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.  Urgent motions, moved with the agreement of the Council without notice, are listed at item 13.

The order of business as taken at the meeting was as follows:

Items:

·         1 – Apologies for Absence

·         2 – Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

·         3 – Minutes

·         4 – To receive announcements (if any) from the speaker of the Council or the Head of Paid Service

·         5 – Petitions (5.1 to 5.2)

·         12.8 – Motion on Leaseholder Charges

·         5 – Petitions (5.3)

·         6 – Public Questions (6.1 to 6.3)

·         12.11 – Motion regarding Nelson Mandela

·         6 – Public Questions (6.4 to 6.9)

·         7 – Mayor’s Report

·         13.1 – Urgent motion regarding Old Poplar Town Hall

·         8 – Members’ Questions (8.1 to 8.2)

·         12.1 – Motion regarding the “March against alcohol”

·         8 – Members’ Questions (8.3)

·         13.2 – Urgent motion regarding electoral integrity

·         8 – Members’ Questions (8.4 to 8.5)

·         9.1 – Watts Grove Depot report

·         11.1 – Health and Wellbeing Board report

·         12 – Motions (12.3, 12.6, 12.10 and 12.12)

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Lutfa Begum, Ann Jackson, Anwar Khan and Fozol Miah.  Apologies for lateness were received on behalf of Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed.

No declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests were made.

Procedural Motions

At this point Councillor Carlo Gibbs moved and Councillor Bill Turner seconded a procedural motion “that under Procedure Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be varied such that when Item 12 (Motions) is reached the order of motions to be considered should be: 12.11, 12.3, 12.6, 12.8, 12.10, 12.12 and then all remaining motions in order”.

The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.

Councillor Shahed Ali then moved and Councillor Rania Khan seconded a procedural motion “that under Procedure Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be varied to debate Motion 12.9 (“Motion regarding Transport for London fare rises”) as the next item of business.

The procedural motion was put to the vote and was defeated.

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Council held on 27^th November 2013.  The draft minutes are attached.

RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 27 November 2013 be confirmed as a correct record and the Speaker be authorised to sign them accordingly.

The Speaker of the Council made three announcements:

·         Following the recent death of Nelson Mandela, to place on record the Council’s tribute to him and recognition of the many achievements of his life.

·         That this year’s Poppy Appeal had raised £13,626.96 a sum that was over £2,000 more than last year and to thank Councillor Craig Aston for co-ordinating the appeal.

·         Relating to conduct at Council meetings, the Speaker reminded all those present in the public gallery of their responsibility to behave appropriately and should any Member experience problems they were to alert the Speaker without delay.

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 Thursday 16^th January 2014.  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 regarding initiatives to create a sustainable environment

Mr Muhammad Haque addressed the meeting on behalf of the petitioners and responded to questions from Members. Councillor Shahed Ali, Cabinet Member for Environment, then responded to the matters raised in the petition. He welcomed the sentiment expressed in the petition and called on all groups to work together to achieve a unified Tower Hamlets.

RESOLVED

That the petition be referred to the Service Head, Corporate Strategy and Equalities for a written response on any outstanding matters within 28 days.

5.2       Petition regarding leaseholder charges and services delivered by Tower Hamlets Homes

Ms Allison Charles addressed the meeting on behalf of the petitioners and responded to questions from Members. Councillor Rabina Khan, Cabinet Member for Housing, then responded to the matters raised in the petition. She agreed with the need to improve the methodologies used by Tower Hamlets Homes and stated that the Council were undertaking an audit to look to do just that. She would work with Leaseholders to try and achieve a satisfactory outcome.

RESOLVED

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

Procedural Motions

At this point Councillor Carlo Gibbs moved and Councillor Bill Turner seconded a procedural motion “that under Procedure Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be varied to debate Motion 12.8 (“Leaseholder Service Charges”) as the next item of business.

The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed. The Council therefore proceeded to debate Motion 12.8 (see minute 12 below).

5.3       Petition regarding Anti-Social Behaviour at Anson House

Residents of Anson House addressed the meeting on behalf of the petitioners and responded to questions from Members. Councillor Ohid Ahmed, Deputy Mayor, then responded to the matters raised in the petition. He stated that he was aware of the issue and he highlighted the actions the Council were already undertaking such as the installation of new doors and THEO patrols. He promised to work with residents and to monitor the situation until a solution was found.

RESOLVED

That the petition be referred to the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal, for a written response on any outstanding matters 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.

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

6.1      Question from Ms Julia Dockerill  

What progress has been made by the Mayor and his Executive with respect to the application made by the Turk's Head charity to have Wapping Green formally designated as a protected, official 'village green' under the Commons Act of 2006?

