The Mayor welcomed councillors, officers, the press and members of the public joining the meeting.

The Mayor advised that the meeting was being live broadcast via the Council’s YouTube, and that to minimise travel and maintain social distancing, some officers had joined the meeting via Zoom. Councillors who had not been able to join the meeting in person were able to join remotely, however they would not be able to present an item, move or second a motion or vote, and their attendance would not be officially recorded, although their virtual attendance would be noted in the minutes.

The Mayor advised that there was a supplementary agenda for agenda item 3 – Minutes (Item 4 in the minutes), enclosing the minutes of the meeting held 20th December 2022

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Joshua Garfield, Sabia Kamali, Mumtaz Khan, Mariam Dawood and Luke Charters.  

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct this is the time for Members to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or non-pecuniary interests they may have in any matter being considered at this meeting having regard to the guidance attached to the agenda.

Councillor Sarah Ruiz declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 9 - Development of the Community Assemblies programme 2023 – 25 (Item 10 in the minutes) as she was a trustee of three local organisations that might apply for a grant.

The Monitoring Officer advised that Councillor Ruiz would be able to take part in the discussion of and vote on the item.

Decisions of Cabinet made on the 6^th December 2022 (Enclosed)

Decisions of Cabinet made on the 20^th December 2022 (To follow)

The minutes of the Cabinet meetings held on 6^th and 20^th December 2022 were agreed as a correct record.

There were no appointments to outside bodies made.

For the reasons set out in the report and its appendices, Cabinet RESOLVED to AGREE:

i)  Subject to successful grant of planning permission and subject to recommendations (ii) and (iv) the Council’s land at Major Road shown edged yellow on the Plan at Appendix 1, (“the Land”) may be sold to the adjoining Church;

ii)  To delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Resources in consultation with the Lead Member for Housing Services and the Lead Member for Finance and Corporate Services to ensure compliance with any consultation requirements and to determine whether to proceed with the disposal of the Land;

iii)  For the Council to have the option to acquire the long leasehold interest in up to 85 units (the Property) subsequently built on the entire Major Road site on practical completion;

iv)  To delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Resources in consultation with the Lead Member for Housing Services and the Lead Member for Finance and Corporate Services to negotiate and finalise the terms and legal documentation for the disposal, the option and any subsequent acquisition in line with the terms set out at exempt appendices 1 and 2 and to complete these matters subject to the necessary due diligence for the transactions, including related planning documents; and

v)  That the Property (if acquired) should be leased to a suitable 3rd party housing organisation and to delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Resources in consultation with the Lead Members for Housing Services and Finance & Resources to determine the arrangements for the Council’s letting of the Property in line with paragraphs 5.12-5.17 below and to enter into the necessary associated legal and contractual documentation.

Alternatives Considered

1. The Council could sell its freehold interest on the open market. This is not recommended because the Council’s land, in isolation, does not have the advantages of a combined site and is unlikely to achieve the value negotiated and proposed in this transaction.

2. The Council and its wholly owned company, Populo, have also explored undertaking the development itself but due to the cost of the Church’s land this is not financially viable. It would also mean the Council taking all the development risk on building out both the residential and church.

3. If the Council were to just develop on its own land it would only be able to build an estimated 18 units versus the 85 units if the two sites are combined.

4. The Council could do nothing. This is not recommended as the Council land would not form part of a wider housing development and the community facilities envisaged by the Church. The Council would forego the receipt of affordable homes for Newham residents.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources introduced a report setting out that the Council owned undeveloped land at Major Road in Stratford, adjacent to the Major Road Baptist church.  It was explained that the church wished to redevelop its site for a new church facility and housing.  A larger and more efficient development, to provide 85 new homes, could be undertaken by combining the church and council land. The report therefore sought approval to transfer its land to the church to enable such a development, combined with an option agreement for the Council to purchase the new homes on completion.

