Transcript

Thank you, everyone. Welcome to members, officers, and members of the public. This is the steering committee. I'm your chair for this evening. I'm the chair for this evening, Council of Old Lemon. Please note that we're currently in the pre-election period for the Burt Oat by-election on the 13th February of this year. So during this time, ordinary Council business can continue, but members are reminded not to refer to candidates or parties in relation to that election. So thank you for ensuring these principles are respected at all times. Please note that the meeting is being recorded and broadcast as allowed for in law. By attending either in person or online, you may be picked up on recordings. Council recordings are covered by a privacy notice, which can be found in the on the relevant page of the relevant page of the Barnet Council website, and maybe retain available online. Just a note to speakers that you'll be allowed three minutes to speak, and then expect to be questioned after that, as the case may be. So when you're not speaking, please make sure your microphone is off to avoid feedback. Okay. Okay. So item one on the agenda is the minutes of the last meeting. It needs to be a correction. Alice Moore did not chair the meeting. Councillor Mitra did. That's correct. It says Councillor Mitra. Yeah. Yeah. Anybody else? Can we take those minutes as approved? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Moving on. I haven't received any apologies from you. All appeared to be a full house. Declarations of members' interests. Anybody? Councillor Cullen. I declare an interest in Councillor Grocock's member's item in relation to Pardis House. I am a LEA governor at that school. Thank you. Thank you. It's noted, and also for myself, whilst chair, I've also got a member's item on for tonight, under item 11. That's non-Q. There's no, nothing under item 4 or item 5. Same goes for 6, 7, 8, and 9. Moving on to item 10, which is the NCL Road Safety and Parking Fund update. Just a note that, in terms of the East Area Committee funding, there's £87,009 left in this year's budget, so members should be aware of that when voting on the next item. And that, also, this item is noted in the context of the Road Safety and Parking Fund budget as well. Open it up to the floor. Unless the officer wants to add anything before we open it up? No? Any questions? Councillor Grocock? Thank you. Could you just confirm that figure again, please? I didn't quite hear it. £87,009. OK. So, we'll move on to, I take it we're in agreement, that's noted? Yeah. OK. So, moving on to item 11. So, we have four agenda items under this particular section, and they're applications for community infrastructure levy funding. The first item is Partis House, that's Councillor Grocott, and I believe you also have the speaker. For this item, do you want to start? If I can come in afterwards, but this item was deferred from the last meeting for further consideration by officers, one of which I think was community safety, but that proved not necessary. I would like to invite the head teacher of Pardes to come and speak on this marvellous application. Thank you. OK. Would you like to come up? So, if you just press the face in front of you. So, you've got three minutes, and then, you know, there will be a period of questions after that. OK. Over to you. Thank you very much. Good evening, councillors, and thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Joel Sake. I'm the head teacher at Partis House Primary School. The largest state-aided, voluntary-aided boys-only primary school in Barnet, in London, and I think possibly the UK. When I joined the school as head teacher in 2012, we had 176 pupils. We have now doubled that, over 100% more. We have 355 pupils in the school. We also continue to expect applications to rise, and the squeeze on us to continue to increase, especially as the only VA boys school in Barnet. And where roles are falling in mainstream schools, including here in Barnet, the demand of faith schools for places, particularly with Jewish schools, is going up and up, including particularly, again, in our school. Other factors that are potentially impacting on the increase in applications in schools, in our community schools, include the Prince Cross Regeneration Plan, and also the Agudas Israel Housing Project in Golders Green. With our huge school, a huge number of pupils, an increasing and large number of staff as well, in both the religious and secular side of the school, and the needs that we have in our school, increasing needs in our school of pupils, I'm here ready to talk about keeping my school safe, and the application I went through to Council with regards to funding for internal CCTV throughout the school. With more voices to monitor and more staff to monitor, the importance of installing CCTV throughout the school cannot and should not be underestimated. Child protection and safeguarding are two separate things. In the event of an allegation being made, and this can happen anywhere, in any school, we would be dealing with child protection, which is about reacting to an allegation that's being made. And one of the first things that the Barnett Local Authority Designated Officer for Child Protection in Bellado, Rob Vatten, always asks me is, do you have any CCTV footage? Every time he asks me, I give him the same answer, no, but I'm really hoping that at some point the funding will come so we can install that in our school. By having the CCTV, our pupils and our staff would both be aware of that. It would help keep the pupils safe, it would help keep the staff safe from allegations and thinking about how they also conduct themselves in the school. And that's where the preventative safeguarding aspect kicks in, which is about preventing things from happening or allegations even being made before we get to that child protection point. It helps everyone think about how they conduct themselves. I want to assure councillors that my school is not the Wild West. Indeed, we had a local authority inspection review today, led by a serving Austin inspector, and he was very complimentary about our boys' behaviour and their manners, etc. What I'm asking for your help, though, please, is in help in preventing allegations from pupil to pupil and any allegations against staff as and when they may happen in such a large, growing school and such a successful school in the community. 