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
Media
No. | Item |
---|---|
The meeting commenced at 7.34 p.m.
The Speaker of the Council, Councillor M. A. Mukit, MBE in the Chair
During the meeting the Council agreed to vary the order of business. To aid clarity, the Minutes are presented in the order that the items originally appeared on the agenda. Urgent motions, moved with the agreement of the Council, without notice, are listed at Item 13. The order the business was taken at the meeting was as follows:
· Item 1 - Apologies for absence. · Item 2 – Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Item 3 – Minutes. · Item 4 – Announcements. · Items 5.1- 5.3 – Petitions for presentation · Item 13.1 – Urgent Motion regardingOne Housing Group · Items 5.4– Petition for debate. · Item 6 – Public Questions. · Item 7 – Mayor’s Report. · Item 8 – Members Questions. · Item 9.1 – Annual report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee · Item 11.1 - Amended Regulations: Dismissal Process for Statutory Officers · Item 11.2 - Review of proportionality and allocation of places on the committees and panels of the Council · Item 12.1 - Motion regarding the Constitutional Working Group
The Speaker opened the meeting and wished all Eid Mubarak following the the end of Ramadan.
Prior to commencing the Council’s formal business, the Speaker referred to two tragic events that had occurred since the last meeting of the Council.
Firstly, Members would be aware of the awful accident that occurred on Friday 17th July in Mile End Park resulting in the death of a young local girl, Alexia Walenkaki. It was understood that a full investigation was underway into the circumstances of the accident.
Secondly, Members would recall the terrible event that took place three weeks earlier in Tunisia on 26th June, when more than 30 tourists, mostly from Britain, were murdered in a mass shooting.
He invited the Council to stand and observe a minute’s silence in memory of the innocent lives lost.
|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies for absence were received on behalf of: · Councillor Asma Begum · Councillor Shahed Ali · Councillor Mohammed Mufti Miah
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS PDF 64 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. Please see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.
Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Candida Ronald declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5.3, Petition entitled ‘Stop the destruction of long standing communities on the Isle of Dogs’; and a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 13.1, urgent motion regarding One Housing; as she was atenant of One Housing and was also Chair of the Samuda Estate Local Management Organisation. Councillor Ronal left the meeting during consideration of Agenda Item 13.1.
Councillor Mohammed Maium Miah declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5.3, Petition entitled ‘Stop the destruction of long standing communities on the Isle of Dogs’; and a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 13.1, urgent motion regarding One Housing; as he was an Area Board Member for Island Housing Group, part of the One Housing Group and a leaseholder of a One Housing property. Councillor Miah left the meeting during consideration of item Agenda Item 13.1
Councillor Oliur Rahman declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5.3, Petition entitled ‘Stop the destruction of long standing communities on the Isle of Dogs’; and a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 13.1, urgent motion regarding One Housing; as he was a tenant of One Housing. Councillor Rahman left the meeting during consideration of Agenda Item 13.1.
Councillor Ohid Ahmed declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5.3 Petition entitled ‘Stop the destruction of long standing communities on the Isle of Dogs’ as he was a Board Member for a Registered Provider.
Councillor David Edgar declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Item 13.1, Urgent Motion regarding One Housing Group as his wife had a leasehold interest a One Housing property. Councillor Edgar left the meeting during consideration of this motion.
|
|
To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council held on 20th May 2015 and 24th June 2015. The draft minutes are attached. Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council held on 20th May 2015 and 24th June 2015 be confirmed as a correct record and the Speaker be authorised to sign them accordingly.
|
|
TO RECEIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS (IF ANY) FROM THE SPEAKER OF THE COUNCIL Additional documents: Minutes: The Speaker welcomed to their first council meeting both the Authority’s new Acting Director of Adult Services, Luke Addams; and the new Interim Corporate Director of Children’s Services, Debbie Jones.
