The Speaker of the Council, Councillor M. A. Mukit, MBE in the Chair

During the meeting, the Council agreed to vary the order of business. To aid clarity, the Minutes are presented in the order that the items originally appeared on the agenda. The order the business taken in at the meeting was as follows:

• Item 1 - Apologies for absence.
• Item 2 – Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.
• Item 3 – Minutes.
• Item 4 – Announcements.
• Items 5 – Petitions.
• Item 6 – Public Questions.
• Item 7 – Mayor’s Report.
• Item 12.6 – Motion regarding Bishopsgate Goodsyard
• Item 8 – Members Questions. (8.1 – 8.7)

·         Item 12.9 – Motion regarding the Protection of Tower Hamlets Heritage and Community Assets

• Item 8 – Members Questions. (8.8 – 8.10)
• Item 12.3 –Motion regarding the Housing and Planning Bill
• Item 9. 1  - Report from Cabinet Meeting, Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2016/17
• Item 11.1 - Audit of Accounts 2013/14 : Section 11 Recommendation - Audit Commission Act 1998
• Item 11.2 - Mid - Year Review For Treasury Management  and Investment Strategy 2015/16
• Item 11.3 - Review of Proportionality and Allocation of Places on Committees and Panels of the Council.

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of:

·         Councillor Ohid Ahmed

·         Councillor Abdul Asad

·         Councillor Rajib Ahmed

Apologies for lateness were received on behalf of Councillor Marc Francis

To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992.  See attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Councillor Oliur Rahman declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 12.4 – ‘Motion regarding junior doctors and the NHS’. He stated that he would leave the meeting room for the consideration of this matter. (Motion not debated at the meeting due to lack of time).

Councillor Rachel Blake declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 5.3 -  ‘Petition calling on the Mayor and Council to reject the draft guidance for roof and rear extensions’. She stated that she would leave the meeting room for the consideration of this matter.

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Council held on 18^th November 2015.

RESOLVED:

That the unrestricted minutes of the Council meeting held on 18^th November 2015 be confirmed as a correct record and the Speaker be authorised to sign them accordingly.

The Speaker reported that he would be holding two further fundraising dinners on the 8^th and 21^st March 2016 and would be very grateful for the Council’s continued support.  All the money raised would be going to MIND in Tower Hamlets and Newham, and the Surjamuki Project. He stated he would like to reach a target of £50,000. He was also hoping to hold a Tour of Tower Hamlets in the coming months.

The Council Procedure Rules provide for a maximum of three petitions to be presented at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council. 

The deadline for receipt of petitions for this Council meeting is noon on 14^th January 2016.

However at the time of agenda despatch, the maximum number of petitions has already been received as set out in the attached report.

5.1       Petition relating to drug dealing and anti-social behaviour.

(Note: the correct petition text had been circulated as an addendum)

The petitioners addressed the meeting and responded to questions from Members. Councillor Shiria Khatun, Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Community Safetythen responded to the matters raised in the petition. She confirmed that there had been a number of reported incidences recently on the estate. To address the issues, the Council, together with the Police, the registered housing providers and other partners were undertaking enforcement action on the estate including regular patrols of the area. In addition, the Police have instigated a dispersal zone to move people away from the area. 

Residents were encouraged to participate in the Community Surgeries and the Police Ward Panels where their views would help shape their action plans. Officers would be contacting the Ward Councillors to inform them of how residents could be involved in these groups.

On the issue of CCTV and estate improvements, the Council would work with Tower Hamlets Homes who predominantly managed the housing estate to consider whether CCTV could be provided on the estate.

RESOLVED:

That the petition be referred to the Corporate Director, Communities, Localities and Culture for a written response within 28 days.

5.2       Petition relating to cuts to children’s services.

The petitioners addressed the meeting and responded to questions from Members. Councillor Rachael Saunders Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Education & Children's Servicesthen responded to the matters raised in the petition. She referred to the proposals in the Council’s budget relating to the Early Years Services, arising from central government cuts and decisions made by the previous administration. To improve outcomes in Early Years, it was imperative that the Council engaged effectively with families and service users including those of the One O’clock club to shape future services.

RESOLVED:

That the petition be referred to the Interim Corporate Director, Children's Services for a written response within 28 days.

5.3       Petition calling on the Mayor and Council to reject the draft guidance for roof and rear extensions.

The petitioners addressed the meeting and responded to questions from Members. Mayor John Biggs then responded to the matters raised in the petition.

The Mayor stated that he agreed with the petition. He thought that whilst the draft consultation document had strengths in many areas given the heritage issues, it should be reviewed in light of the consultation results and the recent scrutiny review of the matter.  He commented that it might be necessary to explore alternative approaches to the issues including more modern designs that fitted in with the Conservation Area. Accordingly, he had asked Council Officers to look into these matters.

RESOLVED:

That the petition be referred to the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal, for a written response within 28 days.

The questions which have been received from members of the public for this Council meeting are set out in the attached report.  A maximum period of 20 minutes is allocated to this agenda item.

