Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: The Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: John S Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4204, E-mail: johns.williams@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillor Lesley Pavitt.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillor Lesley Pavitt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 49 KB 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 Chief Executive.
Decision: Please see the minutes. Minutes: Members declared interests in items included on the agenda for the meeting as follows:-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the following meetings of the Council:-
· Ordinary Meeting, 25th January 2012 (draft minutes revised in accordance with Members’ comments at the previous meeting) · Budget Meeting, 22nd February 2012 · Annual Meeting, 16th May 2012 · Ordinary Meeting, 16th May 2012 · Extraordinary Meeting, 18th June 2012
The draft minutes are attached. Additional documents:
Decision: Councillor Stephanie Eaton referred to the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 18th June 2012. Councillor Eaton stated that she had submitted her apologies for absence prior to the meeting and the draft minutes should be amended to record this.
DECISION
That, subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the following meetings of the Council be confirmed as a correct record and the Speaker be authorised to sign them accordingly:
[Note: The Council also at this point agreed the Part 2 minutes of the 16th May Ordinary Meeting and the 18th June Extraordinary Meeting. Item 14 below refers].
(Action by: John S. Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services)
Minutes: Councillor Stephanie Eaton referred to the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 18th June 2012. Councillor Eaton stated that she had submitted her apologies for absence prior to the meeting and the draft minutes should be amended to record this.
RESOLVED
1. That, subject to the above amendment, the unrestricted minutes of the following meetings of the Council be confirmed as a correct record and the Speaker be authorised to sign them accordingly:
· Ordinary Meeting, 25th January 2012 · Budget Meeting, 22nd February 2012 · Annual Meeting, 16th May 2012 · Ordinary Meeting, 16th May 2012 · Extraordinary Meeting, 18th June 2012
2. That the Part 2 (restricted) minutes of the 16th May Ordinary Meeting and the 18th June Extraordinary Meeting be also confirmed as a correct record and the Speaker be authorised to sign them accordingly (agenda item 14 below refers).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS (IF ANY) FROM THE SPEAKER OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE Decision: No announcements were made at the meeting.
Minutes: No announcements were made at the meeting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE ANY PETITIONS PDF 56 KB Items 5.1 to 5.3 - Petitions for presentation
The Council Procedure Rules provide for a maximum of three petitions to be presented at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council. The deadline for submission of petitions to this meeting is noon on Thursday 5th July. However, as at 3rd July the maximum number of three petitions had already been received.
The petitions received for presentation at this meeting are set out in the attached report.
Item 5.4: Petition for debate
In addition to the above, the Council’s Petition Scheme, adopted in July 2010 in accordance with the provisions of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, provides that where a petition includes at least 2,000 signatures, the petitioners may request that a debate is held about the petition at the full Council meeting.
A petition containing 2,403 signatures has been received on the subject of Youth Service Delivery.
The text of the petition and guidance on the format for the debate on this matter are set out in the attached report. A maximum total of 18 minutes is allocated for this agenda item. Additional documents: Decision: 5.1 Petition from Nahida Rashid, Mrs H Ali, Tajul Islam and Shamsul Hoque and signed by 89 persons regarding ‘Attack on Bengali as a mother tongue teaching-learning at Langdon Park Secondary School’:
This petition was not heard as the petitioners were not present owing to the late start of the meeting.
The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that officers would contact the petitioners and offer them the opportunity to present the petition at the next meeting if they wished.
(Action by: John S. Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services)
5.2 Petition from Emily Sawyer and signed by 47 persons plus others online regarding the ‘Residents Solidarity Campaign’:
Petition withdrawn.
5.3 Petition from Mr A S Alom and signed by 39 persons regarding ‘Sex and Relationship Education (SRE)’:
This petition was not heard as the petitioners were not present owing to the late start of the meeting.
The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that officers would contact the petitioners and offer them the opportunity to present the petition at the next meeting if they wished.
(Action by: John S. Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services)
5.4 Petition Debate: Youth Service Changes
Mr Helal Ahmed addressed the meeting on behalf of the petitioners and the Council then debated the matters raised by the petition.