On behalf of the Council, the Speaker also thanked Meic Sullivan-Gould, who would shortly leave the Authority, for his services as Interim Monitoring Officer since January 2014
Procedural Motion
Councillor Oliur Rahman moved and Councillor Mahbub Alam seconded, a procedural motion “that under Procedure Rule 14.1.5, Rule 13.1 be suspended to enable an urgent motion regarding ‘Trees and Death of a Child in Local Park – Safety of Young Children and Residents in our Parks’ to be considered”. The procedural motion was put to the vote and was defeated.
|
|
TO RECEIVE PETITIONS PDF 56 KB Items 5.1 to 5.3 – Petitions for presentation
The Council Procedure Rules provide for up to 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 16th July. However, as at the date of agenda despatch 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 then 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 next available Council meeting.
A petition containing 2,369 signatures has been received on the subject of the TUSH Housing Co-op, Bruce Road, E3.
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:
Minutes: 5.1 Petition regarding major works at Lister House and Treves House, E1
Ms Khaleda Malequeaddressed the meeting on behalf of the petitioners, and responded to questions from Members.
Councillor Sirajul Islam, Statutory Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Housing Management and Performance, then responded to the matters raised in the petition. He outlined the aims of the Decent Homes Programme and the anticipated costs and the timetable for the works to the blocks. A full options appraisal had been commissioned in the interest of best value and the survey should be completed by the end of August. Every effort had been made to keep residents informed of developments. The Council was also reviewing its policy on the leaseholder repayment period. A report on this matter would be submitted to Cabinet later this year.
RESOLVED
That the petition be referred to the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal, for a written response on any outstanding matters within 28 days.
5.2 Petition regarding the Council’s service to the local community
Mr Muhammad Haqueaddressed the meeting on behalf of the petitioners, and responded to questions from Members.
Mayor John Biggs then responded to the matters raised in the petition. He reported on his commitment to examining, along with the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the Council’s democratic process to ensure that it was open to scrutiny, decision makers were held to account and to ensure services were delivered effectively amongst other aims.
RESOLVED
That the petition be referred to the Directorate of Law Probity and Governance for a written response on any outstanding matters within 28 days.
5.3 Petition entitled ‘Stop the destruction of long standing communities on the Isle of Dogs’
Mr Arthur Coppinaddressed the meeting on behalf of the petitioners, and responded to questions from Members.
Mayor John Biggs then responded to the matters raised in the petition. He expressed sympathy for the petitioners concerns. He also reported on his plans to attend a meeting with the Chief Executive of One Housing and that he was working with Councillors across the political spectrum to address the concerns.
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 Motion
Councillor Dave Chesterton moved, and Councillor Andrew Cregan seconded, a procedural motion “that under Procedure Rule 14.1.5, Rule 13.1 be suspended to enable an urgent motion regarding ‘One Housing Group’ to be considered”. The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
5.4 Petition Debate - TUSH Housing Co-op, Bruce Road, E3.
An updated report for this item including officers comments was tabled at the meeting.
The Service Head, Democratic Services advised the Council that a petition containing 2,369 signatures regarding TUSH Housing Co-op, Bruce Road, E3 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.
|
|
TO RECEIVE WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PDF 61 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.
Additional documents: Minutes: The following questions and in each case (except where indicated) a supplementary question were put, and were responded to by the relevant Executive Member:-
6.1 Question from Ms Kathy McTasney
Who made the decision to remove personalised disabled bays, and are they aware of the Equality Act and the right of the person with disability to access, especially to their home? I understand from officers that, I quote, "It was the Councillors that made the decision". So who was the person responsible for this?
I have a personal issue that officers were responsible for removing my daughter’s bay because I have a front drive. They clearly weren’t interested in the adaptations for the car. As officers made clear there were people not using their bays. Then common sense would be to write a letter and if no response at all, remove the bay. Not threaten disabled people that can't speak for themselves.
In conclusion I ask that you withdraw the removal of all personalised disabled bays and send out letters for reply instead of reapplying, as personally there was never an application made as LBTH (Social Services) and the Ambulance service many years ago applied for this to be allocated because of my daughter’s disability?