Response by Councillor Rania Khan, Cabinet Member for Culture

Thank you Ms. Dockerill for your question, we have received your application and this is being reviewed across several service areas.

Summary of Supplementary Question from Ms Dockerill

The application was made a year ago. Why has it taken so long?

Summary of Councillor Rania Khan’s response to the Supplementary Question

The application is being reviewed.

6.2       Question from Mr Matthew Smith

Will the Mayor inform residents as to the progress of his proposals for the Community Infrastructure Levy?

Response by Councillor Rabina Khan, Cabinet Member for Housing

Thank you for your question Mr Smith.

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was introduced by the government in 2010. It allows councils to raise funds by levying charges on new developments.

The Council is already collecting the Mayor of London’s CIL for Crossrail.

The Revised Draft Charging Schedule was approved at Cabinet on 9 October 2013; our most recent consultation closed on 2 December and we anticipate full implementation in summer/autumn this year.

Summary of Supplementary Question from Mr Matthew Smith

The process has taken a long time.  Are there any lessons to be learnt about working more co-operatively with the Mayor of London and the GLA to ensure the CIL gets implemented properly?

Summary of Councillor Rabina Khan’s response to the Supplementary Question

Agreeing a CIL is a complicated process. The Mayor of London is making the process more difficult by trying to collect further contributions to support Crossrail which then reduces funding for the local area. If you are concerned about this I would ask you to speak to the Mayor of London.

6.3       Question from Mrs S Morrison

What is the Mayor doing to honour the legacy of Nelson Mandela?

Response by Councillor Ohid Ahmed, Deputy Mayor

Thank you for your question Mrs Morrison.

First of all, let me say that we are all deeply saddened by the death of this great man.

Nelson Mandela’s life is important not just because he ended apartheid, but because he gave inspiration to millions fighting injustice, inequality and racism across the world.

And let’s not pretend that the fight for racial equality is over.  Even here in modern Britain, prejudice against Black and Minority Ethnic Communities remains.

There is a motion on tonight’s agenda that lays out what we want to do, including naming a building in the new Blackwall Reach development after Mr Mandela.

Summary of Supplementary Question from Mrs S Morrison

Can you please ensure that his legacy is commemorated as part of Black History month?

Summary of Councillor Ohid  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Mayor made his report to the Council meeting, extending a welcome to all present.

In particular the Mayor echoed the Speaker’s tribute to Nelson Mandela and he also highlighted the significance of Holocaust Memorial Day to the East End of London.

The Leader of the Majority Group and the Leader of each Minority Group then responded briefly to the Mayor’s report.

Procedural Motion

At this point Councillor Tim Archer moved and Councillor Peter Golds seconded a procedural motion “that under Procedure Rule 14.1.15, Rule 13.1 be suspended to enable an urgent motion calling for an investigation into Old Poplar Town Hall to be debated without notice as the next item of business.” The text of the proposed urgent motion was circulated to the meeting.

The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed. The Council therefore proceeded to debate the urgent motion (see minute 13 below).

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 (except where indicated) a supplementary question were put and were responded to by the relevant Executive Member.

8.1       Question from Councillor Denise Jones

Sadly for the second year running we are meeting after more stabbings in Wapping over the Christmas period. This year’s incident came at an illegal rave which spiralled out of control. Will the Mayor tell us what steps he has taken since he came to power to crack down on this type of activity as well as to combat knife crime on our streets?

Response by Councillor Ohid Ahmed, Deputy Mayor

Thank you for your question Councillor Jones.  Knife crime is a serious issue, not just in Tower Hamlets but across London.  Boris Johnson’s police cuts are making it harder to take on this issue.

As soon as I heard of it, I ordered the Head of Paid Service to work with the police and check the security of vacant properties in the borough and to improve intelligence to crack down on these sorts of gatherings.

However, we are working hard to do what we can with what we have.  We’ve invested £2.2m in new THEOs and £2m in new police officers.

Summary of Supplementary Question from Councillor Denise Jones

How are you going to prevent future incidents like this from happening?

Summary of Councillor Ohid Ahmed’s response to the Supplementary Question

We know the problems and are trying to solve them.

8.2       Question from Councillor Peter Golds

Will the Mayor explain the reasons for the conflicting statements issued by the council in his name regarding the march against the sale of alcohol organised by Anjem Choudhary in Brick Lane during December?

Response by Councillor Ohid Ahmed, Deputy Mayor

It is not true that conflicting statements were issued.