360 boys to keep safe, along with all the staff, and providing that extra reassurance to the parents as well about what we are doing for their boys, educationally, emotionally, and to look after them. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Just opening up to questions. Anybody? Councilor Hurden. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation and I understand the safeguarding. I think, as a former teacher, I would question, really, about the use of CCTV within actual lessons, because I think young people may perhaps be a little bit wary of perhaps saying something that they think afterwards, you know, may be taken out of context. And also about possibly the use of any tape, if it could fall into the wrong pen, you might just get a clip, which may be taken out of context. So I do worry a little bit about the education side of it. Thank you. Thank you for your question. I understand completely what you are saying. The idea is not that I sit in my office, eating popcorn and drinking coffee and watching the screens about what's going on in all the classrooms. It's not that at all. The idea is to have the CCTV in the classrooms. And then as and when there is a need for it to be reviewed, to be looked at, in the event of a complaint or an allegation, that we can then go to the recordings of that. It's not designed and we're not intending for it to be intrusive in that way. You're right. Anything can be taken out of context at any time, but it would give us that next layer, that next step up in terms of how we can respond to any complaints in classrooms. It may not be a question for you, it may be a question so I have to take somewhere else, but do most other Barnet primary schools have this internal CCTV system? Is that why the police keep asking you for it? Or rather, I don't think you said you, sorry, there are examples of people being asked for it. Do you know that? You may not know, in which case I'll ask somebody else. Thank you. I don't know about other Barnet schools. And just to clarify, it's not the police who ask me for CCTV, it's the latter. Just to clarify that. I am also a serving Obstet inspector. And I am aware, when I've been into schools, that they do have CCTV in schools specifically for these purposes. Just so that they have something they can respond with in the event of an allegation. My supplementary question, which again may not be something I should be asking you is, I mean, would this not be within the school budget ordinarily? I mean, bear in mind we're looking at SIL and what SIL specific purposes are, would this not fall within the ordinary school's budget? Without being facetious, I would just like to say, I wish. Genuinely, I wish I had anywhere near the budget that I could then spend on something as important as this. Unfortunately, I don't. Councillor Gorkhoff. Councillor Gorkhoff. Councillor Gorkhoff. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. I am aware there are other schools in the borough that have CCTV both within the building and externally. Obviously, for the same reasons as Rabbi Seger has mentioned tonight, but also for those items where non-pupils break into the school to run amok. It is a safety issue. I wholeheartedly support this application. Obviously, I made it. Thank you. Any other questions? I don't know if officers can answer. Have we ever got any other example where council rather than a school has contributed to this sort of facility? Or do we know if all the other schools that have gone along the lines of having this facility have funded it through their own budgets? Do we know that? We'll just open that up to officers, I suppose. No. We don't know of anything. Right. Councillor Gorkhoff. Councillor Gorkhoff. There is one school that I know that did not self-fund nor contribute. It's actually in a ward that I reside. The question is where did the money come from? LEA. Okay. So, I presume that we're all aware that the reason for deferral was to seek legal advice, which we've now had. And that legal advice is that this particular application would be ineligible under SIL and therefore to be approved by this committee. We do have a legal representative here, Mike Jones, who can answer any questions or clarify any items in relation to that. Sorry, I didn't catch what you said, Councillor Lemmon. So, we have a legal representative here. I've had a briefing as well. I believe that communicated to yourselves about the ineligibility of the application for SIL funds. Yes. Councillor Gorkhoff. Thank you, Chair. As we all know, quite a few of us along serving councillors, regardless of what the formal designation may be from officers, it is still the possibility that if this committee wishes to, they can agree such. Thank you. I'm not disagreeing with