Response by Mayor John Biggs
The formal answer is that the Council set its policy in 1996 at the Planning and Environmental Services Committee and at the Policy and Information Committee an associated decision of February 2000 amended the procedure to require periodic review and so there are periodic reviews and I certainly have been petitioned about them by constituents down the years as well. There needs to be a process of review and also a process so you can appeal and challenge that. I think in a Borough where parking is such a massively political issue it’s important that people have a right to have such decisions reviewed. It’s quite wrong to say that Councillors individually make decisions about this though. It’s a Council policy which is to review these allocations from time to time. I would be very surprised if large numbers were withdrawn and certainly the decision I think preceded my election but I might be wrong about that.
Supplementary question from Ms Kathy McTasney
Why would an Officer commission an external Occupational Therapist (OT) to come and assess my daughter for her mobility when the OT arrived and saw my daughter she then said she didn’t know why she was sent. I asked the Council to look at the facts. Officer trying to remove the bay, sends external OT to assess a severely disabled person who is 2-1 care. Officer wanting to refuse blue badge so as to remove the bay. This is clearly discrimination and you have to take responsibility for these actions
Mayor John Biggs’ response to the supplementary question
I am very happy to go away and to review the way the policy is being implemented. As I understand it, part of the driver behind this has ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
The Council’s Constitution provides for the Elected Mayor to give a report at each Ordinary Council Meeting. The report of Mayor Biggs is attached.
A maximum of five minutes is allowed for the Elected Mayor to speak to his report, following which the Speaker of the Council will invite the respective political group leaders to respond for up to one minute each if they wish.
Additional documents: Minutes: Procedural Motion
Before the consideration of the Mayor’s report, Councillor Craig Aston moved, and Councillor Chris Chapman seconded, a procedural motion “that Procedure Rule 2.1.7 be suspended to enable the Mayor to address the meeting for a maximum of eight minutes and to allow Group Leaders to respond for up to three minutes”. The procedural motion was put to the vote and was defeated.
The Mayor made his report to the Council, referring to his written report that was included in the agenda and summarising some his actions over the past period, current reviews and aspirations for the future
When the Mayor had completed his report, at the invitation of the Speaker the Leaders of the other political groups then responded briefly to the Mayor’s report.
|
|
TO RECEIVE WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PDF 65 KB 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.
Additional documents: Minutes: The following questions and in each case (except where indicated) a supplementary question were put, and were responded to by the relevant Executive Member or Chair of Committee:-
8.1 Question from Councillor Danny Hassell
Does the Mayor intend to provide some form of monthly report detailing engagements and other important town hall business undertaken?
Response by Mayor John Biggs
Yes, I intend to produce a regular report to these meeting and also to work with the Constitutional Working Party to see how we can better improve the accountability of the Mayor which is after all a fairly powerful position.
(No supplementary question was put)
8.2 Question from Councillor Oliur Rahman to the Mayor and his Cabinet
Will you be carrying on with the Whitechapel Vision project and the move of the current Town Hall to the heart of community in Whitechapel as part of key jigsaw piece of wider regeneration, as initiated by the previous Mayor’s administration?
Response by Mayor John Biggs
Yes, I support the Whitechapel Master Plan and the vision for the area but we are looking at the costings and alternative proposals for a Town Hall as we think it’s our responsibility to do that. We welcome that the previous Mayor secured the site at Whitechapel as it’s an attractive site but we need to look at the numbers to see whether it’s the best site in terms of the interests of the Borough and the other uses to which those monies could be applied as it is quite an expensive option. There may be other options which are more affordable. We need to balance questions of access and costs against each other and look at the other things that we may be able to do for local people.
Supplementary question from Councillor Oliur Rahman
Would you support a new town hall in Whitechapel - yes or no? Or are you planning to move the town hall to Cambridge Heath Road, the old council building?
Mayor John Biggs’ response to supplementary question
If the numbers work, then yes.
8.3 Question from Councillor Amina Ali
Mr Mayor, how many community events or visits have you undertaken since taking office?
Response by Mayor John Biggs
By my estimate, I have attended 31 community events from 15th June 2015 to 12th July 2015 and that does not include other visits to partner organisations. I intend to try and make one visit each day but anyone who has occupied the position of Leader or Mayor will know that the demands on your time are such that this is not always possible.
(No supplementary question was put)
8.4 Question from Councillor Andrew Wood
Developers are proposing to provide much needed new schools at Wood Wharf, Westferry and Wapping print works but there is no indication yet who will operate those new schools. The Mayor will be aware that current legislation requires that new school sites can only be occupied by academy and free school providers.
Will the Mayor be using ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |
|
REPORTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE AND THE COUNCIL'S COMMITTEES Additional documents: |
|
Annual report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee PDF 95 KB To receive the annual report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the municipal year 2014/15. The committee’s report is attached.
Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor John Pierce, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, presented the committee’s Annual Report for 2014-15. Councillor Pierce moved, and Councillor Peter Golds seconded, the recommendation contained in the report.
RESOLVED
That the Council note the contents of the Annual Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for 2014-15.
|
|
TO RECEIVE REPORTS AND QUESTIONS ON JOINT ARRANGEMENTS/EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS (if any) Additional documents: Minutes: There was no business to transact under this agenda item.
|
|
OTHER BUSINESS Additional documents: |
|
Amended Regulations: Dismissal Process for Statutory Officers PDF 95 KB To agree changes to the Officer Employment Procedure Rules to reflect Regulations that came into effect on 11th May 2015.
The joint report of the Interim Monitoring Officer and Service Head, Human Resources and Workforce Development is attached.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Council considered the report of the Interim Monitoring Officer and Service Head, Human Resources and Workforce Development, proposing amendments to the Council’s Officer Employment Procedure Rules to provide a new process for the dismissal of Statutory Officers as required by legislation.
The recommendations set out in the report were put to the vote and were agreed. Accordingly it was
RESOLVED
1. That the new process for dismissal of a statutory officer be noted.
2. That the Officer Employment Procedure Rules in Part 4 of the Constitution be amended as set out in Appendix 1 to the report of the Interim Monitoring Officer and Service Head, Human Resources and Workforce Development to reflect the change in process.
3. That a further report be considered by the Human Resources Committee that deals with the detail of the process and makes proposals on the outstanding issues as identified in the report.
|
|
To review proportionality and the allocation of places on committees and panels pursuant to a change in the political composition of the council. The report of the Service Head, Democratic Services is attached.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Council considered the report of the Service Head, Democratic Services, setting out the position regarding proportionality and the allocation of Committee places following a change in the political composition of the Council.
The recommendations set out in the report were put to the vote and were agreed.
RESOLVED
1. That the review of proportionality as at section 3 of the report be noted and the allocation of seats on committees and panels be agreed for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2015/16 as set out at paragraph 4.1 of the report.
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 Service Head, Democratic Services.
3. That the single ungrouped Councillor be appointed to the vacant position on the Appeals Committee remaining after the allocation of places to the political groups.
|
|
TO CONSIDER MOTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PDF 103 KB The motions submitted by Councillors for debate at this meeting are set out in the attached report.
Additional documents: Minutes: 12.1 Motion regarding the Constitutional Working Group
Councillor Craig Aston moved, and Councillor Peter Golds seconded the motion as printed in the agenda.
Following debate, the motion was put to the vote and was agreed. Accordingly it was:-
RESOLVED:
This council notes that:
1. Since October 2010 the council has operated under an Executive Mayoral model in which most functions of the council are in the hands of the Executive Mayor.
2. The size of the council was reduced from 51 to 45 in 2014, in part due to arguments about how the work of councillors and the structure of the council could be revised with fewer members.
3. Apart from necessary changes to the constitution to account for the transfer of executive powers, no thorough revision of the structures of the council was carried out, and no such revision has been carried out since.
4. Tower Hamlets is one of only 9 boroughs in London out of 32 with a single Overview and Scrutiny Committee as opposed to a number of scrutiny bodies.
This council notes further:
1. Although a formal scheme of delegation exists, executive powers have never been formally delegated. Responsibility for executive actions therefore rests exclusively with the Executive Mayor.
2. The outgoing Executive Mayor had not answered a single question at Full Council since 2012 and usually his only interaction with Full Council meetings was his 5-minute report, where he generally talked about matters irrelevant to his duties as Executive Mayor.
