Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Good evening everyone, my name is Councillor Arjun Mitra. I'm normally the Vice Chair for the East Area Committee but I'm chairing tonight. Thank you very much for attending our committee meeting this evening. Please note that meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in-law or by the Council. By attending either in person or online you may be picked up on recordings and Council recordings are covered by a privacy notice which can be found on the Barnet Council website and may be retained and made available online. For any speakers - I see the public gallery is full - you will have three minutes to speak. There will then be an opportunity for members to ask questions of the speakers. Can I please remind all to ensure that after you've finished speaking you press your microphone off to ensure that there's no feedback. And with that I'll dive into item number one which is the minutes of the previous meeting on pages five to ten. Are members of the committee happy to approve the minutes of the previous meeting? Agreed, thank you. Item number two - absence of members. As I mentioned earlier I'm in the chair because Councillor Lemon has had an urgent family emergency and he's being substituted by Councillor Alison Moore. Welcome Alison. Councillor Geoff Cook is being substituted by Councillor Anne Hutton. Hello Anne. And Councillor Danny Ridge is being substituted by Councillor Claire Farrier. So we are well powered on the East Finchley Front tonight. Declarations of members' interest - does any member have a declaration that they wish to make? I haven't been on this committee for a while. Would cabinet members normally make a declaration because obviously there may be things that are pertinent to decisions that we have made? I think that's always sensible so I assume that also applies to the Council's working web. Thank you. Councillor Cohen, did you want to put your hand up? Yes, I'd like to declare an interest in the item which I believe might not be debated today but is still on the agenda. Which is Councillor Greg Cook's members' item and Pardes House of which I am an LEA governor for. So it's a pecuniary non-projudicial interest. Thank you very much Councillor Cohen. Item number four, dispensation granted by the monitoring officer. There are none. Items number five, petitions. There are none. Item number six, resident issues. There is one issue, pavement replacement works in Temple Fortune. The update is a response has been sent to the resident on that issue. I don't know if anybody wishes to follow up? Yep, happy with that Councillor Cohen. Thank you. Item number seven, deputations. There are none. Item number eight, public comments and questions. There are none. Item number nine, members' items. There are none. Item number ten, area committee funding, Ensil road safety and parking fund update is on pages 13 to 34 of your papers. Does anybody have any comments? Councillor Grocock. Thank you, Chair. I just wondered for any of those items that have been completed, have we any photographs or any details or pictures or follow ups to come through? I know we've asked for that in the past, but that's always really helpful and it'll be nice to see. I don't think we have any tonight, but I hopefully we can minute that request and we will request photos to come back. Councillor Moore. I will anticipate that there'll be significant pictures for Marketplace Playground and I hope you will come and have a look at it, having been one of the chairs who started the ball rolling on this. There'll be a formal launch of that in October, but it has it has soft opened already and is being very, very well used and is looking great and will look even better after the rain. Thanks ever so much. Councillor Grocock have you any. OK. Can I take us to the recommendations on page 13 that the East Area Committee, number one, notes the community infrastructure levy SIL funding available for allocation during 2022/20 sorry, 2024/25 in accordance with the SIL regulations. I set out in paragraph five point four of this report and in Appendix A, number two, notes that the SIL amount and the and reallocated under spends and overspends in paragraph one point seven of this report. And in Appendix A, number three, notes the road safety and parking fund available for allocation during 2024/25 in paragraph five point eight. And I set out in Appendix B, is that agreed? The only thing I'm just thinking is that in my papers, it says in paragraph five point seven and there was another one earlier up when I think you said it says online paragraph five point three. So it's just technicalities as to which is right. Apparently it's both. I believe it's five point three for the SIL and five point seven for the road safety and parking. I think that's how it works. And that has the detail, that has all the schemes in the detail. Can we take that as agreed? That's agreed. Thank you very much. Right. Item number 11, members, items, applications for neighbourhood community infrastructure, levy and SIL funding. May I start off in the chair by apologising to Councillor Grocock because her item, which was for CCTV at Pardes House Primary School, has been deferred pending further clearance from officers. That won't be heard tonight. I hope Councillor Grocock will accept my apology. I understand there's been some misunderstandings. Something has not happened behind the scenes that should have done, for which I hope she'll accept my apology sitting in the chair tonight. That being the case, we will move on to the next item, which is the Church Lane Community Garden in East Finchley for £57,282 from Councillor Claire Farrier. Claire, do you want to introduce this one? I think you know as much or more than I do about this. Church Lane is in effect the original part of East Finchley, the original East Finchley Village. And the walk's footpath going up through East Finchley runs past it as well. This will a) make this much more pleasant, b) make it safer to walk on. Local residents want this improvement very much and are planning and prepared to maintain and look after. In the next road near Poldrose recently, there were similar gardens in store, which residents are very much supportive of, and this is going to improve the hold of that area, as I say, the original East Finchley Village and the walks along there. So, I mean, as I say, you know a lot more, you can say more than that. Okay, I'll make my comments first and then I'll come to Councillor Moore. Just to say that Church Lane was the original village in East Finchley and it isn't quite important, I think, for us to try and reinvigorate it a little bit. There are a number of shops there, and this application is for a set of planters that are opposite and across from those shops and in front of another set of, another small set of shops. You know, it is, the assets that are there at the moment are in a really quite appalling and dilapidated state at the moment. So, you know, this is much needed investment really to bring them back up to standard. You know, members of this committee would have been board witness by my constant harping on about the Leopold Road garden, which I know Councillor Grocock has visited and seen for herself, as a big fan. Well, this is very much a continuation of that project and it's a continuation of the East Finchley Pollinator Corridor project, about encouraging biodiversity and helping our bee friends. So this is a lovely little project. I have to admit some cheekiness on my part because I did try and tack on some additional infrastructure in other places, but there was no way that it could fit within the budget envelope, so I had to remove those and we're going ahead only with this part of Church Lane. We do have a resident in the public gallery who can answer questions if you've got any, but I will go to Councillor Moore first because I know that, particularly for the Long Lane Junction, she's been working on this since I was in short trousers and I, you know, it was a very long time ago that I wore those. Thank you and Chair, that original drive around the Long Lane, Church Lane Junction was sparked largely because we had an elderly resident who lives towards the top of Long Lane, whose husband I think was possibly a Councillor, but certainly had been very community involved way before I was a Councillor, had been the original instigator of the original planters, which are now pretty down a hill. We did some work a few years ago, but she would have been really passionate about this and she certainly drove me in terms of my original interest. I would just be clear, obviously this is brought through by my two ward colleagues, but I absolutely am fully supportive and I'm really pleased to see Judith in the audience. I think anyone who's seen it, oh, I was also going to comment that you're quite right about the centre of the old heart of East Finchley and some of the buildings that are at the top of Long Lane are actually early 19th century, which I know for all sorts of odd casework reasons. I fully support this. Planters are in really poor condition actually on both sides, particularly actually the walks element, and by improving those and incorporating those into an enhanced scheme, I think it really would have an enormously positive impact on the area. The impact of the Leopold Road Garden has been significant and I think with the support and the encouragement of the team there, I'd anticipate that this project will make a real difference to that stretch of Church Lane, making it feel much more vibrant and putting it very much on the map. I think if we've got local residents involved, it's a great way to get local people involved and engaged with their local areas. I think that's really important. The acting chair referred to bee planting, but I'm really pleased to see that there is also reference to butterfly planting within this, because anyone who's been reading recent reports will know that butterfly numbers across the country have plummeted, and so actually some really serious thought about planting that would support butterflies would be really helpful, and that may involve, for example, leaving a portion of it slightly wilder, but also explaining in the explanatory board why you've done that. So I think it would be really fantastic. I would support this wholeheartedly. And I think it's a relatively modest cost that buys in a lot of activity and goodwill from local residents. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Councillor Moore. I didn't know some of the back story that was useful to hear. In order that I saw the hands, can I go with Councillor Hutton, then Councillor Coakley-Webb and then Councillor Grocock? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I should have declared an interest in that I'm an East Finchley resident. I would like to support the application, but I do need to declare that I live quite close to the site. I'd like to support it. Thank you. I mean, I live about equidistant from it from you two. So if you're going to declare that, I probably ought to as well. But I'm not sure that it's necessarily an interest. Well, you're a bit further away, but fine, Councillor. In fact, I think Councillor Moore lives nearer to it than you do by geographical, as the crow flies. I think it's probably equidistant between the three of us, which I think is highly appropriate. Fine, fine. Councillor Coakley-Webb. Just a couple of questions. Will it be Grant's maintenance that maintain all the planting and the greenery that's either there or is replanted? That's one. I'm looking at the picture of the bench that's there that you say is dilapidated. Will the benches that will be replaced, will they be metal, which is what's usually recommended when we put benches in parks now as least likely to be vandalised? And the only other thing was if you're going to put what I call planted bike stands as opposed to bike hangers. The stands, as I said, the planted bike stand is a metal trough with the bars each side. Will those planted bike stands still have enough space on each side for at least a single or a double buggy to get by? And just a bit of a warning from what I've seen elsewhere that sometimes people using those planted bike stands don't necessarily park their bikes as well as they should do. And if it comes out on a bad angle, that will actually block part of the pavement. So that's all my question. Let us pray that they're not used by line bike riders. We have at the table, Judith, do you want to introduce yourself and give us a bit of your background? Thank you very much. I'm Judith Salomon. I'm a resident of that end of Long Lane and a huge fan of what's happened at the Leopold Road Gardens. And it was a neighbour and I sort of inspired by that and then sort of rather depressed by the corner of Church Lane, the walks and Long Lane and Church Lane and thought, Why can't we keep that going and do something to really elevate the area? I know from the Leopold Gardens, they're not only just really pleasant to walk past when I walk to the station, but I've also met quite a few local people and had chats if I've stopped and sat on the bench. So actually, I think they're a real benefit and we just want to continue that. To your questions on the maintenance, we will undertake that. So the same as what's happening at Leopold Road. So if you do give us the funding, we're going to get a group of people together and commit between us to maintain the two areas. And I think there's quite a large number of properties that are pretty proximate. So I'm confident that we will find people. You know, through the Leopold Gardens, people have told us there are some quite keen local gardeners that live on that stretch of Church Lane. So we'll rope them in. And I think between all of us, that should be very achievable. In terms of the type of bench, we'll take guidance from the council on what's best for that. So I'll leave that to those that know better than I do. And on the bike stands, yes, of course, we need to make sure that someone with a buggy or in a wheelchair is able to get by. At the moment, there's two or three bike stands, which I don't think I've ever seen a bike on, but just sort of take up loads of space where a bench could go and it could just be much prettier. So that's the idea of would still provide parking for bikes, but in a nicer way and also enable another bench to go there. Thank you. Thank you. I think there is already some bicycle infrastructure there, which is in need of renewal. The benches themselves are pretty dilapidated, so it's just replacing those. I think this could actually end up saving the council a little bit of money because theoretically, all of these assets are already, at least in theory, maintained by the council. But maintenance budgets being what they are, they probably don't get the level of attention the front of Hendon Town Hall gets. So, you know, residents like Judith and I think everybody on this committee knows Roger Chapman, people like that taking over some responsibility for the area, I think probably saves the council a little bit of time and maintenance. I will come back to Councillor Hutton, but can I take Councillor Crowcock first? Thank you. On the, it's page 27, so reinstate cobbles, there's a query next to the pound sign, noting that could, might not be taken from the contingency that's shown. With regards to the new bins, we've all had one or two emails over the years about litter being streamed from bins. Will they be closed, inaccessible by foxes and birds, perhaps? I think on the last point, this is not a location where we tend to have problems with that anyway, but I think it's the, I think it's the standard bins that we're looking at, the ones, the black ones with the council logo on them. So it's the same as it normally is. Sorry, what was your first point? The non-figure against the reinstate cobbles, page 27. Yeah, I think that is, I mean, that is definitely the aspiration because it's much more pleasant than the normal paving. But if it proves to be non-viable, then we'll have to look at other options. So that's, I think, again, that's where we'll be guided by the highways team and the council as to what's feasible. But it would be preferable to reinstate them if we can. OK, Councillor Hutton, and then a quick one from Councillor Moore. Judith, could I just, I note in the bid you've got water butts identified, and do you think that will help with the maintenance? Because one of the things that I've had on other areas, water's always a challenge. Yeah, that was on advisement from Cathy and the team at Leopold Gardens, is to have a water butt, so it makes it much easier when we need to water stuff. Yeah, otherwise I'll be carting water up Long Lane. Having done it for another garden, I can fully sympathise. Right, I think let's take this to the boat. Can I have hands for those in favour? I think that's all. That was unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Yes. Sorry? Yeah. So that one is, we've taken the A decision, which is to award funding fully in this case, and any conditions attached there are none. Note the implications to the committee's in-sill funding budget. Right. Item number two, Hayes Crescent Road Renewal, Golders Green Ward, £138,767.48. Councillor Dean Cohen. Thank you very much. So this is a busy road in terms of the footway, close to Temple Fortune Town Centre, leading off Temple Fortune Town Centre. I mean, it's a very straightforward scheme. There's not much to explain other than the footway relay. What I would say is that the amount, if the committee had minded to accept the application, that the budget is, if the amount is an issue, that it could be split in two, so it is over two financial years. Meaning one side of the road this year and the next financial year, the following year. OK. Do we have comments on this one? Yeah, I just wonder if we can ask officers, given that there's a sort of estimation and we look at all the different roads and pavements and there's a priority list that says which are next on the list. Do we know where this is on the list or has this got to be reassessed to give us an idea as to where it would compare with other areas of the borough? We can look to see where it would fall on the list, but I think there's actually been some patching on Hayes Crescent already this year, is that correct? Yeah, thank you. The reason, it wasn't actually this year, but the reason why this road put this forward is because there was a time a couple of years ago where a trial was done where it would just be the area around the trees was done. However, while that dealt with that issue, it didn't deal with the wider issue of the footway, which was already damaged as a result of the trees. Councillor Moore. I have some sympathy with Councillor Coley-Webb's comments. There's obviously, the network recovery programme was quite a development that it was being done by, set by objective assessments and a range of criteria. And so I am slightly concerned that we've got something coming up which has or hasn't got a place on that priority list that's coming to ask for money from the area committee. And it's being singled out without, I just would like to know what the overriding justification for using area committee money is really for putting that ahead of a set of objective criteria in comparison with other roads across the borough. I mean, all of your comments about, you know, walking and use notwithstanding, Councillor Cohen. I mean, the budget with this committee is for infrastructure projects and there's nothing more infrastructure than a footway. Challenges, I think it does set a precedent and I hesitate to use the term jumping the queue because it sounds like I'm being aggressive and unpleasant and I don't mean it that way. But lots of us have challenging roads in our wards and we argue their case within that set of objective criteria. But it just feels to me like we're setting an awkward precedent for things that we are each particularly passionate about. There is a road in my ward where I would want to make an argument because it's particularly well used by elderly residents and they're finding it difficult because of tree roots. And I could be arguing that, but on other criteria it doesn't sit higher up the priority list. I'm just a bit concerned about the precedent it creates in doing this. Councillor Hutton, thank you. Yeah, we've actually been here before, as I recall, on the Area Committee with a similar case I think we had last year. I don't know and I understand why it was bought and Councillor Moore said that. Is there any merit on deferring this to the next meeting so that we can clarify the parameters for which we're looking at this one? As I say, it's not the first time we've had this conversation on this committee, so I would propose that we defer it and have proper conversation. I think my question would be what do you want to clarify specifically? What information don't you have that you find helpful? Looking at pathways on which area of the budget they should or shouldn't come under. It's either Area Committee and I can understand that there might be some. But I think overall, I would put it under footway. I'm proposing it anyway. We'll take that in a bit. I'll just take comments first and arguments. Councillor Cohen, I'll take your response to that first, but then I'll go to Councillor Moore. Just in response to the comment that was just made regarding deferring it to check on whether, you know, I'm not sure exactly, but the fact of the matter is, you know, just the same things happen, you know, why can't when we have a play scheme for playground in a park, why can't that come out of the budget for green spaces? It's the same thing. Did I hear correctly that there have been patching in the road? Does it feel slightly awkward because is it value for money to resurface a road that's had patching of what I assume are the bits that need that work most? It doesn't necessarily seem good use of money. So it's not it wasn't patching. It was the the rubber crumb around the trees of which won't be done as part of this scheme. Mindful that we have a lot of residents that write to us with regards to the footpaths across the borough. As my colleague, Councillor Cohen has alluded to a potential if the committee were mindful to do it in two parts. And we can always do this subject to the committee were minded to do it in two parts. So one part this financial year and then come back the second, the second tranche the next financial year. And then we can always do it subject to anything. I would support this footways and footpaths, pedestrians walking. This is all part of making everyone healthy and getting about and not using their cars. This is going to be the last comment. I mean, I've probably had even locally and in my ward complaints about footways that officers have gone to see and have said to me, it might be a little bit that needs doing or there might be more that needs doing. But you're not high on the priority list. So what I would really like to know for this from officers for the priority list is to where is this in comparison with other needs within the borough? Because what I don't want to do is look at something without being totally aware as to where the other needs are in the borough to make sure that we are not giving priority to something that's before us today when there could well be far more needy areas that need that highway and footpath money that we are not aware of here today. So that is my proposal that we need that information. I'm happy to defer it and get that information. But I don't want us to be seen to be jumping the queue for one area when we might be told, sorry, there's far more important areas and this will just have to be further down the queue and wait. Okay, I will take one final comment from Councillor Crowcock and then I'll come to my summation of where I think we are with it, but Councillor Crowcock. There has been a precedent set. There was a footway item dealt with in Edgware. I can't remember the dates. Maybe one of the officers might remember if they were sitting on these particular areas, but there has been area funding, sill money used in a location in Edgware. But, you know, we have a different set of priorities in this committee as well. I have some issues with using and sell to pay for payments and things like that, because I think we have a separate part which is extremely well determined and laid out how that part of money is used for footways and resurfacing of roads and things like that. So I have to be brutally honest with Councillor Cohen and so on the face of it, I'm