Procedural Motion
Councillor Rachael Saunders moved, and Councillor Helal Uddin seconded, a procedural motion – “That under Procedure Rule 14.1.14, Rule 13.1 be suspended to allow an urgent motion regarding the youth service to be debated.”
The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
Councillor Rachael Saunders the moved, and Councillor Helal Uddin seconded, the urgent motion [text of motion as set out in the resolution below].
Following debate, the urgent motion as tabled was put to the vote and was agreed.
DECISION
This Council
notes:
That no evidence has been given for
this, and no numbers given.
That a significant number of local people
have signed a petition to oppose bringing the youth service in
house.
That localism means local power to make
decisions, not local talking shops. Minutes: 5.1 Petition from Nahida Rashid, Mrs H Ali, Tajul Islam and Shamsul Hoque and signed by 89 persons regarding ‘Attack on Bengali as a mother tongue teaching-learning at Langdon Park Secondary School’:
This petition was not heard as the petitioners were not present owing to the late start of the meeting.
The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that officers would contact the petitioners and offer them the opportunity to present the petition at the next meeting if they wished.
5.2 Petition from Emily Sawyer and signed by 47 persons plus others online regarding the ‘Residents Solidarity Campaign’:
Petition withdrawn.
5.3 Petition from Mr A S Alom and signed by 39 persons regarding ‘Sex and Relationship Education (SRE)’:
This petition was not heard as the petitioners were not present owing to the late start of the meeting.
The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that officers would contact the petitioners and offer them the opportunity to present the petition at the next meeting if they wished.
5.4 Petition Debate: Youth Service Changes
The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the Council that a petition containing 2,403 signatures regarding Youth Service Delivery Proposals had been brought to the Council for debate under the provisions of the Petition Scheme. The text of the petition was set out in the report circulated with the agenda for the meeting.
Mr Helal Ahmed addressed the meeting on behalf of the petitioners and the Council then debated the matters raised by the petition.
Procedural Motion
Councillor Rachael Saunders MOVED, and Councillor Helal Uddin SECONDED, a procedural motion – “That under Procedure Rule 14.1.14, Rule 13.1 be suspended to allow an urgent motion regarding the youth service to be debated.”
The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
Councillor Rachael Saunders then MOVED, and Councillor Helal Uddin SECONDED, the urgent motion [text of motion as set out in the resolution below].
Following debate, the urgent motion as tabled was put to the vote and was agreed. Accordingly it was:-
RESOLVED
This Council
notes:
That no evidence has been given for
this, and no numbers given.
That a significant number of local people
have signed a petition to oppose bringing the youth service in
house. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PDF 53 KB 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. Decision: 6.1 Question from Mr Steve Walker regarding the incidence of tuberculosis in the Borough and the introduction of a by-law to ban spitting in public.
The questioner was not in attendance. The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that a written response would be provided to the questioner.
6.2 Question from Mr Stuart Madewell regarding the representation of residents and councillors on Housing Association Boards.
The questioner was not in attendance owing to the late start of the meeting. The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that a written response would be provided to the questioner.
6.3 Question from Ms Christine Whaite, Spitalfields Open Space; Chair, The Friends of Christ Church Spitalfields regarding lack of open space in the Borough and the potential loss of open space at Christ Church.
Ms Whaite put her question, which was answered by Councillor Shahed Ali, Cabinet Member for Environment. Ms Whaite then put a supplementary question which Councillor Ali answered.
6.4 Question from Mr S Mohammed regarding allegations of threats against a female councillor.
The questioner was not in attendance owing to the late start of the meeting. The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that a written response would be provided to the questioner.
6.5 Question from Mr Amirul Islam regarding steps to be taken to tackle fuel poverty.
The questioner was not in attendance owing to the late start of the meeting. The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that a written response would be provided to the questioner.
6.6.1 Question from Mr Iqbal Hussain regarding the coalition’s moves to reform the welfare state.
The questioner was not in attendance owing to the late start of the meeting. The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that a written response would be provided to the questioner.
6.7.1 Question from Ms Kathy McTasney regarding the promotion of “a workforce to reflect the community”.
The questioner was not in attendance owing to the late start of the meeting. The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that a written response would be provided to the questioner.
(Action by: John S. Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services)
Minutes: 6.1 Question from Mr Steve Walker regarding the incidence of tuberculosis in the Borough and the introduction of a by-law to ban spitting in public.