The initial response issued by our communications team was not cleared by the Mayor and should not have been sent out.

For the record the Mayor approved the following statement in the aftermath of the demonstration:-

“As part of our pledge to ‘No Place for Hate’, we oppose all groups that seek to impose their views on and bring division to our communities. Council staff worked with the police to ensure that the businesses, residents and visitors on Brick Lane were protected during the demonstration.”

Summary of Supplementary Question from Councillor Peter Golds

Conflicting statements were issued.  What happened between the two statements being issued?  The public should know and the Mayor should tell us.

Summary of Councillor Ohid Ahmed’s response to the Supplementary Question

You are not looking at the bigger picture. We want to make sure that everyone who lives and works in the borough feels safe.

Procedural Motions

At this point Councillor Peter Golds moved and Councillor Tim Archer seconded a procedural motion “that under Procedure Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be varied to debate Motion 12.1 (“Motion regarding the Mayor’s statements on the “March against alcohol”) as the next item of business.

The procedural motion was put  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To consider a reference from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the above matter. 

The draft report to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to be considered by that Committee on 20^th January 2014, is attached.   Any further comments or amendments agreed at the Committee’s meeting will be reported to the Council on 22^nd January. 

The Council considered a reference from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on its review of the Watts Grove Depot Mayoral Decision and related issues.  An addendum report, including minor amendments to the Committee’s findings as agreed at their meeting on 20^th January, was tabled.

Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman moved, and Councillor Rachael Saunders seconded, the recommendations in the report as amended.

DECISION

1.    That the Council notes the amendment agreed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 20^th January to the first bullet point of item 2.0 of the Committee’s report to read as follows:-

·         The decision to use the model selected for the Watts Grove Depot redevelopment was flawed, and vulnerable to potentially foreseeable changes. The consequence of these decisions has seen the council incur costs of approximately £308,000 (as of 5^th November), and lose out on the opportunity to provide 149 affordable homes. A partnership with an RP, or another more economically viable alternative model, would have been a better option. However, to pursue this now would involve starting the full and costly process again from the beginning.

2.    That subject to the above amendment, the Council endorse the findings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee as set out in the report; and that the Mayor and Cabinet Members be requested to act accordingly.

(Action by: Aman Dalvi, Corporate Director, Development and Renewal)

The Council considered a reference from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on its review of the Watts Grove Depot Mayoral Decision and related issues.  An addendum report, including minor amendments to the Committee’s findings as agreed at their meeting on 20^th January, was tabled.

Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman moved, and Councillor Rachael Saunders seconded, the recommendations in the report as amended.

RESOLVED

1.    That the Council notes the amendment agreed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 20^th January to the first bullet point of item 2.0 of the Committee’s report to read as follows:-

·         The decision to use the model selected for the Watts Grove Depot redevelopment was flawed, and vulnerable to potentially foreseeable changes. The consequence of these decisions has seen the council incur costs of approximately £308,000 (as of 5^th November), and lose out on the opportunity to provide 149 affordable homes. A partnership with an RP, or another more economically viable alternative model, would have been a better option. However, to pursue this now would involve starting the full and costly process again from the beginning.

2.    That subject to the above amendment, the Council endorse the findings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee as set out in the report; and that the Mayor and Cabinet Members be requested to act accordingly.

Procedural Motion

Councillor Carlo Gibbs moved and Councillor Bill Turner seconded a procedural motion “That under Procedure Rule 15.11.7 the meeting be extended by up to 30 minutes to enable business up to and including motion 12.12 to be considered.”  The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed. 

There was no business under this heading.

To agree the appointment of Co-opted Members to the Tower Hamlets Health and Wellbeing Board and to appoint a non-executive majority group Councillor to serve on the Board.

The report of the Service Head, Democratic Services is attached.

The Council considered the report of the Service Head, Democratic Services on appointments to the Tower Hamlets Health and Wellbeing Board.

During debate Councillor Denise Jones was nominated as the non-executive majority group councillor to serve on the Board.

RESOLVED

1.    That the Council agree the appointment of co-opted members to the Tower Hamlets Wellbeing Board as set out at paragraph 1.3 of the circulated report.

2.    That Councillor Denise Jones be appointed to serve as the non-executive majority group councillor on the Tower Hamlets Health and Wellbeing Board.

3.    That the Council note the other appointments to the Board which take effect by operation of statute.

4.    That the above appointments shall be for the remainder of the current municipal year.

12.1    Motion regarding the Mayor’s statements on the “March against alcohol”

Councillor Peter Golds moved, and Councillor Tim Archer seconded the motion as printed in the agenda.

