The Assistant Director of Regeneration and Place Delivery presented the report found on pages 9-14 of the agenda.

Councillor Anderson Chair of the Committee thanked Assistant Director for the report and commented didn’t feel that a two-and-a-half-page report on this topic was adequate, he then opened up to questions from other Committee Members.

Councillor Watson enquired if the £75.1 million was ring fenced for used by PCRL on the site or whether it could be used for other things. The Assistant Director of Regeneration and Place Delivery explained the £75million was for the housing infrastructure fund and was allocated from Homes England. He continued by stating the funding was directly for the Purfleet scheme, and in terms of the program itself £25 million of that funding had already

been put into an infrastructure program as part of the first phases of the programme.

Councillor Watson commented there where conditions attached to investment however Officers were still to sign the development agreement should there be a need of any changes. Members sought examples of what sort of changes could be required.  The Assistant Director stated any changes were still subject to discussions with potential Partners however changes could include amendments to the development agreement around the phasing of programme.

During discussions, Members were informed that in phase 1A 34 units out of 2650 units would be allocated for affordable housing. This would make up 10% of the overall scheme and was approved via Planning in 2019.  It was then asked by Councillor Carter as to why the IMC was being presented as a positive milestone when it hadn’t been past the discussion stage at present. The Assistant Director advised it was positive in that this was part of a network of IMC the Council was promoting across the borough and it was a requirement for this to be delivered as part of the first phase. He continued by further advising discussions were taking place in a positive manner with NHS colleagues, to enable them to move forward on terms of the ultimate design of the IMCs. He assured Members Officers were working positively to receive such confirmation and to move forward with the project.

Members heard how in terms of the development agreement it would be reviewed when every phase came forward as part of the project and would be tested for viability, this was so schemes which were not viable, were not brought forward.  The Assistant Director continued by saying working with PCRL these schemes would be reviewed to make sure they were viable both within the marketplace and also met the wider aspirations of the Council to create and to tie in with the cultural offer currently at High House Production Park and to build upon this.

The Director of Place addressed Members agreeing that the report before them was not good enough in terms of the detail or the content and moving forwards ensured the Committee there would be more detail included. He continued by stating Officers were starting to look at how to work more collaboratively across the different departments Property, Planning and Regeneration to ensure delivery of project.

Councillor Watson requested that the report be brought back to the Committee at a later meeting.

Following discussions around the recommendations Members agreed to reword recommendation 1.1 to read “Overview and Scrutiny Committee are asked to comment on the progress of the scheme in recent months in particular, the £75.1m HIF of Central Government investment into the Borough and note the development agreement”

RESOLVED

1. Overview and Scrutiny Committee are asked to comment on the progress of the scheme in recent months in particular, the £75.1m HIF of Central Government investment into the Borough and note the development agreement

2.    Note the ongoing process needed to negotiate terms with PCRL, Homes England and Thurrock Council to continue with the procurement of additional funding for the next phases of the Purfleet Programme.