See note 1

None.

None.

Councillor Diane Neil Mills outlined the reasons for the call in including:

·         The lack of consultation regarding the vision that Merton Priory Homes has for the housing stock;

·         That meetings were happening formally for a while and that there had been no consultation with ward councillors;

·         Reason for urgency in presenting the proposals to Cabinet at last minute was questioned;

·         Why were members not given the opportunity to undertake pre decision scrutiny;

·         Principles of regeneration were established by Cabinet which will influence the proposals without any ward councillor involvement;

·         Residents were more aware of the potential proposals that Councillors were

·         Lack of scrutiny of financial information linked to the proposals; and

·         Potential changes to the original housing stock transfer agreement and if this will actually result in bringing the housing stock up to the ‘decent homes’ standard

Councillor Henry Nelless explained that he felt that the decision should be reconsidered due to the lack of early indication that proposals would be commented on by residents; the absence of cross party briefings and the fact that Members were only made aware the day before the Cabinet papers were published. This did not provide enough time for councillors to feed into the consultation process. Councillors were not provided with the opportunity to comment on the nature of the questions and proposals that residents would receive.

Councillor Andrew Judge responded to the reasons expressed and outlined for the call in by arguing that this was not an appropriate call in and that this was not a Cabinet decision but a series of proposals from a third party (Merton Priory Homes) and that consultation with residents first was the priority. Cabinet has simply noted the processes being undertaken by Merton Priory Homes and that the principles drawn up by Cabinet are in draft at this stage and will be firmed up when more concrete proposals have been submitted for Cabinet consideration. Equally, the call in does not reflect the principles drawn up.

Furthermore, the 3 ward councillors for the affected areas were invited to a presentation and a further presentation was held for all group councillors. Cllr Andrew Judge stated that he welcomed scrutiny of the proposals at the appropriate intervals.

Councillor Nick Draper added that nothing has been agreed in terms of a regeneration programme. He agreed that whilst there has been little councillor involvement that opportunities were provided to meet with MPH to discuss the intention to consult.

Chris Lee said that he welcomed the opportunity to consider proposals from MPH which were cited in the transfer agreement, acknowledging the potential for regeneration. Some of the stock transfer doesn’t meet the decent homes standard so an approach like this might help.  The council welcomes the opportunity to discuss the proposals with MPH when all of the information is available. The proposals are outside of direct control of Merton Council. The timing is not in the gift of the council and MPH wished to let their residents know about the regeneration scheme without  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

CLOSED SESSION

The Panel held a discussion in closed session to the public as it referenced an exempt report on the agenda regarding Merton Priory Homes Regeneration Proposals. This information was discussed in private session for the reasons outlined in the exempt report (information relating to the financial or business affairs) and this discussion is detailed in the exempt minutes.