Agenda item
TO RECEIVE WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
(Maximum of 30 minutes allowed)
The questions which have been received are set out in agenda item 6 attached.
Decision:
6.1 Question from Ms. Caroline Kerswell to the Lead Member for Cleaner, Safer, Greener, Councillor Abdal Ullah re: dangerous dogs
6.2 Question from Mr. Terry McGrenera to the Lead Member for Cleaner, Safer, Greener, Councillor Adal Ullah re: recycling
6.5 Question from Ms. Amy Whitelock to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Lutfur Rahman re: restoring bus service to Tesco, Bromley-by-Bow
The above questions and oral supplementary questions where put, were responded to by the relevant Lead Members.
Questions 6.3 and 6.4 as listed in the agenda were not put as the questioners were not in attendance. Written responses will be forwarded to the questioners.
(Action by: John S. Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services)
Minutes:
6.1 Question from Ms. Caroline Kerswell to the Lead Member for Cleaner, Safer, Greener, Councillor Abdal Ullah
“In light of my recent attack by a Rottweiler, I want to know what the council are doing about dangerous dogs. Apparently there are only four animal wardens in the area and you did not issue a single fine for the dog fouling last year. Is there any plans to re-examine this policy and put further budget aside? My police call was never even responded on and I had to contact the dog warden separately.”
Response by the Lead Member, Councillor Abdal Ullah
There are 4 Animal Wardens currently operating in Tower Hamlets dealing with the full range of animal welfare and control issues. Chief amongst those are dog-fouling enforcement, investigation of nuisance and anti-social behaviour caused by irresponsible dog-ownership, picking up and receiving of stray dog and the maintenance of the dog-pound in Mile End Park. The team successfully enforced the law relating to dog-fouling by way of prosecutions and formal cautions against over 100 dog-owners last year. The enforcement figures have run around this level now for many years.
Over the last few years the Service has come under increasing pressure due to a significant change in dog-ownership in the Borough. This mirrors a nationwide trend with bull-terrier type dogs becoming the predominant breed and young, often disaffected, men often being the owners. These dogs are referred to as 'status dogs' which reflects the sense that many of the young men have low self-esteem and a feel they have no stake in society. The ownership of these large, aggressive and intimidating dogs affords them some status.
There has been and continues to be a steady increase in the number of dogs in the Borough, with a disproportionate number of them being potentially dangerous bull-terrier type breeds including pit bulls. Many of the dogs are thought to be banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act [DDA].
The expertise to identify 'banned breeds' is maintained by the Police Dog Legislation Officers although the Council is looking at the opportunities for our Wardens to develop this capability also. The DDA includes an offence of allowing a dog to be 'dangerously out of control' which again is primarily a matter for the Police to investigate. Although, as in the incident which precipitated this question, aggrieved parties will also notify our Officers.
As a result of the prevalence of these 'dangerous dogs' and the commensurate increase in both aggressive behaviour and public perception of such, our Wardens have become increasingly aware of the growing problems associated with their ownership and more involved in investigations relating to them.
The number of stray dogs has increased dramatically over the last 12 months as has the number of dogs 'gifted' to the Dog Warden Service for re-homing. This is as a direct consequence of the growth in ownership of status dogs and the Council taking over the responsibility to receive stray dogs outside of normal office hours. In addition, Battersea Dogs Home is now struggling to maintain it's historical role of accepting strays and finding homes for them and we often have to place dogs in private kennels prior to their subsequent destruction.
The Dog Warden team is engaging with colleagues in Community Safety, from the RSLs and the Police to begin to try and establish a unity of purpose relating to the problem and to establish effective partnership-working.
In recognition of the growth of the number of dangerous breeds at large and their frequent association with anti-social behaviour and criminal activity, the Met. Police set up its Status Dogs Unit [SDU] in March of last year. It has already taken over 1000 of these dogs out of circulation.