not necessarily keen on this application as it stands. And I'm aware that officers aren't recommending this scheme either on the same grounds that several councillors have mentioned today. However, I think Councillor Hutton and Councillor Pauline Coakley-Webb have made some good points about deferring this for now to get some information about where this road lies on the priority list. You know, I think that probably is useful information to Councillor Cohen in laying out his case. So I would personally support, in fact I'm happy to second Councillor Hutton's recommendation that we defer it from this meeting. I will give the last comment to Councillor Cohen, but then I think I would like to go to the vote. Just, Chairman, on two of your points. Number one, you said officers don't recommend this item. Where in the report does it say that officers don't recommend the item? I'll defer to officers for that. In the report I don't see it anywhere that says officers don't recommend the item. From a lead officer's point of view and the operations director for highways, this falls outside the improving Barnet Roads programme. I understand it falls outside that, but in terms of this committee, this one falls out of it, but it doesn't fall outside the items of this committee. That's why it's in this committee, because it complies with SIL and it complies with – so that's what this is items for, it's for the SIL. So it may fall outside – that's why it's come here, it's not gone to anywhere else. So, in terms of this committee, this committee is dealing with SIL monies for infrastructure projects, anywhere in the east area, and this complies with that requirement. Secondly, you mentioned regarding the other points of it coming back. What is it coming back for? On the first point, infrastructure is a very wide-ranging work and it covers a number of different things that this committee wouldn't fund. We wouldn't fund the building of a school, we wouldn't necessarily fund some capital projects or a hospital and things like that, those are all infrastructure. So there are elements of infrastructure that we wouldn't necessarily cover as part of this committee. The argument that I would make is that there is a separate pot and a programme with quite a lot of effort and thought that goes into it, into determining which roads across the borough and which pavements across the borough need that investment to bring them up to standard. We all have roads in our wards that we think need to be done, and we'd all love to have that funding diverted to our wards to do all of them, but that isn't possible, even with the £97 million funding that has been agreed by the council already, it's not going to cover every single ward. However, in my view, and we're all entitled to our opinions on this of course, but in my view that system is the fairest way of distributing that funding and working out which are the roads in the borough that need the most urgent attention. And as Councillor Cone will well know, we as members have feed into that, we are consulted on them, we have discussions in offices about the roads that we think. My two ward colleagues are here today, we have had many discussions with offices over the years about which roads we think should have been prioritised and which shouldn't be, and it feeds into the process that offices, understandably and rightly, don't always take our recommendations, they don't always take our views on these things, but that's part of the democratic process, and it's part of the process that's been laid out by yourself. I don't think the process has changed for many, many years. The second point that Councillor Cohen makes about what are we deferring this for, I think Councillor Coakley Webb would like to know where this road falls on the priority order list, and I do think that that is helpful information for members to make a decision on. So with that in mind, I will accept Councillor Hutton's motion to defer this item to the next meeting. I've seconded it, so I will go to the vote on that. Can I have hands in favour of Councillor Hutton's motion to defer? That's five, and those against? That's three. That is deferred to the next meeting. Right, we now move on to New South Gate Recreation Ground, inclusive playground, Brunswick Park Ward for £129,901.77, which is in the name of Councillor Paul Lemon, but he is not here. I understand that Councillor Moore is prepared to offer some comments in support of the application. Just start us off. Thank you, Chair, and I know that Councillor Lemon would have preferred to be here to talk to this. He lays out a good case for this playground. It's part funding to support the green spaces provision of a much improved playground. He cites elements of the corporate plan and the pillars that it can support. Well, actually, I would like to add with my cabinet hat on, it's obviously all playgrounds, but those which give children the most exercise and input are a great public health benefit. And we've been talking recently about childhood obesity and childhood well-being, and I think it's really important to have play areas where this works well. I would also comment that actually the area around this playground, so the streets that, to say, surrounded, but within easy walking distance, are often either flattered or very small units that don't have a huge amount of open space. So I think it's doubly important for children to have that kind of space to play in. The application quotes the increasing figures of children and young people using the existing playground, but actually I think the Fairplay Barnet playground that was completed earlier in the year has made a real difference. So one of the things that this playground would do would be to expand the numbers of children or the children who would be able to use it because there will be more inclusive opportunities for play within this playground. So I would support it. I think it's a judicious use both of existing green spaces, money, but also NSL, and it will allow that green spaces money to go further and work with other areas on play facilities in the same way. I think the fact that we use the term 'contractor' means that we will be getting good value for money from this existing play contractor who's been in place for about a year and a half. And I think we stand to get a really good value playground out of this to serve a community that has a lot of young children, young families in it, and will of course increasingly do if other developments go into place. Councillor Meyer hasn't spoken tonight, so I think I might go to him first then come back to Councillor Greg. And Councillor Meyer is better looking. We can add that to the minutes as well. Can we make sure that's in the minutes? The only thing I would say on this is I would love to support this. However, having done applications of this nature before, typically we get given a plan. We're being asked to invest from his budget £129,901.77p. I would expect all of us, if we were doing building work in our own homes, we would know where we're putting the light fittings and the screws. I would seek to get that clarity before voting on this. And having tried to bring one of these applications before this committee, I was advised by officers to have a plan in place. So I'm a bit confundled. Councillor Graycock? Yes, following on from my colleague, there's no idea of what play equipment. Can you just clarify to me what the PM costs are? And obviously the contingency is 10%. Is the green spaces capital programme, is that available across the borough for any particular projects? Or is this where, and in this particular case, there is very limited on site facilities. What's the potential plan with regards to the cafe space there? Is that in the in situ building that looks as though it's in need of great development? How will that be dealt with? I'd like to support this, but I'm just concerned. Basically, every application that's come forward, we always want to see more detail and idea of the equipment, albeit it might need to be slightly adjusted. But all we've got is an aerial shot. Thank you. It looks like there might be some papers missing because there seems to be papers missing from this item. It says quotation attached along with design proposal. And I would probably have the same sort of just question as to what is the proposal over the cafe. I mean, I support the idea of it, but I'm just thinking that when we, with all the work that we've done in Hallowick Rec, and when residents have often said, oh, can we have a cafe there? And it was pointed out that obviously cafes and parks often have very sort of seasonal business as to whether they're actually feasible or not. So, yeah, there's obviously information missing from this item. Could I make a motion to defer this to the next meeting to get that clarity from Councillor Lemon? I think we all sort of agree with the principle of it, but I don't mind looking at it in more detail next time round because I think we do need that extra information. The only thing it seems to actually give the information about is incorporating some similar play equipment to the one that's being put in Victoria Park where the New Leisure Centre is, which is absolutely brilliant. And if we can have some equipment that actually is suitable for people with disabilities or even people in wheelchairs, which I know is not cheap, then well and good. I would like to propose that motion. I'll take voting on the item at the end, but if anybody wants to make comments. I just don't think that by the time, when is the next meeting now? We're in September? January. January? Yeah. Is it not an excessive? I think the plan is to do the works over winter so that it's available for summer. I think one of the problems that we had with the marketplace playground is the delays of the works. Hang on, let me… I mean, I'm happy to agree, but is there any way that we could have more detail sent to us in between the meetings and an explanation as to why it's not been in the papers? Well, to take Councillor Grocox, I'm wondering whether we approve in principle pending detail the quotes that should be attached being sent to the committee. I wonder whether that's a way forward. Can I take Councillor Moore first and then? I would support that proposal. That has been a line that we've taken on a couple of other applications in the past. Because unless I misunderstand the wording in the section that talks about quotes provided with the application, it says quotes attached along with the design proposal. So it would suggest that those came in with the application. I don't know whether that's the case, but if that is the case, that's the sort of information that we would be seeking. So we're asking to see that and seek that clarification. I would just make a comment about cafes and parks. The proposal is usually that they're led to a concern, and we have a very thriving one in Cherry Tree Wood, and it seems to weather the seasonality of that. If you look at the numbers of children and families who are using the current play area and that you'd anticipate increasing that, it would seem to me that at least a part-time cafe would be perfectly feasible there. But I think in terms of supporting your proposal, that we agree in principle pending a set of information that confirms that for us. Okay, can I take Councillor Grohkochen and Councillor Meyer, and then what I might do is I might adjourn the meeting for two minutes, get some advice from officers and then come back. Thank you, Chair. In view of this being public money, okay, it's not our own purse that we're using here, mindful that my immediate neighbours are always very keen and I absolutely believe that we should have all detail. We don't have the detail of what this equipment is. We can't clarify. We can't deal with this now. This would be unjust to do with public money. I would recommend that we do defer this so that we've got all the detail. As we've done with other options before, there is nothing wrong with having this come back to the next committee meeting. The programme can go ahead, if we all agree, in spring, ready for summer. It won't be a problem. I think Jen has summed it up very eloquently, but again, if it was me doing building right to my own house, I would want that detail and that's how I look at this item as well. Okay, well, what I'm going to do is I'm going to adjourn the meeting for five minutes, get some advice from officers, just find out where the information that I think clearly Councillor Levin has attached, it seems to have gone walk somewhere. Do you have his number? Could you call him and ask? No, and I will let you know why that is after the meeting. Allow me to adjourn for five minutes, let's just see what we can sort out and find out. We'll come back and then, so we're adjourning for, you can stay, I'm just saying the meeting is adjourned, that's all, whilst we have a quick discussion. It's ten to now, we'll be back in five to, yeah? Okay, thank you. Right, so I understand we've just been sent the designs from an officer, oh I'm sorry, we've just gotten a copy of the designs sent by the officer, so those are going to be circulated to members now. Yes, I think that's, yeah, we'll do that by email, should we have another adjournment for how long would you like to read the application? We say, should we say half an hour, twenty minutes, how long do you want? Chair, if I could, because we need to look at these and digest them, not in five seconds, I would propose a motion in my name to defer, to give us time to look at and review properly, this is taxpayers' money we're dealing with, and bring it back to the next meeting. Agreed, supported. The issue is this will be a council scheme, rather than something coming. Do you want to read the papers as they're sent through, to have an idea of what's proposed, and then come back and make the decision now, or do you want to defer the item to the next meeting? I think, even though I would have liked to have got this done and dusted, sending us stuff on email now means it wouldn't have been in the public domain, on the public papers, which they would have had a right to see. So I think it's just, we've just got to defer and do this properly. All right, I can read the room. Councillor Myers' motion to defer still stands, I am seconding that, can I have hands in favour of deferring? Yeah, I think that's all of us. So on the second and third applications, we've deferred them both, so that's option B on the recommendations. I don't think we need to vote on anything further as part of that item. That being the case, item number 12, any other items that the chair decides are urgent, there are none, I therefore declare the meeting closed. Thank you very much everyone. All right. Thank you very much. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript

Good evening everyone, my name is Councillor Arjun Mitra. I'm normally the Vice Chair for the East Area Committee but I'm chairing tonight. Thank you very much for attending our committee meeting this evening. Please note that meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in-law or by the Council. By attending either in person or online you may be picked up on recordings and Council recordings are covered by a privacy notice which can be found on the Barnet Council website and may be retained and made available online. For any speakers - I see the public gallery is full - you will have three minutes to speak. There will then be an opportunity for members to ask questions of the speakers. Can I please remind all to ensure that after you've finished speaking you press your microphone off to ensure that there's no feedback. And with that I'll dive into item number one which is the minutes of the previous meeting on pages five to ten. Are members of the committee happy to approve the minutes of the previous meeting? Agreed, thank you. Item number two - absence of members. As I mentioned earlier I'm in the chair because Councillor Lemon has had an urgent family emergency and he's being substituted by Councillor Alison Moore. Welcome Alison. Councillor Geoff Cook is being substituted by Councillor Anne Hutton. Hello Anne. And Councillor Danny Ridge is being substituted by Councillor Claire Farrier. So we are well powered on the East Finchley Front tonight. Declarations of members' interest - does any member have a declaration that they wish to make? I haven't been on this committee for a while. Would cabinet members normally make a declaration because obviously there may be things that are pertinent to decisions that we have made? I think that's always sensible so I assume that also applies to the Council's working web. Thank you. Councillor Cohen, did you want to put your hand up? Yes, I'd like to declare an interest in the item which I believe might not be debated today but is still on the agenda. Which is Councillor Greg Cook's members' item and Pardes House of which I am an LEA governor for. So it's a pecuniary non-projudicial interest. Thank you very much Councillor Cohen. Item number four, dispensation granted by the monitoring officer. There are none. Items number five, petitions. There are none. Item number six, resident issues. There is one issue, pavement replacement works in Temple Fortune. The update is a response has been sent to the resident on that issue. I don't know if anybody wishes to follow up? Yep, happy with that Councillor Cohen. Thank you. Item number seven, deputations. There are none. Item number eight, public comments and questions. There are none. Item number nine, members' items. There are none. Item number ten, area committee funding, Ensil road safety and parking fund update is on pages 13 to 34 of your papers. Does anybody have any comments? Councillor Grocock. Thank you, Chair. I just wondered for any of those items that have been completed, have we any photographs or any details or pictures or follow ups to come through? I know we've asked for that in the past, but that's always really helpful and it'll be nice to see. I don't think we have any tonight, but I hopefully we can minute that request and we will request photos to come back. Councillor Moore. I will anticipate that there'll be significant pictures for Marketplace Playground and I hope you will come and have a look at it, having been one of the chairs who started the ball rolling on this. There'll be a formal launch of that in October, but it has it has soft opened already and is being very, very well used and is looking great and will look even better after the rain. Thanks ever so much. Councillor Grocock have you any. OK. Can I take us to the recommendations on page 13 that the East Area Committee, number one, notes the community infrastructure levy SIL funding available for allocation during 2022/20 sorry, 2024/25 in accordance with the SIL regulations. I set out in paragraph five point four of this report and in Appendix A, number two, notes that the SIL amount and the and reallocated under spends and overspends in paragraph one point seven of this report. And in Appendix A, number three, notes the road safety and parking fund available for allocation during 2024/25 in paragraph five point eight. And I set out in Appendix B, is that agreed? The only thing I'm just thinking is that in my papers, it says in paragraph five point seven and there was another one earlier up when I think you said it says online paragraph five point three. So it's just technicalities as to which is right. Apparently it's both. I believe it's five point three for the SIL and five point seven for the road safety and parking. I think that's how it works. And that has the detail, that has all the schemes in the detail. Can we take that as agreed? That's agreed. Thank you very much. Right. Item number 11, members, items, applications for neighbourhood community infrastructure, levy and SIL funding. May I start off in the chair by apologising to Councillor Grocock because her item, which was for CCTV at Pardes House Primary School, has been deferred pending further clearance from officers. That won't be heard tonight. I hope Councillor Grocock will accept my apology. I understand there's been some misunderstandings. Something has not happened behind the scenes that should have done, for which I hope she'll accept my apology sitting in the chair tonight. That being the case, we will move on to the next item, which is the Church Lane Community Garden in East Finchley for £57,282 from Councillor Claire Farrier. Claire, do you want to introduce this one? I think you know as much or more than I do about this. Church Lane is in effect the original part of East Finchley, the original East Finchley Village. And the walk's footpath going up through East Finchley runs past it as well. This will a) make this much more pleasant, b) make it safer to walk on. Local residents want this improvement very much and are planning and prepared to maintain and look after. In the next road near Poldrose recently, there were similar gardens in store, which residents are very much supportive of, and this is going to improve the hold of that area, as I say, the original East Finchley Village and the walks along there. So, I mean, as I say, you know a lot more, you can say more than that. Okay, I'll make my comments first and then I'll come to Councillor Moore. Just to say that Church Lane was the original village in East Finchley and it isn't quite important, I think, for us to try and reinvigorate it a little bit. There are a number of shops there, and this application is for a set of planters that are opposite and across from those shops and in front of another set of, another small set of shops. You know, it is, the assets that are there at the moment are in a really quite appalling and dilapidated state at the moment. So, you know, this is much needed investment really to bring them back up to standard. You know, members of this committee would have been board witness by my constant harping on about the Leopold Road garden, which I know Councillor Grocock has visited and seen for herself, as a big fan. Well, this is very much a continuation of that project and it's a continuation of the East Finchley Pollinator Corridor project, about encouraging biodiversity and helping our bee friends. So this is a lovely little project. I have to admit some cheekiness on my part because I did try and tack on some additional infrastructure in other places, but there was no way that it could fit within the budget envelope, so I had to remove those and we're going ahead only with this part of Church Lane. We do have a resident in the public gallery who can answer questions if you've got any, but I will go to Councillor Moore first because I know that, particularly for the Long Lane Junction, she's been working on this since I was in short trousers and I, you know, it was a very long time ago that I wore those. Thank you and Chair, that original drive around the Long Lane, Church Lane Junction was sparked largely because we had an elderly resident who lives towards the top of Long Lane, whose husband I think was possibly a Councillor, but certainly had been very community involved way before I was a Councillor, had been the original instigator of the original planters, which are now pretty down a hill. We did some work a few years ago, but she would have been really passionate about this and she certainly drove me in terms of my original interest. I would just be clear, obviously this is brought through by my two ward colleagues, but I absolutely am fully supportive and I'm really pleased to see Judith in the audience. I think anyone who's seen it, oh, I was also going to comment that you're quite right about the centre of the old heart of East Finchley and some of the buildings that are at the top of Long Lane are actually early 19th century, which I know for all sorts of odd casework reasons. I fully support this. Planters are in really poor condition actually on both sides, particularly actually the walks element, and by improving those and incorporating those into an enhanced scheme, I think it really would have an enormously positive impact on the area. The impact of the Leopold Road Garden has been significant and I think with the support and the encouragement of the team there, I'd anticipate that this project will make a real difference to that stretch of Church Lane, making it feel much more vibrant and putting it very much on the map. I think if we've got local residents involved, it's a great way to get local people involved and engaged with their local areas. I think that's really important. The acting chair referred to bee planting, but I'm really pleased to see that there is also reference to butterfly planting within this, because anyone who's been reading recent reports will know that butterfly numbers across the country have plummeted, and so actually some really serious thought about planting that would support butterflies would be really helpful, and that may involve, for example, leaving a portion of it slightly wilder, but also explaining in the explanatory board why you've done that. So I think it would be really fantastic. I would support this wholeheartedly. And I think it's a relatively modest cost that buys in a lot of activity and goodwill from local residents. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Councillor Moore. I didn't know some of the back story that was useful to hear. In order that I saw the hands, can I go with Councillor Hutton, then Councillor Coakley-Webb and then Councillor Grocock? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I should have declared an interest in that I'm an East Finchley resident. I would like to support the application, but I do need to declare that I live quite close to the site. I'd like to support it. Thank you. I mean, I live about equidistant from it from you two. So if you're going to declare that, I probably ought to as well. But I'm not sure that it's necessarily an interest. Well, you're a bit further away, but fine, Councillor. In fact, I think Councillor Moore lives nearer to it than you do by geographical, as the crow flies. I think it's probably equidistant between the three of us, which I think is highly appropriate. Fine, fine. Councillor Coakley-Webb. Just a couple of questions. Will it be Grant's maintenance that maintain all the planting and the greenery that's either there or is replanted? That's one. I'm looking at the picture of the bench that's there that you say is dilapidated. Will the benches that will be replaced, will they be metal, which is what's usually recommended when we put benches in parks now as least likely to be vandalised? And the only other thing was if you're going to put what I call planted bike stands as opposed to bike hangers. The stands, as I said, the planted bike stand is a metal trough with the bars each side. Will those planted bike stands still have enough space on each side for at least a single or a double buggy to get by? And just a bit of a warning from what I've seen elsewhere that sometimes people using those planted bike stands don't necessarily park their bikes as well as they should do. And if it comes out on a bad angle, that will actually block part of the pavement. So that's all my question. Let us pray that they're not used by line bike riders. We have at the table, Judith, do you want to introduce yourself and give us a bit of your background? Thank you very much. I'm Judith Salomon. I'm a resident of that end of Long Lane and a huge fan of what's happened at the Leopold Road Gardens. And it was a neighbour and I sort of inspired by that and then sort of rather depressed by the corner of Church Lane, the walks and Long Lane and Church Lane and thought, Why can't we keep that going and do something to really elevate the area? I know from the Leopold Gardens, they're not only just really pleasant to walk past when I walk to the station, but I've also met quite a few local people and had chats if I've stopped and sat on the bench. So actually, I think they're a real benefit and we just want to continue that. To your questions on the maintenance, we will undertake that. So the same as what's happening at Leopold Road. So if you do give us the funding, we're going to get a group of people together and commit between us to maintain the two areas. And I think there's quite a large number of properties that are pretty proximate. So I'm confident that we will find people. You know, through the Leopold Gardens, people have told us there are some quite keen local gardeners that live on that stretch of Church Lane. So we'll rope them in. And I think between all of us, that should be very achievable. In terms of the type of bench, we'll take guidance from the council on what's best for that. So I'll leave that to those that know better than I do. And on the bike stands, yes, of course, we need to make sure that someone with a buggy or in a wheelchair is able to get by. At the moment, there's two or three bike stands, which I don't think I've ever seen a bike on, but just sort of take up loads of space where a bench could go and it could just be much prettier. So that's the idea of would still provide parking for bikes, but in a nicer way and also enable another bench to go there. Thank you. Thank you. I think there is already some bicycle infrastructure there, which is in need of renewal. The benches themselves are pretty dilapidated, so it's just replacing those. I think this could actually end up saving the council a little bit of money because theoretically, all of these assets are already, at least in theory, maintained by the council. But maintenance budgets being what they are, they probably don't get the level of attention the front of Hendon Town Hall gets. So, you know, residents like Judith and I think everybody on this committee knows Roger Chapman, people like that taking over some responsibility for the area, I think probably saves the council a little bit of time and maintenance. I will come back to Councillor Hutton, but can I take Councillor Crowcock first? Thank you. On the, it's page 27, so reinstate cobbles, there's a query next to the pound sign, noting that could, might not be taken from the contingency that's shown. With regards to the new bins, we've all had one or two emails over the years about litter being streamed from bins. Will they be closed, inaccessible by foxes and birds, perhaps? I think on the last point, this is not a location where we tend to have problems with that anyway, but I think it's the, I think it's the standard bins that we're looking at, the ones, the black ones with the council logo on them. So it's the same as it normally is. Sorry, what was your first point? The non-figure against the reinstate cobbles, page 27. Yeah, I think that is, I mean, that is definitely the aspiration because it's much more pleasant than the normal paving. But if it proves to be non-viable, then we'll have to look at other options. So that's, I think, again, that's where we'll be guided by the highways team and the council as to what's feasible. But it would be preferable to reinstate them if we can. OK, Councillor Hutton, and then a quick one from Councillor Moore. Judith, could I just, I note in the bid you've got water butts identified, and do you think that will help with the maintenance? Because one of the things that I've had on other areas, water's always a challenge. Yeah, that was on advisement from Cathy and the team at Leopold Gardens, is to have a water butt, so it makes it much easier when we need to water stuff. Yeah, otherwise I'll be carting water up Long Lane. Having done it for another garden, I can fully sympathise. Right, I think let's take this to the boat. Can I have hands for those in favour? I think that's all. That was unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Yes. Sorry? Yeah. So that one is, we've taken the A decision, which is to award funding fully in this case, and any conditions attached there are none. Note the implications to the committee's in-sill funding budget. Right. Item number two, Hayes Crescent Road Renewal, Golders Green Ward, £138,767.48. Councillor Dean Cohen. Thank you very much. So this is a busy road in terms of the footway, close to Temple Fortune Town Centre, leading off Temple Fortune Town Centre. I mean, it's a very straightforward scheme. There's not much to explain other than the footway relay. What I would say is that the amount, if the committee had minded to accept the application, that the budget is, if the amount is an issue, that it could be split in two, so it is over two financial years. Meaning one side of the road this year and the next financial year, the following year. OK. Do we have comments on this one? Yeah, I just wonder if we can ask officers, given that there's a sort of estimation and we look at all the different roads and pavements and there's a priority list that says which are next on the list. Do we know where this is on the list or has this got to be reassessed to give us an idea as to where it would compare with other areas of the borough? We can look to see where it would fall on the list, but I think there's actually been some patching on Hayes Crescent already this year, is that correct? Yeah, thank you. The reason, it wasn't actually this year, but the reason why this road put this forward is because there was a time a couple of years ago where a trial was done where it would just be the area around the trees was done. However, while that dealt with that issue, it didn't deal with the wider issue of the footway, which was already damaged as a result of the trees. Councillor Moore. I have some sympathy with Councillor Coley-Webb's comments. There's obviously, the network recovery programme was quite a development that it was being done by, set by objective assessments and a range of criteria. And so I am slightly concerned that we've got something coming up which has or hasn't got a place on that priority list that's coming to ask for money from the area committee. And it's being singled out without, I just would like to know what the overriding justification for using area committee money is really for putting that ahead of a set of objective criteria in comparison with other roads across the borough. I mean, all of your comments about, you know, walking and use notwithstanding, Councillor Cohen. I mean, the budget with this committee is for infrastructure projects and there's nothing more infrastructure than a footway. Challenges, I think it does set a precedent and I hesitate to use the term jumping the queue because it sounds like I'm being aggressive and unpleasant and I don't mean it that way. But lots of us have challenging roads in our wards and we argue their case within that set of objective criteria. But it just feels to me like we're setting an awkward precedent for things that we are each particularly passionate about. There is a road in my ward where I would want to make an argument because it's particularly well used by elderly residents and they're finding it difficult because of tree roots. And I could be arguing that, but on other criteria it doesn't sit higher up the priority list. I'm just a bit concerned about the precedent it creates in doing this. Councillor Hutton, thank you. Yeah, we've actually been here before, as I recall, on the Area Committee with a similar case I think we had last year. I don't know and I understand why it was bought and Councillor Moore said that. Is there any merit on deferring this to the next meeting so that we can clarify the parameters for which we're looking at this one? As I say, it's not the first time we've had this conversation on this committee, so I would propose that we defer it and have proper conversation. I think my question would be what do you want to clarify specifically? What information don't you have that you find helpful? Looking at pathways on which area of the budget they should or shouldn't come under. It's either Area Committee and I can understand that there might be some. But I think overall, I would put it under footway. I'm proposing it anyway. We'll take that in a bit. I'll just take comments first and arguments. Councillor Cohen, I'll take your response to that first, but then I'll go to Councillor Moore. Just in response to the comment that was just made regarding deferring it to check on whether, you know, I'm not sure exactly, but the fact of the matter is, you know, just the same things happen, you know, why can't when we have a play scheme for playground in a park, why can't that come out of the budget for green spaces? It's the same thing. Did I hear correctly that there have been patching in the road? Does it feel slightly awkward because is it value for money to resurface a road that's had patching of what I assume are the bits that need that work most? It doesn't necessarily seem good use of money. So it's not it wasn't patching. It was the the rubber crumb around the trees of which won't be done as part of this scheme. Mindful that we have a lot of residents that write to us with regards to the footpaths across the borough. As my colleague, Councillor Cohen has alluded to a potential if the committee were mindful to do it in two parts. And we can always do this subject to the committee were minded to do it in two parts. So one part this financial year and then come back the second, the second tranche the next financial year. And then we can always do it subject to anything. I would support this footways and footpaths, pedestrians walking. This is all part of making everyone healthy and getting about and not using their cars. This is going to be the last comment. I mean, I've probably had even locally and in my ward complaints about footways that officers have gone to see and have said to me, it might be a little bit that needs doing or there might be more that needs doing. But you're not high on the priority list. So what I would really like to know for this from officers for the priority list is to where is this in comparison with other needs within the borough? Because what I don't want to do is look at something without being totally aware as to where the other needs are in the borough to make sure that we are not giving priority to something that's before us today when there could well be far more needy areas that need that highway and footpath money that we are not aware of here today. So that is my proposal that we need that information. I'm happy to defer it and get that information. But I don't want us to be seen to be jumping the queue for one area when we might be told, sorry, there's far more important areas and this will just have to be further down the queue and wait. Okay, I will take one final comment from Councillor Crowcock and then I'll come to my summation of where I think we are with it, but Councillor Crowcock. There has been a precedent set. There was a footway item dealt with in Edgware. I can't remember the dates. Maybe one of the officers might remember if they were sitting on these particular areas, but there has been area funding, sill money used in a location in Edgware. But, you know, we have a different set of priorities in this committee as well. I have some issues with using and sell to pay for payments and things like that, because I think we have a separate part which is extremely well determined and laid out how that part of money is used for footways and resurfacing of roads and things like that. So I have to be brutally honest with Councillor Cohen and so on the face of it, I'm not necessarily keen on this application as it stands. And I'm aware that officers aren't recommending this scheme either on the same grounds that several councillors have mentioned today. However, I think Councillor Hutton and Councillor Pauline Coakley-Webb have made some good points about deferring this for now to get some information about where this road lies on the priority list. You know, I think that probably is useful information to Councillor Cohen in laying out his case. So I would personally support, in fact I'm happy to second Councillor Hutton's recommendation that we defer it from this meeting. I will give the last comment to Councillor Cohen, but then I think I would like to go to the vote. Just, Chairman, on two of your points. Number one, you said officers don't recommend this item. Where in the report does it say that officers don't recommend the item? I'll defer to officers for that. In the report I don't see it anywhere that says officers don't recommend the item. From a lead officer's point of view and the operations director for highways, this falls outside the improving Barnet Roads programme. I understand it falls outside that, but in terms of this committee, this one falls out of it, but it doesn't fall outside the items of this committee. That's why it's in this committee, because it complies with SIL and it complies with – so that's what this is items for, it's for the SIL. So it may fall outside – that's why it's come here, it's not gone to anywhere else. So, in terms of this committee, this committee is dealing with SIL monies for infrastructure projects, anywhere in the east area, and this complies with that requirement. Secondly, you mentioned regarding the other points of it coming back. What is it coming back for? On the first point, infrastructure is a very wide-ranging work and it covers a number of different things that this committee wouldn't fund. We wouldn't fund the building of a school, we wouldn't necessarily fund some capital projects or a hospital and things like that, those are all infrastructure. So there are elements of infrastructure that we wouldn't necessarily cover as part of this committee. The argument that I would make is that there is a separate pot and a programme with quite a lot of effort and thought that goes into it, into determining which roads across the borough and which pavements across the borough need that investment to bring them up to standard. We all have roads in our wards that we think need to be done, and we'd all love to have that funding diverted to our wards to do all of them, but that isn't possible, even with the £97 million funding that has been agreed by the council already, it's not going to cover every single ward. However, in my view, and we're all entitled to our opinions on this of course, but in my view that system is the fairest way of distributing that funding and working out which are the roads in the borough that need the most urgent attention. And as Councillor Cone will well know, we as members have feed into that, we are consulted on them, we have discussions in offices about the roads that we think. My two ward colleagues are here today, we have had many discussions with offices over the years about which roads we think should have been prioritised and which shouldn't be, and it feeds into the process that offices, understandably and rightly, don't always take our recommendations, they don't always take our views on these things, but that's part of the democratic process, and it's part of the process that's been laid out by yourself. I don't think the process has changed for many, many years. The second point that Councillor Cohen makes about what are we deferring this for, I think Councillor Coakley Webb would like to know where this road falls on the priority order list, and I do think that that is helpful information for members to make a decision on. So with that in mind, I will accept Councillor Hutton's motion to defer this item to the next meeting. I've seconded it, so I will go to the vote on that. Can I have hands in favour of Councillor Hutton's motion to defer? That's five, and those against? That's three. That is deferred to the next meeting. Right, we now move on to New South Gate Recreation Ground, inclusive playground, Brunswick Park Ward for £129,901.77, which is in the name of Councillor Paul Lemon, but he is not here. I understand that Councillor Moore is prepared to offer some comments in support of the application. Just start us off. Thank you, Chair, and I know that Councillor Lemon would have preferred to be here to talk to this. He lays out a good case for this playground. It's part funding to support the green spaces provision of a much improved playground. He cites elements of the corporate plan and the pillars that it can support. Well, actually, I would like to add with my cabinet hat on, it's obviously all playgrounds, but those which give children the most exercise and input are a great public health benefit. And we've been talking recently about childhood obesity and childhood well-being, and I think it's really important to have play areas where this works well. I would also comment that actually the area around this playground, so the streets that, to say, surrounded, but within easy walking distance, are often either flattered or very small units that don't have a huge amount of open space. So I think it's doubly important for children to have that kind of space to play in. The application quotes the increasing figures of children and young people using the existing playground, but actually I think the Fairplay Barnet playground that was completed earlier in the year has made a real difference. So one of the things that this playground would do would be to expand the numbers of children or the children who would be able to use it because there will be more inclusive opportunities for play within this playground. So I would support it. I think it's a judicious use both of existing green spaces, money, but also NSL, and it will allow that green spaces money to go further and work with other areas on play facilities in the same way. I think the fact that we use the term 'contractor' means that we will be getting good value for money from this existing play contractor who's been in place for about a year and a half. And I think we stand to get a really good value playground out of this to serve a community that has a lot of young children, young families in it, and will of course increasingly do if other developments go into place. Councillor Meyer hasn't spoken tonight, so I think I might go to him first then come back to Councillor Greg. And Councillor Meyer is better looking. We can add that to the minutes as well. Can we make sure that's in the minutes? The only thing I would say on this is I would love to support this. However, having done applications of this nature before, typically we get given a plan. We're being asked to invest from his budget £129,901.77p. I would expect all of us, if we were doing building work in our own homes, we would know where we're putting the light fittings and the screws. I would seek to get that clarity before voting on this. And having tried to bring one of these applications before this committee, I was advised by officers to have a plan in place. So I'm a bit confundled. Councillor Graycock? Yes, following on from my colleague, there's no idea of what play equipment. Can you just clarify to me what the PM costs are? And obviously the contingency is 10%. Is the green spaces capital programme, is that available across the borough for any particular projects? Or is this where, and in this particular case, there is very limited on site facilities. What's the potential plan with regards to the cafe space there? Is that in the in situ building that looks as though it's in need of great development? How will that be dealt with? I'd like to support this, but I'm just concerned. Basically, every application that's come forward, we always want to see more detail and idea of the equipment, albeit it might need to be slightly adjusted. But all we've got is an aerial shot. Thank you. It looks like there might be some papers missing because there seems to be papers missing from this item. It says quotation attached along with design proposal. And I would probably have the same sort of just question as to what is the proposal over the cafe. I mean, I support the idea of it, but I'm just thinking that when we, with all the work that we've done in Hallowick Rec, and when residents have often said, oh, can we have a cafe there? And it was pointed out that obviously cafes and parks often have very sort of seasonal business as to whether they're actually feasible or not. So, yeah, there's obviously information missing from this item. Could I make a motion to defer this to the next meeting to get that clarity from Councillor Lemon? I think we all sort of agree with the principle of it, but I don't mind looking at it in more detail next time round because I think we do need that extra information. The only thing it seems to actually give the information about is incorporating some similar play equipment to the one that's being put in Victoria Park where the New Leisure Centre is, which is absolutely brilliant. And if we can have some equipment that actually is suitable for people with disabilities or even people in wheelchairs, which I know is not cheap, then well and good. I would like to propose that motion. I'll take voting on the item at the end, but if anybody wants to make comments. I just don't think that by the time, when is the next meeting now? We're in September? January. January? Yeah. Is it not an excessive? I think the plan is to do the works over winter so that it's available for summer. I think one of the problems that we had with the marketplace playground is the delays of the works. Hang on, let me… I mean, I'm happy to agree, but