that. It is up for the committee to decide because it was brought to the previous meeting, but what I'm offering is that we give the chance of the legal representative to make the case on behalf of officers. There's a couple of hands here. So, Councillor Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I mean, I know it says in the report, it says the lead officer review in its state, it says the information officers have been given, it is not considered that the application meets the legal test for the ineligibility to end still. It doesn't actually give the reason. Now, this application went through legal, and I got a document today, which Alice finally sent to me, which I have here, and I'm happy to share with other members of this committee. But I will quote what it says, the issue of JW, on the 7th of August, 2024, in principle, all three applications are acceptable. Now, that's in relation to myself, Councillor Grocox, and Councillor Zinkins' applications which we submitted the legal forms together. Okay? I will also state two other items that I asked for, which were in relation to the items which were heard last meeting. One which was the Church Lane Community Garden Centre. And again, I'll quote, again, this is JW again, a month later, after my application was considered by legal, which they said was applicable for seal. And I'll quote the same officer. Again, in principle, all fine and passes the test, but would prefer if the application was related to development in the area, rather than increase in population. I'll leave out the last bit. Whilst my comments said the application should refer to development in the area, I did not insist this was incorporated into the final report. So, for one member, it is insisted, and for one member, it's not insisted. That's one item. Okay? I will then quote another item. Again, it is about a week after my one was considered by the officer. The application is fine in principle, but like others in the past, it does not refer to development in the area. An increase in population only may be as a result of new development, but this should be stated. This went forward without mention of any new development in the area, just an increase in population. In hindsight, I should not have approved it. Okay? So, there's no, you know, it's either, there's no consistency here in terms of the legal, well, there is consistency, but when it comes to committee, there's no consistency. Okay, so, Councillor Rich, and then I propose we hear the legal advice, and then, as has been already made clear, it's up to members to decide whether they agree with that legal advice or not. Councillor Rich? Well, some sympathy is what Councillor Cain has just said, but I really want to just hear what the legal advice on this particular one is. My reason for so doing, amongst other things, is I'm not aware, and I did formally chair one of the area committees, of school CCTV being approved. In fact, I turned down a number of school applications where they could only demonstrate that it supported the particular school but not the community as a whole. So, I need to be persuaded, and I may yet be, having heard some of what the rabbi headteacher, respected rabbi headteacher said, that this growth in the number of pupils, which is the first point, I think, being made, I mean, there are other points, is directly resulting from new developments. And even were that the case, I'd still want to be satisfied, but bearing in mind that sill money comes from is primarily developers creating new housing, usually, which leads to requirements for new infrastructure, how this comes down to be new infrastructure. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. If I hand over now to our legal representative, who will be able to present his opinion. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. The current legal advice in this matter is of the view that this particular application does not fall within the terms of a legitimate sill payment. The point is that in order for payment to qualify under the sill regulations, there must be an improvement, replacement, operation of infrastructure in order to support the development of the authorities area. Now, the important thing to realize is infrastructure is defined as including roads and other transport facilities, flood defences, schools and other educational facilities, medical facilities, sporting and recreational facilities and open spaces. Now, the point is that when lawyers look at particular applications under sill they have regard to these words and also consider anything that is concerned with and addresses the demands resulting from the development in the area. Now, in the view of the legal office, this particular application does not qualify have regard to those specific wording of the sill regulations. And you have to be careful in considering such matters because obviously any third party who may disapprove of this course of action, if they have a locus standi, may indeed seek to challenge the decision of the authority. So, one has to be firmly based on the reasoning by application to the wording of the sill regulations. And that is all that we have been seeking to do in this particular case. The point is that when people put in applications, it is best if they have regard to the legal framework, the wording, and then seek to argue a case with specific facts relevant to those criteria to bring out a justified case. We often find that some people put forward applications without reference to any of these specific criteria and that puts the authority in a difficult position because