Transcript

Please, could you advise by raising your virtual hand on the Loom dashboard on your screen, but you won't be able to present any item, move or second, emotion, or vote item in the Kamla's report. Also, please be reminded that if you're not physically here, your attendance will not be officially recorded. Sorry, that doesn't make sense. If you're not physically here, but online, your attendance won't be officially recorded. And then, may I ask members and officers if you're able to introduce themselves when speaking, who they are, their positions, and for members specifically, the wards that you represent. And if any members or officers online wish to speak, please can I ask, similarly, that you indicate that you wish to do so by using the hand symbol on the Zoom dashboard. I wanted to just note two things. No doubt, for those of the Catholic community in Newham and around the world, the health of the Pope has been of real concern this past week. I know that we were observing and watching the news reports, and I trust that he is speedy in his recovery, albeit I know that there is a potential concern. And then, secondly, colleagues, we're meeting today as a cabinet on what would have been, well, what is the third anniversary of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. It was an unjustified act of aggression that shocked the world and has left tens of thousands of innocent civilians dead and unfulfilled misery and suffering, with millions displaced from their homes. We, as with other local authorities, mobilised our homes for Ukraine programme, following a set of government decisions. And I know that there have been a whole number of developments since the outcome of the US presidential election, and we are closely following the news. We have our Prime Minister heading to Washington this week, and I'm sure all of you will be wanting to join, that we can hope for a fair and just peace and a swift end to this deficit in the morning. So, moving on, I just wanted to note any apologies for absence. Joy, may I ask you to advise me on any formal apologies for absence received? Thank you. Have we said apologies from Councillor Caroline Adaya? Thank you very much. Are there any other apologies, cabinet members, that you are aware of? No? Okay, thank you very much. Can I just please also draw your attention to the declarations of interest across pages 9 to 10? In accordance with the Member's Code of Conduct, this is to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or pecuniary interests that they may have in any matter being considered at this point, having regard to the guidance attached to the agenda. So, on that note, cabinet members only, could you just advise if there are any declarations of interest? Are there any declarations of interest? Roger. No. There are no declarations of interest, Joy. Thank you very much. Right, so the third calling matter is the report from overview and scrutiny as it relates to the cabinet decision that was taken on in February on the restoration and regeneration of the carcasses and state programme update. And so, how we are going to be conducting these meetings, in the first instance, I'm going to be inviting Councillor McCormick to briefly introduce the item, which is the reports and overview and scrutiny committee. Please, can I remind all members that there are exempt appendices for this item as it relates to the substantive cabinet report in February, so if there are any questions as it relates to those exempt items, I am going to have to evoke the exclusion of press and public under the Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. So, if you do want to refer, could someone please, could you please indicate, and then I'm going to have to indicate that process. So, Councillor McCormick, welcome once again, would you kindly introduce this item, the report from overview and scrutiny, as to the point, and set out the reasons why overview and scrutiny committee will refer this item back to cabinet. Over to you. Thank you, Amir. And before I go on, may I echo your sentiments regarding the Pope and the Ukraine's situation. Good afternoon, everyone present. By way of summary, overview and scrutiny committee, co-ordained on the 18th of February, 2035, the cabinet decision concerning the restoration and regeneration of the carpenters' estate program. Officer and scrutiny decided to refer the decision back to cabinet for reconsideration. Our reasons for the referral to cabinet include, one, the increase in costs. There has been an increase of $20 million in the James Riley Point costs since September 2023. Two, concerns about the impact of the increased costs on Neuron Council's HRA and revenue budgets. Three, concerns about the impact of the costs on the Regulator social housing C4 rating, remedial work. Four, queries about assumptions, such as modeling, revenues, reserve, interest rate, and inflation. And five, rental values. Further, and in respect of modern assumption, committee would like to know what are the assumptions behind the current modeling. How can we be confident about the current assumptions? How can we be confident about the current assumptions? In respect of interest rate and inflation, the committee would like to know what are the interest rates and the assumptions. Revenue and reserve. In terms of cash flow analysis, what are the revenue and reserve assumptions over the next four years? How can we be confident about the current assumptions? Modification or specification. As considerationly given to the specification of the homes with a view to amending those specification in order to better reflect and adopt to the current financial realities. Financial appraisals. What is the financial and economic appraisal? What are the financial and economic appraisals telling us? And the rental values? What are the changes to the forecast estimate on the rental values? And can we mitigate these in the future? And may our recommendations are noted in the papers and before us all today. But I would go through them as quickly as I can. Recommendation A, independent financial review. In light of the cabinet decision on the 4th of February, 2025, concerning the restoration and regeneration of the carpentry estate, and previous scrutiny recommendation regarding James Riley Point on March 2023, the committee recommends that the cabinet commission a comprehensive independent financial review of the carpentry estate restoration and regeneration project. This review should analyze all potential financing strategies, including public-private partnership opportunities, and full or part short estate sale options. Assess optimal tenure and consideration to enhance project viability. Run concurrent with existing bill based to avoid delay. Identify opportunities to optimize value for money and reduce council financial exposure. Present findings and update to board, cabinet, and overview and scrutiny committee on a quarterly or vice-layerly basis. Broad composition of the board, board composition of POPLU. The committee consider that the cabinet need for commission a governance arrangement review and strengthen governance arrangement, including ensuring company's house-compliant documentation. The committee further recommend and consider and recommend an increase in the London Borough Neuron representation on the board of POPLU, which is a wholly owned by the council. The committee recommend that POPLU board composition should include more Neuron councillors, at least two internal audit. The committee consider overrunning of course and recommendation that an internal audit of procurement process of POPLU and comparison and alignment with affordable homes for Neuron. The committee consider again that POPLU is a company owned by Neuron council and that it is therefore essential for there to be greater alignment of POPLU and affordable homes for Neuron. The committee recommend that there should be comparisons of rates and returns of investment between the two. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor McCormick. I am going to invite Cabinet members to ask any questions. If there are any planning questions insufficiently captured in the executive response and based on some of the introductory remarks that Council on McCormick made, and I am being particular about that point because there's a process that we've got to follow. But I was conscious that there were some additional comments made that haven't been aired previously. From my recollection, I could be wrong when we went to the Budget Working Commission calling meeting. But just to advise, what we are going to have to do in any case, because this is a report at this formal meeting with Cabinet, we are going to need to note recommendations of overview and scrutiny as set out on the agenda pack. So in this instance, it is big page 20 on a printed version, but it's also denoted as small page number two. So it reads, it is recommended that the Cabinet consider the referral of the executive decision, restoration and regeneration of the Carpenter's state programme update made by Cabinet on the 4th of February 2025, and the recommendations of the overview is through to the committee. Recommendations decide whether to decide whether to decide whether to decide whether to confirm the original decision and to provide an executive response to the recommendations made. So there are three parts to which we will need to go through. I will be providing the executive response to the recommendations made where presently having heard the report from the overview scrutiny and what Councillor Anthony McCormick has set out. I'm going to invite Cabinet colleagues and members of the executive that are here. If you've got any particular questions for clarification only, I would suggest at this point. Thank you. Hello? Okay, fine. Thank you very much. Then, I am going to need to ask Cabinet members only whether we are wanting to proceed and confirm the original decision of Cabinet on the 4th of February 2025. But before we do that, I am also noting a recommendation in this report providing an executive response to the recommendations. Just give me a moment because I would like to be able to verbalise our executive response as printed. But give me a moment because that's subject to acceptable. So, it's not my order, isn't it? That's what I thought. So, do the executive response first and then confirm the decision. Okay, fine. What I don't understand in this report is that it's a note in this group as we do in this group. So, but I've got a separate report related to that it's from the agenda item. It doesn't have a comment. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, the agenda item is important because it's a couple of calls. We can't take it. We can't take it. We can't take it as well, but given that it's a recommendation element in the overview and scrutiny report, I guess the piece. Yeah. Okay. Cool. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much for that. Okay. I need to skip the clarification that I was waiting for. So, what we're going to be doing in the overview and scrutiny report, you'll note the recommendations. There are three principal recommendations. So, the first, consider the referral of the executive decision on restoration and regeneration of the state program update made by cabinet on the 4th of February, 2025, and the recommendations of the overused scrutiny committee. I've invited members of cabinet and the wider executive if you've got any questions of clarification, and no one's confirmed. So, before I move on to the next recommendation, I just want to have a formal signal from cabinet members that you've considered the referral of the executive statement on the restoration and regeneration of the Cubs' state program made on cabinet on the 4th of February, 2025, and the recommendations of the overview and scrutiny committee. Yeah. So, can I just add a yes that you've considered primarily the recommendations of the overview and scrutiny committee? Yes. Yes. Right. So, that's a yes. Okay. Now, we're going to be taking the third recommendation of overview and scrutiny next. So, that becomes the second recommendation, providing executive response to the recommendations made. Okay. Everyone clear? So, colleagues, firstly, I am going to... Okay. So, colleagues, if I can draw your attention to the content of agenda item 4, which we'll come back to for a new note in any case, again, it's the executive response to overview and scrutiny's calling of the restoration and regeneration of Cubs' state program update executive decision. So, what I'm going to be doing, in the interest of transparency, and just given the importance of this matter, because it's... this is the second time that a matter as it relates to a cabinet decision vis-a-vis Cubs' state has been called in by overview and scrutiny. I do appreciate the importance that is placed on the Cubs' state program, not police, given a range of different perspectives and concerns as it relates to the financial position of the council, the impact as it relates to the council's capital program and borrowing exposure, alongside the pertinent and helpful questions raised related to governance. I'm going to start, firstly, by making some general comments, and then I'm going to read out, again, in the interest of transparency, the executive response. There's the four areas where overly scrutiny made a series of recommendations. As with all major state regeneration schemes of the council, there is an enhanced internal governance arrangement. We have a strategic housing delivery intent that manifests through the mobilisation of teams, through popular living being one route through which we deliver housing, and our own internal Newham council team that sit within a piece of economy to create a payment problem delivery directorate. We are always on a continuous process of learning and improvement as it relates to ensuring the efficacy of operational organisation and operational delivery in order to demonstrate that we are providing good value for money. We are also needed to conforming, in light of the grant that we receive from the LGA through the Premier of London's football homes for Londoners program, a demonstration of consistency of the GLA governance requirements as it relates to grants that we receive from them. Combined, in terms of our internal governance oversight and also the GLA, we've got a rigorous process in place. I think it's also important for us to be cognizant of different phases of the improbable homes for new program, which was initiated in 2019, that we have adapted and flexed in order to deliver that thing that our people need in light of the housing crisis. The London places, which is in its extreme in Newham, coupled with the financial pressures of temporary accommodation. There are rightly questions that should be asked, and are asked, amongst Cabinet members and other parts of the Council's governance ecosystem, be that scrutiny, be that audit, be it internal governance boards, where people direct to sit and provide the accountability to each other and on behalf of us. We do that as part of a virtual ecosystem that applies the right checks and balances, because this is not a small endeavour that we're undertaking. This is big, strategic and very, very expensive stuff. We also recognise that in the context of housing delivery, there are things that are outside of a local authority's control, macroeconomics, international affairs, and also the decisions that a national government has an entitlement to make, following the democratic mandate that they hold. In the instance of carpenters. In the instance of carpenters, there has been a high inflationary environment through which the first two phases of Charleston's state WPM programme has been marshaled and mobilised around. It would be remiss of me not to amplify that in accordance with the GLA's estate balance process. Some 72.3% of residents that have got a right to return to the estate or live on the estate are reprieving of the Outline Master Plan. We are pursuing presently, as it relates to the first three phases across subsidy model, because we want to deliver, through our housing delivery schemes, as much affordable homes, as much affordable homes that our people can use, or social rentals. In regards to the capital budget, and I'll come to this point again, there have been a number of charges and concerns made and concerns raised as to the loan exposure on the capital budget that Carpenter estate presents and the risks. There has been banded around this idea that we've committed £1.4 billion for Carpenter's estate. We haven't. We've committed monies as it relates to the approved phases of the scheme that have come through the governance process to all the meetings of Cabinet. I know that one of the drivers of this calling process was the page from the September 2023 Cabinet paper where there was a prognosis as it related to costs based on modelling. Modelling is a fine fraud and it is not an exact science because they're having to operate on a number of known unknowns. And so I would just ask the colleagues as we're considering this call and considering which admin reports as it relates to the delivery of the Carpenter's estate, we bear those things in mind. Now coming to the overview and scrutiny call in across the areas that they have set out and thank you very much Councillor McCormick for setting out the reasons why you've referred to Cabinet for Carpenter's estate programme update. Sorry, the Carpenter's estate programme, following the decision that we've made in the fourth February. So I'm going to read out the responses. There was one section relating to independent financial review and a series of recommendations. And in response, the Executive welcome that overview and scrutiny recognising courts continuing with the delivery of the Carpenter's estate regeneration and restoration programme. It will deliver over 2,000 homes and revitalise an important promise of the Stratford neighbourhood and has the support of the Carpenter's estate community who voted overwhelmingly in support of the Outline Master Plan 2021 through the DLA compliant estate ballot. Currently, work is underway on the detail design and further phases of the programme as agreed by Cabinet in September 2023. While the Council has set its preferred approach is to self-deliver the programme using popular as development managers, it has designed the programme to enable flexibility over delivery options. No decisions have been taken on delivery arrangements beyond those agreed in the September 2023 Cabinet Report and the earlier decisions to appoint properly to provide Master Plan services and DMS services to deliver Phase 1 . Additionally, no construction holdbacks have been entered into, with a construction holdback for the first Phase , likely to be the first bought to Cabinet by the end of 2025. The report sets out the reasons for the increase in both the cost of Phase 1, that's JRP James Riding Point, as well as an increased ongoing borrowing requirement across the whole programme of £320 million September 2023. These include an increase in the number of homes proposed, ongoing construction costs, high long-term borrowing cost assumptions and new building safety regulations. The report further notes that the programme remains viable over the recent planned period, delivering a positive MPV of £150 million. As the Cabinet report notes, the Council is open to exploring alternative investment and delivery options to enable the programme to progress within the challenging economic context in the Council's own financial position. Officers have initiated initial conversations with a range of potential partners to explore opportunities to attract external investment to support our housing delivery and estate regeneration strategies as part of an emerging policy direction by the Mayor, that's myself and Cabinet colleagues who provide member oversight and strategic housing delivery. That's Councillor Sophie Carly, Councillor Anna Burdi, and most recently, Councillor John Young. These discussions will progress alongside the detailed design work and outcomes of them will inform the options appraisal that underpins the advice given to Cabinet before it takes any decisions to progress into the construction phase on this programme. The executive therefore does not believe an independent review needs to be commissioned as all the various options set out by scrutiny are already being considered by officers as the strategy evolves and there is a robust and rigorous internal governance arrangement in place to oversee the development of the strategy. It should be noted that the Mayor, it should be noted that the Mayor has already instructed officers to report annually to Cabinet on the progress of the programme, which includes review of the programme business plan and detailed viability assessment. There is an extensive amount of work required to carry out these reviews, including the commissioning of external advice and reports. In addition to this, while assumptions can move over time, an annual review is a reasonable timeframe to provide these updates and therefore it will continue to report annually to Cabinet as a greater reporting is not considered necessary. However, officers in the Council continually monitor market conditions, particularly in relation to key viability metrics. If there is a need for any Cabinet decision made arising from this, the reports will be brought forward in response to that outside of the annual reporting cycle. For the avoidance of doubt, and as referenced in the Cabinet report, there have been no decisions taken yet on the long-term financial strategy for delivering the programme. The financial metrics set out of the viability assessment are estimates at this time. Foreign requirements are factored into the business strategy for planning purposes. However, any approval for individual budgets to complete phases of the programme will be subject to Cabinet decisions based on detailed business plans and financial modelling. Please note that the Mayor has instructed officers to prepare an update on the progress against the 2023 scrutiny recommendations which were accepted by Cabinet. This will be shared, for noted to OSCE, that's overview and scrutiny. The last response was, you know, the first section of the recommendations of overview and scrutiny. The second response, as it relates to recommendations of overview and scrutiny pertaining to board composition of POPLO, is of the following. The Executive accepts this recommendation in part, it will commission a review of governance to test the current board arrangements against full practice in the development and company sector, with specific reference to arrangements at other wholly owned Council housing companies. As part of this board composition, as part of this board composition can be reviewed for recommendations offered around appropriate lessons and benefit of any of the changes, including those set out by the scrutiny committee so that they can be considered in the round. The Executive will therefore, the Executive will therefore not be making any immediate changes to board composition and the appointments process until the review has concluded and will provide a copy of the review report to overview and scrutiny for LOTIMS. The next area of overview recommendations, as it relates to internal audit, the response is as follows. The Executive is committed to ensure actual governance and as part of good practice will instruct officers to work with POPLO to review current procurement processes. It may be appropriate for internal audit to support this clerk, but that decision will be subject to further consideration by officers in line with the usual practice. The Committee should know that in situations where people are spending public money, it is advised in law to follow public sector procurement regulations. Your contracts are advertised from a procurement portal and they make use of frameworks where appropriate. These processes mirror those which are in place in the Council. The Council retains oversight for procurement activity carried out on projects the company is delivering for renewal. The matters regarding the underperformance of a contractor and the liquidation of one contract bidder, as raised in the Cabinet Report, are taken extremely seriously by the Council and the Popular Development Management Team. Work is carried out to understand the reason for what matters arise in the learning industries to inform future practice. It should be noted that the Cabinet Report sets out the reasons for the budget increase required in relation to the Phase 1, namely construction cost inflation, which has affected the entire housing development and new fire safety requirements following the Grenfell fire tragedy. All of Poplar bill costs are benchmarked against similar redundant schemes as part of routine check-in to ensure that the money is secured. Additionally, the main works contract has not been entered into yet, so there is no overrunning of costs on construction. As for this, it is a proposed budget and there is no people as yet to enter into contract, which as that will be subject to a further decision. And then finally, in response to the opening and scrutiny recommendations, as it relates to comparison and alignment with affordable housing in Newham. In 2020, the Council, this is the executive response. In 2020, the Council agreed the Affordable Homes Renewing Strategy. This strategy set out the Council's approach to building new affordable homes with Council and grant funding. The delivery of the programme was initially split between the Affordable Homes Renewing Team, which was within the Council's Housing Services Division, but this is now within the Community Well-Field-in-Place Division, also in the Inclusive Economy Housing and Cultural Directorate and Popular Living. Each of the teams operate as development managers to promote schemes through the planning process and procure contractors to build alpha developments. The Corporate Director has already initiated a review of this approach to the delivery of the Affordable Homes Renewing Programme, including the delivery model to inform future direction. This review includes comparisons between key financial metrics, including costs, including schemes commissioned by the AHFN to the Affordable Homes Renewing Team and Pueblo Living. The outcomes of this review will be reported as appropriate in line with the governance. The Council's governance processes, including cabinets, and any changes to the delivery approach will be reported this way. Once concluded and published, a copy of the report will be sent to overview of the government. So that's the executive response for the recommendations made. Could you just hold on from that? So, in the interest of ensuring that there is healthy engagement of what I have just set out in response to the recommendations, as set out by a councillor turning informant. I am going to invite councillor turning informant if there is anything that you wish to query in light of what you've heard or any kind of clarification. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I welcome the fact that officers are really having discussions with external partners regarding this the Carpenters Army program. That is something to be welcome. What OPEW has in mind in terms of that recommendation, and I think that OPEW wanted to go a bit further. I just want to see how we can work with external to have annual investment in terms of reducing the cost of liability on the council, given the council financial situation. Also, in our recommendation, we spoke about selling off or going into partnership with portions of land, et cetera. And the scheme has, as we recognized from the report, in 18 months, the scheme has increased by 300 million. That's a lot of money in less than two years. We know that the council cannot control the construction costs because like the south side of the worldview, inflation, et cetera, et cetera. And we must do all we can to reduce the costs where necessary. So that's welcome. We also, in terms of reporting, given the situation, we suggested we voted twice, et cetera. And I note in your response that you say that the once per year is sufficient. I am concerned even the fast moving pace of our financial situation and the fast moving pace of what's happening in the external environment. For instance, 300 million in the overall project, 20 million in the James Riley point. And perhaps if we were reporting and the much in the in true frequency, maybe twice per year and cabinet as well as scrutiny might have an opportunity to ask some critical questions to avoid such costs and the increasing in such costs. So I think we ought to reconsider that approach. In terms of the the popular and affordable homes, the comparisons, I welcome that work is already is already underway in the respect of this. However, the board composition, I noted that. And you said there would be no change to the current composition that is. Since it's a 100% owned. Company by this and consul. Well, the view is of the opinion that consul is at least two consul is should sit there in an oversight capacity. So, um, represent the interests of the consul. Some of the questions we were asking, um, it does, um, suggest that perhaps if consuls were there, from a consul perspective, those, um, questions might have been put to the board. And certain instances that stare might have been given as a result of they might have been present. Um, members, um, think that that is, um, a list and should be, um, rectified. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, council will comment. Um, I, um, getting going to refer you to the executive response, um, on the back of those two additional comments. I do really want to emphasize, uh, the. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. in the original cabinet report on the 4th of February. I would ask and suggest that in the context of an enhanced internal governance, notwithstanding what members may feel is being surfaced through that internal governance set-up of the council, for the reasons set out in the executive response, the annual reporting is considered rational and balanced, given all the other checks and balances that take place ahead of any formal paper coming to cabinet. I would welcome, outside of this meeting, in conjunction with relevant scrutiny officers, whether the set-up of scrutiny, as it relates to estate regeneration schemes through a particular committee, whether there needs to be some re-balancing of some of the scrutiny oversight, coming to overview scrutiny as a principal board. But that's a conversation I'm happy to have as a suggestion. And obviously, I appreciate that that's something that you may wish or may not wish to consider in consultation with your colleagues on overview scrutiny and other scrutiny chairs, because it's for scrutiny to determine on the advice of scrutiny officers, including the staff and the relevant corporate director, the useful and effective oversight of decision-making in this council for the scrutiny phase. I'm mindful of this in some other parts of the council system, in terms of its operational and governance architecture that come into play, including various officer-led boards. One final thing that I would like to say, as it relates to the Popular Living Board, I think it is really important that we, in the context of a wholly owned company of the council that's part of delivering houses for us, that we appropriately balance the performance requirements for governance and the organisational oversight, and member involvement on a direct board of a wholly owned county clerk by the council housing delivery company, who will indeed have benefits and that will be explored as part of the review, but also there are risks, potentially. I recall certainly in the context of its previous iteration, as you will be aware, the Global Living was known as Red Door Boaches, and there were attempts to transfer council assets as it related to housing delivery into a separate legal, legally compliant, but it would be my former predecessor on that board. And it raised the whole series of concerns in government's terms, so I'll just pause at that. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I'm, yes. Thank you. Regarding this, some reviews that you mentioned that are ongoing, and I know you may not be able to answer it now, and we have, as soon as possible, and the timelines for these reviews, so Scrutiny can keep itself appraised of the reviews and apps for those reviews, and can I ask that we alerted as soon as those reviews, so the timelines for those reviews, and we give them those reviews once they are published. As per the executive response, you'll be receiving the outcome of those reviews, and I will work with Officer Colleagues to provide you a follow-up note, and then it will be useful in one of our monthly needs. The next one, we can talk through what the existing work programme or Scrutiny Committees are as it relates to housing delivery, but also overview and scrutiny. As per the executive response, yeah? As per the scrutiny overview, I will take that back, your suggestion back to overview and scrutiny, and then respond back. Please receive it as a suggestion for consideration, that's not a direction, but that's why I said suggestion, I will take it back to my colleagues, as a suggestion from yourselves. Okay, so colleagues, I just need to have formal confirmation that you've noted the expected response to the recommendations made by overview and scrutiny. Can we have a group by Cabinet members only? That's agreed. That's agreed. That's agreed. Okay, and then, now moving on to the third element of the overview and scrutiny recommendation, and this is to decide whether to confirm the original decision, and if you look at the footnote, it says, the footnote one, having reached the referral of the Cabinet decision from the overview and scrutiny committee for reconsideration, and having considered any concerns that have been provided by the committee, the Cabinet may either A, amend the decision, or B, not amend the decision, and C, make a final decision. Right, okay, so there are three options. Decide whether to confirm the original decision. So, can I just have an agree or disagree with 1A, so that is amend the decision. Is that agreed or disagreed? Disagreed. Okay. Okay. Can I just have a, all those agreeing with 1A, which is primarily amend the decision of the force of, February 2025? If you disagree, can you just agree that you disagree? That's all I need. Right, okay. Agree to disagree. Agree to disagree. Yeah. Does that make sense? Right, great. Thank you very much. I'm just trying to make sure that we've covered off everything. Okay, so that's going back to the recommendation. Decide whether to confirm the original decision, and that's on the basis that it would be not a amend the decision. Do we agree not to amend the decision? Agreed. That's agreed, Joy. I'm hearing it's agreed. That's agreed. Is that fine? Right. And then the final one, decide whether to confirm the original decision, and make a final decision. That's not relevant anymore. All right, so that's a confirming the original decision. Do we agree to confirm the original decision? Agreed. That's agreed. Okay. There should be amended to reflect that. Yeah, no, it's in the footnotes. No, it's in the footnotes. I didn't say that agree to the final decision. Yeah. It needs to be amended. So, the, if you know that recommendation, dash, the second dash, that goes decide whether to confirm the original decision. And then there's some notes against what that is. So, it's decide whether to confirm the original decision and make a final decision, which is, the final decision is to agree the previous 4th of February decision. Yep. Great. Thank you very much. Now, thank you very much. We are now needing to move to noting Agenda Item 4. So, we've now completed Agenda Item 3. Agenda Item 4 is the executive response to ovine scrutiny calling of restoration regeneration of carbon state program update executive decision. That's pages 121 to 124. And this is just basically the response, but it doesn't have any recommendations. So, how do you advise me to keep this, because it's not in the motion of the amendment. Okay. So, Agenda Item 4. Agenda Item 4 should have been appended to Agenda Item 3. So, can we just note that Agenda Item 4, should have been appended to Agenda Item 3, and there shouldn't have been an Agenda Item 4, as is, but having that Agenda Item 4, we're just noted. Okay. Right. Is that agreed? We're noted. Thank you very much. Okay. I'm now moving on to the report from overview and scrutiny committee on the development of people power places plan. And similarly, this is the report from overview and scrutiny, and they feel that we're going to have to go to the report from initially. So, may I ask Council McCormick to briefly introduce this item and set out the reasons why overview and scrutiny committee have referred this item back to public, please. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. By way of summary, on the 18th of February, 2025, overview and scrutiny committee called in the cabinet decision concerning the development of the people power places program. The overview and scrutiny committee decided to refer this decision back to cabinet for reconsideration. Our reason for the referral to cabinet include, one, the financial sustainability and value for money concerns, operational effectiveness issues, governance and risk management, strategic alignment outcome and questions, and resource indication. And by way of amplification. The committee considered the application of NCIL funding in line with NCIL requirement outline the section 6.1 of the cabinet report. The committee proposed alternative approaches for distributing the 1.6 million pounds. These approaches aim to maintain the core principle of the people's power places while supporting the more strategic new ones, delivering measurable outcome and sustainable community benefits. The committee made the following recommendations. One, direct infrastructure investment. The committee recommended establishing a neighborhood improvement fund focused on tangible local infrastructure, including upgrades to parks and playgrounds, community facilities, renovation, street lighting improvement, and accessibility modification to public spaces. The committee considered that this approach would support the development of permanent community assets with clear and measurable outcome. Two, targeted grant programs. The committee recommended introducing specific funding stream aligned with concept priorities instead of participatory budgetary. Proposed funds include youth. Model- diet grid issues. Not only so at least 10%. utveckilyne strategies at convenient doors. Acro locate perfekt the-level facility funding, a faith model, a state care autonomic familyLEX FACILITY FACILITY Fub a community safety infrastructure fund, and a well-being centred improvement fund, and an environmental improvement fund, and an environmental improvement. The committee considered that this approach would enhance strategic alignment while maintaining community participation in funding decision. The committee recommended partnering with established organizations that could match NCIL funding, such as housing association, local business, and other grant-making bodies. The committee considered that this approach would amplify the impact of NCIL fund while supporting project sustainability. Four, community assets transfer program. The committee recommended using community funds to support community ownership of local assets. This could involve supporting community groups to take over the management of facilities, funding for disability studies and business planning, and providing capital improvement before transfer. The committee considered that this would create sustainable community infrastructure with clear partnership. Five, commission service model. The committee recommended a commission service model to identify specific neighborhood needs through community consultation, commission target service through competitive tendering process, and ensure clear outcome measures and accountability. The committee considered that this approach would enhance the value for money while maintaining a strong community focus. And five, and six, the committee recommended that following implementation, all recorded outcomes remain within the scope of the NCIL stipulations, ensuring they are physically tangible and measurable in terms of infrastructure delivery. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I am now going to invite any members of Cabinet or Executive, if there are any questions that you would have to ask the points of clarification you may have. to the overview and scrutiny report and recommendations following the calling of the People Power Places Programme 2025-27. Are there any questions? No. Okay, fine. Okay, fine. So, as before, I'm going to be inviting Councillor Charlene McLean to provide an executive or six recommendations and then we'll go through. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Charlene McLean, Cabinet Member for Resident Engagement and Resident Experience. I trust that the members of the committee have managed to read the Cabinet report. That's that agenda item six of the agenda is a comprehensive response to your recommendations. It was good to go to the call in actually and to hear how, you know, members had thought about different ways that People Power Places could be done. From the recommendations that were given, note that there is a saving in the MTFS C7, I think it is, where, you know, the first recommendation direct infrastructure investment could be explored. That wouldn't be for myself, that would be for planning and colleagues in finance to do. But that could be using that approach. And I'll also mention about match funding. So, there is already the Roldox, they put some funds into the south of the borough, which is not quite match funding, but it is funding. So, that is something that we already do and something that we are exploring going forward with other partners who could potentially do similar. So, just to add, Chair, with regards to the other recommendations, work can be done to see how they could potentially be used, how they could be taken forward. How they could be taken forward. Which one of the recommendations? Which aspect of this? Which aspects? I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last bit of what you were saying. Okay. So, I just picked out two of the recommendations. I got a match funding. Yeah. I was talking back and then you went down to speak about something. Oh, okay. Yeah. I mean, I could do what you did, Chair, and read out the response, if you would like me to. No, I think you made reference to, of the recommendations by overview and scrutiny, and we could consider those. Yeah. So, I think it's just seeking clarity as to what that means in the context of the executive response as it relates to the People, Power, Places programme presently. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, the report that is at gender item fire, it restates that our pledge to participate in democracy, and that the People, Power, Places will be staying in its current iteration. But it's an ever evolving programme, we learn and make changes as time goes by. So, yeah. It meets our policy and our intent of this administration. Okay. Sorry, I'm not very well. I may, just to provide some additional clarity. So, in summary, the report sets out that the current People, Power, Places programme, of which there has been a review process inherent in the delivery of the programme and learning, there will be the solidifying and implementation of that learning as part of the coming two-year cycle. And the executive decision as approved on the 4th of February will stand. In addition, as it relates to the recommendations of opening scrutiny, some of the ways in which the money currently being assigned to the People, Power, Places programme, i.e. the name, the proportion of the neighbourhood community infrastructure levy monies that's been assigned. That money, as assigned, will remain. There is additional neighbourhood community infrastructure levy money, and as part of a review that's already underway as to how better we can use the remaining portion of the neighbourhood community infrastructure levy monies to help offset general fund pressures. That's been explored, and we will look at these ideas as part of that review exploration. There's going to be a review. There's a review underway by Planning Officer relating to neighbourhood community infrastructure levy money. Okay. Okay. Is there anything else? No. Thank you, Jeff. Yeah. Right. Thanks, sir. Your response. I'm looking at the people, obviously, they are at odds with what I'm really recommending from the scrutiny. to me, I suppose, more at odds than the previous topic that we addressed earlier. And rather than going through all of it here, because we have already got your response, as I said, they are at odds. And I would consider these and take it up in the respective committee where we can try to influence some of the outcomes to this. I would, or sweetly, would have appreciated the executive taking on board. And I know that one of the things that this administration wants to have the people more involved in the decision regarding the local neighbourhood, etc. and so on. However, we are not satisfied that that's meaningful and the residents are really involved. Also, in terms of the funding, the way the funding is allocated and the funding streams, etc. There's a lot of money here that is being spent, 1.6 million is a lot of our money in the current financial climate. And that's why we make some of the recommendations that we have made. The math funding, I welcome your approach that, and the honesty that you're doing some, but there's room for development, and we did point out some of the things that we have to change in terms of the math funding, and that's good. However, it's disappointing that more of our recommendation hasn't been taken on board in this area, but we will continue to work with the executive as a scrutiny to ensure that we can influence changes as we go along. In the future. Okay. Are there any other comments that anyone wishes to make in relation to the executive response or anything that we've heard from councillor McCombs? Did you want to say something? No, I'll leave it. Okay, fine. Surprisingly. Did you want to say something? No, I'll leave it. Okay, fine. Surprisingly. Did you want to say something? No, no, okay, excuse me. So, can we just, on the recommendations on the big page number one, two, five, I'm just going to quickly. So, this is the agenda item five, the report from over, and there are three elements of recommendations, and I'm going to need to have some confirmations or otherwise of all three elements. So, the first one is consider the referral of the executive decision on the development of the People Power Places Programme 2025-2027 made by Catherine 24th February 2025, and the recommendations of the Overview Scrutiny Committee. Yes. So, I need to ask Cabinet, do you note the, have you considered the referral of the executive decision on the recommendations of the Overview Scrutiny Committee? Yes. Right, so that's a yes. Join. Then, could I ask on the third element, where it says, provide an executive response to the recommendations made. Can I ask all of Cabinet, are you agreeing to note the provision of the executive response to the recommendations made? Yes. Yes. Me too. And then, the final element is as follows, so this is again, decide whether to confirm the original decision, and there are three variations of this recommendation. So, the first one is, do you agree or disagree to decide whether to confirm the original decision and amend the decision? Right, is that an agree or disagree? Disagree. Disagree. Disagree. Disagree. Disagree. Anyone agree? Anyone disagree? Yes. Yes. Right, so that's a disagree. The third, sorry, the second variation of this recommendation element, decide whether to confirm the original decision and not amend the decision. Is that agreed? Agreed. Agreed. And then, just for the purposes of stating it, there is a decide whether to confirm the original decision and make that final decision. So, we have confirmed the original decision and we're making a final decision, have you confirmed the original decision? Do we agree? Yes. Agreed. That's agreed. Okay, so that's that. Sorry, before someone goes, because we've just got to note some final papers. Agenda Item 6, this is the Executive Response to the Spooky Calling of People Powered Places, which was presented in short form by Councillor Sarni McLean, but it's a report, it's an Appendix A, but it's listed as an agenda item. Can we just, for the interests of conforming to agenda items on popular, can we just agree the People Powered Places Program Executive Response, is that agreed? Agreed. Agreed. Okay, fine. Oh, hang on, I've got to, can I just be more specific? Noting the report, can we agree the recommendations are set out on page 133 of the report titled People Powered Places Program, and this is the Executive Response. Is that agreed? Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. And then, can we just note the exclusion of the press and public as an agenda item? That's noted, is that agreed? Noted. And then, can we note the exempt appendices for agenda item 3 as agenda item 8? That's noted. Exempt appendices. Noted. Great. Thank you very much, colleagues. Sorry. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. We did it as a template, not for you. I haven't known. No idea. We sorted out this a little standard. Thank you.