Due to the dimension of the local problem of status dogs, Members considered a report in December last year and committed significant additional resources to enable the Council to review the situation and develop a Dangerous Dogs' Strategy> The purpose of this is to establish an effective multi-disciplinary approach to the issue gaining the commitment of key partners and broadening the capacity of the Animal Warden Service to meet current demands. £180,000 has been allocated to the task and the strategy is now being developed.
The objective of the strategy is to reduce the number of these dogs at large and to reduce the level of anti-social behaviour caused by them. It is hoped that this in turn will address the perception issues relating to the presence of dogs. This will be achieved by robust enforcement of related legislation and education.
The Police SDU have given the Animal Warden team a commitment to addressing the problem in Tower Hamlets. This will include a ‘day of action’ likely to be scheduled early in the year and will involve the SDU making intelligence-based visits to addresses and locations in the Borough where it is believed ‘Dangerous Dogs’ are being kept or used.
Council Officers and other partners will be involved in gathering the necessary ‘good intelligence’ to ensure that the ‘day of action’ is successful. These actions and any ensuing prosecutions will be given maximum publicity thereafter. The SDU has made it clear that dealing with ‘Dangerous Dogs’ in the community is Police business and to that end a programme of training will be rolled out to all our SNTs in the near future.
The Animal Warden Pound is currently being upgraded to enable these large, powerful and dangerous dogs to be contained safely in emergency situations when the Police are not able to respond to an incident and when no other appropriate kennelling can be found for such a dog.
The Animal Warden Team is currently recruiting to increase staffing levels to build the necessary capacity to ensure that it is able to fully meet the challenges ahead and ensure that the Dangerous Dogs Strategy is effective.
Officers have had meetings with RSLs to discuss this shared problem and to encourage their participation in reviewing their use of anti-social behaviour legislation and tenancy agreements. This includes the possibility of requiring tenants to register and ‘chip’ their dogs for identification purposes; the interest shown has been very encouraging.
The Council will continue to offer free microchipping, free dog training and free neutering of bull terrier breeds.
There is an imminent meeting with the SNTs when the team will establish an understanding as to how respective roles can compliment each others and conjointly increase our effectiveness.
The Council’s recently established THEO’s have also committed to participating in the strategy and will assist in gathering intelligence as to where these dogs are kept or exercised and passing the information back to the Animal Warden Service for further investigation. Park Wardens will exercise the same level of vigilance in relation to activities in the parks associated with these dogs and will assist by passing this information to the team.
The team will also be carrying out a hard-hitting publicity campaign and will be putting information out in the press. An article is due for publication shortly which will explain what the strategic objectives are and how they will be achieved with emphasis on the partnership approach. The article will invite members of the public to contact the Council in confidence with information about dogs that they believe are either a banned breed or dangerously out of control in a public place.
Summary of supplementary question from Ms. Kerswell:
I have read in the East London Advertiser mention of a neutering programme. This helps to reduce testosterone levels in dogs and was launched in January 2009. Why have vets’ bills not been paid to enable them to carry out this important free service?
Summary of Lead Member’s response:
The RSPCA are the experts in this field and they classified the Tower Hamlets Dog Team and Wardens as exemplars. Almost £180,000 has been allocated to this work and I am sure we will address this issue and meet the needs of the dogs you mention.
6.2 Question from Mr. Terry McGrenera to the Lead Member for Cleaner, Safer, Greener, Councillor Adal Ullah
“Is the claim that recycling rates “rockets” over the past year just a lot of rubbish?”
Response by the Lead Member, Councillor Abdal Ullah
No, the authority has seen its recycling rate almost double since March 2008, we have seen a dramatic increase in the recycling rates from 13% in 2007/08 to a projected figure this year of 27% by March 2010.
This figure reflects the work and investment that the Council, it's residents and officers have put into improving recycling. These figures compare with many outer London boroughs which have large rural areas with many affluent areas comprising, detached and semi detached properties, this makes recycling much easier than it is in Tower Hamlets, which has a very high proportion of high and low rise dwellings. We are committed to improving recycling further in the future and are in the process of developing a draft municipal waste strategy that will set out how we are going to manage our waste resources over the next 10 years.