The questioner was not in attendance. The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that a written response would be provided to the questioner.
6.2 Question from Mr Stuart Madewell regarding the representation of residents and councillors on Housing Association Boards.
The questioner was not in attendance owing to the late start of the meeting. The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that a written response would be provided to the questioner.
6.3 Question from Ms Christine Whaite, Spitalfields Open Space; Chair, The Friends of Christ Church Spitalfields regarding lack of open space in the Borough and the potential loss of open space at Christ Church.
Does the Mayor agree that there is a lack of public open space in the borough, and please will he tell us what positive action he is taking to increase it for residents?
Specifically, is the Mayor aware that besides 350 letters to the planning department last year, the current petition requesting that the churchyard at Spitalfields be returned to public green open space has 600 signatures local, national and international, including those with expert knowledge? Is the Mayor willing to work alongside local people to find alternatives to meet educational needs and at the same time protect public open space and the historic environment; and what IMMEDIATE action is the Mayor taking to stop the terrible and unnecessary loss of this 2,500 sqm public open space, the setting of Hawksmoor's finest work, Christ Church Spitalfields, in the most densely populated area of his borough?
Response by Councillor Shahed Ali, Cabinet Member for Environment
Thank you for this question. The Mayor shares your concerns, but everyone must remember what is being built is a nursery and a community building, both of which are much needed in the borough.
A key task for the Council is to establish local standards for open space provision. We want to do this through planning policies which ensure that large scale developments maintain and enhance public open spaces.
As for the grant of planning permission for development at Spitalfields, these developments were supported by residents in the borough. 176 residents wrote letters in support as opposed to only 48 residents wrote letters to object. There will not be a loss of 2,500sqm. The new nursery and community building measures only 75sqm bigger than the existing building.
Christchurch gardens itself remains exactly the same size - 960sqm. Most immediately there is a separate agreement between Christ Church and the Council’s parks department to open up the community gardens, up to the line of the new school building, which would increase the public open space by an additional 970sqm. There is £50,000 of s106 funding from the Bishops Square development to undertake these works and there is the intention to open up the gardens and re-landscape them.
Summary of supplementary question ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MAYOR'S REPORT The Council’s Constitution provides for the Elected Mayor to give a report at each Ordinary Council Meeting.
A maximum of five minutes is allowed for the Elected Mayor’s report, following which the Speaker of Council will give the respective political group leaders an opportunity to respond for up to one minute each if they wish. Decision: The Mayor made his report to the Council meeting. The Leader of the Majority group and Leaders of the Minority Groups each responded briefly to the Mayor’s report.
Minutes: The Mayor made his report to the Council meeting. He commented that the last few weeks had revealed shocking information about the banking system and called for a full judicial inquiry.
The Mayor stated that deeply-felt concerns had been raised concerning the teaching of sex education in primary schools and a 9,000-signature petition had been delivered to his office that day. Discussions inclusive of parents were needed to decide what should be taught and how the subject should be addressed. He added that he was committed to working with parents to address the issue.
The Olympics would commence in a few weeks and this would showcase the East End to the world. Undoubtedly there would be some traffic congestion but the Mayor had brought pressure to bear on Transport for London to minimise this; and had developed contingency measures for services.
The Leader of the Majority Group and Leaders of the Minority Groups each responded briefly to the Mayor’s report.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PDF 63 KB The questions which have been received from Councillors to be put at this meeting are set out in the attached report.
A maximum period of 30 minutes is allocated to this agenda item. Decision: Procedural Motion
Councillor Joshua Peck moved, and Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman seconded a procedural motion – “That under Procedural Rule 14.1.9 the Council proceed to next business. The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
The questions (8.1 – 8.27) that had been submitted by Members were therefore not put at the meeting. The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that written responses would be provided to the questioners and published as an appendix to the minutes.
(Action by: John S. Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services)
Minutes: Procedural Motion
Councillor Joshua Peck MOVED, and Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman SECONDED a procedural motion – “That under Procedural Rule 14.1.9 the Council proceed to next business.” The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
The questions (8.1 – 8.27) that had been submitted by Members were therefore not put at the meeting. The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that written responses would be provided to the questioners and published as an appendix to the minutes. (See Appendix B)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
REPORTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE AND THE COUNCIL'S COMMITTEES |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Safety Plan 2012/13 PDF 77 KB To adopt the Community Safety Plan for 2012/13. Report to follow.