is there any way that we could have more detail sent to us in between the meetings and an explanation as to why it's not been in the papers? Well, to take Councillor Grocox, I'm wondering whether we approve in principle pending detail the quotes that should be attached being sent to the committee. I wonder whether that's a way forward. Can I take Councillor Moore first and then? I would support that proposal. That has been a line that we've taken on a couple of other applications in the past. Because unless I misunderstand the wording in the section that talks about quotes provided with the application, it says quotes attached along with the design proposal. So it would suggest that those came in with the application. I don't know whether that's the case, but if that is the case, that's the sort of information that we would be seeking. So we're asking to see that and seek that clarification. I would just make a comment about cafes and parks. The proposal is usually that they're led to a concern, and we have a very thriving one in Cherry Tree Wood, and it seems to weather the seasonality of that. If you look at the numbers of children and families who are using the current play area and that you'd anticipate increasing that, it would seem to me that at least a part-time cafe would be perfectly feasible there. But I think in terms of supporting your proposal, that we agree in principle pending a set of information that confirms that for us. Okay, can I take Councillor Grohkochen and Councillor Meyer, and then what I might do is I might adjourn the meeting for two minutes, get some advice from officers and then come back. Thank you, Chair. In view of this being public money, okay, it's not our own purse that we're using here, mindful that my immediate neighbours are always very keen and I absolutely believe that we should have all detail. We don't have the detail of what this equipment is. We can't clarify. We can't deal with this now. This would be unjust to do with public money. I would recommend that we do defer this so that we've got all the detail. As we've done with other options before, there is nothing wrong with having this come back to the next committee meeting. The programme can go ahead, if we all agree, in spring, ready for summer. It won't be a problem. I think Jen has summed it up very eloquently, but again, if it was me doing building right to my own house, I would want that detail and that's how I look at this item as well. Okay, well, what I'm going to do is I'm going to adjourn the meeting for five minutes, get some advice from officers, just find out where the information that I think clearly Councillor Levin has attached, it seems to have gone walk somewhere. Do you have his number? Could you call him and ask? No, and I will let you know why that is after the meeting. Allow me to adjourn for five minutes, let's just see what we can sort out and find out. We'll come back and then, so we're adjourning for, you can stay, I'm just saying the meeting is adjourned, that's all, whilst we have a quick discussion. It's ten to now, we'll be back in five to, yeah? Okay, thank you. Right, so I understand we've just been sent the designs from an officer, oh I'm sorry, we've just gotten a copy of the designs sent by the officer, so those are going to be circulated to members now. Yes, I think that's, yeah, we'll do that by email, should we have another adjournment for how long would you like to read the application? We say, should we say half an hour, twenty minutes, how long do you want? Chair, if I could, because we need to look at these and digest them, not in five seconds, I would propose a motion in my name to defer, to give us time to look at and review properly, this is taxpayers' money we're dealing with, and bring it back to the next meeting. Agreed, supported. The issue is this will be a council scheme, rather than something coming. Do you want to read the papers as they're sent through, to have an idea of what's proposed, and then come back and make the decision now, or do you want to defer the item to the next meeting? I think, even though I would have liked to have got this done and dusted, sending us stuff on email now means it wouldn't have been in the public domain, on the public papers, which they would have had a right to see. So I think it's just, we've just got to defer and do this properly. All right, I can read the room. Councillor Myers' motion to defer still stands, I am seconding that, can I have hands in favour of deferring? Yeah, I think that's all of us. So on the second and third applications, we've deferred them both, so that's option B on the recommendations. I don't think we need to vote on anything further as part of that item. That being the case, item number 12, any other items that the chair decides are urgent, there are none, I therefore declare the meeting closed. Thank you very much everyone. All right. Thank you very much. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript

Good evening everyone, my name is Councillor Arjun Mitra. I'm normally the Vice Chair for the East Area Committee but I'm chairing tonight. Thank you very much for attending our committee meeting this evening. Please note that meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in-law or by the Council. By attending either in person or online you may be picked up on recordings and Council recordings are covered by a privacy notice which can be found on the Barnet Council website and may be retained and made available online. For any speakers - I see the public gallery is full - you will have three minutes to speak. There will then be an opportunity for members to ask questions of the speakers. Can I please remind all to ensure that after you've finished speaking you press your microphone off to ensure that there's no feedback. And with that I'll dive into item number one which is the minutes of the previous meeting on pages five to ten. Are members of the committee happy to approve the minutes of the previous meeting? Agreed, thank you. Item number two - absence of members. As I mentioned earlier I'm in the chair because Councillor Lemon has had an urgent family emergency and he's being substituted by Councillor Alison Moore. Welcome Alison. Councillor Geoff Cook is being substituted by Councillor Anne Hutton. Hello Anne. And Councillor Danny Ridge is being substituted by Councillor Claire Farrier. So we are well powered on the East Finchley Front tonight. Declarations of members' interest - does any member have a declaration that they wish to make? I haven't been on this committee for a while. Would cabinet members normally make a declaration because obviously there may be things that are pertinent to decisions that we have made? I think that's always sensible so I assume that also applies to the Council's working web. Thank you. Councillor Cohen, did you want to put your hand up? Yes, I'd like to declare an interest in the item which I believe might not be debated today but is still on the agenda. Which is Councillor Greg Cook's members' item and Pardes House of which I am an LEA governor for. So it's a pecuniary non-projudicial interest. Thank you very much Councillor Cohen. Item number four, dispensation granted by the monitoring officer. There are none. Items number five, petitions. There are none. Item number six, resident issues. There is one issue, pavement replacement works in Temple Fortune. The update is a response has been sent to the resident on that issue. I don't know if anybody wishes to follow up? Yep, happy with that Councillor Cohen. Thank you. Item number seven, deputations. There are none. Item number eight, public comments and questions. There are none. Item number nine, members' items. There are none. Item number ten, area committee funding, Ensil road safety and parking fund update is on pages 13 to 34 of your papers. Does anybody have any comments? Councillor Grocock. Thank you, Chair. I just wondered for any of those items that have been completed, have we any photographs or any details or pictures or follow ups to come through? I know we've asked for that in the past, but that's always really helpful and it'll be nice to see. I don't think we have any tonight, but I hopefully we can minute that request and we will request photos to come back. Councillor Moore. I will anticipate that there'll be significant pictures for Marketplace Playground and I hope you will come and have a look at it, having been one of the chairs who started the ball rolling on this. There'll be a formal launch of that in October, but it has it has soft opened already and is being very, very well used and is looking great and will look even better after the rain. Thanks ever so much. Councillor Grocock have you any. OK. Can I take us to the recommendations on page 13 that the East Area Committee, number one, notes the community infrastructure levy SIL funding available for allocation during 2022/20 sorry, 2024/25 in accordance with the SIL regulations. I set out in paragraph five point four of this report and in Appendix A, number two, notes that the SIL amount and the and reallocated under spends and overspends in paragraph one point seven of this report. And in Appendix A, number three, notes the road safety and parking fund available for allocation during 2024/25 in paragraph five point eight. And I set out in Appendix B, is that agreed? The only thing I'm just thinking is that in my papers, it says in paragraph five point seven and there was another one earlier up when I think you said it says online paragraph five point three. So it's just technicalities as to which is right. Apparently it's both. I believe it's five point three for the SIL and five point seven for the road safety and parking. I think that's how it works. And that has the detail, that has all the schemes in the detail. Can we take that as agreed? That's agreed. Thank you very much. Right. Item number 11, members, items, applications for neighbourhood community infrastructure, levy and SIL funding. May I start off in the chair by apologising to Councillor Grocock because her item, which was for CCTV at Pardes House Primary School, has been deferred pending further clearance from officers. That won't be heard tonight. I hope Councillor Grocock will accept my apology. I understand there's been some misunderstandings. Something has not happened behind the scenes that should have done, for which I hope she'll accept my apology sitting in the chair tonight. That being the case, we will move on to the next item, which is the Church Lane Community Garden in East Finchley for £57,282 from Councillor Claire Farrier. Claire, do you want to introduce this one? I think you know as much or more than I do about this. Church Lane is in effect the original part of East Finchley, the original East Finchley Village. And the walk's footpath going up through East Finchley runs past it as well. This will a) make this much more pleasant, b) make it safer to walk on. Local residents want this improvement very much and are planning and prepared to maintain and look after. In the next road near Poldrose recently, there were similar gardens in store, which residents are very much supportive of, and this is going to improve the hold of that area, as I say, the original East Finchley Village and the walks along there. So, I mean, as I say, you know a lot more, you can say more than that. Okay, I'll make my comments first and then I'll come to Councillor Moore. Just to say that Church Lane was the original village in East Finchley and it isn't quite important, I think, for us to try and reinvigorate it a little bit. There are a number of shops there, and this application is for a set of planters that are opposite and across from those shops and in front of another set of, another small set of shops. You know, it is, the assets that are there at the moment are in a really quite appalling and dilapidated state at the moment. So, you know, this is much needed investment really to bring them back up to standard. You know, members of this committee would have been board witness by my constant harping on about the Leopold Road garden, which I know Councillor Grocock has visited and seen for herself, as a big fan. Well, this is very much a continuation of that project and it's a continuation of the East Finchley Pollinator Corridor project, about encouraging biodiversity and helping our bee friends. So this is a lovely little project. I have to admit some cheekiness on my part because I did try and tack on some additional infrastructure in other places, but there was no way that it could fit within the budget envelope, so I had to remove those and we're going ahead only with this part of Church Lane. We do have a resident in the public gallery who can answer questions if you've got any, but I will go to Councillor Moore first because I know that, particularly for the Long Lane Junction, she's been working on this since I was in short trousers and I, you know, it was a very long time ago that I wore those. Thank you and Chair, that original drive around the Long Lane, Church Lane Junction was sparked largely because we had an elderly resident who lives towards the top of Long Lane, whose husband I think was possibly a Councillor, but certainly had been very community involved way before I was a Councillor, had been the original instigator of the original planters, which are now pretty down a hill. We did some work a few years ago, but she would have been really passionate about this and she certainly drove me in terms of my original interest. I would just be clear, obviously this is brought through by my two ward colleagues, but I absolutely am fully supportive and I'm really pleased to see Judith in the audience. I think anyone who's seen it, oh, I was also going to comment that you're quite right about the centre of the old heart of East Finchley and some of the buildings that are at the top of Long Lane are actually early 19th century, which I know for all sorts of odd casework reasons. I fully support this. Planters are in really poor condition actually on both sides, particularly actually the walks element, and by improving those and incorporating those into an enhanced scheme, I think it really would have an enormously positive impact on the area. The impact of the Leopold Road Garden has been significant and I think with the support and the encouragement of the team there, I'd anticipate that this project will make a real difference to that stretch of Church Lane, making it feel much more vibrant and putting it very much on the map. I think if we've got local residents involved, it's a great way to get local people involved and engaged with their local areas. I think that's really important. The acting chair referred to bee planting, but I'm really pleased to see that there is also reference to butterfly planting within this, because anyone who's been reading recent reports will know that butterfly numbers across the country have plummeted, and so actually some really serious thought about planting that would support butterflies would be really helpful, and that may involve, for example, leaving a portion of it slightly wilder, but also explaining in the explanatory board why you've done that. So I think it would be really fantastic. I would support this wholeheartedly. And I think it's a relatively modest cost that buys in a lot of activity and goodwill from local residents. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Councillor Moore. I didn't know some of the back story that was useful to hear. In order that I saw the hands, can I go with Councillor Hutton, then Councillor Coakley-Webb and then Councillor Grocock? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I should have declared an interest in that I'm an East Finchley resident. I would like to support the application, but I do need to declare that I live quite close to the site. I'd like to support it. Thank you. I mean, I live about equidistant from it from you two. So if you're going to declare that, I probably ought to as well. But I'm not sure that it's necessarily an interest. Well, you're a bit further away, but fine, Councillor. In fact, I think Councillor Moore lives nearer to it than you do by geographical, as the crow flies. I think it's probably equidistant between the three of us, which I think is highly appropriate. Fine, fine. Councillor Coakley-Webb. Just a couple of questions. Will it be Grant's maintenance that maintain all the planting and the greenery that's either there or is replanted? That's one. I'm looking at the picture of the bench that's there that you say is dilapidated. Will the benches that will be replaced, will they be metal, which is what's usually recommended when we put benches in parks now as least likely to be vandalised? And the only other thing was if you're going to put what I call planted bike stands as opposed to bike hangers. The stands, as I said, the planted bike stand is a metal trough with the bars each side. Will those planted bike stands still have enough space on each side for at least a single or a double buggy to get by? And just a bit of a warning from what I've seen elsewhere that sometimes people using those planted bike stands don't necessarily park their bikes as well as they should do. And if it comes out on a bad angle, that will actually block part of the pavement. So that's all my question. Let us pray that they're not used by line bike riders. We have at the table, Judith, do you want to introduce yourself and give us a bit of your background? Thank you very much. I'm Judith Salomon. I'm a resident of that end of Long Lane and a huge fan of what's happened at the Leopold Road Gardens. And it was a neighbour and I sort of inspired by that and then sort of rather depressed by the corner of Church Lane, the walks and Long Lane and Church Lane and thought, Why can't we keep that going and do something to really elevate the area? I know from the Leopold Gardens, they're not only just really pleasant to walk past when I walk to the station, but I've also met quite a few local people and had chats if I've stopped and sat on the bench. So actually, I think they're a real benefit and we just want to continue that. To your questions on the maintenance, we will undertake that. So the same as what's happening at Leopold Road. So if you do give us the funding, we're going to get a group of people together and commit between us to maintain the two areas. And I think there's quite a large number of properties that are pretty proximate. So I'm confident that we will find people. You know, through the Leopold Gardens, people have told us there are some quite keen local gardeners that live on that stretch of Church Lane. So we'll rope them in. And I think between all of us, that should be very achievable. In terms of the type of bench, we'll take guidance from the council on what's best for that. So I'll leave that to those that know better than I do. And on the bike stands, yes, of course, we need to make sure that someone with a buggy or in a wheelchair is able to get by. At the moment, there's two or three bike stands, which I don't think I've ever seen a bike on, but just sort of take up loads of space where a bench could go and it could just be much prettier. So that's the idea of would still provide parking for bikes, but in a nicer way and also enable another bench to go there. Thank you. Thank you. I think there is already some bicycle infrastructure there, which is in need of renewal. The benches themselves are pretty dilapidated, so it's just replacing those. I think this could actually end up saving the council a little bit of money because theoretically, all of these assets are already, at least in theory, maintained by the council. But maintenance budgets being what they are, they probably don't get the level of attention the front of Hendon Town Hall gets. So, you know, residents like Judith and I think everybody on this committee knows Roger Chapman, people like that taking over some responsibility for the area, I think probably saves the council a little bit of time and maintenance. I will come back to Councillor Hutton, but can I take Councillor Crowcock first? Thank you. On the, it's page 27, so reinstate cobbles, there's a query next to the pound sign, noting that could, might not be taken from the contingency that's shown. With regards to the new bins, we've all had one or two emails over the years about litter being streamed from bins. Will they be closed, inaccessible by foxes and birds, perhaps? I think on the last point, this is not a location where we tend to have problems with that anyway, but I think it's the, I think it's the standard bins that we're looking at, the ones, the black ones with the council logo on them. So it's the same as it normally is. Sorry, what was your first point? The non-figure against the reinstate cobbles, page 27. Yeah, I think that is, I mean, that is definitely the aspiration because it's much more pleasant than the normal paving. But if it proves to be non-viable, then we'll have to look at other options. So that's, I think, again, that's where we'll be guided by the highways team and the council as to what's feasible. But it would be preferable to reinstate them if we can. OK, Councillor Hutton, and then a quick one from Councillor Moore. Judith, could I just, I note in the bid you've got water butts identified, and do you think that will help with the maintenance? Because one of the things that I've had on other areas, water's always a challenge. Yeah, that was on advisement from Cathy and the team at Leopold Gardens, is to have a water butt, so it makes it much easier when we need to water stuff. Yeah, otherwise I'll be carting water up Long Lane. Having done it for another garden, I can fully sympathise. Right, I think let's take this to the boat. Can I have hands for those in favour? I think that's all. That was unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Yes. Sorry? Yeah. So that one is, we've taken the A decision, which is to award funding fully in this case, and any conditions attached there are none. Note the implications to the committee's in-sill funding budget. Right. Item number two, Hayes Crescent Road Renewal, Golders Green Ward, £138,767.48. Councillor Dean Cohen. Thank you very much. So this is a busy road in terms of the footway, close to Temple Fortune Town Centre, leading off Temple Fortune Town Centre. I mean, it's a very straightforward scheme. There's not much to explain other than the footway relay. What I would say is that the amount, if the committee had minded to accept the application, that the budget is, if the amount is an issue, that it could be split in two, so it is over two financial years. Meaning one side of the road this year and the next financial year, the following year. OK. Do we have comments on this one? Yeah, I just wonder if we can ask officers, given that there's a sort of estimation and we look at all the different roads and pavements and there's a priority list that says which are next on the list. Do we know where this is on the list or has this got to be reassessed to give us an idea as to where it would compare with other areas of the borough? We can look to see where it would fall on the list, but I think there's actually been some patching on Hayes Crescent already this year, is that correct? Yeah, thank you. The reason, it wasn't actually this year, but the reason why this road put this forward is because there was a time a couple of years ago where a trial was done where it would just be the area around the trees was done. However, while that dealt with that issue, it didn't deal with the wider issue of the footway, which was already damaged as a result of the trees. Councillor Moore. I have some sympathy with Councillor Coley-Webb's comments. There's obviously, the network recovery programme was quite a development that it was being done by, set by objective assessments and a range of criteria. And so I am slightly concerned that we've got something coming up which has or hasn't got a place on that priority list that's coming to ask for money from the area committee. And it's being singled out without, I just would like to know what the overriding justification for using area committee money is really for putting that ahead of a set of objective criteria in comparison with other roads across the borough. I mean, all of your comments about, you know, walking and use notwithstanding, Councillor Cohen. I mean, the budget with this committee is for infrastructure projects and there's nothing more infrastructure than a footway. Challenges, I think it does set a precedent and I hesitate to use the term jumping the queue because it sounds like I'm