The Overview and Scrutiny Committee of Haringey Council met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to consider a call-in of a Cabinet decision regarding the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL) Spending Round 2. The committee resolved that the Cabinet's decisions were within the Budget and Policy Framework and agreed not to take any further action, allowing the decisions to be implemented immediately.

Call-in of Cabinet Decision on Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL) Spending Round 2

The committee considered a call-in of the Cabinet's decision on the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL) Spending Round 2. Councillor Rossetti presented the call-in, raising concerns about the lack of clear and demonstrable evidence of public support for certain projects, specifically the mural proposals and the Civic Centre Woodland Garden. She questioned how these projects were prioritised without explicit nominations or visible support in the consultation evidence. Councillor Rossetti also highlighted that the Commonplace consultation did not clearly reference the Woodland Garden proposal or associated elements like information boards. She argued that while officers cited reasonable grounds for withholding some information, this limited transparency and made it difficult to understand project selection.

Councillor Rossetti further stated that consultation results indicated residents prioritised practical infrastructure improvements, such as street and kerbside enhancements, rather than cultural facilities like murals. She noted that the Cabinet report included examples of street and kerbside improvements but did not explicitly reference murals within this category, leading to concerns about inconsistent categorisation. The absence of clear support from stakeholder groups, including the Highgate and Crouch End Neighbourhood Forum, was also raised.

Concerns were also voiced regarding the Civic Centre Woodland Garden. Councillor Rossetti pointed out that a separate proposal for an indoor café at the Civic Centre received no public support, while a proposal to enclose Trinity Garden for child safety received significant backing but was not prioritised. She questioned why a project lacking visible support, like the Woodland Garden, had progressed.

Further concerns were raised about the application of eligibility criteria, particularly regarding funding availability. Councillor Rossetti noted that while the Cabinet report stated the Woodland Garden met the criterion of having no alternative funding sources, officers had referenced a provisional allocation and issued a call for design expressions of interest. This, she argued, created an apparent contradiction and suggested the decision-making process might have been predetermined. Councillor Rossetti contended that murals did not meet the definition of capital infrastructure and that their classification had shifted without clear justification, undermining confidence in the process. A broader concern about transparency was raised due to the absence of detailed information explaining project shortlisting, assessment, and scoring. Councillor Rossetti requested that the decision be reconsidered, a revised report produced with clear evidence of public support, and a transparent assessment against eligibility criteria.

During the discussion, it was clarified that NCIL policy allows funding decisions to be made having regard to consultation results, not solely based on explicitly nominated projects. The consultation aimed to gather views on the types of areas the council should consider funding, including cultural assets and street improvements. While five out of nine wards indicated support for murals, concerns were raised about the term public art and whether murals were explicitly identified as a priority in the consultation.

The committee discussed the shift from cultural priorities to practical infrastructure improvements, with suggestions that residents supporting street and kerbside improvements expected accessibility enhancements. Questions were raised about why certain projects, like the Civic Centre Woodland Garden, were not explicitly consultation options. The Chair noted that consultation categories were intentionally broad and could overlap, such as tree planting falling under environmental or street enhancements.

Councillor Rossetti maintained that insufficient evidence of direct support for the projects in question existed, and that resident views should carry weight. Further points were raised regarding the lack of support for the Woodland Garden and the absence of consideration for the Trinity Garden enclosure. The application of eligibility criteria was also discussed, with emphasis on prioritising projects that met more criteria.

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning and Deputy Leader, responded to the call-in, expressing disappointment. He highlighted that the NCIL programme represented a significant investment of £1.7 million across the borough and that over 500 submissions required difficult decisions. He described the challenged projects, including tree planting and the Woodland Garden, as broadly aligned with resident priorities. Councillor Williams stated that five out of nine NCIL areas identified public art as a priority and that concerns raised were overly focused on terminology. He commended officers for their engagement and proposal development, referencing the Borough of Culture programme and the value of community-led public art. He also noted that while the total funding appeared substantial, the local ward funding was limited, necessitating prioritisation.

In response to questions, it was explained that the consultation sought both general public priorities and specific project preferences. The top priority was tree planting and green spaces, aligning with projects like the Civic or Woodland Gardens. While a two-stage consultation was ideal, the council's governance allowed for a single process. Decision-making considered how well projects met criteria, supported by council service experts. Regarding the connection between support for street and kerbside improvements and murals, it was noted that a comprehensive process reviewed hundreds of projects, with street and kerbside improvements considered a broad category. Future NCIL funding rounds could revisit accessibility proposals.

It was clarified that demonstrating engagement and having regard to it was necessary for NCIL funding, not necessarily public support in the specific area. The consultation process involved 2,700 responses, refined through internal review and expert input. Final recommendations were selected based on alignment with consultation feedback and NCIL criteria. Public art was considered to foster community connection, engagement, and lasting benefits, addressing issues like youth disengagement and antisocial behaviour. However, queries were raised about prioritising murals over other public realm improvements like SUDS or better walking paths. It was explained that NCIL should be viewed alongside the larger Strategic CIL, which provided more funding for major infrastructure. Officers stated that decisions followed the adopted framework, with a commitment to review governance in one to two years.

Concerns about issuing a design tender before funding approval were addressed by explaining that preliminary design work ensures efficiency if funding is secured. The criterion of no alternative funding was a guideline, and the council's capital programme was fully committed. None of the recommended projects were already funded. Officers advised that the consultation process was robust, well-resourced, and ensured broad engagement, with thorough analysis of responses. Outcomes combined consultation feedback with governance and guiding criteria. A thorough internal process involving team collaboration, senior oversight, and formal approvals ensured robust internal consultation and governance standards were met. The Cabinet report included detailed appendices analysing projects against criteria, equality considerations, and key themes, reflecting community priorities.

The Head of Legal Services referred members to paragraph 6.8 of the report, explaining that decisions consistent with the plans listed in paragraph 6.6 were deemed within the policy and budget framework. The assessment in paragraph 8 confirmed the Cabinet decision was within the policy framework, and the Section 151 Officer confirmed it was within the Council's budget framework.

Following deliberation, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee resolved:

1. To agree that the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy Spending Round 2 decisions were within the Budget and Policy Framework.
2. To agree not to take any further action, and that the key decisions be implemented immediately.

The reasons for the decision stated that the call-in focused on two projects out of many receiving NCIL funding, and no evidence indicated the projects were ineligible. The committee found insufficient evidence to suggest unreasonable decisions on project allocations or the need to refer back to Cabinet. They were satisfied that Cabinet gave due regard to consultation results.

Councillor Connor stated she was not in agreement with Resolution 2, having not heard enough evidence to justify the proposals regarding public support for ward murals and the Civic Centre garden, particularly their funding status. She felt the reports were weak in these areas and supported referring the decision back to the decision-maker.