Transcript
The Cabinet has to find a way of hearing what residents are saying and responding to it. In addition, I urge the Cabinet to consider the TfL definition of a bus station, as this will help ensure that residents' access to transport is not made worse by any development. The other document relevant to Edgware this evening is the Edgware SPD, and I'm asking Cabinet that if they put the local plan forward, that they ask officers to urgently review the Edgware SPD to see how the SPD can be altered to mitigate our residents' concerns.
The last question.
Thank you, Professor Baker. I know this is an issue that you're very much concerned with, and a concern to residents in your ward. There were three aspects to that question. The first is that, obviously, the local plan process has been going on for about nine years. The site allocations have been there right from the beginning. And actually, the final consultation is about the modifications that the inspectors made.
So, there is really no scope. It's basically telling you, you have to change your plan to make it in accordance with what we could accept that you could adopt. So, it is very limited.
They did actually reduce the numbers that Edgware, the inspectors, very marginally, but they did reduce it slightly. But those sites were part of the planning process, and within the framework of the wider London plan, where Edgware is a major town centre, and within the framework of the supplementary planning document.
The local plan supersedes anything that re-exists. So, to some extent, well, when this is a document, and to some extent, you know, I think it's arguable that when the local plan is adopted, the supplementary planning document has less impact, because actually, of its nature, it's a supplement to the existing previous local plan.
It still has planning. It's still a planning document, but it's of less a crucial importance than the actual local plan once adopted.
So, I think, for the reasons that you've said, you know, the cabinet aren't able to, and the council either has to adopt the plan, or it has to throw itself onto the Secretary of State, potentially, if we were to refuse to adopt the plan.
The whole process of the local plan involved a cross-party working group. It was actually very collegiate. There were relatively small changes that, as an incoming administration, we made.
Some of those were to be more in compliance with ongoing changes within the planning framework that came from government.
Actually, all the processes in relation to the impotence of the local plan really predate the current government. They come from the inspector regime under the previous Secretaries of State.
So, I think, you know, it's a long process. The application that's been made will have to be determined with the planning committee. Those concerns residents have, and that you have, the planning committee needs to take care of those.
In relation to the bus station, that, you know, that actually was referred to by, that was brought up with inspectors. The response is that it's not a planning, the definition of bus station is a matter for TFL.
It's not a planning consideration. So, clearly, the committee will be asked to have a view on that.
The TFL will have to, I would have thought, come forward with a view on that, but it isn't a planning matter. The inspector did look at the suitability of, obviously, the importance, and did comment on this, of maintaining the bus.
I mean, you know, one of the things we did do was we did express, you know, we wanted, we didn't want a building that was higher than a building that we consented in Barnet. We didn't already. We didn't want the, we expressed concerns about parking, level of parking, and about the total overall number.
And actually, from where we started, they did listen to some of that, not enough to satisfy, you know, some people, obviously, committee, I won't be involved in the decision making around this.
But we did, we did, we did feedback, you know, as the developer, obviously, listening to the consultation.
And, you know, ultimately, this is for the planning process, in terms of the, you know, the committee to look at the various concerns, and that's the right forum to do so.
I mean, I personally don't have a problem with, you know, passing on TFL comments about the bus station.
That seems to be a reasonable thing to do, because, you know, people have genuine concerns.
And I, and I've certainly, you know, I've been to public meetings about edge where I'm quite happy to be, you know, and I understand why people have concerns.
And it's obviously the duty of the planning committee to, to weigh the concerns with the wider planning context and application going, development going forward.
So, they will have to assess the current application in those terms within the planning framework and, and, and take on board the comments that residents made in relation to that application.
Certainly, you know, I think in relation to the bus station, it's not a planning matter, but we can feedback by just passing on perhaps without, I don't, I'm not going to get into the business of defining what a bus station is, planning concerns.
The bus station point, I'm grateful, happy to pass on, but the wider point is just something for you to reflect on as to whether, I mean, it will be an ongoing, a, the regeneration of edge where will be an ongoing process.
And I think as part of that, it's important also to have a, listen to local residents and have some sort of, you know, we all, we already have the business area, but have, you know, a partnership board and be able to listen to residents as things go on.
Once we know where we recollect on the road, when the council turned that one down.
And in that case, everybody who wants to have the opportunity to, compared to what happened.
To be fair, the report that will be presented to the planning committee will list the objections and number of objections and so on.
So it's not just one voice.
There's a bit of an echo there.
But as I say, the 15 minutes are almost up and I do want, but there's two, two quick things.
And I'll give a bit of flexibility.
Scrutiny may come suggestions, including the bus company, the bus station.
We will look at that as part of our discussion.
I would note that this is the local plan from 2021 to 2036 to put in a definition now.
There's something that limits things in 15 or in over 10 years time is a difficult one.
It's a planning objection.
It's not a local plan.
I understand that, which is why we made the suggestion as to how to deal with that.
Vis-a-vis a letter to the public.
Can we do some other questions very quickly, though?
And the answers will be shorter.
Thank you.
Yeah, thank you.
I do appreciate it.
On page 1383 of tonight's pack, if you want to look at it, there is a section in the final SBD about community assets.
If you look on page 25 of that, the final supplementary planning document, it makes clear a statement that assets of community use must stay as community use if there is a need.
Therefore, how can the council be advertising Canada Villas and Mill Hill East, which is a site used by the community?
Well, first of all, what's on here?
Hasn't been agreed because we haven't come to it on the agenda, if that makes sense.
It's being advertised at the moment.
It's been advertised before this, but the advert sale is a contractual thing once you get into that.
And there's also a duty on councillors to try and get the best value when it comes, you know, when these things come through.
Thank you.
I know our residents are quite anxious there as well.
Peter had another question, but I don't know if we've run out of time.
I don't know why I'm being so kind, but I will be.
But can we just have the question rather than ten supplementaries as well?