3. The outgoing Executive Mayor attended just 4 Overview & Scrutiny Committee meetings in a tenure of four and a half years.
4. The council further notes that the newly elected Mayor, attended and responded to a call in at the most recent Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
This council notes further:
1. The intervention of the Department for Communities and Local Government in sending the auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, to this council.
2. The subsequent report of PricewaterhouseCoopers, which made severe criticisms of the actions and lack of accountability of the outgoing administration.
3. The further intervention of DCLG in sending Commissioners into this borough to exercise certain executive powers.
This council believes that:
1. The structures left in place at the transfer to an Executive Mayoral model in 2010 are, and were, not sufficient to ensure genuine scrutiny and accountability of an Executive Mayoral administration.
2. Those structures have plainly failed, resulting in DCLG intervention.
3. A revision of those structures is both necessary and desirable.
The council resolves that:
1. The Constitutional Working Group be convened to consider revisions to the constitution which would strengthen scrutiny, oversight, and executive accountability.
2. The legal department provide all necessary assistance to the Constitutional Working Group.
3. That proposals for revisions to the constitution should be brought back to Full Council within six months of the date of this meeting.
Procedural Motion
Councillor Oliur Rahman moved and Councillor Rabina Khan seconded, a procedural motion “that under Procedure Rule 15.11.7 the meeting be extended to ... view the full minutes text for item 12. |
|
URGENT MOTION Additional documents: Minutes: The Council agreed to suspend Procedure Rule 13.1 to enable the following urgent motion to be debated without notice:
13.1 Motion regarding One Housing Group
Prior to the debate on this motion, the Interim Monitoring Officer advised the Council. He noted that a number of Members had declared a personal interest in Petition 5.3 arising from a connection of some kind with One Housing. He reminded Members of the provisions of the law and the Council’s Code of Conduct regarding declarations of interest and stated that all Members would need to consider for themselves whether any interest they may have in the urgent motion to be debated represented a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest.
Councillors David Edgar, Mohammed Maium Miah, Candida Ronald and Oliur Rahman left the meeting during consideration of this urgent motion.
Councillor Dave Chesterton moved, and Councillor Andrew Cregan seconded, the motion as tabled.
Councillor Peter Golds moved and Councillor Chris Chapman seconded an amendment to include in the motion a resolution ‘That a meeting should be arranged with Brandon Lewis MP, Minster for Housing to brief him on this motion’.
Councillors Dave Chesterton and Andrew Cregan indicated that they accepted the amendment, and altered their motion accordingly.
Following debate the motion as amended was put to the vote and was agreed. Accordingly it was:-
RESOLVED
This Council notes that:
· Following a stock transfer ballot in 2005, Toynbee Island Homes (a subsidiary of Toynbee Housing Association) took over four local authority estates on the Isle of Dogs: Samuda, St Johns, Barkantine and Kingsbridge. These four estate comprise 2,027 homes; · In their offer document, Toynbee Island Homes promised that the transferred homes would be run by a board with residents in the majority: 15 members of which eight would be elected residents. · In 2007 Toynbee Housing Association merged with Community Housing Association. The merged organisation, One Housing Group (OHG), took control of the four Island estates; · In 2012 OHG wound up Island Homes and introduced area resident boards, with no decision-making powers; · Residents on the four estates found their homes being owned by a very different landlord from the one which they had been promised and they still feel quite aggrieved; · OHG has consistently performed poorly in terms of repairs, refurbishments, improvements and accounting. Leaseholders are particularly concerned that OHG is deliberately running down the estates in order to reduce property values; · In 2014 OHG produced a 52 page report ‘Project Stone’ setting out proposals to replace all 2,027 homes with up to 10,000 properties, the majority for private sale. OHG still hasn’t adequately informed residents of these proposals; · Following the 2014 council election the repairs and maintenance problems raised by residents were so bad that Island councillors agreed to work on a cross-party basis to tackle OHG; · In January 2015 OHG embarked on a ‘Cross Island Conversation’ asking residents what they thought of their homes, estates and living on the Island. No mention was made of their proposals to redevelop the four estates; they ... view the full minutes text for item 13. |