Decision:

For the reasons set out in the report and its appendices, Cabinet RESOLVED to AGREE:

i)  Subject to successful grant of planning permission and subject to recommendations (ii) and (iv) the Council’s land at Major Road shown edged yellow on the Plan at Appendix 1, (“the Land”) may be sold to the adjoining Church;

ii)  To delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Resources in consultation with the Lead Member for Housing Services and the Lead Member for Finance and Corporate Services to ensure compliance with any consultation requirements and to determine whether to proceed with the disposal of the Land;

iii)  For the Council to have the option to acquire the long leasehold interest in up to 85 units (the Property) subsequently built on the entire Major Road site on practical completion;

iv)  To delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Resources in consultation with the Lead Member for Housing Services and the Lead Member for Finance and Corporate Services to negotiate and finalise the terms and legal documentation for the disposal, the option and any subsequent acquisition in line with the terms set out at exempt appendices 1 and 2 and to complete these matters subject to the necessary due diligence for the transactions, including related planning documents; and

v)  That the Property (if acquired) should be leased to a suitable 3rd party housing organisation and to delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Resources in consultation with the Lead Members for Housing Services and Finance & Resources to determine the arrangements for the Council’s letting of the Property in line with paragraphs 5.12-5.17 below and to enter into the necessary associated legal and contractual documentation.

Alternatives Considered

1. The Council could sell its freehold interest on the open market. This is not recommended because the Council’s land, in isolation, does not have the advantages of a combined site and is unlikely to achieve the value negotiated and proposed in this transaction.

2. The Council and its wholly owned company, Populo, have also explored undertaking the development itself but due to the cost of the Church’s land this is not financially viable. It would also mean the Council taking all the development risk on building out both the residential and church.

3. If the Council were to just develop on its own land it would only be able to build an estimated 18 units versus the 85  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

For the reasons set out in the report, Cabinet RESOLVED to AGREE:

i)  To delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Environment, Highways and Sustainable Transport, in consultation with the Lead Member for Environment, Sustainable Transport & Parking for officers in HAST to work with colleagues in the parking service to develop a car club policy to contribute towards the Council’s sustainable transport objectives and air quality and health outcomes, to include numbers of bays, suggested car club permit annual costs and any other details as appropriate;

ii)  To commence a soft market testing exercise with car club operators in order to gauge the likely number of bays the market could provide across the Borough, what mix of floating and back to base models is appropriate, and establish an appropriate and viable annual concession payment for car club vehicles of each of the different operating models, for the purposes of informing a subsequent zero cost car club procurement exercise;

iii)  To proceed with a competitive procurement exercise at zero cost to the Council to secure an operating partner or partners (a car club operator or operators), to operate the number and types of bays identified above, to secure best value;

iv)  To note that existing Car Club bays in the Borough, delivered through specific planning agreements will not be affected by this exercise, and will continue to operate with the current operator as per the existing obligation secured at the time of planning consent;

v)  To note that to date, these existing operators have not been charged for operating a car club vehicle from these bays, although the Council’s costs of designating and implementing the bay are met in full in every case; and

vi)  There are no current plans to retrospectively apply a charge to the current operators of bays secured in this way, but this will remain under review.

Alternatives Considered

The alternative would be to not do anything and leave the car club provision at it is currently, with it remaining a process led by planning applications and conditions on approvals. This would not benefit our residents in those parts of the Boroughs were substantial new development is not proposed, who would not be able to gain from the opportunities as listed in this report. Car club provision would remain very focussed on individual development proposals rather than seeking to provide a Borough-wide provision, and would therefore not ensure equitable access to car club opportunities. Doing nothing would also not generate any additional funding from permit revenue for the council to improve its services.

The Statutory Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainable Transport introduced a report, which advised that in early 2022, officers commissioned the Highways & Sustainable Transport Term Consultants, Project Centre Limited, to undertake a study into the potential for a car club offer in the Borough and, if appropriate, identify a road map to the implementation of bays across the Borough and finding an operator (or operators) to operate car club vehicles from them.

It was explained that it had been concluded that there was significant scope for a viable car club operation in Newham that would be attractive to the operator marketplace, and that the Council should proceed with the development of a car club strategy, and commence a soft market testing exercise prior to a procurement exercise to find a preferred operating partner.

The report sought approval to commence the development of a policy on the provision of a Car Club offer within the borough of Newham and approval to commence an associated procurement exercise to secure an operator(s) to provide the service in the form of a concession agreement.