Council on 18th June 2012 considered the proposals of the Executive for the Community Safety Plan 2012/13. The Council agreed a number of amendments that it wished to make to the draft Plan and in accordance with the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules, these were referred back to the Mayor and Executive for consideration.
The proposals of the Mayor and Executive for the Community Safety Plan 2012/13, including any revisions to those proposals made by the Executive following consideration of the amendments agreed by the Council, will be re-circulated to Members following the Cabinet meeting on 4th July 2012.
In the event that the Executive does not accept all of the amendments agreed by the Council on 18th June, the Council may at this meeting amend the Plan in line with those amendments subject to the amendment(s) being supported by two-thirds of those Members present and voting on the matter. Additional documents: Decision: The Council considered the report of the Mayor in Cabinet dated 4th July 2012, setting out the Executive’s proposals for the Council’s Community Safety Plan 2012/13.
The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that the Council on 18th June 2012 had agreed a number of amendments that it wished to make to the Mayor’s draft plan and in accordance with the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules had referred these back to the Mayor and Executive for consideration. At the Cabinet meeting on 4th July 2012 the Mayor and Executive decided to resubmit the draft plan to the Council unamended for the reasons set out in the circulated report.
Following debate, Councillor Joshua Peck moved and Councillor Uz-Zaman seconded – “That the Community Safety Plan 2012/13 be amended in line with the amendments previously agreed by the Council.”
On being put to the vote there were declared 33 votes for and 17 votes against. The amendment therefore did not achieve the support of two-thirds of the Members present and voting and in accordance with the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules was defeated, and the draft Community Safety Plan adopted as set out in the Mayor’s proposals.
DECISION
That the Community Safety Plan 2012/13 be adopted as attached at Appendix A to the report of the Cabinet meeting on 4th July 2012 (CAB 015/123).
(Action by: Stephen Halsey, Corporate Director, Communities, Leisure and Culture)
Minutes: The Council considered the report of the Mayor in Cabinet dated 4th July 2012 as circulated with the supplemental agenda pack for the meeting. The report set out the Executive’s proposals for the Council’s Community Safety Plan 2012/13.
The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the meeting that the Council on 18th June 2012 had agreed a number of amendments that it wished to make to the Mayor’s draft plan and in accordance with the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules had referred these back to the Mayor and Executive for consideration. At the Cabinet meeting on 4th July 2012 the Mayor and Executive decided to resubmit the draft plan to the Council unamended for the reasons set out in the circulated report.
Following debate, Councillor Joshua Peck MOVED and Councillor Uz-Zaman SECONDED – “That the Community Safety Plan 2012/13 be amended in line with the amendments previously agreed by the Council.”
On being put to the vote there were declared 33 votes for and 17 votes against. The amendment therefore did not achieve the support of two-thirds of the Members present and voting and in accordance with the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules was defeated, and the draft Community Safety Plan adopted as set out in the Mayor’s proposals.
RESOLVED
That the Community Safety Plan 2012/13 be adopted as attached at Appendix A to the report of the Cabinet meeting on 4th July 2012 (CAB 015/123).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee PDF 46 KB To receive the Annual Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for 2011/12.
The Annual Report is attached. Additional documents: Decision: The Council considered the annual report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for 2011/12.
DECISION
That the annual report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for 2011/12 be noted.
Minutes: The Council considered the annual report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for 2011/12.
Councillor Ann Jackson, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, presented the annual report.
RESOLVED
That the annual report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for 2011/12 be noted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE REPORTS AND QUESTIONS ON JOINT ARRANGEMENTS AND EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS (if any) Decision: There was no business under this heading.
Minutes: There was no business under this heading.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OTHER BUSINESS |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Review of proportionality and allocation of places on committees PDF 65 KB To undertake a review of proportionality and agree the allocation of places on committees and panels following a change in the political composition of the Council.