being aggressive and unpleasant and I don't mean it that way. But lots of us have challenging roads in our wards and we argue their case within that set of objective criteria. But it just feels to me like we're setting an awkward precedent for things that we are each particularly passionate about. There is a road in my ward where I would want to make an argument because it's particularly well used by elderly residents and they're finding it difficult because of tree roots. And I could be arguing that, but on other criteria it doesn't sit higher up the priority list. I'm just a bit concerned about the precedent it creates in doing this. Councillor Hutton, thank you. Yeah, we've actually been here before, as I recall, on the Area Committee with a similar case I think we had last year. I don't know and I understand why it was bought and Councillor Moore said that. Is there any merit on deferring this to the next meeting so that we can clarify the parameters for which we're looking at this one? As I say, it's not the first time we've had this conversation on this committee, so I would propose that we defer it and have proper conversation. I think my question would be what do you want to clarify specifically? What information don't you have that you find helpful? Looking at pathways on which area of the budget they should or shouldn't come under. It's either Area Committee and I can understand that there might be some. But I think overall, I would put it under footway. I'm proposing it anyway. We'll take that in a bit. I'll just take comments first and arguments. Councillor Cohen, I'll take your response to that first, but then I'll go to Councillor Moore. Just in response to the comment that was just made regarding deferring it to check on whether, you know, I'm not sure exactly, but the fact of the matter is, you know, just the same things happen, you know, why can't when we have a play scheme for playground in a park, why can't that come out of the budget for green spaces? It's the same thing. Did I hear correctly that there have been patching in the road? Does it feel slightly awkward because is it value for money to resurface a road that's had patching of what I assume are the bits that need that work most? It doesn't necessarily seem good use of money. So it's not it wasn't patching. It was the the rubber crumb around the trees of which won't be done as part of this scheme. Mindful that we have a lot of residents that write to us with regards to the footpaths across the borough. As my colleague, Councillor Cohen has alluded to a potential if the committee were mindful to do it in two parts. And we can always do this subject to the committee were minded to do it in two parts. So one part this financial year and then come back the second, the second tranche the next financial year. And then we can always do it subject to anything. I would support this footways and footpaths, pedestrians walking. This is all part of making everyone healthy and getting about and not using their cars. This is going to be the last comment. I mean, I've probably had even locally and in my ward complaints about footways that officers have gone to see and have said to me, it might be a little bit that needs doing or there might be more that needs doing. But you're not high on the priority list. So what I would really like to know for this from officers for the priority list is to where is this in comparison with other needs within the borough? Because what I don't want to do is look at something without being totally aware as to where the other needs are in the borough to make sure that we are not giving priority to something that's before us today when there could well be far more needy areas that need that highway and footpath money that we are not aware of here today. So that is my proposal that we need that information. I'm happy to defer it and get that information. But I don't want us to be seen to be jumping the queue for one area when we might be told, sorry, there's far more important areas and this will just have to be further down the queue and wait. Okay, I will take one final comment from Councillor Crowcock and then I'll come to my summation of where I think we are with it, but Councillor Crowcock. There has been a precedent set. There was a footway item dealt with in Edgware. I can't remember the dates. Maybe one of the officers might remember if they were sitting on these particular areas, but there has been area funding, sill money used in a location in Edgware. But, you know, we have a different set of priorities in this committee as well. I have some issues with using and sell to pay for payments and things like that, because I think we have a separate part which is extremely well determined and laid out how that part of money is used for footways and resurfacing of roads and things like that. So I have to be brutally honest with Councillor Cohen and so on the face of it, I'm not necessarily keen on this application as it stands. And I'm aware that officers aren't recommending this scheme either on the same grounds that several councillors have mentioned today. However, I think Councillor Hutton and Councillor Pauline Coakley-Webb have made some good points about deferring this for now to get some information about where this road lies on the priority list. You know, I think that probably is useful information to Councillor Cohen in laying out his case. So I would personally support, in fact I'm happy to second Councillor Hutton's recommendation that we defer it from this meeting. I will give the last comment to Councillor Cohen, but then I think I would like to go to the vote. Just, Chairman, on two of your points. Number one, you said officers don't recommend this item. Where in the report does it say that officers don't recommend the item? I'll defer to officers for that. In the report I don't see it anywhere that says officers don't recommend the item. From a lead officer's point of view and the operations director for highways, this falls outside the improving Barnet Roads programme. I understand it falls outside that, but in terms of this committee, this one falls out of it, but it doesn't fall outside the items of this committee. That's why it's in this committee, because it complies with SIL and it complies with – so that's what this is items for, it's for the SIL. So it may fall outside – that's why it's come here, it's not gone to anywhere else. So, in terms of this committee, this committee is dealing with SIL monies for infrastructure projects, anywhere in the east area, and this complies with that requirement. Secondly, you mentioned regarding the other points of it coming back. What is it coming back for? On the first point, infrastructure is a very wide-ranging work and it covers a number of different things that this committee wouldn't fund. We wouldn't fund the building of a school, we wouldn't necessarily fund some capital projects or a hospital and things like that, those are all infrastructure. So there are elements of infrastructure that we wouldn't necessarily cover as part of this committee. The argument that I would make is that there is a separate pot and a programme with quite a lot of effort and thought that goes into it, into determining which roads across the borough and which pavements across the borough need that investment to bring them up to standard. We all have roads in our wards that we think need to be done, and we'd all love to have that funding diverted to our wards to do all of them, but that isn't possible, even with the £97 million funding that has been agreed by the council already, it's not going to cover every single ward. However, in my view, and we're all entitled to our opinions on this of course, but in my view that system is the fairest way of distributing that funding and working out which are the roads in the borough that need the most urgent attention. And as Councillor Cone will well know, we as members have feed into that, we are consulted on them, we have discussions in offices about the roads that we think. My two ward colleagues are here today, we have had many discussions with offices over the years about which roads we think should have been prioritised and which shouldn't be, and it feeds into the process that offices, understandably and rightly, don't always take our recommendations, they don't always take our views on these things, but that's part of the democratic process, and it's part of the process that's been laid out by yourself. I don't think the process has changed for many, many years. The second point that Councillor Cohen makes about what are we deferring this for, I think Councillor Coakley Webb would like to know where this road falls on the priority order list, and I do think that that is helpful information for members to make a decision on. So with that in mind, I will accept Councillor Hutton's motion to defer this item to the next meeting. I've seconded it, so I will go to the vote on that. Can I have hands in favour of Councillor Hutton's motion to defer? That's five, and those against? That's three. That is deferred to the next meeting. Right, we now move on to New South Gate Recreation Ground, inclusive playground, Brunswick Park Ward for £129,901.77, which is in the name of Councillor Paul Lemon, but he is not here. I understand that Councillor Moore is prepared to offer some comments in support of the application. Just start us off. Thank you, Chair, and I know that Councillor Lemon would have preferred to be here to talk to this. He lays out a good case for this playground. It's part funding to support the green spaces provision of a much improved playground. He cites elements of the corporate plan and the pillars that it can support. Well, actually, I would like to add with my cabinet hat on, it's obviously all playgrounds, but those which give children the most exercise and input are a great public health benefit. And we've been talking recently about childhood obesity and childhood well-being, and I think it's really important to have play areas where this works well. I would also comment that actually the area around this playground, so the streets that, to say, surrounded, but within easy walking distance, are often either flattered or very small units that don't have a huge amount of open space. So I think it's doubly important for children to have that kind of space to play in. The application quotes the increasing figures of children and young people using the existing playground, but actually I think the Fairplay Barnet playground that was completed earlier in the year has made a real difference. So one of the things that this playground would do would be to expand the numbers of children or the children who would be able to use it because there will be more inclusive opportunities for play within this playground. So I would support it. I think it's a judicious use both of existing green spaces, money, but also NSL, and it will allow that green spaces money to go further and work with other areas on play facilities in the same way. I think the fact that we use the term 'contractor' means that we will be getting good value for money from this existing play contractor who's been in place for about a year and a half. And I think we stand to get a really good value playground out of this to serve a community that has a lot of young children, young families in it, and will of course increasingly do if other developments go into place. Councillor Meyer hasn't spoken tonight, so I think I might go to him first then come back to Councillor Greg. And Councillor Meyer is better looking. We can add that to the minutes as well. Can we make sure that's in the minutes? The only thing I would say on this is I would love to support this. However, having done applications of this nature before, typically we get given a plan. We're being asked to invest from his budget £129,901.77p. I would expect all of us, if we were doing building work in our own homes, we would know where we're putting the light fittings and the screws. I would seek to get that clarity before voting on this. And having tried to bring one of these applications before this committee, I was advised by officers to have a plan in place. So I'm a bit confundled. Councillor Graycock? Yes, following on from my colleague, there's no idea of what play equipment. Can you just clarify to me what the PM costs are? And obviously the contingency is 10%. Is the green spaces capital programme, is that available across the borough for any particular projects? Or is this where, and in this particular case, there is very limited on site facilities. What's the potential plan with regards to the cafe space there? Is that in the in situ building that looks as though it's in need of great development? How will that be dealt with? I'd like to support this, but I'm just concerned. Basically, every application that's come forward, we always want to see more detail and idea of the equipment, albeit it might need to be slightly adjusted. But all we've got is an aerial shot. Thank you. It looks like there might be some papers missing because there seems to be papers missing from this item. It says quotation attached along with design proposal. And I would probably have the same sort of just question as to what is the proposal over the cafe. I mean, I support the idea of it, but I'm just thinking that when we, with all the work that we've done in Hallowick Rec, and when residents have often said, oh, can we have a cafe there? And it was pointed out that obviously cafes and parks often have very sort of seasonal business as to whether they're actually feasible or not. So, yeah, there's obviously information missing from this item. Could I make a motion to defer this to the next meeting to get that clarity from Councillor Lemon? I think we all sort of agree with the principle of it, but I don't mind looking at it in more detail next time round because I think we do need that extra information. The only thing it seems to actually give the information about is incorporating some similar play equipment to the one that's being put in Victoria Park where the New Leisure Centre is, which is absolutely brilliant. And if we can have some equipment that actually is suitable for people with disabilities or even people in wheelchairs, which I know is not cheap, then well and good. I would like to propose that motion. I'll take voting on the item at the end, but if anybody wants to make comments. I just don't think that by the time, when is the next meeting now? We're in September? January. January? Yeah. Is it not an excessive? I think the plan is to do the works over winter so that it's available for summer. I think one of the problems that we had with the marketplace playground is the delays of the works. Hang on, let me… I mean, I'm happy to agree, but is there any way that we could have more detail sent to us in between the meetings and an explanation as to why it's not been in the papers? Well, to take Councillor Grocox, I'm wondering whether we approve in principle pending detail the quotes that should be attached being sent to the committee. I wonder whether that's a way forward. Can I take Councillor Moore first and then? I would support that proposal. That has been a line that we've taken on a couple of other applications in the past. Because unless I misunderstand the wording in the section that talks about quotes provided with the application, it says quotes attached along with the design proposal. So it would suggest that those came in with the application. I don't know whether that's the case, but if that is the case, that's the sort of information that we would be seeking. So we're asking to see that and seek that clarification. I would just make a comment about cafes and parks. The proposal is usually that they're led to a concern, and we have a very thriving one in Cherry Tree Wood, and it seems to weather the seasonality of that. If you look at the numbers of children and families who are using the current play area and that you'd anticipate increasing that, it would seem to me that at least a part-time cafe would be perfectly feasible there. But I think in terms of supporting your proposal, that we agree in principle pending a set of information that confirms that for us. Okay, can I take Councillor Grohkochen and Councillor Meyer, and then what I might do is I might adjourn the meeting for two minutes, get some advice from officers and then come back. Thank you, Chair. In view of this being public money, okay, it's not our own purse that we're using here, mindful that my immediate neighbours are always very keen and I absolutely believe that we should have all detail. We don't have the detail of what this equipment is. We can't clarify. We can't deal with this now. This would be unjust to do with public money. I would recommend that we do defer this so that we've got all the detail. As we've done with other options before, there is nothing wrong with having this come back to the next committee meeting. The programme can go ahead, if we all agree, in spring, ready for summer. It won't be a problem. I think Jen has summed it up very eloquently, but again, if it was me doing building right to my own house, I would want that detail and that's how I look at this item as well. Okay, well, what I'm going to do is I'm going to adjourn the meeting for five minutes, get some advice from officers, just find out where the information that I think clearly Councillor Levin has attached, it seems to have gone walk somewhere. Do you have his number? Could you call him and ask? No, and I will let you know why that is after the meeting. Allow me to adjourn for five minutes, let's just see what we can sort out and find out. We'll come back and then, so we're adjourning for, you can stay, I'm just saying the meeting is adjourned, that's all, whilst we have a quick discussion. It's ten to now, we'll be back in five to, yeah? Okay, thank you. Right, so I understand we've just been sent the designs from an officer, oh I'm sorry, we've just gotten a copy of the designs sent by the officer, so those are going to be circulated to members now. Yes, I think that's, yeah, we'll do that by email, should we have another adjournment for how long would you like to read the application? We say, should we say half an hour, twenty minutes, how long do you want? Chair, if I could, because we need to look at these and digest them, not in five seconds, I would propose a motion in my name to defer, to give us time to look at and review properly, this is taxpayers' money we're dealing with, and bring it back to the next meeting. Agreed, supported. The issue is this will be a council scheme, rather than something coming. Do you want to read the papers as they're sent through, to have an idea of what's proposed, and then come back and make the decision now, or do you want to defer the item to the next meeting? I think, even though I would have liked to have got this done and dusted, sending us stuff on email now means it wouldn't have been in the public domain, on the public papers, which they would have had a right to see. So I think it's just, we've just got to defer and do this properly. All right, I can read the room. Councillor Myers' motion to defer still stands, I am seconding that, can I have hands in favour of deferring? Yeah, I think that's all of us. So on the second and third applications, we've deferred them both, so that's option B on the recommendations. I don't think we need to vote on anything further as part of that item. That being the case, item number 12, any other items that the chair decides are urgent, there are none, I therefore declare the meeting closed. Thank you very much everyone. All right. Thank you very much. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript

Good evening everyone, my name is Councillor Arjun Mitra. I'm normally the Vice Chair for the East Area Committee but I'm chairing tonight. Thank you very much for attending our committee meeting this evening. Please note that meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in-law or by the Council. By attending either in person or online you may be picked up on recordings and Council recordings are covered by a privacy notice which can be found on the Barnet Council website and may be retained and made available online. For any speakers - I see the public gallery is full - you will have three minutes to speak. There will then be an opportunity for members to ask questions of the speakers. Can I please remind all to ensure that after you've finished speaking you press your microphone off to ensure that there's no feedback. And with that I'll dive into item number one which is the minutes of the previous meeting on pages five to ten. Are members of the committee happy to approve the minutes of the previous meeting? Agreed, thank you. Item number two - absence of members. As I mentioned earlier I'm in the chair because Councillor Lemon has had an urgent family emergency and he's being substituted by Councillor Alison Moore. Welcome Alison. Councillor Geoff Cook is being substituted by Councillor Anne Hutton. Hello Anne. And Councillor Danny Ridge is being substituted by Councillor Claire Farrier. So we are well powered on the East Finchley Front tonight. Declarations of members' interest - does any member have a declaration that they wish to make? I haven't been on this committee for a while. Would cabinet members normally make a declaration because obviously there may be things that are pertinent to decisions that we have made? I think that's always sensible so I assume that also applies to the Council's working web. Thank you. Councillor Cohen, did you want to put your hand up? Yes, I'd like to declare an interest in the item which I believe might not be debated today but is still on the agenda. Which is Councillor Greg Cook's members' item and Pardes House of which I am an LEA governor for. So it's a pecuniary non-projudicial interest. Thank you very much Councillor Cohen. Item number four, dispensation granted by the monitoring officer. There are none. Items number five, petitions. There are none. Item number six, resident issues. There is one issue, pavement replacement works in Temple Fortune. The update is a response has been sent to the resident on that issue. I don't know if anybody wishes to follow up? Yep, happy with that Councillor Cohen. Thank you. Item number seven, deputations. There are none. Item number eight, public comments and questions. There are none. Item number nine, members' items. There are none. Item number ten, area committee funding, Ensil road safety and parking fund update is on pages 13 to 34 of your papers. Does anybody have any comments? Councillor Grocock. Thank you, Chair. I just wondered for any of those items that have been completed, have we any photographs or any details or pictures or follow ups to come through? I know we've asked for that in the past, but that's always really helpful and it'll be nice to see. I don't think we have any tonight, but I hopefully we can minute that request and we will request photos to come back. Councillor Moore. I will anticipate that there'll be significant pictures for Marketplace Playground and I hope you will come and have a look at it, having been one of the chairs who started the ball rolling on this. There'll be a formal launch of that in October, but it has it has soft opened already and is being very, very well used and is looking great and will look even better after the rain. Thanks ever so much. Councillor Grocock have you any. OK. Can I take us to the recommendations on page 13 that the East Area Committee, number one, notes the community infrastructure levy SIL funding available for allocation during 2022/20 sorry, 2024/25 in accordance with the SIL regulations. I set out in paragraph five point four of this report and in Appendix A, number two, notes that the SIL amount and the and reallocated under spends and overspends in paragraph one point seven of this report. And in Appendix A, number three, notes the road safety and parking fund available for allocation during 2024/25 in paragraph five point eight. And I set out in Appendix B, is that agreed? The only thing I'm just thinking is that in my papers, it says in paragraph five point seven and there was another one earlier up when I think you said it says online paragraph five point three. So it's just technicalities as to which is right. Apparently it's both. I believe it's five point three for the SIL and five point seven for the road safety and parking. I think that's how it works. And that has the detail, that has all the schemes in the detail. Can we take that as agreed? That's agreed. Thank you very much. Right. Item