Members held a detailed discussion on the report and made comments and asked a number of questions, to which the Presenting Officer responded as follows:

·  Promotion of the Car Club would begin once an operator had been appointed

·  Vehicles will be provided by the Car Club operator

·  Negotiations would take place to ensure prices for the Car Club were competitive

·  Consideration would be given to the location of Car Club spaces, in particular in areas of CCTV coverage to alleviate the possibility of Car Club vehicles being vandalised

·  It was likely that 30% of Car Club parking bays would be for electric cars

The Mayor asked why the procurement process and the development of a Car Club Strategy were being undertaken in parallel.  The Presenting Officer responded that the intention was to undertake soft market testing to determine the strategy.  Once testing had been undertaken and a strategy established this would determine the procurement approach.

In response to a further question from the Mayor, the Presenting Officer stated that it was envisaged that the cost of a car club permit would be the same as the current business permit and would generate a potential income of around £200,000 per annum.  The Presenting Officer advised that the procurement exercise would look to optimise maximum value for residents.

The Mayor asked about the contribution of Car Club bay to congestion in the areas they were located.  The Presenting Officer stated that it was claimed that the introduction of a Car Club reduced the number of vehicles owned by around ten.  Car Club vehicles were modern, low emission vehicles and so were less polluting

The Mayor referred to the recommendation that set out that that existing Car Club bays in the Borough, delivered through specific planning agreements would not be affected by the exercise and asked whether this meant there would be two car club regimes. The Presenting Officer advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

For the reasons set out in the report, Cabinet RESOLVED to AGREE:

That Liberty Charge Ltd, be appointed as our preferred Charge Point Operator for this procurement, to deliver, operate and maintain 400 electric vehicle chargers for the agreed concession period.

Alternatives Considered

1.  The alternative to engaging with potential partners over reduced cost options for charge point delivery would be to continue to rely on increasingly uncertain central government funding initiatives to fund a conventional procurement exercise.

2.  This would require a 25% match fund from Council funds, although it is acknowledged that the market is increasingly offering to cover this match funding contribution.

3.  Therefore, if we are to continue our electric vehicle rollout without utilising scarce Council capital, we must continue to explore potential market partnerships to assist with our EVCP delivery, while being mindful of securing the best option for the Council from any agreements with those potential partners.

4.  Officers have also been mindful not to entertain any exclusivity agreements with either UBER or the successful bidder, so as not to constrain any further market discussions in the future, and Newham remains very much ‘open for business’ for any charge point operators who wish to present us with their propositions.

5.  In addition, there was also an option to not deliver any new electric charging points at all and to refuse the UBER funding, but this would not meet with our corporate aims on air quality or public health. Therefore, this option was quickly disregarded

6.  There were also a number of alternatives options regarding the route to market, in particular the TTPL and ESPO purchasing frameworks.  TTPL Frameworks had a Limited pool of suppliers - following an initial assessment only 4 suppliers had the resource and existing infrastructure to respond to an RFP. ESPO was not considered suitable due to the expiry date, and it will not be feasible to fully coordinate with the other Local Authorities and run/assess an RFP within the timelines.

7.  Finally, following the limited response to the tendering exercise, it could have been possible to not appoint and re-tender. However, the supplier chosen was fully compliant in their responses to the ITT, and any delay would have both risked the UBER funding deal and delayed any significant improvement in our air quality. Neither of these would have been an acceptable outcome.

The Statutory Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainable Transport introduced a report setting out that in December 2021, Cabinet considered a strategy for the accelerated delivery of electric vehicle charging points (EVCPs) including the prospect of a funding agreement with a private hire operator to fund a procurement exercise for the delivery of EVCP’s to support their drivers to transition to electric vehicles. 

It was explained that funding agreement and a procurement approach were both agreed in a further paper approved by Cabinet on 8th March 2022.  Officers of the Council have been working with UBER’s procurement experts Proxima Ltd and industry advisors Cenex Ltd, to develop a comprehensive technical specification evaluation for the tender exercise. 

The finalised tender was launched on 24th August 2022, and closed on 7th October 2022, which included a short extension to allow for some clarifications to be provided to prospective bidders. The report advised that three compliant bids were received.