it is difficult to assess a particular application when no specific justification is made by reference to specific development. One should have regard to the fact that normally, though it is not exclusively necessary, it is obviously helpful to refer to specific development in the locality that seeks to benefit from the sill regs. It is not a specific legal requirement, but obviously it makes sense to do so. So, in those circumstances, we have had a look at the circumstances related to this application and we have extreme difficulty in trying to fit in the terms of the case within the terms of the wording of those regulations. I should say that the authority also has the benefit of independent advice from the council. We have council's opinion and I can obviously distribute copies of council's opinion if you are so required. Thank you for that. Councillor Grocock. Thanks, Chair. Mindful that my application for Stevens House and Gardens, my first one, which was fairly recently, hops given a jump away from this location. The census detail, population, increase in young people, can that not be used or contribute to this? And if my original application was processed, due diligence, queries, checks and everything were done at that time and put on the agenda and then subsequently deferred to this one, something's gone majorly wrong here. Is that what we're saying? Andrew? Through you, Chair. Through you, Chair. So, the requirement for the legal check to take place was introduced by Cabinet in July. So, it would have been in September when the first round of committees came through that required that check to take place. So, it was the Stevens House application in September of last year. Yeah, and I think that there were concerns raised by officers after it had been published about its eligibility, which has triggered it to be reviewed. So, when you're comparing the Stevens House application, that would have been considered under a previous regime is the point that I'm making. So, the legal check was introduced in July 2024. Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, exactly the point. This went through the new process of the legal check and it was approved by legal. And the reason why it was deferred was not because of this. The reason why it was deferred was because of the query about it going to the community safety, right? That's the reason, because they weren't consulted. And the other point I would make, which the officer didn't mention, is that there seems to have been a question about whether the CCTV, which I'm picking up on Councillor Rich's point, is infrastructure. It's not, there's not infrastructure, it is an infrastructure cost, as it is, as the seal also has been spent on CCTV in the borough, on the borough-wide CCTV, it's infrastructure. And the seal is an applicable expense on education and schools, as was approved and commented on Cabinet back in September, I think it was, July. Yeah. Yeah. Now, one of the correspondents referred to CCTV. The reason why it went through was because it was thought that CCTV was for externally, an external part of the building and not the internal, hence why it wasn't applicable. Perhaps the officer can comment on that. Yes. OK, so there's two points there, one about external to the building and one about if it's infrastructure, why isn't it eligible? I think that the problem here is that it is difficult to actually pinpoint at present any specific development in the locality that requires this particular piece of work to be carried out. It's difficult to interpret this particular piece of work as falling within the definition of infrastructure as such, and I have to say that it's more a matter of a unconnected matter concerning management of the interior of the building, which has very little to deal with issues relating to infrastructure as such. As such, it is far too far removed from the impact of development as such within the locality and therefore in those circumstances, it's difficult to actually justify to have regard to the regulations under which we are obliged to act. So, in my view, it is difficult to construct an argument which would in any way satisfy the terms of the regulations. I do know that from the specific legal opinion upon which I rely upon which I rely upon counsel that he also considered the possibility of a case related to employment training and school services and formed the view that those also would not fall within the terms of the CIL regulations. What it is, what it is, what it is, is matter of effectively management and improving social facilities within an existing structure, and as such, it is not directly related to new development within the locality. It is therefore difficult to defend the point if one were challenged. Thank you. Okay, so Councillor Rich first. I just want some clarification. I mean, I have other issues about whether or not development in a particular school is of community benefit, other than a particular school community, but that's a different question. Am I right to say the Cabinet has changed the rules under which CIL money should be allocated, or rather, let me put it differently, tightened up the way in which we operate the rules? Is that what I've heard, or have I misheard that? Through you, Chair. So just to be clear, there's two types of CIL, so there's CIL and there's neighbourhood CIL. So local authorities need to allocate 15% of their CIL receipts as neighbourhood CIL, and it's the neighbourhood CIL that's decided by these committees. And Cabinet in July of last year, based on some of the previous applications that have