number 11, members, items, applications for neighbourhood community infrastructure, levy and SIL funding. May I start off in the chair by apologising to Councillor Grocock because her item, which was for CCTV at Pardes House Primary School, has been deferred pending further clearance from officers. That won't be heard tonight. I hope Councillor Grocock will accept my apology. I understand there's been some misunderstandings. Something has not happened behind the scenes that should have done, for which I hope she'll accept my apology sitting in the chair tonight. That being the case, we will move on to the next item, which is the Church Lane Community Garden in East Finchley for £57,282 from Councillor Claire Farrier. Claire, do you want to introduce this one? I think you know as much or more than I do about this. Church Lane is in effect the original part of East Finchley, the original East Finchley Village. And the walk's footpath going up through East Finchley runs past it as well. This will a) make this much more pleasant, b) make it safer to walk on. Local residents want this improvement very much and are planning and prepared to maintain and look after. In the next road near Poldrose recently, there were similar gardens in store, which residents are very much supportive of, and this is going to improve the hold of that area, as I say, the original East Finchley Village and the walks along there. So, I mean, as I say, you know a lot more, you can say more than that. Okay, I'll make my comments first and then I'll come to Councillor Moore. Just to say that Church Lane was the original village in East Finchley and it isn't quite important, I think, for us to try and reinvigorate it a little bit. There are a number of shops there, and this application is for a set of planters that are opposite and across from those shops and in front of another set of, another small set of shops. You know, it is, the assets that are there at the moment are in a really quite appalling and dilapidated state at the moment. So, you know, this is much needed investment really to bring them back up to standard. You know, members of this committee would have been board witness by my constant harping on about the Leopold Road garden, which I know Councillor Grocock has visited and seen for herself, as a big fan. Well, this is very much a continuation of that project and it's a continuation of the East Finchley Pollinator Corridor project, about encouraging biodiversity and helping our bee friends. So this is a lovely little project. I have to admit some cheekiness on my part because I did try and tack on some additional infrastructure in other places, but there was no way that it could fit within the budget envelope, so I had to remove those and we're going ahead only with this part of Church Lane. We do have a resident in the public gallery who can answer questions if you've got any, but I will go to Councillor Moore first because I know that, particularly for the Long Lane Junction, she's been working on this since I was in short trousers and I, you know, it was a very long time ago that I wore those. Thank you and Chair, that original drive around the Long Lane, Church Lane Junction was sparked largely because we had an elderly resident who lives towards the top of Long Lane, whose husband I think was possibly a Councillor, but certainly had been very community involved way before I was a Councillor, had been the original instigator of the original planters, which are now pretty down a hill. We did some work a few years ago, but she would have been really passionate about this and she certainly drove me in terms of my original interest. I would just be clear, obviously this is brought through by my two ward colleagues, but I absolutely am fully supportive and I'm really pleased to see Judith in the audience. I think anyone who's seen it, oh, I was also going to comment that you're quite right about the centre of the old heart of East Finchley and some of the buildings that are at the top of Long Lane are actually early 19th century, which I know for all sorts of odd casework reasons. I fully support this. Planters are in really poor condition actually on both sides, particularly actually the walks element, and by improving those and incorporating those into an enhanced scheme, I think it really would have an enormously positive impact on the area. The impact of the Leopold Road Garden has been significant and I think with the support and the encouragement of the team there, I'd anticipate that this project will make a real difference to that stretch of Church Lane, making it feel much more vibrant and putting it very much on the map. I think if we've got local residents involved, it's a great way to get local people involved and engaged with their local areas. I think that's really important. The acting chair referred to bee planting, but I'm really pleased to see that there is also reference to butterfly planting within this, because anyone who's been reading recent reports will know that butterfly numbers across the country have plummeted, and so actually some really serious thought about planting that would support butterflies would be really helpful, and that may involve, for example, leaving a portion of it slightly wilder, but also explaining in the explanatory board why you've done that. So I think it would be really fantastic. I would support this wholeheartedly. And I think it's a relatively modest cost that buys in a lot of activity and goodwill from local residents. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Councillor Moore. I didn't know some of the back story that was useful to hear. In order that I saw the hands, can I go with Councillor Hutton, then Councillor Coakley-Webb and then Councillor Grocock? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I should have declared an interest in that I'm an East Finchley resident. I would like to support the application, but I do need to declare that I live quite close to the site. I'd like to support it. Thank you. I mean, I live about equidistant from it from you two. So if you're going to declare that, I probably ought to as well. But I'm not sure that it's necessarily an interest. Well, you're a bit further away, but fine, Councillor. In fact, I think Councillor Moore lives nearer to it than you do by geographical, as the crow flies. I think it's probably equidistant between the three of us, which I think is highly appropriate. Fine, fine. Councillor Coakley-Webb. Just a couple of questions. Will it be Grant's maintenance that maintain all the planting and the greenery that's either there or is replanted? That's one. I'm looking at the picture of the bench that's there that you say is dilapidated. Will the benches that will be replaced, will they be metal, which is what's usually recommended when we put benches in parks now as least likely to be vandalised? And the only other thing was if you're going to put what I call planted bike stands as opposed to bike hangers. The stands, as I said, the planted bike stand is a metal trough with the bars each side. Will those planted bike stands still have enough space on each side for at least a single or a double buggy to get by? And just a bit of a warning from what I've seen elsewhere that sometimes people using those planted bike stands don't necessarily park their bikes as well as they should do. And if it comes out on a bad angle, that will actually block part of the pavement. So that's all my question. Let us pray that they're not used by line bike riders. We have at the table, Judith, do you want to introduce yourself and give us a bit of your background? Thank you very much. I'm Judith Salomon. I'm a resident of that end of Long Lane and a huge fan of what's happened at the Leopold Road Gardens. And it was a neighbour and I sort of inspired by that and then sort of rather depressed by the corner of Church Lane, the walks and Long Lane and Church Lane and thought, Why can't we keep that going and do something to really elevate the area? I know from the Leopold Gardens, they're not only just really pleasant to walk past when I walk to the station, but I've also met quite a few local people and had chats if I've stopped and sat on the bench. So actually, I think they're a real benefit and we just want to continue that. To your questions on the maintenance, we will undertake that. So the same as what's happening at Leopold Road. So if you do give us the funding, we're going to get a group of people together and commit between us to maintain the two areas. And I think there's quite a large number of properties that are pretty proximate. So I'm confident that we will find people. You know, through the Leopold Gardens, people have told us there are some quite keen local gardeners that live on that stretch of Church Lane. So we'll rope them in. And I think between all of us, that should be very achievable. In terms of the type of bench, we'll take guidance from the council on what's best for that. So I'll leave that to those that know better than I do. And on the bike stands, yes, of course, we need to make sure that someone with a buggy or in a wheelchair is able to get by. At the moment, there's two or three bike stands, which I don't think I've ever seen a bike on, but just sort of take up loads of space where a bench could go and it could just be much prettier. So that's the idea of would still provide parking for bikes, but in a nicer way and also enable another bench to go there. Thank you. Thank you. I think there is already some bicycle infrastructure there, which is in need of renewal. The benches themselves are pretty dilapidated, so it's just replacing those. I think this could actually end up saving the council a little bit of money because theoretically, all of these assets are already, at least in theory, maintained by the council. But maintenance budgets being what they are, they probably don't get the level of attention the front of Hendon Town Hall gets. So, you know, residents like Judith and I think everybody on this committee knows Roger Chapman, people like that taking over some responsibility for the area, I think probably saves the council a little bit of time and maintenance. I will come back to Councillor Hutton, but can I take Councillor Crowcock first? Thank you. On the, it's page 27, so reinstate cobbles, there's a query next to the pound sign, noting that could, might not be taken from the contingency that's shown. With regards to the new bins, we've all had one or two emails over the years about litter being streamed from bins. Will they be closed, inaccessible by foxes and birds, perhaps? I think on the last point, this is not a location where we tend to have problems with that anyway, but I think it's the, I think it's the standard bins that we're looking at, the ones, the black ones with the council logo on them. So it's the same as it normally is. Sorry, what was your first point? The non-figure against the reinstate cobbles, page 27. Yeah, I think that is, I mean, that is definitely the aspiration because it's much more pleasant than the normal paving. But if it proves to be non-viable, then we'll have to look at other options. So that's, I think, again, that's where we'll be guided by the highways team and the council as to what's feasible. But it would be preferable to reinstate them if we can. OK, Councillor Hutton, and then a quick one from Councillor Moore. Judith, could I just, I note in the bid you've got water butts identified, and do you think that will help with the maintenance? Because one of the things that I've had on other areas, water's always a challenge. Yeah, that was on advisement from Cathy and the team at Leopold Gardens, is to have a water butt, so it makes it much easier when we need to water stuff. Yeah, otherwise I'll be carting water up Long Lane. Having done it for another garden, I can fully sympathise. Right, I think let's take this to the boat. Can I have hands for those in favour? I think that's all. That was unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Yes. Sorry? Yeah. So that one is, we've taken the A decision, which is to award funding fully in this case, and any conditions attached there are none. Note the implications to the committee's in-sill funding budget. Right. Item number two, Hayes Crescent Road Renewal, Golders Green Ward, £138,767.48. Councillor Dean Cohen. Thank you very much. So this is a busy road in terms of the footway, close to Temple Fortune Town Centre, leading off Temple Fortune Town Centre. I mean, it's a very straightforward scheme. There's not much to explain other than the footway relay. What I would say is that the amount, if the committee had minded to accept the application, that the budget is, if the amount is an issue, that it could be split in two, so it is over two financial years. Meaning one side of the road this year and the next financial year, the following year. OK. Do we have comments on this one? Yeah, I just wonder if we can ask officers, given that there's a sort of estimation and we look at all the different roads and pavements and there's a priority list that says which are next on the list. Do we know where this is on the list or has this got to be reassessed to give us an idea as to where it would compare with other areas of the borough? We can look to see where it would fall on the list, but I think there's actually been some patching on Hayes Crescent already this year, is that correct? Yeah, thank you. The reason, it wasn't actually this year, but the reason why this road put this forward is because there was a time a couple of years ago where a trial was done where it would just be the area around the trees was done. However, while that dealt with that issue, it didn't deal with the wider issue of the footway, which was already damaged as a result of the trees. Councillor Moore. I have some sympathy with Councillor Coley-Webb's comments. There's obviously, the network recovery programme was quite a development that it was being done by, set by objective assessments and a range of criteria. And so I am slightly concerned that we've got something coming up which has or hasn't got a place on that priority list that's coming to ask for money from the area committee. And it's being singled out without, I just would like to know what the overriding justification for using area committee money is really for putting that ahead of a set of objective criteria in comparison with other roads across the borough. I mean, all of your comments about, you know, walking and use notwithstanding, Councillor Cohen. I mean, the budget with this committee is for infrastructure projects and there's nothing more infrastructure than a footway. Challenges, I think it does set a precedent and I hesitate to use the term jumping the queue because it sounds like I'm being aggressive and unpleasant and I don't mean it that way. But lots of us have challenging roads in our wards and we argue their case within that set of objective criteria. But it just feels to me like we're setting an awkward precedent for things that we are each particularly passionate about. There is a road in my ward where I would want to make an argument because it's particularly well used by elderly residents and they're finding it difficult because of tree roots. And I could be arguing that, but on other criteria it doesn't sit higher up the priority list. I'm just a bit concerned about the precedent it creates in doing this. Councillor Hutton, thank you. Yeah, we've actually been here before, as I recall, on the Area Committee with a similar case I think we had last year. I don't know and I understand why it was bought and Councillor Moore said that. Is there any merit on deferring this to the next meeting so that we can clarify the parameters for which we're looking at this one? As I say, it's not the first time we've had this conversation on this committee, so I would propose that we defer it and have proper conversation. I think my question would be what do you want to clarify specifically? What information don't you have that you find helpful? Looking at pathways on which area of the budget they should or shouldn't come under. It's either Area Committee and I can understand that there might be some. But I think overall, I would put it under footway. I'm proposing it anyway. We'll take that in a bit. I'll just take comments first and arguments. Councillor Cohen, I'll take your response to that first, but then I'll go to Councillor Moore. Just in response to the comment that was just made regarding deferring it to check on whether, you know, I'm not sure exactly, but the fact of the matter is, you know, just the same things happen, you know, why can't when we have a play scheme for playground in a park, why can't that come out of the budget for green spaces? It's the same thing. Did I hear correctly that there have been patching in the road? Does it feel slightly awkward because is it value for money to resurface a road that's had patching of what I assume are the bits that need that work most? It doesn't necessarily seem good use of money. So it's not it wasn't patching. It was the the rubber crumb around the trees of which won't be done as part of this scheme. Mindful that we have a lot of residents that write to us with regards to the footpaths across the borough. As my colleague, Councillor Cohen has alluded to a potential if the committee were mindful to do it in two parts. And we can always do this subject to the committee were minded to do it in two parts. So one part this financial year and then come back the second, the second tranche the next financial year. And then we can always do it subject to anything. I would support this footways and footpaths, pedestrians walking. This is all part of making everyone healthy and getting about and not using their cars. This is going to be the last comment. I mean, I've probably had even locally and in my ward complaints about footways that officers have gone to see and have said to me, it might be a little bit that needs doing or there might be more that needs doing. But you're not high on the priority list. So what I would really like to know for this from officers for the priority list is to where is this in comparison with other needs within the borough? Because what I don't want to do is look at something without being totally aware as to where the other needs are in the borough to make sure that we are not giving priority to something that's before us today when there could well be far more needy areas that need that highway and footpath money that we are not aware of here today. So that is my proposal that we need that information. I'm happy to defer it and get that information. But I don't want us to be seen to be jumping the queue for one area when we might be told, sorry, there's far more important areas and this will just have to be further down the queue and wait. Okay, I will take one final comment from Councillor Crowcock and then I'll come to my summation of where I think we are with it, but Councillor Crowcock. There has been a precedent set. There was a footway item dealt with in Edgware. I can't remember the dates. Maybe one of the officers might remember if they were sitting on these particular areas, but there has been area funding, sill money used in a location in Edgware. But, you know, we have a different set of priorities in this committee as well. I have some issues with using and sell to pay for payments and things like that, because I think we have a separate part which is extremely well determined and laid out how that part of money is used for footways and resurfacing of roads and things like that. So I have to be brutally honest with Councillor Cohen and so on the face of it, I'm not necessarily keen on this application as it stands. And I'm aware that officers aren't recommending this scheme either on the same grounds that several councillors have mentioned today. However, I think Councillor Hutton and Councillor Pauline Coakley-Webb have made some good points about deferring this for now to get some information about where this road lies on the priority list. You know, I think that probably is useful information to Councillor Cohen in laying out his case. So I would personally support, in fact I'm happy to second Councillor Hutton's recommendation that we defer it from this meeting. I will give the last comment to Councillor Cohen, but then I think I would like to go to the vote. Just, Chairman, on two of your points. Number one, you said officers don't recommend this item. Where in the report does it say that officers don't recommend the item? I'll defer to officers for that. In the report I don't see it anywhere that says officers don't recommend the item. From a lead officer's point of view and the operations director for highways, this falls outside the improving Barnet Roads programme. I understand it falls outside that, but in terms of this committee, this one falls out of it, but it doesn't fall outside the items of this committee. That's why it's in this committee, because it complies with SIL and it complies with – so that's what this is items for, it's for the SIL. So it may fall outside – that's why it's come here, it's not gone to anywhere else. So, in terms of this committee, this committee is dealing with SIL monies for infrastructure projects, anywhere in the east area, and this complies with that requirement. Secondly, you mentioned regarding the other points of it coming back. What is it coming back for? On the first point, infrastructure is a very wide-ranging work and it covers a number of different things that this committee wouldn't fund. We wouldn't fund the building of a school, we wouldn't necessarily fund some capital projects or a hospital and things like that, those are all infrastructure. So there are elements of infrastructure that we wouldn't necessarily cover as part of this committee. The argument that I would make is that there is a separate pot and a programme with quite a lot of effort and thought that goes into it, into determining which roads across the borough and which pavements across the borough need that investment to bring them up to standard. We all have roads in our wards that we think need to be done, and we'd all love to have that funding diverted to our wards to do all of them, but that isn't possible, even with the £97 million funding that has been agreed by the council already, it's not going to cover every single ward. However, in my view, and we're all entitled to our opinions on this of course, but in my view that system is the fairest way of distributing that funding and working out which are the roads in the borough that need the most urgent attention. And as Councillor Cone will well know, we as members have feed into that, we are consulted on them, we have discussions in offices about the roads that we think. My two ward colleagues are here today, we have had many discussions with offices over the years about which roads we think should have been prioritised and which shouldn't be, and it feeds into the process that offices, understandably and rightly, don't always take our recommendations, they don't always take our views on these things, but that's part of the democratic process, and it's part of the process that's been laid out by yourself. I don't think the process has changed for many, many years. The second point that Councillor Cohen makes about what are we deferring this for, I think Councillor Coakley Webb would like to know where this road falls on the priority order list, and I do think that that is helpful information for members to make a decision on. So with that in mind, I will accept Councillor Hutton's motion to defer this item to the next meeting. I've seconded it, so I will go to the vote on that. Can I have hands in favour of Councillor Hutton's motion to defer? That's five, and those against? That's three. That is deferred to the next meeting. Right, we now move on to New South Gate Recreation Ground, inclusive playground, Brunswick Park Ward for £129,901.77, which is in the name of Councillor Paul Lemon, but he is not here. I understand that Councillor Moore is prepared to offer some comments in support of the application. Just start us off. Thank you, Chair, and I know that Councillor Lemon would have preferred to be here to talk to this. He lays out a good case for this playground. It's part funding to support the green spaces provision of a much improved playground. He cites elements of the corporate plan and the pillars that it can support. Well, actually, I would like to add with my cabinet hat on, it's obviously all playgrounds, but those which give children the most exercise and input are a great public health