Summary of supplementary question from Mr. McGrenera:
The levels of increase you quote are from a very low starting point. The recycling services are not working as intended. Rather than visiting schools with your robotic friend to promote recycling, is it not time that pupils, people and places were rewarded for recycling and is that not the way to recycle more?
Summary of Lead Member’s response:
Thank you for your keen interest and I hope that the agenda that you take back from the meeting this evening and all Council meetings will be recycled and our figures will improve. I thank Members on this side and all colleagues for your hard work encouraging constituents to participate and recycle more.
6.3 Question from Mr. Azir Uddin to the Lead Member for Housing and Development, Councillor Marc Francis:
“Does this Council agree that where, as in John Smith Mews E14, the residents almost unanimously want to retain the existing parking regime involving a key and gate, the landlords One Housing Group, should not introduce unilaterally a new system involving pay permits and clamping and agree to write to One Housing Group expressing this opinion?”
This question was not put at the meeting as the questioner was not in attendance.
Response by the Lead Member, Councillor Marc Francis
There have been historical problems with parking on John Smith Mews as well as numerous other estates managed by Toynbee Housing Association over the years.
These problems have been alleviated by the introduction of a permit system and estate clamping schemes which, to date has been a service offered free of charge by the clamping.
Their fees have traditionally been made up by the number of cars they can clamp which has led to allegations from residents of unscrupulous practices.
Following these complaints, Toynbee HA consulted all residents on a proposal to instruct a new clamping firm to operate across their estates that would charge a flat fee of 58pw per resident, with the added assurance that their working practices would be more in line with best practice within the industry.
Most of the feedback received to date from other estates suggested residents are in favour of this approach. However, however, given the dissatisfaction now raised by the residents of John Smith mews, Toynbee HA has agreed to:
· Suspend implementation of the scheme on John Smith Mews until a further consultation exercise has been held with residents on this estate and their feedback analysed.
· Continue with the implementation of the new clamping system on the other Toynbee estates.
· Conduct a 6 month review of how the new clamping arrangements are working on the other Toynbee estates.
The Council asserts that decisions affecting how estates are managed, including local parking arrangements, are matters that landlords and residents should be working together on to establish what’s best for residents.
Any decision made should be in line with best practice and should include full consultation to allow residents to have a meaningful input into the decision making processes.
6.4 Question from Mr. Md. Rahmet Ullah to the Lead Member for Employment and Skills, Councillor Oliur Rahman:
“This Council is investing considerable time and money in helping residents to find work in these tough times. But as the economy has changed, so have the jobs on offer. What is being done to ensure that those getting placements and training are being set up for the jobs that are available today, and not those that were available before the recession?”
This question was not put at the meeting as the questioner was not in attendance.
Response by the Lead Member, Councillor Oliur Rahman
I welcome the recognition of the Council’s considerable efforts and investment in helping its residents to succeed in the labour market.
Mr Ullah makes an interesting and relevant point and I am happy to advise that the services delivered by the Council to support the employment of local residents are designed to be responsive to changing labour market circumstances.
The Council commissioned Oxford Economics in November 2008, to research the effects of the economic downturn in Tower Hamlets and the findings from this research has informed decisions made about training and placements over the last to years.