been through area committees, decided to tighten up the criteria, essentially. So, yes, that's what you are hearing. And so that tightening up, which was a brilliant, because I'm not here at the last meeting, since I can make it. I wasn't here at the last meeting, so I can make no comment about the last meeting. But this is the first meeting, it's not the first meeting, when? So Cabinet decided last July that we should be under new, tightened, whatever you choose to call it, enhanced or reinterpreted something, criteria, and that came into operation when? It was agreed in July, and it was the first round of area committees in September, and that applied across all three of the area committees, and I think that's what Councillor Cohen's referring to in terms of what he's got in front of him. But if I just follow up, so in September when I wasn't here, this was considered legally acceptable under the Cabinet's new criteria or not? Can I have an opinion from officers on that as well? And then it got deferred, and then, sorry, at the last meeting I wasn't here. Chair, so the item was, after the agenda was published, and before the meeting took place, there was a request to review it in light of the existing CCTV strategy, at which point it was also re-looked at against the legal criteria. Okay, does anybody else need to speak before we go to the vote? Okay, Councillor Grogop. Thank you, Chair. I just want to draw attention to the items that Councillor Cohen was just talking about. So the Underhill item was dated the 16th of August, Mike Pardo's house, 27th of August. Underhill application, sorry, 7th of August, was successful. No developments, any extra developments built in that area. Okay, that's a legal opinion, is that something that we can answer here? Legal opinion, it's a moral opinion by the two- Well, no, there's a two- I mean, you know, if something was wrong before, it doesn't mean it should be one candidate at the same time. Through the Chair, Councillor Cohen, and Councillor H. Okay, Councillor Mayer? So, I'm just even now more confused. So, from what I've heard from the legal advisor is, I don't really follow it, to be honest. But what I've heard from Councillor Cohen is, this has been approved, and it is fine within the law to approve this as members of this committee, should we wish to. That's correct. Ultimately, it's up to members to approve this or not, based on the legal advice. It falls within the remit approved by Cabinet. The new NCIL funding was released by Cabinet whenever it was a year ago. Ultimately, Cabinet set the framework, and officers will assess applications against those framework and make recommendations. It's down to the committee to decide against the criteria. So, that's ultimately the committee's decision. Okay, I was going to go to the vote in that case. All those in... Okay, last one then. Thank you. The fact of the matter is, that this application was approved, the same criteria was used by legal, to the other applications that were approved, but the other applications decided to turn a blind eye to it, as confirmed by the lawyers today, but for my application decided not to turn a blind eye. It is. It says it in black and white ear. It says it in black and white ear. Okay, we can argue this until the cows come home. Hang on a minute. But ultimately, we've got to make a decision tonight. That's not going to... Yeah, that's fine. That's a fair point. That's why it went through the new process, specifically going through legal, and they confirmed, in writing, that they are happy with the application, and it complies with ENCIL. Okay, well, that's not the case anymore. You have the latest opinion, and I suggest we go to the vote on this. So, all those in favour of the application, please raise your hand. That's rejected. Sorry. Next item. So, that's Councillor Cohen, he's Crescent. Would you like to speak to this, or...? All right, but it's the same, the same rule that I started to get approved, and now it's on the conference. Hang on a second. It's not the same at all. Sorry? It hasn't been legal advice on this particular... Yes, it has. On the same... I told you, if you're listening to me, Mr Chairman, the fact of the matter is, on the 7th of August, the lawyers confirm, in principle, all three applications, this was one of them, are acceptable. The lawyer has the confirmation in front of him, on page two of the report that was sent to me today. All applications are acceptable. Okay. Would you like to speak to it, then? And therefore, I propose that this money is granted. I know there's only £87,000 left, and you obviously need it for the second item. So, the fact of the matter is, let's treat everyone fairly, and distribute the funds accordingly. Okay, I'd like to bring Alice in on this one. Just in terms of the comments about legality, and... Just in terms of the comments about legality, and whether this is eligible. I want to make it clear that I've been a past chair of this committee, and been a member of the committee for some time, and I've never treated applications unfairly. I've heard an application today, a previous application, which legally was advised was no longer suitable, and that's the base on which I voted against it. My question about this one has nothing to do with legality. It has to do with, as I understand it, civil funding is divided into two parts. One part goes to roads and highways and those types of things, and the neighbourhood goes for other things. Now, what I want to know is, why is this application, if it is about a roadway, and curbing, and partying, and pavement, which I