benefit. And we've been talking recently about childhood obesity and childhood well-being, and I think it's really important to have play areas where this works well. I would also comment that actually the area around this playground, so the streets that, to say, surrounded, but within easy walking distance, are often either flattered or very small units that don't have a huge amount of open space. So I think it's doubly important for children to have that kind of space to play in. The application quotes the increasing figures of children and young people using the existing playground, but actually I think the Fairplay Barnet playground that was completed earlier in the year has made a real difference. So one of the things that this playground would do would be to expand the numbers of children or the children who would be able to use it because there will be more inclusive opportunities for play within this playground. So I would support it. I think it's a judicious use both of existing green spaces, money, but also NSL, and it will allow that green spaces money to go further and work with other areas on play facilities in the same way. I think the fact that we use the term 'contractor' means that we will be getting good value for money from this existing play contractor who's been in place for about a year and a half. And I think we stand to get a really good value playground out of this to serve a community that has a lot of young children, young families in it, and will of course increasingly do if other developments go into place. Councillor Meyer hasn't spoken tonight, so I think I might go to him first then come back to Councillor Greg. And Councillor Meyer is better looking. We can add that to the minutes as well. Can we make sure that's in the minutes? The only thing I would say on this is I would love to support this. However, having done applications of this nature before, typically we get given a plan. We're being asked to invest from his budget £129,901.77p. I would expect all of us, if we were doing building work in our own homes, we would know where we're putting the light fittings and the screws. I would seek to get that clarity before voting on this. And having tried to bring one of these applications before this committee, I was advised by officers to have a plan in place. So I'm a bit confundled. Councillor Graycock? Yes, following on from my colleague, there's no idea of what play equipment. Can you just clarify to me what the PM costs are? And obviously the contingency is 10%. Is the green spaces capital programme, is that available across the borough for any particular projects? Or is this where, and in this particular case, there is very limited on site facilities. What's the potential plan with regards to the cafe space there? Is that in the in situ building that looks as though it's in need of great development? How will that be dealt with? I'd like to support this, but I'm just concerned. Basically, every application that's come forward, we always want to see more detail and idea of the equipment, albeit it might need to be slightly adjusted. But all we've got is an aerial shot. Thank you. It looks like there might be some papers missing because there seems to be papers missing from this item. It says quotation attached along with design proposal. And I would probably have the same sort of just question as to what is the proposal over the cafe. I mean, I support the idea of it, but I'm just thinking that when we, with all the work that we've done in Hallowick Rec, and when residents have often said, oh, can we have a cafe there? And it was pointed out that obviously cafes and parks often have very sort of seasonal business as to whether they're actually feasible or not. So, yeah, there's obviously information missing from this item. Could I make a motion to defer this to the next meeting to get that clarity from Councillor Lemon? I think we all sort of agree with the principle of it, but I don't mind looking at it in more detail next time round because I think we do need that extra information. The only thing it seems to actually give the information about is incorporating some similar play equipment to the one that's being put in Victoria Park where the New Leisure Centre is, which is absolutely brilliant. And if we can have some equipment that actually is suitable for people with disabilities or even people in wheelchairs, which I know is not cheap, then well and good. I would like to propose that motion. I'll take voting on the item at the end, but if anybody wants to make comments. I just don't think that by the time, when is the next meeting now? We're in September? January. January? Yeah. Is it not an excessive? I think the plan is to do the works over winter so that it's available for summer. I think one of the problems that we had with the marketplace playground is the delays of the works. Hang on, let me… I mean, I'm happy to agree, but is there any way that we could have more detail sent to us in between the meetings and an explanation as to why it's not been in the papers? Well, to take Councillor Grocox, I'm wondering whether we approve in principle pending detail the quotes that should be attached being sent to the committee. I wonder whether that's a way forward. Can I take Councillor Moore first and then? I would support that proposal. That has been a line that we've taken on a couple of other applications in the past. Because unless I misunderstand the wording in the section that talks about quotes provided with the application, it says quotes attached along with the design proposal. So it would suggest that those came in with the application. I don't know whether that's the case, but if that is the case, that's the sort of information that we would be seeking. So we're asking to see that and seek that clarification. I would just make a comment about cafes and parks. The proposal is usually that they're led to a concern, and we have a very thriving one in Cherry Tree Wood, and it seems to weather the seasonality of that. If you look at the numbers of children and families who are using the current play area and that you'd anticipate increasing that, it would seem to me that at least a part-time cafe would be perfectly feasible there. But I think in terms of supporting your proposal, that we agree in principle pending a set of information that confirms that for us. Okay, can I take Councillor Grohkochen and Councillor Meyer, and then what I might do is I might adjourn the meeting for two minutes, get some advice from officers and then come back. Thank you, Chair. In view of this being public money, okay, it's not our own purse that we're using here, mindful that my immediate neighbours are always very keen and I absolutely believe that we should have all detail. We don't have the detail of what this equipment is. We can't clarify. We can't deal with this now. This would be unjust to do with public money. I would recommend that we do defer this so that we've got all the detail. As we've done with other options before, there is nothing wrong with having this come back to the next committee meeting. The programme can go ahead, if we all agree, in spring, ready for summer. It won't be a problem. I think Jen has summed it up very eloquently, but again, if it was me doing building right to my own house, I would want that detail and that's how I look at this item as well. Okay, well, what I'm going to do is I'm going to adjourn the meeting for five minutes, get some advice from officers, just find out where the information that I think clearly Councillor Levin has attached, it seems to have gone walk somewhere. Do you have his number? Could you call him and ask? No, and I will let you know why that is after the meeting. Allow me to adjourn for five minutes, let's just see what we can sort out and find out. We'll come back and then, so we're adjourning for, you can stay, I'm just saying the meeting is adjourned, that's all, whilst we have a quick discussion. It's ten to now, we'll be back in five to, yeah? Okay, thank you. Right, so I understand we've just been sent the designs from an officer, oh I'm sorry, we've just gotten a copy of the designs sent by the officer, so those are going to be circulated to members now. Yes, I think that's, yeah, we'll do that by email, should we have another adjournment for how long would you like to read the application? We say, should we say half an hour, twenty minutes, how long do you want? Chair, if I could, because we need to look at these and digest them, not in five seconds, I would propose a motion in my name to defer, to give us time to look at and review properly, this is taxpayers' money we're dealing with, and bring it back to the next meeting. Agreed, supported. The issue is this will be a council scheme, rather than something coming. Do you want to read the papers as they're sent through, to have an idea of what's proposed, and then come back and make the decision now, or do you want to defer the item to the next meeting? I think, even though I would have liked to have got this done and dusted, sending us stuff on email now means it wouldn't have been in the public domain, on the public papers, which they would have had a right to see. So I think it's just, we've just got to defer and do this properly. All right, I can read the room. Councillor Myers' motion to defer still stands, I am seconding that, can I have hands in favour of deferring? Yeah, I think that's all of us. So on the second and third applications, we've deferred them both, so that's option B on the recommendations. I don't think we need to vote on anything further as part of that item. That being the case, item number 12, any other items that the chair decides are urgent, there are none, I therefore declare the meeting closed. Thank you very much everyone. All right. Thank you very much. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript

Good evening everyone, my name is Councillor Arjun Mitra. I'm normally the Vice Chair for the East Area Committee but I'm chairing tonight. Thank you very much for attending our committee meeting this evening. Please note that meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in-law or by the Council. By attending either in person or online you may be picked up on recordings and Council recordings are covered by a privacy notice which can be found on the Barnet Council website and may be retained and made available online. For any speakers - I see the public gallery is full - you will have three minutes to speak. There will then be an opportunity for members to ask questions of the speakers. Can I please remind all to ensure that after you've finished speaking you press your microphone off to ensure that there's no feedback. And with that I'll dive into item number one which is the minutes of the previous meeting on pages five to ten. Are members of the committee happy to approve the minutes of the previous meeting? Agreed, thank you. Item number two - absence of members. As I mentioned earlier I'm in the chair because Councillor Lemon has had an urgent family emergency and he's being substituted by Councillor Alison Moore. Welcome Alison. Councillor Geoff Cook is being substituted by Councillor Anne Hutton. Hello Anne. And Councillor Danny Ridge is being substituted by Councillor Claire Farrier. So we are well powered on the East Finchley Front tonight. Declarations of members' interest - does any member have a declaration that they wish to make? I haven't been on this committee for a while. Would cabinet members normally make a declaration because obviously there may be things that are pertinent to decisions that we have made? I think that's always sensible so I assume that also applies to the Council's working web. Thank you. Councillor Cohen, did you want to put your hand up? Yes, I'd like to declare an interest in the item which I believe might not be debated today but is still on the agenda. Which is Councillor Greg Cook's members' item and Pardes House of which I am an LEA governor for. So it's a pecuniary non-projudicial interest. Thank you very much Councillor Cohen. Item number four, dispensation granted by the monitoring officer. There are none. Items number five, petitions. There are none. Item number six, resident issues. There is one issue, pavement replacement works in Temple Fortune. The update is a response has been sent to the resident on that issue. I don't know if anybody wishes to follow up? Yep, happy with that Councillor Cohen. Thank you. Item number seven, deputations. There are none. Item number eight, public comments and questions. There are none. Item number nine, members' items. There are none. Item number ten, area committee funding, Ensil road safety and parking fund update is on pages 13 to 34 of your papers. Does anybody have any comments? Councillor Grocock. Thank you, Chair. I just wondered for any of those items that have been completed, have we any photographs or any details or pictures or follow ups to come through? I know we've asked for that in the past, but that's always really helpful and it'll be nice to see. I don't think we have any tonight, but I hopefully we can minute that request and we will request photos to come back. Councillor Moore. I will anticipate that there'll be significant pictures for Marketplace Playground and I hope you will come and have a look at it, having been one of the chairs who started the ball rolling on this. There'll be a formal launch of that in October, but it has it has soft opened already and is being very, very well used and is looking great and will look even better after the rain. Thanks ever so much. Councillor Grocock have you any. OK. Can I take us to the recommendations on page 13 that the East Area Committee, number one, notes the community infrastructure levy SIL funding available for allocation during 2022/20 sorry, 2024/25 in accordance with the SIL regulations. I set out in paragraph five point four of this report and in Appendix A, number two, notes that the SIL amount and the and reallocated under spends and overspends in paragraph one point seven of this report. And in Appendix A, number three, notes the road safety and parking fund available for allocation during 2024/25 in paragraph five point eight. And I set out in Appendix B, is that agreed? The only thing I'm just thinking is that in my papers, it says in paragraph five point seven and there was another one earlier up when I think you said it says online paragraph five point three. So it's just technicalities as to which is right. Apparently it's both. I believe it's five point three for the SIL and five point seven for the road safety and parking. I think that's how it works. And that has the detail, that has all the schemes in the detail. Can we take that as agreed? That's agreed. Thank you very much. Right. Item number 11, members, items, applications for neighbourhood community infrastructure, levy and SIL funding. May I start off in the chair by apologising to Councillor Grocock because her item, which was for CCTV at Pardes House Primary School, has been deferred pending further clearance from officers. That won't be heard tonight. I hope Councillor Grocock will accept my apology. I understand there's been some misunderstandings. Something has not happened behind the scenes that should have done, for which I hope she'll accept my apology sitting in the chair tonight. That being the case, we will move on to the next item, which is the Church Lane Community Garden in East Finchley for £57,282 from Councillor Claire Farrier. Claire, do you want to introduce this one? I think you know as much or more than I do about this. Church Lane is in effect the original part of East Finchley, the original East Finchley Village. And the walk's footpath going up through East Finchley runs past it as well. This will a) make this much more pleasant, b) make it safer to walk on. Local residents want this improvement very much and are planning and prepared to maintain and look after. In the next road near Poldrose recently, there were similar gardens in store, which residents are very much supportive of, and this is going to improve the hold of that area, as I say, the original East Finchley Village and the walks along there. So, I mean, as I say, you know a lot more, you can say more than that. Okay, I'll make my comments first and then I'll come to Councillor Moore. Just to say that Church Lane was the original village in East Finchley and it isn't quite important, I think, for us to try and reinvigorate it a little bit. There are a number of shops there, and this application is for a set of planters that are opposite and across from those shops and in front of another set of, another small set of shops. You know, it is, the assets that are there at the moment are in a really quite appalling and dilapidated state at the moment. So, you know, this is much needed investment really to bring them back up to standard. You know, members of this committee would have been board witness by my constant harping on about the Leopold Road garden, which I know Councillor Grocock has visited and seen for herself, as a big fan. Well, this is very much a continuation of that project and it's a continuation of the East Finchley Pollinator Corridor project, about encouraging biodiversity and helping our bee friends. So this is a lovely little project. I have to admit some cheekiness on my part because I did try and tack on some additional infrastructure in other places, but there was no way that it could fit within the budget envelope, so I had to remove those and we're going ahead only with this part of Church Lane. We do have a resident in the public gallery who can answer questions if you've got any, but I will go to Councillor Moore first because I know that, particularly for the Long Lane Junction, she's been working on this since I was in short trousers and I, you know, it was a very long time ago that I wore those. Thank you and Chair, that original drive around the Long Lane, Church Lane Junction was sparked largely because we had an elderly resident who lives towards the top of Long Lane, whose husband I think was possibly a Councillor, but certainly had been very community involved way before I was a Councillor, had been the original instigator of the original planters, which are now pretty down a hill. We did some work a few years ago, but she would have been really passionate about this and she certainly drove me in terms of my original interest. I would just be clear, obviously this is brought through by my two ward colleagues, but I absolutely am fully supportive and I'm really pleased to see Judith in the audience. I think anyone who's seen it, oh, I was also going to comment that you're quite right about the centre of the old heart of East Finchley and some of the buildings that are at the top of Long Lane are actually early 19th century, which I know for all sorts of odd casework reasons. I fully support this. Planters are in really poor condition actually on both sides, particularly actually the walks element, and by improving those and incorporating those into an enhanced scheme, I think it really would have an enormously positive impact on the area. The impact of the Leopold Road Garden has been significant and I think with the support and the encouragement of the team there, I'd anticipate that this project will make a real difference to that stretch of Church Lane, making it feel much more vibrant and putting it very much on the map. I think if we've got local residents involved, it's a great way to get local people involved and engaged with their local areas. I think that's really important. The acting chair referred to bee planting, but I'm really pleased to see that there is also reference to butterfly planting within this, because anyone who's been reading recent reports will know that butterfly numbers across the country have plummeted, and so actually some really serious thought about planting that would support butterflies would be really helpful, and that may involve, for example, leaving a portion of it slightly wilder, but also explaining in the explanatory board why you've done that. So I think it would be really fantastic. I would support this wholeheartedly. And I think it's a relatively modest cost that buys in a lot of activity and goodwill from local residents. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Councillor Moore. I didn't know some of the back story that was useful to hear. In order that I saw the hands, can I go with Councillor Hutton, then Councillor Coakley-Webb and then Councillor Grocock? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I should have declared an interest in that I'm an East Finchley resident. I would like to support the application, but I do need to declare that I live quite close to the site. I'd like to support it. Thank you. I mean, I live about equidistant from it from you two. So if you're going to declare that, I probably ought to as well. But I'm not sure that it's necessarily an interest. Well, you're a bit further away, but fine, Councillor. In fact, I think Councillor Moore lives nearer to it than you do by geographical, as the crow flies. I think it's probably equidistant between the three of us, which I think is highly appropriate. Fine, fine. Councillor Coakley-Webb. Just a couple of questions. Will it be Grant's maintenance that maintain all the planting and the greenery that's either there or is replanted? That's one. I'm looking at the picture of the bench that's there that you say is dilapidated. Will the benches that will be replaced, will they be metal, which is what's usually recommended when we put benches in parks now as least likely to be vandalised? And the only other thing was if you're going to put what I call planted bike stands as opposed to bike hangers. The stands, as I said, the planted bike stand is a metal trough with the bars each side. Will those planted bike stands still have enough space on each side for at least a single or a double buggy to get by? And just a bit of a warning from what I've seen elsewhere that sometimes people using those planted bike stands don't necessarily park their bikes as well as they should do. And if it comes out on a bad angle, that will actually block part of the pavement. So that's all my question. Let us pray that they're not used by line bike riders. We have at the table, Judith, do you want to introduce yourself and give us a bit of your background? Thank you very much. I'm Judith Salomon. I'm a resident of that end of Long Lane and a huge fan of what's happened at the Leopold Road Gardens. And it was a neighbour and I sort of inspired by that and then sort of rather depressed by the corner of Church Lane, the walks and Long Lane and Church Lane and thought, Why can't we keep that going and do something to really elevate the area? I know from the Leopold Gardens, they're not only just really pleasant to walk past when I walk to the station, but I've also met quite a few local people and had chats if I've stopped and sat on the bench. So actually, I think they're a real benefit and we just want to continue that. To your questions on the maintenance, we will undertake that. So the same as what's happening at Leopold Road. So if you do give us the funding, we're going to get a group of people together and commit between us to maintain the two areas. And I think there's quite a large number of properties that are pretty proximate. So I'm confident that we will find people. You know, through the Leopold Gardens, people have told us there are some quite keen local gardeners that live on that stretch of Church Lane. So we'll rope them in. And I think between all of us, that should be very achievable. In terms of the type of bench, we'll take guidance from the council on what's best for that. So I'll leave that to those that know better than I do. And on the bike stands, yes, of course, we need to make sure that someone with a buggy or in a wheelchair is able to get by. At the moment, there's two or three bike stands, which I don't think I've ever seen a bike on, but just sort of take up loads of space where a bench could go and it could just be much prettier. So that's the idea of would still provide parking for bikes, but in a nicer way and also enable another bench to go there. Thank you. Thank you. I think there is already some bicycle infrastructure there, which is in need of renewal. The benches themselves are pretty dilapidated, so it's just replacing those. I think this could actually end up saving the council a little bit of money because theoretically, all of these assets are already, at least in theory, maintained by the council. But maintenance budgets being what they are, they