For example;
o the Council’s Earn As You Learn programme involves candidates completing a Pitman accredited course for two weeks and then completing an 8 week work placement with a company prepared to trial them for future opportunities. Typically the mix of companies selected for placements would have included those in the financial sector. Given the down-turn these have been replaced by opportunities in sectors that are recruiting – hospital trusts, council departments and charitable organisations. The programme is designed to ensure that this flexibility exists and thus placements are always selected based on current or emerging opportunities to justify the investment and ensure the best chance of employment at the end.
o the Council’s Graduate Placement Programme has typically offered 40 local graduates the opportunity to gain relevant work experience for up to 16 weeks with leading companies. As data has consistently confirmed that graduate unemployment is a particular issue during the recession, the scheme has been extended to allow another 20 young people to access the scheme. Employer partners have included the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Financial Ombudsman, as well as a range of small and medium local enterprises. Many have been retained for permanent employment.
o Our construction training offer within Tower Hamlets has broadened considerably over the past 18 months for young people and job seekers of all ages. This has ranged from increased provision in schools, NVQ provision, routes into apprenticeships connected with London 2012 and continued pre-employment and brokerage services offered by Skillsmatch. Direct job vacancies from the Olympic Park, though lower than expected because of the downturn, have progressed from demolition and remediation to enabling works and now towards fit out and landscaping occupations. We have continued to be flexible in providing pathways into these opportunities, and preparing residents for wider industry opportunities as the economy recovers.
Overall the council remains committed to the principle of working with employers that have live or emerging job opportunities (across a wide range of sectors –including the public sector), and to investing time and resource to pre-employment interventions that deliver healthy job outcomes in the short, medium and long terms.
6.5 Question from Ms. Amy Whitelock to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Lutfur Rahman
“To ask the Leader what action the Council has taken to support local residents’ campaign to persuade Transport for London to restore the door-to-door bus service between Bow and the Tesco supermarket at Bromley-by-Bow?”
Response by the Lead Member, Councillor Lutfur Rahman
Mayor Boris Johnson’s decision to scrap this service forced residents to undertake a long and dangerous walk. As a result of our campaigning this will no longer be necessary. On behalf of the Council’s Public Transport Consultative Forum, the Head of Transportation & Highways wrote to TfL's Managing Director of Surface Transport, in August last year expressing frustration about the ongoing situation, highlighting the concerns of residents and offering a solution (not for the first time) by providing a bus stand on Hancock Road. This would allow the 488 bus to serve Bromley-by-Bow Tesco directly, rather than passengers having to change buses and/or travel to Twelvetrees Crescent on the way home.
I am pleased to confirm that TfL have now agreed (subject to formal consultation by them) to this arrangement which is expected to be introduced on 27th February 2010. This is the successful culmination of a long running campaign by local residents, assembly member John Biggs and local Councillors including myself.
Summary of supplementary question from Ms. Whitelock:
This news will be music to the ears of those that signed the petition. When will the new arrangements come into effect and how reliable will the service be?
Summary of Lead Member’s response:
We expect by the end of February that the door to door service will be effectively re-instated. As a result of the improvements we expect passengers to return to use the service and we are calling for more buses to meet the increase in demand and improve the frequency.
Change to order of business
At this point, Councillor Lutfur Rahman MOVED and Councillor Joshua Peck SECONDED – “That under Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be changed to allow motion 11.9 to be considered as next business.”
At this juncture, more than ten Members rose to request a recorded vote (Rule 17.4).
The procedural motion was put to the vote as follows:
For (49 Councillors)
Councillor Lutfur Rahman
Councillor Peter Golds
Councillor Abjol Miah
Councillor Stephanie Eaton
Councillor Helal Abbas
Councillor Ohid Ahmed
Councillor Rajib Ahmed
Councillor Rofique Uddin Ahmed
Councillor Dr. Anwara Ali
Councillor Mohammed Shahid Ali
Councillor Timothy Archer
Councillor Abdul Asad
Councillor Philip Briscoe
Councillor Alibor Choudhury
Councillor Rupert Eckhardt
Councillor Marc Francis
Councillor Fazlul Haque
Councillor Shafiqul Haque
Councillor Carli Harper-Penman
Councillor Clair Hawkins
Councillor Alexander Heslop
Councillor Shirley Houghton
Councillor Ahmed Hussain
Councillor Sirajul Islam
Councillor Waiseul Islam
Councillor Ann Jackson
Councillor Denise Jones
Councillor Dr. Emma Jones
Councillor Azizur Rahman Khan
Councillor Rania Khan
Councillor Shiria Khatun
Councillor Abdul Matin
Councillor Fozol Miah
Councillor Harun Miah
Councillor Mohammed Abdul Munim
Councillor Timothy O’Flaherty
Councillor Joshua Peck
Councillor Oliur Rahman
Councillor Mohammed Mamun Rashid
Councillor Muhammad Abdullah Salique
Councillor Abdul Aziz Sardar
Councillor Rachael Saunders
Councillor David Snowdon
Councillor Bill Turner
Councillor Dulal Uddin
Councillor Abdal Ullah
Councillor Salim Ullah
Councillor Motin
Uz-Zaman
Councillor Ahmed Adam Omer (The Mayor)
Against (0 Councillors)
The procedural motion was therefore agreed.