understand it is, unless I've misunderstood it, why has this not gone through the traffic division, if I can call it that, or the highways division, or the highway authorities' civil budget, rather than come to here? That's my question. It's not about legality. Okay. Any other questions? No? In that case, then, we can go straight to the vote, unless anybody else has got anything to add. Sorry, Chair, is legal not going to come in and answer Councillor Rich's question? Might be helpful. I haven't questioned the legal, legality of this matter. I want to know why it isn't in the roads budget, because we have a civil roads budget that decides on which roads should be done, in which order, and all of that. And I understood, my understanding was, and of course, I can be wrong on those things, but I understood that this committee dealt with non-roads and highways matters. So that's what I'm asking the question. I'm asking whether it's legal or not. Okay. I can come in on that one anyway, because of the email that was sent around, and I think it was yesterday, explaining about the prioritization of the budget in terms of footways and that I think it was something along the lines of Hayes-Crescent wouldn't meet criteria for funding for 25-26, but it would possibly for 26-27 and onwards, if nothing else changed in terms of the conditions of other roads. Councillor Cohen? On Councillor Richard's point there, while I take his point on that there is another budget for roads, just like there's also another budget for improvements in parks, as a park's budget that concentrates on play equipment, and there was a specific budget for that as well. And people come and funding is required for this to top it up and to supplement it, and there's also a criteria for that. If I might respond to that, I don't think it's the same type of question. The roads budget, as I understand, goes through a whole process, the borough is assessed as a whole, and roads are put into orders of priority about uncurbing and all of those other traffic matters, if I can call them that. As I understand it, we don't have the same capital project that says that goes through park by park by park by park, but we allocate a certain amount of our capital money for parks, and then there's a process, and there are different processes, as I understand it. I'm happy, of course, always to be corrected by officers or, indeed, my fellow councillors. Councillor Cohen? Maybe Mr Gunyan can confirm or deny, but were you saying that anything that comes to this committee in terms of play equipment, there is no other... I mean, for example, now, when we're about to discuss the play equipment, is there no other play equipment in this borough that hasn't had budget allocated to it that is the end of life that needs replacing? Can I bring in Matt Gunyan on that one? Thank you, Chair. So, for parks and playgrounds, there is... So, for parks, we have a capital programme that's spent across various different work streams, and for playgrounds, there isn't a set programme, as Councillor Rich said, that says we'll work through these particular playgrounds. So, they're dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In the case of the next item on the list in relation to New Southgate Recreation Ground, there are other improvements going into the park that relate to revenue generation through the creation of a new cafe, and improvements to the playground would help support that going forwards. There is... We have some other capital funding that we're looking to use to complement any allocation from the area committee in order to deliver that scheme. Yes. Any other questions? Okay. We'll go to the vote on this one. All those in favour of Councillor Cohen's application, please raise your hand. That's three, four. And all those against. So, that's rejected. So, moving on, we're actually going to go to item four now, which will become evident once we come to what would be my final item, which is Southgate Rec. So, Councillor Webb, I believe you have a speaker that you've invited along. Do you want to speak first, or...? So, do you want to speak first, or do you want to introduce...? Okay. Yeah. And continues to, and Kat will explain a lot more to the benefits as where this is going to be located. The Freehold Centre's on the N10 side of my ward. It does a lot of really excellent community work. At the minute, it's also the hub for the poor people that have still got the gas outage. But they've also got quite a lot of space around the actual building, and that is where this work will take place. So, this will both complement and enhance the community work in the area. It will give benefit to the people that are working on the idea of making more food and growing more, and it will also help for well-being for people that attend it for other various classes and activities that carry on there. So, I can just really only commend it. Thank you. Okay. Well, you have three minutes to speak, and then you might well be answered a few questions, so you can just remain seated afterwards. And, yeah, go over it. Okay. Thank you. My name is Kat Kaur. I'm a strategist in the public health team, and I also would like to introduce Neela Patel, who's here, has been a participant in our community food growing project this past year. So, she's also here to answer any questions. So, I just wanted to say that this project was piloted last year in 2024, and it's really in line with the Barnett food plan, which includes not only addressing food insecurity, but also addressing food growing. So, when we did the consultation on the food plan, there was a really big demand for community food growing. And as part of our work on the food plan, we've developed a really good network of food growers and food banks and food educators. And working together, one of the things that we identified was that we need more leaders in the community that are trained to establish and run community gardens, because we know that we have seven or eight really amazing people in this borough who are leading food growing projects, but we need to have more of those people. So, we created this project with funding from the Prevention Fund, Public Health Prevention Fund last year, and we established four sites across the borough. And today, we're talking about the one at Freehold Community Centre. And we aimed to train 30 community food growing leaders. We actually trained 57. And we don't expect that all of them are going to start a new community food growing site, but we hope that they are going to be starting smaller, even little small projects at the end of their road, or at their school, or at their synagogue, wherever they, wherever is close to them. So, yeah. We wanted to say just a little bit about what we did really well this past year. And we did do a baseline and an endline survey, and we got really great feedback in terms of health and well-being. So, not only did participants improve their food growing skills and knowledge, but they also reported better health and well-being. And really important was they felt more connected to their community. And we've also been asking participants, what have you done as a result of this project? And they have reported getting involved with other projects across the community, whether they be food growing or other environmental projects. And some have already volunteered to run new projects at our four sites. So, we're really excited about the opportunity to expand and build upon this project. And particularly, I think, at Freehold, it's really great to see this site being used for many different purposes. and the outdoor area has been really rejuvenated by the food growers. And there's been a really great partnership established or relationship established with the local primary school nearby that also does food growing. Is that three minutes? Okay. I can stop there. Okay. I'm opening up to questions. Councillor Rich. If I read your budget correctly, again, I'm happy to be told that I didn't. Some of this money is for paying for trainers. Is that right? That's correct. So, at Freehold Community Centre, we had two trainers work with participants all last year. Now, the current participants want to take on the site themselves. And so, we've just included some small budget line for the previous trainers to give some support throughout the year just to keep them to have sort of experts. Well, if I read it, it's 2,800 out of the 6,000 is training salaried hours, if I understood it. Yeah. And although it's not your question, I would, of course, I mean, the legal affairs department did make a reference to training. And so, I will want to know from the legal office that that that's been approved as appropriate. That's all. But thank you for the answer to your question. So, is that a question? You said Council made a specific reference to training as sometimes being not an appropriate use of neighbourhood seal. This application, which seems to me generally I would want to support, has about a quarter, no, a third of its budget is for training trainers to deliver certain things. Sorry, for trainers to help people to use the grant. I want to know whether legal took any view on that. Bearing in mind, Council made a specific reference to training in some of what it had to say, that was all. Is that something you're able to answer now? Thank you. Agenda when it seems it has gone through that process and has been approved, but it's for you as members to make that call. I'm terribly sorry. There's no... I'm sorry. Councillor Grocock, through the chair, please. Thank you, Chair. May I just ask, the Community Garden Project, it's in Coppets Ward, reference here to Basing Hill and Montrose Park. Is that in Coppets Ward? So the project, last year, we have had one plot of funding for four sites. This year, for Area Committee, we've split the proposals into three. So if there's a mention of Basing Hill and Montrose, those are being dealt with separately at the other Area Committee. Yeah, so they've gone through to other Area Committees in line with this one. Councillor Hutton? Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. So what happens... So the training budget is $2,800. Is that right? So what happens when we get to the end of the budget? Are you not going to be training any more trainers or they won't get paid? I'm not clear about the ongoing cost. Last year was intensive training to train a larger cohort of food growers. This year, the costs are lower at freehold because the people who have been trained are now going to run the site. So we really just have that budget line for a little bit of support as they stand on their own two feet. Is it going to be a self-sufficient project then at the end of the day? Will it support itself? I mean, that site is all set up already. We've already... I mean, there wasn't too much that needed to be done last year. So there's very minimal costs really for soil and some small materials and the trainers just to offer a bit of support. So it... In theory, it should be sustaining itself next year. Councillor Mayer. Two questions, if I may. I know in here we mention other sites which would have gone through civil funding, so Basingham and Montrose. Do we know if those have been successful? And then I guess the point would go probably linked to Councillor Rich's point, which is there needs to be some sort of... governance being the wrong term here, but legal review in depth of these because if we're asked to vote on something which, by the sounds of it, would have been captured and a third of the budget would have been sort of red penned before it came here, that should really be done. OK, so there's two points there. I'm not sure off the top of my head whether the North and West have happened yet. Andrew? North happened earlier in January and I'll have a look now and see whether that was approved and West has been deferred until the 24th of February because of the burnout by-election that they have that application on the agenda for that meeting. And on the legal point, my understanding is that it hasn't been raised as an issue during that legal process and the fact that you have these two other applications going to two other committees suggests that it's not come up as an issue. So, I think we just have to vote on it, on the merits of what we've got in front of us. Councillor Cohen? I mean, again, there has to be consistency. We've talked about infrastructure and this application has I don't think there's any infrastructure of it. I mean, there's training and the other bit of it is I don't believe it's infrastructure. It's I think it says staffing costs or something other. running costs running costs running costs running costs and teaching and training that's what it says down there. May I respond? Yeah. Go for it. So, in our legal pro forma we really outlined how these projects respond directly to increased density of population through the new developments. I don't have it right in front of me but we did cite the specific developments that are putting pressure on the area and this project is designed to respond to, say, people living in flats that don't have access to gardens so we feel that it does respond to the pressures of development. I was going to say and ask for clarification from our legal advisor here, so if we are voting today on something which potentially shouldn't be still funded that is acceptable. we are using our powers as councillors to vote something through which could be challenged effectively. Is there a view on Andrew? As I think I've said on previous applications officers will assess it against the relevant criteria and they will give advice to members but ultimately it's down to the committee to decide so I think the legal check on this was if it was eligible it's ultimately down to you to decide. Okay, if there's nothing to do all those in favour of the application against so that's carried thank you to the final application which I'm sponsoring so I'll just rather than go through what I went through I think it was back in September I'll just explain that so the green spaces team have developed a project and this is part of a wider scheme within New Southgate Wreck is to convert part of the existing changing pavilion into a cafe which will include public toilets and along with that with the playground will encourage families to spend more time in the wreck a financially successful cafe in the park will generate an annual rent that contributes towards the management maintenance of the boroughs parks and open spaces the majority of the existing playground equipment is nearing the end of its life and will need to be replaced soon with the addition of funding from the area committee the green spaces team will then be able to deliver a more inclusive playground including a sloped access climbing frame based on learnings from the fair play barnet playground the existing layer allows a step free access and lend itself to this design opportunity the green spaces team allocated from its existing capital program a contribution from the area committee I believe in the amount of what's effectively left in the budget which is £80,573 with that this more inclusive design will become a reality as the available area committee budget is unable to match the request I am now proposing that we allocate the remaining £80,573 to this application rather than the current 129 I believe it is and green spaces have confirmed that it will absorb the project management contingency cost of the original bid and will work to secure funding for any shortfall in order to deliver the currently proposed scheme to the other questions from anybody nothing okay we'll go to the votes all those in favour against that's the end of the meeting thank you very much and just to I think the next proposed meeting in March would have been the end of the financial year meeting for this year's cycle municipal year that is no longer happening I understand yeah that's correct so there is no further meetings because there is no funding well this being the final meeting of the municipal year for this committee may I as the vice chair take this opportunity to say thank you to you for your chairing and thank you to all of the officers who are staffing and clerking and working on all the many various projects of this committee this committee is always one of the more interesting ones because I think residents can see very much on the ground in their communities the sorts of things the council does the sorts of applications that gets approved and they're very very meaningful to the residents who benefit from them so can I thank you chair the officers and all the members of the committee thank you thank you Arjun and hopefully I presume everyone cheers thanks cheers thank you thanks to the who ever

Transcript