One public question had been submitted for response by the Mayor or relevant Cabinet Member. In the absence of the questioner, the question was not put. The Committee Services Manager stated that a written response would be provided to the question.  (Note:  The written response is included in Appendix ‘A’ to these minutes.)

The Mayor made his report to the Council, referring to his written report circulated at the meeting, summarising key events, engagements and meetings since the last Council meeting.

Procedural Motion

After the Mayors’ report, Councillor John Pierce moved and Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed seconded, a procedural motion “that under Procedure Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be varied such that item 12.6 Motion regarding the Bishopsgate Goodsyard be taken as the next item of business.” The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.

Following the consideration of this motion and at the invitation of the Speaker the Leaders of the other political groups then responded briefly to the Mayor’s report.

The questions which have been received from Councillors to be put at this Council meeting are set out in the attached report.  A maximum period of 30 minutes is allocated to this agenda item.

The following questions and in each case a supplementary question (except where indicated) were put and were responded to by the Mayor or relevant Executive Member.

8.1       Question from Councillor Danny Hassell:

What assessment has this council made of the potential impact in this borough of the Tory government's proposals to change school funding allocations?

Response by Councillor Rachael Saunders, Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Education & Children's Services:

What we know is that the Conservative Government have said that they will implement a new National funding formula from 2017/18 which will include a ‘transitional phase’. So there will be period of time over which the new funding arrangement comes into place.  We don’t have a lot more detail but we do expect the Government to start the consultation soon but what does seem clear is that London Local Authorities will see significant cuts and Tower Hamlets is likely to suffer particularly which will obviously be a serious issue for our schools. This really matters. Education has been an extraordinary success story of Labour Local Authorities since the mid 1990s and anything that undermines that success and the success of our children really really needs to be strongly fought against. So people will know that there are a number of discussions going on currently about an educational partnership which we hope will increase the resilience through the cooperation of schools. However, if the Tory Government cut our funding the educational outcomes of the children in the Borough will suffer and that is enormously important.

Supplementary question from Councillor Danny Hassell:

We have seen it with the public health grant and we have seen it with the revenue support grant that the Tory Government is interested in hitting Labour Councils hard and we know that Labour Councils have chosen to fund their schools more generously and that is choices that those Councils have made historically over the years.

Does the Lead Member agree that this seems to be just another Tory attack on Labour Local Authorities trying to deliver high quality public services to their residents? 

Councillor Rachael Saunders response to the supplementary question:

So what we need is a funding formulae that takes into account the high cost of schooling in London  as well as the need to mitigate against separation, the importance of supporting children and families and the need to help our diverse community come together and to succeed. It is fair to say actually that in terms of Tower Hamlets education, you really do get what you pay for. We have been well funded and we have achieved extraordinary outcomes for local children. I really hope that the Tory Government don’t undermine that in any way. There is a huge risk and a huge campaign that we need to run to deal with it.

8.2       Question from Councillor Oliur Rahman

Labour party, including Parliamentary Labour Party, has adopted a clear anti-austerity stance and opposed George Osborne’s fiscal charter, when will Mayor Biggs listen to Independent Group and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To receive the report from Cabinet on the Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2016/17. The report is attached.

The Council considered the report from Cabinet on the Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2016/17.

The recommendations set out in the report were put to the vote and were agreed. Accordingly it was:

RESOLVED:

1.            That the continuation of the current Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2016/17 be approved which will retain the same level of support to all working age Council Tax payers on a low income as set out in the report to Cabinet on 5 January 2016;

2.            That it be agreed that the extension of the scheme is for one year only, to be reviewed alongside the impact of the Government’s proposed welfare reform changes and an options review for the future of LCTRS during 2016.

There was no business to transact under this agenda item.

To receive the report of the Corporate Director, Resources on the Council’s intended response to the recommendations made by KPMG under S11 of the Audit Commission Act 1998. The report is attached.

The Council considered the report of the Corporate Director of Resources on the Council’s intended response to the recommendations made by KPMG under S11 (3) of the Audit Commission Act 1998.

Councillor David Edgar, Cabinet Member for Resources highlighted the key points in the report. He explained that, due to the intervention of the DCLG and the subsequent best value investigation carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG carried out additional work in the areas of concern. This meant that they were not in a position to issue an opinion on the 2013/14 accounts until September 2015.

Despite the unqualified audit opinion, KPMG raised some concerns with the best value review and therefore issued an adverse conclusion on the arrangements to secure Value for Money for 2013/14. In the Section 11 Recommendation subsequently issued, the Council’s Auditor’s state that whilst they were satisfied that the Authority was taking sufficient steps to address the specific matters identified to date, that a wider governance review should be undertaken.  Councillor Edgar considered that considerable progress had been made in addressing the issues identified. The Mayor had introduced a transparency protocol and also the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee had established a transparency commission. Significant progress had also been made against the Best Value Action Plan and the updated version was included in the Council papers.  However it was recognised that further work needed to be carried out.

The Mayor endorsed Councillor Edgar’s comments. He considered that whilst the recommendations mainly related to the actions of the previous administration, it also raised systemic and structural issues regarding the way the Council behaves and manages it business which were being taken account of substantially in the Best Value process. He stated that the Council were taking the issues raised very seriously and were grateful for the work that was happening in this area.

The recommendations set out in the report were put to the vote and were agreed. Accordingly it was:

RESOLVED:

1.    That the recommendations made by KPMG under Section 11 (3) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 be accepted;

2.    That the actions already put in place by the Corporate Director of Resources in response to the recommendations made under Section 11 (3) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 be noted and endorsed;

3.    That the issues identified by KPMG under Section 11 (3) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 and the commitment of Members and officers to resolve these be noted;

4.    That progress against the recommendations be monitored by the General Purposes Committee, alongside the other monitoring arrangements put in place.

To receive the report of the Corporate Director, Resources on the Mid-Year Review of the Treasury Management and Investment Strategy 2015/16. The report is attached.

The Council considered the report of the Corporate Director of Resources reviewing progress on the Treasury Management and Investment Strategy approved by Full Council on 25 February 2015

The recommendations set out in the report were put to the vote and were agreed. Accordingly it was:

RESOLVED:

That the Council note:

1.            The Treasury Management activities and performance against targets for the six months to 30 September 2015;

2.            That the current development and update for MiFID II Impact on LGPS and Local Authorities and also Changes in credit rating methodology as set out in section 4 of the report;

3.            That the Council’s investment balance of £421.3m as at 30 September 2015 of which £40m was invested in other Local Authorities (set out in Appendix 1 of the report).

4.            The Council’s position on prudential indicators (set out in Appendix 6 of the report).

To consider the report of the Director, Law, Probity and Governance reviewing the Council’s proportionality and allocation of places on Committees. The report is attached.

The Council considered the report of the Director of Law Probity and Governance, setting out the position regarding proportionality and the allocation of Committee places following a change in the political composition of the Council.

The recommendations set out in the report were put to the vote and were agreed. Accordingly it was:

RESOLVED:

That Council agrees:

1.            The review of proportionality as at section 3 of the report and the allocation of seats on committees and panels for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2015/16 as set out at paragraph 4.2 of the report;

2.            The committees and panels established for the municipal year 2015/16 as listed in paragraph 4.2 and that the total number of places on these committees and panels be reduced from 91 to 90 by reducing the Strategic Development Committee from 9 to 8 seats;

3.            That Members and deputies be appointed to serve on those committees and panels in accordance with nominations from the political groups to be notified to the Director, Law, Probity and Governance.

12. 3   Motion regarding the Housing and Planning Bill

Councillor Sirajul Islam moved and Councillor Rachel Blake seconded the motion as printed in the agenda.

Following debate, the motion was put to the vote and was agreed. Accordingly it was:

RESOLVED:

This Council notes that:

1.    The Government published a Housing and Planning Bill for First reading on 13 October 2015.

2.    The second reading took place on the 2 November 2015 and that the Bill was carried at its second reading in Parliament.

3.    The Bill has been through the Committee Stage and is now in the final stages of being agreed by the Commons

4.    The Bill includes:

a.    Introduction of a General Duty to promote Starter Homes

b.    Measures to force Councils to sell high value council homes

c.    Measures to require higher earners to pay higher rents and for the increased income to be paid to the Secretary of State

d.    Measures to implement the Right to Buy for Housing Association Tenants through a on a voluntary basis.

5.    That Cllr Philippa Roe, Conservative Leader of Westminster Council, has said “it is absolutely vital that the proceeds of right-to-buy from London are kept in London.”

6.    Rushanara Ali MP and Jim Fitzpatrick MP voted against the Bill at the second reading.

7.    Zac Goldsmith MP, in the House of Commons on Monday 2^nd November, said:

·       “the gap between supply and demand remains very wide, and without radical action, it will grow wider still, further pricing Londoners out of their own city”

·       “closing the gap between supply and demand, therefore, is the absolute priority”

·       “council homes in London are far more valuable than they are elsewhere, and without a change we will see a disproportionate flow of resources out of London”

·       “the amendment that I intend to table after today’s debate will ask for a binding guarantee that London will see a net gain in affordable housing as a consequence of this policy—a guarantee that London will see, in addition to the replaced housing association homes, at least two low-cost homes built for every single high-value home sold”

·       “the bottom line is that we are going to have to use every single available lever to deliver affordable homes at all incomes”

8.       Sadiq Khan MP tabled an amendment to the Bill that would ensure that a proportion of starter homes are available to local people.

9.       Sadiq Khan MP described the Bill as being “catastrophic for hundreds of thousands of people who will see rents and house prices rise and a steep decline in the number of affordable properties.”

10.       The Mayor in Cabinet in September 2015 approved the development of new  affordable homes.

This Council believes:

1.    London’s successful future is threatened without sufficient supply of genuinely affordable homes.

2.    Tower Hamlets has historically provided a vital role for supplying homes for households on low incomes who play a vital role in London’s economy and that role is under threat.

3.    This Bill will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.