11.9 Motion proposed by Councillor Harun Miah regarding Boris Johnson’s fare rises
The motion as printed in the agenda was MOVED by Councillor Harun Miah and SECONDED by Councillor Abjol Miah.
Councillor Lutfur Rahman then MOVED and Councillor Abdal Ullah SECONED an AMENDMENT – That all words in the published motion be deleted and replaced with:-
“This Council notes that:
Tory Mayor Boris Johnson has subjected Londoners to a huge above-inflation rise in bus fares.
This approach follows his refusal to intervene in support of those residents in Bow whose S2 bus he scrapped, forcing pensioners and mums with young children to carry their shopping through a dirty and dangerous underpass beneath the dual carriageway.
The overall increase in bus fares introduced from 2nd January 2010 was 12.7% however, a pay-as-you-go single bus journey increased by 20% from £1 to £1.20 (a rise of 20%).
Fare rises are substantial and particularly likely to affect infrequent, irregular users such as part-time workers. This will include the 18% of families in Tower Hamlets living on less than £15,000.
Raising bus fares impacts disproportionately on the poor as they are most likely to use buses as opposed to more expensive forms of public or private transport.
In the current economic circumstances this makes it difficult for many on low wages to get to and from work, dampening employment and growth in the capital.
That that Mayor continues to fight for lower taxes for the bankers who helped create the current economic crisis while placing a de-facto “transport tax” on those worst affected by the downturn and least able to afford it.
Despite the fare rise, the Mayor has scrapped the proposed western extension to the congestion charge and emissions based congestion charge, both of which could raise the revenue needed to offset bus fare rises.
That the current Mayor’s stance stands in direct contrast to his predecessor, Labour Mayor Ken Livingstone, who cut bus fares significantly to help the young, the elderly, the unemployed and those on low wages to access public transport.
This Council believes that:
Accessible and affordable transport is vital to the economic wellbeing of the capital in general and the lowest paid workers in particular.
The Mayor’s decision to raise bus fares while fighting for lower taxes and charges for the better off is contrary to the needs of most Londoners.
This Council resolves:
To instruct the Leader to write to the London Mayor and TfL to protest the increase.
To lobby London Assembly members to hold the Mayor to account for making public transport less accessible to Londoners.
To work with other Councils, the Minister for London and the Department for Transport to press the Mayor to share the burden of paying for London’s transport infrastructure more fairly.”
After debate, more than ten Members rose to request a recorded vote (Rule 17.4) on the amendment.
