Agenda Reports Pack (Public) 15/10/2012, 19.00 - Meetings ...

transfer would be premature. The Council would acquire a 995 year lease(virtual freehold) on the new replacement homes and could consider transfer ofits virtual freehold in this manner following completion of the redevelopmentscheme, once the regeneration benefits had been realised.Mr Barrett also appraised the Cabinet of the outcome of the Equalities ImpactAssessment undertaken on the proposals. It had been found that the impact ofmoving home could be greater for elderly residents or those with disabilities.The maintenance of existing support networks and the assistance of re-housingOfficers would be particularly important for these groups. There could also be anegative impact for people under-occupying properties. A single person with athree bedroom home would, for example, be allocated a two bedroom home byway of replacement. This would be balanced by the positive impact on familieswho were currently overcrowded. A Tenants Needs Analysis would ensure thatthey were allocated sufficient bedrooms to more appropriately meet their needs.An above average number of residents from black and minority ethniccommunities would feel any adverse impact of the scheme because a higherproportion in those groups lived on the estate compared to Borough wide orLondon averages.The Cabinet received three deputations on the proposals, from RichardOsband, a West Kensington Estate Resident, Keith Drew of West Kensingtonand Gibbs Green Residents Group and Maureen Way of the West Kensingtonand Gibbs Green Steering Group.Richard Osband raised concerns about the nature of the relationship betweenthe Council’s advisors PWC and JLL, and Capco, claiming that they were thesame companies which certified Capco’s accounts and valuation of thescheme. Mr Osband questioned whether it was right for Capco’s threeexecutive directors to take bonuses averaging £575,000 for what he felt wasthe destruction of residents homes and Earls Court. He noted that Transport forLondon, as the freeholder of the Earls Court Exhibition Centre, had yet toconsider the scheme and could, by forcing Capco to keep the Centre open,effectively block the plans. In his view this made any decision on a CLSApremature. Mr Osband queried whether an alternative plan could have beenrealised by the Council working with TfL and their own development partner.Finally, Mr Osband expressed concern at the involvement of Thomas andRaymond Kwok, who had purchased 50% of Seagrave Road from Capco andwere currently facing bribery and corruption charges in Hong Kong. Questionedby Councillor Cowan as to why he no longer considered the scheme goodvalue, Mr Osband replied that he was disturbed at the 20 year optionagreement for Capco and at apparent promises that residents would beprioritised for an early move to the new Seagrave Road properties if theysupported the scheme.The Chairman, in response to Mr Osband’s presentation, emphasised that itwas not possible to comment on the position in respect of the Kwoks prior totrial but assurances had been received from Capco that alternative sources offunding would be available if the deal with the Kwoks could not be realised.______________________________________________________________________________________________________Minutes are subject to confirmation at the next meeting as a correct record of the proceedings and any amendments arising willbe recorded in the minutes of that subsequent meeting.Page 5