In response to a question concerning the risk identified that the successful bidder was a recent addition to the market, the Presenting Officer advised that the bidder was in partnership with Virgin Media so it was considered a low risk.

Decision:

For the reasons set out in the report, Cabinet RESOLVED to AGREE:

That Liberty Charge Ltd, be appointed as our preferred Charge Point Operator for this procurement, to deliver, operate and maintain 400 electric vehicle chargers for the agreed concession period.

Alternatives Considered

1.  The alternative to engaging with potential partners over reduced cost options for charge point delivery would be to continue to rely on increasingly uncertain central government funding initiatives to fund a conventional procurement exercise.

2.  This would require a 25% match fund from Council funds, although it is acknowledged that the market is increasingly offering to cover this match funding contribution.

3.  Therefore, if we are to continue our electric vehicle rollout without utilising scarce Council capital, we must continue to explore potential market partnerships to assist with our EVCP delivery, while being mindful of securing the best option for the Council from any agreements with those potential partners.

4.  Officers have also been mindful not to entertain any exclusivity agreements with either UBER or the successful bidder, so as not to constrain any further market discussions in the future, and Newham remains very much ‘open for business’ for any charge point operators who wish to present us with their propositions.

5.  In addition, there was also an option to not deliver any new electric charging points at all and to refuse the UBER funding, but this would not meet with our corporate aims on air quality or public health. Therefore, this option was quickly disregarded

6.  There were also a number of alternatives options regarding the route to market, in particular the TTPL and ESPO purchasing frameworks.  TTPL Frameworks had a Limited pool of suppliers - following an initial assessment only 4 suppliers had the resource and existing infrastructure to respond to an RFP.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

For the reasons set out in the report, Cabinet RESOLVED to AGREE:

i)  To approve the procurement of a new Payment Acquiring Contract for a period of four years at an estimated value of £375,000 per annum via Lot 1: Face to Face & CNP Card Acquiring, Gateway & APM Services of the Crown Commercial Services RM6118 Framework Agreement; and

ii)  To delegate to the Corporate Director of Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Lead Member for Finance and Resources to award the contract to the most economically advantageous bidder.

Alternatives Considered

The other options that were considered and rejected were;

•  Extend Existing Contract – There is no long-term contract in place and the service has been provided on a rolling basis by WorldPay, therefore there is no ability to extend the contract.

•  Do Nothing - Allow the arrangement to remain on the current terms does not present best value for the Council as the ‘out of contract’ rates are significantly higher than could be achieved through re-procuring the contract.

•  Open Market Procurement – The provision of this service is very technical and there are very few providers in the market. To successfully run an open market procurement would require expertise that the Council does not currently have and external resources would have to be brought in.

•  Alternative Framework Agreement – The Technology Procurement Association (TPA) Framework has been explored, but this would incur an ongoing management fee which is a % of the savings identified for using the Framework. This has been discounted due to the additional costs incurred. 

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources introduced a report, which sought approval to re-procure a Payment Acquiring Service, which was necessary to enable the Council to continue to collect payments via debit and credit card.

It was explained that it was proposed to utilise the Crown Commercial Services RM6118 Framework Agreement (Lot 1) to award a contract for a four-year term.

Decision:

For the reasons set out in the report, Cabinet RESOLVED to AGREE:

i)  To approve the procurement of a new Payment Acquiring Contract for a period of four years at an estimated value of £375,000 per annum via Lot 1: Face to Face & CNP Card Acquiring, Gateway & APM Services of the Crown Commercial Services RM6118 Framework Agreement; and

ii)  To delegate to the Corporate Director of Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Lead Member for Finance and Resources to award the contract to the most economically advantageous bidder.

Alternatives Considered

The other options that were considered and rejected were;

•  Extend Existing Contract – There is no long-term contract in place and the service has been provided on a rolling basis by WorldPay, therefore there is no ability to extend the contract.

•  Do Nothing - Allow the arrangement to remain on the current terms does not present best value for the Council as the ‘out of contract’ rates are significantly higher than could be achieved through re-procuring the contract.

•  Open Market Procurement – The provision of this service is very technical and there are very few providers in the market. To successfully run an open market procurement would require expertise that the Council does not currently have and external resources would have to be brought in.

•  Alternative Framework Agreement – The Technology Procurement Association (TPA) Framework has been explored, but this would incur an ongoing management fee which is a % of the savings identified for using the Framework. This has been discounted due to the additional costs incurred. 

For the reasons set out in the report and its appendices, Cabinet RESOLVED to AGREE:

i)  To delegate authority to the Interim Assistant Chief Executive - Chief Marketing Officer in consultation with the Lead Member Resident Engagement and Resident Experience for the programme;

ii)  To allocate each of the eight neighbourhoods a further £200k over two years for projects in their area to be chosen by the Community Assembly and local residents, totalling £1.6 million of Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy funding for April 2023 – March 2025;

iii)  To extend the Community Assembly cycle to a two-year cycle to enable smoother processes, better collaboration among services and more support for project delivery. The first year should focus on deliberation, project applications and participatory budgeting and the second year should focus on project delivery and evaluation.

iv)  To approve the key recommendations for the programme in section 4 - Proposals, in this paper. We have undertaken an internal evaluation programme engaging over 230 residents and stakeholders assessing the 2021-2023 cycles.

Alternatives Considered

No alternatives were identified to the core recommendations of this report. It is a Mayoral manifesto commitment to allocate each Neighbourhood Assembly a budget for projects in their area to be chosen by the Assembly and local residents

The Cabinet Member for Resident Engagement and Resident Experience introduced a report which provided an overview of the Newham Community Assemblies, which have been running since 2018.  The Newham Community Assemblies enable residents and other stakeholders to engage in participatory budget setting within the eight community neighbourhoods.

It was explained that the report gave an overview of the processes to date and evaluated the progress and considered lessons learnt to be applied to the next cycle commencing in April 2023.

The Cabinet Member for Resident Engagement and Resident Experience advised that the outcome of the evaluation of the project, was amongst other things to extend the cycle to 2 years to enable better service delivery, to increase representation and provide a simpler online process.

The Cabinet Member for Resident Engagement and Resident Experience advised the meeting that there were minor amendments to the report and recommendations. The amendments were to paragraphs 1.3 of the report, recommendation 2.2.2 and paragraph 3.7, to insert the word ‘neighbourhood’ before the words Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).  It was explained that the minor amendments would provide clarity on the source of funding applied to the programme for the Neighbourhood element of the Community Infrastructure Levy.

The Interim Assistant Chief Exec, Chief Marketing Officer stated that this was an extraordinary programme recognised across the whole of the UK. 

Members commented that one of the improvements to the programme was to increase representation from diverse groups and Members wondered how data on around diversity would be improved in order to achieve that aim.  Members also wondered how it could be ensured that the same groups were not always being engaged with.  The Interim Assistant Chief Exec, Chief Marketing Officer advised that marketing of the programme to ensure hard to reach groups were aware of it would take place and libraries and leaflets would be used to reach out to residents to make them aware of the programme.

In response to a question from the Mayor, the Interim Assistant Chief Exec, Chief Marketing Officer stated that only those that had taken part in the programme had been engaged with during the evaluation of the project.  However, the Resident Survey could be used to make people, not already involved more aware of the programme.

Members welcomed the review of the Community Assemblies funding, including the additional time for the community assemblies process.  Members felt that some residents might need additional support to ensure projects were delivered.

In response to a question as to how the programme would engage with young people, the Presenting Officer stated that a sub-group for young people would be established and the programme would be aligned with other forums for young people.

The revised recommendations, as set out above were considered and agreed as detailed below

Decision

For the reasons set out in the report and its appendices, Cabinet RESOLVED to AGREE:

i)  To delegate authority to the Interim Assistant Chief Executive - Chief Marketing Officer in consultation with the Lead Member Resident Engagement and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

To resolve that the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) of business to the extent that exempt information as described in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 is likely to be disclosed.

It was agreed to exclude the press and the public from the remainder of the meeting during consideration of the following items on the grounds that the reports contained exempt information as detailed in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended.

Cabinet Members noted the exempt information provided.

Cabinet Members noted the exempt information provided.