The Overview & Scrutiny Board met on 8 January 2025 and unanimously upheld a requisition to call in a Cabinet decision regarding the office-to-residential conversion of Chesham House to accommodate homeless families. The Board's decision means the Cabinet will need to reconsider its original decision.

Requisition of Cabinet Decision: Office to Residential Conversion at Chesham House

The primary focus of the meeting was the call-in of a Cabinet decision made on 11 December 2024 concerning the conversion of Chesham House into residential accommodation for homeless families. This process allows scrutiny committees to review and potentially challenge decisions made by the Cabinet.

Members of the Overview & Scrutiny Board expressed significant concerns regarding the financial stability of the National Housing Group, the company undertaking the conversion, noting a lack of liquidity and low levels of cash at bank and the recent departure of three directors. Despite officers' assurances that the company had prior experience in Havering and that the majority of costs would be met by housing benefit funds, the Board remained unconvinced.

Previous planning applications for the site had been rejected for reasons including incorrect noise surveys and a lack of section drawings. While officers stated these issues would be addressed and that a Lawful Development Certificate had been obtained, concerns persisted about the suitability of the location, described as being on an industrial estate, for residential use and the potential for noise disturbance. The Board also raised questions about the quality of the proposed accommodation and the risk of not meeting established standards, drawing parallels to the quality of accommodation at Royal Jubilee Court.

The Board was also concerned about the lack of detail regarding the procurement process, questioning why a full procurement process was not deemed necessary. Officers cited legal advice suggesting direct negotiation was permissible due to the National Housing Group's exclusive property rights. However, the Board expressed disappointment that they were not initially presented with this legal advice, which they felt significantly hindered the scrutiny process.

Further points of contention included the need for clarity on whether Stamp Duty would be payable on the development and the specific reasons why Mercury Land Holdings, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Council, could not be considered for the scheme due to a lack of public liability insurance. The Board also sought confirmation that the development would be exclusively for Havering residents and requested details on security arrangements, including CCTV.

Ultimately, the Board unanimously agreed to uphold the requisition by 10 votes to 0. They passed a series of recommendations to Cabinet, requesting confirmation on whether they wished to reconsider the original decision and responses to the Board's specific concerns. These recommendations included a request for more detailed information on the financial position of the National Housing Group, the suitability of the location, noise mitigation measures, quality aspects of the scheme, and clarification on the procurement and Stamp Duty issues. The Board also requested sight of all pre-planning application discussions and that briefings be provided to relevant planning committees.