Well, this is really a question about process because, sorry, this is a question about process because at Overview and Scrutiny, we discussed the transport strategy motions which has been referred to you from council.
And I don't really understand how this works because there were a large number of detailed comments about the transport strategy.
As the next iteration of the transport strategy that comes to Cabinet, I understand will be a document because we were told the document we received.
And this also applies to the food waste document as well.
So a draft document comes to Overview and Scrutiny.
We make a whole host of comments.
But by the time you get those comments formally, the document is iterated to a final version.
So by the time you get the final version, it's too late for the comments to have any weight.
So I'm not sure we've got the right process for feedback and strategy.
And I think that's something we need to think about because, you know, there were a lot of comments on transport and food waste.
And we would ask the Cabinet members to take those into account.
They can ignore them.
Obviously, you're entitled to do that.
But to at least look at them while the strategy is being worked on.
So that the work that Overview and Scrutiny has done is not completely wasted.
It's hard to say on the process, the comments from Overview and Scrutiny,
now some of those might be fed into the final document and therefore not be as relevant.
I'm happy when things get Overview and Scrutiny have said.
Now, again, it may have moved on.
I don't know when the plans to bring it.
I don't think there's going to be big changes between the draft and so on, but it's not much, you know.
Well, with regards to both of those documents, they weren't drafts.
And the transport strategy that came screwing, it wasn't a draft.
It was just setting out the overall principles that we're using to develop the strategy.
And a result of that, that's pre-decision scrutiny, as Barry said.
Those points that were raised will feed through into the development of both of those plans.
And also, as agreed, we would come back to scrutiny if practicable, I think is what Councillor Rich said.
So time permitting, they can come back to scrutiny.
But that's the whole point.
Your points are being considered and fed into the process.
I thought it was actually quite a productive meeting.
No, I agree.
I think it was a productive meeting.
But my point is that while I don't have care about the transparency of the process of the Council,
and all I'm saying is there's a difference between overview and scrutiny making comments,
officers taking them into account, and then that being reflected in the final document,
and in some sense, the public who follow, and it just may be worth thinking about.
That's all.
But the whole idea of pre-decision scrutiny is to give the ability to alter the final document,
to have an input into the final document, and to what's being consulted upon.
And obviously, at Council, you can also take the notes and do it on the consult page.
It is over 20 minutes.
I'm going to be told off.
But thank you for your questions.
Right.
On items five, six, and seven, the petitions, deputations, and public questions, there are none.
We then go to the matters referred to the executive, and these other three Council motions have been referred.
The motion is in the name of Councillor Snyderman about welcoming the commitment of the Mayor Sadiq Khan on transport.
The motion from Peter Zincon that I amended about the supporting businesses,
the motion from Councillor Jennifer Grocock, amended by Councillor Conway,
which was carried about tackling the epidemic of violence against women and girls.
Are Cabinet members in agreement to note the referred motion and endorse the resolution to make that Councillor on the 28th of January 2025 in relation to these three motions?
Yeah.
Noted.
Now, as a combined thing, item nine is a consideration of the report from the opening scrutiny, but they are about the local plan.
So we're taking them as part of the discussion on item 10 on the local plan.
And yes, if you want to introduce it, Councillor Mitchell.
I mean, nine years.
It was, as I say, involved a cross-party advisor that met at least 12 times, various rounds of public consultation and examinations in public.
And what we're now doing is when we're looking at the final amendments made by the inspector following the final round of consultation.
And we're considering the consultation in response to the final suggestions made by the inspector.
The reality is that the inspector basically tells you how to make your local plan compliant with something that they can recommend for adoption.
And there's a very detailed, an appendix to this report, which that makes an interesting reading for the schedule of main modifications to the local plan.
And so what we're really doing is adopting those main modifications to make our local plan compliant so that we can take it to full council for adoption.
And then we're looking at the final discussion.
I would say that one of the controversial parts of this has been the site selection, which we've heard about earlier.
That process started in 2018.
In relation to edgware, there's also, as was raised earlier, the 2021 supplementary planning document edgware growth area document.
Now, it is fair to say that the inspector, if you read the schedule of main modifications, did actually take into account a lot of representations that were made during that final phase in relation to edgware.
And was comfortable with, in terms of modifications with the numbers that were put into the local plan for edgware and the other sites.
There were other changes. There were concerns around the drainage in particular.
And one of the things that is very apparent during the process that last, say, as long as it does for a local plan is that the regulatory framework changes.
So when you get to the final stages of the local plan, you basically adopt changes to the natural planning policy framework and changes around biodiversity, net gain and all those things.
So we will have, once this adopted, the newest local plan in London, it will be a local plan that has taken into account a lot of the changing agenda in relation to net zero and sustainability.
And those are very, very positive things.
One of the sets of changes that we did make as a new administration was to try and clarify affordable housing in relation to the targets.
And what I would say was toughening up the affordable housing, the parts of the local plan in terms of what we expect in terms of affordable housing.
It's a really interesting document because it's basically, it is what it says.
It's a local, it's a plan that actually provides a framework for how our borough is going to change in the next decade.
It only goes to 2026, 2036, and we will have to, once it's adopted, start a process that will allow it to be refreshed.
But it will give our planning department a really far richer ability to be tough with developers about being compliant with the whole raft of very good policy suggestions that cover a whole range of issues from affordable housing to design to biodiversity to all those sort of things.
And so having, having this will place us in a very strong position as a borough, particularly in light of the fact that we just had a change of government and a new agenda.
There's the pressure of the national planning policy framework.
Having an upstate local plan is one of the issues that government's really concerned about, and it's going to get very tough with local governments that don't.
We have to adopt it. It's actually been, I think, actually remarkably not controversial, irrespective of the concerns people have about particular sites.
There was a lot of agreement cross-party on this, and I think all the councillors and all the officers involved in this process can be very proud to have got to this stage.
And with a local plan that I think really sets a very positive future for the borough, and it's a borough of growth.