probably don't get the level of attention the front of Hendon Town Hall gets. So, you know, residents like Judith and I think everybody on this committee knows Roger Chapman, people like that taking over some responsibility for the area, I think probably saves the council a little bit of time and maintenance. I will come back to Councillor Hutton, but can I take Councillor Crowcock first? Thank you. On the, it's page 27, so reinstate cobbles, there's a query next to the pound sign, noting that could, might not be taken from the contingency that's shown. With regards to the new bins, we've all had one or two emails over the years about litter being streamed from bins. Will they be closed, inaccessible by foxes and birds, perhaps? I think on the last point, this is not a location where we tend to have problems with that anyway, but I think it's the, I think it's the standard bins that we're looking at, the ones, the black ones with the council logo on them. So it's the same as it normally is. Sorry, what was your first point? The non-figure against the reinstate cobbles, page 27. Yeah, I think that is, I mean, that is definitely the aspiration because it's much more pleasant than the normal paving. But if it proves to be non-viable, then we'll have to look at other options. So that's, I think, again, that's where we'll be guided by the highways team and the council as to what's feasible. But it would be preferable to reinstate them if we can. OK, Councillor Hutton, and then a quick one from Councillor Moore. Judith, could I just, I note in the bid you've got water butts identified, and do you think that will help with the maintenance? Because one of the things that I've had on other areas, water's always a challenge. Yeah, that was on advisement from Cathy and the team at Leopold Gardens, is to have a water butt, so it makes it much easier when we need to water stuff. Yeah, otherwise I'll be carting water up Long Lane. Having done it for another garden, I can fully sympathise. Right, I think let's take this to the boat. Can I have hands for those in favour? I think that's all. That was unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Yes. Sorry? Yeah. So that one is, we've taken the A decision, which is to award funding fully in this case, and any conditions attached there are none. Note the implications to the committee's in-sill funding budget. Right. Item number two, Hayes Crescent Road Renewal, Golders Green Ward, £138,767.48. Councillor Dean Cohen. Thank you very much. So this is a busy road in terms of the footway, close to Temple Fortune Town Centre, leading off Temple Fortune Town Centre. I mean, it's a very straightforward scheme. There's not much to explain other than the footway relay. What I would say is that the amount, if the committee had minded to accept the application, that the budget is, if the amount is an issue, that it could be split in two, so it is over two financial years. Meaning one side of the road this year and the next financial year, the following year. OK. Do we have comments on this one? Yeah, I just wonder if we can ask officers, given that there's a sort of estimation and we look at all the different roads and pavements and there's a priority list that says which are next on the list. Do we know where this is on the list or has this got to be reassessed to give us an idea as to where it would compare with other areas of the borough? We can look to see where it would fall on the list, but I think there's actually been some patching on Hayes Crescent already this year, is that correct? Yeah, thank you. The reason, it wasn't actually this year, but the reason why this road put this forward is because there was a time a couple of years ago where a trial was done where it would just be the area around the trees was done. However, while that dealt with that issue, it didn't deal with the wider issue of the footway, which was already damaged as a result of the trees. Councillor Moore. I have some sympathy with Councillor Coley-Webb's comments. There's obviously, the network recovery programme was quite a development that it was being done by, set by objective assessments and a range of criteria. And so I am slightly concerned that we've got something coming up which has or hasn't got a place on that priority list that's coming to ask for money from the area committee. And it's being singled out without, I just would like to know what the overriding justification for using area committee money is really for putting that ahead of a set of objective criteria in comparison with other roads across the borough. I mean, all of your comments about, you know, walking and use notwithstanding, Councillor Cohen. I mean, the budget with this committee is for infrastructure projects and there's nothing more infrastructure than a footway. Challenges, I think it does set a precedent and I hesitate to use the term jumping the queue because it sounds like I'm being aggressive and unpleasant and I don't mean it that way. But lots of us have challenging roads in our wards and we argue their case within that set of objective criteria. But it just feels to me like we're setting an awkward precedent for things that we are each particularly passionate about. There is a road in my ward where I would want to make an argument because it's particularly well used by elderly residents and they're finding it difficult because of tree roots. And I could be arguing that, but on other criteria it doesn't sit higher up the priority list. I'm just a bit concerned about the precedent it creates in doing this. Councillor Hutton, thank you. Yeah, we've actually been here before, as I recall, on the Area Committee with a similar case I think we had last year. I don't know and I understand why it was bought and Councillor Moore said that. Is there any merit on deferring this to the next meeting so that we can clarify the parameters for which we're looking at this one? As I say, it's not the first time we've had this conversation on this committee, so I would propose that we defer it and have proper conversation. I think my question would be what do you want to clarify specifically? What information don't you have that you find helpful? Looking at pathways on which area of the budget they should or shouldn't come under. It's either Area Committee and I can understand that there might be some. But I think overall, I would put it under footway. I'm proposing it anyway. We'll take that in a bit. I'll just take comments first and arguments. Councillor Cohen, I'll take your response to that first, but then I'll go to Councillor Moore. Just in response to the comment that was just made regarding deferring it to check on whether, you know, I'm not sure exactly, but the fact of the matter is, you know, just the same things happen, you know, why can't when we have a play scheme for playground in a park, why can't that come out of the budget for green spaces? It's the same thing. Did I hear correctly that there have been patching in the road? Does it feel slightly awkward because is it value for money to resurface a road that's had patching of what I assume are the bits that need that work most? It doesn't necessarily seem good use of money. So it's not it wasn't patching. It was the the rubber crumb around the trees of which won't be done as part of this scheme. Mindful that we have a lot of residents that write to us with regards to the footpaths across the borough. As my colleague, Councillor Cohen has alluded to a potential if the committee were mindful to do it in two parts. And we can always do this subject to the committee were minded to do it in two parts. So one part this financial year and then come back the second, the second tranche the next financial year. And then we can always do it subject to anything. I would support this footways and footpaths, pedestrians walking. This is all part of making everyone healthy and getting about and not using their cars. This is going to be the last comment. I mean, I've probably had even locally and in my ward complaints about footways that officers have gone to see and have said to me, it might be a little bit that needs doing or there might be more that needs doing. But you're not high on the priority list. So what I would really like to know for this from officers for the priority list is to where is this in comparison with other needs within the borough? Because what I don't want to do is look at something without being totally aware as to where the other needs are in the borough to make sure that we are not giving priority to something that's before us today when there could well be far more needy areas that need that highway and footpath money that we are not aware of here today. So that is my proposal that we need that information. I'm happy to defer it and get that information. But I don't want us to be seen to be jumping the queue for one area when we might be told, sorry, there's far more important areas and this will just have to be further down the queue and wait. Okay, I will take one final comment from Councillor Crowcock and then I'll come to my summation of where I think we are with it, but Councillor Crowcock. There has been a precedent set. There was a footway item dealt with in Edgware. I can't remember the dates. Maybe one of the officers might remember if they were sitting on these particular areas, but there has been area funding, sill money used in a location in Edgware. But, you know, we have a different set of priorities in this committee as well. I have some issues with using and sell to pay for payments and things like that, because I think we have a separate part which is extremely well determined and laid out how that part of money is used for footways and resurfacing of roads and things like that. So I have to be brutally honest with Councillor Cohen and so on the face of it, I'm not necessarily keen on this application as it stands. And I'm aware that officers aren't recommending this scheme either on the same grounds that several councillors have mentioned today. However, I think Councillor Hutton and Councillor Pauline Coakley-Webb have made some good points about deferring this for now to get some information about where this road lies on the priority list. You know, I think that probably is useful information to Councillor Cohen in laying out his case. So I would personally support, in fact I'm happy to second Councillor Hutton's recommendation that we defer it from this meeting. I will give the last comment to Councillor Cohen, but then I think I would like to go to the vote. Just, Chairman, on two of your points. Number one, you said officers don't recommend this item. Where in the report does it say that officers don't recommend the item? I'll defer to officers for that. In the report I don't see it anywhere that says officers don't recommend the item. From a lead officer's point of view and the operations director for highways, this falls outside the improving Barnet Roads programme. I understand it falls outside that, but in terms of this committee, this one falls out of it, but it doesn't fall outside the items of this committee. That's why it's in this committee, because it complies with SIL and it complies with – so that's what this is items for, it's for the SIL. So it may fall outside – that's why it's come here, it's not gone to anywhere else. So, in terms of this committee, this committee is dealing with SIL monies for infrastructure projects, anywhere in the east area, and this complies with that requirement. Secondly, you mentioned regarding the other points of it coming back. What is it coming back for? On the first point, infrastructure is a very wide-ranging work and it covers a number of different things that this committee wouldn't fund. We wouldn't fund the building of a school, we wouldn't necessarily fund some capital projects or a hospital and things like that, those are all infrastructure. So there are elements of infrastructure that we wouldn't necessarily cover as part of this committee. The argument that I would make is that there is a separate pot and a programme with quite a lot of effort and thought that goes into it, into determining which roads across the borough and which pavements across the borough need that investment to bring them up to standard. We all have roads in our wards that we think need to be done, and we'd all love to have that funding diverted to our wards to do all of them, but that isn't possible, even with the £97 million funding that has been agreed by the council already, it's not going to cover every single ward. However, in my view, and we're all entitled to our opinions on this of course, but in my view that system is the fairest way of distributing that funding and working out which are the roads in the borough that need the most urgent attention. And as Councillor Cone will well know, we as members have feed into that, we are consulted on them, we have discussions in offices about the roads that we think. My two ward colleagues are here today, we have had many discussions with offices over the years about which roads we think should have been prioritised and which shouldn't be, and it feeds into the process that offices, understandably and rightly, don't always take our recommendations, they don't always take our views on these things, but that's part of the democratic process, and it's part of the process that's been laid out by yourself. I don't think the process has changed for many, many years. The second point that Councillor Cohen makes about what are we deferring this for, I think Councillor Coakley Webb would like to know where this road falls on the priority order list, and I do think that that is helpful information for members to make a decision on. So with that in mind, I will accept Councillor Hutton's motion to defer this item to the next meeting. I've seconded it, so I will go to the vote on that. Can I have hands in favour of Councillor Hutton's motion to defer? That's five, and those against? That's three. That is deferred to the next meeting. Right, we now move on to New South Gate Recreation Ground, inclusive playground, Brunswick Park Ward for £129,901.77, which is in the name of Councillor Paul Lemon, but he is not here. I understand that Councillor Moore is prepared to offer some comments in support of the application. Just start us off. Thank you, Chair, and I know that Councillor Lemon would have preferred to be here to talk to this. He lays out a good case for this playground. It's part funding to support the green spaces provision of a much improved playground. He cites elements of the corporate plan and the pillars that it can support. Well, actually, I would like to add with my cabinet hat on, it's obviously all playgrounds, but those which give children the most exercise and input are a great public health benefit. And we've been talking recently about childhood obesity and childhood well-being, and I think it's really important to have play areas where this works well. I would also comment that actually the area around this playground, so the streets that, to say, surrounded, but within easy walking distance, are often either flattered or very small units that don't have a huge amount of open space. So I think it's doubly important for children to have that kind of space to play in. The application quotes the increasing figures of children and young people using the existing playground, but actually I think the Fairplay Barnet playground that was completed earlier in the year has made a real difference. So one of the things that this playground would do would be to expand the numbers of children or the children who would be able to use it because there will be more inclusive opportunities for play within this playground. So I would support it. I think it's a judicious use both of existing green spaces, money, but also NSL, and it will allow that green spaces money to go further and work with other areas on play facilities in the same way. I think the fact that we use the term 'contractor' means that we will be getting good value for money from this existing play contractor who's been in place for about a year and a half. And I think we stand to get a really good value playground out of this to serve a community that has a lot of young children, young families in it, and will of course increasingly do if other developments go into place. Councillor Meyer hasn't spoken tonight, so I think I might go to him first then come back to Councillor Greg. And Councillor Meyer is better looking. We can add that to the minutes as well. Can we make sure that's in the minutes? The only thing I would say on this is I would love to support this. However, having done applications of this nature before, typically we get given a plan. We're being asked to invest from his budget £129,901.77p. I would expect all of us, if we were doing building work in our own homes, we would know where we're putting the light fittings and the screws. I would seek to get that clarity before voting on this. And having tried to bring one of these applications before this committee, I was advised by officers to have a plan in place. So I'm a bit confundled. Councillor Graycock? Yes, following on from my colleague, there's no idea of what play equipment. Can you just clarify to me what the PM costs are? And obviously the contingency is 10%. Is the green spaces capital programme, is that available across the borough for any particular projects? Or is this where, and in this particular case, there is very limited on site facilities. What's the potential plan with regards to the cafe space there? Is that in the in situ building that looks as though it's in need of great development? How will that be dealt with? I'd like to support this, but I'm just concerned. Basically, every application that's come forward, we always want to see more detail and idea of the equipment, albeit it might need to be slightly adjusted. But all we've got is an aerial shot. Thank you. It looks like there might be some papers missing because there seems to be papers missing from this item. It says quotation attached along with design proposal. And I would probably have the same sort of just question as to what is the proposal over the cafe. I mean, I support the idea of it, but I'm just thinking that when we, with all the work that we've done in Hallowick Rec, and when residents have often said, oh, can we have a cafe there? And it was pointed out that obviously cafes and parks often have very sort of seasonal business as to whether they're actually feasible or not. So, yeah, there's obviously information missing from this item. Could I make a motion to defer this to the next meeting to get that clarity from Councillor Lemon? I think we all sort of agree with the principle of it, but I don't mind looking at it in more detail next time round because I think we do need that extra information. The only thing it seems to actually give the information about is incorporating some similar play equipment to the one that's being put in Victoria Park where the New Leisure Centre is, which is absolutely brilliant. And if we can have some equipment that actually is suitable for people with disabilities or even people in wheelchairs, which I know is not cheap, then well and good. I would like to propose that motion. I'll take voting on the item at the end, but if anybody wants to make comments. I just don't think that by the time, when is the next meeting now? We're in September? January. January? Yeah. Is it not an excessive? I think the plan is to do the works over winter so that it's available for summer. I think one of the problems that we had with the marketplace playground is the delays of the works. Hang on, let me… I mean, I'm happy to agree, but is there any way that we could have more detail sent to us in between the meetings and an explanation as to why it's not been in the papers? Well, to take Councillor Grocox, I'm wondering whether we approve in principle pending detail the quotes that should be attached being sent to the committee. I wonder whether that's a way forward. Can I take Councillor Moore first and then? I would support that proposal. That has been a line that we've taken on a couple of other applications in the past. Because unless I misunderstand the wording in the section that talks about quotes provided with the application, it says quotes attached along with the design proposal. So it would suggest that those came in with the application. I don't know whether that's the case, but if that is the case, that's the sort of information that we would be seeking. So we're asking to see that and seek that clarification. I would just make a comment about cafes and parks. The proposal is usually that they're led to a concern, and we have a very thriving one in Cherry Tree Wood, and it seems to weather the seasonality of that. If you look at the numbers of children and families who are using the current play area and that you'd anticipate increasing that, it would seem to me that at least a part-time cafe would be perfectly feasible there. But I think in terms of supporting your proposal, that we agree in principle pending a set of information that confirms that for us. Okay, can I take Councillor Grohkochen and Councillor Meyer, and then what I might do is I might adjourn the meeting for two minutes, get some advice from officers and then come back. Thank you, Chair. In view of this being public money, okay, it's not our own purse that we're using here, mindful that my immediate neighbours are always very keen and I absolutely believe that we should have all detail. We don't have the detail of what this equipment is. We can't clarify. We can't deal with this now. This would be unjust to do with public money. I would recommend that we do defer this so that we've got all the detail. As we've done with other options before, there is nothing wrong with having this come back to the next committee meeting. The programme can go ahead, if we all agree, in spring, ready for summer. It won't be a problem. I think Jen has summed it up very eloquently, but again, if it was me doing building right to my own house, I would want that detail and that's how I look at this item as well. Okay, well, what I'm going to do is I'm going to adjourn the meeting for five minutes, get some advice from officers, just find out where the information that I think clearly Councillor Levin has attached, it seems to have gone walk somewhere. Do you have his number? Could you call him and ask? No, and I will let you know why that is after the meeting. Allow me to adjourn for five minutes, let's just see what we can sort out and find out. We'll come back and then, so we're adjourning for, you can stay, I'm just saying the meeting is adjourned, that's all, whilst we have a quick discussion. It's ten to now, we'll be back in five to, yeah? Okay, thank you. Right, so I understand we've just been sent the designs from an officer, oh I'm sorry, we've just gotten a copy of the designs sent by the officer, so those are going to be circulated to members now. Yes, I think that's, yeah, we'll do that by email, should we have another adjournment for how long would you like to read the application? We say, should we say half an hour, twenty minutes, how long do you want? Chair, if I could, because we need to look at these and digest them, not in five seconds, I would propose a motion in my name to defer, to give us time to look at and review properly, this is taxpayers' money we're dealing with, and bring it back to the next meeting. Agreed, supported. The issue is this will be a council scheme, rather than something coming. Do you want to read the papers as they're sent through, to have an idea of what's proposed, and then come back and make the decision now, or do you want to defer the item to the next meeting? I think, even though I would have liked to have got this done and dusted, sending us stuff on email now means it wouldn't have been in the public domain, on the public papers, which they would have had a right to see. So I think it's just, we've just got to defer and do this properly. All right, I can read the room. Councillor Myers' motion to defer still stands, I am seconding that, can I have hands in favour of deferring? Yeah, I think that's all of us. So on the second and third applications, we've deferred them both, so that's option B on the recommendations. I don't think we need to vote on anything further as part of that item. That being the case, item number 12, any other items that the chair decides are urgent, there are none, I therefore declare the meeting closed. Thank you very much everyone. All right. Thank you very much. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript