5.8 meters minimum which extends widths up to 8.55 meters at the bends. Consensus on the clear width of the bridge was reached during pre-application engagement with LBN officers. So that's what we're dealing with. And when the officer spoke, he talked about extending the bridge by 5.5 meters minimum. On what numbers are we talking about here? On the, what sounds like 30 centimeters? Yes, sorry. Because it's only 5.8. Yes, in 5.3. Would you like to post that in order? Is that the agreement? Thank you. So I guess I just for clarity, the papers are clear about what it says. And so I think there's some discrepancy there in regards to bathrooms and piers because we haven't got in front of us a paper on a, I think you said around that. We have papers around, it's a 5.8 meter bridge that extends up to 8.55 meters around the bends. You said the proposal, what they ask is to extend it by 5.5 meters. That's not what you meant. Well, so the bridge that you're describing there is the bridge that's referred to in this cabinet paper. So there's obviously some confusion. Yes. That is the only bridge design proposed and that is what we propose in investing. Can I just take you back, Darren, to the question that I asked, which was around how are we going to pay for this? Have we taken into consideration the costs? Is it our cost or is it developers' cost around the maintenance of the space of the bridge itself? So the opening of the opening costs of the bridge, the lifting mechanisms of the bridge, the money that's been, we're talking about, does that include in those costs to run the bridge for essentially, is that our costs or is it theirs? It won't be the classes costs. It'll be the service charge that's paid to Rodney. By the residents. By the occupiers and the development, yeah. Subject to capitalization. Thank you. Now, we've extended something which will then take us to 9.30. However, because of the arguments, legal is not sorry, wrong word, because of the legal consideration, which took up about 20 minutes or so of our time, we should get extra time, as in football, isn't it? We should factor that in because those was productive time that we have lost. Yeah, it's coming before me. Yeah. So I aim to wrap this up by 10 o'clock if we take the extra time back. Yes, Rita. It just occurs to me, we're talking about this, and I think, and I do want to state this for the record. Tower Bridge, London Bridge have been, were built 900 years ago, have continued to survive and serve their communities well. And they've also made money for loads of charities in London by having a toll, right? So I think, you know, let's not get too fixated on new world vision stuff, when actually sometimes the simplest things are the best of itself. So I just want to say that, because I think we're getting a bit carried away with everything's got to be perfect in this new place. And let's try to start from there. We had to make our offer go the way up. Okay. And back to Paul's comment, really. I've just got four comments for the moment. My general comment seems to be we've over engineered a very simple solution here, but it feels like. And listening to the comments here, the comments don't reflect the report given to Cabinet. So there's this show of governance here, right? This report is not sufficient. Well, the question I want to pose here, I would say to my Cabinet colleagues, I worry about the quality of the report, then to make the decision based on what I've heard today. That's my general comment from specific points. It seems to me we are subsidising the cost of a developer, which I find egregious. Yeah. Okay. Nowhere should we, as a local authority, I don't care about place-making, we are not in the business of subsidising developers. That is not our role, and that's where the role stops. And that is not place-making. Place-making is different from subsidising a developer's balance sheet. And I fear, but what we have done is subsidise a developer, which I don't think is the role of the London Borough of Newham. The issue of future-proofing, an excellent point then my colleague about Tower Bridge and London Bridge or whatever, I made an assumption that our planning regulations take future-proofing into their normal considerations, right? So you can't say we've got to future-proof something, when the rules which we are deciding have future-proofing built in to their fabric. Again, I doubt this report, I feel is insufficient. And I've just listened to the comments made. I've gone through the report, they do not tie up, and it is an issue. And I think that Cabinet decision is based on a report written in sand. And I'd say that is professional courtesy. I've read the development minutes from last year, and BP9, familiar with the company, they are the agent of the developer. The developer himself, and I read it out, Chris Gascoigne, reminded the committee of the obligation under the current planning permission to build the bridge with the location identified for the purposes of serving the world's communities. Now, if I had my headphones, I would have actually gone back to view the report in the meeting to check the tone. I suspect that comment, I'm looking at my colleagues at the meeting, that was made by the agent of the developer to provide assurance to the committee that they will build the bridge. I don't know how we've gone from May 2023 from the developer saying they'll pay the bridge. Sitting here today, we're coughing up £13 million capital and given the residents of Newham a £50 million headache for the next couple of years. There's a gap there, and I don't know where that gap has appeared. We talked about displacement. Again, I looked at the report and I tried to look at the appendices. There's a concept in planning about GBA, okay? Where is the number? Where's the economic number? You keep saying about future briefing, economic place taking, but this report doesn't contain any figure whatsoever to justify it. Where is the metric? Lots of words about data. So again, I was looking at Paul was directly responsible for this report. This report is quite weak. It doesn't explain what was said tonight by officers. I've had the benefit of listening to my colleagues and some of your colleagues. I doubt it's fair, if Cabinet was here today, I'd start the decision, I'd take his stuff, make decisions on what's here. There's nothing here about the economic benefits. There's nothing here about the balance sheet of the development. I'm quite worried, actually, because, you know, in an outside world, maybe I've joined the wrong thing, because how can we go to a council for a project and the council ends up coughing it? That is a new, that is wild, and I'm quite concerned, because really what you're saying to people out there, it can't be, and what you've seen don't quite add up. And don't worry, they'll subsidise it. I'm worried. So going back to the comments on the paper. So I've made some comments about lack of detailing here about place making. I don't know how we made a, I'm looking at the comments here. Chris Gascoigne said they'll build a bridge, and now we're building it. I'll go to section 9.18. Back to the mayor's comment about, don't be, don't worry, it's up to the financial community. This report clearly says the million pounds is going to come in revenue, for the residents listening, will mean a million pounds will come from their services. A million pounds is a million pounds. I know I think Councillor McCormick said about £1,500 or whatever, but a million pounds is roughly about 1% increase on council tax. So we are saying to the residents, we're probably going to put your council tax up in number of years, but don't worry, because 1% are a bit of a use to fund the bridge, which some of you may not even use. So again, in conclusion to my comment, long way round, and Paul, you can answer those comments wherever you want to start from, but I'll summarise it for you. This is an over-engineered solution. Council is subsidising an employer. I would love to look at the balance sheet of this project, and it doesn't wash its face. And I don't see how, last year, the developer said they would fund the bridge, and now we're coughing up £13 million, and last thing I checked to look at the last quarter figures, we have got a financial situation. - I'm always going to respond there.

• Can I firstly just make a few comments? One, the £13 million expenditure, and in terms of the foreign implications for that, that's something that we'll certainly look at in terms of the modelling, but it's 50 years, it's not two years. Just a matter of, no, it was reference to two years. Just to clarify, I would be really concerned, I am concerned, actually, not would be, I am concerned by the expression that myself and cabinet, at a formal meeting of cabinet, have not been provided clear, full.
• Sorry, chair, if I may. - One at a time, not one at a time. Let the mayors finish. - I would be concerned, I am concerned, the words used that myself and cabinet weren't provided for, and clear advice, and there's a governance issue. I can be... - If you want a point of clarification, I can give you that, but I'd rather me to finish. - And I would want to seek, I would want to express assurance that every single cabinet paper goes through quite robust discussions prior to them coming to formal cabinet for myself and cabinet to approve. I mean, I'll invite Paul and other officer colleagues to comment on the over-engineered point, and I don't accept and I don't recognise the language of come and we will subsidise, and we're subsidising something that should be met by a developer in the context of the arguments we've set out as to why we believe that this is important.
• Okay. - Okay, clarification? - My comments were based on the comments I heard tonight. Paul, the information given tonight, as I was listening and reading the paper, something different came out, which is not covered in this report. My comments, chair, I wasn't making an assumption that at the time of the cabinet meeting, the mayor and other cabinet members weren't given the right information. What I said, and I clarified my comment, based on comments said tonight, it's presented by Paul Kitson, someone else's comments were not reflected in the paper, and therefore it's not limited to sign the recommendations. Those are my comments, and I'm willing to be corrected according to the state chair. A proper point I mentioned about subsidy, well, I think the record is there and it stands. May the relevant said they will build the bridge. A year later, we're building the bridge. There's a subsidy there. - Thank you. I'm just commenting on what Councillor Potter said, and I have found that myself in previous occasions when the paper came to us, what is written in the papers is not always what is being explained, and there's work to be done. I know I had the conversation with the mayor already and the chief exec. There's work to be done in some of these papers. When we sit with officers and have the conversation, it's all clear, but it should be clear from the outset, and much from having conversations. - Thank you, chair. I can accept that, sir, Councillor, and I can see that all papers have got room for improvement. I think the one comment I'll come back on, because much of what you've just raised there have been rehearsed, they'll swear into this evening, on the future proofing points that responds to the transport modelling. So we'll come back to that same point, transport modelling that was undertaken and the analysis is that the bridge will accommodate usage from outside of the Silvertown Keys development. So the simple equation is that we are able to seek financial contribution commensurate with the impact caused by the Silvertown Keys development, but not for things that are outside of that. We as a council would rather build a bridge that is future-proofed, if you want to use that word, for everything else that's going to happen in an area, rather than the future think, but a bridge isn't quite big enough, it doesn't quite work.
• Can I just come back? The concept of future-proofing, is that an actual concept in planning, and is it defined?
• So in planning, yeah, it's a good question, and I'm not a planner, and we haven't got one here, but if I can respond, section 106 demands from a developer must be specific, and they must relate to the impact of the development, so they have to be directly related to the specific impacts of that development. If you want a future-proof piece of infrastructure outside the boundaries of that development, you cannot reasonably ask that specific developer to fund it. You must either wait and find another developer to fund it, or you must find another way to fund the infrastructure, if you want to future-proof the infrastructure at the point of construction of the piece that is applicable to the development.
• And just check, read Mark's about future-proofing, Peter, in the comments on the planning meeting, he actually says, the effect of the bridge was increased during the pre-app discussions, the minimum of 5.8 meters, which exceeded national TFL and LBL levels. So the application itself, was future-proofed, and now you've got this concept of new future-proofing, which again, somewhere along the line, it doesn't add up. I think it's not a technical phrase, but it doesn't add up. But the pre-app is being increased. The pre-app, future-proofing, we're exceeding national, and now we're going to another level. It doesn't add up.
• Okay. I mean, Darren, just a quick comment on that as well, please.
• So yeah, I think the point around this is that in the pre-app process, we got to the point of that completed bridge that was in the application that was considered a committee. So that's what we're trying to say here is that it was future-proofed through the pre-app process. What you then saw at the Strategic Development Committee is the bridge we're now seeking to put investment in, because through the planning process, as part of the negotiation, the strategy that was landed upon as the best strategy was for the developer to do what they would do, but for us to add this extra investment to make the bigger bridge to future-proof it.
• That's not a negotiation in my books. You don't walk into a room and come out £13 million out of pocket, right, when the pre-app was already £5.8 million. That is not a negotiation. Also, I did ask it, where are the... And it comes down to the charter's point about the business case. Where are these papers and minutes about this negotiation? Because now my alarm bells are really here. You do not go into the negotiation and come out and have your pocket picked for £13 million, and the residents end up paying £50 million. That is not a negotiation, and that is a governance issue. We are here to protect the residents. Nobody would understand it. I accept we need to make a bridge and da, da, da. I get it. I use that area myself. But when it's about £13 million of capital, nearly £50 million over 50 years, and you went into a negotiation, we'd come up worse. - Just to come back, what I meant by negotiation was the all-time planning process and the trade-offs, as you'll understand, that are made throughout the pre-app process and the discussions that go on. So, I was talking about steam negotiation. It wasn't a specific negotiation, a part of the planning process, about financial amounts that the council would contribute. That wasn't part of the planning process. What was was, let's create this space, let's create this place, and let's have a strategy where the bridge is future-proofed.
• Please proceed from the top point of view. - That's the last commentary.
• Signed off. Sorry. I apologise, Chair, for interrupting.
• Okay. Okay, so, now, board officer and member, you're done now. I bring in Councillor Atkinson.
• I'm going to ask a really stupid question, yeah. When did you know that you were going to be spending £13 million on this project?
• Sorry, I'm hesitating because I wasn't in employment here, so I'm trying to piece together what... - The bridge was consented, as we were discussing, and there was then a conversation about the council's ability to contribute towards that, because that's the point we got to with the plan of application. The process, as you'll be aware, for agreeing that, is through the budget-setting process. So, we took it forward into the next budget-setting process that was coming into this financial year, if that makes sense, because the application was agreed in 2023. - I'm sorry to appear sick, because I'm curious that you're saying you're funding it through the £60 million, which is a bucket, because my expectation in terms of budgeting will be, and maybe it should be a recommendation in a future budget scrutiny committee, is that any project that you're thinking to spend in this financial year, any project, I would expect it to be included as a line in your budget. Now, actually, I think you would have saved yourselves loads of trouble, because if there was a single line here which said bridge £13.5 million, and we didn't ask any questions about it, your simple line would have been, well, you all agreed it in the budget, and it would be very, very difficult for us to call it in. We may have done. So, I think that there is a weakness there, in a sense that, well, there seems to be history there, because previously we got £60 million at which you're spending money. I do recall in the previous budget, there was £130 million line where you had six lines for it. So, maybe that's something that you ought to consider. I don't think you will be spending loads of money, because I think your financial classes are so great, but I am somewhat surprised that it hasn't been included specifically in your budget. May I respond? Yeah. It's a really interesting comment, and fair comment, and I'll give it some consideration. I'll discuss with South Africa and Conrad as part of the situations on the back of this. Right. Louis and then Rita. Which is important to page 19, it talks about the Home England loan. I just understand what happens to the Home England loan if this doesn't go ahead. 4.2. 4.2. Sorry. What was the question? What happens to that Home England loan if this bridge doesn't go ahead? Okay. So, it's not really for me to comment directly, I'm not party to the detail of it, but that loan agreement will have a series of delivery milestones attached to it. We don't get that money if we don't... If I just conclude, so if there was a delay to a decision about the bridge and there was needed to be some additional work or some redesign work or something else, that would change the timescales for it, and then so the developer and Home England would need to, I suspect, revisit the terms of the loan. What do you mean by revisit the terms of the loan, sorry? So, the loan would contain milestones for delivery against it, against expenditure profile. If there was a delay to the overall programme of the programme as a whole, then the terms of that loan would need to be revisited, in other words, renegotiated, wouldn't they? So, potentially, we've got the situation now which isn't perfect, where we managed to get £28 million or something, and we're saying the vault at £30 million in, but if we don't agree it now, or if you guys don't agree with the cabinet, don't agree it now, or in a timely manner, we potentially lose that £28 million. I can't draw that conclusion. I was just trying to be very factual there, the terms have to be renegotiated. I can't comment really about whether we'd lose the loan or the area would lose the loan or not. That would be, strictly speaking, would be between the developer and Home England. Okay, okay. And then, again, just very quickly, in seven, the alternatives are considered nothing or the investment kind of renewal and maintenance. Was at any point any consideration given to other projects that could achieve some of the benefits with the bridge around connectivity, but which weren't the bridge itself? Not in this specific process, no. There is a wider discussion going on at the moment about infrastructure needs and the road docks linked to the delivery plan that the mayor mentioned earlier, but we didn't have any particular conversations about what else you could do on this site. Okay. On a personal level, do you think we were having those conversations to see if there are a number of smaller projects which could probably achieve some of the benefits that you want without the sort of cost risk? I think in terms of delivering this development, there obviously needs to be a bridge because that's been deemed as part of the plan and process that bridge is required. There's a discussion about what to do with the bridge and whether you fill it up for now, which I prefer, but I think the evidence is the bridge is required to support this development. It seems to me like a lot of what we're talking about is the quality of the bridge, and we're saying that actually you guys can achieve a bridge that will meet the planning commission, but it won't be as good as the bridge we're offering. What I'm suggesting is that actually you could meet planning commission for the bridge, or it could even come back to gain new planning commission, and you would still then have some of this section 106 money that you could use for other things which could potentially help achieve these connectivity issues. Is that a fair comment that I've made? Is that a fair understanding of the situation? I would just clarify that I think the section 106 money for the bridge would only pay for the smaller bridge. There wouldn't be anything left over. Okay, 5.8. They're planning this sort of non-plan. Okay, I'm sorry, members, and there's quickly benches. We need to calm down a bit. Right, so Lewis is still on, and that's your last bit, Lewis. Yeah, Darren and Lewis, yes, go on. No, sorry, I was just going to say I think the mayor has her hand up. Okay, so aren't you engaged in Darren anymore? Are you finished with Darren? No, I haven't. I just wanted to hear what the mayor was going to say. Okay, I will bring in the mayor. I decide who comes and when, so you and Darren. All right, Darren, so just to finish up, if you're saying it kind of has to be a bridge, just to get this clear in my head, are we saying we don't put the money in and there's not as good a bridge or we put the money in and there's a good bridge? Is that the option for us, so there's no other options? So what would happen if we didn't invest in this bridge? The developer would then have to go back and design the bridge that meets the planning requirements, very basic planning requirements, so you'd be building in that cost and that delay into delivering the scheme, because it would have to deliver a bridge. Okay, and there is finally, sorry if I can't check, and we don't have any understanding of what that would cost? Well, I don't have it in front of me because it was not designed up because the discussion around planning moved into, well, let's look at a bigger design that addresses the wider needs. So what I do know is the developer… Members, one meeting please. The developer hasn't done any detailed design work on the smaller bridge. Okay, unless you have something that must be asked, we need to move on, and I know the mayor wants to come in one minute. I just wanted to clarify in an attempt to be helpful, the scheme in and of itself would always have an obligation to deliver a bridge, and subject to pre-planning discussions with planning officers who were informed and had discussions internally, a bridge of this particular type was then subject to planning consideration by planning committee, and that was determined and approved. Going on to Lewis's question as to whether or not there are other connectivity actions in order to enhance connectivity from one part of the Royal Docks to another part of the Royal Docks, and go to a basic bridge on that scheme, none other than another bridge somewhere or widening existing bridges, or having more barges, allowing people to have speedboats across the water. There is an opportunity area planning framework for two parts of the Royal Docks one relating to the Abbott Island end and the neighbourhood around it, one relating to the Royal Victoria end and the area around it. There were plans put away with regards to the physical vision of those areas that was published just before the elections which are publicly available. We had to send circuits around as well as provide you an illustrative example of what the bridge would look like and why it's the shape it isn't. It's not about trying to, from what I understand and what I've been told, the design of the bridge, even if it didn't increase or expand, was going to be of a high design quality and not to show off. It was never to be varied. It's to do something of high design quality, being conformity, in design terms in this day and age. Thanks. I must bring this to an end unless Rita was waiting for some time. I'm totally confused. Just indulge me. We got planning permission to build a bridge up to 5.8. Terry, one meeting please. We got planning permission to build a bridge up to 5.8. The developer knew that because they agreed and they signed up to it. For whatever reason, the developer can't commit to the cost on that bridge. Am I right so far? We had already factored in a contribution to the bridge at the planning stage that's in the budget. Is that right? That's why it's gone to cabinet. Let me just ask, can you see it from the other perspective, how confusing this looks? Yes, I can understand why there is confusion on part of members that are not deeply involved in the detailed aspects of a large, major, area-based regeneration scheme. No, I totally get it. In that respect, should we have been furnishing papers like the business plan, like the other documents, we've gone into this at face value, looking at what we were providing. This has turned out to be even more complicated than it was on paper. Initially, this just looked like the fact that actually we were going to invest in something, but actually this is bringing up issues around governance, around planning, around the whole relationship that we have with developers and the danger in all of this, and this will be my last point, is are we in danger here tonight of actually setting a precedent of underpinning funds? Are we going to seem like a cash cow to developers because where are we going to draw the line? How are we going to manage this, even if it goes ahead? How are we going to justify other developers not coming to us? I can understand and appreciate the concerns that I welcome, the questions being raised, and they will be informing considerations as officers will provide updates on act determinations that we will make, and I will certainly be taking back questions that have raised in my mind based on this discussion around issues of clarity, precision of information, et cetera, et cetera, that's provided to members in discharge of their scrutiny obligations. Chair, if I just may, it's not just about us as members, because I think this is also about residents as well. If we're looking at transparency, I know great efforts have been made to make sure that we're a transparent council, but actually if we're going to hone in on that, we need to see the full picture. I think one of my suggestions would be actually the business space for this project is published, and I know it's not within our gift, but I think it is within our gift to ask the developer to release the business loan. I'm going to consider your question. I'm not saying that you're right or wrong. I need to just consider and discuss, and just for clarification, I accept that scrutiny plays an important role on behalf of residents, as does the executive in ensuring that money that is spent is being spent wisely. I don't think that in this instance this will open the floodgates. I don't think that this sets a dangerous precedent, and the reason I don't think those things is because of the governance regime we've put in place, and the interrogation that's been undertaken does not lead us to ever growing grab for money as may be described by organizations and entities. I think this organization certainly has learned lessons from recent contemporary history of the past, including in relation to the Sixth Board Collegiate, be it London Stadium and others, and I understand why, and more so than many members, acutely why these issues matter and why they have to be scrutinized. Can we run that back, please? I do need to move on now. Terry, 30 seconds. Do you have your hands up? 30 seconds. Just to clarify, back to Councillor Godfrey's question to Darren. So at the moment, you've got a perfectly confirmed planning bridge, 5.8 percent future proof to national TfL and London standards. That's what we've got. That's the basic rate, right? You're nodding your head. Well, I can clarify. I don't know if you want to finish and then I'll come back. Okay, and that's it. That's not true. Please don't interrupt him, so let him flow and yes. Let's go to the question then. It might be helpful. 30 seconds is running out. Based on the planning decision last year, the bridge got signed off at 8 meters. In the notes, it said Chris Gascoigne and BP9 said they would pay the bridge, right? The bridge was designed at three upstandards to national TfL and London standards. We've got a bridge. I've seen the design for the bridge, right? That's what we get. So if Kavanagh said we're going to reverse their decision, we'll still get a bridge which is coming in compliant, aren't we? Yes. Right. And back to Councillor Godfrey's question, we'll have £13 million of capital which we could put into temporary accommodation, which is burn in a hole, or in other public realm stuff. Is that correct? Well, that would be a decision for the council to take. Absolutely right. But if you want to clarify, if the decision here, because this is a different meeting with the information which has come out here to what's in this paper, but you want to clarify, if you want to fight here for Councillor Godfrey, if the mayor decided what currently is a valuable tool, not to proceed with the Kavanagh decision, we'll still get a bridge, wouldn't we? Which is planning compliant, which is future proof. Is that correct? Sure. Okay. Tell me why. As the planning condition subscribes the scale and the width of the bridge, which is at least the 5.8m. So basically, we'd get a bridge, we would, you're right, but it would be to deliver what is needed for that 6,000, 7,000 development in that bit of the borough. It would not help us with any future growth or any future infrastructure requirements. When we negotiate with the developer, what do we ask the developer to put more money in there? Well, so legally, you can only ask the developer to give a section 106 contribution to mitigate the impact of their specific development. Even though they said they would comply with the planning condition. Yes, because they would have to. Just a quick one. When Karlie was reading, she says to cater for the community, the Roardox community, might just as still be done key development. And you were saying that they're catering just for the silver tongue key development. So I'm saying in planning policy or in planning law, they would be obliged to mitigate the impact of their development. And that would mean delivering a bridge to get people who are living there across to transport. What we have said is, let's build a bridge that goes beyond that because it will have wider community benefits. And that's the justification for the council's proposed allocation of capital to increase on what would have otherwise been delivered. Chair, can I please? Just off the back of what you just said, Darren. The application that came to committee was granted on the merit of that application, which was to deliver a 5.8 metre bridge. You just said that wouldn't happen if this isn't agreed. It has to revise the planning application. Where's the revision of the planning application that should be before us this evening? Sorry, let me just like... Subject to the recommendations of overbeing scrutiny following their calling, that is considered by cabinet, which may or may not reverse the original cabinet decision. If there is a scenario whereby the original cabinet's decision doesn't proceed, then there will have to be discussions between the council officers and the developer with regards to a planning obligation vis-a-vis a specified bridge in planning condition terms. And there would have to be, as with any changes, a planning application as approved, a change application submitted by the applicant, and that would have to be determined by members of planning committee. So we couldn't bring it here. We were preempting something no one knows will happen yet. Thank you, and I am going to bring this to a close. Can I just advise about the process on duration of meeting that was changed on the 23rd May? So if you can interrupt where the meeting has lasted two and a half hours and then decide to continue for 30 minutes, of course that doesn't affect the time that you spend in private session you're discussing the exempt matters. Thank you, and what I am going to do is to... I'm going to sum up what we have heard, and then we will go into private sessions. But first, foremost, members on the streetlight benches are concerned about cost, and Councillor Paul raised a very important matter, although he raised it briefly and we went on. Cabinet, I think this is a paper that went to cabinet. More the paper. And this is a paper that cabinet, on the basis of this paper, cabinet approved the decision to engage or to contribute $13.2 million towards the construction of the bridge. Councillor Paul's mentioned, and I do agree with him, the paper, every time a paper comes to scrutiny, scrutiny seems to find deficiencies in the paper and what cabinet in terms that goes to cabinet that cabinet approved. So, therefore, there should be some work, avid work, and I know the chief exec took on board that way back in January, February of this year to make certain that whatever goes to cabinet and comes to us is, you know, solid, is, you know, fit for purpose. And I want to comment on my cabinet colleagues, whether they have enough information to make the decision, but obviously we looking at it now is obviously think that there isn't enough information here. And perhaps if cabinet members had the information that we are teasing out here, they might have come up with a different decision. So, that's it. Right. So, what I gathered from my colleagues, they are concerned about the cost. And that is particularly in light of the fact that we are running a budget gap for the next two to three years of about $110 million. And what the colleagues are saying is that at this time, with 1 million pounds per year over the next 50 years, it's not something that we should be considering. Perhaps five, 10 years from now, our finances might change and we can afford it then. But colleagues are concerned about the now. And the now is we cannot afford it with running a budget, a supposed budget gap for this year of 47 million pounds. That is one. Future proof. We heard that the planning authorities or whatever goes to planning is future proof. So, therefore, the bridge is already future proof for future development. And I know there's some discrepancy there because at one point Darien said it's future proof and the next thing he said it's only for the silver tongue area, et cetera. And so, that is one of the concerns that we have on this side about the future proof and the expansion. Another thing that is missing and members have brought back to the fold, there is no business case. And because there's no business case, we do not know what is going to be the tangible economic benefits of this project. Whether it needs to be future proof in terms of the entire area or just leave it as it is for the silver tongue key development. So, that's missing. And so, that's primarily what our concerns are. And I know the executive is arguing, but they need to future proof it. And the mayor is saying that because it would bring in inward investment, the mayor is saying that the vision for the area is to present an infrastructure that is viable and is going to enhance the area in the years to come. The mayor is saying it is not uncommon or it's not uncommon for the council to make contributions. And I suppose in good times when there's a lot of money, it wouldn't be uncommon. But now, it's not the good times. We don't have the money. And so, it's needed to consider. And as I said before, and I won't comment again on it, I just wrote here significant inward investment, but we don't know because there's no business case. So, we don't know what is significant in what investment. So, those are some of the points that is being brought out in the discussions that we've been having. So, what we're going to be doing now is to go into deliberation mode. But before I do so, is there any -- I think we've exhausted the green paper aspect. So, we don't need to do that. Okay. So, what I would do is to thank the executive for attending. Sometimes it's normal practice for the executive to stay around. But given the last meeting that we've had, it went on and it was the executive to stay around to wait for the discussion and for the decision. But if you don't wait, you're welcome to wait. But if you don't, it will be communicated to you. Can I just add, can I thank Darren for his defense of the projects? I think a lot of efforts clearly been put in this evening. We may not agree with you, but thank you. Okay. All right. So, thank you all, and our decision will be communicated in writing. The legal officer, I think, stayed with us. At least in the past, you didn't stay with us. But then the last one, this presidency said that the legal officer stayed. And everything was done legally, but should be done. Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. In terms of the deliberation, like it's -- yeah. So, colleagues, just some housekeeping. Do we -- because at different times, we do different things. For this one, do we deliberate in public, or do we close the recording? Close the recording, I think. Closer recording, I think. Well, hold on. The meeting's been -- It's been recorded now. And it will be uploaded. And it will be uploaded. So the public will find out anyway what we're saying. Right. So if we pause the recording, then the public will find out what we're saying, where we uploaded, because that bit wouldn't be recorded. The meetings are being kept in secret now. Let's continue the meeting in secret, and then upload the whole thing after the meeting. It's my live stream. It's not live streaming now. No, it's not live streaming. Then I think we should just keep it as is. Why wasn't it live streamed? There's some technical issues with why it wasn't live streamed. Okay. So what's the consensus? Do we -- we pause?
• Okay, so bear with me for a second.