We are delivering very high expectations in relation to growth in line with government, provides a framework to enable us to deliver that growth, that much needed affordable housing.
So I think, you know, I'd recommend to cabinet that we adopt the local plan, obviously, and if there are any questions that people have, I can answer them or any technical questions we've got to our planning team here.
And one thing I would just like, before I finish, is there is one, several planning officers have been involved in this very much through the whole process.
And I would particularly like to mention to Nick Lynch, who's at the meeting, but online, because this is, you know, adopting this plan is a major kind of milestone for the borough.
And I think all the planning team can be justly proud and positively recommend this.
All right. I'd like to add my thanks to the officers. I was on that working party. In fact, when we first started looking at it, it was before I had grey hair.
So you can see what the local plan's done to me. I don't know what it's done to Nick and other people. But it is a, I think, on the whole, it's a very good document.
We do need to note that scrutiny did bring up a couple of points, but they are the ones that Councillor Wakeley brought up about taking account of the fact there's a lot of opposition and the bus station.
As I said, I'd be very wary of trying, A, I don't think we can add anything. We should add anything. You either accept it or you don't.
It will go to full council where I'm sure the same things be brought up. But for a plan that's meant to be looking over 10 years in the future, I don't think you'd be caught by defining one, you know, one matter that might change.
Anyway, it's open for any comments.
Councillor Clarke.
Thank you, leader. And again, thanks to all the officers who have been in the party.
I can't say everything I listened to, but some of it was, so that was positive.
But in any case, I just wanted to ask, so we heard from opposition councillors earlier today reflecting residents' concerns of the removal of the site from the local plan.
I'm just wondering if we could have clarity on when the SPD and the inclusion of the Edgeworth plan have ended.
I think, I mean, the Edgeworth Town Centre has been recognised at London plan level for decades, I think, as a major town centre.
In 2018 was when the site selection background report was published.
We then had a supplementary planning document that entered a growth area in 2021, which was adopted under the previous administration.
We did, at the time, have some concerns, and we raised a committee about there being no limits on height in relation to SPD.
But also, one of the things that we did, too, when we were, as we had put them forward by the planning inspector, and that was one of the areas where, actually, there was clarification about, and the useful clarification that came out of the inspector's inspection process, but we didn't get what we wanted in relation to the restrictions on height.
So, I, but this is basically, these sites have been there from the start, and it was always the intention of the council under the previous administration, and, and, and, and carry through this with the local plan and the London plan, because planning is a national, a London-wide, and a local borough process, and it's not done in isolation.
So, you know, you know, you have to get, you know, you have to get the government to agree what you want to do, because they have national and London-wide housing targets.
So, you know, the Barnet Council has, you know, brought Edgware forward as a suitable site for major regeneration, you know, when the site allocations were brought forward.
And as I said earlier to Councillor Wakeley, the inspector did reduce the numbers slightly at Edgware, did the, the, the, the, the modifications report that the inspector came up with.
They, they, they do go through it in quite a bit of detail, many of the aspects that, that, that, that are raised around Edgware, and address them, and say, actually, local plan is compliant, and we're happy, we're, we're satisfied with the numbers that are in there.
They, so yes, it, it is the detail about the actual planning application, because all this is, the local plan is a framework.
It doesn't mean to say that's what we deliver. Planning application is a separate process, and the committee will look at it within the context of the framework.
What the local plan does is it stops things going beyond what, if you didn't have local plan, it would be nothing to stop someone saying, well, build, you know, we'll have 6,000 homes in Edgware.
This local plan actually will put a cap on, on that, so, you know, not having a planning framework means you, you need yourself open to national government, determining things without potentially the, and,
and, and stepping in and eventually putting higher numbers on, on an audience site, and that, that has, I think, I mean, Nero might be able to comment on this, but I think,
if, if, if, if, when that has had sites, taking account, control, I don't know, Nero, if you want to.
I think it delivers the right kind of community, so I think, in essence, the plan should be seen as a, a positive roadmap.
Thank you.
I think, to be fair, the, the engagement about Edgware was about three years ago, you know, legally, you know.
The council did follow the, the law in relation to the consultation.
I mean, there are definitely views, there are definitely views in relation to that, you know, because you can go further than.
So, I, but I think, you know, as I said earlier, the, to some extent, this local plan, it will specifically address many items, you know, issues around Edgware and that site.
So, the local plan will have, once adopted those aspects of it, which was commented on, planning hierarchy.
So, I think, and it's also going to be new as well, because it's been adopted.
I mean, in relation to the scrutiny committee, which, you know, I, you know, there was a likely discussion.
It was good to have residents doing questions.
There were, there were two aspects that were, that scrutiny did refer.
One was about considering the high level of public concern demonstrated by the, the close to 500 emails, which is certainly, I have had, about the two particular sites.
Now, I think we have addressed those in relation to the fact that these sites have been in there since 2018.
And actually, you know, the planning inspector, you, you cannot remove sites like that from a, you just can't do it.
The inspector has made their final ruling on the local plan, the recommendation, based on those site allocations.
And, and the only choice we would have is, is not to adopt the local plan, start again, or removing them.
It's not, in my, they would not be feasible.
You'd have to go, you know, basically through the local plan.
And the second part of that was about the bus station.
And obviously, commitment to, to contact TFL, just to pass on the concerns that were made.
But, but actually the, the specification of a bus station is a matter for the bus company.
There are planning aspects to that, but how you specify what you need in a bus station is really planning process.
Say there has to be a bus station with a, you know, that, that, that, that, that, that is adequate for the transport hub that Edgeware is.
The actual specification of how you do that.
Are there questions?
If I might, this is, we talk a lot about places and hard and, and, and, and development and technical stuff.
And I'd just like to comment on the, um, 8.17, which is the whole sector section about promoting health and wellbeing.
And there's a lot of detail there and, and, and, you know, people can read that from themselves.
But from my perspective, particularly as we work through the development of the next joint, the joint health and wellbeing strategy, which will be a 10 year plan, uh, that will start from May.
So the early part of this, um, documents lifetime, um, that move from, uh, looking at mitigating against, against ill, the, the bad impacts on health of, uh, developments and actually looking at how we can use the health impact assessments.
To start looking at how our spaces can improve lives.
Um, I think it's a really important, there, there is quite a lot in this report, in the, in the document that talks to that.
And in my mind, AIDS, um, us in that fight of helping people to live healthier and more active and more connected lives.
And that will be around public realm.
It'll be around public transport.
Um, but it will also be around the way we interface with the health service.
And so I just wanted to comment that something that can be quite technical actually has really, really, really, really, really,
impacts on people's lives.
And that is one of the tools that we have in our toolbox of support.
I mean, so I, I, I mentioned a couple of things to always bear in mind.
First of all, this is part of a national structure.
It's got to feed in.
It's got to be compliant.
The London plan.
Waste plan.
National framework, uh, national framework, I think, seems to change every six months just to keep planners on their toes.
But they're always in target, I think.
So there will be variations.
But it's also that by adopting the local plan, this does have a knock-on effect at looking at some of the special planning documents.
Make sure they all fit together as a whole.
Um, the recommendations are, and I'll read that now.
Thank you for watching.
Cabinet note the contents of the report and the inspector's report, which is Appendix A, with the inspector's schedule for main modifications, Appendix B, and the council's schedule of additional modifications, Appendix C.
The cabinet consider the recommendations of overview and scrutiny committee on January 30, 2025, in terms of any further changes to the council's schedule of additional modifications.
And any recommendations from overview and scrutiny will be reported in an addendum.
I hope we did receive that.
The cabinet refers the local plan, Appendix D, and the policies maps, Appendix C, which incorporates the inspector's main modifications and the council's additional modifications for formal adoption by the council on the 4th of March, 2025.
Four, that cabinet grant delegated authority to the executive director for growth in consultation with the cabinet member for homes and regeneration to make any further editorial minor modifications to the adoptive plans and policies map.
And finally, five, that cabinet approves the new local development scheme, which is Appendix D.
six, three.
Okay, I've just been asked to ask you, have you got, anybody got any more comments about the overview and scrutiny?
Comments, although they were the questions that were presented by council.
Okay, given that, are we happy to support the recommendations?
Segue nicely into item 11, which is the planning obligations supplementary SPD.
Gain, did you want to introduce this, Councillor Hirston?
This is obviously the first part of taking forward, you know, we'll have a local plan and this is obviously part of actually
tying down some of the things beyond the local plan's adoption that will help the council secure housing, for example, and provide clarity around the section 106 agreements.
So, I think, I mean, this has been out to consultation, there's a lot of kind of technical detail in this.
It does reflect our priority to deliver more affordable housing, as set out in the new local plan.
And it goes into the mechanisms, including the formula for contribution requirements.
So, this is really a toolkit to allow planning officers to negotiate with developers or to actually bring into, bring into place a reality, the aspirations of the local plan for development.
So, very much ties in with the adoption of the local plan.
I think, you know, there are, it does cover things like the emergent, you know, bill to rent schemes, which are far more, in terms of planning these days, it's one of the things that is a tenure that's on the rise.
It's student housing, shared accommodation, it covers a whole range of issues about, you know, open space and everything.
So, basically, it's a toolkit to enable, I think the summary of this is it's a toolkit to enable officers to actually implement the local plan's aspirations in a practical way.
It gives them the tools.
Very well-timed.
And the one area that I should also mention is that a lot of this is embedding aspects of planning and biodiversity, again, for example, and, you know, carbon offset fund contributions.
Those sort of mechanisms which allow us to deliver, as I say, the aspirations in the local plan.
So, I would definitely recommend this for approval.
And I also just think, as we've got Councillor Conway, it would be remiss for me not to move on.
So, I've had CCTV provision in town centres.
I know that's a subject close to her heart.
So, yeah.
All right.
Just before Councillor Steinemann, we also need to take account of, this does include the consultation, which surprisingly, really surprisingly showed that developers don't like obligations.
I think we can be staggered by that.
But it is important that we recognise that consultation with the series one and there's answers to all the points within the document.
Sorry, Councillor Steinemann.
Thank you.
I'm just going to, in relation to one of those obligations, and Councillor Houston just touched on briefly, carbon offsetting.
I know that it gives us the, that we're using the London plan offsetting price at the moment.
I understand that there are, lots of authorities have increased this.
What's the process or consideration if we were to move away from that London plan price and increase the offsetting charge?
The carbon offset formula pricing isn't fixed and it is open for boroughs to look at reviewing it at this point.
We do know of a couple of councils that have done up the pricing, but given that the London plan was about to, well, the 32 boroughs.
Well, thanks.
Does that mean at some point we would be able to look to review it though?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
The London plan and the other boroughs provide that consistent approach because I think if you don't have that, you get developers playing off against each other, each borough, a particularly neighbouring borough.
So my advice was to actually hold, hold tight for now while the temptation is to up the pricing.
What we really want to do is ensure that developers meet their obligations under being net zero.
Any other comments or questions?
If not, if we move on to the recommendation.
Cabinet is recommended to review the representations received during the consultation on the draft SBD.
Those responses to these representations that I thought were good responses.
Known as the regulation 18.4 statement including subsequent necessary amendments to the SBD.
Adopt the planning obligations SBD as a local development document.
Authorised officers to prepare an adoption statement and publish the Regulation 18.4 statement and adoption statement and authorise the Executive Director of Grove to make any necessary factual or minor editing changes prior to publishing the final planning obligation SBD.
Are we happy to agree there?
I'm glad nobody asked me to read it out again.
We move to item 12, which is something I'm sure we all agree with, which is called Improving Barnet's Roads 2025-26 programme.
Councillor Snyderman.
Thank you, leader.
Yeah, so just briefly, this is putting forward year two of our record-breaking £97 million investment in improving Barnet's Roads and Highways.
So this is the second year of that and we'll see almost £17 million available for investment in roads and highways.
I think we've already seen the impact that the first year of that programme has had on our roads and footways.
Sorry, I was going to say all the roads and footways have been assessed and when that's overlaid with details of how busy those roads are,
whether they're bus routes, et cetera, whether they're places of worship, hospitals, schools, et cetera.
And all of that together has led to the prioritised list in Appendix A, which has also been subject to engagement with the relevant ward members.
Also grateful for the members who did the scrutiny report on highways and we discussed that at Overview and Scrutiny last week.
And some of those recommendations are going to be considered going forward, particularly about how we can improve engagement and give more information about how that prioritised list is worked out.
And it's important to say there is an environmental aspect here because it references reducing carbon during the highways work and obviously improving our highways network also helps with our active travel agenda of people being able to walk and cycle safely as well as being able to use their cars safely to get around.
So add anything to that?
Not a huge amount.
Other than just to highlight that there are some additional potential funding elements.
So Department of Transport have published across all authorities, both within London and beyond, a schedule of additional funding allocations.
So indicative figure at the moment is to balance 1.198 million.
There is reference to a 25% caveat, which is essentially subject to certain tests for which DFT haven't allocated yet.
The recommendation is that at this moment in time, we don't allocate that money to particular schemes.
We determine what's the requirements are in relation to DFT and then in line with the recommendations report, we build that programme going forward.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Yeah, that was a bit I missed out.
Obviously, we're very grateful that we've got that extra over a million pounds from the government and although officers can't say this, that's considerably more than we received from the Department of Transport the previous year.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yeah, thank you.
So Appendix A sets out the planned maintenance for 25-26 and Mr. Ed also referred to the fact that there is a significant amount that's been held back at the moment and that extra programme will be developed during the year.
But in addition to that, there is a whole, there's a reactive maintenance programme which makes it possible to repair all of the, you know, intervention level holds and safety issues with regards to footways above and beyond those that are in the planned programme.
Obviously, obviously the planned programme helps to reduce the amount of reactive maintenance but it's always possible to do that work in addition to the large schemes that are planned for next year.
I mean, there is a paragraph 5.2 sets out all the allocations and although, you know, we do focus a lot on roads and footways, drainage is an important part of that and, you know, increasingly so.
So that investment is really, is really important but Mr. Ed might want to say a bit more about that.
Thank you very much Councillor Snyder.
Thank you very much Councillor Snyder.
Never enough.
The Highways Director will say never enough.
I think what we, we need to put this into context is this is the, the seal allocation from the authority.
Over and above this, we obviously have programmes like the Silk Stream where we're working jointly with Harrow which is, is to the tune of around about 6 million pounds and is already starting to show real material benefits on the ground.
So we have a number of schemes that have completed and are also continuing through.
So for example, Wattling Park.
So we have that additional funding.
In addition to this, we have a small reactive sum which deals with the, the cyclical inspection of, of gullies, gully cleansing.
What this brings in is the more detailed work which sits between the Silk Stream project, the 6 million pound sustainable drainage schemes and the reactive works and looks at things like our open water courses and how we manage those, how we support, you know, particular initiatives around sustainable drainage.
We've obviously got our new sustainable drainage strategy which includes a number of initiatives and I know there's going to be some elements within the, our plan for buying it which are going to actually crystallise those further.
So it's, it's part of it.
We did look very closely at the program this year and we do feel that that's, that allocation is sufficient at this point in time.
We're doing a lot of work on the ground and we've got, um, sir, uh, excellent, uh, drainage engineer who's really getting in there locally to address the issues.
I think there is growing problems, but, you know, we often have to clear up afterwards, but the problems are structural.
Any other thoughts?
Councillor Moore.
I've just comment actually, uh, a piece of drainage work was done in my, well, on the border of my ward in East Finchley and, uh, on Long Lane.
And I just happened to be passing, so I had a good chat to the engineers who were doing it.
But that was a gully, a major gully clearance on an area that has flooded year after year under the North Circular Bridge.
And it hasn't flooded since.
And I, so actually getting that maintenance right makes a real difference.
So I'd just like to comment on that because I, I just thought it was a really interesting piece of work.
And I know what the, what the, I now know what the inside of those gullies looks like.
And I know that kids post cans into the home and they, they'd gum up the system.
So, but it was a really sensible piece of work and it just was a really good example of how some of that maintenance work can make a real difference around a persistent flooding problem.
Thank you.
I'd like to, sorry, just check one thing.
This is paragraph 1.15, which just said, this is an area identified by the overview and scrutiny committee for scrutiny input.
The committee will be reporting to this cabinet on the work undertaken in supporting.
Was that what the last scrutiny meeting looked at this?
And if so, is there any particular input we need to note?
I mean, I think I was, so this report here is setting out the, you know, the plan schemes.
There were a number of issues that came up within the scrutiny report that we will take on board in, in term, particularly in terms of developing next year's program and how particular issues around comms and looking, you know, issues around looking at the use of new technology, et cetera.
So that will be throughout the year won't directly affect this report.
The recommendation is to note that the overview and scrutiny are scheduled to report.
Have they already reported?
Well, they've reported in the sense that it came to scrutiny, but I don't think that hasn't come to cabinet yet.
Yeah, it's finished, but it hasn't, yeah, hasn't come forward as it will do, I'm sure, as a new cabinet.
I just pass on a comment that was made to me after a Residents Association meeting on a Sunday.
The president was delighted to see a stretch of Nether Street resurfaced.
And I think one of the things that, I mean, I'm an amateur comment on this relation to this, because I'm not a, I don't drive.
I do use buses, use roads, and I have to go over potholes.
I, but it does seem to me that the targeting of the most, it seems to be very effective.
You know, the stretches abroad, the priority, and it is noticeable how I actually resurfacing all stretches abroad,
rather than repeatedly having potholes filled in the same stretch abroad year after year.
And further comments, we can move to the recommendation.
Recommendations are that, sorry, that cabinet approves, subject to full council agreeing to the fine of 2025-26 capital program,
the capital expenditure of 15 and a half million for the delivery of the 25-26 work program,
which is set out in Appendix A, consistent of carriageway resurfacing patch and heritage.
Let authority be delegated to the cabinet member for environment and climate change,
in consultation with the director of highways and transportation,
to approve the additional program, which has been mentioned, of schemes utilising the funding of 1.448 million,
set out in section 111 of this report, to address reactive maintenance requirements on the network.
Let authority be delegated to the cabinet member for environment and climate change,
the other way around, to make necessary amendments to the program,
in recommendation to the government.
Let authority be delegated to the director of highways and transportation,
in consultation with the cabinet member for environment and climate change,
in consultation with the director of highways and transportation,
in consultation with the director of highways and transportation,
to approve the additional program of schemes utilising the retained
that authority be delegated to the director of highways and transportation,
in consultation with the cabinet member for environment and climate change,
the other way around, to make necessary amendments to the program,
in recommendations 1, 2 and 3, and within the approved budget,
to ensure the efficient delivery of schemes across the network.
And finally, recommendation 5, to note that the overview and scrutiny committee
are scheduled to report on the outcome of their review,
to support the improvement of the highway network.
Are we happy to accept those recommendations?
We go to item 13, which is the annual procurement forward plan, 2025-26.
This is quite a full document.
But to remind people, I think I have every year,
it's a sort of permissive document.
What it means is that if some of the ensurements,
especially those that we know are going to happen,
rather than coming each individual item to cabinet,
it's like pre-approving that provided,
it falls in the remit, providing there's the money there,
providing on the larger ones that there are business cases
and full business cases, it doesn't need to come back here.
So what this is about is allowing a more efficient way
of providing the procurement.
But it is one of the most important.
Yeah, I think I'll leave it there.
I don't know if there's any...
Sue, you've got any thoughts on the procurement plan,
or I know it probably dominates your life in many months.
It has in recent weeks, yes.
The only thing I would say is that the approval
of the annual procurement forward plan
will help us with compliancy
with the Procurement Act delivery event.
There's a question which I don't know the answer to,
but I know there was a lot of training
from the new Procurement Act before October and so on.
With the procurement done at a service level,
is it just high enough or are they...
Does the new Procurement Act actually affect them?
It will affect them.
We have a devolved...
Right, the recommendations.
One, that Cabinet approve the annual procurement forward plan
to enable commencement of procurement activity for 25, 26, 27, 28,
as identified in Appendix 1.
And that Cabinet note the requirements for procurement activity
could be subject to service confirmation of budget
and continued requirement any additional approvals
required under the Council's constitution,
including the contract procedure rules,
and authorisation of a procurement launch document,
including identifications of approved budget sources,
as set out in Appendix 1.
Are people happy to do that?
The only other thing which isn't on the recommendation,
that if you're looking at a service,
find out how they're implementing the procurement plans
and their pipeline,
otherwise you're just rolling over contracts time after time.
Right, thank you.
Thank you, Sue.
The next item is the annual review of rent and service charges
and temporary accommodation rents for 25, 26.
You've got a busy evening.
Councillor Houchard.
Yeah, I mean, this is a...
As it says on the tin,
this is an annual report that comes...
The main...
First of this report is the rent increase of 2.7%,
which is CPI plus 1% for existing Council terms.
This is less than it has been in recent years,
and it is using the national formula that government recommends.
So, I...
It is good news in relation to existing tenants,
because when this was calculated,
the CPI was lower than it has been for many years,
for several, quite a few years.
So, what it does do, obviously,
the council rents pay towards maintaining the housing revenue account
and maintaining the essential services maintenance and safety measures
that we have to, as a landlord, make sure are in place.
So, 84% of housing revenue income comes from rent contributions.
It's in line with national...
What other local authorities across the country are doing.
There is...
This also covers temporary accommodation rents,
and where...
What we're doing here is...
Is increasing them by up to the local housing allowance rate,
or 10% if it's lower than that.
That's in line with what other boroughs are doing.
It is high, but to some extent this is actually standardised.
And it is in line with what other boroughs are doing.
The average increase is 4% across TA to be covered.
The other aspect of this paper is obviously the service charge element,
which basically reflects the cost of providing those services,
and also garage rents.
Garage rents, 2.7%,
in line with general increase in council.
By service charges, it's 4.9%,
but that's largely as a result of utility costs going up,
and other pressures.
Because basically, the service charge pays for communal lighting,
and all those sort of facilities.
So, that has been at a higher rate.
But basically, for services,
you only charge what your services cost.
It's a profit element,
apart from the management costs.
So, I think, you know, it's a fairly straightforward paper.
It comes to us every year.
I would say it's a very, you know, well,
because of the paper, it does go through all the aspects.
And, you know, Barnet will be targeting those tenants for particular support.
So, I don't know if there's any questions anyone has.
So, we've found, I think I'll point out,
and I think we're going to do some of this,
some of this is a correction,
all the years when it was mined,
when it was mined,
and it was draining money out of the HRR.
I'm bringing Greg in for any detailed questions about operational matters.
So, my comment and my question is that
we're talking about this audience .
Thank you for the question.
We have a number of mitigants in place.
We have a dedicated team set up,
purely for that reason,
to carry out early intervention work,
to identify any EDF protected characteristics.
For example, three years ago,
we carried out a program of works to understand
any demographics within specific areas of our ward.
We would have targeted campaigns.
We have an EDI champion understanding our data,
and we're currently using our data
to identify any particular areas of focus going forward.
We have early intervention officers
whose sole remit is to work with tenants
at the earliest opportunity to work with them
and support them in the best way possible.
We can feel the show mechanism.
Yes, you can.
Thank you.
Obviously, there's also council-wide,
not just on tenants,
but council-wide campaigns,
advertising the benefits calculator,
the debt advice.
In fact, the money advertising,
I think, is very good and so on,
but there will always be people who haven't heard,
so being proactive is important.
Just in relation.
It's worth pointing out that we have identified 58 tenants
that are particularly, you know, need prioritization
in relation to that support,
so that work as well.
The knowledge of the effects of this
have been very much taken into consideration
to looking at this.
This is 58 TA.
They will be prioritized in relation to that.
Fair records and RSLs that knowing
that the vulnerable tenants are and so on.
If I think further, I'll go straight to the recommendations.
That cabinet notes and approves the following recommendations
to increase rent and service triages
and to refer these increases to full council
in accordance with Part 4A Financial Regulations,
Section 2.5, Fees and Triages of the Council's Constitution.
The proposed rent increase in line with government policy
for existing council tenants as set out in paragraph 1.9
for social rent dwellings
and one for affordable rent dwellings.
The proposed rent increase for temporary accommodation
as set out in paragraph 1.12
and the proposed service charges and garage rents
as set out in paragraph 1.19
all to take effect from April 1, 2025.
Is that approved?
Item 15, the school funding annual report.
That's Councillor Coakley-Webb.
Thank you.
You will note from the report that some of the funding
to schools has increased.
But you will equally notice when you look at the graph lower down
that the actual possible, and it's not the end of the year yet,
but the actual possible number of schools
that could still be in deficit at the moment,
six and a half million in deficit in total.
So it's like even though it's good that what has been done for schools,
you can see that the pressures are still there.
It's still the staff costs, the energy bills, and especially the increase
in the number of pupils which spend, and the fact that some,
depending on which part of the borough there is,
because of families moving out, a drop in pupil numbers,
why in other parts of the borough the numbers are still increasing,
mainly because of the regeneration projects.
And it's sort of slightly strangely written at the top about the dates,
because the school forum has taken place,
and the school forum did approve this report.
It's just slightly weird the way it's written at the top.
So I can just tell you that the forum has met it.
It has agreed the report.
I'm sure that the officer can answer any very technical questions
you might want to ask on it.
So in some ways it's good that there's an increase on pupil funding,
but it's still not good that there's still a lot to be done
in terms of financing schools properly, basically,
and especially with the rise in SEND numbers.
I don't know if you want to add anything.
Just to explain the weird bit at the top of the report,
because the report was written before schools forum met,
so that's why I obviously had to say, but you were right,
Councillor, the schools forum did agree to all of that,
subsequent to me writing that report.
And across the nation and so on.
But the other thing that affects school budgets is school numbers.
Obviously we've had a decline in primary schools,
but is it right that back in year seven,
maybe year eight in secondary schools at the moment?
Yeah, the decline in pupil roles in some of our schools
has hit primary school and it's going through to secondary.
You're right.
And so that over the next few years we would expect a reduction
in roles in secondary schools as well.
I mean, we've already got a couple of schools that are being hit
at secondary with regards to falling roles,
but much more, much more severe over the next few years
as that, as those low numbers go through into secondary.
That might give some opportunity for some more inclusion.
I don't know.
Yes.
As a governor of free.
Yeah.
Yeah.
We make use of any spare space within schools rather than wasting it.
So then look to see whether we can have specialist provision in those schools.
And so we've got a number of satellites already operating in some of our primary schools
and as one secondary school at the moment as well,
where they have spare space, be able to operate that.
That's where the need is for specialist places.
You're right.
If we do have space and we've got the increased 10 numbers,
we are always looking out for where there is space available to have that extra provision
of satellites within the schools that we've already got.
So that is.
What's the impact on?
Sorry, I didn't quite hear.
Was it the impact of reducing full pupil roles?
Is that the question?
Sorry, I couldn't hear from.
So the question is from the charts here in the papers,
pupil numbers seem to be going downwards.
Downwards.
Yeah.
So what do you have to say about that?
And what's going to be the impact on that?
So the impact of a school that's not full is obviously a school that has,
would usually have 30 in a class.
If it's only got 24 in a class, they still need a class teacher,
but there's the funding for six pupils that's missing.
So that's a significant number of a specific amount of funding missing per class.
Now, if that's across the whole school,
then clearly that has a severe implication for the funding across the whole school.
Some schools are having to then look at mixed age classes.
So to see a combined year three and four class, for example.
But the reduction in pupil role, and as Councillor Coakley-Webb said,
the increase in children with complex needs and EHCPs,
and the resourcing implications of that is meaning that budgets for primary
and secondary schools is very…
How many of our schools are going to be on top of your head?
I don't know.
I can find that out.
I can find that out.
How many will be not having an increase because of a reduction in pupil roles.
I can find that out subsequent to the meeting.
I presume that you're going to find out.
It means it's not a significant number, but it's a measurable number of schools.
Yes, yeah.
Of course, everyone knows what usually happens,
that if you get to the point where you've got far less pupils,
then you do actually then reduce the PAN number for entry to the school,
so you would reduce by a form of entry as a way of moving forward.
And I think that's obviously what can be done,
although obviously one form entries don't have that flexibility.
For a Councillor Clarke…
Okay, two things quickly.
But, so, academies recruitment and you've got academy converters that then…
It affects…
I just want to know…
So, in 25-26, there's a 16,000 pound difference.
I mean, these are large figures, but probably large figures that the council didn't…
One additional school?
Or how many schools does that mean?
So, on Appendix 1, you've got academies recruitment, and it's a figure of 181,000,
and then there's 16,000, so it's a 9.9% increase.
Is that…
Is that one school converting, or what is that figure?
One extra school?
So, the schools block DSG comes in to us.
We obviously then pass on all of the academy's money directly to academies.
The LA-maintained schools will have some de-delegations, they'll have some taken away.
So, why there's a 16,000 difference will presumably…
In terms of roles and increasing…
Not majorly, there's been a trickling of applications.
I mean, I was actually surprised when we looked at how many applications we've had from parents
of children who are currently in independent schools since September.
And it's something like 170 or so.
But that may well be some applying, but actually not taking up any offers of the place.
So, we haven't seen a major problem.
And I use the word problem, because we don't see it actually as a problem,
because we've got vacancies in our system, which means we'll actually welcome…
The state system would welcome pupils moving over from the independent sector to the state sector.
The recommendation…
Right, that Cabinet note the annual report on school funding in Barnett,
that Cabinet approve the formula funding to specify the authority's funding formula for school,
on the basis of paragraphs 128 to 144, which includes the funding…
I'm assuming it's not pecuniary because you don't get paid for being…
When it comes to if there's an agreement on the recommendation, do I just stay strong?
I don't think you should vote on it, because it's not pecuniary interest, but it is…
Right, okay.
Stay in the room.
And I'm really sorry about that, because it is…
You are very…
You will know absolutely everything about this and would have presented it…
And can I ask, as the chief executive of that company, do you want me to leave at this point?
You don't have…
You won't be voting anyway.
I won't be voting.
But you don't have to leave.
So…
Please.
Yes, that's correct.
I'll stay at this table just in case there's any questions about bells that you want me to answer.
I promise I won't have a vote.
I would just ignore the fact that there's two people in this room who are trying to sneak out early,
and we're not giving them permission.
Right.
Okay, then.
Now, this is the…
This report is looking at the future delivery of bells, the education and learning service.
Some members may not know the history of this, that…
When was it?
Oh, it's 2016.
Arnett basically outsourced their education to Mont McDonald to set up…
Well, to use Cambridge education as the title.
Now, this was agreed by council and would have gone on fine except…
Before it was due to expire in 23…
And partly because of the impact on Mont McDonald.
They basically wanted to terminate…
I think it was terminate early actually.
And it was…
During COVID, it was…
What happened is we set…
Council set up a local authority, which is controlled company, which I presume in a way is the same as a trading,
except it isn't a trading company.
So, there's a local authority company called Bells to deliver the education and skills service.
You know, it started operating.
It was due…
It was due…
It was…
The contract was due to expire 31st of March, 2026.
In order to give clarity, both to staff and to schools, the proposal is that…
If you bring it forward early and have a new contract with Bells…
And I've just got to check the time…
In five years as a possible three years…
From April this year…
There's been consultation…
And like all these things…
There's…
People for and against it…
The schools…
I would say…
Not as a whole…
But as an overwhelming majority…
Are very happy with the service Bells providing…
And very supportive of it…
The trade unions…
Would like it to be brought in-house…
But there are financial implications…
Especially on…
Pensions…
There…
Though slightly different…
Because someone teaches…
You know…
There's different arrangements…
And some people who transfer…
Are still with…
Local authority…
As a closed…
Company…
It has had a long…
Consultation…
There's been a…
Work put into it…
Options were looked at…
Options of…
If it were going completely out…
Or bringing it completely in…
And…
The chosen option…
Is to renew the Bells contract…
It's known people…
It's a known service…
It's a successful service…
And…
Well-mannered…
It seems…
To me…
And…
That's basically…
Where we're at…
So…
The decision…
Is to bring forward…
Start…
Of a new contract…
Keep the contract…
With Bells…
And…
I think…
It's important…
Continuity…
But also…
There's big changes…
To be honest…
Probably more…
On the school side…
It's where…
A few months…
A few years…
And…
A different…
Funding…
Funding scheme…
Especially…
That's where…
Where…
We're at…
I mean…
Oh sorry…
Councillor Moore…
I was going to say…
I think the proof of the pudding…
On this one…
Is that actually…
The majority of schools…
Appreciate the service…
They have a good relationship…
With Bells…
And…
It is…
Financially viable…
And I think…
Those are the things…
That we would…
Want to know…
It seems…
To not…
Make any sense…
To go out…
To a full procurement…
At this stage…
And…
Bringing back in house…
Though it is an option…
Has all sorts of pitfalls…
And the most important thing…
At this…
At this point…
Where schools…
Are facing…
Significant challenges…
Both in terms of…
Taking on…
The…
The…
Curriculum changes…
A range of other…
Demands on them…
From an…
Academic perspective…
And also…
Are having…
Challenges around…
Their budgets…
Actually…
Some certainty…
Around…
Bells…
And the support…
They provide…
Is really important…
To schools…
Important…
To…
Under pressure…
And so on…
So…
People know…
What the future is…
If there's…
No questions…
I can move…
To the recommendations…
But these…
Have been amended…
And get corrected…
If I get this…
Right…
Recommendation…
One…
The Cabinet approves…
Council entry…
To a new contract…
With a local authority…
Controlled…
Company…
By the Education…
And Learning Services…
Limited…
For the provision…
Of education…
And skills…
And associated…
Services…
Convention…
Five…
Five years…
With the potential…
To extend…
For a further…
Three years…
Subject…
To satisfactory…
Performance…
And…
Available…
Subject…
That Cabinet…
Recommendation…
Three…
Becomes…
The Cabinet…
Further…
Approves…
Early…
Termination…
Of the existing…
Contract…
To…
Simultaneously…
Terminate…
Contract…
Outlining…
More…
Favourable…
Terms…
Better suited…
To the current…
Arrangement…
And…
Accuracy…
The…
Relationship…
Between the parties…
Executive Officer…
In consultation…
With…
With…
The Leader…
To…
Finalise…
And…
Entry…
To…
And…
Agree…
The…
Terms…
Of…
The…
We…
We…
Will…
Decide…
If…
There's…
A…
Cabinet…
Forward…
Plan…
But…
It's…
Just…
For…
Noting…
So…
You…
Know…
What…
Delights…
To…
Look forward…
To…
I…
Haven't…
Had…
Any…
Urgent…