The amendment was put to the vote as follows:
For (38 Councillors)
Councillor Lutfur Rahman
Councillor Abjol Miah
Councillor Helal Abbas
Councillor Ohid Ahmed
Councillor Rajib Ahmed
Councillor Rofique Uddin Ahmed
Councillor Dr. Anwara Ali
Councillor Mohammed Shahid Ali
Councillor Shahed Ali
Councillor Abdul Asad
Councillor Alibor Choudhury
Councillor Marc Francis
Councillor Fazlul Haque
Councillor Shafiqul Haque
Councillor Carli Harper-Penman
Councillor Clair Hawkins
Councillor Alexander Heslop
Councillor Sirajul Islam
Councillor Waiseul Islam
Councillor Ann Jackson
Councillor Denise Jones
Councillor Rania Khan
Councillor Shiria Khatun
Councillor Fozol Miah
Councillor Harun Miah
Councillor Mohammed Abdul Munim
Councillor Joshua Peck
Councillor Oliur Rahman
Councillor Mohammed Mamun Rashid
Councillor Muhammad Abdullah Salique
Councillor Abdul Aziz Sardar
Councillor Rachael Saunders
Councillor Bill Turner
Councillor Dulal Uddin
Councillor Abdal Ullah
Councillor Salim Ullah
Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman
Councillor Ahmed Adam Omer (The Mayor)
Against (4 Councillors)
Councillor Stephanie Eaton
Councillor Azizur Rahman Khan
Councillor Abdul Matin
Councillor Timothy O’Flaherty
Abstained (8 Councillors)
Councillor Peter Golds
Councillor Timothy Archer
Councillor Philip Briscoe
Councillor Rupert Eckhardt
Councillor Shirley Houghton
Councillor Ahmed Hussain
Councillor Dr. Emma Jones
Councillor David Snowdon
The amendment was therefore agreed.
The substantive motion as amended was then put to the meeting.
More than ten Members rose to request a recorded vote (Rule 17.4) on the motion.
The motion was put to the vote as follows:
For (42 Councillors)
Councillor Lutfur Rahman
Councillor Abjol Miah
Councillor Stephanie Eaton
Councillor Helal Abbas
Councillor Ohid Ahmed
Councillor Rajib Ahmed
Councillor Rofique Uddin Ahmed
Councillor Dr. Anwara Ali
Councillor Mohammed Shahid Ali
Councillor Shahed Ali
Councillor Abdul Asad
Councillor Alibor Choudhury
Councillor Marc Francis
Councillor Fazlul Haque
Councillor Shafiqul Haque
Councillor Carli Harper-Penman
Councillor Clair Hawkins
Councillor Alexander Heslop
Councillor Sirajul Islam
Councillor Waiseul Islam
Councillor Ann Jackson
Councillor Denise Jones
Councillor Azizur Rahman Khan
Councillor Rania Khan
Councillor Shiria Khatun
Councillor Abdul Matin
Councillor Fozol Miah
Councillor Harun Miah
Councillor Mohammed Abdul Munim
Councillor Timothy O’Flaherty
Councillor Joshua Peck
Councillor Oliur Rahman
Councillor Mohammed Mamun Rashid
Councillor Muhammad Abdullah Salique
Councillor Abdul Aziz Sardar
Councillor Rachael Saunders
Councillor Bill Turner
Councillor Dulal Uddin
Councillor Abdal Ullah
Councillor Salim Ullah
Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman
Councillor Ahmed Adam Omer (The Mayor)
Against (0 Councillors)
Abstained (8 Councillors)
Councillor Peter Golds
Councillor Timothy Archer
Councillor Philip Briscoe
Councillor Rupert Eckhardt
Councillor Shirley Houghton
Councillor Ahmed Hussain
Councillor Dr. Emma Jones
Councillor David Snowdon
The motion was therefore agreed and accordingly it was:-
RESOLVED
This Council notes that:
Tory Mayor Boris Johnson has subjected Londoners to a huge above-inflation rise in bus fares.
This approach follows his refusal to intervene in support of those residents in Bow whose S2 bus he scrapped, forcing pensioners and mums with young children to carry their shopping through a dirty and dangerous underpass beneath the dual carriageway.
The overall increase in bus fares introduced from 2nd January 2010 was 12.7% however, a pay-as-you-go single bus journey increased by 20% from £1 to £1.20 (a rise of 20%).
Fare rises are substantial and particularly likely to affect infrequent, irregular users such as part-time workers. This will include the 18% of families in Tower Hamlets living on less than £15,000.