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

RESOLVED

This Council notes:

•      The possibility of an increase in community tensions arising from the well-publicised “March against alcohol” in Brick Lane on December 13th.

•      That Brick Lane is known worldwide for its vibrant restaurant offer, and that the beginning of the Christmas period is a highpoint for the local economy.

This Council believes:

•      This event would intimidate restaurants and their customers, and attract other extremist groups to the area

•      Policing the event was a waste of valuable police resources, with a reduction in the availability of officers across the borough at a particularly busy time.

This Council also notes:

•      That the initial statement issued in the name of the Mayor was “We strongly believe in the right to free speech and association, and I am pleased that, with the Police’s support, this group were able to exercise that right whilst upholding respect for our communities, which is the hallmark of our ‘No Place for Hate’ pledge.”

This Council also believes:

•      That this was an extraordinary response in view of the threats to legitimate local businesses and their customers who were intent on enjoying a pre-Christmas lunch completely within the law.

This Council further notes:

•      That following hostile publicity after the release of this statement an amended statement was published, stating “As part of our pledge to ‘No Place for Hate’, we oppose all groups that seek to impose their views on and bring division to our communities. Council staff worked with the Police to ensure that the businesses, residents and visitors on Brick Lane were protected during the demonstration.”

This Council further believes:

•      That the confusion around the Mayor’s position on this important issue shames the Council, reflecting poorly on his office.

•      That there are a number of unanswered questions as to how the original inappropriate statement came to be released, including:-

1.         Why, with a multi-million pound publicity budget he makes such different statements?

2.         Who authorised the initial statement in his name?

3.         What particular event or events the following week encouraged him to change the statement?

This Council resolves:

•      To condemn the Mayor’s original statement, and the confusion around its subsequent retraction.

•      To instruct officers to present a report to the next Council meeting, outlining the procedural failures that led to this debacle; and the steps to be taken to prevent a repeat. 

12.3    Motion regarding Cost of Living

Councillor Rachael Saunders moved,and Councillor Sirajul Islam seconded the motion as printed in the agenda.

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

RESOLVED

This Council believes:

• That families in Tower Hamlets are feeling the pinch, with prices rising faster than wages, and too many local people finding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The Council agreed to suspend Procedure Rule 13.1 to enable the following urgent motions to be debated without notice:

13.1    Urgent motion calling for an investigation into Old Poplar Town             Hall

Councillor Peter Golds moved, and Councillor Tim Archer seconded, the motion as tabled.

Following debate the motion was put to the vote and was agreed.

RESOLVED

This Council notes:

• The former Poplar Town Hall on the corner of Poplar High Street and Woodstock Terrace, E14 is an iconic building dating back to the 19^th Century. It was the administrative home of Poplar Borough Council 1900-1938, and as such is a listed building.
• That in 2008 the former Poplar Town Hall was put up for disposal and the Cabinet stipulated that “it should be advertised locally to allow local groups to make an offer”
• That subsequently on 12 January 2011 officers were given authority to dispose of the property in the open market.
• That according to answers provided by the council, the property was “openly and widely” marketed by external agents on 9 May 2011; and a wide range of bids was received on 8 July 2011.
• The property was, according to officers, sold to the highest bidder. The transaction was completed on 11 November 2011. The sum paid by the highest bidder was £876,000
• That this price was not much more than the price of a family home nearby, for example on 6 May 2011 a three bedroom semi-detached house close by in Woodstock Terrace was sold for £585,000

• That the former Poplar Town Hall contains offices, a full size council chamber, and even a self-contained flat, and is obviously substantially larger than a three bedroom semi-detached house.

This Council further notes:

• That the owners of the successful bidder and ultimate purchaser, Dreamstar, are well known to the Mayor and members of his administration.
• That planning permission and Listed Building Consent were granted on the 3^rd July 2013 for a change of use from office (B1) to hotel (C1) under Officers’ delegated authority.
• That the change of use from office to hotel use will result in an increase in value of the building by several million pounds.

This Council believes:

• That it is entirely inappropriate to grant this change of use using delegated power, considering the public interest in the sale of the building and the effect such a change of use would have on local residents.
• That there remain unanswered questions as to the relationship between the current owner/occupier, and the administration.
• That no answer has been given as to whether in the initial marketing documents bidders were informed that the council would entertain a change of use of this type.

This Council resolves:

• To instruct the Head of Paid Service, Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer, in conjunction with the District Auditor, to undertake an immediate investigation into the marketing and sale of the former Poplar Town Hall
• That this investigation should include details of all meetings and correspondence between officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.