The report of the Service Head, Democratic Services is attached. Decision: The Council considered the report of the Service Head, Democratic Services, proposing a review of the allocation of members’ places on Committees and other bodies governed by the proportionality requirements of the Local Government & Housing Act 1989. The review was required owing to changes in the political composition of the Council that occurred on 25th June 2012.
DECISION
(1) That the review of proportionality at paragraph 3 in the circulated report be noted and the allocation of seats on committees and panels established for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2012/13 be agreed as set out at paragraph 4.2.
(2) 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 Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services).
(3) That the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services) be authorised to approve the appointment of ungrouped Councillors to any committee places not allocated by the Council to a political group, after consultation with those Councillors and the Speaker of the Council.
(Action by: Isabella Freeman, Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services); and John S. Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services)
Minutes: The Council considered the report of the Service Head, Democratic Services, proposing a review of the allocation of members’ places on Committees and other bodies governed by the proportionality requirements of the Local Government & Housing Act 1989. The review was required owing to changes in the political composition of the Council that occurred on 25th June 2012.
Procedural motion
Councillor Joshua Peck MOVED, and Councillor Craig Aston SECONDED, a procedural motion – “That under Procedural Rule 14.1.10 the question be now put.” The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
The report recommendation was put to the vote and was agreed and, accordingly, the Council:-
RESOLVED
(1) That the review of proportionality at paragraph 3 in the circulated report be noted and the allocation of seats on committees and panels established for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2012/13 be agreed as set out at paragraph 4.2.
(2) 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 Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services).
(3) That the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services) be authorised to approve the appointment of ungrouped Councillors to any committee places not allocated by the Council to a political group, after consultation with those Councillors and the Speaker of the Council.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TO CONSIDER MOTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PDF 107 KB The motions submitted by Councillors for debate at this meeting are set out in the attached report. Decision: 12.1 Electoral concerns in Tower Hamlets
Councillor Peter Golds moved, and Councillor Timothy Archer seconded, the motion as printed in the agenda.
The motion as printed in the agenda was put to the vote and was agreed.
DECISION
This Council notes that:
Following concerns raised by residents, the media, local Members of Parliament and the political parties, the police announced that they would be investigating voting concerns in the borough following the Spitalfields and Banglatown by election on April 19th.
That the election in Spitalfields and Banglatown was decided by 43 votes and that local residents complained of postal votes being collected from their homes by supporters of a particular candidate.
That in one case a householder repeatedly stated that there were just three residents in their property, whilst eight names were registered and all had postal votes.
That in the by election some 14% of postal votes returned to the town hall were rejected because of issues relating to dates of birth and signatures, yet in the May GLA election this figure of rejections fell to 7.66% of postal votes rejected on return.
That the following data concerning the April by election and the May GLA elections from five small areas gives rise to concern:
Brune House, E1 Flats: 92 Electors: 231 Registered postal voters: 69
Postal votes cast April 19th 2012: 55 Postal Votes Cast May 3rd 2012: 25
Votes cast in person at polling station on April 19th: 60 Votes cast in person at polling station on May 3rd 2012: 54
Herbert House House, E1 Flats: 43 Electors: 108 Registered postal voters: 38
Postal votes cast April 19th 2012: 29 Postal Votes Cast May 3rd 2012: 19
Votes cast in person at polling station on April 19th: 27 Votes cast in person at polling station on May 3rd 2012: 21
Chicksand House, E1 Flats:70 Electors: 194 Registered postal voters: 46
Postal votes cast April 19th 2012: 39 Postal Votes Cast May 3rd 2012: 24
Votes cast in person at polling station on April 19th: 31 Votes cast in person at polling station on May 3rd 2012: 32
8-24 Chicksand Street, E1 Residential properties:25 Electors: 67 Registered postal voters: 38
Postal votes cast April 19th 2012:16 Postal Votes Cast May 3rd 2012: 7
Votes cast in person at polling station on April 19th: 16 Votes cast in person at polling station on May 3rd 2012: 11
14 Brick Lane, E1 Flats: 18 Electors: 44 Registered postal voters: 16
Postal votes cast April 19th 2012: 12 Postal Votes Cast May 3rd 2012: 4
Votes cast in person at polling station on April 19th: 0 Votes cast in person at polling station on May 3rd 2012: 4
Total votes cast by post from these addresses on April 19th : 151 Total votes cast by post from these addresses on May 3rd ... view the full decision text for item 12. Minutes: 12.1 Electoral concerns in Tower Hamlets
Councillor Peter Golds MOVED, and Councillor Timothy Archer SECONDED, the motion as printed in the agenda.