Raising bus fares impacts disproportionately on the poor as they are most likely to use buses as opposed to more expensive forms of public or private transport.
In the current economic circumstances this makes it difficult for many on low wages to get to and from work, dampening employment and growth in the capital.
That that Mayor continues to fight for lower taxes for the bankers who helped create the current economic crisis while placing a de-facto “transport tax” on those worst affected by the downturn and least able to afford it.
Despite the fare rise, the Mayor has scrapped the proposed western extension to the congestion charge and emissions based congestion charge, both of which could raise the revenue needed to offset bus fare rises.
That the current Mayor’s stance stands in direct contrast to his predecessor, Labour Mayor Ken Livingstone, who cut bus fares significantly to help the young, the elderly, the unemployed and those on low wages to access public transport.
This Council believes that:
Accessible and affordable transport is vital to the economic wellbeing of the capital in general and the lowest paid workers in particular.
The Mayor’s decision to raise bus fares while fighting for lower taxes and charges for the better off is contrary to the needs of most Londoners.
This Council resolves:
To instruct the Leader to write to the London Mayor and TfL to protest the increase.
To lobby London Assembly members to hold the Mayor to account for making public transport less accessible to Londoners.
To work with other Councils, the Minister for London and the Department for Transport to press the Mayor to share the burden of paying for London’s transport infrastructure more fairly.
Change to order of business
At this point, Councillor Marc Francis MOVED and Councillor Lutfur Rahman SECONDED – “That under Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be changed to allow motion 11.3 to be considered as next business.”
On being put to the vote, the procedural motion was agreed.
11.3 Motion proposed by Councillor Marc Francis regarding Olympic legacy and affordable housing
The motion as printed in the agenda was MOVED by Councillor Marc Francis and SECONDED by Councillor Lutfur Rahman.
Councillor Abjol Miah informed Members that he would be withdrawing his tabled amendment.
After debate, more than ten Members rose to request a recorded vote (Rule 17.4) on the motion.
The motion was put to the vote as follows:
For (49 Councillors)
Councillor Lutfur Rahman
Councillor Peter Golds
Councillor Abjol Miah
Councillor Stephanie Eaton
Councillor Helal Abbas
Councillor Ohid Ahmed
Councillor Rajib Ahmed
Councillor Rofique Uddin Ahmed
Councillor Dr. Anwara Ali
Councillor Mohammed Shahid Ali
Councillor Shahed Ali
Councillor Timothy Archer
Councillor Abdul Asad
Councillor Philip Briscoe
Councillor Rupert Eckhardt
Councillor Marc Francis
Councillor Fazlul Haque
Councillor Shafiqul Haque
Councillor Carli Harper-Penman
Councillor Clair Hawkins
Councillor Alexander Heslop
Councillor Shirley Houghton
Councillor Ahmed Hussain
Councillor Sirajul Islam
Councillor Waiseul Islam
Councillor Ann Jackson
Councillor Denise Jones
Councillor Dr. Emma Jones
Councillor Azizur Rahman Khan
Councillor Rania Khan
Councillor Shiria Khatun
Councillor Abdul Matin
Councillor Fozol Miah
Councillor Harun Miah
Councillor Mohammed Abdul Munim
Councillor Timothy O’Flaherty
Councillor Joshua Peck
Councillor Oliur Rahman
Councillor Mohammed Mamun Rashid
Councillor Muhammad Abdullah Salique
Councillor Abdul Aziz Sardar
Councillor Rachael Saunders
Councillor David Snowdon
Councillor Bill Turner
Councillor Dulal Uddin
Councillor Abdal Ullah
Councillor Salim Ullah
Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman
Councillor Ahmed Adam Omer (The Mayor)
Against (0 Councillors)
The motion was therefore agreed and it was accordingly:-
RESOLVED
This Council notes:
- The commitment of the Government, Mayor of London and Olympic Delivery Organisation (ODA) to delivering a lasting legacy to the people of London resulting from the 2012 Games.
