Councillors
Abdirazak Abdi, Chan, Perrin, Lloyd and Kennelly have called in the decision to
place a contract for Stonebridge Annexe works occasioned by the need to decant
Brent Start facilities when the controversial new build takes place on the 1
Morland Gardens site in which the landmark Italianate will be demolished.
The
call-in will be heard by the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee on
September 23rd. I understand that its new chair Cllr Roxanne Mashari will not
be able to attend.
Decision:
Authority to Award Contract for Appointment of Engie Regeneration UK &
Ireland as Works Main Contractor under a JCT Intermediate Building Contract
with Contractor's Design 2016 Edition for Stonebridge Annexe, Stonebridge, NW10
0ST Date of decision(or date of public
notice for officer decisions): 26 August 2020
[Editor’s note: In correspondence Brent Council noted that the decision
was actually signed off by Nick Ljustina (as Operational Director – Property
& Assets) but this was on behalf of the Strategic Director, Regeneration
& Environment, which they say is permitted under the Council’s Officer Scheme of
Delegation.]
The group of councillors gave the following reasons for calling-in the
decision.
1.The above decision relates to the placing of a Contract for the works
of refurbishment to Stonebridge Annexe ("Enabling Works") enabling
the decanting of the Brent Start facilities from 1 Morland Gardens, NW6,
preparatory to the demolition of the existing buildings on that site, and the
erection of new mixed use buildings under planning application number 20/0345
(the"1 Morland Gardens Application").
2.The tender for the Enabling Works was concluded on or around 9 July,
and, according to the Report leading to the Decision, dates (described in the
Report as "anticipated")are set out for a Letter of Intent (14
August), a Letter of Award of Contract to Engie Regeneration UK & Ireland
(31 August), with a view to Contract Start on Site on 14 September.
3.Having today enquired of officers in Planning and Employment and
Skill, I have been informed that this Contract for the Enabling Works would not
be placed, if the development under the 1 Morland Gardens Application does not
proceed.
4.Issues have come to light regarding the 1 Morland Gardens Planning
Application:
·Consent to the 1 Morland Gardens Application is
awaited from the GLA;
·Notwithstanding the clear recommendations in
paragraph R1 of the Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment dated February 2019 by
Middlemarch Environmental ("Middlemarch Report") - based on a survey
made in December 2018 (and repeated in paragraph 206 of the Planning Report)
that at least 3 emergence/re-entry surveys be carried out during the period
May-September, no evidence has been supplied that any such surveys have been
carried out.
There are no surveys amongst the planning papers. Enquiry of officers
today has not so far revealed any surveys were undertaken.
Condition 13 of the draft Planning Consent for the 1 Morland Gardens
Application includes a requirement for adherence to the recommendations of the
Middlemarch Report; however, if no surveys have been carried out, works under
the 1 Morland Gardens Application must be deferred until after those surveys
have been undertaken, results available and appropriate response formulated and
actioned to ensure no criminal offence is committed. This would appear
potentially to be in autumn 2021.
Appendix 1 to the Middlemarch Report sets out the legislative
background; Regulation 41 of the Habitats Regulations 2017 states that a person
"commits an offence if they...deliberately disturb bats; or damage or
destroy a bat roost (breeding site or resting place)." If the surveys have
not been carried out - then the whole process must be delayed until autumn 2021
to avoid the Council's committing a criminal offence.
5.I understand the Enabling Works relating to this Decision do not need
planning consent. However, the provisions of the 2017 Regulations would still
apply if any part of those works had the potential to disturb, or damage or
destroy bats and their habitat in the Stonebridge Annexe as referred to above.
The Stonebridge Annexe is a building constructed in or around the 1930s,
with a substantial area of trees surrounding it, and with strong potential for
bat roosts and potentially on a Bat Corridor to the Welsh Harp and with Green
and Blue Corridors in the other direction.
Accordingly, the Enabling Works may have the potential to disturb bats,
and/or damage or destroy their habitats, if any are present. However, no
preliminary bat roost assessment was commissioned, which should be undertaken
prior to the Contract. There is no evidence that such assessment forms part of
the Enabling Works. Indeed, with the timetable referred to in the Report, the programme
outlined gives no time for such assessment to be undertaken, let alone any time
for any action which may be requisite to comply with statute, should evidence
of bats/roosts be present.
6.We understand that it has been agreed by the Chief Executive that an
investigation should be undertaken by the Strategic Director following the
raising of what I am told are serious concerns by a member of the public about
the Morland Gardens Application. This investigation is ongoing and could impact
on the Planning Consent for the 1 Morland Gardens Application.
7.The award of the Enabling Works Contract is premature, as there is
still no certainty that the scheme envisaged by the 1 Morland Gardens
Application will go ahead. Nonetheless, having regard to the importance of the
project, I have spoken to officers as to the requirement for an urgent placing
of the Contract for the Enabling Works in context of the project. In context of
those conversations, I do not understand the reason for the urgency.
Unfortunately, the Decision gives an impression of pre-emptive action. It will
commit the Council to expenditure which may be wasted. It is at least possible
to anticipate that, if delays in the development under the 1 Morland Gardens
Application were to arise as a result of one of the factors referred to above,
alternative proposals may result.
8.There is no compelling urgency to place the Enabling Works Contract
before the above matters are resolved. By contrast, unless the Decision is
called in, the Contract will be placed, and the Council will have irrevocably
incurred an expenditure of £1.2m, which may be wasted – hence the reason for
this carefully considered action.
When a decision is called-in the councillors signing the call-in are
required to put forward an alternative proposal. This is their statement.
The
decision should be deferred until:
1.It
is certain that the proposals for 1 Morland Gardens comprised in the 1 Morland
Gardens Application have received all necessary consents, including GLA consent;
and
2.The
legislatively required minimum of three bat emergence/re-entry surveys between
May and September in one year have been undertaken, consequent assessments
undertaken, the results considered and appropriate response actioned; and
3.The
potential requirement of bat surveys for the Stonebridge Annexe considered and
(if necessary) dealt with as above.
Scrutiny
Committee will agree to one of the following outcomes:
1. The
Committee does not wish to refer the matter back to the decision maker or to
Council, at which point the decision is deemed to be confirmed and takes effect
immediately following the meeting; or
2. The
Committee decides to ask the Strategic Director – Regeneration &
Environment to reconsider their decision, in light of any observations of the
Committee; or
3. Having
had regard to the advice of the Director of Legal and HR Services or Chief
Finance Officer, the Committee considers the decision is contrary to the
Council’s Budget or Policy Framework, at which point it refers the matter to the
next practicable meeting of the Council, subject to the provisions of Standing
Orders
The
investigation referred to in 6 above is that instigated by indefatigable Wembley
Matters contributor Philip Grant who has requested to speak to the Committee.