The motion as printed in the agenda was put to the vote and was agreed. Accordingly it was :-
RESOLVED
This Council notes that:
Following concerns raised by residents, the media, local Members of Parliament and the political parties, the police announced that they would be investigating voting concerns in the borough following the Spitalfields and Banglatown by election on April 19th.
That the election in Spitalfields and Banglatown was decided by 43 votes and that local residents complained of postal votes being collected from their homes by supporters of a particular candidate.
That in one case a householder repeatedly stated that there were just three residents in their property, whilst eight names were registered and all had postal votes.
That in the by election some 14% of postal votes returned to the town hall were rejected because of issues relating to dates of birth and signatures, yet in the May GLA election this figure of rejections fell to 7.66% of postal votes rejected on return.
That the following data concerning the April by election and the May GLA elections from five small areas gives rise to concern:
Brune House, E1 Flats: 92 Electors: 231 Registered postal voters: 69
Postal votes cast April 19th 2012: 55 Postal Votes Cast May 3rd 2012: 25
Votes cast in person at polling station on April 19th: 60 Votes cast in person at polling station on May 3rd 2012: 54
Herbert House House, E1 Flats: 43 Electors: 108 Registered postal voters: 38
Postal votes cast April 19th 2012: 29 Postal Votes Cast May 3rd 2012: 19
Votes cast in person at polling station on April 19th: 27 Votes cast in person at polling station on May 3rd 2012: 21
Chicksand House, E1 Flats:70 Electors: 194 Registered postal voters: 46
Postal votes cast April 19th 2012: 39 Postal Votes Cast May 3rd 2012: 24
Votes cast in person at polling station on April 19th: 31 Votes cast in person at polling station on May 3rd 2012: 32
8-24 Chicksand Street, E1 Residential properties:25 Electors: 67 Registered postal voters: 38
Postal votes cast April 19th 2012:16 Postal Votes Cast May 3rd 2012: 7
Votes cast in person at polling station on April 19th: 16 Votes cast in person at polling station on May 3rd 2012: 11
14 Brick Lane, E1 Flats: 18 Electors: 44 Registered postal voters: 16
Postal votes cast April 19th 2012: 12 Postal Votes Cast May 3rd 2012: 4
Votes cast in person at polling station on April 19th: 0 Votes cast in person at polling station on May 3rd 2012: 4
Total votes cast by post from these addresses on April 19th : 151 Total votes cast by post ... view the full minutes text for item 12. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC In view of the content of the remaining items on the agenda, the Council is recommended to adopt the following motion:
“That, under the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended, the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that the business to be transacted contains information defined as Exempt in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.”
EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL SECTION (PINK)
The Exempt/Confidential (pink) papers for consideration at the meeting will contain information which is commercially, legally or personally sensitive and should not be divulged to third parties. If you do not wish to retain these papers after the meeting please hand them to the Committee Officer present. Decision: [Note: The resolution to exclude the press and public did not need to be adopted as the Section 2 minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 16th May 2012 and 18th June 2012 had been agreed at item 3 above.
Minutes: [Note: The resolution to exclude the press and public did not need to be adopted as the Part 2 (restricted) minutes of the meetings of the Council held on 16th May 2012 and 18th June 2012 had been agreed at item 3 above, and there was no further restricted business.]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EXEMPT MINUTES To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the exempt (restricted) minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting on 16th May 2012 and the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 18th June 2012 (to follow). Decision: DECISION
That the exempt minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting on 16th May 2012 and the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 18th June 2012 be confirmed as a correct record and the Speaker be authorised to sign them accordingly.
Minutes: [Note: The Council resolved during the unrestricted part of the meeting (see item 3 above), as follows:- “That the exempt minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting on 16th May 2012 and the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 18th June 2012 be confirmed as a correct record and the Speaker be authorised to sign them accordingly.”]
|