- The creation of the Olympic Legacy Company to deliver this pledge.
- The use of £1 billion of public money by the London Development Agency (LDA) to purchase land for the Olympic sites.
- That there are almost 100,000 households on council housing waiting lists in the five ‘Olympic boroughs’.
Given this level of housing need, this Council believes:
· That the current policy of 35 per cent ‘affordable’ housing (split 50/50 between social rented and ‘intermediate’) is inadequate and unacceptable as only 17 per cent of the homes built are likely to be of benefit to those on housing waiting lists.
This Council therefore resolves to:
· Call on the Government and Mayor of London to instruct the ODA and Olympic Legacy Company to require that 50 per cent of all new homes built on the Olympic site should be affordable (split 70/30 social rented, including council housing, and intermediate), in order to ensure a real housing legacy for Londoners.
Change in order of business
At this point, Councillor Abjol Miah MOVED and Councillor Dulal Uddin SECONDED – “That under Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be changed to allow motion 11.12 to be considered as next business.”
On being put to the vote, the procedural motion was agreed.
11.12 Motion proposed by Councillor Abdul Munim regarding Ocean regeneration and business uncertainty
The motion as printed in the agenda was MOVED by Councillor Abdul Munim and SECONDED by Councillor Abjol Miah.
Councillor Abjol Miah then MOVED and Councillor Dulal Uddin SECONDED – “That the question be now put”. On being put to the vote the procedural motion was lost.
Councillor Oliur Rahman MOVED, and Councillor Alibor Choudhury SECONDED, an AMENDMENT to the motion – “To insert a new paragraph i) “that the local councillors have taken a strong lead in representing the interests of shop keepers” and to delete all words in the published motion after “This Council believes that” and replace with a) Shop keepers must be fully involved in the consultation about the future redevelopment plans for the Ocean estate; b) Council officers should continue to work closely with shop keepers on both a one-to-one and collective basis to try to ensure the continuation of those businesses; c) The Lead Member should report back to Full Council on the progress of negotiations with the shop keepers on Ben Jonson Road.”
Councillor Oliur Rahman then MOVED and Councillor Alibor Choudhury SECONDED - “That the question be now put”. On being put to the vote, the procedural motion was agreed.
The amendment moved by Councillor Oliur Rahman was then put to the vote and was agreed.
The substantive motion as amended was then put to the vote and was agreed. Accordingly it was
RESOLVED
This Council notes that:
a) the Ocean estate is to be the subject of a major regeneration project
b) this regeneration will involve the demolition of some existing buildings
c) demolition will include Marmora House on Ben Jonson Road which houses many local shops which provide essential services to the local community
d) shop owners and keepers in Ben Jonson Road recently received letters from a developer informing them of a planning application to redevelop the site where they have their shops
e) shop owners and keepers in Ben Jonson Road have spent many years building up their businesses and serving the community
f) the letter from the developer makes no reference to providing them with alternative facilities from which to operate after they have left the existing premises or for them to have the right to return to the newly established shop premises upon completion of the redevelopment
g) this is causing severe stress and concern to the business community in Ben Jonson Road and those residents who currently depend on these shops for important and vital services
h) shop owners and keepers have made submissions to the planning department asking that alternative premises from which their businesses can operate should be guaranteed and that they should have right of return once redevelopment has been completed
i) that the local councilors have taken a strong lead in representing the interests of shop keepers
This Council welcomes any development and regeneration that will benefit the residents
This Council believes that:
a) Shop keepers must be fully involved in the consultation about the future redevelopment plans for the Ocean estate
b) Council officers should continue to work closely with shop keepers on both a one-to-one and collective basis to try to ensure the continuation of those businesses
c) The Lead Member should report back to Full Council on the progress of negotiations with the shop keepers on Ben Jonson Road.
Supporting documents: